System Failure

In January 8217;93, within one week, the city witnessed some of the most barbaric incidents of violence, motivated purely by communal hatred. In many slums and chawls, innocent people were lynched and burnt alive in broad daylight, in full view of their terrified neighbours who were warned against opening their mouths.

And while all this was happening, where were the police? Although those living in the slums could identify the guilty, neither did the police arrest anyone nor did they carry out investigations into the killings. It was only when distraught relatives lodged complaints about their missing kin that the police stirred.

Meanwhile, the accused roamed freely, immune from the course of law. The traumatised eye-witnesses, on the other hand, often fled the slums for a few weeks. Yet, when the police finally made an appearance, many of them cast aside their fears and identified the guilty. They also emphasised the fact that they had been threatened by the miscreants. There was no communal divide here. These were Hindu eye-witnesses who had seen their Muslim neighbours being killed. In one unforgettable case, a Hindu landlady8217;s daughter voluntarily informed the police that she had seen her neighbours assault and strip her Muslim tenant, whose mutilated and burnt body was later found in a gutter.

However, in court, these brave slum-dwellers who had put their lives on the line 8212; although, unlike Zaheera Shaikh in Vadodara, they had no personal stake in the matter 8212; turned hostile. They were clearly under immense pressure to do so.

The stock explanation offered by Mumbai8217;s police officers and public prosecutors is: 8216;8216;How can we protect witnesses for years?8217;8217; But is it really that difficult? The case papers reveal that in many cases, either the investigating officer himself or the witnesses identified the guilty as belonging to a certain political outfit. In other cases, many of the accused gave away their identities by contacting lawyers whose political affiliations were no secret.

Under these circumstances, was it so difficult for the police to realise that the parties concerned would pull all strings to protect their foot-soldiers? Since most of these cases were classified under TADA, the details were known to the city8217;s top police officer, the police commissioner. Was it then beyond his call of duty to direct the investigating officer and the senior inspector in charge of the concerned police station to put all their weight behind the vulnerable witnesses?

It is a well-known fact that the local police exercises considerable control over slums. Anyone who tries to challenge the established police-goonda-corporator nexus finds himself behind bars. Why then could this power not have been exercised to bring the killers to book? Why couldn8217;t the senior police inspector not have sent out a clear message that anyone who tried to threaten the witnesses would have to pay dearly? Why couldn8217;t the investigating officer have kept regular tabs on the witnesses? Why couldn8217;t they have got the initial statements by the witnesses recorded in the presence of a magistrate?

All these questions remain unanswered. And almost a decade later, we see the failure of the system once again 8212; in Gujarat. Unless there is a drastic change in this system, making the police officers legally responsible if eye-witnesses in riot cases turn hostile, there will come a time when Zaheera Shaikhs won8217;t make news any more.