The Linguistic State And Territorial Disputes

During the independence struggles, Punjabis made sacrifices far out of proportion to their population. In 1947 as well, even though Punjab was forcibly divided along communal lines, creating a great tragedy, the Punjabis remaining in India threw their lot in with the other Indian people in the hope that the assurances extended to them would be fulfilled, and they would be able to maintain their identity and chalk out their development in the future.

A pledge was given by the late Pandit Nehru while presenting the executive resolution at the Opening Session of the Constituent Assembly in 1946. The Resolution envisaged the Indian Union as an independent, sovereign republic comprising autonomous units with residuary powers, wherein the ideal of social, political and economic democracy would be guaranteed to all sections of the people, and adequate safeguards would be provided for minorities and backward communities and areas. Nehru described the Resolution as a declaration, a pledge and an undertaking before the world, a contract of millions of Indians and therefore in the nature of an oath.

The disillusionment of the Punjabis started with partition and just after August 15, 1947. Despite the earlier promises and despite the earlier objectives of the Congress, that the Indian constitution would be a federal structure with the residuary powers belonging to the states, a constitution leaning heavily towards a unitary structure was framed. The Sikh representatives in the Punjab legislature reminded the Congress of its promises, and formally protested to such an extent that the Sikh members of the Constituent Assembly refused to sign the constitution.

The Congress Party government created linguistic states in other parts of the country in 1956, but this was denied to Punjab for another 10 years. It finally came after much suffering and struggle of the Punjabis, which resulted in the imprisonment of over a hundred thousand people. Every effort was made to sabotage it by making the new state as truncated and ineffective as possible. Sardar Hukum Singh, former Speaker of the Lok Sabha (the lower house of India's Parliament), mentioned how Mrs. Gandhi spoke with reservation about the creation of a Punjabi-speaking state during 1965-66.

He writes: "The Prime Minister [Indira Gandhi] was reported to have observed on November 26, 1982 when releasing some books published by the Delhi Gurdwara Committee, that `When the Punjabi-speaking state was formed the suggestion made by the committee headed by S. Hukum Singh had been accepted: This was not so. According to her statements in My Truth (p.117), 'Unfortunately, Mr. Shastri had made S.Hukum Singh, the Speaker of the lower House, Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Punjabi Suba although he was very biased in favour of Punjabi Suba... I went to Mr. Chavan and said I had heard that S.Hukum Singh was going to give a report in favour of Punjabi Suba, and that he should be stopped...once the Prime Minister's appointee had declared himself in favour of Punjabi Suba, how could we get out of it?'

"Mrs. Gandhi, along with Mr. Chavan, could see Mr. Shastri with much difficulty, and when they did Mr. Shastri just said he was fully in touch with the situation and we need not bother... (p.118). `But I was very bothered, and I went around seeing everybody. Of course, once the report came, it was too late to change it:

"Lal Bahadur Shastri continued the policy of Jawaharlal Nehru, and was as dead against the demand of Punjabi Suba as was Nehru. So, when he was urged upon by Mrs. Gandhi to stop Hukum Singh, he did not waste any time. Mr. Shastri called Mr. Gulzari Lal Nanda, then Home Minister, to his residence, and conveyed to him the concern about the feared report. I was contacted on the telephone. Mr. Shastri disclosed that Mr. Nanda was with him, and had complained that he had suggested my name (Hukum Singh) for the Chairmanship of the Parliamentary Committee under the mistaken impression, which he had formed during a casual talk with me, that I believed that Punjabi Suba would not be of any advantage to the Sikhs ultimately, but that now I appeared determined to make a report in its favour.

"I answered that the facts were only partly true. I had told Mr. Nanda that Punjabi Suba would not ultimately be of much advantage to the Sikhs. But I had also added that the issue had by then become one of sentiment and had roused emotions. Therefore, it was not possible to argue with, much less to convince, any Sikh about the advantages or disadvantages of Pusjabi Suba. Every Sikh considered the denial as discrimination. I further inquired from Mr. Shastri, whether I had not expressed the same opinion to him, and his answer was in the affirmative. I myself offered to confront Mr. Nanda by immediately rushing to Mr. Shastri's residence, but he said there was no need. This disillusioned me. The intention of the Government then was to use me against my community, secure an adverse report, and then reject the demand.

"The Government has never seen merit in any Sikh demand: The Dar Commission in 1948 recommended the postponement of re-organization on the plea; inter alia, that if once begun in the south, it might intensify the demand by Sikhs in the north. The J.V P Committee (Jawaharlal, Vallabhbhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya), when reviewing the Dar Report, gratuitously remarked that no question of rectification of boundaries in the provinces of Northern India should be raised at the present moment, whatever the merit of such a proposal might be. "And this became the future policy. Nehru stuck to it. Shastri continued the same; and Indira Gandhi has made no departure.

"Every effort by Mrs. Gandhi, Mr. Shastri and Mr. Nanda was made to stop me from making my report: ' Mr Hukum Singh further observed: "Why the Government had been so strongly against the Parliamentary Committee making a report in favour of Punjabi Suba and why Mrs. Gandhi had felt bothered and run about `seeing everybody to stop Hukum Singh,' has been explained by Mrs.Gandhi herself: `The Congress found itself in a dilemma; to concede the Akali demand would mean abandoning a position to which it was firmly committed and letting down its Hindu supporters in the Punjabi Suba: (p. 11'7, My Truth). The Government has always been very particular about not `letting down its Hindu supporters: The Congress could not depend on Sikh voters and, out of political considerations, could not suffer losing Hindu votes also. Therefore the Congress failed to do justice to the Sikhs...

"The subsequent reference to the Shah Commission [for the carving out of a Punjabi-speaking state] was loaded heavily against Punjab. Making the 1961 Census as the basis and the tehsil as the unit was a deliberate design to punish the Sikhs. The language returns in the 1961 Census were on communal lines. Therefore, the demarcation had to be on communal rather than on a linguistic basis.

"Consequently merit was again ignored and justice denied. Naturally, tensions between the two communities increased. If the Sachar Formula, worked out in 1949, had been accepted, there would not have been any further conflict. If the Regional Formula had been allowed to be implemented there would not have been any further discontent. And if the Punjabi Suba had been demarcated simply on a linguistic basis, and not on false returns in 1961, there would not have been any extremist movement."

After 1966, an Akali ministry was formed five times in Punjab. On each occasion this ministry was a coalition government of what is now called the Janata Party, and during these periods there was full communal harmony and amity in the state. Never did any tension prevail between the two communities. But in each instance, within a year or two, as soon as the Congress government at the centre found an opportunity, the ministry was destabilized and the democratic will of the people of the state was thereby nullified.

In 1967 the first elected Akali ministry was ousted by the Congress, which arranged the defection of about a dozen Akali MLAs who were lured into forming a ministry to rule Punjab with the open support of the Congress legislative party. This proved suicidal to the ideals of national integration, and the unity of the country. The Sikh masses grew deeply resentful, and they became disillusioned with the intentions of the Congress with respect to the future of the Sikhs and its willingness to tolerate even an elected but independent non-Congress ministry in the state.

The question of a Punjabi-speaking state was raised soon after 1947. This demand was consistent with the policy and resolutions of the Congress as declared from time to time before 1947. The idea was that linguistic states would make for unified educational policies and administrative cohesion. The Punjabi-speaking state was not created, although other states in the rest of the country were formed on a linguistic basis. To satisfy the Punjabi people, a formula was devised called the Sachar Formula, according to which Punjab was divided into two parts - one consisting of the Punjabi-speaking areas, and the other comprising the Hindi-speaking areas. According to this formula, the medium of instruction in the Punjab area was to be Punjabi, and in the Hindi-speaking area it was to be Hindi. In Punjab, Hindi was to be taught from the fourth or fifth primary, and in the Hindi region Punjabi was to be taught from the fourth or fifth primary. On the basis of this formula, regional committees were again formed. The Punjab state was again divided into two parts, namely the Hindi-speaking area and the Punjabi-speaking area. Two legislative bodies, a Punjabi Regional Committee and the Hindi Regional Committee, were constituted. Legislators from the two regions separately dealt with the demarcated Punjabi-speaking and Hindi-speaking areas.

Nobody questioned the demarcation of the two Regional Committees, and after the decision to carve out a Punjabi-speaking state, the demarcation already made under the Sachar Formula and again under the Regional Formula, and accepted by all concerned should have been adopted for demarcating the Punjabi-speaking state and Haryana. But unfortunately, instead of accepting the settled solution and demarcation, the entire arrangement was upset and the Shah Commission was appointed to demarcate afresh the Punjabi-speaking and Hindi-speaking areas on the basis of the 1961 census. Thus, like the river water dispute, the territorial dispute between the two states was also deliberately created by the central government.

The third basic question was of more autonomy to the states, known as the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. Before 1947, it was the considered and consistent policy of the Congress Party that the Indian Constitution would provide for a federal structure with autonomous states empowered with residuary powers. When the central government formally elicited the view of the Punjab legislature in 1949 on the Draft Constitution, the Akali representatives reiterated their stand for a federal constitution. The Resolution passed by the Akalis stated:

"India is to be the union of autonomous states, and each unit is to develop in its own way, linguistically, culturally and socially. Of course defence, communications and foreign affairs must and should remain the central subjects. To change the basic policy now is to run counter to the oft-repeated creed of the Congress. In the considered opinion of the Akali Dal, residuary powers should be with the States. The list distributing legislative power should be based on the principle that the Central or Union Parliament should be limited to defence, communications and foreign affairs only."

But as stated already, the Congress completely backed away from its promises to the Punjabis and its own declared objective of having a purely federal constitution. The federal government has created non-statutory or extra-constitutional bodies like the Planning Commission, the Water and Power Commission, the University Grants Commission, etc., not only with wide powers to make financial allocations, but also with almost unfettered discretion to approve or disapprove development schemes, even where such projects are exclusively within the purview of the state concerned. The central government disapproved the Rs700 million Thein Dam scheme of 1964, which was designed to utilize waters flowing into Pakistan. Now the cost has risen to more than Rs7 billion, and it still awaits approval of the plan and the allocation of funds for its execution.

The constitutional powers of the states have been severely curtailed as well in regard to the administration of justice, educational policies and cultural growth in the states.

There is a constitutional provision for the appointment of a Finance Commission which lays down principles and makes recommendations for the apportionment and distribution of funds to the states from the taxes realized by the centre. The Commission determines the financial destinies of the states. In the constitution there is also a provision for the centre to give discretionary grants to the states. The Commission initially laid down the principle of distribution regarding 50 percent of the funds realized by the centre. Now the jurisdiction of the Finance Commission stands reduced to about 15 percent, and the article allowing the centre to make discretionary grants to the states is being increasingly utilized. The result is that the states are completely at the mercy and discretion of the centre.

The Tamil Nadu government formed a committee to suggest steps to make the centre a real federal structure, and ensure a full and rightful development of the states. The report submitted by the committee is known as the Rajmannar Report, and was adopted by the Tamil Nadu Assembly in 1971. This report provides for a completely federal structure with autonomous states, and with only four areas of central jurisdiction: defence, foreign affairs, communications and currency. It also recommended that the Council of the Chief Ministers of the States, presided over by the Prime Minister of the country, should form a Consultative Committee to advise the centre even on matters within the purview of the federal government.

The central government has spent over Rs220 billion on public sector industries, but less than two percent has been invested in Punjab, and no major projects have been located in the state. About 80 percent of the bank deposits of Punjabis are invested outside the state so as to promote economic progress in other states. Thus the economic, political and social policies pursued by the central government during the last four decades violate the constitution, are against fair play and equity, and are directed toward the plunder of Punjab of its natural and other resources. The credibility of the central government is at its lowest ebb. Even non-Punjabis have started doubting the intentions of the central government. It is becoming increasingly clear to all that the government is interested in creating problems and not solving them, and in creating tensions and conflicts between peoples in the state and between the states.