A Response to a worldwide interest in the Punjab issue, the U.S. administration, too, has been expressing its views from time to time. President Clinton had written to Rep. Gary Condit towards the end of 1993 and had talked of the Sikh rights. That statement was frowned upon by Indian government and its diplomats, the administration had then explained that what the President meant was certain demands raised by Akali groups and that an independent Sikh state was far removed from President Clinton’s mind. The President has once again written to Rep Dan Burton on Nov. 21, 1994, on the issue. There is nothing in the letter for Sikhs to gloat over. The President is completely silent on the “Sikh Tights” irrespective of the limitations placed on them by the administration. Even the issue of human Tights of Sikhs is now being treated on a low key. It is merely on the administration’s “diplomatic” agenda. Its implication clearly is that the government is not willing to go beyond its diplomatic “Lakshman Rekha.” What is worrisome is the administration’s approach to the Punjab issue, which, in any case, is a part of its policy towards India’s politics as a whole. The administration is content to support the Indian state and its government on major issues. It has nothing to say on the main political contradictions in the Indian social and political life. The result of these contradictions is that a two party system of the kind envisaged by the administration is not emerging. In other words, a majority of the Indian people at the grassroots level continue to say “a plague on both the Congress (I) and the BJP.” Alternative to these parties are forces with local or regional interests. A time will come when these regional or federal groups will join hands to control the Indian central government. Not the unity and integrity buta federal restructuring is on the agenda of these groups. But the administration here remains wedded to the kind of unity and integrity that the present Indian state is all too willing to project and promote. “The United States continues to view Punjab as an integral part of India.” It is hard to see any difference between the approaches of the Congress (I) and the BJP in India and President Clinton in Washington.
The President needs to be told once again that a decline in violence, whether dramatic or otherwise, is no indication of the fall in popular discontent in Punjab. The issues that gave birth to agitation, whether peaceful or violent, remain unattended. The so called restoration of democratic institutions in Punjab is a myth, is the President not away of the fact that the preset state level democratic institution has the Support of only 1 the population? Such state level “democratic institutions” have all along been a visible reality in Kashmir all these 47 years. Yet another restoration there will not mean anything to the alienation of Kashmiris from the Indian state. As for the restoration of local institutions, these have been in existence since times immemorial in Punjab; its local democracies called Panchayats have been functioning with or without the Indian state and its constitution and laws. What is noteworthy is the fact that a majority of 75000odd rural, elected representatives had to resign their seats to protest against the police raj, which remains intact and is flourishing. The Indian state does not respond to the most elementary demands of these institutions. For instance, the Panchayats in Punjab have been demanding an end to the Indian sponsored sale of drugs and hard drinks in villages. Instead, these stores are maintained with the help of the Indian police in the face of strong resistance from the public. Let the President know this vital fact, that the people in Punjab remain the victims of Indian governments sponsored drug and liquor mafias. This phenomenon is not limited to Punjab. It applies with equal force to all the states. No wonder, “the other
Indian mode!” on assuming power in Andhra Pradesh imposed prohibition on the first day itself.
To talk of human rights, that too with reference to that toothless body called the Indian National Human Rights Commission, is utterly groundless. In fact, the Indian state is receiving the right messages from the U.S. attitude and had stepped up violations in Punjab, Kashmir and other states, of late. Limiting concerns about human rights to “diplomatic agenda” and “monitoring” them amounts, in the specific Indian contest, to encouraging the violations. The U.S. administration has to become more forthright in coming to grips with the Indian situation. There is widespread feeling that the President and his administration are guided more by trade rather than human rights concerns. This policy could pay off in the short run. But its long term impact could be dangerous to the U.S. interests in India.
Article extracted from this publication >> January 6, 1995
