American anthropologist and poet Loren Eisley aptly described the human aberration which results in deliberate mass murders: "(Men)...kill for shadowy ideas more ferociously than other creatures kill for food, then, in a generation or less, forget what bloody dream had so oppressed him."
The '84 killings too were mercilessly planned and executed by the state, with a breathtaking disregard for governance and constitutional rights.
Are the lives of innocent men, women and children of so little consequence to politicians and men in public office that they can be brutally murdered en masse in the country's capital for over four days before an effort is made to stop the killings? Does it then have to take over 22 years and 10 inquiry commissions to book the guilty for the chilling inhumanity against the Sikhs who, since the 1700s, have shed more blood for their motherland than any other people?
Even if this book is 20 years too late, it is an authentic and invaluable record of the squalid moves that led to the savagery of '84. It provides proof of the government's eyewash of appointing commissions and inquiry committees. The government's lack of integrity can be judged by the appointment of a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Ranganath Misra, in May 1985. He submitted his report in August 1986. It created no waves—nor was it expected to. The grateful government later appointed him India's chief justice, and after retirement, the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission. He also got a six-year term in the Rajya Sabha.
About the other heavyweights of the Congress government, the authors say: "In reality, the political careers of Bhagat and Tytler, far from suffering on account of 'the taint of 1984', blossomed as if they had been rewarded for engineering the violence. Having won the '84 election under the shadow of the carnage, Rajiv Gandhi immediately promoted Bhagat to the rank of cabinet minister, and inducted Tytler into the government for the first time as minister of state. Both remained in the Rajiv Gandhi government till the end of its tenure in 1989."
How did India's "free press" conduct itself during that critical period? Despite Rajiv Gandhi's benevolent acceptance of Bhagat's and Tytler's misdeeds, here's how Shekhar Gupta, at present the editor-in-chief of the Indian Express, reported it: "The Congressmen whose names surfaced, or were even popularly mentioned in connection with the killings, all paid the price. Political careers of H.K.L. Bhagat, Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar never recovered from the taint of 1984 although no one was ever convicted." Now try and reconcile this with the previous paragraph.
It's worth mentioning here that five senior police officials (P.N. Rosha, D.K. Aggarwal, N.K. Shinghal, P.S. Bawa, V.N. Rai) met the PM on June 1, 2005, and made a presentation to him on the 1984 killings and recurrent riots. Men of proven integrity and wide experience, they suggested specific steps to prevent people from facing the darkness of '84. They felt there was no communal riot which could not be put down within a few hours. And if it isn't, it is obvious that the police "cannot sustain firm deterrent action at variance with the political stance of the government". Their presentation emphatically said: "We feel the time has come for all political parties to realise the dangers inherent in allowing mob violence to terrorise sections of society and to silence the voices they don't like. Each such episode severely erodes the Rule of Law and the institutions meant to uphold the rights of citizens, and paves the way for fascist attitudes."
When a Tree Shook Delhi should pave the way for many such thoughtful books which forthrightly expose the elements which are increasingly taking over our political space.
(The author is a Sikh historian.)
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT