Old Watching Program?

[rosenblg at acf3.UUCP]

	I've received a number of replies, including one that asked
me to post it to the net.  Of course I won't due that, for obvious
reasons.  I can't forward these programs, but one author said I can
post his name here for inquiries.  One such program is from
	pdb at sei.cmu.edu
so you can send him (Patrick) mail.  I'll post other names as I get
their ok.

Gary J. Rosenblum		gary at nyu.arpa, gary at acf3, 
					root at acf3, root at nyu.nyu.edu
UNIX Systems Manager
New York University		{ihnp4, allegra}!acf3!root
Relay-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf3.UUCP
From: agrawal at acf2.UUCP (Mukul Babu Agrawal)
Date: 9-Feb-87 13:55 EST
Date-Received: 9-Feb-87 13:55 EST
Subject: Re: Sikh persecution in India
Message-ID: <370001 at acf2.UUCP>
Path: acf3!acf2!agrawal
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf2.UUCP
Organization: New York University
References: <185000001 at uiucdcs>

>From: reddy at uiucdcs.UUCP
>Date: 2-Feb-87 13:58 EST
>Date-Received: 7-Feb-87 20:42 EST

>Subject: Sikh persecution in India
               ************

>The creation of a Punjabi-speaking state was stalled for a long time, for
>fear that it would be a Sikh-dominated state.  When it was finally created,
>a specific time frame was decided for the transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab,
>but it was not adhered to.

	My impression was that it was the creation of the Hindi speaking
state ( Haryana ) that was stalled. It were the Haryaanvees who were
agitating for a separate state.

>As far as I can see, both of these were done by
>the Congress party in its own political interests.

	I agree with that, but I fail to understand how it can be taken
as persecution of Sikhs. It was not a move by the Hindus to isolate
or discriminate against the Sikhs but rather the actions of a particular
politician ( who happened to be Hindu ). Furthermore even assuming
that the transfer of Chandeegarh was not carried out because the central
govt. was acting in bad faith, it should be considered to be against the
Punjabees, 45% of whom happen to be non-Sikhs.

>
>Further, Congress did not give enough political leeway to Akalis just as it
>is doing now.  (The creation of Bhindranwale is an example).  Whenever
>Congress was in power in Punjab, I think Punjab was forced to make decisions
>which were not in the interest of Punjab, in case of river waters, border
>disputes etc.

	Once again, this cannot be taken as discrimination against Sikhs.
The central govt. didnot give leeway to most of the state govts. A number
of states have been forced to take actions not in their best interests.
The actions taken in Punjaab were taken by an elected govt. which
happened to be a congress govt.
	The reason the whole talk of discrimination has come about is
because the Akaalees were unable to sustain power through popular
election. Since the base of the Akaalees is mostly Sikhs, what better
way to whip up feelings other than talking about 'discrimination' against
the Sikhs.

-- Mukul

agrawal at acf2.nyu.edu

...cmcl2!acf2!agrawal