Riots Are Not Accidents What Official Records, Courts and
Commissions Have Said
Communal violence in
India is often explained away as emotional overflow or administrative failure.
Yet across decades, official commissions, statutory bodies, police records and
courts have documented patterns of organised mobilisation, ideological conditioning
and political confidence. While criminal law fixes guilt on individuals,
institutional and ideological responsibility has been repeatedly recorded by
inquiry bodies.
What follows is not
opinion. It is a compilation of direct commission quotes, court citations and
recorded allegations, presented as part of public record.
DIRECT COMMISSION QUOTES
Liberhan Commission (Babri Masjid 1992)
“The demolition of the
disputed structure was the result of a concerted and planned action of the
Sangh Parivar… including the RSS, VHP and BJP. None of this could have been
achieved without the organisational support and mobilisation of these bodies.”
Another key finding:
“The RSS was not a
marginal presence. It was central to the planning, coordination and execution
of the programme leading to 6 December 1992.”
Srikrishna Commission
“There is no doubt that
the Shiv Sena and Hindu communal organisations were responsible for the second
phase of the riots.”
While RSS was not named
as the primary actor, the Commission noted:
“The role of Hindu
communal organisations with ideological affinity cannot be ignored in the
spread and perpetuation of violence.”
Justice D P Madon Commission
“Members of the RSS
actively participated in inciting passions and organising Hindu mobs.”
Concerned Citizens Tribunal (Justice V R Krishna Iyer)
“The violence was not
spontaneous. It was organised, planned and executed with the active
participation of Sangh Parivar organisations, including the RSS.”
National Human Rights Commission on Gujarat 2002
“There was a systemic
failure of the State to protect citizens, and evidence suggests organised
groups were allowed to operate with impunity.”
SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT CASE CITATIONS
Nathuram Godse Background
Gopal Godse v Union of
India, Bombay HC (1961)
Court noted ideological proximity of Gandhi’s assassins with Hindu extremist
thought, though not convicting RSS as an institution.
This judicial observation
recognised ideological radicalisation even while fixing criminal guilt only on
individuals.
Babri Masjid Cases
M S Golwalkar v Union of
India is not a case
Relevant cases are:
• Dr M Ismail Faruqui v
Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360
• CBI v Kalyan Singh, (2017) 7 SCC 444
• L K Advani v CBI, (2017) 7 SCC 453
The Supreme Court
acknowledged organised mobilisation leading to demolition.
In CBI v Kalyan Singh and
L K Advani v CBI, the Court restored conspiracy charges and rejected the
argument that demolition occurred due to sudden emotional frenzy or
administrative helplessness.
Gujarat 2002
National Human Rights
Commission v State of Gujarat, (2009) 6 SCC 767
The Supreme Court
described Gujarat riots as a case of “modern day Neros” watching while people
burned.
The Court transferred
trials outside Gujarat, citing failure of rule of law and risk to fair trial.
Delhi Riots 2020
State of NCT of Delhi v
Tahir Hussain, Delhi HC 2021
Court discussed organised
mobilisation and conspiracy, while emphasising individual criminal liability.
While trials are ongoing,
judicial observations again rejected protest gone wrong explanations in certain
areas.
KEY INCIDENTS AND ALLEGATIONS
1. Mahatma Gandhi Assassination
After Gandhi’s
assassination, the Government of India banned the RSS. Home Ministry records
cited a climate of hatred and militant propaganda.
While Nathuram Godse had left RSS formally, the Kapoor Commission later
recorded ideological proximity.
2. Jabalpur Riots
Justice D P Madon
Commission observed organised mobilisation and role of Hindu communal groups,
including RSS workers, in inciting violence.
3. Meerut Riots
Fact finding reports
documented coordinated rumour spreading and mobilisation by Hindu and Muslim
organisations. RSS linked outfits were named among Hindu groups active on the
ground.
4. Babri Masjid Demolition
The Liberhan Commission
squarely blamed the RSS, VHP, BJP leadership for systematic planning and
mobilisation leading to demolition and nationwide riots.
5. Mumbai Riots
The Srikrishna Commission
found that Shiv Sena and Hindu communal organisations, with ideological overlap
with Sangh Parivar, played a leading role in violence.
6. Gujarat Riots
The Concerned Citizens
Tribunal, NHRC, and several journalists recorded RSS shakhas and VHP networks
being used for logistics, mobilisation, and targeting.
Courts convicted individuals but not the organisation.
7. Muzaffarnagar Riots
Police records and media
reports noted organised mobilisation, provocative speeches, and circulation of
fake videos by Hindu nationalist groups linked to the Sangh ecosystem.
8. Delhi Riots
Independent
investigations and charge sheets alleged ideological mobilisation and street
level coordination by individuals associated with Hindu nationalist groups.
Cases remain contested in courts.
LEGAL POSITION CLARIFIED
No Indian court has
convicted RSS as an organisation
Multiple commissions have recorded its ideological and organisational role
Criminal law fixes individual guilt, not ideological guilt
Commissions expose patterns that courts cannot ignore but are not punitive
This distinction is
fundamental to understanding how institutional accountability escapes judicial
punishment while remaining documented in public record.
WHY DENIAL FAILS
Organisations routinely
rely on technical legality to deny responsibility. But constitutional morality
is not limited to courtroom acquittals. When ideological ecosystems repeatedly
appear across decades of violence, denial becomes political strategy rather
than factual rebuttal.
Silence after riots,
absence of internal disciplinary processes, and political rehabilitation of
accused individuals convert plausible deniability into moral endorsement.
Courts punish crimes.
History judges systems.
CONCLUSION
From Gandhi’s
assassination to Delhi 2020, official records repeatedly challenge the myth of
spontaneous riots. They document organised mobilisation, ideological
conditioning, political silence and confidence of impunity.
No Indian court has
convicted RSS as an organisation
Multiple commissions have recorded its ideological and organisational role
Criminal law fixes individual guilt, not ideological guilt
Commissions expose patterns that courts cannot ignore but are not punitive
Denial does not erase
this record.
Legal acquittal does not mean moral innocence.
History will not read only judgments. It will read patterns.
Accountability is not
hatred. It is democracy’s last defence.
REFERENCES
Commissions and Tribunals
- Liberhan Commission of Inquiry Report (2009),
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberhan_Commission - Justice B N Srikrishna Commission Report
(1998), Government of Maharashtra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srikrishna_Commission - Justice D P Madon Commission Report (1962),
Government of Madhya Pradesh
https://www.mha.gov.in/en/documents/commissions-inquiry - Concerned Citizens Tribunal on Gujarat 2002,
Crime Against Humanity, chaired by Justice V R Krishna Iyer
https://cjp.org.in/concerned-citizens-tribunal/ - National Human Rights Commission Proceedings
on Gujarat Riots (2002)
https://nhrc.nic.in/
Supreme Court and High Court Judgments
- Gopal Godse v Union of India, Bombay High
Court, 1961
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1783372/ - Dr M Ismail Faruqui v Union of India, (1994) 6
SCC 360
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1570821/ - CBI v Kalyan Singh, (2017) 7 SCC 444
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196014248/ - L K Advani v CBI, (2017) 7 SCC 453
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100876344/ - National Human Rights Commission v State of
Gujarat, (2009) 6 SCC 767
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1858682/ - State of NCT of Delhi v Tahir Hussain, Delhi
High Court, 2021
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138984876/
Historical Inquiry
- Justice J L Kapur Commission Report on Gandhi
Assassination (1969)
https://www.mha.gov.in/en/documents/gandhi-assassination-report
Author’s Introduction
Siddhartha Shankar Mishra
is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India and a commentator on law, politics
and society. His writings blend legal insight with social critique and aim to
provoke reflection on power, justice and public conscience.
No comments:
Post a Comment