The government of India’s Punjab policy, if such a thing exists, has taken on three different garbs in just four days. On March 4 it released the head priests and 40 young men who had been detained apparently for no good reason in the Jodhpur jail, creating the impression that it had decided to treat the priests as leaders of the Sikh community and negotiate a settlement with them despite their close association with the terrorists and the Khalistanis. Though it was known that Acharya Sushil Muni and possibly some others had established contacts with the priests with the blessings of the Prime Minister, the move came as a great shock in view of the well-known fact that the latter were no more than frontmen for the secessionists who had installed them in the Golden Temple in the first instance without as much as a reference to the legitimate appointing authority, the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) and barely had the “message” sunk in than the Union government announced its decision to dissolve the state legislature which had been kept in a state of suspended animation since last May when the Barnala government was dismissed so that New Delhi could, if possible and desirable, install a new elected government. Inevitably this move last Sunday (March 6) provoked the speculation that New Delhi was planning a fresh poll before the end of the present term of President’s rule next May. Indeed, several Akali leaders wondered whether they should at all seek re-election since in the new conditions, created by the Union government’s decision to release the priests, they would require endorsement by the jathedar of the Akal Takht obviously acting in concert with the other head priests. But as the saying goes, the Akalis reckoned without the host. For on Monday (March 7) the Union home minister, Mr. Buta Singh told Parliament that the government was planning to introduce in this session itself a bill to amend the Constitution to enable it not only to extend President’s rule in Punjab but also to declare a state of emergency if it regarded that necessary.
The Constitution, as it stands, provides for such a declaration in respect of a state in the event of an “armed rebellion” or threat thereof. On the face of it, this provision should cover Punjab. But apparently in the government’s view, it does not. Or else, the home minister would not have spoken of a possible need to amend the Constitution. By the same token, however, the need for an emergency regime in Punjab is open to question. Surely there cannot be a good case for an emergency if we are not facing even the threat of an armed rebellion in the state. But this is an issue we can deal with properly only if and when the government places the proposed amendment before Parliament The home minister’s statement, however, raises another issue which cannot be put off for consideration later. This issue relates to the government’s assessment of the present situation in Punjab and the likely course of developments in that state. If it is New Delhi’s assessment that the situation is or is likely to be grim enough to warrant a declaration of emergency, it cannot justify either its decision to release the priests, or its hope, however qualified, of a political settlement. It can argue that it has released the priests in the assurance that they will help pacify the situation and that its talk of emergency is intended to put them on notice that the consequences of their failure to live up to its expectations will be extremely grave. But the priests are no more than frontmen for the terrorists: the terrorists command them: they do not control the terrorists. So why not negotiate with the terrorists directly? Again, the government can argue that the terrorists do not possess a unified command with which it can open a dialogue. But the priests cannot possibly help it overcome this difficulty. That too is not the end of the bafflement the government’s actions and pronouncement must cause. Mr Buta Singh has told Parliament in all seriousness that the Punjab legislature has been dissolved because the MLAs were interfering with the police operations against the terrorists. It follows that in order to enable the Punjab police to function effectively, the government cannot tolerate even the limited kind of interference members of a legislature in suspension can indulge in. Why then talk of a political solution which must in the nature of things involve fresh elections followed by restoration of an elected government? So we are wholly unable to make any sense out of the government’s actions and pronouncements. No two actions or statements can be reconciled with each other, however one may wish to interpret them.