By virtually rejecting the Venkataramiah commission’s report on the transfer of 28,000 hectares to Haryana “in lieu of Chandigarh”, the Punjab government has put its patrons in New Delhi, especially the Prime Minister, in deep trouble. The Barnala cabinet has taken the stand that the commission has transgressed its terms of reference and disregarded the Rajiv-Longowal accord of July 24, 1985. The validity or otherwise of this contention can be a subject for discussion. But a debate is not what Mr. Rajiv Gandhi could want at this stage. Even if he privately agrees with the Punjab government’s stand, he cannot condemn a commission appointed by him; this will put him in an impossible position. And what does he achieve even if he is prepared to do so? His sole preoccupation has been somehow to implement his decision to hand over Chandigarh to Punjab on June 21 and to transfer some territories as compensation to Haryana on the same day. This objective he cannot now achieve in view of the Punjab government’s public demand that he reject recommendations of the Venkataramiah commission which, in its view, go beyond the commission’s terms of reference. Indeed, the Barnala cabinet has not rested content with condemnation of the commission; it has summoned a meeting of the state legislature on June 17 to discuss its report. In plain terms, it has decided to mobilize public opinion against the report. On a surface view, Mr. Gandhi has an option which he can exercise in this extremity; this option is to dismiss the Barnala government. But in reality he does not have such an option. At the very least, it would be extraordinary for him to hand over Chandigarh to a government in Punjab appointed by him. The Prime Minister is truly trapped. It is, of course, a trap which he has laid for himself with valuable assistance from men such as Mr. Arjun Singh. But a trap is a trap is a trap.
In some ways, it is an extraordinary situation. All that the Venkataramiah commission has said in effect is that 24,000 hectares should be made over to Haryana “in lieu of Chandigarh”. This allocation is patently unjust to Haryana. Not to speak of the Shah commission which awarded Chandigarh to Haryana in view of its contiguity and Hindu majority, the Indira Gandhi award, endorsed by the then Akali government headed by Sardar Gurnam Singh, entitled it to Abohar and Fazilka totalling over 120,000 hectares in terms of area. The protest, therefore, should have come from Haryana. Instead it is the Punjab government which has turned down the report. Perhaps Mr. Rajiv Gandhi had not bargained for this turn of events when he replaced Mr. Bhajan Lal by Mr. Bansi Lal as Haryana’s chief minister and thus made sure that the Haryana government would go along with whatever the commission handed down to it in its graciousness.
But even a casual acquaintance with Sikh politics should suffice to convince anyone that Mr. Barnala should not have been expected to settle on anything more than what he had offered – some villages in Patiala and possibly Sangrur districts. Mr. Barnala is not the kind of man who can provide leadership in a difficult situation. His recent “atonement” clinched that issue beyond the slightest doubt. After the split in the Akali Dal, he has retained the support of a majority of MLAs only by appointing them ministers. A number of them are known supporters of Mr. Badal or Mr. Tohra who can cross over to the other side at any time. Any willingness on his part to go in for a reasonable settlement will be denounced as betrayal by his opponents out to overthrow him. Sikh politics in Punjab can usefully be compared to a triangle – the three sides being the extremists-terrorists, the Badal-Tohra-Amrinder group opposed to Mr. Barnala, and the Barnala group. The first two are allies in all but name and as such much stronger. One side of a triangle cannot be bigger than the other two, however you may seek to draw it. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi must know this elementary truth by now. But what use can that knowledge be to him in his present predicament?