Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-nacho!bajwa From: bajwa@nacho.DEC (BAJ DTN 381-2851) Newsgroups: net.nlang.india Subject: Sikhs' analysis of the RAJIV-LONGOWAL accord Message-ID: <1190@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 21:39:51 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.1190 Posted: Thu Oct 31 21:39:51 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 07:18:26 EST Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 165 A while back the newsmagazine INDIA TODAY carried a cover article titled "BREAKTHROUGH" referring to the Rajiv-Longowal accord. Like similar articles in other news publications, it contained a detailed analysis of the accord. The actual text of the agreement, however, was cospicuously missing in most of them. On examining the actual contents of the text, one gets a different picture than the one generally painted in the media. The situation with the Punjab accord is analagous to that with the Anandpur Resolution; hardly anyone 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 did an about face and not many realised that it had now appeared in the accord. The euphoria over the settlement seems unjustified, especially when one analyses it from the Sikhs' perspective. It has been claimed that " this settlement brings to an end a period of confrontation and ushers in an era of amity, goodwill and cooperation, 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, however, could not "end the confrontation" because the confrontation was 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 in its overall approach to the Punjab problem. One would have hoped that the bloodshed of the 1983-84 years and the emergence of a new leadership in India would lead to a fresh and more sensible approach to solve the problem. Unfortunately, the Rajiv-Longowal accord showed that window-dressing takes precedence over true statesmanship. No Sikh with any self-respect and commonsense would have accepted this "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 edmands. These pertained to events related to the Indian Army's attack on the Golden Temple and the anti-Sikh massacres after Indira Gandhi's assassination. Let's examine the others. Article 2 states, "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 proclomation "All Men are created equal" in the US a concession to the Blacks? In article 5, the government "agrees to CONSIDER the formulation of an All-India Gurdwara Bill .... in consultation with others concerned and after fulfilling all relevant constitutional requirements." No time limit is set and it could be delayed indefinitely through legislative gimmicks. Article 10 states, "Existing INSTRUCTIONS regarding protection of (minority interests) will be re-circulated to State Chief Ministers." Obviously, these states ignored these 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 Bhuddists and Jains) are declared a part of the Hindu religion. Since they are not recognised as a "minority' how could they benefit from any laws for that purpose? Article 11 states, "Central government MAY take SOME steps for the promotion of the Punjabi language". And again, it MAY NOT. The language is not binding. The memorandum is equally vague on three important Sikh demands which relate to territorial claims, center-state relations and river water sharing. Media reports flatly declare that Chandigarh will go to Punjab. Article 7, however, talks of dividing the city and transferring the Hindi-speaking areas to Haryana. A commission will determine who speaks Hindi or Punjabi. The original Sikh demands for greater religous and political freedom were based on the Anandpur Resolution. The Indian government considered it a secessionist document. Article 8 states, "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 has disassociated itself from the statement. And if Rajiv considers the resolution "secessionist" how does 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 are not "conceded" but referred to the Sarkaria Commission with no time limit. The "concession" on water sharing is the most outrageous. Punjab is a riparian state and should control the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi rivers in accordance with international law and the Indian constitution. Punjab claims that the neighbouring states of Rajasthan and Haryana are getting more water than they should, at the expense of Punjab farmers. Article 9 states, "The farmers of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan will continue to get water not less than what they are using from the Beas-Ravi system as on July 1,1985. Water used for consumptive purposes will remain unaffected." Is it really a concession to Punjab? Actually, it is a reassurance to Haryana and Rajasthan that no matter what happens they will continue to receive existing quotas (already too much from the Punjab point of view). The construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna-Link canal will also continue and be completed by August 1986 (note the definite time frame). This canal is being constructed (over Punjab's objections) to give even more water to Haryana and Rajasthan. After Haryana is 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 returning to power Mrs. Gandhi withdrew the case. A judge in a tribunal can decide anything; it would be arbitration and not a judicial process. "Concessions" imply acceptance of demands. In this accord, almost everything has been either referred to commissions or is to be "considered" later. Prime Minister Gandhi didn't give away anything. Longowal signed away a lot, setting the Sikh struggle back to square one. The government controlled Indian media hailed this accord. Since 1929, the Congress Party has been playing this 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 tenents 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 he 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 a 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 govt 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 I sincerely hope that Gandhi's prophecy is not played through its entirety.