The ghosts of 1984 return to haunt the Congress

Suddenly it is 1984 over all again.

Recently declassified British government files reveal that India asked the elite British commando unit, the Special Air Services (SAS), for help in clearing the Golden Temple. Rahul Gandhi is asked by Arnab Goswami to apologise for the 1984 riots and says that he was not part of the Congress in that era.

 

And Arvind Kejriwal writes to the Delhi LG to ask for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the riots. Plus, of course, there is always the subtext: can the Congress hold the 2002 Gujarat riots against Narendra Modi when the shadow of 1984 still hangs over the party?

 

   In retrospect, three decades later, here are some things we do know about the events of 1984.

 

   First of all, even in those days there were stories to the effect that the heads of R&AW and IB had been in touch with British intelligence agencies. Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and his men had taken over parts of the Golden Temple and were using it as a base from which to unleash a reign of terror. Many ordinary and non-political Sikhs were as horrified by Bhindranwale’s crypto-separatist rhetoric as other Indians and believed that the rule of law should be re-imposed on the Temple premises.

 

   Unfortunately, the government missed many opportunities to send police or commandos into the Temple when popular sentiment against Bhindranwale was at its height. This was because Indira Gandhi knew that even moderate Sikhs were conflicted about any police operation at Sikhism’s holiest spot. Many Sikhs wanted Bhindranwale out. But they wanted no blood to be shed at the Temple. These two were, alas, irreconcilable positions.

 

   In early 1984, the government began considering the possibility of a surgical commando operation in which a small team of men (like the US Seals who took out Osama bin Laden) would enter the Golden Temple and take Bhindranwale into custody. India’s commando forces, such as they were in that era, lacked the ability to conduct such an operation. The SAS, on the other hand, was famous for its skills at exactly this sort of thing. So, or at least this is what we journos believed in those days, the Indian government asked the SAS for suggestions on how to conduct such an operation.

 

   We don’t know what happened to these commando plans. The late B. Raman, an R&AW officer of that era, has written that the Brits advised against such an operation on tactical grounds. Perhaps they did. But for whatever reason, the plans were junked.

 

"Are there parallels between Delhi in 1984 and Gujarat in 2002. Yes, there are. The administration failed, politicians led mobs and policemen did nothing to protect the minority."

   Eventually, later that year, when things had reached the point of no-return, Mrs Gandhi sent for the army chief and told him to clear out the Golden Temple.

 

   No matter how you look at it, Operation Bluestar had many tragic consequences. The army was not given enough time to prepare. It entered the Temple with faulty intelligence. Brave soldiers lost their lives for no good reason. The operation took much longer than planned. It was executed on a wrong date --- when hundreds of innocent pilgrims happened to be inside the Temple and found themselves trapped. The Akal Takht, where Bhindranwale was holed up, was destroyed. The façade of the Harmandir Saheb was riddled with bullets. Even moderate Sikhs were horrified by the excessive force and came out against the Operation. Sikh soldiers in the Indian army mutinied for the first time in history.

 

   In 1984, I was one of the few journos to argue that Bluestar had been a fiasco. Years later, when militants occupied the Golden Temple again, the NSG cleared them out in a surgical strike called Black Thunder that evoked no hostility from moderate Sikhs and did not destroy the Temple. So I am not as horrified as some people seem to be by India’s decision to consult the SAS. I just wish we had explored more commando-type options and avoided the full-scale military operation that was Bluestar.

 

   Now, as for the 1984 riots, should Rahul Gandhi have apologized? Absolutely. He should have had no hesitation in apologizing. His mother has apologized. The Prime Minster has apologized. Why shouldn’t the Congress Vice-President? Even if no Congressmen were involved in the violence, the party should still apologise. It was in power during the riots and it failed to protect innocent Sikhs. That alone is reason enough for an apology.

 

   But here’s the thing: according to Rahul himself, in that same interview to Arnab, Congressmen were involved in the riots. In that case, the Congress certainly has reason to apologise. To argue that Rahul was not part of the Congress in that era is not good enough. If you are Vice President of a party, then you speak for the party.

 

   Are there parallels between Delhi in 1984 and Gujarat in 2002. Yes, there are. The administration failed, politicians led mobs and policemen did nothing to protect the minority.

 

   But there is also one major difference. Whatever else the Congress is, it is not anti-Sikh. For the last ten years, a Sikh has been its Prime Minister. It has won several elections in Punjab since 1984. At every election, Sikhs are treated on par with Hindus, Muslims and Christians in the distribution of tickets. Its leaders (though regrettably not Rahul Gandhi) have repeatedly apologized for the riots. None of them claims to be a Hindu Nationalist.

 

   Contrast that with Modi’s BJP. Not only does the Chief Minister refuse to apologize (the ‘kutte ka bachcha’ remark is the nearest he came to offering any regret), but a strong communal plank is still at the heart of the party’s strategy. The party has few Muslims of consequence in its Gujarat operation and Muslim candidates do not even get full representation in its election list.

 

   So yes, the contrast between 1984 and 2002 will endure. The irony is that Modi could change it all at a stroke. He could apologize. He could adopt a more inclusive platform. He could empower more Gujarati Muslims. And he could put the memories of 2002 behind him.

 

   Interestingly, he has chosen to do none of these things. And that, I guess, is the real difference between 1984 and 2002.