Sajjan Kumar’s death exposes 1984 hypocrisy: Old loyalties over principles

New Delhi: Sajjan Kumar’s death in custody on August 20 has left both Congress and BJP explaining the conduct of their leaders, exposing how old political loyalties around a convicted figure of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots continue to survive beneath the parties’ public positions. Congress MP Deepender Hooda triggered the first controversy when he described Kumar’s death as an “irreparable loss” and praised his public connect as a misaal. The English rendering of the remark as “role model” provoked a strong backlash in Punjab. Former Punjab chief minister Charanjit Singh Channi said it was a sin to speak approvingly of Kumar, while Punjab Congress chief Amarinder Singh Raja Warring said Hooda’s remarks were personal and did not represent the party. A Haryana Congress leader also demanded his removal from the Congress Working Committee. Hooda later clarified that he had never used the words “role model”, said his remarks had been distorted and apologised if Sikh sentiments had been hurt. He also said nobody found guilty of the 1984 violence should be spared. The translation dispute, however, does not entirely address the controversy. Even without the words “role model”, calling the death of a man serving life sentences in 1984 cases an “irreparable loss” was bound to raise questions about how sections of Congress still remember one of their former leaders. A few days later, BJP faced its own problem. Delhi MPs Kamaljeet Sehrawat, Ramvir Singh Bidhuri and Yogender Chandolia visited Kumar’s family to offer condolences. The visit was described as personal, but it immediately clashed with the BJP’s decades-long attack on Congress over the 1984 riots. The three MPs also represent constituencies carved out of the old Outer Delhi political belt where Kumar had once built his influence. HS Phoolka, who spent decades representing victims of the 1984 violence and joined BJP earlier this year, publicly objected to the visit and called for a boycott of the MPs. BJP national president Nitin Nabin subsequently reprimanded them. Phoolka thanked Nabin for maintaining what he described as the party’s four-decade-old position on the issue. The two controversies are not equal in historical weight. Congress carries the direct political burden of 1984 and of Sajjan Kumar’s long association with the party. BJP, on the other hand, has repeatedly used Congress’s handling of the riots and the delayed prosecution of its leaders as a political issue. But that is exactly why the conduct of the BJP MPs matters. A party cannot spend decades presenting Kumar as a symbol of Congress’s failure on 1984 and then treat visits by its own MPs to his home as politically irrelevant. The common thread was what happened after the gestures became public. Hooda clarified his remarks after Punjab Congress leaders revolted. BJP acted against its MPs after Phoolka publicly questioned their visit. Old associations surfaced first. Political correction followed. Punjab’s Assembly election due in 2027 makes the cost of such contradictions even greater. Congress cannot afford to appear indulgent towards Sajjan Kumar while seeking Sikh support. BJP cannot expand in Punjab while allowing its leaders to blur a position it has projected for decades. The families affected by the 1984 violence have already waited far too long for political parties to discover consistency. Sajjan Kumar’s convictions came decades after the killings. His death should have closed the political chapter around him. Instead, it showed how easily personal and political loyalties can outlive even criminal convictions, until public anger makes those loyalties inconvenient.