1984
Tales of Complicity and Cover-ups:
Delhi 1984 & Gujarat 2002
KASHIF-UL-HUDA
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Veteran journalist and author Manoj Mitta delivered the Omar Khalidi Memorial Lecture at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on the night of Sunday, October 19, 2014.
In his hour-long talk Manoj Mitta, who is the co-author of When a Tree Shook Delhi (published 2008) and author of The Fiction of Fact-Finding (published 2014), drew parallels between the India government’s response and investigations following the anti-Sikh pogrom in Delhi in 1984 and the anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat in 2002.
Mr. Mitta talked about a tale of two speeches that shows the complicity of the government and a tale of two commissions that shows cover ups by the administration and investigating authorities.
A TALE OF TWO SPEECHES
The first one he talked about was a public speech given by Rajiv Gandhi in November 1984. The official casualty figure of the anti-Sikh pogrom in Delhi was 2,733 but Rajiv Gandhi’s first public speech as Prime Minister of India makes no mention of the massacres in the country‘s capital only days earlier.
“Rajiv Gandhi’s speech didn’t show any remorse for the violence that Delhi just saw,” observed Mitta.
“This speech then set the tone for the election campaign that was to follow which Congress won by a huge mandate.”
The next Lok Sabha met in January 1985 which passed a resolution mourning the death of Indira Gandhi but it had no mention of the anti-Sikh genocide that had followed her death.
The second speech is the ‘peace appeal’ that the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi gave on Doordarshan on February 28, 2002. Mr. Mitta called this speech even “more dangerous” that Rajiv Gandhi’s speech.
Fifty-nine people were killed in Godhra train burning on February 27, 2002. The same evening Mr. Modi rushed to Godhra and gave a statement that the train burning was a “result of a terror attack.”
Next morning attacks began on Muslims, especially in Ahmedabad.
On February 28, at 6 pm Modi recorded a ‘peace appeal’ on Doordarshan but by that time post-godhra violence had already killed more people than Godhra.
“His concern, just like Rajiv Gandhi’s focus on his mother, was on what happened in Godhra and not the bloody aftermath. His appeal didn't condemn the violence that killed Muslims.”
A TALE OF TWO COMMISSIONS
It was six months after the carnage that Rajiv Gandhi accepted the demand for an enquiry and that too because he was seeking an alliance with Akali Dal.
Justice Ranganath Misra held all the proceedings in camera; the public and media were not present during the testimony. The report was tabled in 1987 but no debate on the report was held in the Indian parliament.
A fresh enquiry was ordered in 2000 by the Vajpayee government. This enquiry was headed by retired judge GT Nanavati. Proceedings were held in public and the report was submitted in 2005.
“Nanavati was closer to the truth,” said Mr. Mitta, adding that the report “indicted Jagdish Tytler, a minister and Sajjan Kumar, a Congress MP. HKL Bhagat was spared only because of his old age.”
The Manmohan Singh government initially rejected the Nanavati Report. But pressure from both allies and the opposition led to the Tytler ouster from the ruling cabinet.
Only in 2005, finally a discussion on Delhi 1984 carnage took place in Parliament.
Narendra Modi appointed the same judge Nanavati to ‘enquire’ about Gujarat 2002. The enquiry is still going on but Narendra Modi has never been called by the Commission for examination about his role.
In the case of the 1984 pogroms, only 30 minor convictions have happened in 30 years while there have been more than 100 convictions related to violence in Gujarat in 2002.
The latter happened only because of the Supreme Court of India’s intervention.
In the famous Best Bakery Case, the Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittals given by the lower court. The Supreme Court then decided to hold a fresh trial in Bombay. This was followed by many other cases that were also heard outside Gujarat. It is those trials that have led to convictions.
Similarly in the Bilquis Bano Case, a fresh CBI enquiry was ordered by the Supreme Court followed by a trial. This also led to convictions. Many of these cases were earlier closed by the Gujarat police or led to acquittals in Gujarat courts ... all during Modi’s tenure as the chief minister of the state.
Nine cases were referred to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by R K Raghavan which was set up by the Supreme Court. Following the Zakia Jaffrey complaint, SIT interrogated Narendra Modi.
“Questions put to Modi show the farcical nature of the investigation,” said Mr. Mitta. The SIT team did “no follow up to evasive or contradictory replies of Modi.”
In reply to the SIT questions, Mr. Modi claimed that he was unaware of two big massacres (Gulbarg Society and Naroda Patiya) till 8:30 pm that night. While SIT’s “clean chit” argued that Modi was in control of the situation, there is no explanation by SIT or Modi as to how he could be in control while he seemed to be unaware of the large-scale killings of Muslims.
Manoj Mitta looked at the facts gathered by official reports and found that Modi held his ‘law and order’ meeting between 4 - 4:30 pm on February 28. By that time a number of Muslims had been killed and it is unthinkable that Modi recording his peace appeal at 6 pm was not aware of these killings.
During the Q & A, Mr. Mitta clarified that a wrong impression has been spread that Modi has been given a clean chit by the Supreme Court. The latter has not commented on the SIT report that exonerated Modi. Zakia Jaffery’s appeal against that report was rejected by a magistrate and now that appeal is languishing in the Gujarat High Court.
[Courtesy: Two Circles. Edited for sikhchic.com]
October 22, 2014
Conversation about this article
1: Kaala Singh (Punjab), October 22, 2014, 1:09 PM.
Delhi 1984 and Gujarat 2002 were both state-sponsored genocides intended to intimidate Sikh and Muslim minorities asking for their legitimate rights and protesting the destruction and sacrilege of their places of worship. The goal was to silence the communities. The proof of state complicity in 1984 is the fact that nobody has been punished until now for these heinous crimes against innocent, unarmed and defenceless people. India which claims to be a "secular democracy" should be ashamed of its conduct towards its minorities. The Sikhs got stuck with this lawless and uncivilized country in 1947 due to an incompetent and illiterate leadership which was unable to look beyond their noses. The Muslims had a choice to migrate to their newly created country but were persuaded by the cunning Nehru and Mohandas Gandhi duo to stay back in India to exploit them as vote banks. They knew that a scared and insecure minority would vote for them en bloc and that it would help them stay in power forever. As of now, the minorities have no escape and should be prepared for more genocidal violence against them. Both Sikhs and Muslims have no international support, the Muslims due to the actions of the likes of the Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State and the disunity among Muslim countries; and the Sikhs due to the fact that they are a tiny minority unable to offer billion dollar deals to the international "champions" of human rights.
2: Harvinder Singh (London, United Kingdom), October 23, 2014, 12:13 AM.
There is no vestige of doubt that the anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984 in India was instructed by the highest political authority, Rajiv Gandhi. His orders were efficiently executed by his cousin and member of parliament, Arun Nehru. Furthermore, there was the full yet tacit support across the various political parties. I write with great indignation that we also know that the Sikh leadership of Zail Singh, Harchand Singh Longowal, Prakash Badal, Tohra and others proved to be no better than quislings. It is also known that the state media was compelled not to report and then later spew propaganda. Also, the independent media was prohibited from broadcasting the genocide that was occurring all over the country. Along with the entire apparatus of the state one other vital conspirator was necessary, the majority Hindu population. They in their obsequious way, as is in their dastard culture, duly obliged, many with a nod and a wink of approval and some having the notion that they, the Sikhs, had it coming to them. Sikhs know who committed these heinous crimes in 1984, inspite of any white-washing commission appointed by the rogue Indian state. We also know why this happened to us. They dislike us, not because we are violent terrorists or we are avaricious or a minority in India. The venal braminical leaders know that Sikhs are NOT HINDU, but a separate nation. In 1920 Sikhs were the first on the continent to liberate their institutions from the colonial British and what disturbs them the most is that the entire Sikh ethos proclaims equality of all humanity, upholding of human rights and activism against injustice. It is this Khalsa spirit they want to decimate so that they can maintain their rule. The Sikh Nation has never grovelled for justice for sins committed against it. It is virtually impossible to prosecute the guilty of the anti-Sikh pogrom in a legal system that has so many norms of distributive justice and procedural justice violations. There's a greater chance of justice if and when these breaches are brought in front of international tribunals or tried in international courts. Furthermore, the surviving victims have never been granted proper reparations. The serious debate to have is how to make all kinds of contingency plans so that every Sikh in India is safe and can enjoy those inalienable rights we living in civilized countries take for granted.
3: Kaala Singh (Punjab), October 23, 2014, 7:07 AM.
We can again see the influence of money-power. The biggest violator of human rights in the world, India, was today re-elected to the UN's main human rights body, receiving the highest number of votes in the Asia-Pacific group. How can any one get justice in a world like this?
4: Sunny Grewal (Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada), October 23, 2014, 7:20 PM.
@4: You can't. We are lucky that during the militancy period there were enough young men to snatch justice from the hands of the same people that refused to give it to us. Although there are still lots of people that deserve to be punished, some souls did take care of a lot of people who would have escaped justice.
5: Kaala Singh (Punjab), October 24, 2014, 3:44 PM.
@4: Jews were subjected to the same atrocities in Europe before and during WWII, but soon after the creation of the State of Israel, the perpetrators were chased by Israeli commandos around the world and were brought to justice. I wish we get a country and an army of our own one day and we will chase these scoundrels wherever they are hiding and give them what they deserve.
6: Sunny Grewal (Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada), October 25, 2014, 1:08 AM.
@5: The Jews had to run around the world, capture them and ship them back to Israel to face justice. The killers of Sikhs live in the same country as the victims and getting to them does not pose the same difficulty. If the Sikhs cannot bring justice to them in such an easy situation I doubt that having our own country would make much of a difference in the pursuit of justice. Those who had the will to bring justice to our community had their lives squeezed out of them in the thousands. For heavens sake, Izhaar Alam was given a position in the Akali party without so much as a squeak from Sikhs in Punjab.
7: Kaala Singh (Punjab), October 25, 2014, 8:58 AM.
@6: You are absolutely right, all the killers are in the same country, but do the Sikhs have the military might the Jews had after they created their own state? The answer is NO. Are the Sikhs in India ready for another massacre if some top perpetrators were to be brought to justice, the answer is again, NO. There surely will be fierce retaliation from the Indian State and the Sikhs today do not have the means to defend themselves if that was to happen. Also, as you mentioned, many of the individuals responsible for the genocide are again holding top positions in the Punjab Govt, which implies that even today there is no unity among the Sikhs and the Sikh political leadership is just a stooge of the Indian state. Under these circumstances, the Sikhs are in no position to carry out any kind of retributive justice. It can only be possible if Sikhs have the the military and economic might which can only come if they have their own independent State. Even in times of the Sikh resistance movement there was no unity among the various groups, they would fight with each other for supremacy and even betray each other to the intelligence agencies and that was the main reason why the fighters suffered so heavily.
8: Kaala Singh (Punjab), October 26, 2014, 4:43 AM.
We will have to regain our lost military strength if are to defend ourselves against future attacks and massacres. And by military strength I do not mean some rag-tag bands of people operating without any unity and purpose. It has to be a professional army, well-equipped and trained and acting under a unified authority. You may consider how the Indian State demilitarized and disarmed us right after 1947, so we would not be able to defend ourselves against their onslaught and herein lies the fault with the Sikh leadership of 1947, even if they wanted to merge with India, they should have negotiated an agreement to safeguard our security and economic interests. It could have been a European style Union with the Sikhs allowed to keep an army. What really happened was an abject surrender. If we had an army of our own the Indian State would not have dared to do what it did in 1984 and all issues would have been resolved through negotiations. So, military strength in effect contributes to peace and weakness contributes to death and destruction. Now, to the drawing board: how do we solve this problem? Not impossible, but we'll have to create a solution!