THE PRESS TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1984. A new Amritsar massacre

Press, 12 June 1984, Page 12

THE PRESS TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1984. A new Amritsar massacre

In 1919 a British general ordered his troops to fire on demonstrators in a city in north-west India. The event, which became known as the Amritsar Massacre, was condemned round the world. It reverberates still and a highly coloured re-enactment provided the recent film, “Gandhi,” with a spectacular passage. Last week, the Indian Government mounted a second “Amritsar Massacre” when troops stormed the Golden Temple, occupied for weeks by a militant faction of the Sikh community. For these people, the temple is their religion’s most sacred shrine. If the Indian Prime Minister, Mrs Gandhi, wants to claim a record, she has doubled General Dyer’s score for casualties. In 1919, 378 people died; reports so far put last week’s toll at more than 700 Sikhs dead and 200 of the attacking force. The earlier massacre could be condemned as an action of the British colonial Government in India, and as an excessive reaction by the Commander on the spot. Mrs Gandhi’s attack on the Sikh rebels was a long-considered assault, part of a grim policy to reassert the authority of the Indian central Government over recalcitrant provinces as a preliminary to an Indian General Election due before the end of the year. Many Indians who are not Sikhs will welcome the display of the State’s authority against rebels who sought to proclaim an independent Sikh State. Many Sikhs, including moderates who did not openly support the demands of their more extremist brethren, are likely to be encouraged to continue and intensify the campaign for autonomy. Mrs Gandhi’s resort to the Army to enforce her political designs is in keeping with the country’s record of violence since its independence in 1947. India has fought wars in defence of territorial claims with its neighbours to the north, east, and west. Earlier this year, it threatened tiny Sri Lanka off its southern coast. India has taken territory by force from Pakistan and Portugal. Violence and death have become accepted, almost as a matter of course, as part of religious festivals and elections. Six weeks ago, the leaders of India’s main opposition parties petitioned the country’s President, a Sikh, and said: “The tragic reality of 1984 is that the country is breaking apart ... while the Prime Minister is pursuing her dynastic ambitions.” For 60 years Indians have made much of what has been asserted as the “non-violent” approach to politics of Mahatma Gandhi. In the last 30 years, few countries have shown such a readiness to resort to violence, whether to reverse the outcome of a local election, or to encourage the break-up of a neighbouring country. Only North Vietnam and Israel have a worse record in the same period; both might claim vastly greater provocation. Indian intentions have been worthy enough: an attempt to build a secular democracy in a vast country beset by divisions of religion, race, caste, and wealth. The reality falls sadly short of the intention. The Mahatma’s prescription for nonviolent politics has been set aside; its aptness in this divided country, rich in the excuses for violence, cannot be denied. Indians now will have to live with the further bitterness engendered by the attack in Amritsar. The Sikhs are a militant and

fundamentalist sect. They broke with Hinduism in the sixteenth century. They have a notable reputation as industrious farmers and soldiers. Their territory, the Punjab, is one of India’s richer and better fed regions, and their taxable wealth is not least of the causes of dispute with the central Government. Sikh supporters in the Indian police and Army have frustrated earlier attempts to deal with the Punjabi rebels. The Indian Government has asserted that Sikh militants receive help from Pakistan. If this is so, Mrs Gandhi can hardly complain. In 1971 she used her Army to support a rebellious Pakistani territory that then broke away to become Bangladesh. The Sikh terrorist movement appears to be well armed and efficiently organised. Earlier this year, it succeeded in destroying more than 30 railway stations in the Punjab in a single night. India now will have to expect a widespread campaign of violence from the Sikhs. For the time being, reconciliation is unlikely. Mrs Gandhi’s response has been to announce that a special anti-terrorist force of 23,000 men will be formed. This will be applied to deal with further trouble from the Sikhs and to intervene in violent outbreaks between Hindus and Muslims, between Untouchables and those of higher castes, and against political rebels. Sikh violence can be expected to spill over far beyond the frontiers of India. Sikhs have been enthusiastic emigrants for a century. Large Sikh communities in Britain and Canada have already mounted demonstrations and have made threats against India and Indian interests. One of the nastiest developments in modern times has been the manner in which political differences in one place generate violent reprisals elsewhere. This year, Kashmiris living in Britain attacked prominent Indians there as a protest against Indian occupation of part of Kashmir. Sikh attacks on Indians can be expected round the world. Repression by the Army is not going to solve the dissatisfactions of the Sikhs. Theirs is the best-organised and one of the most vigorous voices among the unhappy minorities of India. The British, recognising that India was an empire rather than a unity, ruled the country loosely through a wide diversity of local arrangements. More recent attempts to build a single nation have met limited success. Mrs Gandhi’s response in the 1970 s was to rule by emergency decree. This cost her an election; but the alternative politicans proved incapable of ruling at all. Since her return to office, in 1980, Mrs Gandhi had walked more cautiously, at least until the events in Amritsar. The smack of firm government last week will heighten her appeal for many; it may also consolidate the opposition against her. The assertion that she seeks to found a dynasty has more than a hint of truth. She is the daughter of the country’s first Prime Minister, Mr Nehru. One of her sons, Sanjay, was being groomed for high office before he died in an air crash. Another son, Rajiv, is being thrust into prominence. Events in the Punjab reinforce an impression that the largest country in the Commonwealth is governed by a leader who is determined to enforce her rules, rather than to accept the compromises of democratic politics. India’s future looks bleak.