The indictment on this count is general : ``The Hindus must share a part of the blame in provoking the Muslims by their celebration rallies ... organised mostly by Shiv Sainiks and to a marginal extent by BJP activists.''

In a 800-page report tabled in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly today by Chief Minister Manohar Joshi who rejected the findings in a highly charged and emotive defence of Thackeray, Justice Srikrishna says the communal passions of Hindus were aroused to fever pitch in thesecond phase of the riots by inciting writings in the print media particularly the Saamna (the Sena mouthpiece) and Navakal (the largest selling Marathi daily in the city) which gave exaggerated accounts of the murders of Mathadi (headload) workers and the Radhabai Chawl incidents (where a Hindu family was roasted alive in the middle of the night).

``Rumours were floated (after the stabbing of some Hindus by Muslim criminal elements) that there were imminent attacks by Muslims using sophisticated arms. These factors impelled some of the irresponsible and hotheaded Hindu elements to take to violence,'' he says.

His report goes on to say that ``from January 8, 1993 at least (the riots began on January 6), there is no doubt that the Shiv Sena and Shiv Sainiks took the lead in organising attacks on Muslims and their properties under the guidance of several leaders of the Shiv Sena from the level of shakha pramukhs to the Shiv Sena pramukh (Thackeray).'' There are only passing references to theBJP mostly related to the Ayodhya build-up.

Passing strictures against the then Congress government in Maharashtra, Justice Srikrishna has described its political leadership as ``effete'' and ``vacillating''. While Justice Srikrishna does not mention either then Chief Minister Sudhakarrao Naik or then Union Defence Minister Sharad Pawar by name in his findings, it is clear he is unimpressed by the former and taken in by the latter.

Hence elsewhere he says of Naik, ``for a person who holds the office of Chief Minister of a State, Shri Naik displayed ignorance about the proper authority to give orders to''. Of Pawar he says only that ``his knowledge of the political and administrative intricacies in Maharashtra cannot be doubted'' and that that he made ``some vaulable suggestions to the Commission'' which was taken into consideration by it.

The government, however, has interpreted these observations as evidence of an ego-clash between Naik and Pawar. In the ATR it says, ``In the government's view, one ofthe important reasons for the riots flaring up was the efforts of one-upmanship over the other (between the two). Because of their differences, the Maharashtra administration was not only weakened but .... the riots which should have been brought under control immediately continued for weeks and weeks.''

According to Justice Srikrishna, the vacillation on the part of the then political dispensation was ``for political reasons and conflicting orders issued to the Commissioner of Police percolated downwards created a general scene of confusion in the lower ranks of police, resulting in the dilemma `to shoot or not to shoot','' the report says, adding, ``Four precious days were lost for the Chief Minister to consider and issue orders as to effective use of Army for controlling the riots.''

Justice Srikrishna has also severely indicted the city police for what he describes as ``the built in bias of the police force against Muslims''. This he says became more pronounced with the murderous attacks on theConstabulary and officers ``and manifested in their reluctance to firmly put down incidents of violence, looting and arson which went on unchecked''. According to the report -- which has expounded in considerable detail on the definition of `retaliation' as propounded by several Sena leaders including Madhukar Sarpotdar (who the Commission describes as an `unreliable' witness) and Manohar Joshi (described as a smart one who outwitted most counsel) -- ``because some criminal Muslims killed innocent Hindus in one corner of the city, Shiv sainiks `retaliated' against several innocent Muslims in other corners of the city.''

It says, ``There is no material on record suggesting that even during this phase any known Muslim individuals or organisations were responsible for the riots, though a number of individual Muslims and Muslim criminal elements appear to have indulged in violence, looting, arson and rioting.''

Expanding on the police's role -- or failure in containing the riots -- Justice Srikrishna is ofthe view that the precautionary and preventive measures taken by the police at the time were inadequate. Moreover, the intelligence machinery of the police failed severely in gathering crucial information about closed-door meetings held by the Bombay Muslim Action Committee on December 2, 1992 prior to the demolition of the Babri Masjid and by the Shiv Sena at the Sena Bhavan on December 29, 1992. In most instances the police stations in Muslim-dominated areas did not even have personnel knowing Urdu who could interact with the population and keep themselves posted of communal writings in the Urdu press, he says.

Moreover, the maha-aartis organised by the Sena and the BJP, Justice Srikrishna believes, ``were erroneously treated as purely religious activity and were given full freedom, despite evidence that they were being used for political purposes, that communally inciting speeches were being made and the dispersing crowds after the maha-aartis had indulged in attacking, damaging and lootingestablishements of Muslims in nearby areas.'' His belief that Naik vacillated on this ground as well becomes apparent in the subsequent statement, ``Though the responsibility for dealing with such assemblies on public streets is of the police, the police left it to the political judgment of the then Chief Minister who failed to act promptly and effectively and give clear cut directives.''

Reactions

Sena completely exposed, says Congress

Congress tonight welcomed the report of the Srikrishna Commission that probed the Mumbai riots after the Babri Masjid demolition in 1992 and condemned the Shiv Sena-BJP government's action of rejecting it. Party spokesperson, Girija Vyas said that the report has ``completly exposed'' the State Government and has held Sena chief Bal Thackarey fully responsible for ``inciting riots along with party MP Madhukar Sarpotdar''.

Singling out Shiv Sena for criticism, she said the party which spread communal frenzy had no right to be in politics.

CPM wantsThackeray's prosecution

The CPI(M) demanded resignation of the Shiv Sena-BJP government, saying it had no right to continue as the Shiv Sena has been ``squarely held responsible'' by the Srikrishna Commission for unleashing violence against minorities after the Babri Masjid demolition.

The party politbureau demanded prosecution of all those held responsible by by the commission. ``The Shiv Sena-led State Government, by rejecting the main conclusions of the report, has only exposed its guilt in the matter. The serious lapses of the state administration and the then State Government have also been pointed out by the commission,'' it said.

SP threat to launch agitation

Samajwadi Party secretary Amitabh Adhar condemned rejection of the report by the State Government and threatened to launch a state-wide stir against the decision.

But BJP justifies state action

The BJP justified the decision of the Maharashtra government to reject the report and said the decision was taken on merit.Party vice-president Krishan Lal Sharma said that if the State Government had rejected the report after studying it, everybody should accept this decision. ``The State Government has every right to accept or reject a report,'' he added.

And Thackeray stays silent for now

Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray was unavailable tonight for comments on the Srikrishna Commission report that indicted him for the 1992-93 communal riots in the city. When contacted at his `Matoshri' residence at Bandra, his personal secretary said Thackeray had declined to give his reaction to the media on the Commission's findings. He, however, said Thackeray would meet the press tomorrow.