Over 20 years after hundreds of Sikhs were massacred in retaliation for the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards, the Action Taken Report (ATR) of the UPA government on the findings of the Justice G.T. Nanavati commission, which probed the 1984 anti-Sikh riots was finally tabled in Parliament on Monday.
The previous National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government had appointed the commission in May 10, 2000, “to look into the causes of and the manner in which the anti-Sikh riots occurred”. The probe panel had been asked to fix responsibility for any lapses or dereliction of duty by the authorities in taking steps to prevent the massacre in Delhi and elsewhere, triggered by Gandhi’s assassination in Oct 31 1984.
Amidst acrimonious scenes of protest by Opposition Parties obviously not satisfied by the ATR of the Manmohan Singh government, the scene outside Parliament too witnessed thousands of Sikhs taking to the streets expressing outrage that the UPA government had failed to deliver justice for those killed in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s assassination.
The Nanavati Commission had indicted Union Minister Jagdish Tytler, documenting that there was ‘credible evidence’ against him, that he ‘very probably’ had a hand in organizing attacks. The government was asked by the Commission to take ‘further action as may be necessary’. As such the ATR tabled in Parliament on Monday. The entire political melodrama now unfolding seems to originate from some of the observation made by the probe panel itself. This has led to more confusion and varied legal interpretations have been drawn depending on which side of the fence one is on.
For instance, the Action Taken Report of the government rejected the recommendation against Tytler arguing that it was clear from the remark ‘very probably’ that the Commission itself was not absolutely sure about Tytler’s involvement in attacks against the Sikh community. Home Minister Shivraj Patil who had tabled the ATR even argued that in criminal cases a person could not be prosecuted merely on the basis of probability. One problem with the Nanavati Commission report is its failure to make an unambiguous observation on the role of politicians. This is particularly so in the case of Tytler, who in his first reaction to the report said that the Commission’s observation on his role had created more confusion. Could it be that the report was prepared in such a manner that politicians like Tytler could get the benefit of doubt?
However to put the blame entirely on some contentious points would hardly be fair to the efforts made by the probe panel. Unlike the two commissions and eight committees set up by different governments to go into various aspects of the violence, like the number of dead, the quantum of compensation to be paid to the victims, the number of cases to be registered and whether the violence was organized or not, the Nanavati commission had an exhaustive terms of reference. The question is whether the government’s Action Taken Report has done justice to the probe panel’s findings. From the look of things, the ATR presents itself as a complete whitewash.
