From the moment that a Sessions Court in Delhi ordered the re-opening of a case against Jagdish Tytler for his alleged complicity in the massacre of Sikhs in 1984, the senior Congress leader has been running from one television channel to another and offering his reaction to the print media as well.
The bottom line of his defence is that he was most certainly not involved. He has been questioning the credibility of the witnesses and casting aspersions on the counsel for the victims of the carnage, HS Phoolka. We hope that least now a proper inquiry will be held and the truth will be known. Tytler has a lot of answering to do.
But Tytler, and others like Sajjan Kumar and the late HKl Bhagat, who have been accused of instigating the killings in Delhi 28 years ago, are small fry. The subject of searing attention and intense scrutiny should be the person who allowed the carnage to take place by not acting swiftly enough and by making inflammatory remarks. That person is former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.
The fact that he is no more and that he died at the hands of terrorists, has somehow made it politically incorrect for many media persons, who are otherwise only too glad to tear to shreds the reputation of politicians at the drop of a hat, to question his role in the killing of more than 3,000 Sikhs in Delhi following Indira Gandhi's assassination by her Sikh bodyguards. In fact, just the very mention of the word, ‘role', has Congress leaders and supporters fuming. These are the very same people who have been liberally accusing Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi for his ‘role' in the 2002 violence. So, let's look at Rajiv Gandhi's role. As Indira Gandhi's death at the hands of Sikh bodyguards spread in Delhi, violence broke out on the streets. Mobs allegedly led by local as well as national-level Congress leaders began attacking and killing Sikhs in the most brutal fashion. Those were the initial hours when a call from Rajiv Gandhi for restraint and disapproval of violence could have silenced the leaders of the rampaging mobs, and pre-empted the inhumanity that we witnessed later. Yet, Rajiv Gandhi chose to add fuel to fire and speak the language of provocation, by making that infamous remark: ‘When a big tree falls, the earth shakes'. Soon after that intemperate statement, the earth truly began to shake.
Pupul Jayakar, one of Indira Gandhi's closest friends and a public figure of some importance, had fervently pleaded with Rajiv Gandhi to call in the Army to contain the situation. She even tugged at the emotional strings, saying that had Indira Gandhi been around and seen such carnage on the streets, she would have called the Army without a moment’s hesitation. Yet, as Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi remained unmoved; he ordered the Army in after the killer mobs had a free run of three full days, snuffing out the lives of thousands of innocent Sikhs and leaving thousand others emotionally shattered for life.
Rajiv Gandhi's cronies and apologists have continued all these years to offer the explanation that his remark should be seen as the outpouring of an anguished son and that the Army could not be called at the drop of a hat; the police had to be given the opportunity to contain law and order. In the first instance, it does no credit to the former Prime Minister that he should not have realised the import of his provocative statement. As regards the second argument, surely Rajiv Gandhi should have realised straightaway that the magnitude of violence, aided and abetted by his party leaders, was beyond the capacity of Delhi Police to counter.
let us for a moment accept the contention of many Congress leaders that it is unfair to judge Rajiv Gandhi on the basis of his reaction to an extraordinary circumstance: Being at the helm of the nation at a time of great personal loss and unrest in the country. Yet, look at what he did in the composition of his Cabinet, and it becomes clear that he was not too worked up by the turn of events and the alleged involvement of some of the party's senior leaders. Bhagat was inducted in as a Minister, and so was Tytler. The cherry on the cake for them was they got plum portfolios. If Rajiv Gandhi had indeed been troubled by the massacre and the perceived involvement of his senior party leaders, he should have kept both these leaders out of his regime. It appeared that the Prime Minister has rewarded them for their perceived role in the carnage.
Yet another thing happened as a result of this development, and it was to have a cascading impact in the coming years. Both Bhagat and Tytler used the political power which they had received from Rajiv Gandhi post-1984 killing to fortify their position and later use it to subvert justice for as long as they could. While Bhagat died without facing a real trial, truth seems to be finally catching up with Tytler. This is not to say that he does not have political support now. Congress leaders have jumped to his defence saying that he has not been found guilty as yet. But for the fear of a public outrage, the Congress would even now willingly give Tytler a ticket to contest elections. But the tainted Congress leader has done his party a favour. He has magnanimously announced that he would neither seek nor accept a ticket until he was honourably acquitted of the charges! With what face, he laments, can he ask for a ticketIJ Well, with the same face that he has been running a campaign to discredit witnesses and slander all those who are fighting for justice to the victims of the carnage that his party not just presided over but also actively indulged in.
In his television appearances, Tytler has been claiming that he was deeply hurt by the carnage, that he had done his best to protect the Sikhs living in the constituency of which was then a Member of Parliament, and that the killings should not have happened. As evidence of public support for his contribution to communal harmony, he points out that he had been elected four times. If the senior leader indeed feels as deeply as he says, why then did he not raise his voice against the carnage when it was happeningIJ Why did he not take the issue up with Rajiv Gandhi, as Pupul Jayakar didIJ Why did he not demand the presence of the Army straightaway, as she didIJ Why did he not refuse to accept the ministerial position in protest against what had happened as a result of vacillation by and inappropriate remarks of Rajiv GandhiIJ
No. Tytler does not convince anyone. Whether he played a decisive role in the killings or not, will be known if the Central Bureau of Investigation conducts a fair probe. But for now, he is about as believable as Shylock was about his generosity.