Genesis of the Problem

 

With the possibility of an end to British colonialism in sight, the Sikh leadership became concerned about the future of the Sikhs. The Sikhs and the Muslims had unsuccessfully claimed separate representation for their communities in the Minto-Morley Scheme of 1909. With the Muslims proposing the creation of Pakistan, some Sikhs put forth the idea of likewise carving out a Sikh state, Khalistan. In the 1940s, a prolonged negotiation transpired between the British and the three Indian groups seeking political power, namely, the Hindus, the Muslims and the Sikhs. During this period, the Congress Party continually extended assurances designed to prevent Sikhs from allying with the Muslim League. To win Sikh support, Jawaharlal Nehru assured the Sikhs that they would be allowed to function as a semi-autonomous unit so that they may have a sense of freedom.” This was formalized through a resolution passed by the Indian Constituent Assembly on 9 December 1946. This resolution assured adequate safeguards for all minorities in India.

Repudiation of the Resolution

During a press conference on 10 July 1946 in Bombay, Nehru made a controversial statement to the effect that the Congress may “change or modify” the federal arrangement agreed upon for independent India; this came outraged many. As a consequence, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, leader of the Muslim League, declared himself impelled to seek the creation of a separate state, Pakistan. Many Sikhs felt that they had been tricked into joining the Indian union. On 21 November 1949, during the review of the draft of the Indian Constitution, Hukam Singh, a Sikh representative, declared to the Constituent Assembly:

Naturally, under these circumstances, as I have stated, the Sikhs feel utterly disappointed and frustrated. They feel that they have been discriminated against. Let it not be misunderstood that the Sikh community has agreed to this [Indian] Constitution. I wish to record an emphatic protest here. My community cannot subscribe its assent to this historic document.

 

Growth of Sikh national consciousness (1947-1966)

The Sikhs, whose participation in India’s independence struggle was disproportionate to their small numbers (see Table 1), were labelled as a "criminal tribe" in postcolonial India. According to Kapur Singh, who was the Deputy Commissioner at Dalhousie and a member of the Indian Civil Service (ICS) at the time:

In 1947, the governor of Punjab, Mr. C.M. Trevedi, in deference to the wishes of the Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru and Sardar Patel, the Deputy Prime Minister, issued certain instructions to all the Deputy Commissioners of Indian Punjab…These were to the effect that, without reference to the law of the land, the Sikhs in general and Sikh migrants in particular must be treated as a “criminal tribe”. Harsh treatment must be meted out to them…to the extent of shooting them dead so that they wake up to the political realities and recognise “who are the rulers and who the subjects.”

 

Language issues

In the 1950s and 1960s, linguistic issues in India caused civil disorder when the central government attempted to impose Hindi was imposed as the national language on all Indians. The nationwide movement of linguistic groups seeking statehood resulted in a massive reorganisation of states according to linguistic boundaries in 1956. However, Punjabi, Sindhi and Urdu were the only three languages not considered for statehood. The Akali Dal sought to create a Punjabi suba, a Punjabi-speaking state. This case was presented to the States Reorganisation Commission established in 1953.There was a Hindu opposition to the adoption of Punjabi as an official language in the Punjabi-speaking areas. Accordingly, Punjabi-speaking Hindus declared Hindi as their mother tongue in the censuses of 1951 and 1961.The demand for adoption of Punjabi for Punjabi-speaking areas intensified the rift between Hindus and Sikhs of Punjab.

The States Reorganization Commission, not recognizing Punjabi as a language that was distinct grammatically from Hindi, rejected the demand for a Punjabi suba or state. Another reason that the Commission gave in its report was that the movement lacked general support of the people inhabiting the region, a reference to the Punjabi Hindus who were opposed to the creation of a Punjabi-speaking state.^[4] The Sikhs felt discriminated against by the commission.

 

Akal Takht movement

The Akal Takht played a vital role in organizing Sikhs to campaign for the Punjabi suba. During the course of the campaign, twelve thousand Sikhs were arrested for their peaceful demonstrations in 1955 and twenty-six thousand in 1960-61.^[5] Finally, in September 1966, the Punjabi suba demand was accepted by the central government and Punjab was trifurcated under the Punjab State Reorganisation Bill. Areas in the south of Punjab that spoke a language that is a derivative of Braj formed a new state of Haryana and the Pahari- and Kangri-speaking districts north of Punjab were merged with Himachal Pradesh, while the remaining areas formed a new state of Punjab. As a result, the Sikhs became a majority in the newly created Punjabi suba with a population of a little over sixty percent.

 

The Nirankari-Sikh Clashes

Tensions had been escalating between the Sikhs and Nirankaris for some time. Finally, in April 1978, a convention of Nirankaris was attacked by a few hundred Sikhs, led by Bhindranwale and by Fauja Singh of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha. On the way, they hacked off the arm of a Hindu sweetmeats seller. This was regarded as probably the first act of terrorist violence in Punjab. On arriving at the convention, Fauja Singh tried to behead the Nirankari leader with his sword but was shot by the leader's bodyguard. The brawl that ensued thereafter, left 13 of the raiding party dead, including two of Bhindranwale’s followers. Another eleven of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha were killed. Three Nirankaris were also killed. Bhindranwale himself was reported to have fled the scene just as the violence broke out which damaged relations between him and the Akhand Kirtani Jatha. Fauja Singh’s widow often blamed him for her husband’s death. It was also alleged that the then ruling government in Punjab did little to avoid the violence despite having enough grounds to believe that such a violence would take place.

Sixty two Nirankaris, including the head of the sect, Baba Gurbachan Singh were charged in connection with the killing of the 13 Sikhs in the clash. They faced trial and were acquitted on the grounds that they had acted in self defence. This irked the sikhs and in April 1980 Baba Gurbachan Singh was shot dead in retaliation. Twenty persons, including Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale were charged with the murder. All of them were later set free upon a announcement by the then Home Minister of India, Giani Zail Singh, that Bhindrawale was not involved in the murder. Apparently, there was no trial or investigation.

 

River waters dispute

Before the creation of the Punjabi suba, Punjab was the master of its river waters. When the Punjabi suba was created, the central government—against the provisions of the Indian constitution—introduced sections 78 to 80 in the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, under which the central government “assumed the powers of control, maintenance, distribution and development of the waters and the hydel power of the Punjab rivers.” With seventy-five percent of Punjab’s river water being diverted to non-riparian, Hindu-dominated states of Haryana and Rajasthan, the Sikhs have perceived the central government’s violation of the Indian constitution as a measure to break the Sikhs economically, since the vast majority of the people of Punjab are dependent on agriculture. Similar river water disputes in other parts of the country have been resolved according to the Indian constitution, reinforcing the perception of the Sikhs that they are being targeted because of their religion.

 

emands

The Akali Dal led a series of peaceful mass demonstrations to present its grievances to the central government. The demands of the Akali Dal were based on the Anandpur Sahib Resolution ^[9], which was adopted by the party in October 1973 to raise specific political, economic and social issues. The major motivation behind the resolution was the safeguarding of the Sikh identity by securing a state structure that was decentralised, with non-interference from the central government. The Resolution outlines seven objectives.

1. The transfer of the federally administered city of Chandigarh to Punjab.

2. The transfer of Punjabi speaking and contiguous areas to Punjab.

3. Decentralization of states under the existing constitution, limiting the central government’s role.

4. The call for land reforms and industrialization of Punjab, along with safeguarding the rights of the weaker sections of the population.

5. The enactment of an all-India gurdwara (Sikh house of worship) act.

6. Protection for minorities residing outside Punjab, but within India.

7. Revision of government’s recruitment quota restricting the number of Sikhs in armed forces.

Along with these demands, the issue concerning the unconstitutional diversion of Punjab’s river waters to non-riparian states has been of fundamental importance. Writing about the nature of these demands, The Wall Street Journal noted:

"The Akali Dal is in the hands of moderate and sensible leadership...but giving anyone a fair share of power is unthinkable politics of Mrs. Gandhi [the then Prime Minister of India]...Many Hindus in Punjab privately concede that there isn't much wrong with these demands. But every time the ball goes to the Congress court, it is kicked out one way or another because Mrs. Gandhi considers it a good electoral calculation."

 

The assassination of

In a politically charged environment, Lala Jagat Narain, the owner of the Hind Samachar group of newspapers, was assassinated by Sikh militants in September 1981. He had been instrumental in persuading Punjabi Hindus to declare their mother tongue as Hindi. His editorials consistently attacked the Akali Dal’s leadership. His assassination led to mob violence by Hindus, who set Sikhs' shops on fire and burnt the offices of the Akali Patrika, a Punjabi newspaper that represented Sikh interests. In September 1981, Bhindranwale was arrested for his alleged role in the assassination but was later released at the behest of the then President of India, Giani Zail Singh. Many Sikhs today criticise this move because they believe that it gave the state an excuse to attack the temple.

 

 

In August 1982, the Akali Dal under the leadership of Harcharan Singh Longowal launched the Dharam Yudh Morcha, or the “battle for righteousness.” Bhindranwale and the Akali Dal united for the first time; their goal was the fulfillment of demands based upon the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. In two and a half months, security forces arrested thirty thousand Sikhs for their peaceful demonstrations to the point that protesting volunteers could not be accommodated in the existing jails.

In November 1982, Akali Dal announced the organization of peaceful protests in Delhi during the Asian Games. To prevent Sikhs from reaching Delhi, the police were instructed to stop all buses, trains and vehicles that were headed for Delhi and interrogate Sikh passengers. The Sikhs as a community felt discriminated against by the Indian state. Later, the Akali Dal organised a convention at the Darbar Sahib attended by 5,000 Sikh ex-servicemen, 170 of whom were above the rank of colonel. These Sikhs claimed that there was discrimination against them in government service.

 

Religious confusion

During this turmoil, the Akali Dal began another agitation in February 1984 protesting against clause (2)(b) of Article 25 of the Indian constitution, which defines Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains as being Hindu. Several Akali leaders were arrested for burning the Indian constitution in protest. ^[14]

From the point of view of religious affirmation, India’s defining of its Sikh, Buddhist and Jain citizens as being part of the Hindu community provides provided cause for discontent. For instance, a Sikh couple who marry in accordance to the rites of the Sikh religion must register their marriage either under the Special Marriages Act (1954) or the Hindu Marriage Act (1955)^[15], there being no separate marriage act dealing with Sikh marriages.^[16] Although the legal registration of weddings is not required, under Indian law, to establish in court that a marriage existed, this circumstance was viewed by some as being a coercive in often obtaining a tacit declaration from the couple to the effect that they were Hindu. According to one stream of opinion, the contents of clause (2)(b) of Article 25 of the Indian constitution and the laws based on its interpretation are arguably in violation of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) calling for free exercise of religion, because Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains have no way of asserting their religious identity in certain situations: they must choose between affirming themselves Hindu or making no statement at all on religion [2].

 

Operation Bluestar

For over a year, the Indian army had been preparing for an attack on the Darbar Sahib. To legitimise the attack, according to Subramaniam Swami—-a member of the Indian Parliament—-the central government under the Indira Gandhi administration had allegedly "created a disinformation campaign". In his words, the state sought to “make out that the Golden Temple was the haven of criminals, a store of armory and a citadel of the nation’s dismemberment conspiracy.”

There were allegations of civilians being targeted for attack by the Indian army.A statement made by the army Lt. General K. Sundarji’s viz.—“We went inside [the Darbar Sahib] with humility in our hearts and prayers on our lips” suggests the contrary. Kumar Ram Narayan alleges, however that "(for the invading troops) every Sikh inside was a militant.”, Mark Tully, in his account of the invasion, writes: “Karnail Kaur, a young mother of three children…said, ‘When people begged for water some jawans [soldiers] told them to drink the mixture of blood and urine on the ground.’” Tully records an eye-witness account by Bhan Singh, the then SGPC Secretary:

"I saw about thirty-five or thirty-six Sikhs lined up with their hands raised above their heads. And the major was about to order them to be shot. When I asked him for medical help, he got into rage, tore my turban off my head, and ordered his men to shoot me. I turned back and fled…Sardar Karnail Singh Nag, who had followed me, also narrated what he had seen, as well as the killing of thirty-five to thirty-six young Sikhs by cannon fire. All of them were villagers."

Lieutenant General Kuldip Singh Brar, then Major General who commanded Indian Army soldiers to enter the Golden Temple, defends the attack by saying:

"Apparently, the government had no other recourse. The events in Punjab had reached a complete breakdown. The Sikh militants were in total control of the state machinery. There was a strong feeling that Khalistan was going to be established at any time. [Jarnail Singh] Bhindranwale was being seen as a prophet; he was making very strong speeches against (the then Prime Minister of India) Indira Gandhi and non-Sikhs; and trying to send a message across to the rural areas that the Sikhs are being given second-grade treatment and that it is high time we formed our own independent state of Khalistan. There was a strong possibility of Pakistan helping them and I think there was the possibility of a Bangladesh being repeated."

 

Criticism of the attack

For over a year, the Indian army had been preparing for an attack on the Darbar Sahib. According to Subramaniam Swami, a member of the Indian Parliament, the central government had allegedly launched a disinformation campaign in order to legitimise the attack. In his words, the state sought to “make out that the Golden Temple was the haven of criminals, a store of armory and a citadel of the nation’s dismemberment conspiracy.”

 

The assassination of Indira Gandhi and subsequent anti-Sikh riots

On the morning of 31 October 1984, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was shot-dead by two Sikh security guards in New Delhi. The assassination triggered organised violence against Sikhs across north India. It was alleged that State-operated national television was used by the state to incite violence against the Sikhs, in violation of the Article 20.2 of the ICCPR and the Article 7 of the UDHR. Sixteen politicians were named as organisers of the riots.

Two major civil-liberties organisations issued a joint report on the anti-Sikh riots naming sixteen important politicians, thirteen police officers and one hundred and ninety-eight others, accused by survivors and eye-witnesses. In January 1985, journalist Rahul Bedi of the Indian Express and Smitu Kothari of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties “moved the High Court of Delhi to demand a judicial inquiry into the pogrom on the strength of the documentation carried out by human rights organizations.

 

Denial of justice

A number of politicians who organised the riots were rewarded with electoral success by the Congress party. The Misra Commission was appointed to investigate the killings. According to Patwant Singh:

The Government received the Misra Commission’s report…and took six months to place it before parliament...a full 27 months after the killings. A weak and vapid report, it let key Congress figures off the hook and characteristically recommended the setting up of three more committees…The third committee spawned two more committees plus an enquiry by the Central bureau of Investigation (CBI). When one of these two, the Poti-Rosha Committee, recommended 30 cases for prosecution including one against Sajjan Kumar, Congress MP [Member of Parliament], and the CBI sent a team to arrest him on 11 September 1990, a mob held the team captive for more than four hours! According to the CBI’s subsequent affidavit filed in court, “the Delhi Police far from trying to disperse the mob sought an assurance from the CBI that he [Sajjan Kumar] would not be arrested.” The CBI also “disclosed that [another committee’s] file relating to the case [against him] was found in Sajjan Kumar’s house.” The MP was given “anticipatory bail while the CBI team was being held captive” by his henchmen.

 

Sikh Militancy

During the late 1980s and the early 1990s, there was a dramatic rise in radical Sikh militancy in Punjab. Hindus and Nirankaris were targetted, often in busy market places. Many times, the State run Punjab Roadways buses were highjacked and Hindus were singled out and shot. One such incident took place near Lalru in Punjab when 32 hindus were pulled out of the bus and shot. However, evidence suggests that the militants enjoyed some support within the Sikh masses in Punjab, atleast at the beginning of the Khalistan movement. However, as violence grew, Punjab's economy crumbled and the support for Sikh militants gradually dissappeared.

 

Peace Initiatives

It was alleged that there was reluctance on the part of the Central Government to recognise Sikh grievances. The Central government attempted to seek a political solution to the grievances of the Sikhs through the Rajiv-Longowal Accord, which took place between the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Harchand Singh Longowal, the then President of the Akali Dal. who was later assassinated. The accord recognised the religious, territorial and economic demands of the Sikhs that were thought to be non-negotiable under Indira Gandhi’s tenure. While the agreement provided some basis for a return to normalcy, it was denounced by Sikh militants who claimed that the Indian state could not be trusted. Harchand Singh Longowal was later assassinated by terrorists. The transfer has allegedly been delayed pending an agreement on the districts of Punjab that should be transferred to Haryana in exchange. The table below provides the solutions outlined in the agreement and the status of their implementation.

ccord

Source:

Issue	Agreement	Implementation
Implementation of Anandpur Sahib Resolution (ASR) seeking greater autonomy to states	Referred to Sarkaria Commission Report	Oct. 1987: Rejects ASR approach to Center-State relations
Transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab	To be transferred by Jan. 1986. Punjab to compensate Haryana with equivalent territory for a new capital. Other territorial disputes to be settled by a commission.	Three commissions (Matthew/Venkatarmiah/Desai) fail to provide an agreement. Strong opposition in Haryana. July 1986: union government suspends the transfer for an indefinite period.
Sharing of Ravi-Beas Waters by non-riparian states	A tribunal headed by a Supreme Court judge to adjudicate. July 1985 consumption as a baseline.	May 1987: Eradi Tribunal reduced Punjab’s July 1985 level while doubling Haryana’s share.
Prosecution of those responsible for November 1984 Anti-Sikh Pogroms	Referred to Mishra Commission	February 1987: Absolves Congress (I) of responsibility placing guilt on Delhi police.
Army Deserters	To be rehabilitated and given gainful employment	August 1985: 900 out of 2,606 deserters rehabilitated.
Political Detainees	Release of political detainees and withdrawal of special powers	Limited releases. May 1988, Parliament passes the 59th amendment to the constitution. The amendment allowed for the suspension of the rights to life and liberty, habeas corpus, freedoms of speech and association, and the guarantee of fundamental rights.
Religious Autonomy	Enactment of an all-India Gurdwara act	Not enacted; May 1988: Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Ordinance.

Fulfilling Promises

The failure of the central government to implement the agreement led to further alienation of the Sikhs from the Indian state. On 29 April 1986, an assembly of thousands of Sikhs at the Akal Takht made a declaration of an independent state of Khalistan. These events were followed by a decade of violence and conflict in Punjab.

A recent observation by Tapan Bose of the South Asia Forum for Human Rights provides a critique of the Indian claim that normalcy and peace have returned to Punjab and by implication no peace initiatives are needed:

"...the silence of graveyard that obtains in Punjab today is not a reflection of peace. The enquiry being conducted by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the disappearances and illegal cremations in Punjab, shows the deep social division that is endangering the prospects of justice and peace in the state...Although this matter or police abductions leading to illegal cremations was initiated six years ago before the NHRC, the commission unfortunately has failed to examine a single case of abuse. It has also not heard a single victim's testimony or deposition."