To advocate conditional solution for the vexing Punjab problem is not just a matter of habitual hypocrisy but is symptomatic of the deep-seated dishonesty that marks most Hindu intellectuals, the pious pleadings for a politics sans guns fail to generate the desired response because the intentions lack sincerity and the motivation is transparently political.

No one is interested in promoting a politics of guns except the manufacturers of the guns. No one approves of bloodshed, least of all those who simply seek to preserve their religious identity in the face of a determined assault by the ruling majority community. To support the government policy of bullet for bullet and to make a hero of a butcher like Ribeiro and, then, to suggest that no dialogue can be held in an atmosphere of violence is to betray a psychology that is communal to the core.

The “boys” are fighting not because they are fond of bloodshed; they have been pushed to the wall and are retaliating for sheer survival. The so called voices of reason lament over the limited options available to the government in the present context but have never paused to consider the options that are available to the Sikh youth in particular and to the Sikhs as a community in general.

The black laws have made a mockery of the judiciary. To circumvent whatever little semblance of law still obtains, the Director of Police has instructed the security forces to straight away shoot down the “suspects”, Hundreds of Sikh young men have been killed (police figures show 345 killed in 20 months) and hundreds are missing. The voices of reason, curiously, don’t find anything wrong with such fascist acts. They have never raised their voice for the restoration of judicial process. They have never condemned the murders committed by the police in the name of maintaining law and order.

Politics sans guns is a noble slogan. But it cannot be one way traffic. To translate the slogan into a reality, it is imperative that the rulers must also drop the guns and develop a credible judicial system that would make a “suspect” face the court with the conviction that justice would be given to him. Curiously again, the voices have never deemed it necessary to suggest the release of the detained Sikhs, rehabilitation of the army deserters, punishment to the perpetrators of Nov.84 riots, action against Security officials responsible for atrocities at Brahmpura and other places, or an end to the desecration of the Golden Temple and other Gurdwara.

A passing reference to the unresolved problems of the Punjab cannot sound sincere when the bulk of the argument is devoted to giving more powers to the already bloated Security forces, Those who demand end of violence on a precondition initiating a political dialogue know full well that the kind of violence obtaining in Punjab can never be put down with police or military methods. They are not unaware of the failure of the British government in putting down IRA violence; they know that Security forces will not succeed against the Sikh youths. They also know that no government in Punjab can now last long that lacks popular Sikh support. The prospect of such @ government is most unpalatable for them, hence their preference for Presidential dispensation. The President’s rule serves as a convenient tool to manipulate agreements that illegally exclude Punjab’s rights over its own hydroelectric projects as well as to put such agreements beyond, the purview of the Supreme Court, 7The advocates of politics sans guns should realize that their own dishonesty and communal intolerance are largely responsible for the present impasse. They should also realize that excluding the Panthic Committee from any dialogue over Punjabis bound to prove as futile as pursuing shadows in the dark. Let them show a little honesty if they really mean to solve the problem.

Article extracted from this publication >>  December 4, 1987