** Indira Gandhi Legacy

The Indira Gandhi Legacy

Asia Sentinel

John Elliott

Twenty-five years ago on October 31, I was in Mussorie listening at lunchtime with other British journalists and diplomats to Tibetan refugee children singing to Princess Anne, who was visiting from the UK. The car drivers turned their radios on and heard the news – on Pakistan Radio – that Indira Gandhi, India's prime minister, had been assassinated.

We wondered if it was true, or did Pakistan Radio put such disinformation out every day? No phone or other communication links were available, but we all eventually decided it must be true and started a seven hour (or more, I forget) drive back to Delhi, our cars being plastered with newssheets mourning her death in towns on the way south.

An era had ended. One of India's most notable politicians was dead, shot by her Sikh security guards, leaving a legacy that will long be debated but is generally regarded more negatively than positively.

Mrs Gandhi increased socialist economic controls started by her father Jawaharlal Nehru, opened the doors to widespread corruption that leading politicians and bureaucrats now routinely practice day by day by, and sowed the seeds for both her own death and that of her son, Rajiv Gandhi, by encouraging a militant Sikh leader in Punjab and separatist Tamil activity in Sri Lanka. She also increased separatist sentiments in Kashmir.

If Nehru was greater than his deeds, as many people say, Indira was not as great as she should have been, and her deeds were more damaging than she probably intended.

Nehru's controversial post-independence policies of economic centralism and peaceful relations with China are now generally regarded as well-meaning but misguided. Mrs Gandhi's mistakes however are generally seen less charitably as the actions of an insecure woman, desperate to build power and relying too much on her malevolent power-hungry younger son, Sanjay Gandhi, who encouraged her to declare a two-year State of Emergency in 1975.

Strangely, Mrs Gandhi is seen much more favorably abroad as a great though flawed leader who did her best to manage a massive poverty-stricken fractured country.

It is easy to catalogue her failings and the damage that she did to the country that she undoubtedly loved. Maybe she did not realize the long-term impact of actions that she took for short-term political reasons – more often than not stemming from her paranoia and concern about her power base.

But there was more to her than that. She tried more than any government before or since to protect India's environment, which has been progressively plundered since independence in 1947, most recently by a series of corrupt environment ministers (until the current minister, Jairam Ramesh, was appointed in May).

She is also remembered for strengthening the confidence of Indian women, and for her ability to reach out to people and to care – a gift that her daughter-in-law Sonia Gandhi, and her grandchildren Rahul and Priyanka, now display.

In her final years, she started tentative reforms to open up the economy and unravel the central controls that Nehru and she had put in place. These reforms were continued by hesitatingly by Rajiv, who succeeded her as prime minister and was killed in 1991, and then by the 1991-96 Congress government led by Narasimha Rao (with Manmohan Singh as finance minister), and by subsequent administrations.

She also initiated (after a disastrous false start by Sanjay Gandhi) a very successful joint venture, Maruti, with Suzuki of Japan, which triggered a gradual modernization of India's engineering industry that is paying dividends now with the country's internationally competitive auto companies.

Her legacy also lives on in other ways, 25 years after her assassination.

Internal and regional problems of the sort that Mrs Gandhi dabbled in for short-term political gain have expanded enormously and, judging by recent Naxalite developments in West Bengal, some politicians still play her dangerous game of trying to capitalize on the ambitions of rebel movements.

In foreign relations, India has moved on from its reliance on the old Soviet Union, which Mrs Gandhi described as a friend that had never let the country down. As was illustrated by a speech made in Delhi this morning by former US President George W Bush, India now straddles wider international relationships, especially with the US that has recognized its nuclear weapon status. Bush described that agreement, perhaps a little euphorically, as India's "passport to the world".

But India's regional relationships have not grown out of the hegemony practiced by Mrs Gandhi in South Asia.Here it is being outgunned by China, which is raising the specter of its defeat of India under Nehru's watch in 1962 by exacerbating border disputes between the two countries.

Finally, the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty is firmly entrenched, with Sonia Gandhi controlling both the Congress Party and the current government, and Rahul preparing to take over.

Such dynastic succession brings a form of political stability to India's turbulent and fractured politics, but it also blocks the emergence of other leaders at the top.

Even worse, it has now spawned a cascade of dynasties across the country involving families that rarely have the Nehru-Gandhi family's sense of service, but instead are primarily aimed at maintaining wealth that comes from prestige, patronage and corruption.

This dynastic surge is both the cause and effect of a sharp decline in the standards of Indian politics that began in Mrs Gandhi's time and has worsened enormously in recent years as personal greed has replaced politicians' concern for the country.

John Elliott is a former Financial Times correspondent based in New Delhi and is the author of the blog ‘Riding the Elephant,' which appears elsewhere in Asia Sentinel. Asia Sentinel

Bigger Than Dynasty @ http://indiaview.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/bigger-than-dynasty/

** Stakeholders of Kashmir?

Are Muslims the sole stakeholders of Kashmir? Nancy Kaul 14 Jan 2010 VijayVaani Muslims of the Kashmir Valley have long been portraying themselves as the sole inhabitants not only of the Valley, but of the entire Jammu and Kashmir State, including Ladakh. It is almost as if the Hindus of the Kashmir Valley who were forcibly driven out of their homes two decades ago had never existed, and as if the Hindus of Jammu and Buddhists of Ladakh also do not exist. Such is the stranglehold of Muslims in the State that they have succeeded in propagating the myth that the only people who live and count in the State of J&K are Muslims, and they are the sole stakeholders of the place, which is far from the truth. And now, with the so-called liberal brigade which includes inter alia some self-styled and internationally-funded individuals, a far more sinister design is emerging. In fact, it is giving a helping hand to terrorists and Islamic Jihadis to slowly seep deeper; this is the success of Islamic terrorism and its methods of which Jammu & Kashmir is facing a frontal attack. Much more is the tragedy emerging out of the so-called dialogues, debates, discussions and Track II’s, etc., where the sole casualty is the ‘integrity’ and ‘sovereignty’ of India. The fundamental ethos and civilisational moorings of the nation are being eroded and undermined by harebrained formulas and lunatic solutions. Many a times the agenda is pre-decided, as are the final reports and resolutions. The participants by and large, and the organizers of these dubious seminars, tend to take a line of allowing terrorists and separatists a free rein and free speech, which starts in venom-spitting against India and compromise on the vital and strategic issues of integrity and sovereignty, and ends at ways and means of Balkanizing the nation. One such seminar organised jointly on Nov. 7, 2009, jointly by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and the Nehru Memorial Museum & Library, Teen Murti Bhavan, and conducted by CSDS Faculty member, Madhu Kishwar. It turned to be an ill-disguised platform for blatant India-bashing by separatists, terrorists and so-called Indian liberals. The writer was also invited to speak in her capacity as a known Kashmiri Internally Displaced Person. Yet in her zeal to appease Muslims, particularly those belonging to the Valley, Ms Kishwar appeared to be miles ahead in the quest to dismantle the territorial integrity of the country. The writer was not allowed to read her paper, and in fact suffered the most humiliating behaviour at the hands of Kishwar and her fellow traveller, the eminent lawyer Ram Jethmalani. The organizers need to understand that they cannot force the rest of us to kow-tow to the Sunni Muslim line in Kashmir. Although the seminar (as suggested by the invitation) was organized by the CSDS and Nehru Memorial Museum, the official report of the seminar proceedings and some letters of ‘sought support’ in the great endeavour of Muslim appeasement and Balkanizing India appeared rather inexplicably on a website called Manushi, which is managed by neither of these two bodies. It is possibly owned personally by Kishwar, who once edited a magazine by that name, though it has been defunct for some years now, and even the website appears dated. Facts are blatantly disfigured in Kishwar’s report, which is an open support to separatists and the so-called autonomy or self-rule envisaging politicians who are more or less acting in tandem with the separatists. Kishwar should realize that by doing this, the horrendous behaviour particularly of Ram Jethmalani, can neither be forgiven nor forgotten, and she was an equal partner in the crime. It was she who had invited the writer to the seminar or so-called dialogue. The viewpoint of neither the separatists nor the secessionists nor others can be treated as binding or agreeable to me. If hours and hours had been allotted to the Hurriyat, People’s Democratic Party and such, why could ten minutes not be given to the speaker with a different perspective? During the course of long hourly speeches of Gani Bhat of the Hurriyat, Mohammed Shafi Uri of the National Conference, and Muzzaffar Beg of the PDP, I neither objected nor interrupted anyone even though I do not subscribe to either autonomy, self-rule or separatism and devolution of sovereignty. Yet one may ask why Mehbooba Mufti was invited to speak at length in the second session when Muzzaffar Beg had already taken more than enough potshots at the basis of Indian unity – Article 1 of the Constitution. An important question that has to be answered by the organizers and those who not only stopped me from reading my paper but also humiliated and misbehaved with me, is WHY, after I had read just one page of my prepared speech, Kishwar announced that I can read no further? Why did Ram Jethmalani behave in a derogatory and humiliating manner? Where was the necessary dignity of the organizers when he got up and said he will not allow the paper to be read and will ask me to leave the place? Jethmalani, Kishwar, and the others who shouted and did not allow the paper to be read forgot in their appeasement of Muslims of the Valley that I had been called by them. Why should a learned lawyer misbehave and gag the voice of a law-abiding citizen who is internally displaced in her own country because of the violence and terrorism unleashed in the Valley? His conduct in fact mauled the freedom of speech and in turn Articles 16, 19 and 21 which are guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Why should it be taken for granted that only the likes of Hurriyat, PDP and separatists have a right to speak? Why are the other equal stakeholders in the valley not entitled to articulate their viewpoint? Is asking for the free flow of the Indian Constitution a crime? It is rather unfortunate and in fact demeaning of Kishwar to lie in her report about the seminar. Where were the representatives from Jammu region and Ladakh? Where were the Buddhists, Dogras, Sikhs, Christians from the State? What is the motto behind giving incorrect information to Indians by her? How could they then not allow even ten minutes to listen to the other viewpoint? Why in Kishwar’s Final Report is there no mention of the demand put forward by Ramesh Manvati of Panun Kashmir? Is it because Kishwar’s personal agenda also seems to further the cause of the PDP, and Muslims in particular? In this regard it may be pertinent to mention that Madhu Kishwar has been enjoying the hospitality of PDP now and again; in fact she visited Rajouri along with Mufti Mohammed Syed in second half of December 2009. In a bid to clothe her pre-fabricated design of furthering the Kashmiri Muslim agenda she has unashamedly and blatantly given an incorrect picture to the country. The factual details are not only missing, but also incorrect:- For instance, the claim that Swaraj was Gandhi’s vision is the biggest untruth for any self-respecting Indian. It was Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak who envisaged the vision of Swaraj and gave the famous slogan: “Swaraj is my birthright”. Although this was in the context of the British Raj and not Indians, yet Kishwar in her appeasement of the PDP termed its self-rule document which envisages devolution of Indian sovereignty on the same level, and even called it more creative than even the European Union! This is both flawed and questionable, as EU is a Union of several countries and nationalities, while India is one country and nationality. Yet Kishwar has made the very basics of nation-state existence, geo-political, cultural and civilisational aspects, and thousands of years of history and existence redundant in her zeal for Muslim appeasement! There are reams and reams of kudos to the insane ideas which include having two currencies in the State and joint management of the State. Apart from an apology for her shoddy behaviour, Kishwar should explain what all support she was giving to separatists in the 1990s, as Yasin Malik himself mentioned at Teen Murti that she supported his ideas in 1994, at a meeting in his house in Srinagar. Kishwar and her ilk are no better than the separatists, and for all their so-called liberal tags, a few foreign jaunts and funds are enough to make them cut at the very roots of the nation’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. I pray to Ma Durga to stand by truth and let it prevail and Ma MahaKali to deliver justice. Tailpiece: what is RSS up to? As I was concluding this piece, a friend sent me an email of a discussion organised in Delhi on 19 Jan. 2010 to observe the Kashmir Exodus of 19 January 1990, the day loudspeakers from mosques in the Valley blared open and grim threats to the Hindus: Pandits get out of the Valley, leave your women behind. I had received the email information before – it was a discussion organised by the Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation, and the main speakers were listed as the new BJP President Nitin Gadkari, former J&K Governor Jagmohan, and Ladakh Union Territory Front president Thupstan Chhewang, among others. Thus it was with a sense of shock that I realized that my informant was drawing my attention to the fact that the impugned Madhu Kishwar, Editor, Manushi, was suddenly listed as one of the main speakers at the functions, sharing equal honours with the new BJP president! Now, the provincial Gadkari may or may not be familiar with Kishwar and her professional history, but the Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation is an RSS think tank, and someone very powerful in the RSS or the BJP must have been behind her sudden elevation in a place where she has no business to be at all. RSS Sarsanghachalak Shri Mohan Rao Bhagwat has more than once categorically stated the position of the RSS on Jammu & Kashmir, both in Jammu and in New Delhi. And if the public positions of the Sarsanghachalak can be upturned in such a daring fashion in the capital itself (powerful BJP leaders visit Jammu and say concessions ‘must be given’ to Muslims, without telling the Nation at large and Hindus in particular why), RSS needs to do a serious audit about the Hindutva commitment of its cadres and the BJP which seeks its advice and support. If a foundation dedicated to Syama Prasad Mookerjee, who is widely believed to have been martyred for the cause of Jammu & Kashmir’s full and final integration into India, for one constitution and one flag (ek nishan, ek pradhan), can provide a platform for a fellow traveller of terrorists, secessionists, separatists and outright criminals, then what is the RSS’ stand? The issue is too critical to be brushed under the carpet and demands a clarification and an answer. Delhi Yielding @ http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1035 http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1036

** Unpardonable mistakes

The unpardonable mistakes of Indira Gandhi

By Dr Jay Dubashi

ORGANISER

Smt. Indira Gandhi not only brought violence but also corruption. Twenty-five years after her death, we are still trying to cope with both. The Naxalites are a direct end-product of the Emergency. If it is not wrong to use violence to put down your political enemies-which is what the Emergency was all about-why is it wrong to use violence against those who have stolen your lands and your livelihood and are now busy stealing your homes in the name of progress? "Had she lived on, she would have been 92 years old this year," wrote an old colleague of Indira Gandhi on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of her violent death. He was wrong. Had she not been killed by her bodyguards, she would have been killed by someone else. She was destined for violent death, like Charles I of Britain and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan. Mrs Gandhi was not a nice person to know or work for. I doubt if she had any friends. There was a twist in her temperament that kept her away from the rest of the society. I once watched her at a public ceremony over which she presided. A man, a foreigner, wanted to speak to her; so he sent her a note. Mrs Gandhi nodded and the man approached her and was with her for three or four minutes. But not once did Mrs Gandhi look at him, let alone shake hands with him. He left a note on the chair next to her and walked away. Mrs Gandhi was at odds with every one, or almost every one, in her circle-her husband, her aunts, her cousins and almost her entire cabinet. She was not on speaking terms with any of them. She walked out on her husband, or maybe her husband walked out on her, within five years of getting married. She hated her aunt, Vijayalakshmi Pandit so much that she would have sent her to jail to keep company with two other women she disliked, Rajmata of Gwalior and Maharani of Jaipur, had some friends not intervened. These two ladies were sent to Tihar Jail out of personal pique. If they were maharanis, Mrs Gandhi was an empress in her own right. And the only way to show them their place was to put them behind bars. She had no friends, only hangers-on, and she made sure they knew their place. One of the toadies was Khushwant Singh, who went out of his way to defend the Emergency-he was not the only one; there were other toadies too-hoping to earn her favours, but he fell foul of her when he started boosting her daughter-in-law, a Sardarni. Another toady was PN Haksar, a communist, who had managed to get into the foreign service with postings around the world, but not in the US. Haksar was related to the Kauls of old Delhi, whose daughter had married Jawaharlal Nehru. The Kauls and the Haksars were also neighbours. Haksar later became Mrs Gandhi's principal secretary-so did another Kashmiri, PN Dhar-and as a good communist, did whatever the commies wanted him to do, including abolishing private purses and nationalising banks. But as happens to toadies everywhere, Haksar fell foul of the empress and was shifted to the Planning Commission, a useless posting meant for pensioners. One day, I went to see him at his house on Race Course Road, Haksar sat alone in his vast dark drawing room with curtains drawn at the height of winter, wondering what he had done to draw Mrs Gandhi's ire. Haksar's uncle had a big showroom in Connaught Place, known to every shopper as Pandit Brothers. It is, I think, still there. There was also another showroom in Chandni Chowk. One day, Mrs Gandhi's police or may be Sanjay Gandhi's goons descended on the two showrooms and sealed them. For good effect, they hauled Haksar's uncle to jail to keep company with other traders. Haksar had nowhere to turn to, for all his relations-which means Mrs Gandhi's relations-were either in jail or had decamped to places far from Delhi to escape the clutches of Mrs Gandhi's favourite son. I do not know what Haksar did to escape the net, but he died a broken man. There was also a strong streak of violence in Mrs Gandhi's character. In fact, I should say that she injected violence into the Indian political system. We shall always remember her for the dismemberment of East Pakistan-her and India's finest hour-for I doubt if any other Prime Minister would have done what she did. She never believed in the nonsense about non-violence--and also about truth-and absolutely had no compunction about using force where force was necessary. Nehru would have dilly-dallied and talked about Hindi-Paki bhai bhai. For Mrs Gandhi, there were no bhais. Violence had to be answered by violence, gun by gun, for at stake was the very existence of a nation under her charge. It was perhaps her exaggerated faith in violence that undid her. She asked the army to enter the Golden Temple and that very day signed her own death warrant. But she did it with her eyes open. What I do not forgive her are the ranks of riff-raff she gathered around her, men and women of no substance, whose only job was to feather their own nests and draw a veil over the dark goings-on at the heart of the administration. Mrs Gandhi not only brought violence but also corruption. Twenty-five years after her death, we are still trying to cope with both. The Naxalites are a direct end-product of the Emergency. If it is not wrong to use violence to put down your political enemies-which is what the Emergency was all about-why is it wrong to use violence against those who have stolen your lands and your livelihood and are now busy stealing your homes in the name of progress? The Emergency too was supposed to have been imposed in the name of progress and growth. Didn't the Emergency-wallas claim that the trains ran on time? So, what is wrong in using force in clearing your lands and your homes of marauders who are arriving from thousands of miles away in search of your minerals, your water, in fact, your very life itself? And it was Mrs Gandhi who started the rot in the name of the Emergency, with her friends in the media egging her on, the same friends who are asking to put down the Naxalites and the others, also in the name of law and order-and, of course, discipline with capital 'D'. Why did she do it? As I said, there was a kink in her character which ultimately took hold of her and those around her and perverted the very foundation of the republic. This is why we shall never forgive her. For all that she did in Bangladesh, there is a big black mark in her copybook, which time cannot erase. The legacy of violence, which is her special gift to the nation, has wiped out all the good she did or tried to do. This is a pity, but the riff-raff she surrounded herself with are partly responsible for it. Some of them are still active, now singing a new tune of secularism under a new conductor, who now speaks with a foreign accent! url: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=318&page=6

** Sikhs remember 1984

Sikhs take stock of 1984
Sudha Ramachandran
Asia Times

BANGALORE - The 25th anniversaries of two events, both defining moments in India's recent history, have been observed over the past few days. One is the assassination of prime minister Indira Gandhi by her bodyguards on October 31, 1984. The other is the violence targeting Sikhs that began within hours of that assassination and engulfed Delhi and other cities for at least three days.

The two events are closely connected. The assassination led to the massacres. What sets them apart is the way the Indian state responded to them.

It was swift in delivering justice in the case of Indira's assassination. Satwant Singh, the lone surviving assassin (Beant Singh, the other assassin, was shot dead soon after the assassination while he was allegedly trying to escape) and Kehar Singh, a conspirator, were tried and hanged within four years.

But those who orchestrated the killing of around 2,733 Sikhs in Delhi - the Citizens Justice Committee submitted 3,870 names to an enquiry commission - still roam free. A quarter of a century later, justice is yet to be done.

The year 1984 is one that few Indians will forget. It was the year when a gas leak in a factory owned by Union Carbide in Bhopal killed over 2,000 people and maimed several others for life. It was also the year India's secular foundations were shaken like never before.

In June 1984, the Indian army stormed the Sikhs' holiest shrine, the Golden Temple in Amritsar, to flush out Sikh militants holed in there. They had turned it into a fortress and were waging war against the Indian state. "Operation Bluestar" was a military success in that it eliminated hundreds of militants including the dreaded Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. But at a very heavy cost. It was a political disaster. The Akal Takht was reduced to rubble and hundreds of Sikh pilgrims were killed in the course of the operations. Bluestar wounded the Sikh psyche, deeply alienating the community from the Indian state. It fueled the Sikh militancy and kept it alive for another decade at least.

Revenge came swiftly. Barely five months later, Indira was assassinated. Her assassins were Sikhs.

The response to her killing came even more swiftly. Within hours of her death, stray incidents of violence targeting Sikhs began trickling in from various parts of Delhi.

The violence peaked on November 1. Mobs carrying iron rods, knives and kerosene went on a rampage, killing Sikhs, looting and setting alight their homes, business establishments and places of worship. Sikh cab drivers were lynched or burned alive in their cabs. Those fleeing Delhi were dragged out of trains and buses and slaughtered.

The orgy of violence unleashed on Sikhs following Indira's assassination is often referred to as a riot as though it was a spontaneous outpouring of anger. It was not. It was an organized massacre, a pogrom.

There is a mountain of evidence to prove that politicians belonging to the ruling Congress Party incited and directed the pogrom in collusion with the police. Even as mobs led by Congressmen burned, looted, raped and murdered the government did nothing to quell the violence.

Police made some arrests during the violence; ironically most of the arrests were of Sikhs defending their families against the killers.

Days after the pogrom, Rajiv Gandhi, Indira's son and successor, indirectly justified the violence. "When a mighty tree falls, it is only natural that the earth around it does shake a little," he said.

As shocking as the state's involvement in the violence was its failure to ensure justice thereafter.

Ten commissions and committees have probed the pogrom so far with little impact on bringing the guilty to book. One commission of inquiry headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge, Ranganath Mishra, found no lapses on the part of the government and assigned no culpability to the ruling establishment. For his whitewashing of the Congress' role, Mishra was rewarded. He went on to head the National Human Rights Commission and also became a member of India's upper house of parliament.

During and after the massacres, police refused to register complaints. Of those which were registered, only a few made it to the courts. “Of the ones that reached the courts, the majority resulted in acquittal of the accused as the police never made an attempt to find evidence against them. As a result, the conviction rate has been extremely poor," says Harvinder Singh Phoolka, a senior advocate in the Supreme Court who has been fighting for justice on behalf of the victims.

"Out of 2,733 officially admitted murders, only nine cases led to convictions. Just over 20 accused have been convicted in 25 years - a conviction rate of less than 1%,” he says.

The massacre of the Sikhs took place in front of thousands of witnesses. The identity of those who carried out the violence was evident from the start. A report brought out by civil rights groups in November 1984 carried an annexure listing the names of people alleged to have carried out the violence. It included 198 local Congress activists and others, 15 Congress leaders and 143 police officials.

Of the top Congress politicians who were known to have orchestrated the violence, Sikh militants assassinated two within months of the massacres.

Others like Jagdish Tytler and H K L Bhagat went on to have successful political careers, even holding cabinet posts.

In 2005, the Nanavati Commission said it found “credible evidence” against Tytler, Bhagat and another Congress leader Sajjan Kumar saying they "very probably" had a hand in organizing the attacks. While Bhagat died in 2005, the Central Bureau of Investigation gave Tytler a clean chit earlier this year and the court is yet to decide whether or not to initiate a fresh probe.

Sikh alienation from the Indian state and their anger with the Congress has subsided significantly over the years. The movement for a separate Sikh state is dead. And Punjab has voted the Congress to power twice since the 1984 riots.

Some have suggested that the Congress' efforts to reach out to the Sikhs has helped in building bridges. In 1998 Congress president Sonia Gandhi expressed her "anguish" over the 1984 riots. "I feel your pain," she said. That she is a victim of terrorist violence herself and the daughter-in-law of Indira and widow of Rajiv Gandhi, who was prime minister when the riots took place helped to heal wounds to some extent. That was taken further by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, India's first Sikh prime minister who apologized to the Sikhs in parliament.

That and the fact that the Congress made a Sikh a premier, say Congress leaders, has won the party the hearts of Sikhs.

But not all Sikhs have been appeased by the conciliatory words. They want justice.

While admitting that the Congress' conciliatory gestures have "been like a balm on the community", Phoolka says, "The Congress wants us to forget it; view it as an aberration. When they made Manmohan Singh prime minister, they stepped up this rhetoric; saying, 'forget it now, at least we have apologized and now made your man the prime minister. Our answer has been that the apology came 21 years late and under the Indian legal system an apology is not a substitute for punishment for murder. We want justice." More at > Asia Times

Related story Below:

Besieged Sikhs @ http://ultracurrents.blogspot.com/2009/04/congress-and-besieged-sikhs.html