 | « Back to article | Print this article |
As a consequence of prominence given to the brutality during those few days, a very important aspect of that episode got almost glossed over.
This was the intervention by a very significant section of people who restored faith in humanity, and conveyed the message that only a small section of Indians, that too politically backed, were consumed by anti-Sikh majoritarianism.
The overlooked facet of the events of 1984 was the story of significant sections of the city's populace, public figures and nondescript ones, stepping out hand-in-hand, to first stand with little but bravery in hands, in the way of attackers, and thereafter to provide immediate relief to those who lives were uprooted and who lost family members in the violence, recalls Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay.
The year 2024 is the fortieth anniversary year of several narrative-altering events in India.
The most momentous and linked events in 1984 were undoubtedly Indira Gandhi's assassination on October 31 triggered by Operation Bluestar a few months earlier, and followed by the anti-Sikh pogrom for 3-4 days in Delhi and several others cities and towns in India.
The Lok Sabha elections which followed remain the most one-sided poll in the nation's history with the Congress winning 404 seats with only marginally less than 50% vote share (minus seats in Punjab and Assam where elections were held in the second half of 1985).
But this is not to belittle the impact and equally culpable nature of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
To mark the first set of events, the United States based Sikh Research Institute (SikhRI), organiSed a seminar in Delhi recently, in which this writer was one of the four non-Sikh lead speakers (including one over a recorded audio message).
What made this event different from others normally held every year to mark the anniversary of the twin events in October-November was that the focus was not on the carnage following the assassination, and failure of the State to immediately halt spiraling violence and bring the accused to book.
Instead, the seminar was organised to discuss the intervention of the first responders to what was first of all, a humanitarian crisis triggered by a bloodstained set of political developments and decisions (including those not taken).
The organisers spelt out the raison d'etre of the half-day long session, that in 'often graphic, grave, and heart-wrenching' conversations which besides the gruesomeness of the pogrom, also presented a 'stark critique of the Indian justice system', a very vital facet of these events get left out.
This 'essential perspective frequently overlooked in this discourse is that of the first responders to the 1984 genocide... through their immediate actions during the crisis.'
During the violence and even later, there was a natural emphasis on the gore of the events after the news of the assassination spread and Sikhs began being targeted across large parts of India, Delhi being the city that witnessed the most widespread anti-Sikh violence.
The media of the day also emphasised on what transpired and where.
Efforts were also made to identify and bring the guilty to book and the process continues as underscored by events related to proceedings against Jagdish Tytler recently.
As a consequence of prominence given to the brutality during those few days, a very important aspect of that episode got almost glossed over.
This was the intervention by a very significant section of people who restored faith in humanity, and conveyed the message that only a small section of Indians, that too politically backed, were consumed by anti-Sikh majoritarianism.
The overlooked facet of the events of 1984 was the story of significant sections of the city's populace, public figures and nondescript ones, stepping out hand-in-hand, to first stand with little but bravery in hands, in the way of attackers, and thereafter to provide immediate relief to those who lives were uprooted and who lost family members in the violence.
The same lot, more or less remained active, in efforts to professionally rehabilitate thousands of daily-wage earners who lost their tools with which they could begin the arduous process of making ends meet once again.
The same groups also lent a hand to efforts to repair and rebuild houses destroyed by the marauders.
There was unanimity among people in the packed hall and other responders that the initiative of these people who formed an impromptu organisation, Nagrik Ekta Manch, contributed immensely to restoring the faith of the targeted Sikh families in the idea of an inclusive India.
Even after four decades, the organisation, so-named solely for a short period and only to steer relief and rehabilitation operations, mainly in Delhi, and to some extent in Kanpur, remains unique.
Sadly, India which has not seen the closure of social prejudice and violence on basis of religious identity has not seen its efforts replicated, at least on this scale, during other major episodes of communal violence anywhere in the country.
After that episode of anti-Sikh violence, Muslims became the principal targets of Hindu majoritarian politics with the emergence of the Ayodhya agitation.
While widespread violent communal outbreaks were reported from several parts of India following the demolition of the Babri Masjid, it was not till 2002 during the Gujarat violence that one witnessed the State's questionable role at such a large scale in abetting targeting of Muslims across the state despite having no role in the Godhra carnage.
Likewise the partisan role of law enforcement agencies was evident during the 2020 Delhi riots, in the course of which even police personnel had beaten Muslim youth with batons and forced them to sing the national anthem and Vande Mataram.
In both these episodes of communal violence, the role of civil society was minimal, certainly not on the scale of 1984.
This indicates that majoritarianism became more 'acceptable' in the intervening years and speaking up either on behalf of the 'other', or to ameliorate their situation became more difficult in India.
Significantly, in the years when criticism of the Gujarat government and its chief minister then, Narendra Modi became louder because of their alleged role in riots, the episode was justified by recalling the anti-Sikh pogrom.
Supporters of Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party contended that since the Congress-governed State in 1984 played a partisan role during the anti-Sikh pogrom, the (in)action of the Gujarat state in 2002 was 'justified'.
It followed that because the majority of the allegedly guilty -- especially political leaders -- for their role in 1984 had not been brought to the book, the campaign against those considered responsible for the 2002 violence were partisan and Hinduphobic.
There was one vital difference between the roles of the Congress-led State and that of the one with Modi at its helm.
The Congress in 1984 did not show urgency to push back the Sikh refugees to their damaged or destroyed homes, whereas the Modi government in 2002 wound up state-run refugee camps set up for riot-effected.
Moreover, the stance of the Gujarat state was also so offensive that civil society could not step in for fear of reprisals.
The Modi government not only frowned over efforts to investigate various episodes of violence, but as CM, Modi also spoke derogatorily about the media and people.
In a well-known pejorative election speech in Gujarat, he referred to the relief camps as 'baby producing factories'; an instance of whistle-blowing to perpetuate a pet RSS theory: Muslim fertility rates in India were allegedly higher than that of the Hindus because of an Islamic conspiracy to inverse India's demographic status-quo.
Either in the case of the 2002 Gujarat pogrom or the Delhi riots of 2020, any initiative to assist the victims or speak on their behalf was labeled an anti-national act.
In contrast, the citizens' efforts in 1984 were not marked by just relief and rehabilitation efforts spearheaded by those associated with the Nagrik Ekta Manch.
Most significantly, the principal document on which the legal campaign against the people who instigated and participated in the violence, and titled Who Are The Guilty? was published by the People's Union of Civil Liberties and People's Union for Democratic Rights.
Several other publications followed and many kept the pressure on the government and the courts.
It is only courtesy such consistent efforts that cases against several of those at the forefront of planning and execution of targeted anti-Sikh violence, including that of Jagdish Tytler, gradually reached the conclusive stages.
Such endeavours was absent in 2002 and 2020, either because intervention on such matters became a high-risk activity or because these people were heckled and legally flagged as anti-national acts by the State.
Over the coming weeks and months, many -- including from the government and the Bharatiya Janata Party -- would recall the gory episodes of 1984.
This makes it all the more necessary to recall the role of civil society, human rights groups and media in the aftermath of the pogrom and contend that making an intervention on behalf of victims of mass violence will never constitute an unpatriotic act.
Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay is an author and journalist based in Delhi-NCR.
His latest book is The Demolition, The Verdict and The Temple: The Definitive Book on the Ram Mandir Project.
He is also the author of Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times.
Photographs curated by Manisha Kotian/Rediff.com
Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff.com