From Moderates to Secessionists: A Who's Who of the Punjab Crisis

Abstract

S INCE I LAST VISITED AMRITSAR in May 1984, I have been following-and trying to understand-the ever more complex and ever more intense in the Indian Punjab. Political conditions and an emotionally surcharged atmosphere in Punjab have often made that a difficult task. For more than a year-from the launching of the Federal government's attack on the Golden Temple on 4 June 1984 until the signing of the RajivLongowal accord (between the federal and state governments) on 24 July 1985-the whole of Punjab was isolated from the outside world by a rigid press censorship and the presence of an army of occupation. As a consequence, reliable news of developments in Punjab became hard to come by. Much of the official Punjab news-especially that reported by the Indian Government-controlled broadcasting media-was highly distorted and quite anti-Sikh in nature.' On the other hand, the unofficial news, in the form of rumours, underground pamphlets, and reported statements of various Sikh individuals and organizations, frequently contained claims and accusations that seemed exaggerated, to say the least.2 Since July 1985, there has been some relaxation of press censorship in Punjab and some realization of the enormity of news distortion that had previously occurred. Yet, the quality of much of the reporting and commentary on the Punjab crisis is still far from ideal. This essay focuses on one particular problem of recent Punjab reporting and commentary, the imprecision and confusion that often surround the use of certain labels to categorize those Sikhs who are, in some way or another, in opposition to the Congress (I) party and the government of India. The essay opens with a brief examination of different types of misuse of labels, and of the confused or distorted perceptions that may arise as a