WSN Service
CHANDIGARH: The five member panthic committee associated with Dr Sohan Singh and others here announced it had parted company with Babbar Khalsa International to carry forward the struggle for Khalistan and asked the Khalsa Panth not to be disheartened by the development.
On behalf of the committee Bhai Paramjit Singh Panjwar circulated a note stating that the committee members Dr Soham Singh Bhai Mahal Singh Bhai Wadhawa Singh Bhai Satinderpal Singh and Bhai Harmandir Singh Sultanwind along with Bhai Gurjant Singh Budhsinghwala Bhai Rachhpal Singh Chandra and Bhai Daljit Singh Bitu met recently to discuss the current Political situation and decided to part company with the Babbars.
The committee spokesman also announced the reorganization of the committee and inclusion in it of Bhai Daljit Singh Bitu and Bhat Shabaz Singh and the exclusion of the Babbar nominees. Bhai Mahal Singh and Bhai Wadhawa Singh.
Bhai Panjwar in the statement gave three reasons for the development The B.K.L did not dissolve the Khalistan government-in-exile as promised nor did it withdraw one of the two nominees on the panthic committee to pave the way for its reorganization and thirdly the B.K.I floated Shiromani Babbar Akali Dal and even an Istri Babbar Akali Dal. When pointed out the B.K.I .never took the others objections seriously an impression was allowed to be created by the Babbars as if these two organizations had the blessings of the panthic committee Bhai Panjwar added that the Khalsa Panth was passing through a very critical phase and was surrounded on all sides by enemies He said the parting of ways did not have any element of acrimony. They were separating not to fight between themselves but to carry forward the fight for the Khalistan the statement added.
Bhai Pamjwar frankly admitted that political activities of late had come to a standstill and the reorganization was aimed at reactivating political activity.
Observers feel that the three factors listed by the panthic committee which led to the parting of ways between the two main sections of the once powerful militant coalition are only a part explanation. There appear to be deeper reasons for the development
It is to be noted that militant groups suffered heavy casualties in the past few months especially since Chandra Shekhar took over Are alisation seems to have grown that the underground militant movement alone to the exclusion of an over ground democratic movement not only sympathetic to the underground but actually and effectively guided by it has its limitations.
The decision of the B.K.I to float Shiromani Babbar Akali Dal though resented by others was designed as step in the direction of meeting the challenge on the political front although observers feel the Babbars’ over ground group has not succeeded in catching the Sikhs’ imagination so far presumably due to a lack of effective leadership as also due to the want of thrust in respect of political matters.
The Panthic Committee and its associate groups will also have to give deeper thought to the need for a supplementary over ground movement to function not in collaboration with but in conflict with Delhi many observers of the Sikh scene predict. Obviously neither the A.I.S.S.F (Manjit) nor the Akali Dal (Mann) has succeeded in filling the void due to the fact that both vied with each other to curry Delhi’s favour and to get it self-installed in power for the sake of power in the traditional Akali mould.
Unfortunately the panthic committee itself gave the impression a tone stage that it patronized Mann Akali Dal and it’s kowtowing with the Chandra Shekhar government when certain circles misled it into believing that the Prime Minister was willing to take “on Khalistan”. Delhi of course had its own strategy in view. But the drift gave legitimacy to the A.I.S.S.F. (Manjit): to try its own hand at real politic. It formed a coordination committee which went to Delhi after a phase of hesitancy.
The panthic committee and others are now paying for the drift in the face of a clever stance of dialogue adopted by Delhi. Except for one or two minor groups none opposed the drift. The minor groups were of course not taken very seriously.
Article extracted from this publication >> June 7, 1991
