Indian Judiciary's Double Standards

Study the following facts and draw your own conclusions.

The assassins of Mrs. Gandhi, Beant Singh and Satwant Singh, after shooting Mrs. Gandhi, surrendered their weapons. They were taken to a room by the others in Mrs. Gandhi's security, including, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) commandos and shot at. Beant Singh died on the spot and Satwant Singh survived to be hanged for the crime, thirty six moths after committing it. Among the most glaring gaps in the trial of Satwant Singh was the fact that, the ITBP commandos who shot him and Beant Singh, were not allowed to stand witness, despite concerted efforts by Satwant Singh's lawyer, Mr. Ram Jethmalani.

Kehar Singh was hanged along with Satwant Singh. His crime, according to those who tried him in court? He was a party to the conspiracy to kill Mrs. Gandhi. He was nowhere on the scene of the crime, nor could they prosecutors convincingly prove that he had been a party to the conspiracy. But he was hanged.

That is the efficiency and speed with which justice was meted out to the killers of Mrs. Gandhi.

Now read the other side of the story.

Thousands of Sikhs were openly massacred for four long days in the streets if India. Hundreds of killers, seen by and known to the victims families, are prowling free. Those who planned and organised the anti-Sikh violence, some of them on trial, still have state-provided security (comprising of the country's best-trained commandos).

For the consolation of the survivors, the state set up many commissions of inquiry but all were equally useless.

The first appointee to the august post of Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry set up by the government, was, justice Ranga Nath Mishra.

What did Justice Mishra do? He gave a clean chit to the Congress party by concluding the inquiry on this note: No congress leader was involved in the violence. This, despite the fact that, the question, whether the Congress party had a hand in the anti-Sikh violence, was not even listed in the scope of inquiry. Justice Mishra was suitably rewarded for this. His next posting (from an ordinary judge of the Supreme Court) was as the Chief Justice of India. There seems to be no end to the irony which marks government's actions in the period after the carnage of Sikhs. Justice Mishra went on to become the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), set up by a Congress government.

Now, a look at the way justice Mishra conducted the inquiry- alone, behind closed doors, where the survivors gave him their accounts of the violence.

Who did they blame? What did they say? How did they say? Nobody, other than Justice Mishra has a clue. Apparently, they said enough for Justice Mishra to give a clean chit to the Congress Party, but not enough to find anybody else guilty of violence.

Presuming that the Congress had no hand in the killings, could justice Mishra not fine anyone guilty? Or, did he believe there were no killings? If he acknowledges that the killings took place, was it not his job to find out the killers, on the basis of the survivors accounts? Why else was he appointed? To clear the name of the ruling party?

Who was responsible for the killings, if not the Congress? Justice Mishra's silence on the question is had enough. But, how is it that 14 years later, this question is not even being asked much less answered by anybody in India? Don't all these questions make us reflect on the sad state of democracy in India?