Mr Surjit Singh Barnala has made history of sorts. He has become the first Sikh chief minister of Punjab to agree to dust the shoes of visitors to a gurdwara as an “atonement”. But atonement for what?
On a superficial view, the answer is obvious. Mr. Barnala is being made to pay for his decision to order the police into the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar on April 30. This answer cannot, however, stand a moment’s scrutiny.
The head priests, who have directed Mr. Barnala to make the atonement, have said: “We are convinced that the action taken to weed out undesirable elements from the Golden Temple complex was in conformity with the resolution adopted by the Sarbat Khalsa convention at Anandpur Sahib on February 16”. Why then the atonement?
The explanation offered by the head priests is breath-taking. They have said that in view of “the controversies arising out of the police action which hurt the feelings of the Sikh masses, the chief minister should undergo such an atonement.” The construction of the sentence is rather awkward. It is not quite clear from it whether the “feelings of the Sikh masses” have been hurt by the police action or by the controversies arising from it. But either way the logic is topsy turvy.
On the statement of the head priests themselves, the police action was legitimate since it was in conformity with the resolution of the Sarbat Khalsa to which they were a party. In that case, those who have stirred up “controversies” have acted in a manner which is contrary to the wishes of the Sarbat Khalsa. So neither the police action nor the “controversies” arising out of it can logically justify the action of the head priests.
Moral Authority
The moral authority of the head priests to speak and act in the name of the Sikh community has for long been open to question. They sat idly by when Bhindranwale and his gang of murderers converted the Golden Temple complex into a sanctuary of criminals of all sorts and fortified it in 1983 and 1984 and they have sat idly by when extremists, terrorists and secessionists have once again, used this holiest Sikh shrine for nefarious purposes. The least they could have done in the present case was to have kept quiet and allowed events, which are essentially political in character, to take their own course. But we are basically not concerned with them and their actions. We are interested in examining Mr. Barnala’s conduct.
It can be argued that as an ordinary Sikh, Mr. Barnala is free to accept the authority of the head priests to punish him for whatever crime he might have committed in his individual capacity. This proposition strikes at the very foundation of a modern state. It cannot and normally does not permit the establishment and maintenance of a rival centre of authority, religious or otherwise, which is entitled to punish a citizen. But India unfortunately is not such a state since it allows religious figures to meddle in the private lives of citizens. So we shall let that pass.
Our problem is that Mr. Barnala is not an ordinary Sikh who has bowed to the authority of the head priests. He is chief minister of a state of the Indian Union and it is in that capacity that he has allowed himself to be judged and punished by an authority which the Indian Union cannot and does not recognise.
To say that Mr. Barnala is chief minister of all Punjabis living in Punjab (not just of the Sikhs, though they may have voted him into power) and that as such he is obliged to protect the interests and susceptibilities of all of them is not to indulge in legalistic quibbling. The concept is the very foundation of a modern state, democratic or non-democratic, parliamentary or presidential. While election is a partisan activity, governance is not. In presenting himself before the head priests in response to their summons and accepting a punishment awarded by them, Mr. Barnala has disregarded this point which incidentally is the very source of his title to rule Punjab. In the process, he has compromised his right to continue as chief minister.
C.M.’s Explanation
It appears that Mr. Barnala is not sufficiently sensitive to the proposition that he is chief minister of all Punjabis living in the state. Or else he would not have felt obliged to explain his decision to order the police into the Golden Temple complex to the head priests. And witness his explanation.
First, the Sarbat Khalsa at Anandpur Sahib on February 16 had authorised him to take whatever action he deemed suitable to restore the religious sanctity of the Darbar Sahib (the Golden Temple). That is to say that in the final analysis he derived his authority from the resolution of the Sarbat Khalsa, a gathering of Sikhs alone, and not from the fact of his having been elected and sworn in as chief minister under the Constitution.
Secondly, despite this directive by the Sarbat Khalsa, he ignored grave provocations by the extremists in control of the Golden Temple complex who burnt down the Akali Dal office and indulged in many other illegal and sacrilegious activities till the so-called five-member panthic committee declared on April 29 that the fight for Khalistan had begun. Thus on his own admission, he disregarded his duty as chief minister apparently because he did not wish to offend the susceptibilities of the Sikhs.
Finally, he acted on April 30 because the declaration of the battle for Khalistan by the “panthic committee” sent waves of shock among the five million Sikhs living outside Punjab and because it had put at risk their lives and properties. The implication is at once clear and frighting.
But let us give Mr. Barnala the benefit of the doubt. Let us accept that he has phrased his explanation in such blatantly sectarian terms because it is addressed to the high priests who are concerned only with the Sikhs. But his conduct is baffling even if his term of reference is just the Sikh community and not all the people of Punjab.
As is well known, three of Mr. Barnala’s ministers resigned from his government and some leading figures such as the former SGPC chief, Mr. Gurcharan Singh Tohra, and the former Punjab chief minister, Mr. Parkash Singh Badal, from the working committee of the Akali Dal in protest against the police entry into the Golden Temple. This was followed by a split in the Akali legislature party and 29 legislators sought and secured with the help of the speaker, Mr. Ravi Inder Singh, a separate seating arrangement in the assembly hall. But Mr. Barnala rightly stayed on as chief minister not because he was assured of the support of opposition parties, including the Congress, but because a significant (almost 60 per cent) of the Akali legislators continued to support him. He then also secured an endorsement of his position by the Working Committee of the Akali Dal, thereby demonstrating that he commanded a significant majority in the highest body of the parent organisation as well.
Thus assuming, as we must, that the Akali Dal and the Akali legislature party represent the majority opinion among the Sikh community in Punjab, the inference must be that it is Mr. Barnala (not his detractors) who is entitled to speak for it even after the police entry into the Golden Temple complex. The Sikh sentiment may well have been offended by the entry but not in the way it was by “Operation Bluestar”. Otherwise 60 per cent of the Akali MLAs and a majority of the Akali working committee members would not have sided with Mr. Barnala against veterans such as Mr. Badal and Mr. Tohra.
Bolt From Blue
The summons by the head priests and Mr Barnala’s decision to present himself before them and accept the punishment awarded by them have come as a bolt from the blue. To the best of our knowledge, no one in Punjab had anticipated these developments. This makes it difficult to say for certain as to who activated the head priests, though it would be a reasonable guess that once again Mr. Tohra has played a dangerous game.
But that is a peripheral issue as far as the people in Punjab and the rest of the country are concerned. For them the central question is whether Mr. Barnala should have meekly surrendered to the head priests. The answer must be firmly in the negative.
By doing what he has done, Mr. Barnala has not only humiliated himself and the government over which he presides but also delivered himself bound hand and foot to an extra-constitutional authority. His survival in office will now be a nominal affair. We are back to where we were before the Rajiv-Longowal accord last July. Indeed, we are in a sense worse off. Then we could pin our hopes on the moderates among the Akalis even if that was an expression of our desperation. Now the moderate Akalis has been played out.
The Times of India, 19 May 1986