Jagtar Singh on Khalistan Struggle: Rivers on Fire

Prabhjot Singh

Journalists are mandated to act as watchdogs in liberal democracies. While judging a journalist or his or her work, especially in the context of Punjab which saw an extended period of unrest and violent strife, it is important to understand the trying circumstances in which they worked.

Punjab saw the longest spell of President’s rule, besides promulgation of draconian laws to contain militancy. A state that was once acknowledged as the sword arm or sports arm of the country, besides the food bowl, was tottering at the brink.

An experienced journalist would invariably use objectivity and verification, combined with storytelling skills, to make a subject both credible and newsworthy. It is not to suggest that what a journalist writes has general acceptance. Objectivity itself is subjective. Like everything else, criticism of journalistic works often has political dividends. Increasing attacks by politicians on the credibility of a journalist or a media house have often been part of a conscious strategy to weaken both the accountability and credibility of journalism in general and a journalist in particular.

Of late, we have been witness to a collapse of the notion that politically relevant facts can be discerned by news professionals, reiterating the general belief that journalists are no more apolitical, leaving readers uncertain about ingesting the messages communicated to them as credible. These changing perceptions apart, there are old-timers who continue to discharge their role as torchbearers. Jagtar Singh, a veteran journalist and columnist, is one of them. He has the distinction of being an eyewitness from the very beginning of the Khalistan movement.

His latest book ‘The Khalistan Struggle: Rivers on Fire’ is the story of militant struggle in the border state. The jacket says that it is the first attempt to tell the people as to what sparked this, who were the people involved initially and how this discourse evolved.

Pramod Kumar, Director, Institute for Development and Communication, in his Foreword, says that to revisit the recent past by an actor, in this case a journalist who actively covered the decade-long politics of extremes, is always fraught with danger. These explorations provide crucial information for historical scrutiny. The process of reconstruction of facts involves subjectivity laced with political and ideological positioning.

Going by the author, the book in hand is about the Sikh religio-political discourse in the context of both the peaceful and militant struggle from the earlier days. He has taken up only selective militant actions, as these were the incidents which shaped the discourse at crucial moments. This book shatters several myths about the struggle and the players involved.

The prime focus, as the title suggests, is on the emotive issue of sharing river waters. Most of the essays are well documented. However, a few important revelations made in the book, including one about the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, need corroboration. The author says that while the names of all those who assassinated her and those part of the design are in public domain, at least three more people were part of the plan to avenge Operation Bluestar.

He mentions that one of these three, Manbir Singh Chaheru, purchased a plot in Mohali for Bimal Kaur Khalsa, wife of Delhi Police SI Beant Singh, one of the two assassins. It appears to be a post-action (assassination) association that brought Bimal Khalsa in contact with Chaheru and Damdami Taksal. All said and done, it was the religious hurt that made Beant and Satwant kill Indira Gandhi. The author’s revelation, however, cannot be dismissed as he may have gathered new information.

On the divisive subject of river waters, Jagtar Singh has tracked history very well. As expected, he has also talked about riparian law or principles. He has been successful in bringing out another important legal aspect that the state legislature never ratified any of the water awards. The Assembly took up the issue twice, first during the Akali government of Surjit Singh Barnala that annulled the 1981 award, and the action taken by the Congress government of Capt Amarinder Singh to annul all water agreements. It may sound strange that none of these legislative pronouncements could become effective. The issue has once again been thrown open by the apex court, necessitating the Centre to get back to the rigmarole of holding meetings with the Chief Ministers of Punjab and Haryana.

When the Barnala government annulled the 1981 award (Indira-Darbara Award), the Assembly simultaneously endorsed the Rajiv-Longowal Accord that mandated setting up of a tribunal to resolve the water-sharing dispute. The Eradi Tribunal, after an interim report in 1987, failed to give its final report. The author has obliquely mentioned the Tribunal.