Take the Akali leaders stand on building Operation Bluestar Memorial in the Golden Temple Complex. The Badals-controlled Sikhs apex religious body Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee had proposed the memorial. Criticism that the memorial would be for the militants killed in the Army action, prompted its proponents to put it into cold storage.

No body could have any objection to the construction of a memorial if it were to be meant for the innocent devotees killed not only during the Army action but also for those massacred by the militants occupying the Complex. But it soon became obvious that the memorial was in commemoration of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and his militants.

The proposal for building the Bluestar memorial was taken out of the cold storage after the Akali Dal started securing extremist elements support for elections. As quid pro quo, the proposal for building the memorial was reconsidered and the task for its construction was entrusted to the extremist religious body. Although deputy chief minister and Akali Dal president Sukhbir Singh defended the memorial’s construction, spiraling criticism against it forced the chief minister to announce in the Assembly that the memorial would be in the form of a small gurudwara in the Complex and that it would not have any picture and inscription.

But its critics fear that the memorial will be dedicated to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale turned out to be true when on its completion it was dedicated to Bhindranwale. His picture was displayed in the memorial whose walls also had inscriptions about Bluestar. Both SGPC president and the top ruling Akali leadership feigned ignorance about the display of Bhindranwale’s pictures and inscriptions. But facing the charge of breaching CM’s commitment, the issue was referred for guidance to the Sikh clergy, the appointees of the SGPC. The clergy has not been able to take any decision despite the lapse of some weeks. If more delay is cause for taking a decision, one cannot rule out the possibility of the issue dying down and the status quo continuing.

Hypocritical attitude on sensitive issues affect credibility. Chief Minister’s advisers have taken exception to those opposing Bluestar memorial saying that ‘it’s the funny nature of history that the more we try to force a manufactured closure on its traumatic aspects, the more forcefully they keep coming back...The way to closure lies only through complete exposure (implying justification of building the memorial) as a national exposure is often a better reliever than a manufactured closure.’

History teaches lessons but cannot make the unwilling to learn them. If CM’s advisers contention that there should not be a manufactured closure of history then why their political bosses are opposing the building of memorial for the thousands of Hindu and Sikh victims of terrorism.

Replying to newsmen’s question on June 15, Parkash Singh Badal said that ‘building a memorial for terrorism victims could disturb the state’s hard-earned peace.’ The chief minister has not explained how will a memorial for the victims of terror violence disturb the peace if the Bluestar memorial dedicated to the militants and their chief Bhindranwale did not disturb the state’s peace? Is it because of the Akali leadership’s fear of losing their newly earned proximity to the religious extremists?

The Akali Dal’s ruling ally BJP finds itself in a pitiable situation. It has opposed, though sparsely and almost apologetically, the Bluestar memorial and supported the demand for building a memorial for the terrorism victims. Its lack of assertion on the two issues is obviously for retaining its ministerial chairs in Punjab and for ensuring Akali Dal’s support to BJP for capturing power at the Centre.

It is not uncommon for politicians to act like chameleons. They change their attitudes to suit their political and even personal interests. This is symbolised by the top Akali leadership’s cold shouldering the move for forming a Federal Front, protecting the interests of minority communities and its indifferent attitude on Nitish Kumar’s snapping the JD(U)’s ties with the BJP and also with the BJP-led NDA on Modi’s elevation issue.

Badal once used to be the most vocal advocate of safeguarding and protecting the interests of the minorities. But he is now a staunch supporter of Modi during whose regime Muslims were massacred in Gujarat in 2002. No doubt, Modi has been applauded, especially by the corporate world, for undertaking development and providing good governance in Gujarat. But he has lately come under attack for engineering an exaggerated praise for his performance. Even some BJP leaders have started expressing divergent views on his government’s role in Muslims massacre in 2002 as also on development and governance issues. For instance, GOA’s BJP chief minister Manohar Parikar, a Modi supporter, last week said that the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat were a ‘clear-cut case” of ‘administrative failure’ and a ‘bad example of governance.’ Modi himself has steadfastly refused to talk about or answer questions on the complicity of his government in the 2002 communal violence.

It is said there are no permanent friends and permanent enemies in politics. The dictum applies to Akali leadership also. After Parkash Singh Badal during whose life time, the Akali Dal is likely to continue its alliance with the BJP, his successors who believe practicing corporate culture, will, in all probability, are not likely to adopt a rigid attitude on changing their political alignments. Their goal will be to somehow stick to power for which they may go in for new alignments.

Political wisdom lies in preparing ground in time for new political alignments, if called for by changed circumstances. (IPA Service)