A lawyer who exposed the police - using their own documents

Tearing away the false claims of policemen, question by question, was Vijay Pradhan’s forte

Tearing away the false claims of policemen, question by question, was Vijay Pradhan’s forte. If the B N Srikrishna Commission of Inquiry report on the 1992-93 Mumbai riots is a record of the communal prejudice that ran through the Mumbai police at that time, the credit for this goes substantially to the commission’s additional senior counsel, Vijay Pradhan.

A lawyer who exposed the police - using their own documents

The well-known criminal lawyer passed away on March 12 in Nashik. A condolence meet will be held on Thursday at Royal Yacht Club where he was a keen yachtsman.

For four years, Pradhan and the two junior counsel for the commission - Rajendra Mhamane and Aruna Kamath - pored over thousands of police documents, many of them hand-written in Marathi; some wrinkled and torn. This was the source of his cross-examination. Confronted with material provided by their own department, policemen would fumble for answers. By the time Pradhan finished with them, the double standards used by them in handling Hindu and Muslim rioters would be exposed.

Among his most memorable questions was the one to Shrikant Bapat, commissioner of police during the riots: “How is it that in your 175-page affidavit there is no mention of the Shiv Sena?” This led to loud protests from the counsel for the Sena and the police who often complained about Pradhan’s “anti-Hindu” prejudice and socialist ideology.

Responding to these allegations, Pradhan had told this reporter: “My notions of common sense generally persuaded me to think that in a scenario (involving) a majority and a minority, the latter is exposed to perilous hazards. Much is expected on the part of the majority, to contain a given situation. But where the order of the day is retaliation, one who can forcefully initiate or hit back, is substantially in a position to decide the course of strife.

“Given that sections of two underprivileged communities belonging to different religious denominations are fighting it out on their own without aid from others, I think that I can act as a neutral observer. But if my perception is that one of the two is being backed by resourceful organisations, with motives other than the well-being of the poor at heart, adding fuel to the fire, instigating violence, I think my sympathies will, maybe without my knowing, tilt. If one chooses to call that bias, so be it.’’

Socialists, Pradhan said, did not “subscribe to misguided lumpen elements operating in a destructive way. During the riots, honest wage earners suffered like a lush green farm being invaded by locust-like hooligans. Where should my sympathies lie, whether I am a socialist or not?’’

These sensibilities were evident even years later when the commission had become a dead issue. Pradhan, along with senior advocate Yusuf Muchhala, represented free of charge, victims struggling to bring to book policemen indicted by Justice Srikrishna. Thanks to these two veterans, two glimmers of justice were obtained. The 78 Muslims arrested after the raid on Suleman Usman Bakery, and falsely charged with attempt to murder, were discharged by the Bombay high court. And a reluctant Maharashtra government was forced to order a CBI inquiry into the Hari Masjid firing where six unarmed Muslims were shot dead. Alas, though Pradhan fought till the Supreme Court free for the victim who challenged top cop R D Tyagi’s discharge, he lost.

But his commitment to the commission didn’t stop him from resigning when Justice Srikrishna forbade his two senior counsel from cross-examining then CM Manohar Joshi, and he decided that he would do so himself. It was a matter of ”professional proprietary’’, said Pradhan, “that only a lawyer would understand’’.

The Srikrishna Commission wasn’t Pradhan’s first exposure to the workings of the Maharashtra police; he had worked with the Justice Mavlankar Commission on the 1986 Umapur and Nashik riots too. “Secularism is in grave peril and much needs to be done to strengthen people’s belief in its values,’’ he said.

Today, the situation is far worse. And Vijay Pradhan isn’t there.