Author: Varsha Bhosle
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: October 7, 2002
URL: http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/oct/07varsha.htm
I'd written this article two weeks
ago, but, more dignified souls had persuaded me to hold it back. I've squirmed
each night, tortured by the thought that I had let go unanswered, what
are to me, grave accusations. And then, I read Vir Sanghvi's column on
The Hindustan Times' face-off with The Times of India. And I thought, dignity
be damned -- at least I'm not arguing over who reads whom more!
But before I append that piece,
let me say: I'm with HT all the way. As veteran journalist Ajit Bhattacharjea
pointed out in his media-watch column, "Readers will feel that if managements
can play around with circulation and readership figures, how much confidence
can we place in the news? The self- perception of ToI emerged on September
23 in the unctuous self-promotional tone in which it describes its role
in an editorial page article titled Hum Aapke Hain Kaun?... It is a revealing
essay in public relations, not journalism."
You gotta see The Bombay Times to
get the full blast of ToI's idea of journalism. Or check out the front-page
"news reports" on the supposed reputation of Radio Mirchi or Planet M or
Indiatimes "is news as it happens. Now, it's news that is happening." These
aren't mere advertorials. Self- promotion disguised as news is a fraud.
And now, the MD of Bennett, Coleman
& Co Ltd (publishers of ToI), has been elected chairman of the Press
Trust of India... Oh dear. Imagine PTI reports going: "Deputy PM LK Advani
arrived in Washington DC, where he will avail of his Times Card which offers
first day first show tickets and invitations to movies, masti, music, masala..."
That's scary!
*****
Dilip D'Souza has accused me of
setting off on an "involved exploration of all that happened" during the
Bombay riots of 1992-93. Fair enough. However, it begs the question: Is
there any other way to answer, what he himself calls, "the entire panoply
of complex, tangled tensions that form the tortured Hindu-Muslim relationship"?
Would he be satisfied with a short... scratch that. Would he be satisfied
with anything less than, "I'm soooo sorry. You're right"...?
Actually, I'm disappointed. Once
upon a time, I used to enjoy sparring with Mr D'Souza because he wasn't
entirely mentally incapacitated by his singular obsession with Balasaheb
and thus threw interesting challenges. God knows, I never expected him
to display the sort of intellect that fuels my hate mail; to wit: "herself
recounting various crimes... Herself disproving the case she is set on
proving: that it was the Radhabai Chawl massacre that set Bombay on fire."
I don't know whether to laugh or
to cry at that. I've never had patience answering obtuse children and have
none here, either. Therefore, I'm simply pasting a comment forwarded to
me: "The big idea of D'Souza's article is that the degree of violence that
was seen after the Radhabai incident is the same as the preceding week.
Going by the very report that seems to be the benchmark of the author,
this is an absolutely wrong conclusion. To go by the author's own visual
imagery, one would need to tell him that Bombay was simmering that week
but burned after that incident."
I thought that any person -- let
alone a paid news analyst! -- would have gathered this point from my methodically
having recounted the cases of stabbing, arson and mob violence before January
8, 1993. But, my "involved exploration" was in vain: He still didn't geddit.
Or, that's one way of avoiding the points I had raised...
Mr D'Souza seems offended by my
giving you the mere gist of his mail. I admit my guilt: I didn't give you
the details because I hadn't read his entire mail... I'm like that with
books, too -- don't have the patience to suffer yards of the same old stuff
when I've sussed the core. Now I wish I had read it. For, I could have
pre-empted the allegation: "she makes no mention of the Pratiksha Nagar
murders I quoted to her.. The exception she chose to omit? The roasting
of those two men in a taxi, January 7."
Well, I wish I could see things
in the fashion that Mr D'Souza does: Black = Hindus; white = minorities.
Black = Shiv Sena; white = Srikrishna Report. I wish life were so uncomplicated.
But since it's not, get ready for another "involved exploration," hehehehehe...
Volume I, Chapter II, Term No. (I),
Section 1.10, paragraph i of the Srikrishna Report ends with: "A taxi in
which two Muslims were travelling was set on fire in Pratiksha Nagar, Antop
Hill jurisdiction resulting in the two Muslims being burnt alive." That
is correct.
But guess what you find when you
try to tally this horrendous incident with the Report's Volume II, Chapter
I, in which "The Commission examined the evidence police stationwise. In
each police station jurisdiction, police officers and public witnesses
have been examined. In all, there are 26 police jurisdictions which are
covered by the evidence." That is, the section which contains the raw data
(names, crime report details, etc) supporting what appears in Volume I.
You'll need to undergo more "involved exploration" on Police Station No.
2, Antop Hill, to get my point -- provided you're not glaringly blind.
* 2.3: The first reaction to the
demolition of Babri Masjid came on 7th December 1992, during which angry
Muslims directed their anger at the police or BEST buses by stoning them
(CR No 354 of 1992). In another incident (CR No 357 of 1992) which occurred
on 8th December 1992 at 1315 hours in Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, a mob of 300
to 500 persons set fire to some of the huts therein... However, the two
huts in Rajiv Gandhi Nagar which were set on fire were occupied by Hindus
and, it may be correct to presume that the aggressive mob was one of Muslims.
The slogans shouted by the mob also lend support to this assumption.
* 2.4: On 9th December 1992, between
2300 to 2330 hours, a mob of 100-150 Muslims attempted to attack the Hindu
settlement at Vijaynagar and was marching towards the local Ganapati Mandir.
There was stone throwing by the said mob and slogans shouted that all the
huts should be set on fire.
* 2.5: January 1993 saw thick rumours
being floated around in the area that there was an imminent attack by Muslims...
* 2.6: By far the most serious incidents
took place in January 1993 in Pratiksha Nagar and Kokri Agar. All the action
in this area took place on 9th and 10th January 1993...
* 2.7: On 9th January 1993 a violent
mob of Hindus attacked the house of a Muslim in Pratiksha Nagar with stones,
ransacked the articles inside and set fire to them. On 10th January 1993,
one Mohamad Hanif Quereshi was killed by a mob which attacked him with
lathis and swords...
* 2.8: On 9th January 1993, at about
1200 hours, a Muslim, returning from the open field after answering the
call of nature, was assaulted and stabbed.
* 2.9: On 10th January 1993, two
bodies were found in badly mutilated condition in Pratiksha Nagar. One
was discovered near the Tata Power line at about 1800 hours and the other
in the night...
* 2.10: On 11th January 1993, at
about 0600 hours, two Muslims were stabbed in Pratiksha Nagar, resulting
in the death of one and injuries to the other...
* 2.11: There was an attack on a
Masjid known as Markaz-E-Tamir-Millat Masjid by Hindu mob (CR No.20 of
1993). The mob threw stones at the masjid and the adjoining huts of Muslims
and torched vehicles...
* 2.12 A Muslim driving his vehicle
in Pratiksha Nagar near the Santosh Hotel was attacked by a violent mob
of Hindus on 11th January 1993 at about 1300 hours...
* 2.13 A Hindu driving a vehicle
was attacked by a violent mob on 12th January 1993 at about 1703 hours
opposite the Kokri Agar Church. Surprisingly, in this case, the accused
arrested are both Hindus (CR No 23 of 1993).
* 2.14: Three Muslims travelling
in a Maruti car in Pratiksha Nagar were pulled out, severely assaulted,
put back in the car and the car was set on fire resulting in their being
burnt alive. The incident occurred opposite Building No.20, Manohar Kini
Memorial Library, Sardar Nagar No.1, Pratiksha Nagar on 14th January 1993
at 1430 hours (CR No 27 of 1993).
Do you get this, at least? Maruti
car -- not taxi. Three Muslims -- not two. January 14 -- not 7. Six days
after Radhabai -- not one day before.
Hmm... is this why Mr D'Souza wanted
me "admit" my "mistake" about the date thing? To prove that Muslims burned
the Radhabai Hindus on January 8 only because Hindus had burned these Muslims
on January 7...? (BTW, I didn't see an admission on goofing up about the
"night of January 7.")
Also, note Section 2.6: "by far
the most serious incidents" and "All the action in this area took place
on 9th and 10th January." If a taxi had been burned in Pratiksha Nagar
on January 7, would the Commission have noted this? What, wasn't the car-roasting
serious enough? Or, was the Commission trying to "cover for the Shiv Sena's
own crimes in those weeks" before Radhabai...?
Do you think this is a new argument
Bhosle's dug up? That the Sena lawyers were blind to this discrepancy?
Rubbish! The Report is absolutely littered with such inconsistencies! Such
were put forth to the Commission -- and such were ignored. If the Bombay
riots case were in the Supreme Court, the sentence imputing the car-burning
to January 7 would have summarily been struck off! When one makes allegations
of murder and of exhortation to murder, one better have a water-tight case
-- not leaky documents. Is that also too hard to get...?
With Antop Hill as a microcosm of
Bombay, observe which community went on the offensive when. "One-upmanship
of victims" is an useful device to escape facing the fact that -- just
as in Gujarat -- Muslims began the violence, and when Hindus rose, the
city burned. And that's confirmed by Volume II.
Oh yeah, the late M P Rege -- a
philosopher, a Sanskrit scholar, and an educationist. But, HOW does that
make him the last word on riots??? Wouldn't someone like K P S Gill (till
recently, reviled by pinkos for his iron hand in Punjab) or former commissioner
of police S K Bapat (in disgrace for his statements on the riots) be more
reliable authorities for scrutiny of violence? Besides, Mr Rege was a staunch
"secularist" -- so why would I heed his views on Hindu culpability??? Do
I hear any pinko glowingly refer to the thoughts on Islam of Nobel Prize
winner, V S Naipaul...?
The Guardian of January 25, 2000,
notes: "About 60 teachers - a tiny proportion of a quiescent profession
in India - are calling on the government to abandon the indoctrination.
'The demand to rewrite textbooks should come from academics, not politicians,'
the academic philosopher M P Rege said. 'In the interest of academic impartiality,
political moves of this kind must be resisted'."
Well, the Supreme Court's verdict
indicates that Mr Rege's stand was wrong. And, the holes in the Report
he extolled are evident. So, what "unchallengeable evidence"? The academic
was a mortal who erred, period. So, no, mine wasn't a mistake. Mr D'Souza
really should return to the subject in which he's truly proficient: public
toilets.
