top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

Face Of Accountability In 1992-1993 Riots

Abdul Sattar Suleman Mithaiwala – the soft-spoken yet steely owner of the popular sweetmeat shop and a bakery on Mohammed Ali Road, passed away in the wee hours of Monday.   ‘Sattarbhai’ – as he was known to all - was 79, and remained a friendly and familiar bearded figure in his tiny office behind the sweetmeat shop where he met visitors, lawyers, journalists and cops.   After all, he was one of the most identifiable faces connected with the dual riots that rocked Mumbai – first in Dec. 1992...

Face Of Accountability In 1992-1993 Riots

Abdul Sattar Suleman Mithaiwala – the soft-spoken yet steely owner of the popular sweetmeat shop and a bakery on Mohammed Ali Road, passed away in the wee hours of Monday.   ‘Sattarbhai’ – as he was known to all - was 79, and remained a friendly and familiar bearded figure in his tiny office behind the sweetmeat shop where he met visitors, lawyers, journalists and cops.   After all, he was one of the most identifiable faces connected with the dual riots that rocked Mumbai – first in Dec. 1992 and then in Jan. 1993 – in the aftermath of the razing of the contentious Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on Dec. 6, 1992 – a painful chapter that is now practically erased from history.   Sattarbhai’s entry into the riots case came when a massive tragedy took place in his Suleman Bakery on January 9, 1993 – changing his life forever.   Acting on a tip-off of alleged firing from the bakery premises, a police team led by then Joint Commissioner of Police R. D. Tyagi rushed there and surrounded the building. In the stormy operation that followed, at least eight unarmed men, mostly bakery workers living inside the bakery were killed, triggering national outrage.   Undaunted by the catastrophe taking place in his own premises, Sattar decided to pursue the case with dogged determination, silent courage and fighting all pressures.   The tragedy that defined his life happened during the second phase of the bloody communal riots that ravaged Mumbai after the Babri Mosque was felled.   Acting on reports of alleged firing from the bakery premises, a police team led by Tyagi stormed the building. In the operation that followed, eight unarmed men inside the bakery were killed, triggering national outrage.   The Suleman Bakery firing catapulted into one of the most high-profile, and controversial incidents of the 1992-1993 riots – though it was not the only one. The reason was the alleged perpetrators were policemen and the victims were ordinary unarmed civilians trapped inside their workplace.   At the time when the country’s commercial capital was engulfed in a communal conflagration for weeks, this case raised questions over bias, use of excessive force and willy-nilly state complicity. As Justice B. N. Srikrishna Commission later noted how the police version “did not inspire credence”, making the tragedy a symbol of institutional failure.   Public Memory As Mumbai bore the brunt of the riots with lumpens ruling the streets for weeks, the Suleman Bakery case became a rare one where accountability was directly sought from the police and the government – remaining etched in public memory since then.   Coupled with the Radhabai Chawl killings or police firing instances in different parts of the city, doubts were raised in public minds whether the violence was sporadic and spontaneous or was probably enabled and encouraged by those in power, as more than 900 deaths and 2000-plus injuries were recorded. Later, the city was scarred  by the serial blasts on March 12, 1993, with more deaths, destruction and social devastation.   Sattarbhai followed up his quest for justice diligently, but over time, it appeared to be fizzling out, 18 cops were booked of whom Tyagi and nine others were discharged in 2003 for lack of evidence, two died during the trial and only four still face the legal proceedings.   Even at the age of 75, Sattarbhai came to the court in a wheelchair, but later declared a ‘hostile witness’ as he could not remember certain crucial details of that night. Privately, he became cynical, even admitted to pressures from different quarters, first labelled as a suspect and then even blamed for the bakery incident itself – saying his confidence was shaken.   Bakery Carnage The Suleman Bakery firing occurred at the height of one of Mumbai’s darkest chapters – the bloody riots of December 1992–January 1993 riots - triggered by the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, and left over 900 people dead across the city.   After an uneasy lull in December 1992, tensions escalated again in early January 1993 following a series of killings in south Mumbai, including that of a Mathadi worker in Pydhonie, which were given a communal colour.   On January 9, police claimed that they got reports of some shady activities in the bakery and a team stormed there, leaving at least eight unarmed workers dead. After a massive furore, tough investigations, and a judicial probe by Justice B. N. Srikrishna Commission, raised haunting questions on the police role, and remained unanswered.   Over time, the Suleman Bakery case symbolised a deep communal chasm of that period, the long struggle for accountability in riot-related violence, particularly from the law-enforcers, and Sattarbhai stood as a solitary torchbearer of that valiant effort.

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments

bottom of page