It is unfortunate that a discussion should have arisen at all on how long the army will stay on in and around the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar. For the answer is only too obvious. It will stay on so long as its presence is required there. It has taken on a job and it cannot possibly leave it half-finished, however unpleasant the officers and men may find it and however keen they may be to get back to their barracks. An official spokesman has said that there are still large quantities of explosives and arms within the temple complex and that till the temple is cleared of these dangerous explosives and weapons, it would not be possible to withdraw the army. This is a legitimate precaution which the government must observe. But the issue is a little more complicated. The government cannot allow too many people to converge on the temple not only so long as the explosives and arms have not been removed from it and the surrounding area but also so long as a reasonable degree of calm has not been restored in the state as a whole. The army, it should hardly be necessary to remind ourselves, was called in on June 2 not so much because the paramilitary forces – the BSF and the CRPF – could not have undertaken the task of flushing out the extremists from the Golden Temple complex as because they could not have policed effectively enough the entire state. Subsequent developments have heavily underscored the wisdom of this assessment as well as the need for continued vigilance which may not be possible without the continued help of the army. It is extraordinary that those very individuals who say that the Sikh community has been deeply offended by the government’s action in the Golden Temple complex should also advocate an early withdrawal of the army from there and indeed from the whole state. Surely it cannot be their case that the state administration such as it is can cope with the situation.
Clearly a great deal of confusion prevails in this regard. This confusion is largely the product of our near total reluctance, if not refusal, to take hard decisions and to live with the consequences if by some accident we manage to take a hard decision. In the present case, this is best illustrated by the remarkable speed with which the advocates of the healing touch have sprung up. Even the first phase of the operation against the terrorists and insurgents had not been completed when the talk of applying the healing touch began. Indeed, the country was witnessing mutiny in certain army units when this happened. Mercifully the mutiny was limited to a small number of jawans, many of them fresh recruits. But it was a mutiny all the same and should have emphasized the need for utmost vigilance and toughness. It did nothing of the kind. It is no use blaming one or two individuals for it. We are all victims of this psychology of looking for soft options. So it is no wonder if as a society we are behaving as if the activities of the terrorists and the insurgents as well as the action of the government in finally picking up the gauntlet were aberrations which are best forgotten quickly. Unfortunately for us, we cannot wish away the reality. Either we cope with it with determination or it will overwhelm us.