Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Every non-Congress participant in the adjournment motion debate in the Lok Sabha today forcefully demanded action against those named in the Nanavati Commission report.
But with the 1984 anti-Sikh carnage and the 2002 Gujarat pogrom often invoked in the same breath—also being probed by Justice Nanavati—this across-the-board sentiment did little to lift the morale of the BJP-led opposition or help it win the vote. In what appeared to be a carefully calibrated strategy, members belonging to the Left and other UPA allies did not spare the Congress party for the sins of 1984 but refused to allow the BJP to occupy the high moral ground.
At the end of the day, the allies succeeded in making the government bow to their demands without having to vote in favour of the Opposition’s motion.
The stage was set early in the day by CPM deputy leader in Lok Sabha Mohammad Salim who sharply criticised the government’s Action Taken Report (ATR) and demanded strict action against all those named in the Nanavati Commission report.
And then turning to the BJP benches, he said, ‘‘And you also should be ready to say—be it Modi or Tytler, action should be taken.’’
Earlier, Leader of Opposition L K Advani criticised the use of the term ‘‘anti-Sikh riots’’ by the Nanavati Commission and said a ‘‘riot’’ took place between two communities but what had taken place in 1984 was a one-sided carnage of the Sikhs.
Speaking immediately after him, Salim said he agreed with Advani. ‘‘Advani is a very experienced leader. He should know that his words are equally applicable to the carnage that took place in Gujarat in 2002.’’ In 1984 as much as in 2002, a minority community was ‘‘demonised and targetted.’’
Salim also pointed out that the Nanavati Commission had been set up by the NDA government and Advani, as home minister, had set the terms of reference. To criticise the report or the use of the term ‘‘riot’’ was, thus, a clear case of hypocrisy.
Demanding action against the guilty, the CPM leader said, ‘‘We cannot have double yardsticks—sabke liye kuch, mantri ke liye kuch (one yardstick for ordinary people, another for ministers), Dilli ke liye kuch, Gujarat ke liye kuch (one for Delhi, another for Gujarat).’’
Several other speakers mentioned the Modi government’s alleged role in fomenting the Gujarat massacre while demanding justice for the victims of 1984. They included Ramjilal Suman (SP), Vijay Krishna (RJD), Ilyas Azmi (BSP) and S.Owaisi (MIM).
Union Science and Technology minister Kapil Sibal even sought to drive a wedge within the NDA on the issue. Referring to Akali leader S S Dhindsa’s speech ( which opened today’s debate), Sibal asked, ‘‘May I ask Dhindsaji why his party did not withdraw support to the BJP after Gujarat?’’
Apart from the main speeches, the Gujarat theme reverberated in the House throughout the debate with Congress and UPA backbenchers repeatedly raising it every time the NDA sought to attack the Congress role in 1984.
With Prime Minister Manmohan Singh assuring the House that action would be taken against those named in the Nanavati report, the opposition was left without a plank—and faced with a spectre of a more determined UPA-Left onslaught on Gujarat in the future.
