Sangh Parivar conspiracy behind Sikh massacre
Sometimes justice to the victims itself becomes a big injustice meted out to them. Though former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar has been sentenced to life in the Sikh massacre case, there is always an iota of doubt about whether this can indeed be called justice. What more can be a big injustice when compared to the fact that a conspirator of a massacre is alive for 30 years after the incident and that too he was roaming scot free till now? Justice delayed is justice denied. Though Sajjan has been penalised for life, he can still approach the Supreme Court challenging this decision.
He is already 73. Which means one cannot be sure if the person would be alive or not by the time the court takes up the matter for hearing. The constitution that's alive during small skirmishes, tiffs and smaller crimes goes to sleep during massive massacres. Because those who caused trouble and bloodshed during the Sikh massacre are still roaming the streets of this nation free and fine. Not just that, they have also participated in the proceeding clashes and group violence even after that massacre.
Ironically enough, another leader who allegedly was a prominent part of that massacre, is now the CM of Madhya Pradesh. Leaders of Congress have often said the party is deeply pained and disturbed over the Sikh massacre of 1984, why would that same party choose someone who was part of that massacre to lead a state? The leaders owe everyone an answer for this question. Though Congress led the massive killings in this incident, one cannot deny the proactive role of Sangh Parivar in perpetuating the crime even further. The goriness of this lies in the fact that over 14 FIRs have been registered against 49 BJP and RSS leaders from that time.
What's the connection between Indira Gandhi's assassination, and RSS and BJP? Sikh massacre was part of the continued attack on minorities in this country. The enmity between Sikhs and Sangh Parivar is an old one. Arya Samaj always opposed the Sikhs vehemently. We can see the animosity against Sikhs in Dayanand Saraswati's Satyartha Prakashan book. A big chunk of backward community in Punjab had embraced Sikhism. The efforts to bringing them back to their base religion by RSS and Arya Samaj turned violent since it was met with massive resistance. Khalistan movement started around the same time. Indira Gandhi was assassinated. Politician Nanaji Deshmukh had defended the massacre in open terms stating the Sikhs deserved the treatment they got.
More than saying Congress carried out the Sikh genocide, it is better said that racist and communal minds ordered the killings. Indira Gandhi's assassination was just a pretext for them to kill the Sikhs. Subsequently, it was the same mindset did the killings in Mumbai and then in Gujarat killing the innocent Muslims. Let's consider Gujarat genocide for instance. Sangh Parivar played a direct role in it. At the same time we should also remember that Congress and other parties had been silent spectators in this criminal act by being neutral over it. There are leaders within Congress and other secular parties who support killings over cows and mob lynching carried out by Sangh Parivar supporters.
Sangh Parivar gains strength from their silence. To assume that all culprits have been punished with one person being sentenced to life over this crime is foolishness. If the Sikh massacre was made good for, the communal violence in 1992 wouldn't have happened and the Gujarat genocide wouldn't have taken place either. Even the court referred to Gujarat genocide in it's verdict on the 1984 incident. Court was concerned about the culprits being patronized by political parties and this was making it tough to punish them. Odisha, Kandhamal and Gujarat massacres are not any different from Sikh massacre instead they are the continuation of those, the court observed.
Unfortunately all those who masterminded the Gujarat genocide are in cushy posts in the government and are speaking about giving justice to the victims of Sikh massacre. Congress has atleast apologised to the Sikh community over this. But Gujarat government has not even done that. A law that ensures speedy trial and justice to such incidents along with acting as a deterrent to the reputation of such incidents is the need of the hour. That would be the real justice offered to the victims of Sikh massacre.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bengaluru (PTI): Justice B V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court on Saturday called for the creation of a judicial reforms commission to reduce mounting pendency in the courts, saying systemic incentives across stakeholders were contributing to delays in justice delivery.
She was speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) first National Conference on the theme "Reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice" here.
Nagarathna, who was part of the panel session addressing "From Pendency to Prompt Justice: Rethinking Justice Delivery in Indian Courts," said, this reforms commission must have membership not only from the judiciary of the Supreme Court, the High Court, as well as the District judiciary, but also have members from the Bar, Attorney General, Solicitor General, and also certain members representing the Bar at the institutional level, such as the Bar President, and from the government side to enable an inter-institutional dialogue on reducing pendency.
She reflected that, from the point of view of various stakeholders, a litigant gains from the status quo, to proceed to prolong proceedings.
ALSO READ: A political legacy, but no win yet: Padmaja Venugopal''s new fight in Thrissur
"A lawyer or an advocate loves adjournments and postponement because he/she benefits from per appearance and extended timelines. A government department reduces bureaucratic risk by appealing rather than accepting defeat.
"A judge, and particularly a trial judge, is always acting with caution because he/she is confronted with appellate reversal, and therefore he/she prefers procedural caution rather than having an aggressive docket control. Each of these decisions is individually rational, but how does it help the system? It is only leading to systemic delay," she added.
In order to break this equilibrium, Justice Nagarathna said that what is required is institutional interventions through a judicial commission to reduce pendency, rather than merely exhorting better conduct from judges, adherence to procedural timelines, asking advocates not to seek adjournments, urging the government to reduce litigation, or expecting courts to function round the clock and judges not to take leave.
On pendency, the judge questioned the inclusion of defective filings in court statistics, suggesting that such cases should not be counted until they are procedurally ready for hearing.
She also underlined the role of the government as the "largest generator of litigation", noting that officials tend to file appeals to avoid scrutiny, even in cases where disputes could be settled earlier. This, she said, results in cases travelling through multiple judicial levels unnecessarily.
"The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog, while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation," she observed.
Justice Nagarathna further claimed judicial capacity is constrained by inadequate public investment, including delays in appointment of judges, lack of infrastructure and insufficient use of technology.
Among the measures suggested, she called for improved case management, curbs on unnecessary adjournments, adoption of technology, prioritisation of cases, promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and creation of specialised benches.
She also urged advocates to adhere to professional and ethical standards, litigants to avoid frivolous appeals, and the government to adopt a practical litigation policy and ensure timely funding and appointments in the judiciary.
