In another two days the Venkataramiah commission will have given its award in the dispute between Punjab and Haryana on the question of the transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab and some Hindi-speaking areas of the state to Haryana in lieu thereof. In view of its terms of reference, the commission has apparently not re-opened the issue of the transfer of Abohar and Fazilka to Haryana. It has proposed a kind of compensation for that state which reminds one of the story of the Englishman who deprived a Zulu boy of the biggest diamond ever discovered in return for some beads. The comparison is, however, not exact. Unlike the Zulu boy, Haryana knows that it is being given a very raw deal. It will, therefore, protest. But the question of justice or injustice to Haryana has now become a secondary one. The issue of the future of Chandigarh needs to be taken out of that context and examined on its own merit even at this late stage.
It will be wholly naive or dishonest to believe that the transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab will persuade the terrorists to give up their plans to drive out the Hindus or that it will help strengthen the Barnala government’s resolve and capacity to deal effectively with them or that it will produce such goodwill for Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and Mr. Barnala among the Sikhs that they will not countenance the activities of the terrorists and the Akali dissidents who are providing encouragement and support to the extremists. In plain terms, the transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab cannot be justified in terms of the political advantages it was expected to yield. It can now be justified only on two grounds. First, that the city’s non-transfer will strengthen the position of the Akali dissidents and hasten Mr. Barnala’s overthrow. Secondly, that Mr. Rajiv Gandhi is committed to the transfer and cannot go back on it without attracting the charge of bad faith among the Sikhs. Both arguments have some merit, especially the second. The Prime Minister of India cannot normally afford to invite the charge of bad faith.
But, to put it most mildly, these are not normal times in Punjab. So the issue of the transfer or non-transfer of Chandigarh has to be decided in full awareness of the reality on the ground. Let us look at that reality as dispassionately as possible. Terrorism continues unabated in the state; most of the victims in this new phase are Hindus; the Hindus, especially in the border districts, have begun to migrate to other states; a significant majority of Chandigarh’s population of around five lakhs is Hindu; these people are feeling threatened at the prospect of passing under the control of the Punjab government; not only they but the Akali ministers themselves are not prepared to trust their security to the tender mercies of the Punjab police; the VIP advocates of transfer too live in fortresses manned by the Central Reserve Police Force. All in all, the transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab in the present context can aggravate the twin problems of restoring law and order in the state and of checking the exodus of Hindus from there.
It is possible, indeed almost certain, that the situation in Punjab would have taken the dangerous turn it has even if Sikh refugees from Delhi and elsewhere had not gone there in the wake of the anti-Sikh riots in November 1984. But there cannot be the slightest doubt that they have added to the poison in the atmosphere and thereby aggravated it. The riots were a shame on us all in the cities concerned and we have to pay the price of our failure to protect innocent fellow citizens against evil men. But must we risk a similar disaster in reverse, perhaps on a much bigger scale? Refugees from Punjab will take with them horrible tales of murder, loot and arson wherever they go – Haryana, Delhi, Rajasthan and beyond. These would incite passions. To some extent, this is unavoidable. For, it is not just possible to end terrorism in Punjab in the near future and provide isolated Hindu families in rural areas an adequate sense of security. Indeed, Punjab ministers and officials who move surrounded by scores of armed guards are not even entitled to try to reassure those in danger. But must we add to the risk by handing over half a million human beings to the care of a government which has proved utterly incapable of living up to its responsibility? It will be argued that it is now too late to reverse the process which the Prime Minister has set in motion for handing over Chandigarh to Punjab. But to so argue is to engage in formalism. The stakes are too high to permit us that luxury.