Tragic events do have a sobering effect. For a fleeting while, they serve to suppress the evil and egotistical passions that generally govern the human behavior. The effect, more often than not, proves very transitory. It is particularly true in case of politicians who prize their positions above everything and feel no compunctions in compromising truth, justice and ethical values for narrow political ends.
The reaction of Rajiv Gandhi to the assassination of Gen. A.S. Vaidya, former Chief of Army Staff, is no exception. He is reported to have said that “terrorism cannot be combated through security measures alone. It needs to be simultaneously tackled at the political level also.
His statement is a reluctant admission of the true nature of the problem in Punjab. It is a clear departure from Delhi’s obdurate insistence on treating it simply as a law and order situation. The statement, in all probability, will prove to be a passing expression prompted more by Gen. Vaidya’s violent end than by a lasting realization of the vital truth.
“Terrorism” in most cases is not like the “motiveless malignity” of a Shakespearean villain, rather it flows as a direct consequence of continued injustice and political oppression, when political stale mates are purposely created and deliberately allowed to procrastinate, they tend to explode into violent reactions. These reactions generally degenerate into terroristic activities. Yet no civilized person, whatever are the extenuating circumstances, can ever condone terrorism in any form. It deserves to be unequivocally condemned. But irate or idle condemnation won’t lead us anywhere, the problem needs to be approached with sympathy and understanding. Perhaps it might prove productive to conduct a clinical probe into the real or imaginary grievances of the estranged segments to determine the legitimacy of their alienation and resentment rather than resorting to draconian law sand curbing their civil liberties and human rights, which only serve to generate a feeling of persecution.
It is the cumulative effect of such persecution that has largely contributed to the prevailing impasse leading to violent confrontations between the two communities that had for centuries lived together in an atmosphere of amity and good will.
Rajiv is not so naïve as to be ignorant of the genesis of the Punjab tangle. In fact, he, more than anybody else, has been closely associated with the game of hide and seek that Delhi has been playing with Sikh aspirations ever since Indira subverted in democracy to perpetuate her dynastic hegemony. He is also not ignorant of the ongoing elimination of Sikh youths through fake police encounters. In his anxiety to preserve his Hindu fundament a list vote bank, he finds himself a prisoner in the snare of his own creation. He is influenced by elements that deem even an illusory gesture of fair play to Sikhs as uncalled for “appeasement” or “concession”.
To keep India together, Rajiv has to extricate himself from such retrograde forces and must subordinate his personal ambitions to national integration. He can do it by seeking a political solution to the Punjab problem. As a first step, his government must forthwith stop holding Sikhs responsible for every incident of violence in the country. Every killer on a motorcycle is neither a Sikh nor an accidental explosion in midair the handiwork of Sikh freedom fighters. The vicious atmosphere of witch hunting must give place to inspiring trust in the majority community. The Sikhs can never experience a genuine sense of equality and safety in India so long publicly indicted villains like H.K.L. Bhagat and Jagdish Tytler are prowling around to prey upon them. It is these elements that have shattered their trust and they must instantly be brought to book. Otherwise the disquieting process of increasing bangs and blasts would keep claiming unsuspecting lives till the country falls apart in pieces.
Article extracted from this publication >> August 15, 1986
