Since Mr. SB Chavan continues to hold the home portfolio at the Centre, it must be assumed that he has spoken at Karla near Pune on Punjab in that capacity. In that case it is an amazing performance.
Essentially Mr. Chavan has made five points. Foreign powers jealous of Indian’s all-round progress are supporting the terrorists in Punjab just as they are encouraging divisive activities elsewhere, in Assam and Gujarat, for instance. The Sikh terrorists are like suicide squads. The people in Punjab have rejected terrorism in the recent elections which in turn have demonstrated “the depth and maturity” of Indian democracy. It is “for the good” that the Congress has lost the poll in the state. Or else, “the pro-Khalistan movement” would have got strengthened. It is only proper that the decision to release the terrorists in jail should be left to the Akali state government.
This exposition is in substance not very different from what Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi has said on the subject. Mr. Gandhi has not publicly hailed the defeat of the Congress party; he has contented himself with welcoming the Akali victory; he has not said that a Congress victory in the state would have fuelled the pro-Khalistan movement, or that the release of all extremists and terrorists should be left to the state government, regardless of the nature of the charges and the evidence available against them. But all that has been implicit in the Prime Minister’s stand. So we should be grateful to Mr. Chavan that he has brought it into the open and enabled us to discuss the contradictions inherent in the Union government’s approach to Punjab.
It is not for us to say whether foreign powers (a euphemism for Pakistan) have been as deeply involved in terrorist activities in Punjab as the government would have us believe. All we can do is to note that on this question there has been no shift in New Delhi’s position since the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. This raises an important issue. Which is that if foreign governments indeed remain determined to destabilise India despite the disappearance from the scene of the former Prime Minister whom they distrusted, the Union government cannot wash its hands of the problem of internal security in the crucial border state of Punjab. Mrs. Indira Gandhi accepted the logic of her pronouncements.
“Suicide Squads”
Again, it is not for us to say whether the terrorists in Punjab are comparable to “suicide squads” in terms of dedication to the cause and organisation. We can only take the Union home minister at his word for the purpose of this discussion and spell out the implication of his statement. Which is that the security situation in Punjab must continue to engage New Delhi’s most urgent attention despite the defeat the people are supposed to have inflicted on the extremists and the terrorists with the help of the electoral weapon. This implication which incidentally Mr. Chavan has been good enough to state in so many words cannot, however, be squared with the proposition that the release of extremists and terrorists has to be left to the Akali government. Even by itself this is an unacceptable proposition. The Centre cannot legitimately abdicate its responsibility in the matter.
These are not peripheral issues for the security of the country. They are issues of the greatest importance. And they provide us an inkling of the kind of psychology that is at work in the corridors of power in New Delhi. Even so the most significant part of Mr. Chavan’s speech is the one that relates to the defeat of the Congress party.
On the face of it, the Union home minister’s logic is no different from that of others who have hailed the Akali victory in Punjab. This logic is that the accession of the Akalis to power would, on the one hand, assuage the feelings of the Sikh community and, on the other, persuade them to act responsibly so much so that they would be both willing and able to fight the extremists and the terrorists.
As explained in these columns last week, we have not found it possible to share this optimism. We believe that it is wrong to compare either the Akalis with the CPM or the situation in Punjab with that in West Bengal. We are also convinced that the CPM in power in West Bengal could have behaved very differently if Mrs. Indira Gandhi had not kept it on a tight leash, or if the back of the Naxalite movement had not been broken before the party came to dominate the political scene, or if external powers were as active in West Bengal as they are said to be in Punjab.
But so far we have not regarded it necessary to spell out the implications of the response to the Akali victory and the Congress defeat because so far no Congress leader of any standing had publicly welcomed the party’s defeat. Mr. Chavan has now done so. We could have let that too pass if we were not persuaded that he has expressed a widespread sentiment in the party’s top leadership.
Morcha Politics
Whether they know it or not, Mr. Chavan and others of his persuasion are making two points, one with specific reference to Punjab and the other with much wider application. The first one is obvious enough. It is that the Akalis would have reverted to the politics of morchas if they had not managed to get into office through the electoral process and that this would have strengthened the pro-Khalistan movement among the Sikh community. This is not particularly flattering to the Akalis. For implicit in this proposition is the view that they are not sincerely committed to the Rajiv-Longowal accord as such and that they will honour it only if they are given an inducement in the shape of their rule in Punjab.
On a superficial view, this might appear to be an incontestable proposition. In reality it is an absurdly simplistic one. The Akalis never set out to build an extremist-terrorist movement. Their agitation took this turn when it was, in a manner of speaking, hijacked by Bhindranwale and his gang with or without foreign encouragement and support. After Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s assassination and the anti-Sikh riots in several north Indian cities, the Akalis were as desperate for a way out as Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and his aides. The Sikh community was fed up with the politics of confrontation with the Centre and would in all probability not have backed another round of struggle by the Akalis. They could have won the elections even if the Congress leadership had not decided to present victory to them on a platter. If they had not secured a majority, they would have gladly gone in for a coalition with smaller parties which too would have been better represented in the legislature in that eventuality.
It is truly an extraordinary situation. Many of those, including some in office in New Delhi, who have enthusiastically welcomed the Akali victory do not in reality trust them. Mrs. Indira Gandhi was consistent. The Anandpur Sahib resolution had made her distrustful of the Akalis and she would never have negotiated an agreement with them and allowed them to come to power so long as they had not either rescinded it or amended the offending portions to her satisfaction.
Assam Agitation
Regardless of whether he is aware of it or not, the logic of Mr. Chavan’s pronouncement has wider application; it is not limited to Punjab. Assam comes immediately to mind. It is true that, unlike in Punjab, extremists and terrorists have not been particularly active in the Assam agitation. But if it can be argued that the best way to fight forces of extremism and secessionism in Punjab is to hand over power to the Akalis, it would be equally plausible to suggest that Assam should be left to those who have carried on the struggle there. For they too can revive the agitation if kept out of office and denied the opportunity to enforce the agreement which the Union government has concluded with them.
This too is not the end of the matter. The Congress strategy of retreat as practiced in Punjab fits in well – like lips to the teeth, to quote Mao – with the advocacy of a “truly” federal form of administration which its proponents believe is feasible under Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. It is not an accident that two serving non-Congress chief ministers, Mr. Ramakrishna Hegde and Mr. NT Rama Rao, and one aspirant, Mr. Sharad Pawar, have praised the Prime Minister in such fulsome terms.
The “true” federation proposal has two components, not just one relating to the supposed need for the transfer of wider powers and larger resources from the Centre to the states. The other component is that there must be no instrument such as the Congress party which can indirectly lend strength to the Centre by virtue of its state units being at once in office and being willing to subordinate themselves to the national leadership. Mr. Hegde has spelt out the scheme, though not in so many words. He is willing to support Mr. Rajiv Gandhi as the King-emperor in New Delhi provided Mr. Gandhi in turn is content with the modern equivalent of suzerainty in Karnataka. The main obstacle is, of course, the Congress party.
Mr Chavan’s statement cannot but play havoc with the morale of partymen. A party prospers when its leaders regard its success all over the country as a matter of life and death not only for themselves but also for the country. Mrs. Indira Gandhi did so, as would be evident from her decision to contest elections in the Srinagar valley and not leave it to the National Conference.
The Times of India, 8 October 1985