It has been almost a year since the “historic” Rajiv-Longowal Ac- cord was signed. It would be appropriate to re-examine it, especially in light of the events in Punjab since its signing.
This brings to an end a very critical period in the history of this country”, Rajiv exclaimed, The media, particularly in India, hard on all the “concessions” made to the Sikhs. There were several rallies in Haryana and elsewhere protesting a “sellout” to the Sikhs, The newsmagazine India Today then carried a cover article titled “BREAKTHROUGH”, referring to the agreement. Like similar articles in other news publications, it contained a detailed armchair analysis of the accord, The actual text of the agreement, however, ‘was conspicuously missing in most of them. On examining the actual contents of the text, one got a different picture than the one gen- rally painted in the media. The situation with the Punjab accord was analogous to that with the Anandpur Resolution; hardly any- ‘one in the media published the actual text, most Indians didn’t read it (but were sure it was secessionist!), the Congress party campaigned against it, few questioned when Rajiv Gandhi did an about face, and not many realized that it had appeared in the accord. ‘The euphoria over the settlement seemed unjustified, especially – when one analyzed it from the Sikhs’ perspective.
It was claimed that “this settlement brings to an end a period of confrontation and ushers in an era of amity, goodwill and co-operation, which will promote and strengthen the unity and integrity of India”, The Akali Dal is a major Sikh political party. Longowal was the leader of one of its two ‘major factions. The accord, how- ever, could not “end the confrontation” because the confrontation vas not with Longowal. During the last few years, a younger more militant leadership has emerged in Punjab. Indian Government’s confrontation was, and still is, with this group. Unfortunately, the Indian Government has constantly tried to isolate this group and has been generally insincere nit’s over- all approach to solving the Punjab problem.
One would have hoped that the bloodshed of the 1983-1984 years ‘and the emergence of a new leader- ship in India would lead to a fresh and more sensible approach to solve the problem, Unfortunately, the accord showed that window- Grassing takes precedence over – true statesmanship. No Sikh with any self-respect and commonsense would have accepted that “settlement” which claimed to have – “conceded” most Sikh demands, Did it, really?
In the 11 article accord, four had nothing to do with the original Sikh demands, These pertained to events related to the Indian Army ‘attack on the Golden Temple and the anti-Sikh massacres after Indira Gandhi’s assassination, The agreement called for extending the jurisdiction of the Mishra Com- mission to the massacre victims of Bokaro and Kanpur. Instead the government has essentially shelled even the inquiry in New Delhi; this it has done by changing an earlier provision in the Constitution which would have forced the report to be presented at least to the Parliament within six months of its completion, The agreement called for “ex-gratia payments to those innocent killed in agitation or any action after August 1, – 1982.” Let alone any compensation, even the names of people killed in fake encounters, the Golden Temple assault, the November 1984 massacres etc. have not been completed.
Let’s examine the other parts of the agreement. Article 2 stated, “All citizens …. Have the right to enroll in the Army and merit will remain the criterion of selection.” Is it really a concession to the Sikhs? For example, was the proclamation “All Men are created equal” in the US a concession to the minorities? Most Indians, including some Sikhs, ask “What is wrong with quota system; they are used elsewhere in India and in other countries too?” Well, usually quota systems are used to guarantee a minimum level of partition by a minority group; in regards to the Sikh enrollment in the Armed Forces it is used as a ceiling to limit their participation, How would the Brahmins, for example, fee! If they were limited to 1% (or whatever their population representation) of government jobs?
In article 5, the government agreed to “consider the formulation of an All-India Gurdwara Act ..In consultation with others conceded and after fulfilling all relevant constitutional requirements.” No time limit was set and it could be delayed indefinitely through legislative gimmicks. And, of course, no known progress has been made on this as yet,
Article 10 stated, “Existinginst- Tuitions regarding protection of (minority interests) will be re- Circulated to State Chief Ministers”. Obviously, those states ignored those instructions in the past and a simple ‘recirculation’ would not do much good. Also, according to Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, Sikhs (along with Buddhists and Jains) are declared a part of the Hindu religion. Since they are not recognized as a “minority” how could they benefit from any laws for that purpose?
‘Article II stated, “Central government may take some steps for the promotion of the Punjabi language”. And again, it may not. The language was not binding.
The memorandum was equally vague on three important Sikh demands which relate to territorial claims, center-state relations and river water sharing.
Media reports have flatly declared that Chandigarh will go to Punjab. Article 7, however, talked of dividing the city and transferring the Hindi-speaking areas to Haryana, A commission was to determine who speaks Hindi or Punjabi. At the same time the existing boundary between Punjab and Haryana would be adjusted based on linguistic affinity, contiguity and taking a village as a unit. ‘The first commission that was formed immediately focused on the Abohar – Fazilka area. Instead of first dealing with the issue of contiguity, without which all else ‘was meaningless, the commission set about trying to determine the linguistic majority to see if the area could be given to Haryana. There were reports of the Haryana government trying to infiltrate Hindi- speaking people into the area, but thanks to the vigilance of the Punjabis in the Kandukhera area, it was determined, yet one more time, that there was no contiguity. There were rumors that Haryana and Rajasthan would exchange some territory in order to obtain contiguity. Subsequent commissions arbitrarily decided that Pun- jab should give 70,000 acres to Haryana as compensation for – (Chandigarh, It seems that the Central government is more intent on satisfying Haryana rather than fairly arbitrating the issue, Three postponements later, the city of Chandigarh still remains a union territory.
The original Sikh demands for greater religious and political freedom were based on the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. The Indian government considered it a secessionist document. Article 8 stated, “Shiromani Akali Dal states (that the resolution) is entirely within the framework of the Indian Constitution….” When an accord is signed by two parties, all references are considered “joint” unless ‘one party is mentioned by name. By mentioning the Akali Dal by name, the Indian government dis- associated itself from the statement, and if Rajiv considered the resolution “secessionist” how did he claim to have “conceded” most of the demands contained in the resolution? An obvious contradiction!
The Center-State relation aspects of the Anandpur Resolution were not “conceded” but referred to the Sarkaria Commission with no time limit. To date, no known progress has been made on this Issue.
The “concession” on watershering was the most outrageous. Pun- jab is a riparian state and should ‘control the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi rivers in accordance with inter~ ‘national law and the Indian constitution. Punjab claimed that the neighboring states of Rajasthan and Haryana were getting more ‘water than they should have, at the expense of Punjab farmers. Article 9 stated, “The farmers of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan will continue to get water notes than what they are using from the Beas-Ravi system as on July 1, 1985. Water used for consumptive purposes will remain unaffected.” Was it really a concession to Punjab? ‘Actually, it was a reassurance to Haryana and Rajasthan that no matter what happened they will continue to receive existing quotas (already too much from the Pun- jab point of view). The construction of the Sutlej-Jumuna-Link canal was also to continue and be completed by August 1986. This canal is being constructed (over Punjab’s objections) to give even ‘more water to Haryana and Rajas- than. Even though the canal will probably not be completed by the target dialogic dictates that Haryana’s share of the water should have been determined before the construction is even begun. What if it is determined that Haryana does not get any more water from Sutlej? It appears that the Central Government has already assumed that Haryana should get more water.
After Haryana was assured of Keeping existing water quotas – “The claim of Punjab and
Haryana…. On their remaining waters will be referred to … a tribunal presided over by a Supreme Court judge.” Sikhs had demanded that the water issue be decided by the Supreme Court itself because it will have to act according to the Constitution. The Janata government had done so but after retiming to power Mrs. Gandhi with- drew the case. A judge in a
Tribunal can decide anything; it would be arbitrating and not a judicial process. By now the Sikhs should know very well what happens when issues are decided by tribunals and commissions appointed by the Central Government.
“Concessions” imply acceptance of demands. In this accord, almost everything was either refer- red to commissions or was to be “considered” later. Prime Minister Gandhi didn’t giveaway anything. Longowal signed away a lot, setting the Sikh struggle back to square one. Predictably, some months ago when people began to question the implementation of the accord several political leaders, government officials and media people claimed that most of the Sikh demands had already been met.
The government controlled Indian media hailed this accord. Since 1929, the Congress Party has been playing a similar game with the Sikhs; it robs the Sikhs and insists that it has actually given them something. The feeling of frustration and impotence has been building up for five decades. The current violence is most unfortunate but it is a natural result of government’s policies over the years.
Many commentators have urged the Sikhs to follow the tenants of Mahatma Gandhi the greatest advocate of non-violence. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of Sikhs have peacefully courted arrest during the many years of agitation for their demands, including the years leading up to the army’s assault on. The Golden Temple in March, | 1931 Mahatma Gandhi had said, “Sikh friends have no reason to fear that (the Congress Party) will betray them, (If it does) Congress – would not only thereby seal its ‘own doom but that of the country too. Moreover, the Sikhs are 2 great people. They know how to safeguard their rights by the
exercise of arms if it should ever come to that”, It appears that the Indian Government is more interested in winning the media game rather than making an honest attempt at addressing the fundamental issues of the problem. The current situation does not bode well for the nation and it is sincerely hoped that Mahatma Gandhi’s prophecy not played through its entirety.
Article extracted from this publication >> August 22, 1986
