When India adopted its constitution after gaining independence from Britain in 1947, the predominantly Hindu parliament gave its government the power to call state elections for legislative assemblies.
The constitution also gives New Delhi the power to dissolve a state legislature at any time and declare, under Article 356, “president’s rule.” This is what has happened to Punjab and Jammu-Kashmir, and it is no coincidence that they are India’s only states whose populations are mostly non Hindu.
In Punjab, the Sikhs made up 62 percent of the populace and they reject Article 356 as undemocratic, high-handed and a violation of promises made by Hindu leaders before Sikh representatives agreed to the plan that led to the independence and partitioning of India.
The Muslims who comprise about 80 percent of Jammu-Kashmir’s people feel the same way. They consider Article 356 an oppressive mechanism devised to ensure Hindu domination the Soviet constitution, which used to guarantee Communist Party rule.
Nevertheless, the Hindu dominated government in New Delhi has repeatedly used this constitutional ploy to deprive Punjabis and Kashmiris of self-government, integrity and prosperity.
How does the government justify its actions? Before calling the most recent set of state elections on Feb, 27 New Delhi ruled out such a vote in Punjab, saying that conditions were not right. Surprised Sikh leaders challenged this logic, asking how it was that Punjabis could vote in last November’s national election but couldn’t hold a vote of their own.
During last fall’s campaign in which self-proclaimed reformer V.P. Singh ousted Rajiv Gandhi as prime minister such prominent Sikh leaders as S.S. Mann, GS Tohra and P.S. Badal were kept in jail. Mr. Singh had them released and promised to address Sikh grievances but the continued refusal to grant Punjab a state assembly has Jed them to doubt him.
Granted, elections in India have a history of violence, vote rigging and intimidation (usually by the people in power) and the one in November was true to form particularly in Mr. Gandhi’s riding of . But in Punjab no violence reported and no repeat polls are required.
During the state elections in February violence was widespread in Bihar, where Mr. Gandhi supervised his party personally for many years and where victory meant a lot to his prestige. Despite the presence of central and state police, rep at balloting was required in 1,165 polling stations.
Given all this, Sikh leaders have accused the Singh government of being too timid and hypocritical in using conditions in Punjab as the excuse.
Mr. Tohra, who spent five years in jail without trial, says the National Front government is no different from that of Mr. Gandhi’s Congress Party. Mr. Mann, meanwhile, has called New Delhi’s action blatant discrimination and advised Sikhs to prepare for a long struggle.
The Sikhs may feel frustrated, but most major political parties have backed the government’s action. Coming from the Congress Party, this isn’t surprising. After all, it won only two of Punjab’s 13 parliamentary seats in November and doesn’t expect to do any better if state elections are held.
The BJP a Hindu fundamentalist party, feels the same. It was wiped out in the state last fall, and sees no advantage to setting the stage for a non-Hindu state government in what it feels should be a Hindu country.
On the surface the Communists’ sudden opposition to self-government is less predictable. However, although they won a record number of seats across the nation in November, they too, struck out in Punjab. Also, with given their support of Mr. Singh’s minority government, they can retain their influence in Punjab by ruling it from New Delhi, so why risk losing it?
Of course, the great fear is Sikh nationalism which is understandable. With what Sikhs have gone through since India’s independence keeping Punjab in the country won’t be an easy task for any prime minister.
Even so, denying the state its democratic rights has been Mr. Singh biggest mistake since taking office. It has angered Sikh leaders and brought them closer together, despite attempts by the Hindu media and other interest groups to divide them. For the first time, prominent Sikhs have agreed that separation from India is worth serious consideration.
Article extracted from this publication >> May 11, 1990
