|
A Massacre Is a Massacre
Vir Sanghvi
Three things are clear. One: the Congress
was involved. Two: the police and the administration did nothing to
protect the Sikhs. And three: there was an unforgivable delay in
calling in the military.
 When is a riot not a riot? When is a massacre not a massacre? When
is a mass murderer not a mass murderer? And when is public outrage
to be muted - if not entirely suspended?
When the Congress is the culprit. And when the victims are Sikhs.
That, at least, seems to be the attitude of much of our so-called
secular establishment. The publication of the Nanavati report into
the 1984 Delhi riots should have served to remind us of the horrors
of that bloody week. It should have led us to recall how completely
the administration failed and how innocent Sikhs were murdered in
front of their own children.
Instead, the secular response to the report has been curiously
low-key. It was a long time ago, we are told. What is the point in
raking up old memories? Justice Nanavati doesn't conclusively blame
anybody anyway, does he? And anyway, all secularists must unite to
fight Hindu fundamentalism, so let's not get sidetracked by an old
riot.
There is something sad and shameful about these responses. Listening
to them, I had some sense of why secularism has fallen into such
disrepute. It has become a flag of convenience for anybody who wants
to oppose the B.J.P. And we have forgotten that all communal
violence - no matter who it is directed against - is equally bad.
It wasn't always like this. Those of you with long memories will
remember the horror with which most educated people reacted to the
riots in 1984. Then, they became a Great Secular Issue in much the
same way that the Gujarat riots later became a defining issue for a
new generation of politicians.
Certainly, it was impossible not to be outraged by the massacres.
They took place in the immediate aftermath of Indira Gandhi's
assassination. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the early violence
was spontaneous, sparked off by public anger against Sikhs and by
simmering Hindu resentment at the Punjab violence. Then, somebody
spread a rumour that Sikhs were distributing sweets to celebrate
Mrs. Gandhi's death. Even though there was no substantiation to this
story, small-time local Congress leaders gathered their followers
and went in search of Sikh homes to burn.
What happened next is the subject of some dispute. Eyewitnesses
claim that they saw senior Congress leaders - Jagdish Tytler, Sajjan
Kumar, H.K.L. Bhagat and Dharamdas Shastri - either leading the mobs
or organising the violence. Naturally, the leaders have since
declared their innocence, but there is little doubt that some of
their followers were involved.
It did not help that the police force failed. The Delhi Police
disappeared from the streets of the capital and Sikhs were denied
the protection they needed to save their lives. The administration
delayed calling in the army and, in the interim, hundreds of poor
Sikhs living in the resettlement colonies on the other side of the
Yamuna were murdered. In a pattern that would be repeated in Gujarat
nearly two decades later, the mobs resorted to extreme cruelty:
fathers were killed in front of their daughters, women were raped in
full public view and, in some cases, thugs drove electric drills
into the heads of defenceless Sikhs.
By the time the riot was over - actually, I don't know why we call
it a riot, it was a massacre - three things were clear. One: the
Congress was involved. Two: the police and the administration did
nothing to protect the Sikhs. And three: there was an unforgivable
delay in calling in the military.
The dispute was over other issues. What was the level of Congress
involvement? Were people like Bhagat and Tytler really involved? Did
the policemen run away because they were scared? Or was it because
they did not want to act against workers of the party that was in
power? And why did it take so long to restore order? Was it because
the government was in a state of chaos following Mrs. Gandhi's
assassination? Or was there a more sinister design? Was it true that
Arun Nehru, the Congress strong man of that era, had said, 'Let
Delhi burn for three days?' Had Rajiv Gandhi's administration
allowed the massacres to go on because they tapped into a vote-rich
Hindu backlash?
Over two decades and many commissions of inquiry later, we have some
answers. Yes, senior Congress leaders were involved. There may not
be enough evidence to prosecute Tytler, but Justice Nanavati
suggests that he played some role. About Bhagat, the report is
vague: no purpose is served in investigating him further because of
his advanced age and declining health. Sajjan Kumar and Dharamdas
Shastri seem to have had some involvement.
On the more substantive issue of whether the administration allowed
Delhi to burn, all the commissions have been unanimous: yes, it did,
but this was because of incompetence and negligence, not because of
any sinister design.
If there is a parallel, it is with the 1993 Bombay riots rather than
with Gujarat. In Bombay too, the police failed to protect Muslims.
And the local administration failed to ask the army to restore order
till it was much too late. Then too, there were political workers
involved - except that they belonged to the Shiv Sena which was in
opposition, and not to the ruling Congress.
I suppose it offers secularists some comfort that the riots in two
of India's greatest cities - Delhi in 1984 and Bombay in 1993 - were
not engineered by Congress governments. But this is little comfort
to the victims and their families. We elect governments to protect
us and when they fail to do so, it is hardly reassuring to be told,
'At least they didn't set out to murder you.'
Besides, the distinction between a party and its government is not
always clear. We accept now that the central government did not
intend Delhi to burn in 1984 and that it did not ask the police to
let Sikhs be murdered. But nevertheless, there is no denying the
Congress's role in the massacres. Even if Rajiv Gandhi and his aides
did not want the violence to spiral out of control, and even if the
failure to protect the Sikhs was due to the government's state of
paralysis following Mrs. Gandhi's assassination, it was still local
Congress leaders who led the mobs, who committed the murders. And if
Justice Nanavati is to be believed, it wasn't just local leaders;
some national figures were also involved.
Over two decades later, we have some
answers: Senior Congress leaders were involved...Secular
establishment's failure to stand up for the victims of the 1984
massacres shames us all.
In the Eighties, nobody was afraid of saying this. But Indian
politics has now become so polarised between the so-called forces of
secularism (i.e. the Congress and the Left) and the so-called
communal elements (the Sangh parivar), that every event is now
reassessed through the prism of this polarisation. So Congress
supporters and communists are willing to forget the horrors of 1984
lest they weaken the secular case against Narendra Modi and the mass
murderers of Gujarat.
But the truth is that a murderer is a murderer. A massacre is a
massacre. A victim is a victim - regardless of whether he is Hindu,
Sikh or Muslim. When somebody comes to kill you, it does not matter
whether he does so in the name of Hindu fundamentalism or Congress
extremism. If we forget the murders of 1984 and allow those who
committed them to get away with it, then we lose the moral right to
criticise Narendra Modi or to ever speak out against communal
violence.
It saddens me that the secular establishment has forgotten basic
morality. Its failure to stand up for the victims of the 1984
massacres shames us all.
(This article appears courtesy the Hindustan Times. Vir Singhvi is a
celebrated editor and columnist.)
28 November 2007
|
Read Also