In his address to the Congress parliamentary party on Monday, Mr Rajiv Gandhi has once again raised the issue of the Centre-State relations in respect of law and order. But it is not at all clear why he has done so. The issue was debated in parliament only last week, when opposition leaders successfully made the point that under the anti-terrorist act, the Centre could intervene directly and indeed that, if anything, it had been guilty of dereliction of duty, inasmuch as it had taken 18 months to draft the necessary rules under this legislation after the President had given it his assent in May 1985. As it happens, Mr Gandhi has not been speaking of the limitations on the Centre’s powers generally; he has been doing so in the context of Punjab, which renders his stance totally irrelevant on a number of counts. Mr Barnala continues to be the State chief minister because the Congress party still supports him; this would not have been possible if Mr Gandhi did not favour his continuance in office; Mr Barnala is more than willing to resign and pave the way for President’s rule if the Prime Minister so desires; the para-military forces (BSF and CRPF) deployed in the State outnumber the Punjab police; they function under a State police chief who is wholly acceptable to the Centre and would in all probability continue to hold his present office if New Delhi were to take over the administration. In plain terms, the Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot keep Mr Barnala in office and then disown responsibility for what is happening in Punjab. Such statements cannot add to his credibility with the people in Punjab and those Akalis who are risking a lot to stick to Mr Barnala and to pursue a course of action favourable to the national cause.
We have been critical of Mr Barnala in the past and a stage may arise when we may demand his removal. But our criticism had a rationale behind it – a judgment that he was not doing all he could to contain the extremists and the terrorists in the state – and our demand for his removal would have a rationale behind it – an assessment that the application of force, not tempered by the presence of Akalis in office, had become necessary in Punjab. This is an awesome judgment to make. While we can avoid it, the Prime Minister in the final analysis cannot. For, this is the heart of the issue he faces in Punjab. He can, of course, be overtaken by events. The ruling Akali Dal can split again and make it virtually impossible for Mr. Barnala to hold on to office. But barring such a contingency, so long as Mr Gandhi feels that Mr Barnala’s continuance as chief minister serves the national purpose, he should back him to the hilt. Mr Barnala cannot strengthen himself; Mr Gandhi has to strengthen him. It is wrong to read homilies to a man under siege.