M.S. Ahluwalia

Introduction

The idea of equality is central to Sikhism. May it be the case of gender equality, casteless society, religious tolerance or quest for freedom. However, the early eighties of the last century saw the Sikhs in conflict with the Indian State over some genuine as well as legendary grouses.

Within the Sikh community, a deep current favoring a Sikh State was and has been apparent. This and several other politico-religious factors created a space for the Sikhs to rebel with a view to offer alternatives to what the Government defined as "Constitutional Framework". This ultimately led to a serious conflict with the Indian State resulting in equally serious violation of human rights in so far as the Sikhs are concerned.

Distinct identity of the Sikhs

The Sikhs were explicitly recognized as one of the three national entities by the Montego-Chelmsford Report of 1918. The authors of this Report expressed the view that the Sikh representation in the administration and services should be consistent with their distinctive position. The Government of India Act (1919), The Simon Commission Report (1930), Ramsay Macdonald's Communal Award (1932) and Government of India Act (1935) all referred to the Sikhs as a distinct entity. They, like the Hindus and Muslims were representatives at the Round Table Conference (1931), The Cripps' Mission (1942), Lord Wavel's Plan (1944), Cabinet Mission Talks (1946) and the Mountbatten Plan (1947) and had also separate electorate as in case of the Muslims.

Pre-partition promises and the Sikhs

Before independence, the Congress in its Lahore session in 1929 passed a resolution with a categorical assurance that ' no constitutional arrangement would be finalized without the consent of the Sikhs'. This assurance was incorporated in a resolution, known as "Lahore Resolution", which read as under:

"No future constitution would be acceptable to the Congress that did not give full satisfaction to the Sikhs"¹

The assurances to the Sikhs were reaffirmed at the All India Congress Working Committee, held in Calcutta in July, 1946. Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru spelt out the undertaking in these words:

"The brave Sikhs of Punjab are entitled to special consideration. I see nothing wrong in an area and a set up in the North wherein the Sikhs can also experience the glow of freedom." ²

The Sikhs had opposed the division of India tooth and nail as they were aware of the catastrophic consequences that were bound to follow the division of their homeland for the liberation of which they had played an important role. The Sikhs rightly felt that the demand of Pakistan or for that matter, the partition, was going to be very unfair to them as it would endanger everything they valued: their holy places, their political interests, their lands and their heritage. However, Congress reflected no concern, so far as the interest of the Sikhs were concerned. Unfortunately, even Mahatma Gandhi, who had declared that the partition of the country would take place over his dead body, failed to uphold his pledge. In spite of all this the Sikhs reposed their faith in the promises of the Congress leadership, and gave up the demand for a Sikh homeland, which had cropped up along with Muslim League's demand for Pakistan.

At the time of partition in 1947, the Sikhs, being a religious minority, decided to throw their lot with the majority Hindu community on the basis of several assurances by the leaders and on an explicit understanding that the Sikhs will be accorded the Constitutional status as co-sharers in the political destiny of free India.

"No other community was as much affected by the partition as the Sikhs who bore the main burnt of the communal fury". ³

The Sikhs, who had thrown their lot with India in the wake of solemn assurances of the Congress leadership, expected a fair deal in free India. However, soon after acquiring political power, the top leaders not only forgot their pledges but under the façade of democracy, secularism and nationalism, the Centre started usurping the political rights of the minorities. In 1950, the Congress completely backed out from its promises to the Sikhs and its own declared objective of having a purely federal Constitution. Instead, a Constitution, leaning heavily towards a unitary form of Government was framed which was thus, rejected by the Akali Party, whose members, declined to append their signatures to the Constitution Act.

Imposition of Hindi in Punjab

The first tragic communal impact of the decision to own Hindi instead of Punjabi by the Punjab Hindus appeared in 1951 census. A campaign was sponsored by the Pradesh Congress leaders to get Punjab's Hindus to declare Hindi as their mother tongue in the 1951 census and the people declared their mother tongue purely on communal lines. The part played by the Punjab's Hindus by denying Punjabi as their mother tongue had it drastic consequences, as the future events prove. The obvious reason for this was to reject the creation of a linguistic state in Punjab where the Sikhs would be in majority having a Punjabi speaking state.

The Punjabi Hindus, in order to thwart the logic of uni-lingual Punjab state, falsified the census returns of 1951 and 1961 by declaring Hindi as their mother tongue. The Sikhs were thus sorely disillusioned with the recommendations of the States Reorganization Commission (1955), which recommended the creation of other states on linguistic basis but Punjab was left out, even though Punjabi was one of the fourteen accepted languages of the country in the Constitution. It appears that there was a clear desire in the mind of the SRC and the Centre to keep the Sikhs in perpetual minority by creating a bi-lingual state. The stout opposition of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru to the demand for a Punjabi- speaking state was viewed by the Sikhs as an attempt to reduce them to complete political sub-servience.⁴

Struggle for Punjabi Suba

The impression thus gained around the Sikh leaders that discriminating policies of the government were aimed at reducing the Sikhs to a sub-political status. Being hopelessly outmaneuvered and let down by the Congress leadership, the Sikhs, under the leadership of Master Tara Singh started a struggle for a uni-lingual Punjabi speaking state. Seeing the intensity of the Sikh feelings on the issue, the government devised a formula known as Regional Formula (1956), which however, evoked a very sharp reaction from certain sections of the Hindus in Punjab who started a counter movement and thus the Regional Formula was put in cold-storage.

The non-implementation of Regional Formula thus led the Sikhs, once again to reiterate their demand for Punjabi Suba and fast unto death by Master Tara Singh and later by Sant Fateh Singh. The Commission (headed by S.R. Das) was also boycotted by the Akali Dal duo and dissociated themselves from the proceedings of the Commission.

Meanwhile, in appreciation of high unalloyed patriotism of the Sikhs during the Indo-Pak War, as also the public opinion in the country felt unable to resist anymore the demand for a Punjabi speaking state, a decision to reorganize Punjab on linguistic basis was taken at a meeting of the Congress Working Committee and a Parliamentary Committee under the Chairmanship of Sardar Hukam Singh which recommended the demarcation of two linguistic areas.

Punjab Reorganization Act (1966)

However, in order to frustrate the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee, which recommended the formation of Punjabi Suba, the then Home Minister, tried and did succeed in his attempts to demarcate the boundaries of the proposed Punjabi speaking state on the basis of communally oriented and frivolous 1961 census . Again, while framing the Punjab Reorganization Act (1966), two provisions (78-80) were introduced which made the Punjabi speaking state a permanently ineffective sub-state. Under these Sections, the powers of control, administration, maintenance, distribution and development of the waters and hydel power of Punjab rivers were vested in Central Government. These Provisions reduced Punjab virtually to a Central colony that became the basis of the Akali struggle and rise of terrorism during the subsequent years.

The Boundary Commission and Chandigarh

The three member Boundary Commission, presided over by Justice Shah, which demarcated the boundaries of the Punjabi speaking state, decided to award Chandigarh and many other Punjabi speaking areas to the newly carved State of Haryana, making the communal census of 1961 as its basis. However, the Commission's recommendation to transfer Chandigarh to Haryana was not implemented and the town was kept as a Union Territory, as the capital of both States and the seat of common High Court.

Chandigarh was thus made another bone of contention between two neighboring States with the Centre gaining the position of an arbitrator. The Central policies only added to already number of running sores and artificially created issues between the two neighboring states so that they remained warring all the time and perforce had to seek the arbitration of the Centre.⁵

Major Akali demands

In view of the above mentioned developments and clear-cut discriminatory policies of the Centre with regard to the Punjab in general and the Sikhs in particular, the Akali Dal finalized a number of demands, which included economic, political and religious issues. Some of the major demands included:

a. Restoration of river waters as per constitutional, national and international norms, based on riparian principles.

b. Demarcation of the Punjabi speaking areas. The Akalis wanted the application of Sachar and Regional Formulae, which had effectively operated in the State with the consent of all concerned till 1966 and had the sanction of the Parliament.

c. Abolition of the unconstitutional quota system, based on population of a state, introduced in the recruitment to the armed forces.⁶

d. Carrying of Kirpan and its possession as a constitutional right of the Sikhs as provided in Article 25 of the Constitution and no restriction is placed on it.

e. On the issue of the capital city of Chandigarh, the Party demanded the same yardstick to be applied to Punjab which has already been applied while handing over Bombay to Maharashtra, Madras to Tamil Nadu and Shimla to Himachal Pradesh. In these cases the capital cities were to remain with the parent states, but in case of Punjab alone its capital city was made a Union Territory with Punjab Government as the Centre's tenant.

f. The other major political demand was to implement the Anandpur Sahib Resolution for political autonomy based on pre-independence promises to the Sikhs, who felt it to be the only way to stop exploitation of Punjab.

River waters dispute

In August 1947 India was divided which led to the creation of two Punjabs. The international boundary between Indian and Pakistan Punjab cut across the Indus system of rivers. A dispute arose between India and Pakistan over the distribution of river waters. This was however, amicably settled through the good offices of World Bank with the signing of Indus Treaty in 1960. The Treaty conferred full rights on India over the eastern rivers, i.e. Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. There is no mention of river Ghaggar in Indus Treaty which clearly shows that it is not a part of Indus system. Therefore, Haryana which is beyond Ghaggar can by no stretch of imagination be regarded as a part of Indus basin.

Article 162 and 246 (3) of the Constitution gives full and exclusive legislative and executive powers to the States over water and hydel power. Agriculture and industry being entirely dependent on irrigation and hydel power, these have been kept purely state subjects in our Constitution and in other countries as well. There is hardly any State except Punjab, which does not enjoy full and exclusive power in relation to irrigation and hydel power of its own State rivers. Ironically, Sections 78 to 80 were introduced in the Punjab Reorganization Act 1966, which gave all powers to the Centre ultra virus of the Constitution.

In addition, these sections are violative of the equality article 14 of the Constitution because these are discriminatory for the reason that while the Act bestows exclusive rights of waters of Yamuna to Haryana, it makes the waters of three Punjab rivers not only distributable by the Centre but also vests their control in the Central Government.

Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal

On the basis of a scheme, and without any reference to Punjab, which is a riparian State, Haryana made a scheme for the use of 4 to 5 M.A.F of Punjab waters to be used in the Yamuna basin of Haryana and got this scheme ( known as Satluj Yamuna Link Canal), approved from Delhi. When Haryana put its claim of Punjab waters, naturally Punjab seriously objected to it. The scheme being beyond the scope of the Beas Project and for that matter is beyond the purview of Section 78 (which related to only two multi-purpose projects i.e. Bhakra and Beas projects). In this background Haryana naturally created a dispute and wanted the Centre to arbitrate under Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganization Act.

In 1976, the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi gave the Award that out of available 15.2 M.A.F of the waters of Sutlej, Ravi and Beas, Punjab and Haryana would get 3.5. M.A.F each and Delhi 0.2 M.A.F. The remaining 8 M.A.F were unilaterally earmarked by the Centre for Rajasthan, another non-riparian State, unconcerned with the Punjab Reorganization Act of 1966.

Punjab Reorganization Act (Sections 78-80) challenged

In 1978, the Akali ministry (headed by Sardar Parkash Singh Badal) filed a case in the Supreme Court to challenge the validity of Section 78 to 80 of the Punjab Reorganization Act. The constitutional path adopted by the then Government of Punjab was sabotaged by the Centre. The Central Government was fully aware of the fact that the Punjab Reorganization Act relating to Sections 78-80, was unconstitutional and Supreme Court would give a decision in favor of the Punjab State because the Court on the same constitutional issue could not give one ruling regarding disputes in these States and a different ruling in case of Punjab.

To frustrate this attempt for a constitutional solution, Indira Gandhi, soon after coming into power in 1980, took some hasty steps. For no reason, whatsoever, the Akali Ministry (although enjoying a majority in the State Assembly) in Punjab, was dismissed and President's rule introduced. This was deliberately done with a view to prepare the ground for the return of the Congress Ministry in Punjab. Elections were held during the President's rule and the Congress ministry headed by Darbara Singh was formed in Punjab.

In 1980 when Indira Gandhi returned to power, it became clear that the apple-cart of allotment made by her to non-riparian States might be up set by the judicial verdict of the Supreme Court. On the one hand she kept the Akali Dal at bay by prolonging the negotiations, and on the other hand, when the Congress ministry was formed in Punjab, she called the Chief Ministers of all three States and virtually got the allotment under her Award endorsed through an agreement in 1981 among these states. There is a public report that the then Punjab Chief Minister, Sardar Darbara Singh, was made to sign the above agreement virtually under 'threats'.

How is it that for decades the Centre could not have any agreement made between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, it had effected overnight an agreement in 1981 between Punjab and the two non-riparian States? It is clear that whether it was the Central Government, the All India Parties or the media, no one, even while knowing fully well the injustice done to Punjab, ever tried even to suggest that the constitutional course could be followed and the matter settled judicially.⁸

It was at this stage that the Akalis woke up to the realities of the situation. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had not only virtually banged the door against the Akali negotiators, but also hastened to lay the foundation stone of the SYL Canal in Haryana on April 8, 1982, at village Kapuri on the border of the two States. The Akalis were left with no choice but to launch a morcha or agitation for the stoppage of the digging of the illegal canal. It is really unfortunate that no all -India party has been able to rise above partisan and communal considerations while trying to judge Punjab River Waters Dispute.

The Congress Governments of Punjab, with the exception of the present one, instead of representing against the deprivation of its river waters and hydel power, have become a party to denuding Punjab's resources. The contrast of this action with that of the Congress Government of Karnataka which issued an Ordinance to stop the flow of water even to riparian Tamil Nadu and that too against the direction of the Inter-State Water disputes Tribunal, set up at the direction of the Supreme Court, is so obvious.

It is equally contrasting that whereas the Congress government withdrew the case that had been filed by the earlier Akali Government to set aside the executive order of the Prime Minister, thereby making the unconstitutional drain to non-riparian States a fait accompli, the then Congress Government in Karnataka refused to abide by the direction even of the Tribunal mentioned above.

Equally contrasting is the conduct of the Central Government in these two cases. Further, while in the Cauvery case, the Centre has all along been unwilling to enforce the verdict or direction of the Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunal between the two riparian States, in case of Punjab, the Centre made a special amendment (which seems apparently unconstitutional), so as to force a reference of the Punjab issue to the Tribunal and, for that reason, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal which under the Inter- State Water Disputes Act 1956, can take cognizance only of an issue concerning inter-State waters, which Punjab rivers are not.

Rajiv-Longowal Accord and river waters

In an effort to give a favourable turn to the tragic events that followed the assassination of the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in November 1984, the Akali Dal President Sant Harchand Singh Longowal and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi signed an accord on 24th July, 1985. Leaving its positive and negative aspects to political analysts and critics about the territorial and other claims, a summary of the clause relating to sharing of River Waters (clause,9) stipulated:

"The farmers of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan shall continue to utilize the same quantum of water from the Ravi-Beas System as was being utilized on 1.7.1985. Claims regarding the water being actually utilized by the three States shall be verified by the Tribunal to be constituted under para 9.2.

Claims regarding the sharing of the remaining river water by Haryana and Punjab shall be referred to the Tribunal, which shall give verdict within a period of six months and this verdict shall be binding on both the States. All related constitutional aspects shall be settled speedily. The construction of the SYL Canal will go on simultaneously and will be completed by 15th August, 1986."

At long last, Captain Amarinder Singh's Government has filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the issue of constructing SYL Canal. The State Government, on January 11, 2003 filed a complaint with the Union Ministry of Water Resources (under section 3 of the Inter-State Water Dispute Act,1956 with regard to the scarcity of availability of Ravi-Beas waters and to set up a Tribunal to consider the matter. The State Government also filed a civil suit on January 13, 2003 in the Supreme Court, in which the relief from its orders has been sought.

However, instead of asking for setting up a Tribunal to adjudicate the distribution of Punjab waters, the State Government should have plead the case against the insertion of Article 78 into the Punjab Reorganization Act 1966, by the then Congress Government in Delhi.

Recently, the Punjab Vidhan Sabha unanimously passed a resolution on the SYL Canal, (1.4.2003) backing the State government to take all necessary steps to safeguard the interests of Punjab. The resolution has urged the state government to approach the Supreme Court, without delay, so that the relief could be sought from the directions dated January 15, 2002 issued by it.

It will not be an exaggeration to state that Haryana leaders know for certain that there is considerable weight and substance in the arguments put forth by Punjab. That is why that instead of going to the Supreme Court, they want that the Prime Minister should intervene and bring around the Punjab Government to construct the SYL Canal, so that with the Centre's intervention, Haryana may retain all that was taken away from Punjab and unjustly handed over to it, courtesy Mrs. Indira Gandhi. The present day Punjab Government has prepared an excellent case, and the Supreme Court's verdict will have to be watched.

Non-Riparian States may stake similar claims

Haryana has no rightful claim over either of the three rivers of Punjab. The unjustified claim of Haryana over Punjab river waters if conceded will open a Pandora's Box not only at national but at international level. To give a few examples:

i. Going by the same argument by which Haryana is seeking waters from Punjab, the newly formed state of Jharkhand will lay claim over Ganga waters from Bihar from which it has been separated.

ii. Gujarat may ask for Godawari water from Maharashtra as in the past too it was a part of Bombay Presidency.

iii. Even at international level, tomorrow Burma may lay claim over the Ganga-Brahmaputra waters, as up to 1947 Burma was a part of British India.

In case of the above mentioned states, will the Government of India concede the demands of Jharkhand, Gujarat and Burma? Only the Government of India can solve this riddle.

It was only as a result of the nationalists forces call for national integration, that an accord was reached between Sant Longowal and Shri Rajiv Gandhi. Decisions arrived at and considered just and based on fair play have been reduced to dust through the agencies of various commissions but nothing tangible has been achieved till this date and the Sikhs who became targets of State terrorism and those who suffered following Indira Gandhi's assassination are yet to get justice.⁹

Conclusion

a. Role of Punjabi Hindus

Hindus constitute a very significant section of Punjab's population and their stance and opinion often tends to influence the opinion of the Hindu majority in the country and consequently the decision- making process at the Centre. Unfortunately the role of the Punjabi Hindu relating to the Punjab problem has all along been negative. No attempts have been made even to highlight the contribution made by the members of Sikh community to agriculture, defense, economy, art, literature and culture of the contemporary Punjab. Even the average Hindu of the Punjab can not be absolved of all the sins of omission and commission that they are guilty of. For instance, there is no rational explanation for their suicidal indifference to the plight of their mother tongue and home state.

Majority of the Sikhs feel that despite their unparalleled sacrifices for the country before and after independence, they are not being given the respect and trust that they deserve. The Punjabi Hindu, they feel, always advocates the cause of other states against Punjab and has never really stood up to defend the rights of the state and have even gone to the extent of disowning their mother tongue just because the Sikhs advocated its cause.The only silver lining is that despite their negative role and failure of the Hindus who never cared even to understand the problems of their state over which the Sikhs feel so exercised, there has been no Hindu-Sikh divide.

In another country, the state of affairs would have shocked the national sensibility into giving the problem a fresh look and putting an end to it. It is still time that both Hindus and Sikhs of Punjab began to realize that their state binds them together far more strongly than their religions can divide them.

b. Role of the Central Government

The ruling party is equally guilty of using extra-constitutional means to suppress the Sikhs because, it is well known, that they are the only persons who effectively resisted the growing authoritarianism, including the emergency by the Akali Party. It is a matter of common knowledge that having failed to suppress the peaceful Akali agitation, the government injected violence into the agitation with the help of the government intelligence agencies to give it a bad name. The object obviously was not just to suppress the agitation but to finish the agitators and remove the root and source of un -conveniently recurring challenge to the ruling party. Even though there is ample proof that Bhindrawale¹⁰ was originally propped up and encouraged by the Indira regime, it was the Akalis and the Sikhs, not the Congress (I), who were held responsible for his excesses.

The government while monotonously repeating phrases like 'national unity and integrity', is in fact, tried to make a scapegoat of an entire community. It is a matter of shame that all Sikhs are being held accountable for doings of any one Sikh or a small handful of Sikhs. Every time a hot-headed Sikh says or does something irresponsible, the entire Sikh community is treated as an offender. At one stage the situation deteriorated to such a point that any bearded man in a turban was looked upon with suspicion and any excesses committed by the government functionaries against Sikhs were treated as legitimate.¹¹

The disillusionment of the Sikhs and their consequent loss of faith resulted in open conflict with the Centre. The unjust vivisection of Punjabi speaking areas and the creation of four rival entities (Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh), with the Centre as the ultimate political arbitrator, naturally led to a chain of conflicts, which were fully exploited by the Centre.

In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the Central policy in case of Punjab and the Sikhs became ugly in shape and turned into a fight between majority and minority on the one hand and rise of terrorism on the other but claiming victory for none. It is in this context that the rise of the Sikh separatist movement has to be viewed.

REFERENCES & NOTES

¹ Minutes of the All India Congress Committee, Calcutta, 1946)

² The Statesman, Calcutta, 7 July,1946)

³ V.P. Menon, The Transfer of Power in India (Bombay,1957), pp.432-33) The Boundary Commission awarded 13 out of 29 districts of the Punjab to the Indian Union and even Lahore, the capital of Punjab, was given to Pakistan. It is a matter of common knowledge that while the Muslims became the sovereign rulers of Pakistan and the Hindus got Hindustan, the Sikhs were, once again on the cross-roads of history. G.S. Dhillon, Truth About Punjab, (Amritsar,1996), p. 37

⁴ G.S. Dhillon, op. cit., p.50

⁵ In pursuance of the Reorganisation Act of 1966, Punjab was dissected and cut into four pieces. The major portion of the territory was ceded to Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. A sizeable chunk of its territory ( about 23%) was transferred to Himachal Pradesh, whereas Haryana secured 35.8% of the territory of the pre-organised Punjab. Chandigarh too was lost to Punjab.). Even the neighbouring states of Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi were given ill-gotten gains when about 75% of Punjab's waters were allotted to these non-riparian states. Again the biggest violation of the constitution was the assumption of the control and distribution of waters of all the three Punjab rivers and hydel power in Central hands.

⁶ This policy was considered unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution that bar the making of distinction on the basis of place of birth of a person for entry to any public service.

⁷ The Tribunal has made the following allotments: Rajasthan (non-riparian) 8.60 M.A.F, Haryana (non-riparian) 3.83 M.A.F, Delhi (non-riparian) .20 M.A.F, Punjab (riparian) 5.0 M.A.F, Jammu and Kashmir (riparian) 0.65 M.A.F. out of a total of 18.28 M.A.F. It may be mentioned here that actually the waters for distribution, remain, as earlier assessed, i.e. 15.2 M.A.F. The present assessment is the result of technical and mathematical juggleries, having no relation to the ground reality.

⁸ "The Anandpur Sahib Resolution" which ostensibly speaks for more powers to the States was exploited by the ruling party as a pernicious move by the Sikhs to secede from the Indian mainstream and given wide publicity through press, platform and the government owned media during the December, 1984 elections. This unhealthy strategy won the Congress (I) victory. It defamed the patriotic Sikh community which came to be considered as a community of traitors and secessionists throughout the country. Strangely enough the same person, who condemned the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, entrusted it to Sarkaria Commission. However, the damage done to the Sikhs, known for their services and sacrifices during and after the country's freedom struggle is beyond doubt irreparable. For more details see G.S. Dhillon, Truth About Punjab : SGPC White Paper, Chandigarh,1996.

⁹ It is a matter of open knowledge that not one person has been hauled up for enacting the most dreadful holocaust in Indian history that followed in the wake of Smt. Indira Gandhi's assassination. Not one shot has been fired on the miscreants. Not one tear gas shell has been exploded. Looted property was recovered from the miscreant's places, yet no action was taken against those having indulged in loot. Retired judges and Citizen's Committee have named the culprits but the dignitary accountable for ministration of justice dismisses all appeals for justice saying "earth must shake when a big tree falls."

The government's concern to see culprits absolved of all charges by recourse to appointing Enquiry Commissions of committed judges to give the process a legal colour stands unmistakably exposed. Even this was done when the government was compelled under mounting national and international pressure. However, the timing of the enquiry was also deliberately designed to make it appear as a gesture of great generosity rather than shamefully belated act of justice.

¹⁰ It may be made clear that we have no intention of justifying the acts of violence and terrorism committed by the supporters of Bhindrawale. But it seems that violence and terror unleashed by the government is in no way more justifiable. The activities of the terrorists can be curbed. But when the powers-that-be themselves perpetrate violence and injustice on innocent people on a much larger scale, where are the victims to turn for redress?

¹¹ Madhu Kishwar, The Sikhs Alienated, The Sikh Review, July, 1985, p.35


Copyright©2003 M.S. Ahluwalia. About the author