rps@ho95e.UUCP (rps) (08/26/85)
A few thoughts on the assassination of Harchand Singh Longowal. It appears that the modern-day apostles of non-violence tragically meet with violent death. Mahatma Gandhi, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and now Sant Longowal. One wonders what the future may have in store for Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa. What is the point of this murder? Who are the Terrorists? Obviously the Terrorists are people bent upon thwarting any rapprochement between the Sikhs and the rulers in New Delhi. At heart, probably, is the desire for the dismemberment of India and the creation of an independent "Khalistan". The question is: will murders like this help them achieve their objective? It seems unlikely, for a number of reasons. The dismemberment of an independent, sovereign nation -- or the re-definition of its boundary -- hardly ever happens without an all-out war. Any war requires two armies. Mao Tse-Tung built up his army in the relative seclusion of Yenan before he could confront and defeat the forces of Chiang Kai-Shaik. There are armies fighting civil or guerrilla war in various parts of the world today: the Kurds in Iran and Iraq, various factions in Lebanon, the IRA in Ulster, the contras in Nicaragua, etc. etc. But Khalistan today lacks both an army and a credible leader. In this, the movement differs sharply from the Naga uprising of the 50s and 60s, which had a rag-tag army and a charismatic leader- in-exile in Mr. Phizo. This is not to suggest that the Khalistan movement cannot acquire either an army or a credible leader. Any false move by New Delhi can bring that about easily enough. The point is that the murder of Longowal is not likely to help that process. More often than not, external forces have caused the break-up of nations. Two World Wars were instrumental in changing the political map of Europe. Indian invasion was decisive in 1971 in the creation of Bangladesh. In the case of Khalistan, the only country capable of intervening would be Pakistan. Perhaps the assassination of Longowal has little or no bearing on that issue. But even an external intervention normally requires a fig-leaf of a justification which only a credible leader and a small army can provide. (Recall Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rahaman and the Mukti Bahini for the case of Bangladesh.) That end, surely, will not be achieved by random murders committed by Terrorists. What has Terrorism achieved historically? Proponents may credit it with success in a few movements for independence -- notably Mau-Mau in Kenya and the FLN in Algeria -- and in focussing world attention on the Palestinian cause. Critics will point out that more often than not, it dissolves into mindless killing, as with the Naxalites of West Bengal. The only lasting solutions, though, are political. Terrorism may be a means to that end, but ultimately it is necessary to go beyond that phase. It is possible that the murder of Longowal, and the earlier one of Mrs. Gandhi by her body-guards, were acts perpetrated by small groups of individuals with a deep sense of resentment burning inside them. The way the murders were committed suggest that the assassins were not afraid of capture or of summary death. In this they remind me of members of the "Hezbollah" sect in Lebanon. While they may be too diffuse to grapple with, they are not cohesive enough to be instruments of lasting political change. The Punjab problem is without doubt the worst crisis that India has faced since independence. Nobody can be sure how events will shape up in the future. And the need for the use of tact and patience in dealing with the problem cannot be overemphasized. It is a deep tragedy for the Sikh community; the ultimate solution has to come from them. Amitabha Bagchi (houxm!ho95c!axb)