Why Rahul Gandhi is off the mark when it comes to Sikhs

An inexplicable and completely bizarre statement by Rahul Gandhi triggered an old memory that had been tucked away in the deep recesses of the brain. It was prised open by a statement made by the leader of the Opposition while on a recent trip to the US.While addressing a gathering of several hundred Indian Americans in Herndon, a Virginia suburb of Washington DC, Rahul accused the RSS, the ideological fountainhead of the BJP, of considering some religions, languages and communities as being inferior to others, and said the fight in India was about this and not about politics.“First of all, you have to understand what the fight is about. The fight is not about politics. That is superficial,” Rahul said, adding, “The fight is about whether a Sikh is going to be allowed to wear his turban in India or a kada in India. Or he, as a Sikh, is going to be able to go to the gurdwara. That’s what the fight is about. And not just for him, for all religions…”It did not bother me that he said what he did on foreign soil. The meat of what he said is frankly quite incomprehensible. Why would Rahul, finally being credited with political acumen, choose the Sikh community to illustrate a larger point about religious freedoms in India?Rahul is no stranger to the cataclysmic events of 1984. The very troubled relationship between the Congress and Sikhs started that year when his grandmother, Indira Gandhi, used the Army to storm the Golden Temple, the holiest Sikh shrine, and kill Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and his band of terrorists.The storming of the temple led to further cataclysmic events: the fatal shooting of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by two Sikh bodyguards and the absolute carnage that saw more than 3,000 Sikhs being brutally burnt and killed, mostly in the capital city of Delhi. medium nocaptionhttps://youtu.be/8SOxeiI4QrQ?si=vhN0Mkz11zqiI8SpI lived in Delhi that year and have a searing memory of my father, a proud Indian Air Force officer, returning home during the carnage wearing a helmet. It was the only time ever that he had been forced to remove his turban. He secured his life by removing it but — in the process — suffered an indelible wound that struck at the very heart of his identity.Thousands of Sikhs had had to do the same: remove their turbans and cut their hair and beards, for that was the only way to survive the Congress-led mobs that rampaged their way through the lanes and bylanes of Delhi.Rahul was still growing up in 1984 and learning to deal with the loss of his grandmother.Forty years later, however, there is no justification for Rahul stepping on a political landmine and talking about Sikhs not being able to wear turbans and a kada (steel bangle).Not only is the assertion preposterous, Rahul should know that the Congress has not been entirely forgiven for the violence that erupted even before his father, Rajiv Gandhi, could be sworn-in as Indira’s political heir. His subsequent controversial and insensitive statement that “when a big tree falls, the earth shakes…” was seen as a justification.What justification can there possibly be for the Congress-aided carnage? Report after report pointed to the role of some prominent Congressmen. Scores of witnesses — mostly widows of Sikhs who had been burnt alive — testified to the role of Sajjan Kumar, Jagdish Tytler and Kamal Nath. Kumar was given a life sentence 34 years later. The CBI, which is still investigating the case, has only recently said it has fresh evidence against Tytler. medium nocaptionhttps://youtu.be/cso9OauLnUc?si=Uwj_O_DHvZJvZ0BNThe horror of 1984 resurfaces ever so often to stain the Congress and its leaders. Rahul himself has had a problem negotiating questions around the role of his party and his senior colleagues. He simply walked into the vexed issue once again while in America.He seemed to have forgotten that he has been grappling with the taint of 1984 all through his political journey, and has still not found an adequate response on how to frame the violence the Sikhs were subjected to in 1984.While he made two trips to the Golden Temple last year during his Bharat Jodo Yatra, in 2013, he had tried to frame an emotional response to the festering wound of the carnage by sharing a personal anecdote.“In 1984, I was in the garden. I met Beant Singh (one of the bodyguards who sprayed bullets) and he asked me where my grandmother sleeps and if her security was adequate. He told me how to lie down if somebody throws a grenade at me…I saw my grandmother’s blood. I also saw the blood of her killlers Beant Singh and Satwant Singh. I understand the pain of losing someone very close,” he said.If he understood the pain, he would have refrained from his recent remarks, for all they have done is shine the light on an issue that still haunts the Gandhi family and the Congress.Smart politicians try and heal wounds. Rahul has only prised open a dark chapter that his mother, Sonia Gandhi, had expressed regret for in the past. medium nocaptionhttps://youtu.be/erinAplHCFc?si=K8DKTJE7fYJ74AWrIn the past, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has also had to apologise in very strong words. His words are worth reiterating because 1984 was indeed a shameful chapter in Indian contemporary history.“I have no hesitation in apologising, not only to the Sikh community, but the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood and what is enshrined in our Constitution. So, I’m not standing on any false prestige. 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. But, there are ebbs, there are tides in the affairs of nations. The past is with us. We cannot rewrite the past. But as human beings, we have the willpower and we have the ability to write better future for all of us,” he said.There are lessons for Rahul in Manmohan Singh’s words. To address the festering wound of 1984, he has no choice but to be more forthcoming and unequivocal. What he said in Washington DC just doesn’t cut it.He needs to craft a better thought-out comeback strategy if he wants the Sikh community to take him seriously.To answer Rahul’s question, no, the fight currently is not about whether Sikhs can wear turbans or whether they can visit a gurdwara.The fight, still, is about the very real sense of injury and the sheer denial of justice. Rahul would help himself and his party by focusing on that.Read more from the author here.