The Muslim appeasement politics on the part of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Samajwadi Party (SP) and Congress again demonstrated its ugly face-now in Bareilly town of Uttar Pradesh. The city remained under curfew for more than two weeks and lost the property worth crores of rupees. More than 60 houses of innocent Hindus were burnt and 10 seriously-injured people are struggling for life in different hospitals. Apart from the appeasement politics by political parties, the wrong decisions taken by the local administration too contributed in worsening the situation.

Instead of taking strict and timely action against the rioters, the State BSP government crossed all limits of appeasement by releasing the mastermind of the riots, Maulana Tauqir Raza Khan who is also president of Ittehad-e-Millat Council (IMC). A number of criminal cases have been registered against Raza under section 147, 148, 149, 458, 307, 332, 336, 427, 152, 153 K, 295, etc. of IPC during the last two decades. The followers of this Muslim cleric vandalised the city for many days and the administration remained mute spectator.

Tauqir Raza was arrested on March 8 following his involvement in the riots. Keeping in view the seriousness of the sections imposed on him by the police the court denied him bail the same day. The court had to hear this case again on March 11. But before Raza was produced in the court on March 11, the State government first shunted the District Magistrate Ashish Goel who had arrested Raza and then withdrew all critical Sections imposed on him. Finally, the court had to grant him bail.

The process and means adopted by the local administration to release Raza were even condemned by the laywers of the city. The Bareilly Bar Assocation passed a resolution in a meeting condemning the release. The resolution said the judicial system was made a mockery in the whole process. Some lawers of the city also demanded ban on the IMC, the politcal outfit of Raza. Some members of the Bar Association have written to Chief Minister Mayawati making such demands.

According to an eyewitness, the riots began on March 2 when the followers of Barelavi sect of Muslims were taking out second Barahvafat procession. Normally, they take out only one procession every year to celebrate the birthday of Prophet Mohammad, which they had already taken out on February 27. But this year they announced another procession on March 2. Here the intention of the local administration becomes doubtful why it granted permission for the second procession when one procession had already been allowed? Secondly, despite knowing the fact that the policemen will remain busy in celebrating Holi on March 2 the local administration granted permission for the procession without making adequate alternate security arrangements.

read more:http://voi.org/21mar2010/sourced/organiser/bareillyundercurfew.html