COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
ELECTIONS '98
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Great Indian Internalised Myths

To begin this column, three paragraphs from an editorial I read last year.

"Regarding the [1992-93 Bombay riots], most Hindus living in Mumbai believe that they began with public demonstration by some Muslims against the illegal demolition of the Babri Masjid, which had deeply hurt them, that these demonstrations [expressed] the anger and anguish felt by the Muslim community generally, that the demonstrations soon degenerated into violence against public property and particularly the police ... that when the police tried to contain the violence ... they were blamed for using excessive force with the result that many of them [adopted], as long as possible, the role of non-interfering spectators.

"It is generally believed in Mumbai that had the police been given a free hand to deal with the situation in their own way, the incipient riots could have been scotched within a couple of days, and the horrors that followed could have been averted. As the police were reduced to ineffectiveness by the then Congress government, Muslims became more aggressive, as witnessed by the murder of mathadi workers and the gruesome incident in Radhabai Chawl, in which a whole Hindu family was burnt to death. At this juncture, it was the volunteers and leaders of the Shiv Sena who came to the rescue of the beleagured Hindu community, by engaging the Muslim aggressors and resorting to punitive retaliation. It was necessary to teach the Muslims the lesson that Hindus were capable of meeting violence with counter-violence. ... If any excesses were committed by those who fought on behalf of the Hindus, they were regrettable but in the given situation, pardonable incidents. ...

"The Srikrishna Commission report corrects this picture, which has been internalised by most Hindus in Mumbai. Or rather, it presents, on the basis of unchallengeable evidence, an altogether different picture of what really happened. If blame is to be apportioned for all the evil that occured in those days, a much larger share of it must go to Hindu communal organisations, though Muslim communal organisations are not without their own share, which in fact is quite substantial. The former raised the communal temperature through their campaign for recruiting volunteers for Kar Seva, by holding rallies in Muslim localities for celebrating the demolition of the Babri Masjid, as well as by organising Maha Aratis directed against Muslims, right when the city was being rocked by riots, and by giving a call to Hindus to meet Muslim aggression by reacting appropriately to it. In fact, the first communal incident occured on January 1, 1993, in which a Hindu mob attacked Muslims, a few days before the Radhabai Chawl incident which took place on January 8 1993."

These paragraphs were written by M P Rege, the well-known Marathi writer and philosopher, in the July-August 1998 issue of New Quest, a magazine he edits. Nearly a year after the Srikrishna Commission report he mentions was made public and then systematically trashed, I'll use Rege's paragraphs to begin some speculation on what that trashing has meant.

Yes, Justice Srikrishna's report tackled a number of myths that a number of people worked very hard to propagate. For the five years it took the Justice to conduct his inquiry and write his report, that hard work was paying off very nicely indeed. As Rege tells us, many Hindus in Bombay had "internalised" those myths. The biggest of them all: that the Shiv Sena was "protecting" Hindus in those riotous weeks. That this party was only "reacting" in righteous fury to Muslim barbarity.

Now Srikrishna conducted his inquiry with unimpeachable even-handedness. He allowed the Shiv Sena and every other party or person connected with the riots their full say, every possible chance to cross-examine each witness. He built up a vast store of what Rege calls "unchallengeable" evidence. Because he had been so thorough and so fair, his conclusions carried immense weight, a nearly irresistible moral force.

And they simply blew away those myths.

His conclusions, as you know -- and as you expected if you had merely lived through the riots -- were distinctly unfavourable to the Shiv Sena and its leader, Bal Thackeray. Far from being valiant defenders of Hindus against leering Muslim hordes, the Sena itself was the cause of much of the carnage. The men of the party had been sent into action, Srikrishna observed, by none other than Thackeray. In the judge's memorable phrase, Thackeray had acted "like a veteran general" in directing Shiv Sena attacks on Muslims.

Naturally Thackeray and his Sena, aspirants to office at the time of the riots and actually occupants when Srikrishna completed his report, needed a way to reject his findings. And how could they accomplish that? After all, they could not claim he had done a shoddy job, that they had not had their say before him, that the only witnesses Srikrishna called to testify were hostile to them. Justice Srikrishna's years of deliberate fairness put paid to any thoughts along those lines.

But there was another line they could take, another story that could be assiduously assembled. One that fit well with the "defenders of Hindus" tag the Sena had spent so long attaching to itself. One that packed just as great an emotional punch as that myth.

This was it: Srikrishna and his report were "anti-Hindu."

So officially on August 6 last year -- though the groundwork had been laid in previous months -- when the report was actually made public, the Shiv Sena and its friends set to work. To the exclusion of any other discussion about the report, we heard this new tale: that the report denigrated Hindus. What's more, the entire implication was that Srikrishna had denigrated Hindus precisely by indicting the Sena. Thackeray told the tale, then chief minister Joshi repeated after him. In fact you could not find a single person connected with, or with a fondness for, the Sena who was not mouthing it in those autumn weeks of 1998.

And voila! Another myth has been "internalised." I have lost track of the number of people who have told me, without so much as reading a page of it, that Srikrishna's report is "anti-Hindu." More important, the Sena has completely escaped any punishment for its deeds during the riots. All by diligently blustering on about protecting Hindus.

Today, a year after that concerted attack on a Judge and his meticulous report, we might take stock of what protecting Hindus has really meant. Try chewing on just one "protective" episode.

On July 8, The Hindustan Times reported that the Maharashtra State Electricity Board has asked the Tata Electric Company -- so far the major supplier of electricity to Bombay -- to "back down its power generation by 200 MW to 400 MW" (11 per cent to 22 per cent of TEC's installed capacity in and around Bombay). This has happened "despite TEC offering power at a rock bottom rate of Rs 1.80 per kwh. MSEB has stopped buying power from TEC at a time when it is reportedly sourcing its requirements from the controversial Enron's Dabhol Power Corporation which is charging anything between Rs 3.01 and Rs 4.25 [per kwh]." There is, says the report, "a question mark on the rationale behind MSEB's decision to source costlier power which is beyond all principles of commercial jurisprudence. [It] may not be in the interests of the consumer as well. ... MSEB seems to have [ignored] the cardinal principle worldwide that cheapest power will be given the first preference in meeting electricity demand."

Why this undue favour to Enron? If you jog your memory a bit, you will remember that the protectors of Hinduism ran for office in Maharashtra in 1995 on a promise to "throw Enron into the Arabian Sea." Then, they alleged massive corruption in the deal Enron had signed with the Congress government, expressed alarm at the unreasonably high price the state would have to pay for Enron power. But when they won office that year, all was forgiven. They quickly gave Enron its contract. All of it, including the clauses that act to inflate the cost of Enron power, including the MSEB commitment to buy Enron power in preference to other suppliers. (See my column "How To Pay More for Power And Like It Too" for a few details).

And that is why Enron is supplying expensive power to us today.

At a press conference this week ( The Times of India, August 3), Thackeray was asked about his party's "anti-Enron tirade" of those few years ago. "Why do you want to dig up the past?" was his reply. He was reminded that Enron was selling power to Maharashtra at a much higher rate than other suppliers. "You ask the energy minister" was his riposte.

See? When you claim to protect Hindus, you can negotiate enormous contracts that make Hindus and everyone else pay a higher price than necessary for power. You can adroitly evade any questions too. That's what all this "protection" really amounts to. If you think about it, that is the true price we pay for "internalising" the myths, for this supposed "protection." That is the true price we pay for allowing the Srikrishna report to be so summarily flung out. For allowing justice so little chance.

After that report was rejected one year ago, several writers with Thackeray sympathies told us expansively that Srikrishna's great failing was that he had not asked, and answered, "the correct questions." For once, I agree. Justice Srikrishna did not ask the most blindingly obvious question of all. Considering everything they have done over the years, why have Thackeray and his party evaded the law so long?

Dilip D'Souza has just won the International Committee of the Red Cross-The Times of India essay competition.

Dilip D'Souza