It is alleged that former IB chief suppressed a vital piece of evidence in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. In 1991, many Indians thought that US President George Bush was involved. The fact is that the reality is completely different.
Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was involved in Bofors scandal and was believed by many that he had an account in a Swiss bank. During Mr. Gandhi tenure in 1987, the lock of disputed structure in Ayodhya was opened and Hindus were permitted to offer prayers inside the disputed structure. In 1989, Mr. Gandhi laid the foundation stone of a proposed Rama temple inside the disputed complex. Congress lost the general election in 1989 and former Congress defense minister; a Kshatriya from Uttar Pradesh, V P Singh became the Prime Minister. His government did not survive for too long and leader of the break way faction of his party Mr. Chandra Shekhar
; from the same caste and state, formed the government with the outside support of Congress.
India was facing very difficult balance of payment crisis during this period. Later, Mr. Gandhi withdrew the support and general elections were called in 1991. Mr. Gandhi laying the foundation stone of a Rama temple in Ayodhya, he opposing American policy in the Middle East and he getting killed with his body shattering into pieces in Tamil Nadu
where Rama was then most infamous, when combined with the future event; demolition of Babri masjid, leads to suspicion of a kind of drive—a stochastic drive; a hidden explicit hand. Of course, Indian could promptly accuse George Bush, the then Republican President of planning all this but it appears false and naïve as Bush would never have done so even if he had wished so.
The reasons for accusation could be the economic liberalization initiated by Congress Prime Minister P V Narshimha Rao after Mr. Gandhi’s death, demolition of Babri masjid, the fall of Congress, the rise of Sonia Gandhi and later rise of Congress. Only demolition of Babri masjid and rise of Sonia Gandhi appears to be the required things as Mr. Gandhi would have liberalized economy anyway and rise of Congress after the brief period was inevitable. But these are insufficient for the US President to break laws; executive and social, as American laws do not permit assassinating heads of states and former heads of states. Also, Sonia Gandhi is a White Italian lady and no Western leader would have appreciated the US administration plotting against Mr. Gandhi.
The reason for Mr. Gandhi’s death had to do with corruption charges and he insisting too much on Brahmins and Hindi in the end. He should have lost some ground among the non-Hindis, particularly among Tamils, and among the non-Brahmins, particularly among the Kshatriyas. His arrogant behavior towards Mr. Chandra Shekhar could have added loss of his support amongst the bureaucrats. The better performance of Congress in the South in 1991 general elections was no indicator that few Southern Indians, those who mattered, could not go against Mr. Gandhi. Obviously, Bush, understood caste and regionalism better than Mr. Gandhi. But what he did was continuously supporting the incumbents in New Delhi
through economic means. In addition, Bush should have helped Mr. Gandhi during the troubled days of Bofors scandal when he was the Vice President of the US.
There could be some Congress leaders being annoyed with Mr. Gandhi; in the North they could be Kshatriyas and in the rest of India, they could be Southerners, particularly Tamils. But it is very difficult to pinpoint anybody as this is an old issue. In passing remarks we can also study the assassination of Indira Gandhi
. Ms. Gandhi was assassinated by her own Sikh bodyguard because of her ordering attack on Golden temple
campus. The shrine was badly hurt by the attack.
The Indian political and defense establishments over-assessed the threats posed by Sikh militants. True, the situation was very grave in Punjab
then. But at that time an agrarian society could not have got independence from India. The Indian Punjab could not have got independence from India
without merging with Pakistani Punjab. The Indian Punjab would not have merged with Pakistani Union and Pakistani Punjabis could not have dreamt of leaving the Pakistani Union in lieu of making Punjab bigger. The argument of buffer state was flawed, unstable and incomplete. No Indian, particularly Punjabis living outside Punjab, should worry about creation of Khalistan: it’s a dead and closed idea forever.
The fact is that 1984 and 1991 were different times and security personnel have learned a lot from the past. Breaching any VIP’s security is practically impossible. But Rahul needs to understand that he needs to be at the center when the identity question comes: he can not make much distance from UP nor he can be very close. He again needs a balanced approach when it comes to the question of Hindi and Hindu.