The father of jailed Member of Parliament Amritpal Singh has launched a fierce attack on the Punjab government, labeling its decision to deny parole to his son a direct assault on democratic principles. Tarsem Singh accused the state administration of deliberately silencing an elected representative and showing an anti-Sikh bias.
Government Blocks Parliament Attendance
The controversy erupted after the Punjab government decided against granting temporary parole to Amritpal Singh, who is currently detained under the National Security Act (NSA). The MP had sought permission to attend the winter session of Parliament scheduled to begin on December 1. This decision came just one week after the Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of a petition and directed the state government to make a ruling on the parole request.
Tarsem Singh, while addressing mediapersons in Amritsar on Thursday, expressed his outrage. He stated, The sangat of Khadoor Sahib elected Amritpal Singh to Parliament with a massive mandate, yet the government is preventing him from even attending Parliament. He described this as a profound insult to the democratic rights of the people who voted for his son.
Law and Order Justification Dismissed
The government's rationale for the denial, citing law and order and state security concerns, was dismissed by Tarsem Singh as completely baseless. He argued that this exposes what he termed as the government's underlying anti-Sikh attitude.
The decisions being taken to suppress the voice of Sikh youth show that the Mann government is not functioning democratically but acting out of political vendetta, he claimed. He further asserted that the repeated denial of parole makes it evident that the government fears not only Amritpal Singh's voice but also the strength of the people of Punjab who provided him with a powerful electoral mandate.
Political Party Vows to Continue Struggle
In response to the government's move, Tarsem Singh announced that the Akali Dal Waris Punjab De would intensify its struggle against what he described as the government's undemocratic high-handedness. This sets the stage for continued political confrontation over the issue, framing it as a battle for democratic representation and community rights.
The situation highlights the ongoing tensions between the state apparatus and elected figures associated with separatist sentiments, raising significant questions about the balance between security and democratic functioning.
