2005/08/10: Hindu.com: Nanavati Commission findings on Police

http://www.hindu.com/2005/08/10/stories/2005081004771200.htm

Army deployment took time during 1984 riots
Vinay Kumar
Attacks were made without much fear of the police: Nanavati Commission report

NEW DELHI: The Nanavati Commission, which probed the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, came across evidence to show that on October 31, 1984 either meetings were held or the persons who could organise attacks were contacted and given instructions to kill Sikhs and loot their houses and shops.
"The attacks were made in a systematic manner and without much fear of the police; almost suggesting that they were assured that they would not be harmed while committing those acts and even thereafter," the Commission said in its report tabled in Parliament on Monday. From November 1, 1984, another `cause of exploitation of the situation' had joined the initial `cause of anger.' The exploitation of the situation was by anti-social elements who saw an opportunity of looting things without the fear of being punished.
"The criminals got an opportunity to show their might and increase their hold. The exploitation of the situation was also by the local political leaders for their political and personal gains like increasing the clout by showing their importance, popularity, and hold over the masses. Lack of the fear of the police force was also one of the causes for the happening of so many incidents within those 3 or 4 days. If the police had taken prompt and effective steps, many lives would not have been lost and so many properties would not have been looted, destroyed or burnt," it said.
If this was how the Commission described the situation on the ground, there is another key question of how the high-ups took time to decide on calling the Army for assistance of the local authorities to restore law and order when Delhi streets were ruled by criminals, anti-social elements.
Evidence given before the Commission by Major-General (Retd) J.S. Jamwal, then General Officer Commanding of Delhi area, the affidavit of Brigadier A.S. Brar, then Commandant of Rajputana Rifles Regimental Centre in Delhi, depositions of P.V. Narasimha Rao, then Home Minister, S.C. Tandon, then Delhi Police Commissioner, and P.G. Gavai, then Lt-Governor of Delhi, show the way decision was taken to requisition services of the Army.
Mr. Tandon told the Commission that he met Lt-Governor and Major-General Jamwal on November 1, 1984. Maj. Gen. Jamwal informed him that he did not have enough units and he would be able to cover only two contiguous districts. On his suggestion, Maj. Gen. Jamwal agreed to deploy one in Central district and one in South district. According to him, he had not received any instruction from the Home Minister either on October 31 or till the evening of November 1, 1984.
The then Lt-Governor, Mr. Gavai, attended a meeting with the Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and senior Congress leader M.L. Fotedar at 6 p.m. on November 1, 1984. On November 2, he spoke to General A.S. Vaidya about some sluggishness of the armed forces in getting out of their vehicles. That very day he was told by Dr. P.C. Alexander, then Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, to proceed on leave. The next day Mr. Gavai had left Delhi.
In his reply, Dr. Alexander told the Commission that he had not received any proposal from the Lt-Governor about calling out the Army. According to him, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was very unhappy at the way the Delhi Administration was handling the situation of violence and the riots in the city. He told the Commission that the Prime Minister took the decision of calling out the Army at 1.30 p.m. on November 1, 1984. However, the Army Chief was already alerted both by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary to keep the army contingents in readiness.
The then Home Minister, P.V. Narasimha Rao, told the Commission that the Home Minister was not competent to call out the troops. From where the troops should be called out is a decision within the exclusive domain of the Army Chief under the Ministry of Defence. In the Commission's view there was no delay or indifference at the level of the Home Minister.