by Kharak Singh

Copyright © Kharak Singh

Dr. Kharak Singh has authored several papers on Sikh studies. He was also editor of Abstracts of Sikh Studies, published by Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh. --Editor

Introduction

A view is being propagated in some quarters that fundamentalism among Sikhs today is apparently the basic cause of the current political unrest in Punjab. Without giving any evidence in support of this contention, one such writer proceeds to describe it as ‘primarily a movement of resistance’ and ‘a universe that is characterized by incoherence and disorder.’ And then ‘as a social scientist’ he seeks to provide ‘meaning and shape to what appears to be chaotic and meaningless’ or to discover ‘what may be termed as theory and practice of the Sikh fundamentalist’, although on the authority of Jurgen Habermas, quoted by him in the epigram, he maintains that “Meanings…can be made accessible only from the inside."¹ Incidentally, one would like to know whether he is interpreting the movement as an insider or an outsider.

The author points out that ‘Sikh fundamentalists have not succeeded in articulating their vision of the world in any great detail.’ His attributes this ‘lack of an elaborate model’ to the ‘social origins of Sikh activists.’ He says,

A great majority of them come from the country side and would be classified as peasants by social anthropologists. Historically, peasants have not been known to come up with any grand paradigms of social transformation. Peasant societies are by definition made up of little communities and their cosmos is invariably parochial rather than universal.

This is his favourite theory which can explain all major questions relating to Sikhs and Sikhism. In an earlier paper read at Berkeley,² the author wrote:

If there is any such thing as a key to a historical problem, in case of the Sikh tradition it is to be found in its social constituency. Sikh religion is first and foremost a peasant faith. Sociologists have often spoken of how Islam is an urban religion. Sikhism may be spoken as a rural religion. When dealing with beliefs, rituals and practices of the Sikhs – be they religious or political – it is always worthwhile to constantly remind ourselves that we are fundamentally dealing with the peasantry.

The above explanation is obviously unsatisfactory and inadequate. So the author also looks at ‘correlations between Punjab's political economy and the nature of dissent in Sikh society, the demand for a new personal law for the Sikhs, and finally the famous Anandpur Sahib Resolution, a document that may be considered as the Magna Carta of Sikhs.’

The discussion of political economy revolves around the size of holdings, which is not of much help, since their distribution and size are significantly different from those in other states. The Green Revolution is also prominently mentioned, particularly its social costs and the ‘polarization of Punjabi society over the last two decades.’

Some of the inferences are difficult to accept. For example, it has been stated that small holdings, ranging from 2 to 5 hectares have become increasingly less viable. The Green revolution entails adoption of high yielding varieties and modern farming techniques, which raise productivity per unit of land. So, if at all, the Green Revolution should make small holdings more viable than before. This enabled even the subsistence farmer to spare something for the market after meeting his family requirements.

Also, the author has not explained why the Green Revolution occurred only in the Punjab, while the two major requirements viz. better varieties and modern technique of farming, were available in all countries of South Asia, including other states of India. Is it not due to the more progressive attitude of the Sikh peasants of Punjab towards modern methods of farming? However, in the author’s judgment using Weber’s litmus test for modernity, Sikh fundamentalists “badly fail.”

In the entire discussion of the political economy and the Green Revolution, the author has not suggested anything with fundamentalist connotations on the part of Sikhs. Nor has he been able to point out any such thing while dealing subsequently with the other two major topics that fill the body of his paper viz., the demand for Sikh personal law and the Anandpur Sahib resolution.

Hindus have a personal law. So have the Muslims. They are not dubbed as fundamentalists on that score. Then how could Sikhs turn fundamentalists by merely making such a demand?

The suggestion that Sikhs do not have a uniform code at the present moment, is no disqualification for making such a demand. Similarly in the Anandpur Sahib Resolution the author himself does not find anything wrong, which is no more than a demand for greater political autonomy, already voiced in several other states. The author himself concedes that it is, like an “election manifesto of a political party” in India or any other country.

The author’s own discussion lends little support to his thesis of Sikh fundamentalism. He is, however, determined to put this tag on the Sikh struggle. Therefore, in the conclusion he formulates three new ‘arguments’, which convince nobody except himself. These are: First, ‘in the Punjabi word moolvad Sikhs possess a term that exactly corresponds to fundamentalism.’ Is it an argument? Second, ‘many orthodox Sikhs have no patience for textual analysis of Sikh Scriptures.’ The statement is baseless. But even if it were correct, how could views of a few orthodox Sikhs expressed today, impart a fundamental character to a demand made over 40 years ago.?

Third, ‘the current Sikh movement manifests many tendencies like millenarianism, a prophetic vision, revivalism and Puritanism, trends are commonly associated with fundamentalism.’ No evidence is given in support of this contention. The statement appears to be a product of the author's own 'prophetic vision.'

In the quest for material to support his unsustainable thesis, the author (who is - probably an anthropologist) has wandered into areas of religion and politics where he does not belong. That is why he has wasted his scholarship on matters, which are completely irrelevant to the Sikh struggle. He has obviously missed the real issues.

A few other scholars have also ventured to make uncalled for and ignorant observations concerning the Punjab problem, it appears necessary to give a perspective historical account of the major issues underlying this crisis. In this paper we shall mainly confine ourselves to the paper of Harjot Oberoi read at Anaheim. In his paper there appears an evident attempt to camouflage the realities of the situation by introducing unrelated matters like Sikh ideology; the miri-piri concepts, modernity, Sikh pluralism, secularism, the Nirankari issue, Turner's theory of social structure, etc.

For our discussion we shall first take up the Punjab problem and its genesis, which the author has carefully avoided and then discuss his observations to show their irrelevance, except as an attempted cover to hide the realities in Punjab.

Commitments With Sikhs Before 1947

In 1929 when Shri Jawahar Lal Nehru was the President, a formal resolution was passed by the Indian National Congress at Lahore that no constitution of India would be finalized, until it was acceptable to the Sikhs. The second assurance was the clear statement of Nehru in 1946 that there was nothing objectionable in the Sikhs having an area demarcated in the North West of India, where they could enjoy the ‘glow of freedom.'

It was a significant statement since it was given in the context of Jinnah's offering to the Sikhs constitutional guarantees in a separate state in the Eastern part of the contemplated Pakistan. Third, there was the statement of Mahatma Gandhi⁶ saying that his words should be accepted and that the Congress would never betray anyone, and that if they did, the Sikhs knew how to use their kirpan. Finally, there was the statement of Nehru⁷ in the Constituent Assembly in December 1946. While proposing a federal system with autonomous states, he moved the executive resolution, which envisaged,

"The Indian union as an independent, sovereign republic comprising autonomous units with residuary powers, wherein the ideals of social; political and economic democracy would be guaranteed to all-sections of the people, and, adequate safeguards would be, provided for minorities, backward communities and areas."

Nehru described the resolution as a "Declaration, a pledge and an undertaking before the world, a contract of millions of Indians, and therefore in the nature of an oath which we want to keep." These were some of the commitments regarding an autonomous area in a federal system, which the Congress had solemnly given to the Sikhs, on the basis of which they had agreed to throw their lot with India.

Commitments Violated

Unfortunately, after 1947 the Congress completely changed its views and stand. Sikhs were aghast, when the draft of the proposed Indian Constitution was circulated to the State Assemblies in 1949, because, instead of autonomous states and a federal Constitution, the draft was for a purely unitary type of structure. Unanimously, all Sikhs of the Punjab Assembly objected to the draft and wrote as follows:⁸

It has been the declared policy of the Congress that India is to be a union of autonomous states, and each unit is to develop in its own way, linguistically, culturally and socially. Of course, Defence, Communications and Foreign Affairs must remain the Central Subjects. To change the basic policy now, is to run counter to the oft-repeated creed of the Congress..

In the considered opinion of the Akali Dal that the residuary powers should be with the states..

The list distributing legislative powers should be based on the principle that the Centre or the Union Parliament should be limited to Defence, Communications and Foreign Affairs only.

But in 1950 the Congress, violating the earlier assurances and policies, framed a constitution, leaning heavily towards a unitary form of Government. In protest the Akali members declined to sign it. It is evident that the Anandpur Sahib Resolution of 1978⁹ is just a reiteration of Nehru's commitments in the Constituent Assembly in 1946 and of the reminder, the Sikh Legislators unanimously gave in 1949 to the Central Government, that it was violating its repeated assurances. Hence it is sheer ignorance on the part of the author to suggest that it is a "document of secession."

Neither was Nehru a secessionist, nor would he or the Congress have made a commitment that could be detrimental to the interests of the country. Is it the function of a scholar just to be the mouthpiece of the Establishment and echo its voice, or to detail and examine the problem ? The latter the author has failed to do either out of ignorance or design. In fact while the Sikhs in 1949 suggested three subjects for the centre, the Anandpur Sahib Resolution proposed Currency, too, to be a Central subject. Thus, Factually it is the Congress and the Central Government who have shifted their stand. The Sikhs are obviously not asking for anything new and unreasonable.

A Diametric Change

It was soon after Independence that Sikhs felt that the Centre or the Congress had diametrically deviated in their approach and policy towards them. The major indication was its framing a unitary form of constitution, with Sikhs to be kept a permanent minority in the State. A very significant indication of the biased Central approach to the Sikhs is what Patel conveyed to Master Tara Singh, when he wanted a Punjabi Suba to be carved out. No less a person than the Prime Minister Charan Singh has described it thus:¹⁰

When Master Tara Singh was there, he was talking of Pubjabi Suba. Then he had a talk with Sardar Patel. Sardar Patel said.: I am ready to concede it. But you will have only that much land that falls to your share on grounds of population. So Punjab area will be halved. Now you form 17%, of the Army. They will have to be dismissed. Are you prepared for it ?

The above made it plain what would thereafter be the Central approach towards Sikhs. Sikhs are known for their love and struggle for freedom. This new policy, the Sikhs feel, is aptly described by Machiavelli's, observations,¹¹

Those states which have been acquired or accustomed to live at liberty under their own laws, there are three ways of holding them. The first is to despoil them; the second is to go and live there in person; the third is to allow them to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within a country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you. Because this government, being created by the Prince, knows that it cannot exist without his friendship and protection, will do all it can to keep them.

We shall see if the events of the subsequent years, justify the feelings and apprehensions of the Sikhs.

The Struggle Starts

Following this complete change in the Central policy and disregard of its commitments, Sikhs started an agitation for creation of a Punjabi speaking linguistic - state in the North West. The Congress had been committed to creating homogenous linguistic states in the country and reorganizing provincial boundaries.

Accordingly, a State Reorganization Commission was set up to propose boundaries of new linguistic states. But strangely enough, while it recommended the formation of other linguistic states, it specifically suggested that Punjabi linguistic state should not be formed. Another indication of Central policy was that in 1956, instead of forming a Punjabi linguistic state, as in other areas, it merged the Pepsu State, in which the Sikhs were in a majority, in the East Punjab, thereby reducing the Sikhs to a minority in the new state. The struggle for Punjabi speaking linguistic state continued for over a decade.

In 1965 the war with Pakistan broke out, and against all apprehensions, Sikhs suspended their agitation and whole-heartedly supported the war effort. This they did in the national interest, merely on a promise of the Prime Minister that their demand would be considered later on. The Sikh contribution to this war was so impressive, both by the people and the soldiers, that after the War, the Prime Minister appointed a Parliamentary Committee to report regarding the formation of a Punjabi speaking state.

At the same time the Congress Party also resolved that a linguistic Punjabi speaking state should be carved out of the then Punjab. But it is very interesting and revealing to know the mind of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the then Information Minister, and Sh. Gulzari Lal Nanda, the then Home Minister to the Government of India, who was at the Government level to give effect to the proposal of the Parliamentary Committee. Hukam Singh,¹² then Speaker of the Lok Sabha writes:

“The Prime Minister was reported to have observed on November 26, 1982, when releasing some books published by the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (HT Nov. 27), that ‘When the Punjabi speaking State was formed, the suggestion made by the Committee headed by Sardar Hukam Singh had been accepted.' This was not so according to her statements in My Truth (p.117). Unfortunately, Mr. Shastri had made Sardar Hukam Singh, the Speaker of the Lower House, Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Punjabi Suba although he was very biased in favor of Punjabi Suba..

I went to Mr. Chavan and said, I had heard that Sardar Hukam Singh was going to give a report in favour of Punjabi Suba, and that he should be stopped…'

‘Once the Prime Minister's appointee had declared himself in favor of Punjabi Suba, how could we get out of it.'

“Mrs. Gandhi along with Mr. Chavan, could see Mr. Shastri with much difficulty and when they did, Mr. Shastri just said that he was fully in touch with the situation and that they need not bother (Ibid. p.118).

But I was bothered, and I went around seeing everybody. Of corse once the report came, it was too late to change it.”

"Lal Bahadur Shastri continued the policy of Jawahar Lal Nehru, and was as dead against the demand of Punjabi Suba as was Nehru. So, when he was urged upon by Mrs. Gandhi to stop Hukam Singh, he did not waste any time. Mr. Shastri called Mr. Gulzari Lal Nanda, then Home Minister, to his residence, and conveyed to him the concern about the feared report. I was contacted on the telephone. Mr. Shastri disclosed that Mr. Nanda was with him, and had complained that he had suggested my name (Hukam Singh, for the Chairmanship of the Parliamentary Committee under the mistaken impression, which he had formed during a casual--talk with me, that I believed that Punjabi Suba would not be of any advantage to the Sikhs ultimately, but that now I appeared determined to make a report in its favor."

"I answered that the facts were only partly true. I had told Mr. Nanda that Punjabi Suba would not ultimately be of much advantage to the Sikhs. But I had also added that the issue had by then become one of sentiment and had roused emotions. Therefore it was not possible to argue with, much less to convince, any Sikh about the advantages or disadvantages of Punjabi Suba. Every Sikh considered the denial as discrimination. I further inquired from Mr. Shastri, whether I had not expressed the same opinion to him and his answer was in the affirmative. I myself offered to confront Mr. Nanda by immediately rushing to Mr. Shastri's residence, but he said there was no need. This disillusioned me. The intention of the Government then was to use me against my community, secure an adverse report, and then reject the demand."

"The Govt. has never seen merit in any Sikh demand. The Das Commission in 1948 recommended postponement of reorganization on the plea, inter alia, that if once begun in the South, it might intensify the demand by Sikhs in the North. The J.V.P. committee (Jawaharlal, Vallabh Bhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya), when reviewing the Das report, gratuitously remarked that no question of rectification of boundaries in the provinces of Northern India should be raised at the present moment, whatever the merit of such a proposal might be."

"And this became the future policy. Nehru struck to it. Shastri continued the same, and Indira Gandhi has made no departure."

"Every effort was made by Mrs. Gandhi, Mr. Shastri, and Mr. Nanda to stop me from making my report."

Why the government had been so strongly against the Parliamentary Committee making a report in favor of Punjabi Suba and why Mrs. Gandhi had felt bothered and ran about seeing everybody to stop Hukam Singh, has been explained by Mrs. Gandhi herself. "The Congress found itself in a dilemma, to concede the Akali demand would mean abandoning a position to which it was firmly committed and letting down its Hindu supporters in the Punjabi Suba (p.117, My Truth)."

The Government has always been very particular about not "letting down its Hindu supporters." The Congress could not depend upon Sikh voters and out of political considerations could not suffer losing Hindu votes also. Therefore the Congress failed to do justice to Sikhs.

The first schedule of the Regional Committee Order 1957 contained Ropar, Morinda and Chandigarh assembly constituencies in Ambala district in the Punjab region.

The subsequent reference to the Shah Commission was loaded heavily against Punjab. Making the 1961 census as the basis and the tehsil as the unit was a deliberate design to punish Sikhs. The language returns in the 1961 census were on communal lines. Therefore the demarcation had to be on a communal rather than on a linguistic basis.

Consequently merit was again ignored and justice denied. Naturally, tensions between the two communities increased. If the Sachar formula, worked out in 1949 had been accepted, there would not have been any further conflict, if the Regional Formula had been allowed to be implemented, there would not have been any further discontent. And if Punjabi Suba had been demarcated simply on a linguistic basis, and not on false returns in 1961, there would not have been any extremist movement.

It clearly shows that the demand for a linguistic state, a policy which was an old one with the Congress and which had been implemented in the rest of India, was to be denied in the Punjab, because Sikhs would become a majority there and come into power under the democratic process. Henceforward, it would seem that the Central Government has been following the three pronged policy of despoiling Punjab, ruling it by stooge governments, and imposing President's rule, if and when, by the democratic process, a non-Congress government came into power in the state.

The subsequent history of the Punjab has been just a struggle between Sikhs, historically known for their love of liberty, and the Centre pursuing the above policy. Both Mrs. Indira Gandhi and Shri Nanda were concerned and worried about the proposal for a Punjabi Suba being accepted by the Congress. The proposal was conceded only after over fifty thousand Sikhs had courted arrest and scores had died during the peaceful agitation.

A Sub-State Created

The Parliamentary Committee having recommended the creation of a Punjabi Suba, the Home Minister got passed an Act, the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, which in its implication was not only a denial to Punjab of a status equal to that of other states in the country, but also involved a permanent ceiling on the economic, social and political growth of the state and its people. The Act had the following crippling provisions and limitations:

i. For the development of every state in India two things are basic, namely, water and energy. As it is, Punjab, because of its rivers and very great hydel power potential, is fortunate. Under the Constitution of India, and everywhere under international law and practice, Irrigation and Power are state subjects (Item 17 of the State List read with Article 246 of the Constitution). These are under the exclusive executive and legislative jurisdiction of the states. But by the provision of Section 78 to 80 of the Reorganization Act, the Centre unconstitutionally kept to itself the power of control, maintenance and development of the waters and hydel power of the Punjab reivers.

This was a clear violation of the Constitution. In other words, Punjab became a state which could do nothing for the control and development of its rivers, utilization of their waters and exploitation of their hydel power potential. Thus Punjab became administratively and legislatively an ineffective and inferior state, which could do nothing for the economic development of its people. The question of political growth could not arise, because it had permanently been reduced to a sub-state without scope for regaining control of its waters and hydel power. Hence, progress towards autonomy became out of question.

ii. The second limitation concerned the territorial boundaries of the states. In 1949 under the well-known Sachar Formula the state government indicated, upto a village, the boundaries of Punjabi speaking and Hindi speaking areas. Later, under an Act of Parliament, known as the Regional Formula, Punjabi speaking and Hindi speaking areas of the old Punjab were demarcated and separate legislative Committees representing the two areas were constituted. The Sachar Formula and the Regional Formula had been accepted and worked without any objection from the people, legislators or Ministers of the areas concerned, until 1966.

Instead of accepting the settled boundaries, as had been recommended by the Parliamentary Committee proposing the formation of the Punjabi Suba, the Government appointed a Commission to redetermine the boundaries and thus to reopen and make controversial a settled issue. In fact, areas which were Punjabi speaking or were under the functional control of Panjab were excluded from the Punjabi Suba, and the Commission excluded not only settled Punjabi speaking contiguous areas, but also the State capital from the Suba, even though it had been constituted by acquiring Punjabi speaking villages, and in every other reorganized state the capital had remained with the parent state.

An area almost equal to half of the present Himachal Pradesh, was transferred from the Punjab to Himachal Pradesh though they were known Punjabi speaking areas. Even the site of the Bhakra Dam which was constructed solely by the Punjab Government and had always been under its functional control, was kept out of Punjab, although the area is Punjabi speaking. At the same time, Simla and other hill stations were transferred to Himachal Pradesh.

Demands After 1966

The new state being basically handicapped, an agitation for redressal of the grievances started soon after 1966, because it was anticipated that its future under the created discriminations would be ruinous for the people. The salient demands of this agitation were as follows:

i. Satluj, Ravi and Beas, being purely Punjab rivers, and their waters and hydel power being indispensable for the economy of the State, no water or hydel power should be allotted to non-riparian states like Rajasthan, Haryana or Delhi because such an allocation would be unconstitutional. The issue could, therefore, be referred to the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. In no other state at the time of reorganization had the provisions of the Constitutions been violated to deprive it of its wealth of water and hydel power as in Punjab.

ii. The boundaries that had been accepted by all concerned, including the people and the legislators, should not be disturbed to deprive the new state of known Punjabi speaking areas, through a centrally appointed Commission.

iii. The Central Government’s order that recruitment to Defence Services should be based on the population of the state, was unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, which state that in the matter of recruitment to Public Services no distinction could be made on the basis of place of birth of an individual. The object of this order could evidently be to reduce the strength of Sikhs, which was originally about 20%, to below 2% which was to be the share of Punjab on the basis of its population during future recruitment to Defence Forces.

Actually, the strength of the Sikhs in the Defence Forces had already been reduced to about 8%, and the Sikhs apprehended that the new policy would further reduce their strength to 2% or less. This unconstitutional policy of the Government has been a major cause for distress in the rural areas of the Punjab. As lakhs of families were dependent on the profession of soldiery for their livelihood, and since the percentage of Sikh soldiers in the army became increasingly reduced, this caused serious economic dissatisfaction among the youth in rural areas of Punjab, especially when they found that in other states candidates with lower physical fitness standards were accepted. As this policy related only to the Defence Services, where Sikhs, because of their tradition, aptitude and fitness were eminently suitable for selection, it created a serious sense of discrimination against them in the policy of the Central Government.

iv. Even before Independence, the keeping of kirpan (sword) was accepted as a religiously prescribed wear for Sikhs. Its wear by a Sikh has been guaranteed under the Law and the Indian Constitution. During British days there had been a specific agitation for this freedom. But now the Central Government issued an order placing restrictions on the carrying of kirpan in certain situations. This order was considered violative of the Indian Constitution. Hence the demand was for withdrawal of the unconstitutional restrictions.

Apart from the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, which will be discussed separately, the above were the four major demands of the Sikhs after 1966. These demands were reasonable and legitimate, and since the Constitution provides a specific forum for their solution, the Government, if it intended, could have lawfully settled them without the least objection from any party or State. No one could say that the constitutional issues should not be referred to the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, which was the body to give a verdict on them, and once the decision had been made, no party could raise any objection.

So far as the territorial matter was concerned, the demand was equally valid, because it required that the borders that stood settled and accepted by the people of the areas, and the decision embodied in an Act of Parliament, should not be arbitrarily altered through the Commission.

But what could be settled in one day, has been made to linger on for decades, and so the Congress dominated Central Government has consistently failed to follow the constitutional path or to maintain the status quo on a settled issue.

Instead of giving the long history of the Akali agitation over the last about quarter of a century, we shall, for the sake of brevity, confine our discussion mainly to the two issues of river waters and the Anandpur Sahib Resolution.

River Waters and Hydel Power Issues

After Independence roughly 38 MAF of river waters fell to the share of East Punjab in India. Of these, about 32 MAF were carried by the three Punjab rivers, Satluj, Beas and Ravi, and the remaining 5.6 MAF were carried by the Jamuna in Haryana area or the Jamuna Basin. Excluding 5.6 MAF of Jamuna (only part of which was utilized in Haryana area of erstwhile Punjab), of the remaining over 32 MAF, about 9 MAF were being utilized in the Punjabi Suba area, and one MAF was used in the Gang Canal for the Bikaner State, which had an agreement with Punjab for a limited period, on payment of royalty to Punjab for the use of that water. In short, about 22 MAF of Punjab waters were still available for use of the State. Actually a considerable part of the 22 MAF was being used in the Pakistan area, before 1947. But after the Partition these waters fell to the share of Indian Punjab.

The second essential point is that Punjab is short of water. As Dr Lowdermilkl¹³ has pointed out, sweet water is going to be a scarce commodity and a limiting factor in the development of an area or state in the coming century. Agricultural experts have estimated that 5 to 6 acre feet of water are the annual requirements of an acre for growing two crops like wheat and paddy, the recommended rotation in the state.

The cultivable area in Punjab being 105 lakh acres, the annual requirements of surface water come to about 52.5 MAF. But the available waters are only 32 MAF, of which about 0.6 MAF have to go the co-riparian Jammu and Kashmir. In sum, Punjab is woefullly deficient in the availability of river waters to meet the requirements of its cultivated area. Here we should like to state two points:

First, we cannot for want of space give the entire history of the allotment of the river waters. We shall record only the result of the decision made by the Central Government. Second, we shall give only approximate figures, because these have been marginally changed by different assessments and are still under controversy. The figures given will be the accepted data during the period before 1970.

The Reorganization Act has a provision that in case of any dispute between Punjab and Haryana regarding the Beas Project, the Centre would be the arbitrator. Apart from the provision being considered violative of the Constitution, it was really unnecessary, because the Beas Project had been framed and finalized long before 1966, and envisaged the allotment of only about 0.9 MAF to the Haryana area. Such projects are always drawn in great detail, including plans for utilization of water, channels, commanded area, and water to be supplied to each channel, distributary or water course.

As such, the very provision of the Act was superfluous, except as a lever for its unwarranted use, as has been revealed later. After 1966, Haryana drew up a project, Satluj Tamuna Canal, which is supposed to carry 5 MAF of water from Punjab rivers. The Central Government approved of it.

Punjab did not accept its validity, being a post-Reorganization project and not a part of the Beas project. Because of the dispute the Centre gave an award, and the final result broadly is that out of the 22 MAF, only about 5 MAF have been allotted to the Punjab, while 8 MAF go to Rajasthan and the remaining to Haryana. In short, after 1947, about three-fourths of the available waters of the Punjab state have been allotted to non-riparian areas of Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi.

We shall briefly mention the three stages of this long controversy.

The first stage is the arbitration award by the Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, in 1976 allotting, excluding flow of Satluj waters of the Bhakra Project, 3.5 MAF each to Punjab and Haryana, 0.2 MAF to Delhi, leaving the remaining for Rajasthan which had been earlier earmarked under an executive order of the Centre.

Following the defeat of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in the 1977 elections, an Akali-cum-Jan Sangh Ministry was formed in the Punjab. After obtaining expert legal advice, they filed a case in the Supreme Court questioning the award of the Prime Minister and the vires of the Punjab Reorganization Act of 1966.

The third stage is that soon after Indira Gandhi returned to power at the Centre, she dismissed the Akali Ministry in Punjab, and later called a meeting of the three Congress Chief Ministers of Rajasthan, Haryana and Punjab, and made them sign an agreement virtually endorsing the earlier award. It gave 8.6 MAF to Rajasthan, 3.5 MAF to Haryana, 0.2 to Delhi, and 4.2 MAF only to riparian Punjab.

Following the agreement, the case pending before the Supreme Court was withdrawn by the Punjab Government, and the Prime Minister, Mrs. Gandhi laid the foundation of the SYI. Canal. Thus a constitutional' attempt to have a decision of the Supreme Court on the fundamental constitutional issue was frustrated, following executive decisions. The conclusion is incontrovertible that the diversion of Punjab's water and hydel power resources to non-riparian states has been done by the Centre by resort to extra judicial measures and by frustrating the constitutional process, which the Akali Ministry had sought to follow.

It only shows that all through the Centre was aware that the allotment was not constitutional and the Supreme Court would not endorse the validity of the unconstitutional provisions of the Reonisation Act, 1966, and what it had decided regarding the allotment of Punjab waters and hydel power to non-riparian states.

Here, two other points need to be mentioned. There is a provision in the Reorganization Act, that hydel power from Punjab rivers will go to Haryana in proportion to the allotment of water. Second, the agreement of 1981 among the three states only related to water of Punjab rivers. The constitutional issue about the provision concerning hydel power of these rivers was outside the scope of that agreement. Accordingly, it was still open to a future Punjab Government to raise before the Supreme Court the constitutional issue about the validity of the Reorganisation Act concerning hydel power. As such, the entire Reorganization Act could be got declared unconstitutional, thereby upsetting the apple cart of all allotments of water and hydel power to non-riparian states.

The centre’s consciousness about its unconstitutional course appears evident from the fact that in May 1984 during the President’s Rule the Punjab Governor entered into an extra judicial agreement with Haryana and Rajasthan, providing that future disputes, if any, among them shall not be referred to the Supreme Court, but shall be decided through a nominee or a Tribunal appointed by the Central Government.

Without going into the history of such decisions regarding the Narmada and other river waters in India, we shall quote only one decision made by a California Court¹⁴ in February 1988. The case related to a petition by the Federal Government that its lands situated in California be allowed some irrigation from a stream in South California. Until then the private land owners on the basis of their riparian rights were not allowing the use of the river water to even Government lands in the State. The Court decided that while the Federal lands might be allowed waters, the water use for State lands would be subordinated to the needs of the current water users in the State.

This is to emphasize that, not to speak of allowing water to non-riparian states, the priority of private water users is so strong and universal that until Feb. 1988 the private land owners were not allowing water to even Government lands. This priority is evidently based on the principle that since for centuries on end, it is the people of a state that suffer loss in property, land and life from the floods and vagaries of rivers, they alone in equity have the corresponding right of having benefits from the waters or hydel power of those streams.

In no democratic country in Europe, America or India is there a decision contrary to the riparian principle which is also embodied in the Indian Constitution. One fact alone will show the equity of the riparian law.

In 1988 the Punjab floods caused a havoc. The loss in erosion and silting of land, damage to crops, houses, property and cattle, apart from the loss of scores of human lives, was estimated at over a billion dollars¹⁵ in that single year. Neither Rajasthan, nor Haryana, nor Delhi suffered even a penny worth of loss or damage from Punjab rivers of which they had been made the principal beneficiaries. The above highlights the contradiction and evident injustice that while riparian Punjab continues to suffer such damages, the non-riparian states reap each year benefits and production of over a billion dollars.

In India, too, there is a clear cut decision in the Narmada waters case,¹⁶ saying that Rajasthan being a non-riparian state has no rights to its waters whatsoever. In that case Rajasthan itself pleaded that even though non-riparian, it was getting Punjab waters, and on that analogy it should be allowed waters from the Narmada. But it was held that Rajasthan was non-riparian vis-à-vis Punjab rivers, and Punjab's commitment to Rajasthan was that it would supply water, only if it was surplus to its needs. This is to stress that knowing full well all this and other judicial decisions and rulings of the Indian Courts on the subject, the Congress dominated Central Government has consciously violated the riparian principle, and when challenged, avoided a judicial verdict on this constitutional issue.

Disastrous Effect of Drain of Punjab Waters and Power

The ruinous and despoiling effects of Central decisions are large scale in the fields of agriculture and industry. At present out of 105 lakh acres of cultivated land in Punjab, about 92 lakhs are irrigated including about 37 lakhs by canals and the rest by tubewells. This indicates that the major part of irrigation and Punjab prosperity and production are dues to private effort and enterprise.

First, the capital cost and maintenance and running costs of these over 8 lakh tubewells are a heavy burden on the production costs of crops in the state. Current costs of tubewell irrigation is 3 to 10 times more than canal irrigation, depending upon the source of power. Apart from the fact that uninterrupted supply of power from diesel or electricity is hardly assured, the heavy overdrawal of subsoil water exceeds the annual recharge by rains, seepage, etc. This is lowering the water table each year by one to ten feet. The present position of tubewell irrigation is that between 80 to 90 percent of the Community Blocks in the state have been branded as unsuitable for irrigation by tubewells.

The clear warning given is that by the close of the century, majority of these tubewells would become non- functional because of the continuous fall in the water table. The second point is that available estimates suggest that 10 lakh acres of existing canal irrigated areas especially from the Sirhind Canal area, would lose facility of canal water because water at present used in the state will have to be diverted to Haryana and Rajasthan under the present decision. In short, because of the lowering water table and diversion of canal waters, about 60% of the area or about 50 lakhs acres would become barani or unirrigated.

Under the present cropping system, the question of dry farming does not arise. The holdings of small farmers being what they are, the resultant misery of a major part of the rural population can well be imagined. Its very serious effects on economic and social conditions in the state and their disturbing influence on the political life should be obvious. The annual loss of agricultural production would be of the order of 1.2 billion dollars. The loss in consequential industrial production and in the diversion of hydel power to other states would be still greater. The unfortunate part is that whereas hydel power from Punjab is being allotted to other states, thermal power plants are being installed in Punjab. These being dependent on coal from distant states, the electricity generated by them is obviously several times more expensive than hydel power.

Anandpur Sahib Resolution

As explained, the basis of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution is not any snap decision or secessionist trend in Punjab politics. It simply asks for implementation of the assurances given by the Central leadership before 1947. Since 1949, the Akalis have been pressing the Central Government to give effect to their earlier policies and assurances. Since then the following additional factors have arisen to make it necessary that states should have autonomous power:

i. In 1971 the Tamil Nadu Assembly adopted the Rajmanner Report, which requires that the Centre should have only four subjects as in the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, and in addition, there should be a consultative committee of Chief Ministers of states presided over by the Prime Minister to advise the Centre regarding the four Central subjects. Such views have also been expressed by West Bengal and other non-Congress Ministries.

ii. In the preceding 40 years the center has amended the Constitution a number of times to make it more centralized. For example, Education, Administration of Justice and Constitution of Courts, have been made either concurrent or Central subjects. The percentage of discretionary grants to be given to the states from the Central revenue has been raised very considerably, thereby enabling the Centre to favor or punish any state it may like to do.

iii. The Centre has created non-statutory or extra-constitutional bodies like the Planning Commission, the Water and Power Commission, the University Grants Commission, etc., which have great powers not only to make financial allocations, but also have unfettered discretion to approve or disapprove state schemes which fall exclusively within the sphere of state functioning. By this method, the Centre could completely throttle all development in a state, should it choose to do so. A classic case is the construction of the Punjab Project of the Thein Dam which was to cost originally only 70 crores, but Punjab failed to receive final approval from the Power Commission even though in the mean time its cost has risen to over 800 crores.

iv. Another factor is the frequent Central intrusion in state affairs by creating instability in a state and introducing President's rule. For example, whenever a non-Congress Ministry was constitutionally formed in the Punjab, it was destabilized, followed by the President's rule. This was felt to be a negation of the democratic will of the people.

v. As the disastrous shackle of the Punjab Reorganization Act makes Punjab a sub-state, the only way to promote socio-political progress in the state was to have full autonomy in the sphere of all development, planning and administration including control of water and hydel power of Punjab rivers.

vi. Under the existing political set-up, as in the Punjab Reorganization Act, the Centre has insisted on the construction of the Rajasthan Canal despite all expert advice to the contrary. International experts from the World Bank and other institutions clearly emphasized that the Project was economically unjustifiable and wasteful, and that at far less expense the use of Punjab river waters could be far more productive if utilized within the state. It shows that the Central decision neither served the national interests nor those of the Punjab.

vii. Economic exploitation of Punjab in other fields has also been going on. Over 75% of the savings in Punjab Banks are diverted outside the state in order to develop other areas. Industrial licensing and approval of projects being in Central hands, it has not allowed more than 2% of the cotton produced in the Punjab to be processed within the state. Similarly, while Punjab is a major sugarcane producing area, large scale imports of sugar still take place from other states.

Another way of serious curtailment of the wealth of rural Punjab, which sustains about 80% of the population, is by low pricing and monopoly procurement of wheat and rice which are in Central hands. Puniab suffers the most about 60% of wheat and a large part of rice are procured from Punjab by the Centre fro distribution in deficit or urban areas in other states.

We have indicated above some of the central measures that have seriously curtailed Punjab’s Agricultural and Industrial growth. In fact, the Reorganization Act has put a permanent ceiling on the economic, social, and political development of the state.

It is in this context that the assurances of the Congress leaders, and the Akali demand of 1949 were revived in 1973, because it became evident that in the existing set-up economic and social growth of the people of the Punjab stood completely arrested. Hence the need of autonomy in the field of development and administrative subjects, as envisaged in the Anandpur Sahib Resolution.

Evidently it is sheer bias on the part of a scholar to make a complete black-out of the context, the steps taken by the Centre and the political events in the Punjab and other states that have given rise to the Anandpur Sahib Resolution demanding state autonomy, and approvingly to endorse the Anandpur Sahib Resolution 'as a document of secession.' In the current political thinking both in the world and in India, it looks so incongruous for even a journalist, much less for a scholar to brand a simple demand for autonomy as secessionist. We give below by way of a sample a recent statement of a Central Minister, George Fernandes, who observed at a seminar on Indian nationalism, Problems and Challenges, that ¹⁷

The growing militancy by the youth was a clear indication that the politicians had failed to solve the problems of the country. The only answer was to have a new constitution, providing a genuine decentralised state with development activity being the responsibility of the people.

If the country had adopted decentralisation instead of going in for centralised planning, there would not have been a single village in the country with a drinking water problem.

The author H. Oberoi has unnecessarily and illogically raised the issue of Sikh personal law, and tried to relate it to so-called Sikh fundamentalism. First, there is nothing fundamentalist in making a political demand. Second, Sikhs have undoubtedly a separate religion, a separate scripture and a separate socio-political identity and worldview. Accordingly, there is nothing abnormal or irrational, if the Sikhs, like the Muslims or the Hindus, want to have a separate personal law, it is the right of every ethnic community to make such a demand.

It is ridiculous for anyone to suggest, as has been done by Oberoi, that after the grant of autonomy the Sikhs would ban tobacco, drugs or alcohol. Nothing of this sort was done by Ranjit Singh even in the nineteenth century. The Punjab Assembly has power even today to ban tobacco or alcohol, but nothing of the kind has happened, although some other states have introduced prohibition. It appears hardly rational to raise such a bogey. It reminds one of the fears expressed by some politicians that hens would stop laying eggs, if the steam locomotive invented by Stephenson was introduced.

As explained earlier, the real object of Oberoi appears to be political, and the aim seems to be to misrepresent the justification and political necessity of the demand for state automomy. For, otherwise, it is difficult to accept that he is absolutely unaware of the basic importance of water and hydel power, territorial, recruitment and other issues in reference to Punjab and the demand for autonomy in many other parts of the country.

Fundamentalism

From the point of view academic studies the point is completely irrelevant to the subject under consideration, because fundamentalism is related only to the literal acceptance of many of the stories and assertions in the Bible, which under modern conditions are not accepted by many. For example, it has been stated that the world is only a few thousand years old. There is nothing in the Sikh scripture or the Sikh ideology, which appears in any way illogical to modern thought. In fact it is the modernity that is its basic feature and is the reason for its departure from the earlier Indian religions. It is not our intention to give offence to any old religion, but we all know that they have their statements which are questioned even by men of the faith. Hence, it appears necessary to give the Sikh world-view, so that Oberoi's contentions could be assessed in the correct ideological perspective.

Sikhism is free from any historical or mythical assumptions. It is a monotheistic faith with the belief that the basic Force or God is Love, and He is both transcendent and immanent in His creation. Love being dynamic, the mother of all values, and directive, God is deeply interested in His creation, and operates through His altruistic Will. As such, the seeker's goal is to carry out His Will. This makes for the reality of the world, instead of its being an illusion (mithya) or a suffering, as is considered by some other religions. Hence, Guru Nanak emphasizes four things:

First, that in life the spiritual dimension must be combined with the empirical dimension in order to live a full and fruitful life. This forms the basis of the miri-piri doctrine laid down by him. Second, that the ideal of man is not personal salvation or merger in Brahman, but working in tune with the altruistic Will of God. Our present malady is that we live an egoistic life, and remain alienated from the real force of Love, that is operative in the world and forms the base of all moral life. Third, in pursuance of the above logic Guru Nanak rejected the system of monasticism, asceticism, other-worldliness, caste ideology and the prevailing concepts of pollution, and woman being a temptress. No prophet in the world has made such radical changes in the then contemporary religious thought as did Guru Nanak.

Fourth, he prescribed that man's assessment would be made on his deeds alone. It is in this context that he stated that

Truth is higher than every thing, but truthful living is higher still.

A major corollary of his system of truthful living, which is its central element, is man's duty to participate in social life and accept total social responsibility. For that end he suggested that for the religious man, work, production and equitable distribution are essential, as also the responsibility of confronting or resisting injustice and oppression. Because he calls God the Destroyer of evil-doers and the demoniacal. In order to enable the religious man to discharge the responsibility of resisting oppression, he rejected the doctrine of ahimsa or pacificism, which had been an integral part of all Indian religions. And it is in this context he gave the call that whosoever wanted to join his society, should be willing to scarifice his all. For that end he organzsed a society, and created the institution of succession to enable his successors to develop and mature the Panth (community).

Finally it is this society which the Tenth Guru created as the Khalsa, again giving a call for total sacrifice, and breaking completely with the earlier religious systems, traditions, customs, etc. Hence it is sheer ignorance of Oberoi to relate Guru Granth Sahib and its system to something of the kind of Christian fundamentalism in order to create prejudice in the minds of those who have no knowledge of Sikhism.

Guru Granth Sahib or its ideology can be summed up as was done by Guru Nanak thus: Give up egoism and live a life of love, virtue, equality and justice. Accordingly there is no obscurantism or pluralism in the ideology of Guru Nanak. To make such a statement is to display gross ignorance of the basic ideology of Guru Nanak. As to the miri-piri doctrine, it is the fundamental of Guru Nanak’s thesis to combine the empirical life with the spiritual life of man. It is the same principle accepted by Moses and Prophet Mohammad, both of whom were simultaneously religious and political leaders.

As to the Nirankaris, he has again completely misrepresented the position either out of ignorance or otherwise. The Nirankaris are neither a Sikh sect nor a break-away group, nor do the Nirankaris themselves make any claim to be Sikhs. The clash between the Nirankaris and the Bhindrawale group might well have been a created problem in order to sidetrack the Sikh political struggle for its rights. In any case, such a conflict could be between the two ideologies. Further, it is a misstatement that the death of Gurbachan Singh was followed by mass killings in the Punjab. Nothing of the kind happened and Oberoi has not given any evidence to support this unfounded statement. The alleged clash had nothing to do with the political problems of Punjab and the issues involved therein. A minor clash between two communities can hardly be a reason for denying autonomy to a state.

Oberoi has also incongruously introduced the point of the Green Revolution, which is chronologically a baseless assertion. The Sikh agitation for Punjabi Suba and autonomous status, is a political issue of pre-Independence days and even the demand of Punjabi Suba and its autonomy arose in the life of Sardar Patel. Long before the Green Revolution, the agitation for the Suba had started. Over fifty thousand went to jail and suffered imprisonment and other hardships. All this happened before the onset of the Green Revolution.

All this happened before the onset of the Green Revolution. As every student of Punjab agriculture is aware, the first import of high yielding seeds from Mexcio took place in 1966, and the impact of the Green Revolution was not felt before tlje mid seventies. By that time the agitation for Sikh demands including the fasts of Sant Fateh Singh and Darshan Singh Pheruman, as also the death of the latter, had taken place. Second, the occurrence of the Green Revolution in Punjab is an accomplished fact. But the important question is why it took place in the North West corner of India among the rural Sikhs and not anywhere else in India or Asia, which had been deficient in food.

It is the life-affirming ideology of Sikhism that is the sole explanation for it as has been explained by Upinderjit Kaur in her publication. Oberoi's difficulty appears to be his complete ignorance of the spirituo-empirical life combination or the miri-piri system of Guru Granth Sahib. That is why he seems to be beating about the bush. As to the subdivision of holdings, he has again made a contradiction.

Subdivison is a natural consequence of the system of succession. The Green Revolution has not in any way accentuated it, but it has made small holdings more productive and the life sustaining than before. Higher yields and greater production have relieved the economic situation, and this is supported by no less a person than Subramaniam, the Agricultural Minister of India.

Oberoi has harped a lot on modernity and secularism, and has only displayed an ignorance of the broad forces that are involved in the current century. It is Toynbee, who laments that for the last three hundred years religion has been driven out of the cultural life of man and instead parochialism of the worship of the national state as a goddess has started. He also laments that the Western technologist has lost his self-confidence and is in confusion, whether the technological genii which he has released would not destroy all human culture and whether his "professional success may not have been a social and moral disaster."

For him "the great world religions have been replaced in modern times by three post-Christian ideologies - nationalism, communism and individualism. All three are equally impersonal and dehumanizing." Similarly, Pierard believes "Secularism in the nineteenth century aided by Marxism, Darwinism and Positivism chipped away the Christian underpinning of Western thought." This thinking considers that secularism and nationalism eventually will give rise to militarism, imperialism, racism and despotism.

The history of the current century hardly seems to suggest that secularism leads to cultural or moral progress. In fact, the indications, both historical and current, seem to be quite different. For, in Europe and the USSR millions were destroyed by Hitler and Stalin both of whom were secularists without any belief in religion. It is in this context that the American Churches have raised the voice that secularism is a major danger to life and that Christianity should co-operate with other religions in order to avoid the present decline in moral values of our culture.

It is doubtful, whether Hegel, as Oberoi suggests, can be associated with the thinking of divorce between religion and politics. But whatever be his belief, he is certainly associated with German militarism and is considered to be the precursor of Kaiser, Hitler and despotism. In fact it is the post modern thinking of men like Huston Smith¹⁸ that suggests the recognition of the role of religion against the limitation and potential harm that is contained in the power-over-nature approach to life that governs much of our modern culture. This philosophy appears to lead towards "only a dead end; annihilation of mythology, religion, all value system, all hope."

REFERENCES

¹ Harjot Oberoi, Sikh Fundamentalism: Ways of Turning Things Over. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion, Anaheim, November, 1989.

² Popular Saints, Goddesses and Village Sacred Sites: Re-reading Sikh Experience in the Nineteenth Century. Read at Conference held at Berkeley, USA, Feb., 1987.

³ Young India, Bombay, March, 1931.

⁴ The Statesman. Calcutta, July 7, 1946.

⁵ Kapur Singh, Sachi Sakhi, Navyug Publishers, 1973, pp.32-33.

⁶ Young India, Bombay, March 19, 1931.

⁷ Duggal, Devinder Singh: The Truth About the Sikhs, Amritsar, ND., page 14.

⁸ The Council of Sikh Affairs, Chandigarh: The Anguish of Punjab: Sikhs Demand Justice, ND., page 5.

⁹ Dhillon, G.S: Researches in Sikh Religion and History, Chandigarh, 1989, page 134-35.

¹⁰ Illustrated Weekly of India, June 10-16, 1984: The Man Everyone Loves to Hate.

¹¹ Machiavelli, Niccolo: The Prince, page 46, OUP, Reprint, A Mentor Book: New American Library; A Division of Penguin Books, USA, NY, Revised Trans. 1935.

¹² Dhillon, G.S: Researches in Sikh Religion and History,, op.cit., page 114-15.

¹³ The Council of Sikh Affairs, Chandigarh: Punjab River Waters Dispute, page 12.

¹³ Los Angeles Times, LA (USA), Feb., 1988, pages 1 and 32.

¹⁵ The Tribune, Chandigarh, dated Aug. 3, 1990.

¹⁶ Govt. of India : The Report of the Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal, Vol. III, pages 25, 26 and 30, New Delhi, 1930.

¹⁷ Femandes, G., Rly Minister, Govt. of India.

¹⁸ Huston Smith: Beyond the Post-Modern Mind, The Theosophical Publishing House, Wheaton (III), USA, A Quest Book, 1985.