Reflections of the Nanavati Commission Report

Date: 8/17/2005


Reflections of the Nanavati Commission Report /// The most disgusting feature of the Nanavati Commission Report is that after working for full five years, it has given the benefit of doubt to the guilty Congress leaders, H. K. L. Bhagat, Jagdish Tytler, Dharam Das Shastri and Sajjan Kumar and suggested yet another inquiry commission to look into the charges against them. /// Veteran journalist, Khushwant Singh has called the Nanavati report “ utter garbage” in his article in the Outlook dated August 22, 2005. Khushwant Singh, who had also filed an affidavit before the Commission says: It was less like a court dealing criminal charges and more like a tea party. /// Another veteran journalist, Kuldip Nayar ( Indian Express - August 11, 2005) has rightly criticized Justice G. T. Nanavati. Nayar says: Nanavati is willing to strike but afraid to wound. He says further: Tytler etc. could only be operators. At worst, they could have conveyed instructions. But who gave the instructions? Nanavati says that the plan was hatched on November 1, after the assassination of Indira Gandhi. Who were the ones who did it? Lieutenant Governor Gavai and the Police Commissioner P. C. Tandon, blamed by the Commission, could not have conspired; since they were sent home, after which violence continued./// It appears that Justice Nanavati was afraid to write in a forthright way; perhaps, since the UPA government, led by the Congress is in power. Nanavati avoided the path of the whole truth and nothing but truth. /// Rajiv Feroz Gandhi had said: “ when a giant tree falls, the earth is bound to shake”. It appears that Justice G. T. Nanavati ignored these significant words speaking volumes for the mindset of the utterer at that time. /// The Commission says: The systematic manner in which the Sikhs were killed indicates that the attacks on them were organized. Yet, Nanavati failed to find who “organized” the carnage, why the army was deployed very late, after two or three full days of carnage, though the Delhi Area Commander always has enough troops at his disposal. Nanavati says: Attacks were made without much fear of the police, almost suggesting that they were assured that they would not be harmed while committing those acts or even after. These were categorical assurances. Clearly these assurances must have come from a person of high political standing or who had government clout. /// It is reported (Indian Express - August 9) that Rajiv Feroz Gandhi summoned the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, Shri P. G. Gavai on November 2, 1984, and told him: “ Gavaiji, you are a heart patient and you should now take rest.” /// Gavai is also reported to have said that Rajiv (Feroz) Gandhi had asked him to go on leave. Nanavati should have taken this very seriously and pondered over its implications. /// But to one’s surprise, the Nanavati Commission says: There is no evidence suggesting that Rajiv Gandhi or any other high-ranking Congress leader had suggested or organized attacks on Sikhs. Whatever acts were done, were done by the local Congress leaders and workers, and they appear to have done so for their personal reasons./// In the very next sentence, however, there is contradiction. The report says: They do not appear to have done so for purely personal reason. If they were the acts of individuals only then the killing of Sikhs and looting of properties would not have been on such a large scale./// Even if Nanavati denies having any proof of Rajiv Feroz Gandhi’s involvement in the massacre, does it have any proof that in his capacity as the Prime Minister of India, he did something to control the killings of 4000 Sikhs? Is it not the duty of the Prime Minister to stop the massacre? Why are there no strictures passed on the then Prime Minister Rajiv Feroz Gandhi? /// The editorial in the Free Press Journal (August 10, 2005), “ At least Manmohan can dump Tytler, can’t he? “ is really outstanding, forthright and superb. FPJ’s criticism of the Nanavati Commission for absolving Rajiv Feroz Gandhi, to whom the needle of suspicion points, is most welcome./// FPJ’s criticism against erecting memorials for tainted Rajiv Feroz Gandhi is most forthright. Nobody else has done it so far. The FPJ says: Rajiv Gandhi ought to forfeit any right to posthumous greatness being thrust on him by a government controlled by his widow. The people must now, demand withdrawal of the Bharat Ratna award to Rajiv Feroz Gandhi, who did nothing to save the lives of Sikhs, but to whom the needle of suspicion points, despite Justice G. T. Nanavati absolving him. /// The Sikh community is the backbone of the Indian armed forces. A Sikh, Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Arora headed the Indian Army that defeated the Pakistani forces, took 93, 000 Pakistani soldiers as prisoners of war and split Pakistan and formed Bangla Desh. He was the target of attack during the Sikh carnage. It should, therefore, be investigated whether the Pakistani ISI had a hand in the massacre of the brave community. /// Tarlochan Singh, the chairman of the National Commission for Minorities has said: The Nanavati Commission has totally belied the hopes of the victims and the minority communities. Like previous inquiry panels, this one is also likely to go into the archives without any action being taken. Many legal luminaries have expressed the opinion that “ Nanavati played safe, enough to prosecute”. For example, Ex-Chief Justice of India Justice G B Patnaik says: If the probability is backed by credible material, then the government should go ahead and investigate the matter…If the Commission did have ample material, I don’t know why it acted shy. It could have straightaway recommended steps to be taken against those allegedly involved instead of leaving it to the government. Former Supreme Court judges V R Krishna Iyer and P N Bhagwati have also expressed similar opinions; they say that further probe is necessary to decide the guilt or innocence. Many Sikh groups have protested on streets the frivolous outcome of the Commission. Prakash Singh Badal has said there was deliberate delay in tabling the report in the parliament and that the ATR on it was an eyewash aimed at protecting Congress leaders. Himmat Singh Gill, who was a brigadier in Arunachal Pradesh at the time of the massacre, says that the sham of the Nanavati Commission Report and the biggest hoax of the Action Taken Report must be condemned in the strongest terms by all citizens. It is time that the earlier panels that probed the 1984 violence are all publicly interrogated. /// President of Riot Victims’ Association in Patiala, Harvinder Singh Manga, has alleged that an affidavit by him in the year 2000 was not taken into account and he was even forced to pull out names of Arya Samaj leader Swamy Agnivesh and his younger brother Swamy Shakti Vesh. Manga gave affidavit against Swamy brothers for inciting mob who burnt his shop in Faridabad near Delhi and later threatened to kill him. It is curious to note that this Swamy Agnivesh had advertised in newspapers to visit Gujarat to take stock of riots in Gujarat in 2002, in which 254 Hindus and 790 Muslims were killed, according to the statement made by the Minister of State for Home Affairs, Sriprakash Jaiswal in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday May 11, 2005. /// --------------------- Concluded ........................000000000