When a Tree Shook Delhi by CNN-IBN November 2007 marks the twenty-third anniversary of India's anti-Sikh pogroms of 1984. Now, a new book levels serious charges against top Congress leaders implicated in the riots. The book, When A Tree Shook Delhi, authored by journalist Manoj Mitta and lawyer H.S. Phoolka, has been released in New Delhi, India. November 1, 1984: a massacre began. Over three thousand innocent Sikhs were brutally murdered in broad daylight on the streets of India's capital. But the police and the government authorities looked the other way. Commission after commission whitewashed the guilt of the accused. Now, twenty-three years later, a new book nails the guilty in chilling detail. The question that was discussed recently on the CNN-IBN show, Face The Nation, was: Is the Congress as guilty over the 1984 riots as the BJP in Gujarat? On the panel of experts to try and answer the question were the authors of When A Tree Shook Delhi, H.S. Phoolka and Manoj Mitta, as well as MP and National Spokesperson for Congress, Abhishek Manu Singhvi. So what motivated H.S. Phoolka to write the book, When A Tree Shook Delhi? H.S. Phoolka said that many people had asked him if he had documented the riots and that he had been urged to do it. "My lawyer advised me to present the case in the courts. I am not a writer, but ultimately Manoj (Mitta) and I decided to write and all the material that I didn't have, Manoj would fill in", said Phoolka. It was a cataclysmic crime: three thousand people burnt and hacked to death in the capital with the government and the administration watching. Was it fair to say that if Gujarat was supposedly presided over by a Chief Minister, then this was presided over by a Prime Minister? Phoolka agreed with the assumption. He said that it was exactly what he had tried to show in the book. Manoj Mitta said that it was not surprising for him, considering the tone set by former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi within a fortnight of the massacre. "He addressed his first public meeting and when you look back at it today, it seems like a self-incriminating statement. He didn't have a word to say about the thousands of bereaved Sikh families, or a word for the Hindus who supported and rescued the Sikhs. He only talked about those Hindus who he said were moved by krodh (wrath). He made it out to be spontaneous. He justified it by saying that it was but natural: 'When a big tree falls, then the earth is bound to shake!'", said Mitta. After the massacres, one politician tried to justify them: "For every action, there is always a reaction". And another politician said, "When a big tree falls, it is only natural that the earth should shake". What was the difference between the two statements? Abhishek Manu Singhvi: "There was many mistakes and errors made in the '84 event and Congress doesn't support them. Not only should the accused be punished but also action has been taken in many cases. I don't think two wrongs can make a right. I don't think that an eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind", said Singhvi. [sic] "There is vast difference in fact between the two. You are tearing out of context one sentence of Rajiv Gandhi and forgetting that with him at the help immediately after two days in which there was a lot of lawlessness no doubt, which is not being justified and condoned by the Congress. There was strict action taken and
|
