Commissions and omissions

Yet, the Rajya Sabha wanted to know why none had been punished even after several years, more so why the administration had failed to give the Sikhs any protection. A one-man commission was appointed under the chairmanship of Justice Nanavati, a retired Supreme Court judge, to probe.

I think neither the government nor the commission understood the real purport of the MPs' irritation. They wanted a commission, somewhat on the lines of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission appointed in South Africa, to know why the Apartheid rule lasted so long and why thousands of people were killed whose only fault was that they were black. Top white leaders volunteered to pour their heart out.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The Nanavati commission should have worked in the same way. It should have provided a forum to those who wanted to have the guilt off their chest, the catharsis for the perpetration of killings. If assured that their statements would not be used as a testimony against them, many Hindu leaders might have come forward to tell the truth.

After a lapse of nearly two decades, when every bit of evidence has almost disappeared, the commission's aim should have been to know why the Sikhs as a community were targeted. The constitution says that the Sikhs are Hindus. Even otherwise, they have blood relationship. In Punjab, the tradition in many Hindu families has been to make their eldest son a Sikh. With such ties, why the crime of the security guards visited on the community? Even the most distinguished and liberal Sikh writer, Khushwant Singh, had to seek shelter at the Swedish embassy. Not many came to the rescue of their Sikh neighbours or their friends. Why all bonds broke off when the fanatics took to the streets?

It is true that weeks before Mrs Gandhi's assassination, there were killings and lootings of

Hindus in Punjab, primarily by the militants under the guidance of Bhindranwale, a fundamentalist at Amritsar. Was the pogrom at Delhi an expression of the anger which had piled up by the doings of Bhindranwales and which would have been avenged one day? Or was it to establish a principle that the retaliation against the innocent at one place was justified (Delhi in this case) for the crime committed against the innocent elsewhere (Punjab)?

Whatever the truth, it is important to analyse the entire gamut of rioting against the Sikhs. I found the traces of alienation among the Sikhs in the UK in 1990, where I served as India's high commissioner at London. The front gate of India House was closed in June 1984 following Operation Bluestar when the army entered the Golden Temple at Amritsar. The Sikhs would be asked to come to India House through the back door and still not welcomed. I threw open the front gate. I expected protest from the commission's security officers who prodded even Scotland Yard to threaten the withdrawal of its policemen posted at India House. But I never imagined indignation on the part of secretaries to the Government of India. Their committee sent me a telegram: "It was felt that our High Commission in London should be cautioned against his open-door policy as it increased the threat to the High Commission and to its personnel."

This indicated how even the passage of time had not lessened the suspicion of topmost bureaucrats against the Sikhs. I had expected the bureaucracy to make amends for the wrong it had done to the entire community. The 1984 killings would not have probably taken place if the bureaucracy, including the police, had risen above bias. The army was not called for two days reportedly to give time to the rioters who were confident that the police would look to the other side when they would be busy doing the "job." The Nanavati commission has been given an extension of another six months. It can take more time but it must set its sails right. At present it is covering more or less the same ground which the earlier commissions have done. It has served notices to 14 persons, including some top Congress leaders, to appear before it. Similar notices have been sent earlier. Locating the guilty is important but more important is to know why they were harassed even at as distant places as Indore, Patna and Jamshedpur?

The reason why it is necessary for the Nanavati commission to go deeper into the rioting is the

religious temperament which looks like building up. The Sikh clergy is at it again. A conglomerate of fringe Sikh organisations met at Chandigarh last week to oppose the Akalis who control the gurdwaras. There is once again a danger of the same thinking taking roots: religion can be mixed with politics. This sort of inclination has landed the state in trouble many a time before. A resolution on Khalistan was placed before the fringe organisations which they rightly

rejected. But why some elements are at their old game, trying to disturb Punjab, the most peaceful state in the country?

Back to the basic question: why the Sikh community feels that it is safe within the particular borders? And is there no obligation on the majority to see that the Sikhs, who are only two per cent of the population, feel their security lies in the unity of the panth? If Nanavati commission can propose how to rebuild confidence among the Sikhs, its report would be worth all the delay. The community would also like to know where it went wrong to invite the wrath of Hindus.

The oft-repeated question remains: why Operation Bluestar was launched? True, Bhindranwale had made the Golden Temple a state within the state of Punjab. Was there no way other than a military operation to flush out those who did not number more than 350 and who were armed with a few light machine guns, hand grenades, .303 rifles of World War I vintage and an old bazooka? The answer to such questions may help Nanavati commission to get at the truth.

So far the commission's sittings are mundane, without purpose. My own experience confirms this. I appeared before the commission one year ago. All the questions were directed at what I saw, the killing or the looting. I had not seen either. I said nothing on the subject. But when I remarked that why politicians behind the killings were not being exposed, there was silence. The record of my testimony sent for authentication to me has not been picked up till today? Does it indicate negligence or a pre-planned report that may not find fault with politicians?

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.