Relevant Extracts on Role of Bal Thackeray and Shiv Sena
On Muslim Protest on Demolition
"As far as the December 1992 phase of the rioting by the Muslims is concerned, there is no material to show that it was anything other than a spontaneous reaction of leaderless and incensed Muslim mobs, which commenced as a peaceful protest but soon degenerated into riots. The Hindus must share a part of the blame for provoking the Muslims by their celebration(s) ... organised mostly by Shiv Sainiks, and to a marginal extent by BJP activists. On Riots in Dec., 1992 - January, 1993.
"Turning to the events of January 1993, the Commission's view is that though several incidents of violence took place ... from 15th December 1992 to 5th January, 1993, largescale rioting and violence was commenced from 6th January, 1993 by the Hindus brought to fever pitch by communally inciting propaganda unleashed by Hindu communal organisations and writings in newspapers like Saamna and Navakal. It was taken over by the Shiv Sena and its leaders who continued to whip up communal frenzy by their statements and acts and writings and directives issued by the Shiv Sena Pramukh Bal Thackeray. The attitude of the Shiv Sena as reflected in the Times interview given by Bal Thackeray and its doctrine of "retaliation", as expounded by Shri Sarpotdar and Shri Manohar Joshi, together with the thinking of Shiv Sainiks that the Shiv Sena's terror was the true guarantee of the safety of citizens,' were responsible for the vigilantism of Shiv Sainiks. Because some criminal Muslims killed innocent Hindus in one corner of the city, the Shiv Sainik's retaliated' against several innocent Muslims in other corners of the city.
From 8th January 1993, at least, there is no doubt that the Shiv Sena and the Shiv Sainiks took the lead in organising attacks on Muslims and their properties under the guidance of several leaders of the Shiv Sena from the level of Shakha Pramukh to the Shiv Sena Pramukh Bal Thackeray who, like a veteran general, commanded his loyal Shiv Sainiks to retaliate by organised attacks against Muslims ...
"There is no material on record suggesting that even during this phase any known Muslim individuals or organisations were responsible for the riots, though a number of individual Muslims and Muslim criminal elements appear to have indulged in violence ... "
The Shiv Sainiks mobilised themselves for retaliating against the Muslims. The shakhas indifferent jurisdictional areas turned into centres of local commands. The attacks on Muslims by the Shiv Sainiks were mounted with military precision, with a list of establishments and voters' list in hand. On 11th January, 1993, the Army column on patrol intercepted a jeep in which Shri Madhukar Sarpotdar and six other persons, including his son Atul, were travelling. They seized from their possession one Smith and Wesson revolver of .32 calibre, one Astra pistol of .20 calibre and one .99mm pistol, apart from two choppers, two hockey sticks and two sticks. While the Smith and Wesson revolver was licensed in the name of Shri Sarpotdar, the other two revolvers were unlicensed. It took the police two days to register an offence.
The explanation of Shri Sarpotdar for carrying the hockey sticks, choppers and sticks was that, as the area was disturbed, they were carrying them for self defence ... the explanation, to say the least, strains one's credibility. Although at the material time the mere possession of unlicensed firearms in a 'notified area would have attracted penal liability under Section 5 of the TADA act, and the entire city of Bombay had been declared as a 'notified area', there was no attempt to invoke the provisions of the TADA act.
Shri Sarpotdar propounded an interesting theory of retaliation adopted by Shiv Sena, namely that because innocent people were attacked in Jogeshwari, other innocent people could be attacked in Colaba by way of retaliation.
Role of Police:
The response of police to appeals from desperate victims, particularly Muslims, was cynical and entirely indifferent. On occasions, the response was that they were unable to leave the appointed posts; on others the attitude was that one Muslim killed was one Muslim less ..
Police officers and men, particularly at the junior level, appeared to have an inbuilt bias against the Muslims which was evident in their treatment of the suspected Muslims and Muslim victims of riots. The treatment given was harsh and brutal and, on occasions, bordering on inhuman, hardly doing credit to the police. The bias of policemen was seen in the active connivance of police constables with the rioting Hindu mobs on occasions, with their adopting the role of passive onlookers ...
Even the registered riot-related offences were most unsatisfactorily investigated. The investigations showed a lack of enthusiasm, lackadaisical approach and utter cynicism. Despite clear clues, the miscreants were not pursued, arrested and interrogated, particularly when the suspected accused happened to be Hindus with connections with to Shiv Sena or were Shiv Sainiks. This general apathy appears to be the outcome of the built-in prejudice in the mind of an average policeman that every Muslims is prone to crime. (Source: The Outlook, 17 August, 1998)