The Aftermath

The attack on the Golden Temple marks a turning point in Sikh history. The events of June 1984 have completely changed the relationship between the Sikhs and India : most Sikhs no longer feel at home in the Union of India - the motherland they held in the highest regard for so long and the country for which they sacrificed their all. The massacre of several thousand Sikhs in Delhi, and in other Indian cities[45], following the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi, has only fuelled the severe feeling of alienation. Divisions amongst the Sikh leadership itself has also added to the sense of frustration.

Elections in Punjab have now been held and an Akali government elected to office. Whether this indicates support for the so-called moderates or whether it is more a reflection of Weariness of living under military rule remains to be seen. In either ease, the underlying causes of the discontent and the feeling of indignation among the Sikhs still remains; all that can be said is that the future is very uncertain.

Hardly five months had elapsed since operation Blue-Star when the Sikhs suffered a second traumatic experience. This manifested itself in an orgy of violence directed against them in Delhi, and other Indian cities, following the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi. If the Sikhs of Punjab bore the brunt of the army actions in June, then it was the Sikhs in the rest of India who faced the onslaught of the barbaric brutality in November. These gruesome events have now been investigated and catalogued by civil-rights groups such as the P.U.D.R., the P.U.C.L, and the Citizens for Democracy[46], The common conclusion reached by the various groups was that the "riots" were not an expression of "madness" or popular "grief and anger" at Mrs. Gandhi's assassination, as they have been portrayed by the authorities. Rather, they were the outcome of a welt organised and well executed plan by important politicians in the Congress (I) at the top and by the administration authorities.

One outcome of Mrs. Gandhi's assassination has been to bring her son Rajiv to the forefront of Indian polities. This change has been seen as a radical new dimension and one that brought with it a ray of hope for India. Since taking office in November, Rajiv has shown himself to be a dynamic leader excelling in the powers of tact and diplomacy. His confidence and proven ability have won him acclaim as an international statesman. He has successfully held elections in the troubled state of Punjab. But despite all this, most Sikhs still regard him with deep suspicion and distrust. It is instructive to see why.

Well, the Sikhs do not see Rajiv as a "new" ray of hope: in the latter years of Mrs. Gandhi's life she was grooming him to take over her leadership. He had entered polities only a few years ago when his younger brother , and aspiring leader, was killed in a plane crash. In a matter of months he was promoted from a novice to one of the most senior figures in the Congress party. Indeed, one could go further and say that he was very much in the driving seats in the months before his mother's death and may have been instrumental in goading her to send the army into the Golden Temple. So, the Sikhs hold Rajiv equally responsible as Indira Gandhi for operation Blue-Star.

The Sikhs' distrust of Rajiv's intentions has grown in the aftermath of the November massacres. For many months he refused to hold an independent judicial enquiry into the events. Considering the scale of the carnage and the large body of evidence pointing to the involvement of leading members of his own party in organising the riots [47], his refusal to hold an enquiry raises serious questions about his own role in the affair. The suspicion is that such an enquiry would have implicated Rajiv directly in the riots. Whether this is so or not, his refusal to hold the enquiry and bring the guilty to justice makes him equally guilty, at least in the eyes of the Sikhs.

In the light of these events, outbursts by Rajiv and other Indian politicians about "terrorism" have a very hollow ring. Weren't the scenes of horrific murders of innocent Sikhs on the streets of Delhi acts of terrorism of the most brutal kind? Surely, their only purpose was to literally terrorise the Sikh population in India. when the widowed victims of these atrocities can identify those who led the riots, and these individuals are not only free but some even hold senior positions in parliament and in Rajiv's administration, does this not make a farce of the pious sermons about "terrorists"? Indeed, is it not strange that people like N.D.Pancholi, general secretary of the Citizens for Democracy, who condemn all forms of terrorism, are arrested and charged with sedition for co-authoring a report on the atrocities, while those who incited the communal massacres are allowed to go free? Surely, it is the height of hypocrisy to ban the reports of these civil-rights groups on the grounds that they could "create hatred and spread disaffection among the people" when it is really the sight of those who lead the mass terrorism in November holding office in parliament that will almost certainly enflame the Sikhs!

So, it is hardly surprising the Sikhs view Rajiv Gandhi in a somewhat different light from his media image. In the Punjab elections last month (September, 1985), the 65% turnout was seen as an indication of the support for the "moderate" Sikhs and a sign of reconciliation; this conclusion may be somewhat misleading. The accord signed between Rajiv and the late Akali leader, Longowal, does not deal with the underlying causes of the discontent. The details of the accord were never made very clear but still, if we consider some of the points, it soon becomes apparent that the concessions were very superficial: For example, one of the major concessions sighted was the agreement to hold an enquiry into the November "riots". Considering that the immediate setting-up of such an enquiry was Rajiv's offical, if not moral, duty, this can hardly be called a concession By contrast, Rajiv certainly had no difficulty in calling for an immediate enquiry after the crash of the Air India airliner. The agreement to return Chandigarh to Punjab was also hailed as another major concession, but again the magnanimity seems to have been skin deep: Chandigarh was only offered back to Punjab in return for an 'undetermined ' number of Punjabi villages being given to Haryana! But Chandigarh, itself, was an issue of contention only because large Punjabi-speaking areas (including Chandigarh) had been unjustly annexed in the formation of Haryana. Giving back one city, whilst taking away even more land cannot solve the territorial problem; surely, it will only perpetuate it. Other 'concessions' such as the de-banning of the All India Sikh Students Federation and the proposed dismantling of the special courts where one was guilty unless proven otherwise etc, weren't really concessions at all, for these were additional problems brought about by the government's own actions --- if one is wrongly imprisoned, then one's release can hardly be thought of as clemency! Most Sikhs see the accord as more of a dictate than an agreement. It does not really deal with any of the substantial grievances of the Anandpur resolution.

But if few Sikhs were satisfied with the accord, why were the elections in the Punjab not heavily boycotted? Hell, the election of a civilian government was a way to end over a year-long life under military rule. Ever since June 1984, there has effectively been martial law in Punjab, enforced by about a hundred thousand troops. A general weariness of Living under constant intimidation and harassment from such a large military presence was probably a prime motive for the relatively high turn out. The other reason why the analysis of the turnout may be wrong is because the accord itself was not a major issue in the election campaign: The Akali party stood on a platform to end the military presence in the state and to release the thousands of Sikh youth imprisoned after operation Blue-Star. Both these issues are strongly supported by most Sikhs. The most wanting aspect of the accord was that it seemed totally oblivious to all that had happened in the preceding months. For the Sikhs, the attack on the Golden Temple was a turning point in their history. The sense of indignation and humiliation felt by this act is beyond words. The wounds left by this attack are so deep and severe that there seems no way to repair the damage. This has forced most Sikhs to the conclusion that the ultimate solution Rust be an independent Sikh homeland. For now, even if Rajiv were to concede all the demands of the Anandpur Resolution, it would not be enough - the Lime for that has now passed. But let alone taking these feeling into account, Rajiv and Longowal tailed to satisfy any of the substantial grievances of the Anandpur Resolution!

The formation of an independent Sikh homeland, however, is a very long way off. This is not just due to political , economic and logistical considerations: The most serious damaging cause are divisions amongst the Sikh leadership itself. If Rajiv's ulterior motives for signing the accord with Longowal and holding elections in Punjab was to solve the Punjab problem by way of "divide and rule", then it is the Sikh leadership which must take the blame for allowing this to happen. The Sikh leaders have let personal rivalries and ambitions to come before the interest of the Sikhs as a nation. They have fallen from the high ideals of the "Polities of Freedom" and sunk to the "polities of power". This behaviour of their leaders has added to the sense of frustration and it is fair to say that, at present, no Sikh leader commands the respect and trust of Sikhs at large. This is probably the cause of the popular rumours that Bhindranwale is still alive. Amongst the Sikhs, Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was the most respected and trusted Sikh leader of recent times. Unlike the others, he was sincere and true to his word (perhaps this was because, unlike the others, he was not a politician). For example, Bhindranwale, Longowal and other leading figures all took the same vow to press for the implementation of the Anandpur Resolution and committed themselves to continue this fight until either the resolution was accepted or they lost their lives in trying to achieve that end[48]Ð]. When it came to the test, Bhindranwale stood his ground and sacrificed his life for his principles; Longowal, on the other hand, not only cowered in the face of the bullets, but as the "dictator" of the agitation he also terminated the protests without getting a single demand implemented The rumours about Bhindranwale's escape seem to be based purely on vain hope and desperation and are a sad reflection on the Sikh leadership of today.

Finally, before we conclude our discussion, we should consider the role of the media in the events. Personally, the most important lesson of the whole episode has been the realisation of the inadequacies of the news media. This is the only major instance when I have had two independent sources of information --- the media and my friends and relatives in Punjab. The pictures of the agitation that emerge are alarmingly different A saintly and highly respected Sikh, Bhindranwale, was portrayed as a fanatical hoodlum reeking havoc in Punjab from the sanctuary of the Golden Temple. One can see why this picture would be beneficial to the Indian government, but it is difficult to see any motive for the international press to propagate this fallacy, One can only assume that it was due to the overwhelming power and dominating position of the Indian government combined with a failure to probe deeply into the real facts and issues. In itself, this conclusion has serious implications but the alternative would imply an even more dangerous state of affairs.

The words "terrorists" and "extremist" inherently generate a repulsion - a person called a terrorist is automatically considered guilty and thought of as sort of sub-human. Indeed, acts of terrorism are sub-human but there15 a disturbing inconsistency in whom we call a terrorist. Take Central America, for example, the groups fighting against the government of El Salvador are called terrorists by President Reagan but he supports the Contras fighting against the Nicaraguan government, calling then freedom fighters, even though both indulge in similar activities of violence. It seems that the words terrorist and extremist are often more a reflection of one's own preference or bias than an objective description. If we are to be honest, we must condemn all acts of terrorism. All too often we refrain iron condemning the atrocities of our "friends" and allies --- we make up excuses about other considerations and dress up their acts in a different language. But if we are prepared to put our economic and other interests before justice and human rights we should not be surprised to see ourselves become the targets of those at the receiving end of the injustice.

Because the words "terrorist" and "extremist" generate such strong emotions, they are open to abuse. In the case of Punjab, as we have seen, the media allowed itself to be used in this way. It is a sobering thought that if the Indian government had not succeeded in misrepresenting the agitation (to others and most importantly to itself), operation Blue-Star and the consequent assassination of Mrs. Gandhi followed by the November massacres might never have occurred.

Sadly the conclusion can only be that the situation is still very grin, Prospects for peace in Punjab, in particular, and India in general, are very uncertain. In a way, justice 15 a prerequisite for peace - unfortunately, justice in India is hard to find. The new Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, has shown himself to be a talented leader with formidable abilities. At least for the Sikhs, he has yet to demonstrate that his intentions are honest and sincere.