India last week arrested Akali leader Simranjit Singh Mann under sections 124(A) and 153(A) of the Indian Penal Code. This action was in the air for quite some time. The charges (seeking to endanger the security of the Indian state) are based on a call by Mann to the Sikhs at the Fatehgarh Sahib congregation to raise their hands for or against Khalistan for Sikhs. India seems to have been frightened by the fact that almost every Sikh present raised his hand in favor of freedom from India. There was no support for India at all. Mann took pains to emphasize that he would like Sikhs to agitate peacefully and through democratic means to achieve Khalistan.
Why should a democracy be scared if people of a region democratically decide to stay out of India? If the Indian state has no vested interests in Punjab and treats the state on equal footing with other states, then secession by Punjab should mean nothing to it. But the truth is altogether different. Punjab is India’s colony and a base for its exploitation. That is why India cannot afford to lose Punjab. There was no hint of violence in Mann’s speech at Anandpur Sahib. Had there been any, India would have arrested Mann under the notorious T.A.D.A.
Mann’s arrest once again exposes India as a fake democracy where there is no freedom to raise any demand and peacefully seek its fulfillment. One can operate in India’s democracy if one accepts Brahmanical state’s perimeters. Otherwise no one can raise any issue much less agitate peacefully for it. Any move towards freedom from India is frowned upon. It is often dubbed as terrorism. The only redeeming feature is that there is a section of people in India who oppose these tactics of the Indian state. It is hoped that Mann’s unwarranted arrest will be condemned not only within India, but also by members of the U.S. Congress and the senate as also other leaders of the U.S. public opinion. But will the U.S. state department and President Clinton personally seek freedom for Mann?
Mann’s arrest is no isolated instance to show the Indian state’s intolerance of freedom and democracy. Take the case of elections in Kashmir. The British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, visited India and Pakistan last week. While in Delhi, he offered to send observers to Kashmir. Not only to represent his country but also other countries of the commonwealth, to oversee the proposed elections. Such a suggestion is eminently sensible in the context of Indian claims that Pakistan is out to disrupt the restoration of democracy in the disputed territory. But no one in India has welcomed Hurd’s idea. On the contrary, a few Indian newspapers have written editorials opposing the induction of observers as interference in India’s internal affairs. Compare the continental India’s response with tiny Nepal’s. The latter actually encouraged foreign observers to visit Nepal when election to Nepal’s national Assembly were held last month. All the observers certified Nepalese elections to be fair and free. India is scared because it does not intend to hold free and fair elections in Kashmir. The whole world knows that India always rigged elections to deprive Kashmiris of a representative government. India officially did not react to Hurd’s offer because the elections are not on the horizon anyway. But the straws in the wind are clear that it will resist any outside observers in the valley.
Whether it is Mann’s arrest or India’s opposition to any observers in Kashmir, signals are clear: India is no democracy. It is at best a Brahmanic guided democracy. The same is true of its economic liberalization program. We have been of opinion that since India is not a democracy, it cannot introduce any meaningful economic liberalization either. This is confirmed by none else than India’s finance minister Dr. Manmohan Singh who, according to reports, has offered his resignation because his program is being throttled by none else than the office of the Indian prime minister. Otherwise, it is evident that the Indian system is just not equal to introducing any legitimate liberalization. That is why foreign capital is reluctant to enter the country especially after the defeats suffered by the ruling party in the elections to the state assemblies of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
The interests of freedom and democracy necessitated stepped up international intervention in India. Resolutions should be passed seeking freedom for Mann. Also, leaders of the public opinion in the U.S. need to be informed more systematically about the anti-democratic nature of the Indian state.
Article extracted from this publication >> January 13, 1995
