Author: Editorial
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: April 22, 2005
Retired Supreme Court judge GT Nanavati's
statement during a recent interview, that he had asked the Government
to reopen the cases against a "few politicians" accused of participation
in the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, does not come as a surprise. Nor
does the reason cited-that these cases had not been properly investigated.
His observation, which clearly implies
that these leaders have escaped retribution because of shoddy probes
into the charges levelled against them, reflects the views of most
who are familiar with the terrible events that followed Indira Gandhi's
assassination on October 31, 1984. The roles these leaders played
in inciting, and in some cases even leading, mob violence against
Sikhs is hardly a secret.
Nor is it any secret that it was
shameless police inaction that enabled the violence to go virtually
unchecked for quite some time. While several police officers have
been punished for dereliction of duty, not one of the politicians
involved has been touched. Given his judicial acumen, Justice Nanavati,
who headed the commission investigating the anti-Sikh riots, has
clearly found the truth out through a careful examination of the
evidence placed-and the depositions made-before him. An upright person,
committed to ensuring that justice is done, he must be most keen
to ensure that the guilty politicians do not escape punishment even
after the time and effort put in by his commission and the money
spent by the Government to sustain its labour. What must, therefore,
have caused him considerable anguish is the fact that his report,
submitted to the Union Home Minister, Mr Shivraj Patil, in February
this year, has yet to see the light of the day.
In keeping with the tradition of
judicial restraint that must have become deeply ingrained in him
during his distinguished career as a judge, Justice Nanavati has
refrained from naming the leaders in question. The public, however,
has no doubt as to who they are-given the names that have come up
and the witnesses examined, during the commission's hearings. They
are all Congressmen and the Jain-Banerjee committee, the Poti-Rosha
committee and the Jain-Aggarwal committee-all set up by the Government-had
recommended that cases be registered against one of them-Mr Sajjan
Kumar, now the sitting Congress MP from Outer Delhi constituency.
Given this background and the fact
that the United Progressive Alliance Government had to be forced
to promise to table the Nanavati Commission's report, along with
an action taken report, in Parliament one can hardly be blamed for
suspecting that even if it honours its promise, it might try to delay
matters as much as possible and find excuses for not reopening the
cases. It was obviously to nudge the UPA Government to discharge
its moral responsibility to make his report public and proceed against
the guilty, that Justice Nanavati said what he did at the interview.
It is not difficult to see why the
UPA Government had been dragging its feet in tabling not only the
Nanavati but the Phukan Commission's report as well. It fears that
the former will expose a most sinister and disgraceful chapter in
the history of the Congress, the latter, the utter baselessness of
the charges its constituents have been levelling day in and day out
against Mr George Fernandes, and the utter cynicism that has informed
their conduct. The trouble with truth is that it can hurt.
