Babri Masjid was vandalised on 6th December, 1992 and Bombay had witnessed communal violence from 7th December onwards about which we have already prepared the report. The riots in second phase began on 6th January, 1993. The causes are varied and controversial. It is very difficult to say with certainty as to how the riots in second phase hegan. There are different theories. Some say it began because of the murder of two Mathadi workers in Dongri area inside a godown. It was alleged that the Muslims murdered them out of communal vengeance. However, it is far from known with certainty as to who murdered them. It is also maintained that the Mathadi workers were killed in union rivalry. The police also corroborated it but only after the damage was done.

It is also maintained that riots began in Bhendi Bazar, Null Bazar and Mohammad Ali Road are on account of rumour that the Muslim dargah in Mahim was demolished by the Hindus. It is true that a few cases of stabbing were reported from these areas. And Undoubtedly this became the flash point for the riots. However, it would be utterly simplistic to say that the riots started because of these stabbing cases only and no other factors were at work.

In fact the Shiv Sena was preparing for the violent outburst on a large scale. It only waited for the flash point and the incidents in Bhendi Bazar - Mohammad Ali Road area provided one. The note prepared by the Government of Maharashtra for the M.P.s lists only those incidents between January 6 to 8 in which the members of the minority community attacked the Hindus. It is, to say the least, highly biased view. Thus by implication the Maharashtra Government has accepted the Shiv Sena view that the riots were started by the Muslims and that what happened thereafter was a 'spontaneous' response by the Sena and others.

However, the close scrutiny of events would believe the Government's claim. Apart from other things the Maha Artis (roadside worshipping of the Hindu Dicties) had done lot of damage to communal peace. Hundreds of Shiv Sainiks, BJP men and others participated in each Maha Arti which invariably ended with anti-Muslim propaganda that exacerbated communal tensions and peupared atmosphere for irruption of communal violence.

In many cases the Maha Artis were followed by attacks on Muslim properties and life. And the Government note mentions that there were 33 such Artis between December 26 and January 5 i.e. before the events to which the Government ascribes the riots. 

The Police Commissioner himself had admitted on January 7 that the Maha Artis were "aggravating" the situation. And by January 8, 113 such Artis were already organised. What was worse, these Maha Artis were allowed throughout the period of riots and 498 of them had taken place by February 5 of which 172 had attendances of over 1500, according to the Government. It also should be noted that rioting in fact had begun on January 2 in Dharavi leading to the exodus of Muslim families (as reported in the Times of India on January 3.) This exodus swelled to thousands within a few days. This certainly cannot be ignored which the Government note does.

In fact systematic preparations were made much before the second phase of riots began. Even surveys were carried out to identify Muslim houses, rickshaws, taxis and cars. For example, in Pratiksha Nagar near Sion Koliwada, such a survey was carried out a week before the riots and after the riots began those very houses - identified as Muslim houses - were demolished. Bal Thackeray of course blamed it on outside element, an anti-national element. He even identified the anti-national element as 'Pakistanis' one crore of whom, according to him, have entered the country and spread all over India. Besides these he also mentioned infiltration of 'Bangla Muslims' in the country. And on being asked that "The Shiv Sena has reportedly accepted having been involved in the riots", he said, "We have been forced to get involved because our job is to retaliate. If there would have been no Shiv Sena the Hindus would have been slaughtered."

Earlier Pramod Navalkar, the Shiv Sena's Leader of Opposition in the upper house, had admitted in an interview to Rajdeep Sardesai of The Times of India that "Our boys were involved in the rioting" and also added "but for every five Shiv Sainiks on the street, there were also 20 anti-social elements involved." Manohar Joshi, senior Sena MLA, told Rajdeep that "I will not call them Shiv Sainiks. They were all anguished Hindus who were spontaneously reacting to what happened in Jogeshwari." (Four Hindus were burnt alive in the Radhabai Chawl on 8th January in the Jogeshwari slum). Some grassroots Sena workers told Mr. Sardesai that there are approximately 220 "active" shakhas (branches) in the city. On an average, each shakha has around 200 committed members. This itself gives the Sena an army of 40,000 Sainiks as against the police strength of just over 30,000

According to Rajdeep "The plan decided upon in the shakhas was simple - spread the word that people's lives were threatened, that temples would be destroyed and that sophisticated arms were being brought into the city. The more active sainiks began going through voters' lists and also finding out the names of building and shop owners in some areas. These lists were available with the Sena shakha pramukhs immediately after the December 6 riots."

All this clearly shows the involvement of the Sena in the January riot in a big way. The Sena had deliberately spread the rumour that the sophisticated weapons had come for use in the riots but what is surprising is that the then Police Commissioner Mr. Bapat made a press statement that there was a sustained firing for an hour from a mosque in Mohammad Ali Road area from AK- 47 rifle. He even said that the "shells were found" though the gun itself was not traced. This was an unfortunate statement and the Commissioner had to admit later that no trace of AK-47 was found and that such a weapon might not have been used. But to give such a statement when the riots were raging was highly responsible. 

The then Governor of Maharashtra Shri Subramaniam also gave a statement to the press before he resigned that "there was foreign hand" in organising these riots and he even promised to give details at a later date which he could not till today. This shows that even the Governor who is considered quite secular had either lost his poise or was misinformed. It is common sense that in highly communalised atmosphere at least people at such responsible positions should be very cautions before making any statement to the press.

Another theory floated about these riots in the second phase was that builders had organised these riots. Apart from the fact that the builders' organisation denied their involvement through a press statement no such evidence was found during our investigations except in Malad wherein in the first phase too, a local builder was involved in all probability. However, to say that builders' lobby was systematically involved in these riots is to fly in the face of fact. At least we did not find any evidence to this effect. Anti-social elements were undoubtedly involved either on their own or they were used by the concerned vested interests.

It is also maintained that the in-fighting within the two factions of the Congress i.e. one led by Sudhakarrao Naik, Chief Minister and the other by Sharad Pawar, the Central Defence Minister. According to this theory the Sharad Pawar group was fuelling the riots to destabilise Naik Ministry. It was also being said that since Mr. Naik had got Pappu Kalani and Bhai Thakur - both Congress MLAs belonging to the Sharad Pawar group - arrested and their unauthorised buildings demolished, their men, in order to teach Mr. Naik a lesson, systematically organised riots in the second phase. However, it is very difficult to substantiate this theory.

Among the reasons given by Mr. Naik for the riots various lobbies and mafias with connections in high places provoked the violence and specially because he had dared to take them on. Here he may be hinting at those two controversial MLAs and their clout with Sharad Powar. But he also mentioned the demolition activities undertaken by the Bombay Municipal Corporation in the minority-dominated areas and other such incidents. There may be some truth in the theory that some people were interested in destabilising Naik Ministry. Earlier riots were organised to destabilise the Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh Chief Ministers. The riots raged in Hyderabad and in Karnataka until the respective chief ministers were removed. 

However, one thing is quite certain that the Naik Ministry totally failed in controlling the situation. The situation became so grim that many from the city, including Mr. Tata and Nani Palkhiwala demanded partial emergency be declared and the city be handed over to the army. The city had never witnessed communal violence of such magnitude ever before. Even May 1984 riots were nothing compared to what happened during the January riots. The whole city went up in flames and very few areas remained free from curfew. The Muslims rich or poor spent their days in sheer terror. During the riots generally poor people are considered soft targets and it is they who die and it is they whose properties are looted and bumt. But during these riots in Bombay even the richest Muslims were not safe. Many had to pay protection money. Even their cars parked in the courtyard of these buildings were found out and in many cases set ablaze. Hundreds of shops belonging to the Muslims were looted and set afire. About 300 bakeries, mostly belonging to U.P. Muslims were burnt to ashes with the result that there was serious shortage of breads for many days in Bombay. For few days bread could be had for about Rs 10 as against their normal price of Rs. 4 for a 400 gramme loaf. Even factories and industries were not spared. It appeared as if it was a systematic attempt to destroy Muslims economically in this prime commercial city. The shops belonging to the Bohras and Khojas, the two most peaceful Muslim communities who hardly ever take part in any political controversy, were not spared. Hundreds of Bohras and Khojas lost everything. Many of them had to leave the city for other places. 

Also, it was for the first time that people fled in large numbers from the city. Bombay never sends people back. It only attracts. It was only during these riots that the exodus began and it is said that more than 2,00,000 people left the city, both Hindus and Muslims. Special trains had to be run for the purpose. Many may never return now. Non-Maharashtrian Hindus also left for fear of being attacked by the Shiv Sena. And some left because they were attacked by the Muslims. 

Despite all Mr. Sudhakar Naik maintained that he had not failed in his duty. He said, "I have taken the maximum possible measures to bring the situation to normal. I have not failed in my responsibility ond left no stone unturned to tackle this abnormal situation. There was no lapse on the part of the state administration. On the contrary it worked round the clock." He also added that he did not resign owning moral responsibility for the violence because, "as the head of the state, I must tackle the situation firmly come what may and must not run away from the situation." How he tackled the situation is now a history. In fact he failed and failed miserably. He was totally ineffective, perhaps helpless. To the impartial observes it appeared as if the Sena Chief Bal Thackeray was in command. He was not able to get the Bombay police to put down communal violence with determination. Some newspapers even likened him with Nero who was fiddling when Rome was burning. 

The police was totally communalised with very few exceptions. There was overwhelming evidence that the police was siding with the Sena. The policemen even used filthy language for the Muslim police officers in their wireless messages which are always taped. Some messages were recorded in which the policeman on duty sends a message to make fire brigade available as the miscreants had set fire to some houses. The police officer in police control room then inquired about the community of those whose houses were set ablaze and on being told that they were Muslims, the officer concerned said that let them die and if anyone comes out alive, shoot him. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights filed a suit requesting the court to take possession of the cassettes on which the conversation has been recorded.

People from various areas like Behrampada, Bandra complained to us that the Shiv Sena good as set fire to our houses by throwing petrol bombs and when we came out to douse the fire, the police fired upon us. Some even alleged that the policemen were leading some miscreants. It was also alleged - though difficult to verify - that some policemen gave their uniforms to the Shiv Sainiks. This may be true or not but there is no doubt that the Bombay police was showing open sympathy with the Sena men. Despite such overwhelming evidence nothing was done to checkmate it. Mr. Bapat, the Police Commissioner of Bomboy, never admitted failure on the part of his men; he, on the other hand, kept on defending them. However, he paid for his negligence when he was removed from his post and made member of Public Service Commission. But even this action was taken too late when the miscreants had done what they wanted and that too unchallenged. Tho army was called but it had no orders to shoot. Only a police officer could give orders to shoot. Thus the army was totally dependent on the police and hence could not be as effective as it ought to have been. It can be exemplified by an incident at Behrampada.

The local Shiv Sena MLA Sarpotdar was alleged to have played role in attacks on Behrampada. He was found in possession of a revolver and a gupti and the army arrested him. But the police released him after Maharashtrian women demonstrated outside the police station and Bal Thackeray said that the police had done the 'right thing'. This clearly shows that the police was taking very lenient view of the activities of Shiv Sainiks. Bal Thackeray was writing highly provocative editorials in Samna, the Sena mouthpiece and yet no action was taken by the Naik administration- on the other hand, Mr. Naik phoned Mr. Thackeray not to write such provocative editorials and articles. This also shows how weak the Naik administration was.

The Prime Minister Narsimha Rao was equally ineffective. He did not stir out Delhi when Bombay was aflame. When some film artists who met him in Delhi and requested him to go to Bombay he said he can do so only after Makar Sankranti on 14th January. What could be expected of a Prime Minister who gave more importance to his religious beliefs than to the bloodshed in Bombay. When he finally visited Bombay riots were already over. He came not to stop the riots but only to pay a formal visit. It was a short visit and he merely passed through riot affected areas without as much as getting down from his car and wiping the tears of those whose near and dear ones were killed. The reason given by him for not coming out of his car was that the security officers did not allow him. Just contrast this with the conduct of Jawaharlal Nehru in 1947 bloodbath who was the then Prime Minister of India. When Zakir Hussain who was then the Vice Chancellor of Jamia Millia and was surrounded along with his students by the miscreants, phoned him requesting him to send the police help. Nehru himself rushed in a car to Jamia, got down and chased away the mob. In Bombay, as pointed out above, even riots had stopped by the time the Prime Minister visited, yet he could not get down from his car though many victims of the riot who had lost everything were waiting for hours to talk to him.

Prime Minister was content to send Sharad Pawar, the then Defence Minister at the Centre when the riots were raging in Bombay. Sharad Pawar appeared on the T.V. and made an appeal for peace but it was hardly effective. Though the intensity of rioting decreased in city, it spread to other areas in suburbs. One cannot say whether Sharad Pawar tried really hard to stop riots or not. Many people, as pointed out above, made allegation that riots were engineered to throw out Mr. Naik and it is also true that when riots were raging in Bombay, dissension was raging the Congress. Even Sunil Dutt, a noted film artist and an M.P. from Bombay tendered his resignation from Parliament to the Prime Minister out of sheer disgust. In his statement to the press after resigning he said that many riots victims approached him but he found himself helpless. He heard their cries but could not do anything and so he resigned. 

The internecine fight within the Congress in Maharashtra had assumed such serious proportions that the leading news paper The Times of India wrote an editorial on 15th January entitled "Tell More, Mr. Naik," It said, "In the eyes of growing number of people, a suspicion is fast turning into an appalling certainty; that the internecine warfare within the Congress is responsible to a large extent for the continuing trouble in Bombay. Some in fact go so far as to allege that the rivalry between the defence minister, Sharad Pawar, and the Chief Minister, Sudhakar Naik. may be at the very root those troubles. Naik himself appeared to hint as much when he all but threatened to expose elements that have engineered the disturbances. The chief minister argued that in substance that various lobbies and mafias with connections in high places (read Sharad Pawar) had provoked the violence in Bombay because he had dared to take them on. If what Mr. Naik says is even partly true, then it is of the utmost importance that he should be asked to divulge forthwith the details of this diabolical act of vengeance against him."

The BJP leader L.K. Advaní too visited Bombay on 16th January. His first halt was at Jogeshwari where four members of a Hindu family were burnt alive by the Muslim miscreants. He too attributed the communal violence to "foreign hand", without of course substantiating it or specifying which country had a hand in inciting the riots. He visited mostly the Hindu areas though he did talk to some Muslim victims also. He also maintained that the riots in Bombay were intensified only after the incident at Radhabai chawl in Jogeshwari. However, he desisted from saying that the reaction was out of all proportions as more than 600 persons wore killed in retaliation. 

What was worrying most was cruelties with which many people were killed in Bombay riots. Most of the bodies were beyond recognition as they were highly mutilated. Many persons were chopped off into pieces; in certain instances even heads were severed from the body. In some cases a person was stabbed and then set ablaze after sprinkling petrol while still alive to make his death more painful and agonising. In KEM hospital a most shocking incident occurred. The miscreants stabbed an injured person just outside the operation theatre before he was taken in for operation in a critical condition. The miscreants thought he might survive if the operation was successful. In fact it was a case of mistaken identity as the person concerned was a Hindu and the miscreants thought he was a Muslim on account of his beard. 

Apart from the fact that how miscreants could come right upto the operation theatre with arms it shows the extent of dehumanisation of the killers and insensitivity of the Indians to such brutal killings. It is not only the question of killing 'the other', it is also the question of dehumanisation and desensitisation not only of the killers but also of the community to which they belong. Our survey also points out that there was, in general, acceptability of what was happening. There was no protest against it in any form. The middle class Maharashtrians had sympathy with the Shiv Sena and their killers. It is only very conscious and committed people who protested or took out peace marches. The workers were also divided along communal lines. The trade unions could not intervene at all and this included left trade unions too, as the workers were not with them. The workers were by and large sympathetic to the Sena. Thus the situation of the left trade unionists were pathetic. They themselves would have liked to effectively intervene but their workers were not with them. Sharad Rao, President of the Municipal Mazdoor Union, had to explain to his workers about his condemnation of the Maha Artis and their adverse impact on the communal situation.

One must understand that in such communally surcharged situations, the emotional appeal of religion is far more powerful than that of workers' unity. It is also partly the result of lack of efforts on the part of trade union leaders to politically educate their workers. Trade union activities have been confined, by and large, to economic demands for higher wages, dearness allowance, bonus, etc. In some places the Shiv Sena successfully tried to prevent the Muslim workers from rejoining their duties after the riots. lt happened even in Mazgaon Docks which is owned by the Central Government. 

In 1984 riots too the Shiv Sainiks had tried to stop Muslim workers from resuming the work, but not on such scale. Moreover, this time it was not only restricted to the workers. They even tried to prevent Muslim children from going to schools. They threatened principals of schools not to let the Muslim children coming to their schools. Even Lijjat Papads - purely a women's organisation - also tried to prevent their Muslim women from coming to work. It is this wide ranging communalisation which poses a great danger to our national integrity. The Hindu Nationalism is having more appeal than the composite secular nationalism. So far our dominant cultural ethos had been more pluralist and respectful of other cultural traditions. Because of sustained propaganda for Ramjanmabhoomi for more than 5 years now Hindu intolerance has grown and pluralist tradition devalued. All Muslims are seen as children of Babar (Babar ki santan) and Islam as not only an alien religion but also aggressive, violent and fanatical too. Composite nationalism is being replaced by the Hindu Rashtra. It appears, due to powerful propaganda of the BJP-VHP-RSS the consensus on composite culture is breaking down. The Sufi-Bhakti syncretism is giving way to the Hindu monolity. It is being assumed as if Hindu monolity is confronting the Islamic monality though neither is really monolithic. The politicians can benefit immensely if such artificial monoliths are created and confrontationist attitude promoted. After all religion has great emotional impact which could not be undermined. 

The BJP propaganda had terrible impact on the minds of Hindus, particularly Maharashtrians. The Shiv Sena is much more cruder in its propaganda and is able to influence the lower class Hindus. And it is this class of people who mostly participate in arson, loot and murder. No wonder then the riots in Bombay were very widespread indeed. Almost the whole of Bombay was engulfed in it. Only southern tip of Bombay was an exception. The areas most affected were Dongri, Bombay Central, Taliwadi (Tardeo), Girgaum, Jacob Circle, Byculla, Ray Road, Cotton Green, Wadala, Antop Hill, Mahim, Dharavi, Behrampada (Bandra East), Kherwadi, Nirmal Nagar, Vakola, Andheri East, Jogeshwari East, Goregaon, Malad (east and west), Malavani, Borivali, Dahisar Ghatkoper, Asalfa Village, Vikroli, Bhandup, Mulund, Pratiksha Nagar, etc. 

In these riots some journalists were specially targeted. Those Hindi, Marathi and Urdu papers who wrote against the BJP-Shiv Sena faced the wrath of the Sainiks. Two journalist belonging to Mahanagar were manhandled in the Mahanagar office and some Urdu journalists like Harun Rashid escaped in time from their house. But their house was razed to the ground and everything looted. Journalists were never so systematically attacked before. But it must be said to the credit of the journalists that they stood their ground and never gave in to such terror tactics. 

The death toll in the rioting in second phase was quite high. The Times of India sources placed it at 557 on 22 January, 1993. They added 99 to the official sources which put the death toll at 458 only as the hospital sources were yet so report 99 more deaths to the Coroner's Court from where the police compiles its figures. According to the Police Commissioner Shri Bapat, out of 458 killed, 288 were Muslims and 170 Hindus. Out of all those killed, 133 died in police firing (75 Muslims and 50 Hindus, eight unknown), 259 in mob violence (186 Muslims, 73 Hindus) and 66 in arson (39 Hindus and 27 Muslims). About 99 it is difficult to say which community they belonged to but most probably majority of them were Muslims. 

However, the figure of 557 is also certainly an underestimate. The death toll in all probability will exceed 600 as many bodies are still being discovered from various places like Mullahs. Also, field investigations show that many families reported their men missing and they are hoping against hope that they might be in jail or somewhere from where they will return one day. But these are mere hopes. Probably they may never return.

Sources at the coroner's courts said that the number of stabbing cases this time is far higher than what the Figures show. Several victims were stabbed seriously and then burned or thrown into gutters. Their postmortems would indicate that they died of asphyxiation or drowning, even though the stab injuries alone would have proved fatal. Interestingly the number of victims of police firing, 133, is almost the same as those killed in the December riots. According to the police, 132 people died when they opened fire last month (i.e. in December, 1992). This does not bear out the criticism in some papers that the police was not opening fire due to heavy criticism of its indiscriminate firing during the December riots. The fact that more Muslims were killed in police firing during the second phase too shows the partial behaviour of the police (as most of the mob attacks in January were led by the Shiv Sainiks). 

The economic loss too was staggering this time. It was not only due to looting and burning of properties. It was only one aspect of it. It was more due to stoppage of production and movements of goods. Nearly 10,000 houses were demolished or burnt and more than 1,00,000 had to live in refugee camps for various periods of time. Many are still living in relief camps even two months after the event. Government has sanctioned only Rs. 5,000 for those whose shops and homes were looted. It is a pittance. This pittance also has not been received by all so lethargic is bureaucracy. The values of homes lost range from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10 lakhs. Ms. Amina Taj had a two-storied home and a rickshaw, both were burnt. One Jageshwari family lost Rs. 12,000 worth of sarees alone. Many people are unable to return to their homes even now not just for imaginary fear. When they returned to get the "panchnamas" made, or just to survey their lost homes, they found their neighbours uncommunicative. In some cases, walls had been erected and boards put up saying, "Minorities not wanted." Ms. Taj saw the leader of the attackers sipping tea with the police at the local police station.

All of these want to sell their rooms and "live with members of their community, if possible", even if it means, as Mr. Shahabuddin of Pratiksha Nagar said, "living in third-class surroundings compared with my A - class area". Shahabuddin is not alone in his sentiments. He is representative of many others. There has been distress sell of properties on both sides i.e. Muslims selling off properties in the Hindu area and vice versa. If one wants to go in the area of one's own community, one has to pay 15 to 20% extra and people are willing to do so for their future safety and security. Thus in a way communal divide is complete.

Many have already left Bombay, finding no other alternative. This has also brought to our knowledge the inter-dependence of the two communities in certain areas of economic activities. The garment exports received serious set-back as most of the tailors are Muslims. Export worth crores of rupees has been affected as the Muslim tailor have fled to their native places and one doesn't know whether they will return at all and if so when. Similarly many other industries, specially the ones on small scale and with export orders were affected.

Also due to frequently imposed curfews workers could not report to duty and in many cases the industries and business establishments themselves were located in the curfew bound areas and their was tremendous loss of production. Also the goods did not move from one place to another as truckers were not prepared to take risk of attack on their vehicles. Though it is difficult to estimate total economic loss a rough estimate puts it above 10,000 crores. It is no insignificant loss for a poor country like India. It is also feared that many foreign investors may also feel shy and may not like to invest in India. But it is very difficult to say whether it would be so. Anyway such fears have been expressed by some knowledgeable economists.

Tata Services draw up a tentative estimate of the total loss due to the January riots. According to this estimate, the loss of gross value of output of goods and services comes to Rs. 1,250 cores; the loss of trading business Rs. 1,000 crores, the loss of exports Rs 2,000 crores, the loss of tax revenue for the government Rs. 150 crores and loss of properties worth about Rs. 4,000 crores. Thus according to this estimate the total losses come nearly to Rs. 9,000 crores. Also, add to this the compensation etc. the government will have to pay to the riot victims and destruction of their properties. It would be a staggering sum.

Those who think that they are "teaching a lesson to Muslims" are doing no less disservice to the Indian economy as a whole and hence their claim of being 'true patriots' is thoroughly baseless. In fact their objective behaviour is anti-patriotic. No patriot will act against the interests of the country. Also, such prolonged lawlessness has brought disgrace to the fair name of our country. The Interview which Shri Bal Thackeray gave to the Time Magazine "Kick out the Muslim" is not only rash but portrays India and its Government in a very poor light. We have been justly proud of India being the largest viable democracy in the entire third world. We can hardly sustain such claims any more. What was allowed to happen was really disgraceful for the country. Both the Central and the State Governments are responsible for such sad state of affairs. They have given an impression to the world that the minorities are not safe in India and that its Constitutional provisions are no longer honoured.

Still the Central and State Governments have done nothing to inspire confidence among the minorities. At best they are making run of the mill statements. One can hardly be sure that such violence along communal lines will not repeat in future. There are no plans to overhaul the police force and thoroughly reorient it in secular values. Also, many key persons who bear direct responsibility for planning and organising the January riots have not been touched. And it is unlikely that they will be prosecuted, let alone punished. Also, no steps are being contemplated to make communal propaganda a punishable offence. Whatever law exists, is hardly ever applied. The coming elections can once again prove disastrous if the BJP fights elections on the Ramjanmabhoomi issue. As pointed out by some, a law is urgently needed to make communal or sectarian propaganda a serious criminal offence and the candidate should automatically stand disqualified from contesting elections. 

Also, in order to prevent occurrence of violence on such a scale it is for the secular forces to start the mass contact programme and intensify it wherever started as in West Bengal and Bihar. The BJP has been isolated among the political parties but not among the masses. On the other hand it is hoping to get majority in Parliament in the next elections (though it is unlikely to get absolute majority). Thus it is highly necessary for the secular and democratie forces to start a massive mass contact programme.

The Muslims will also have to do serious rethinking about their behaviour. Secularism cannot be saved from the BJP-VHP onslaughts if Muslims too, do not reorient their behaviour. Their leaders have been simply reckless and have never acted out of sense of responsibility. Their aggressive movements of the Shah Bano judgement and Babri Masjid controversy has only harmed the cause of minorities. Minority communalism is not the best way to fight majority communalism. Majority communalism can be challenged only by secular forces .
 

Tags: Pramod Navalkar Bangla Bal Thackeray Koliwada Sion Pratiksha Nagar Dharavi Maha Arti Mohammad Ali Road Null Bazar Dongri Mathadi weeklysadhana Sadhanasaptahik Sadhana विकलीसाधना साधना साधनासाप्ताहिक