I was reminded of it this morning, when someone circulated a recent article in The Tribune by Amrik Singh, former Vice-Chancellor of Patiala's Punjabi University: The Srikrishna Report: Why it is not being acted upon. It prompted me to dispatch this letter to The Tribune.
- Dear Editor,
I read with interest Amrik Singh's article The Srikrishna Report: Why it is not being acted upon (October 30 2006). Dr Singh asks a very crucial question that must be answered: why is there no punishment for those who were responsible for the riots in Mumbai in 1992-93? More of us must ask that question and demand justice; I am grateful that Dr Singh has raised this issue.
But I am puzzled by these lines in his article: "The report on the riots which took place in March 1993 was completed and, after the due process of law, some individuals were found guilty. So far, so good, as they say. But how does the party in power in Maharashtra today answer the question that the due process of law is not being followed in the riots which occurred only a few months later?"
What does Dr Singh mean by this?
I suspect he means "blasts" and not "riots" when he says "the riots which took place in March 1993" -- because the blasts (whose trials he refers to in his article) happened on March 12 1993.
But then Dr Singh refers to the "riots which occurred only a few months later". I am astonished by how many people seem to believe this, that the riots happened after the blasts. In fact, they did not: the riots happened in December 1992 and January 1993. The blasts came two months later, in March 1993.
What could have persuaded as learned a man as Dr Singh to believe the opposite?
I would be grateful if you would forward this letter to Dr Singh. Thank you.