Foreword

Justice V.M. Tarkunde. Delhi, August 12, 1985

From June 4, 1984, when the Indian Army launched an attack on the inmates of the Golden Temple in Amritsar in what is known as the Blue Star Operation, the whole of Punjab was virtually cut off from the rest of the country by a rigid press censorship. Only recently there has been some relaxation in the censorship, particularly after he accord reached on July 24, 1985, between the Prime Minister Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and the Akali leader Mr. Harchand Singh Longowal. During this period of more than a year, the Indian public heard only one side of the story, in the White Paper published in July 1984 and in subsequent announcements over the radio, the television and in the hand-outs given to the press by the Government. Vague stories of large scale atrocities perpetrated in Punjab were circulating in Delhi and other places, but they were largely unverified. In this situation towards the end of April 1985, the Citizens for Democracy (C.F.D.) sent to Punjab a fact finding team consisting of five persons under the leadership of the well-known social worker Mrs. Amiya Rao. Only one of the five members was a Sikh, Shri Tejinder Singh Ahuja, a lawyer who on account of personal difficulties was not able to accompany the team for more than three days. The rest of the members spent 13 days in Punjab from the 1st to the 13th of May, 1985 and visited a number of cities and villages in the course of their inquiries. The object of the team was to study the general situation in Punjab, to examine how far civil liberties and the rule of law prevailed in the region, how the people reacted to the appeal of Sikh extremists on the one hand and the rigors of the army and police rule on the other, and what was the state of inter-communal relations between Hindus and Sikhs. What follows is the report prepared by the team.

The whole report except the Introduction had been written before Rajiv Gandhi-Harcharan Singh Longowal accord which was published in the press on July 25, 1985. There is little doubt that the accord is a step in the right direction and that it may go a long way in the eventual solution of what has become known as the Punjab problem. It is at the same time extremely important that people in the rest of the country know what has really been happening in Punjab in the last year or so. This is necessary not only for understanding the present situation in Punjab but also in order that we should appreciate what happens when democratic rule is allowed to be replaced by a rule of the army and of the police. The recent events in Punjab present a object lesson of how a democratic polity should not deal with a situation of acute public unrest.

The report is in three Parts. Part I describes the inhuman barbarities to which the people of a particular community in Punjab were subjected. It is a terrible take, carefully documented, of sadistic torture, ruthless killings, fake encounters, calculated ill-treatment of women and children, and corruption and graft on a large scale. It is also a story of the bravery of a people, particularly of the women-folk. A large number of Sarpanchas of Village Panchayats distinguished themselves by openly siding with people against the lawless police and the army. The story also shows that although the relations between Hindus and Sikhs in Punjab are not as cordial as before, the basic unity between the two communities has not been disrupted. Despite all the oppression of the Sikh community, there was not any incident of a communal riot even in villages where the Hindus were in a hopeless minority. The story also shows that the Sikhs of Punjab are hardly affected by the slogan of Khalistan. The story gives the impression that such extremism as one finds among Sikhs is largely the result of the acute dissatisfaction and resentment caused by army and police atrocities. The member of the teams, working in conditions of press censorship and official lawlessness, could hardly be expected to secure the official version of the various events recorded by them. But the statements of the informants were recorded by the team in well attended group meeting so as to eliminate exaggeration and misstatements as far as possible. The statements of important witnesses were tape-recorded, so that the accuracy of the report could be verified.

Part II gives a non-official version of what happened at the Golden Temple before and during the Blue Star Operation, from the 1st to the 7th of June 1984. It presents a series of facts, based on dependable evidence, which show that much of what is stated in the Government's White Paper is far from the truth. Evidence shows that on June 1 1984, no shots from the Golden Temple were fired at the police. It was on the contrary the CRP which fired continuously at Harminder Sahib on that day. The 4th of June, 1984 was wrongly chosen by the army for an attack on the inmates of the Golden Temple because, the 3rd of June being Guru Purb, a large number of pilgrims, nearly 10,000 in number, had come to stay in the Golden Temple. Many of them appear to have been killed in the army action. According to this report, the number of terrorist flushed out, from the Golden Temple as a result of the Blue Star Operation was rather small, a much larger number of alleged terrorist being inoffensive pilgrims staying at the Golden Temple. The report also shows that a large number of persons subjected to preventive detention or arrested under the anti-terrorist law are clearly innocent of the alleged offences.

Part III gives an account of the various Black Laws prevailing in Punjab and shows how innocent people are constantly harassed and oppressed by their operation. This is followed by a number of Annexures consisting of statements made by important witnesses.

The Punjab episode will always remain an important chapter in India's modern history. It has some valuable lessons to teach us. It shows, in the first place, that communalism in the country is to a large extent sustained and fermented by the unprincipled struggle for power of different political parties. The agitation in Punjab was started by the Akali Party which, being a party of a minority community, was assumed to be entitled to mix religion with politics. Although all the major demands were secular, the agitation was called "Dharmayudh". Once started, the agitation was allowed to continue because of the power politics of the Congress (I) leadership. The Akali demands could have been easily settled as early as in 1981, but Congress (I) leadership avoided a settlement because such a settlement would have increased the popularity of the Akali Party in Punjab. The situation was allowed to go from bad to worse, with the result that the Dharmayudh" went into the hands of extremist like Bhindranwale. The ease with which the issues were compromised between Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and Sant Harchand Singh Longowal on 24th July, 1985 shows that such a settlement would easily have been brought about four years ago, avoiding all the suffering and blood-shed which have taken place during the intervening period. Even the new Prime Minister, more democratically inclined than his predecessor, took advantage of Hindu communal sentiment in two successive election campaigns before he turned to bring about the easily attainable accord. In the meantime, Punjab was allowed to burn. That is how power politics fans the flames of communalism.

The second lesson of the Punjab episode is that we have yet to learn how to deal with public unrest, particularly if it assumes violent forms. The almost instinctive reaction of the ruling politicians, to whatever political party they belong, is to try to suppress public unrest by letting loose the police, and if necessary the army, on the affected people and by passing draconian laws so as to give arbitrary and oppressive power to the executive and to the security forces. Sometimes this policy is "successful", because the movement is crushed, the people are cowed down and law and order are restored. But the success is short-lived, for the public dissatisfaction is driven underground and it finds more violent expression from time to time. The Punjab episode shows that State terrorism is no answer to private terrorism. On the contrary, State terrorism foments insurgency and breeds more terrorists. For the same reason, draconian laws are counter-productive. They increase public resentment and offer a justification for private violence. In a democracy, public unrest must be met by democratic means. Primacy must be given to the removal of the grievances of the public. Law and order have to be maintained , but they must be maintained by just and fair laws. Terrorism must be eliminated, but that should be done by taking public in confidence and isolating the terrorist from the rest of the people. Justice and fair play must characterize the approach of a democratic government on all occasions of public unrest.

This report is bound to be a very controversial document. It deserves a careful perusal by the discerning reader.