Lucknow: The 1980 Moradabad riots were the handiwork of two Muslim leaders, and neither the RSS, nor the BJP (founded April 1980), were involved, according to an inquiry report made public this week.
According to the Justice Mathura Prasad Saxena report, originally submitted to the Uttar Pradesh government in 1983, common Muslims and Hindus were not responsible for the disturbance either.
The commission also rejected allegations that the local police indulged in indiscriminate firing during the violence.
The report was tabled in the UP assembly Tuesday after the Yogi Adityanath government decided to make it public. It had reportedly been presented before many of the state’s previous governments but never made it to the assembly.
The Moradabad riots, the first major instance of communal clashes in UP post-Partition, took place on 13 August 1980, which was Eid-ul-Fitr.
They came in the backdrop of tensions between the Valmiki and Muslim communities over the alleged abduction and gang rape of a Dalit woman in March 1980 by Muslim men. The woman was rescued a month later.
The riots began at the Eidgah where over 50,000 people had gathered for namaz, and were reportedly triggered by the presence of a pig — considered ‘haram’ in Islam — near the crowds, which had spilled well beyond the Eidgah.
Over 80 people were killed and 120 injured in the violence, and the stray clashes that followed finally subsided in November.
The report blames the riots on Shamim Ahmed of the Muslim League and Hamid Hussain alias Ajji, the leader of the Khaksar-e-haq Party (also known as the ‘belchha’ or ‘spade’ party).” Both the leaders have since passed.
While the IUML, a Kerala-based state party, is functional in UP, the Khaksar-e-haq is no longer active in the state.
“Behind the communal massacre (of 13 August 1980) was the power of Muslim League and the khaksars who were led by Shamim and Dr Hamid Hussain alias Ajji,” the report says. “Everything was pre-planned and orchestrated by their people. Many Muslims who got provoked due to deaths of elderly and children became a part of it.”
The report also refers to the fact that the massacre witnessed during the Partition had “left a deep scar on the relations between the two communities”.
“The antagonism within Hindus and Muslims towards each other can be considered one of the reasons [behind the riots], it adds.
The IUML has rejected the findings of the report, questioning why it was not released while the leaders were alive.
Also Read: Two Haryana home guards killed as communal clashes erupt during religious procession at Nuh
‘Fulfilling selfish means’
The single-member judicial commission was set up by UP’s then V.P. Singh government to investigate the sequence of events leading to the riots.
The 496-page report notes that the disturbance that took place on 13 August 1980 was not an isolated event but “part of [a] sequence of events”.
The main reason for the riots was the “Muslim leaders fulfilling their selfish means through the Muslim community”, it says.
According to the panel, Shamim Ahmed Khan, “whose political ambition was too high, had revived the Muslim League in UP” and was desperate to regain influence over the community after a series of political losses made him sense that his political career was over.
When Shamim got a ticket from the Muslim League for the mid-term assembly polls in May 1980 — after being denied one in 1977 — he wanted to get maximum Muslim votes in his kitty, the report notes, adding that he “had started supporting every motive of Muslims whether it is right or wrong and was ready to take on the administration and police”.
The panel adds that Shamim’s Congress (I) rival Hafiz Ahmed Siddiqui gained the sympathy of Muslims by successfully organising the ‘ijtema’ (Muslim congregation held in 1979 in which Muslim leaders from India and Gulf countries took part) and renovation of mosques.
“This led to Shamim’s reputation getting finished and it seemed that his political career was over. It began the tussle for Muslim leadership and his disputes with the administration came to fore,” it adds.
Referring to the alleged abduction of the Dalit woman in March 1980, the report says Shamim immediately came forward to “take advantage of the situation” and sided with the accused.
When the woman was getting married in July, the procession of the bridegroom was attacked by a group of Muslims, the report adds, saying Shamim was inciting the Muslims of the basti.
“Then, Shamim led a campaign to take advantage of the death of an alleged thief Javed who was caught by a mob after theft with some milkmen in June 1980 saying that he was killed by police,” the report says. “Despite directions by the administration, he led a march with his dead body and got a magisterial probe done. All this was done to show that he is the sole saviour of their interests.”
As part of a conspiracy, the report says, two identical FIRs were lodged in Mughalpura and Katghar police stations by “persons associated with Shamim alleging that the Valmikis had threatened to teach Muslims a lesson”.
“Both the reports were found fake, which shows that it was a preparation to ensure Valmikis can be blamed for the Eidgah incident,” it states.
Also Read: Hindutva vs Hindutva, us vs them — what’s fuelling incidents of communal unrest in Maharashtra
‘A reason had to be created’
Shamim was present near the Eidgah on the day of the riots, leading a stall put up by the Muslim League — one of several stalls erected near the Eidgah during Eid to offer paan and elaichi to namazis.
Stalls were also put up by the Congress (I) and the BJP, among others. Volunteers of the Khaksar-e-haq were also present near the Muslim League stall and the disturbance started near the same, the report notes.
The khaksars originated from the eponymous pre-Independence “paramilitary” movement led by civil servant Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi that was opposed to the Muslim League’s two-nation theory, and worked for “revival of Islam” even as it promoted equality among all groups. Members of the movement, which fizzled out by the early 1940s, stood out with their uniform, a khaki shirt and pyjama, with all of them carrying the ‘belchha’.
Referring to Shamim, the report says, “He had to resort to something that could provoke the entire religious congregation (at Eidgah). A reason had to be created by leaders which could give them sympathy of all Muslims and with this motive, the rumour of a pig entering the crowd was spread because Muslims consider the animal impure”.
“Hence, Shamim prepared his supporters and hired people and resorted to the act without thinking about the extent of the communal disharmony it could spread,” it says.
According to the report, “selfish people like Shamim and Hussain tried to incite the namazis and others which aggravated the situation such that Muslims started attacking police stations and chowkis”.
“Hindu bastis were attacked which resulted in Hindus too avenging the attack and the incident took a communal turn,” it says.
It further notes that the then circle officer A.K. Mishra, along with some other local persons, had said that they heard Shamim and Ajji shout “maaro, maaro (kill)”.
The report, citing the statements of some local residents, says it could not be proved that a pig was seen around the Eidgah on the fateful day.
Allegations rejected
The report rejects claims of the riots resulting in “hundreds of deaths”, saying that 84 people were killed — out of which 70 were Muslims while 14 were Hindus.
It says the Eidgah imam submitted that 1,000 people had died at the Eidgah but no details were provided and such “plain statements could not be trusted”.
It also says that the maximum deaths were caused due to a stampede.
The report also refutes the allegations of the RSS-BJP’s involvement, made by Moradabad-based lawyer and chairman of the local citizen council Mukhtar Ahmed and some others.
The Eidgah imam had claimed that local BJP leader Hansraj Chopra had incited Valmikis after the March abduction.
The allegations of the RSS-BJP’s involvement were made by the then Union home minister Yogendra Makwana too.
The commission also concluded that the then district magistrate S.P. Arya and senior superintendent of police (SSP) V.N. Singh had taken relevant precautions to ensure peaceful Eid celebrations, adding that the police response to the violence was not out of line.
“If the situation revolving around every incident is taken into consideration, all action taken by them and the officials including the firing by the police and PAC (Provincial Armed Constabulary), were totally justified,” it says.
“Firing was resorted to only when an immediate threat to the lives and properties of all inhabitants of the basti cropped up. It was done only when repeated warnings, tear gas shells and lathi charge had no effect,” the report said.
Had local officials “not resorted to such an action, it would have led to mismanagement in the entire city and immense harm to life and property”.
“Use of force was neither too much nor insufficient,” it says.
Speaking to ThePrint, IUML national joint secretary Kausar Hayat Khan denied all allegations in the report and called it a false one.
“It was not a communal riot but a pre-planned action by the administration. The commission gave a report to save the administration,” he said.
“If it was true, why was it kept hidden for 40 years when the accused were alive? Action should have been taken against them. Now, the Yogi government wants to take political benefit out of it. We still demand compensation for the victims in August every year. If the victims of 1984 riots can get compensation, why not those targeted in the Moradabad riots?” he said.
(Edited by Sunanda Ranjan)
Also Read: Delhi’s Partition Museum remembers pain of separation—through artefacts, images, personal items