To state the obvious, the 59th Constitution Amendment Bill approved by the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday falls into two parts. The first enables the Union government to extend President’s rule in Punjab by another two years and the second authorizes it to impose emergency in the state if it deems it necessary. On the first aspect of the amendment, there is not much controversy in the country. It is generally recognised that it is highly unlikely that it will be possible to restore an elected government in the state in the near future. The reason is obvious. Not only the opposition and other do-gooders but also the authorities had pinned a great deal of hope on Mr Prakash Singh Badal. He was expected to reunite the Akalis under his leadership and use his influence among the Jat Sikh peasantry to isolate the extremists and the terrorists. And he failed to live up to these expectations. He adopted what can at best be called an ambivalent attitude towards the terrorists; he levelled false charges against the police which could not but demoralize the force; and he showed no interest in taking up the responsibilities of heading an Akali government. Some other Akali leaders, especially Mr Amrinder Singh and Mr Ravi Inder Singh, showed greater courage and concern for the future of the nation and the Sikh community. But they too could not reunite the Akalis. Indeed, the Akalis on the whole are too divided, too afraid of the terrorists and too ambivalent on the question of the nation’s unity and integrity to be entrusted with the administration of Punjab in a hurry. This clearly settles the issue; President’s rule has to continue in Punjab as far into the future as we can see.
The emergency provision in the constitutional amendment is a different proposition. As is evident from the proceedings in the Rajya Sabha on Monday and Tuesday, much of the opposition is united against this provision. The government itself is partly to blame for the criticism. If it was genuinely thinking in terms of limiting the emergency provision to Punjab, as it apparently was, there was no reason at all why in the original bill it drafted and placed in the Rajya Sabha it should have spoken of India and not just Punjab. It, of course, agreed to move the necessary amendment on Tuesday. But why did it have to expose itself to the charge that it was restoring the old provision which Mrs Indira Gandhi abused in 1975 in respect of the whole country? Either it was utterly insensitive to the susceptibilities of the Indian people, or it was trying to be too clever by half, that is, it wanted to be in a position to make a “generous” gesture to the opposition by replacing India with Punjab during the discussions in the house. Either way it once again put its ineptitude in such matters on display. But clearly that is not the central issue. Which is whether it is necessary for the government to arm itself with emergency powers in respect of Punjab.
The government has yet to make a case for it. Perhaps it will do so when the bill comes up in the Lok Sabha. If it does, the nation shall have an opportunity to debate whether it is a good case or not. Right now, we can either accept or reject the government’s bona fides. We cannot even debate its assessment of the situation. For, we just do not know what that assessment is. Surely its decision to release the head priests known to be frontmen and appointees of the extremists cannot square either with Mr Buta Singh’s subsequent statement to the effect that he cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel or with the emergency powers proposal. Naturally it is difficult for a government which is seen to be so confused, contradictory and clueless to inspire confidence among the people. Two other points can be made in this regard. First, as it is, the law enforcement agencies in Punjab enjoy enormous powers. Second, our police and paramilitary forces are not so sophisticated that they can be depended upon not to abuse emergency powers. But the situation in Punjab is extremely complicated and difficult and may well call for drastic measures in the months to come. It is wrong to make a Pavlovian response to such a situation which is what the opposition leaders and many other well-meaning liberals have done.