Interpreting Singh’s 1984 revelation
Despite his respect for PV Narasimha Rao, why did Manmohan Singh say what he did?
Whe n t he s a d e v e nt o f 1984 took place, Gujralji went to the then home minister, PV Narasimha Rao, on t hat very sad evening, and said to him that the situation is so grave that it is necessary for the government to call the army at the earliest. If that advice had been heeded, perhaps the events of 1984 would not have unfolded.” These are the words of the former prime minister (PM) Manmohan Singh. He was speaking at an event organised to mark the 100th birth anniversary of the late former PM Inder Kumar Gujral last week.
This s t at ement at t r acted a s t r ong response. There were questions asked about the rationale and timing of the revelation. Why did Singh choose this moment to bring up the issue? The assembly elections are due in Delhi in a few months. Will this not cast a negative impact on the Congress’ prospects? Since Rajiv Gandhi was the PM at that time, should he not be held singularly responsible?
Singh is thought of as one of the most serious and sincere leaders of our times. In public life of more than half a century, he has s poken wit h g r a vi t a s o n publi c platforms. Here, we must remember the relationship between Rao and Singh. When Rao, in 1991, became the prime minister accidentally, he made Singh the finance minister. Singh himself said that he was able to initiate the revolution of economic liberalisation only because he always had Rao’s support and advice.earlier this year, when he was honoured with PV Narasimha Rao National Leadership and Lifetime Achievement Award, Singh not only accepted it humbly, but also praised his senior generously in that award ceremony. Given this background, what does this grave accusation prove?
I have never doubted Singh’s intentions. Let me narrate a personal anecdote from December 2006.The PM was travelling to Japan and we were a part of his media entourage. As the plane took off from Delhi for Tokyo, the PM’S media adviser, Sanjaya Baru, told me to meet the PM in a little while. When I met Singh, I mentioned t o him t hat assembly el ecti ons were approaching in Punjab and Uttarakhand. I said, “You are the first Sikh PM of the country, and a section of the Sikh community doesn’t think favourably about the Congress. Wouldn’t it be good if you hold a public meeting in Amritsar, visit the Golden Temple, and pray there? This will be good not only f or politics, but also for India’s spirit of harmonious coexistence.” I also suggested that he should hold meetings in the Sikh majority areas of Uttarakhand. Characteristically, Singh remained quiet.
In those days, the conventional media narrative was that the Congress was not making use of the PM’S stature in election campaigning. After our meeting, Baru came to my seat, patted my shoulder, and said, “You have increased my work. Boss has instructed me to chalk out a plan for Punjab and Uttarakhand visits.” While I had not meant that this ought to be a work plan for the PM, what came across was Singh’s sensitivity to issues in the country. Later, he not only visited Harmander Sahib, but also tried meaningfully to woo the Sikh community with his words.
Earlier that year, during a debate in the Rajya Sabha, Singh, said: “I have no hesitation in apologising to the Sikh community. I apologise not only to the Sikh community, but to the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood enshrined in our Constitution… On behalf of our government, on behalf of the entire people of this country I bow my head in shame that such a thing took place.”
That was turning point. Whenever Operation Blue Star or the atrocities on the Sikh community are discussed in Indian history, the noble intentions of the Sikh prime minister of the Congress must also be mentioned.
So, despite being sensitive and compassionate to the Sikhs, and despite having immense respect for Rao, why did Singh say something which would raise a controversy? It is an intriguing question, which only Singh can answer. The statement, however, has the potential to affect political developments and the narrative around the tragedy of 1984.