bajwa@nacho.DEC (BAJ DTN 381-2851) (11/01/85)
A while back the newsmagazine INDIA TODAY carried a
cover article titled "BREAKTHROUGH" referring to the
Rajiv-Longowal accord. Like similar articles in other news
publications, it contained a detailed analysis of the accord.
The actual text of the agreement, however, was cospicuously
missing in most of them. On examining the actual contents of
the text, one gets a different picture than the one generally
painted in the media. The situation with the Punjab accord is
analagous to that with the Anandpur Resolution; hardly anyone
in the media published the actual text, most Indians didn't
read it (but were sure it was secessionist), the Congress
party campaigned against it, few questioned when Rajiv did an
about face and not many realised that it had now appeared in
the accord. The euphoria over the settlement seems
unjustified, especially when one analyses it from the Sikhs'
perspective.
It has been claimed that " this settlement brings to an
end a period of confrontation and ushers in an era of amity,
goodwill and cooperation, which will promote and strengthen
the unity and integrity of India". The Akali Dal is a major
Sikh political party. Longowal was the leader of one of its
two major factions. The accord, however, could not "end the
confrontation" because the confrontation was not with
Longowal. During the last few years , a younger more militant
leadership has emerged in Punjab. Indian Government's
confrontation was and still is, with this group.
Unfortunately, the Indian Government has constantly tried to
isolate this group and has been generally insincere in its
overall approach to the Punjab problem.
One would have hoped that the bloodshed of the 1983-84
years and the emergence of a new leadership in India would
lead to a fresh and more sensible approach to solve the
problem. Unfortunately, the Rajiv-Longowal accord showed that
window-dressing takes precedence over true statesmanship. No
Sikh with any self-respect and commonsense would have
accepted this "settlement" which claimed to have "conceded"
most Sikh demands. Did it, really?
In the 11-article accord, four had nothing to do with
the original Sikh edmands. These pertained to events related
to the Indian Army's attack on the Golden Temple and the
anti-Sikh massacres after Indira Gandhi's assassination.
Let's examine the others. Article 2 states, "All
citizens.... have the right to enroll in the Army and merit
will remain the criterion of selection." Is it really a
CONCESSION to the Sikhs? For example, was the proclomation
"All Men are created equal" in the US a concession to the
Blacks?
In article 5, the government "agrees to CONSIDER the
formulation of an All-India Gurdwara Bill .... in
consultation with others concerned and after fulfilling all
relevant constitutional requirements." No time limit is set
and it could be delayed indefinitely through legislative
gimmicks.
Article 10 states, "Existing INSTRUCTIONS regarding
protection of (minority interests) will be re-circulated to
State Chief Ministers." Obviously, these states ignored these
instructions in the past and a simple 'recirculation' would
not do much good. Also, according to Article 25 of the Indian
Constitution, Sikhs (along with Bhuddists and Jains) are
declared a part of the Hindu religion. Since they are not
recognised as a "minority' how could they benefit from any
laws for that purpose?
Article 11 states, "Central government MAY take SOME
steps for the promotion of the Punjabi language". And again,
it MAY NOT. The language is not binding.
The memorandum is equally vague on three important Sikh
demands which relate to territorial claims, center-state
relations and river water sharing.
Media reports flatly declare that Chandigarh will go to
Punjab. Article 7, however, talks of dividing the city and
transferring the Hindi-speaking areas to Haryana. A
commission will determine who speaks Hindi or Punjabi.
The original Sikh demands for greater religous and
political freedom were based on the Anandpur Resolution. The
Indian government considered it a secessionist document.
Article 8 states, "Shiromani Akali Dal states (that the
resolution) is entirely within the framework of the Indian
Constitution...." When an accord is signed by two parties ,
all references are considered "joint" unless one party is
mentioned by name. By mentioning the Akali Dal by name, the
Indian government has disassociated itself from the
statement. And if Rajiv considers the resolution
"secessionist" how does he claim to have "conceded" most of
the demands contained in the resolution? An obvious
contradiction!
The Center-State relation aspects of the Anandpur
Resolution are not "conceded" but referred to the Sarkaria
Commission with no time limit.
The "concession" on water sharing is the most
outrageous. Punjab is a riparian state and should control the
Sutlej, Beas and Ravi rivers in accordance with international
law and the Indian constitution. Punjab claims that the
neighbouring states of Rajasthan and Haryana are getting more
water than they should, at the expense of Punjab farmers.
Article 9 states, "The farmers of Punjab, Haryana and
Rajasthan will continue to get water not less than what they
are using from the Beas-Ravi system as on July 1,1985. Water
used for consumptive purposes will remain unaffected." Is it
really a concession to Punjab? Actually, it is a reassurance
to Haryana and Rajasthan that no matter what happens they
will continue to receive existing quotas (already too much
from the Punjab point of view). The construction of the
Sutlej-Yamuna-Link canal will also continue and be completed
by August 1986 (note the definite time frame). This canal is
being constructed (over Punjab's objections) to give even
more water to Haryana and Rajasthan.
After Haryana is assured of keeping existing water
quotas "The claim of Punjab and Haryana ... on their
remaining waters will be referred to ... a tribunal presided
over by a Supreme Court judge." Sikhs had demanded that the
water issue be decided by the Supreme Court itself because it
will have to act according to the constitution. The Janata
government had done so but after returning to power Mrs.
Gandhi withdrew the case. A judge in a tribunal can decide
anything; it would be arbitration and not a judicial process.
"Concessions" imply acceptance of demands. In this
accord, almost everything has been either referred to
commissions or is to be "considered" later. Prime Minister
Gandhi didn't give away anything. Longowal signed away a lot,
setting the Sikh struggle back to square one.
The government controlled Indian media hailed this
accord. Since 1929, the Congress Party has been playing this
game with the Sikhs. It robs the Sikhs and insists that it
has actually given them something. The feeling of frustration
and impotence has been building up for five decades. The
current violence is most unfortunate but it is a natural
result of government's policies over the years.
Many commentators have urged the Sikhs to follow the
tenents of Mahatma Gandhi -- the greatest advocate of
non-violence. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of Sikhs have
peacefully courted arrest during the many years of agitation
for their demands, including the years leading up to the
army's assault on the Golden Temple. In march 1931 he had
said, "Sikh friends have no reason to fear that (the Congress
Party) will betray them. (If it does) Congress would not only
thereby seal its own doom but that of the country too.
Moreover, the Sikhs are a great people. They know how to
safeguard their rights by the exercise of arms if it should
ever come to that." It appears that the Indian govt is more
interested in winning the media game rather than making an
honest attempt at addressing the fundamental issues of the
problem. The current situation does not bode well for the
nation and I sincerely hope that Gandhi's prophecy is not
played through its entirety.
rama@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (rama) (11/01/85)
Bajwa has raised a number of issues. The feeling that I get from his postings on this net is that he is angry, for a number of reasons. His anger, and in this I believe that he represents a fair number of Sikhs, at least in the U.S., seems to convey to us a sense of betrayal among the Sikhs. If I were to read his postings correctly,and I believe I have, the Sikhs have been unfairly dealt with, not merely since the last few years, but since 1929. The number and scale of unjust actions, he would lead us to believe, have risen substatnially over the last few years, but the general trend has been to subjugate the Sikhs, or in some way, humiliate them, for decades. Mr. Bajwa, whenever injustice is done, and definitely injustice has been done to the Sikhs, there is a tendency to get emotional and see injustice in every action. Just as you perceive that the Sikhs have been unjustly denied a lot and have been discriminated against, so do others. Just as you point out to the number of Sikhs dead in the Golden temple attack, I could point out to the number of Hindus dead in transistor bomb attacks, to the number of people killed in interstate bus attacks, to a number of people held ransom by a group of poeple who believed that their word was law and that they would enforce their law by the gun. Neither of us are lying, we are merely looking at two different sides of the picture. Pardon me for using an outworn cliche, but it really is a case of whether the cup is half full or half empty. In times of discontent like this, it takes a lot of conviction-- conviction in oneself, conviction in the belief that fairness must prevail, that indeed justice must be done-- and such conviction almost always requires that one puts aside one's own feelings aside, and looks at issues from the other side's perspective. More important, one has to look at issues in the context not of our lifetimes alone,(though that is necessary) but in the context of future generations. We have, on this net seen perspectives from both sides, and I guess it is time that we ask ourselves the question, -- is it really necessary to think of this issue as being a confrontation? Has there not been enough of that? Are we all not supposed to be educated people? My belief is that education does not merely involve getting a degree, an illiterate person can often be more educated than many of us. While I address this letter to you, it is addressed to all of us Indians. A number of people have pointed this out, and I merely add my voice to theirs --- let us put this Hindu and Sikh and Christian and Muslim nonsense away-- let us think of ourselves as Indians and remember that Hindus alone or Sikhs alone do make up India. These themes have too often been exploited by Hindi movies and frankly most of think of the idea of Indianism as a namby pamby notion. Maybe it is time to think otherwise.