Who speaks for the Sikh community in Punjab? The chief minister, Mr. Surjit Singh Barnala, or Mr. Sukhjinder Singh, Mr. Amrinder Singh, Mr. Prakash Singh Badal, Mr. Gurcharan Singh Tohra and Mr. Surjan Singh Thakedar who have publicly dissociated themselves from his decision to use the police to throw out extremists and terrorists from the Golden Temple complex? We do not wish to speculate on this issue. We do not even know whether this question can be answered at this stage. Indeed, it may be quite some time before it is possible to assess the feelings of the Sikh community on this question. All that we can say is that a great deal will depend on the answer to this and related questions. The five Sikh leaders, who have resigned either from the Barnala ministry or from positions in the Akali Dal have not disputed the fact that extremists have been in control of the holiest Sikh shrine and related buildings and that they have used this occupation to espouse the secessionist platform so much so that last week they went to the extent of announcing a programme of establishing the state of Khalistan with Delhi as its capital. What they have disputed is the right of the chief minister to send the police into the temple complex to end this intolerable state of affairs.
Mr. Amrinder Singh has said that Mr. Barnala should have discussed his move with senior cabinet ministers. This is an important issue. But it is inconceivable that the chief minister would have acted in so critical and emotive a matter entirely on his own responsibility if he did not fear either that he might be overruled by a majority of his cabinet colleagues or that the decision might be leaked to the extremists and terrorists. Indeed it is equally inconceivable that Mr. Amrinder Singh is not aware of the compulsions which persuaded Mr. Barnala to keep the move close to his chest. So it would not be unfair to infer that whatever excuse he may put forward, Mr. Amrinder Singh has been guided by the same consideration as the other four Sikh leaders. They have contended in effect that the police must not have been ordered into the temple complex regardless of what was being perpetrated in it.
This cannot come as a surprise to anyone. The Akali leadership had proclaimed the inviolability of not only the temple proper (Harminder Sahib) but also of the complex as a whole in 1983 and 1984 when the place had been fortified and converted into a sanctuary for murderers and other proclaimed offenders. The surprise in fact is that there are some Akali leaders who are prepared now to take the position, in effect if not in word, that the inviolability of the temple is contingent on its use only as a shrine. Mr. Barnala is certainly one such Akali leader and we assume that those who do not resign and stick with him share this nationalistic view. Their number is uncertain and we have to wait and see how things shape. The nation will be lucky if such nationalistic elements among the Akalis turn out to be in majority and if an Akali government can continue to rule in Punjab and to try to end the threat to the lives and properties of the citizens there. But the fight against the terrorists and secessionists has to go on regardless of the outcome of the factional struggle among the Akalis. The rest of us cannot be neutral in this struggle but there is not much we can do to determine the result.
It would be tempting to take the view that the five Akali leaders who have resigned have seized the opportunity provided by the entry of the police into the Golden Temple complex to embarrass Mr. Barnala and the Centre which is supporting him. They have, of course, done so. But it would be a mistake to see this development purely in terms of ongoing factional fights among the Akalis. The Golden Temple occupies a unique place in the minds and hearts of the Sikhs and a large number of them are not able to take a rational view of the obligation of the state to ensure that it is not abused by anti-social elements. This is a pity but it is a fact. The significance of this fact is, however, not easy to assess. If this must not be underestimated, it must not be exaggerated either. A vocal minority can create the impression of being the majority.