Fundamentalism and the Sikh Religious Tradition by T.N. Madan

whatever Madan and the media might say, the Government had nothing against him to
rearrest him, or declare him wanted till June 1984. The Akalis repeatedly wanted the
names of the so-called militants who had allegedly taken shelter in the Golden Temple.
Bhindranwala's name never appeared in any list, nor did the SGPC fail to surrender any
wanted person who was known to be in the Temple Complex. And the crucial fact is that
no less a person that Rajiv Gandhi stated that Bhindranwala was only a religious leader
and not a political person, meaning thereby a virtual clean chit for him. The
Administration having the best knowledge of militancy or murders, what is the value or
veracity of Madan's statement that Bhindranwala was heading a militant movement and
had himself been 'charged twice with complicity in political murders'.
Now, let us examine if Bhindranwala was really such a dangerous character as is
made out by Madan. For, it is extremely important fact that in May, 1984 Shri Kuldip
Nayyar, the Ex High Commissioner of India to U.K., and Dr. Ravi, at the specific
instance of the Centre, approached Bhindranwala for-the settlement of the Punjab
problem, Both of them have made clear public statements that Bhindranwala was without
any hint of separatism, willing for what they considered to be a reasonable compromise,
within the ambit of the Indian constitutional structure. In fact, Dr. Ravi's statement says
that he was as solicitous and considerate for the interests of India as of the Sikhs.
Dr. Ravi stated that Bhindranwala being convinced of his sincerity told him that
whatever settlement he thought to be reasonable would be acceptable to him. He clarified
that the settlement should be in the interests both of the Sikhs and the Bharat. He
conveyed the substance of his talk to the Centre but there was no response. Similar has
been the statement of Kuldip Nayyar who was specifically sent to negotiate and bring
about a compromise. As a result, he proposed an acceptable formula and conveyed it to
the Prime Minister. He reminded the Home Minister about it on the 24th May, 1984, but
there was no Government response even though the initiative for talks had originally
been made by a Central Minister.
These statements show that Bhindranwala was a reasonable person far from the
being a dangerous militant, a separatist, or a law and order problem. It is, therefore,
evident that neither for a solution of the major demands of the Sikhs, which were
primarily constitutional, nor for the resolution of the struggle of the Akalis, called the
Dharam Yudh morcha there was any necessity or justification of the attack on the Golden
Temple on the Gurpurb day.
A relevant issue is the presence of arms in the Golden Temple. The important
question is how, despite the continuous vigilance of the Administration, these arms could
be carried there, and who was responsible for the ommission or commission in this
regard. The two faces of the (government of India in relation to the LTTE insurgency, are
now well-known. Similarly, its dual role regarding violence in Punjab, though alleged,
has yet to be revealed. Although many suggestion including that of official complicity
have been made, yet no final answer to this question can be given, until the relevant
records of the Administration for the decade before 1984, are available to the historian. It
is also an important question as to whether the Administration ever envisaged that the
step the Government took in deciding upon the army action, could, in the circumstances
or history of the case involve a risk to the person or persons of the authorities in Delhi.
On the basis of known facts, the general opinion, without passing any judgement as to
whether the army attack should have been made, has been that the results it has led to