No, this isn't about George Orwell's Brave New World and critique of totalitarianism. Orwell was concerned then with the menace of fascism and communism in Europe. History has revealed they were false gods. But State control over the lives of its citizens, the nightmare conjured up by Orwell, has greatly increased due to technological advances.

November 2004 is a time for reflection. It marks the twentieth anniversary of a shameful episode in Indian history. Literally thousands of Sikhs were brutally massacred and burnt alive, their women dishonoured, their children impaled, their houses burnt and their shops looted. Delhi was the worst affected in these communal riots, but there were other parts of the country where the loss of life and property was also considerable.

Ostensibly, the rioting was to avenge the assassination of Indira Gandhi by two Sikh members of her guards on 31 October 1984. This led to an upswelling of public anger against this dastardly act. But how could the killing of innocent members of the Sikh community avenge Indira Gandhi's assassination? Her life was in mortal danger after Operation Bluestar resulted in the Golden Temple in Amritsar being stormed, angering the entire Sikh community in India and abroad. A violent reaction was inevitable. Of course, the transparent joy and public celebration by the Sikhs of Indira Gandhi's assassination in several places alienated them from the majority community.

1984 marks the failure of Indira Gandhi's 'divide and rule' policy, whether it was applied to the Opposition-ruled states or in her own party. This was her prescription for acquiring and staying in power. Bhindrawale was her creation, propped up to weaken the Akalis by pitting Sikh extremism against the moderates; unfortunately, it did not quite work out that way in the Punjab. Bhindrawale became the genii come out of the bottle, and she paid for her Machiavellian policies with her life. Several awkward questions arise, but twenty years after the event they should be honestly answered.

Was there any central direction of the anti-Sikh pogrom? The answer is an unqualified 'yes', appreciating the fact that it started on signal, but, more importantly, stopped after 48-72 hours all over India. How was this possible unless unseen fingers were controlling this macabre puppet show? What was the role of the Central and State leaderships? Indifferent at best, and collusive at worst. After all, the Hobbesian bargain envisages that citizens part with some of their civil liberties to the State for ensuring their individual and collective security. That bargain breaks down if the State collaborates with miscreants who imperil the citizen's right to life and property. The citizen is then left with a couple of choices. Either to ensure his own security by private means. Or by taking up arms against an unjust State, which is exactly what happened after 1984. People who had lost their dear ones felt they had little to live for and were willing to die for any plausible reason while confronting the State. The price of 1984 was a decade of insurgency and lost development in the Punjab, with Pakistan proving only too willing to support Sikh extremist activities and prejudice Indian security.

1984 is significant for three reasons.

• First, it was an example of a major communal riot being inspired and supported by the State. The failure to suppress it, and permit the mayhem to continue for a while, bespeaks a breakdown of law and order and the failure of governance. 1984 encouraged the later communal riots against Muslims on the occasions of Advani's rath yatra in 1991, following the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, and the Godhra incident in 2002. The complicity of the State in permitting all these riots to occur and continue requires no elaboration.

• Second, 1984 illustrated the career opportunities available to organisers and perpetrators of communal violence. Not only are they immune to prosecution, but also become qualified for high office. Several Cabinet Ministers and high bureaucrats, even Constitutional authorities, in the current and past Government have their hands steeped in blood. No inquiry commission is needed to identify them.

• Third, the moral was effectively conveyed to the minority communities, whether they be Sikhs or Muslims or tribals or others brutalised by New Delhi that the only way to seek justice from the State was to take up arms against it. The operations of this pernicious logic are evident in Kashmir, the Northeastern states, and the eight States afflicted by left extremism.

Can the wrongs of 1984 be righted? Certainly, yes. At the minimum the perpetrators and organisers of that tragedy should be removed from Government. Optimally, they should be publicly exposed, and proceeded against in the courts. More is expected from a minority community headed leadership than doing nothing at all.