As was only to be expected, the white paper on Punjab has come in for a great deal of criticism at the hands of opposition parties. As we wrote in our editorial entitled “Heart Of The Matter” (July 11|12), the document is “remarkably unforthcoming” on a variety of issues. So there is merit in the demand, voiced among others by the BJP leader, Mr. LK Advani, that the government issue a supplementary white paper, though, on the face of it, this is a partisan demand. It is intended to embarrass the ruling Congress inasmuch as opposition parties want the supplementary white paper to trace the rise of Bhindranwale. It is no secret that some prominent Congress leaders extended considerable support to him in their bid to meet the Akali challenge. And this support cannot be explained away on the ground that they did not realize that he would become the Frankenstein he did. Bhindranwale had exposed his penchant for extremism and violence as far back as 1978 when he played an active role in planning an attack on the Nirankari Bhavan in Amritsar. Mrs. Gandhi would want this sorry involvement of her party colleagues with Bhindranwale to be conveniently forgotten. That is perhaps why she said in her speech in Parliament on Tuesday that she did not “want to go into details of who built whom because it was the situation which built them (extremists) up.” In that case, she should not have issued the white paper which must by definition bring into the open all that the government knows on the subject.
Putting this apparently partisan plea aside for the present, the opposition is within its rights in demanding that the government disclose what transpired at the secret meetings between its representatives and Akali leaders. Silence on this issue is rather extraordinary from Mrs. Gandhi’s own point of view. Since the burden of most of the criticism of her handling of the Punjab problem has been that she failed to clinch a deal with the official Akali leadership when an agreement had in fact been worked out, it is only appropriate that details be disclosed in order to give a lie to the charge if indeed the charge is untrue. Mrs. Gandhi has now introduced a new element in the debate. She has said that the Anandpur Sahib resolution was the “main block” in the negotiations with the Akalis because it contained the seeds of separatism and the Akalis never disowned it. We are in agreement with the Prime Minister on two aspects of her statement, viz., the Anandpur Sahib resolution is secessionist both in its inspiration and language and the Akalis never disowned it. But the third aspect – that it was the “main block” in the talks – is a question of fact which can be established only by the publication of the details of the negotiations. It is possible that Mrs. Gandhi’s own approach was greatly influenced by her appreciation of the implications of the Anandpur Sahib resolution. But the pertinent question is whether she made that clear to the Akali leaders, and, indeed, even to her own ministers, officials and emissaries who conducted the talks with the Akalis. And if she did, then on what basis did the talks continue for so long? In Parliament, Mrs. Gandhi referred to an exchange of letters between the then home minister, Mr. PC Sethi, and Sant Longowal, dictator of the Akali morcha. The exchange is public knowledge. It was reported at that time. But it does not figure in the white paper. One would like to know why.
Apparently the decision to issue the white paper was taken on the spur of the moment in the wake of the army action in the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar in order to buttress the government case. Apparently no one in the ruling hierarchy thought through the pros and cons. The first indication that this was another example of ad hocism in the government came when the release of the white paper was put off day after day as the Prime Minister and other senior ministers devoted long hours in discussing it and finalizing it. At that stage the general view was that Mrs. Gandhi wanted references to external agencies to be toned down for diplomatic reasons. We do not know whether or not this was so. It is also not possible to say whether the decision to keep out other details too was taken at that high level or whether those who drafted the white paper themselves excluded them. But there can be little doubt that these omissions are serious and that these have greatly reduced the value and effectiveness of the white paper.