I would like to the CC of the CGPI dated 7th May, 2013 `Acquittal of Sajjan Kumar in the 1984 genocide is a blatant act of injustice!' It is a particularly brave stand to take due to the bourgeois pressure to accept the ruling of some of their hallowed institutions including that of the juidiciary.
In this particular case, it is evident to any casual observer that the entire episode is a blatantly political one. Furthermore, it is evident that no principle of natural justice has prevailed in the case where the "benefit of doubt" has been awarded to the accused, namely Mr. Sajjan Kumar, a well known figure among the set of masterminds of the 1984 Sikh genocide. Also, it is well known that it was the entire Congress party machinery that was responsible for what happened at that time, which used naked and hidden violence, threats, terror, etc., to come to power in 1984. The statement also exposes the lies behind official propaganda that somehow the Congress party is better than the BJP because its leader has expressed an apology, but the statement correctly points out that this apology is an insult to the people of India. This explodes the myth propagated wittingly or otherwise in certain even well meaning sections of Indian opinion. Thus, given the realities of the Indian polity, it is no surprise that Mr. Sajjan Kumar has been acquitted.
In fact, any observer of the Indian polity will also not fail to observe that it is the state institutions and political parties that are the fountainhead of violence in India for a long time coming, including from the early 1980's when in Punjab a terror campaign was unleashed to crush the revolt of workers, peasants and those behind the campaign for national rights. Thus the 1984 Sikh genocide was a logical continuation of this campaign of terror. Such terror is a handmaiden of the Indian state which is that of the big bourgeoisie which stands in opposition to everyone else in the country, most of all to the toiling masses and the workers and peasantry. Terror has been a weapon in the hands of the bourgeoisie to be used from time to time to create conditions whereby unpopular steps can be taken by them to reorient the economy or to wriggle out of their own crises.
Indeed, rather than moan and groan at this state of affairs, the statement spells out what is to be done: it states that the people `... must organise to replace the rule of arbitrariness with a new political power where the people themselves will be both the rulers and ruled.' This must become the rallying political slogan of the times. Indeed, I would like to echo the following from the statement `We must take the struggle for justice to its logical conclusion, which is the Navnirman of the system of democracy and political process, so as to empower the people'.
S. Nair, Kochi