the report observes, "Police officers and men. particularly at the junior level, appeared to have an in-built bias against Muslims which was evident in their treatment of the suspected Muslims and Muslim victims of riots. The treatment given was harsh and brutal and, on occasions, bordering on inhuman, hardly doing credit to the police. The bias of policemen was seen in the active con- nivance of police constables with the rioting Hindu mobs on occasions with their adopting the role of passive onlookers on occasions, and finally, in their lack of enthusiasm in registering offences against Hindus even when the accused were clearly identified..." As for the January 1993 phase of rioting, the commission's view is that large-scale rioting and violence was commenced from January 6, 1993 by the Hindus and was brought to fever pitch by communally inciting propaganda unleashed by Hindu communal organisations and writings in newspapers like Saamna and Navakal. It was taken over by Shiv Sena and its leaders who continued to whip up communal frenzy by their statements and acts, and writings and directives issued by the Shiv Sena pramukh Bal Thackeray, Srikrishna also refers to the interview given by Shiv Sena supremo to The Time magazine propounding the doctrine of 'retaliation', Srikrishna also observes that the doctrine of 'retaliation' as expounded by Madhukar Sarpotdar and Manohar Joshi (now chief minister of Maharashtra), together with the thinking of Shiv Sainiks that Shiv Sena's terror was the true guarantee of the safety of citizens, was responsible for vigilantism of Shiv Sainiks. Because some criminal Muslims killed innocent Hindus in one corner of the city, the Shiv Sainiks 'retaliated' against several innocent Muslims in other corners of the city, the judge observes.
