By Satinder Bains
CHANDIGARH: Captain Amarinder Singh once warned Punjab’s voters that bringing the BJP to power could risk a war with Pakistan, with the border state paying the heaviest price. Eight years later, he joined the same party, presenting it as a defender of the country’s interests.
An April 2014 interview with this correspondent, then Resident Editor of Amar Ujala, captures the sharp contrast between Amarinder’s position as a Congress campaigner and his subsequent choice of political home.
The interview also records his strong opposition to the Shiromani Akali Dal-BJP alliance—a partnership he portrayed as driven by the pursuit of power despite conflicting positions on Punjab’s interests.
Speaking before an election meeting at Bachi village near the India-Pakistan border, Amarinder, then contesting the Amritsar Lok Sabha seat against BJP leader Arun Jaitley, placed peace and cross-border trade at the centre of his campaign.
He argued that statements by the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi and then party president Rajnath Singh were creating apprehension about a possible confrontation with Pakistan. Punjab’s border residents and business community, he maintained, had particular reason to worry.
Recalling the wars of 1965 and 1971, Amarinder said people living along the border had already experienced the consequences of military conflict. He argued that people on both sides now wanted peaceful relations and greater economic engagement.
His warning concerned what he believed could happen under a BJP government; it was not a description of an announced policy to wage war.
Asked about the biggest election issue, Amarinder identified drugs as a major concern but stressed that trade and economic security were especially important to Amritsar. Whenever bilateral tensions escalated, he said, the city’s traders and other border businesses suffered.
Amarinder was equally pointed in questioning the SAD’s partnership with the BJP. He argued that the parties followed contradictory political positions and remained together to retain power.
To support his argument, he cited differences over river interlinking, Chandigarh’s transfer to Punjab and their electoral alignments in Haryana. He pointed out that the Akalis were supporting the Indian National Lok Dal against the BJP in Haryana while remaining its allies in Punjab.
He also challenged the Akali leadership to state clearly whether it supported increased trade with Pakistan.
These objections went beyond routine criticism of an electoral opponent. Amarinder was questioning whether the alliance could credibly protect Punjab’s interests when its partners differed on issues he considered fundamental.
His subsequent political journey took him towards the very party he had urged voters to reject.
After leaving the chief minister’s office and breaking with Congress in 2021, Amarinder formed the Punjab Lok Congress. It contested the 2022 Punjab Assembly election in alliance with the BJP but failed to win a seat. Amarinder also lost from Patiala Urban.
On September 19, 2022, he formally joined the BJP and merged his party with it. At his induction, he described his new political home as a party looking after the country’s interests.
The reversal was striking: the leader who had once linked the prospect of BJP rule with risks to Punjab’s peace and prosperity was now endorsing the party’s national credentials.
His later support for an Akali-BJP understanding adds another dimension to that change. The partnership he criticised in 2014 as an arrangement for power became one he advocated as a means of improving the BJP’s electoral prospects in Punjab.
Political circumstances and alliances change. But Amarinder’s earlier objections concerned substantive issues—peace with Pakistan, border trade, river waters and Chandigarh. His change of allegiance leaves open the question of how he reconciled those concerns with his later political choices.
For voters, the archived interview offers a record of what Amarinder said when seeking their support in 2014. Whether his subsequent course reflects changed convictions, political calculation or expediency remains a matter of public judgment.