What exactly is an elitist?
A couple of posts below I called a Sikh professor an elitist without properly substantiating the reasons behind my description. Well, I alluded to a reason, but I wasn't detailed enough.
There was nothing blatantly elitist in the post that I linked too.... however, there was a condescending sense of elitism in other posts, but that's okay, there's nothing wrong with being an elitist.
Anyways, I don't want to be the type that puts down other people from behind a computer, but I was just really upset after reading this post.
The site of a Sikh calling Operation Bluestar "neccesary" was painful to watch and I reacted by calling him an elitist in regards to another issue, when I should have simply addressed the Operation Bluestar post.
So now I will: Only an enemy of the Sikhs could agree with Operation Bluestar. Actually... that's a bit harsh... an enemy of the Sikhs or someone whose simply terribly misinformed.
There was nothing blatantly elitist in the post that I linked too.... however, there was a condescending sense of elitism in other posts, but that's okay, there's nothing wrong with being an elitist.
Anyways, I don't want to be the type that puts down other people from behind a computer, but I was just really upset after reading this post.
The site of a Sikh calling Operation Bluestar "neccesary" was painful to watch and I reacted by calling him an elitist in regards to another issue, when I should have simply addressed the Operation Bluestar post.
So now I will: Only an enemy of the Sikhs could agree with Operation Bluestar. Actually... that's a bit harsh... an enemy of the Sikhs or someone whose simply terribly misinformed.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
7:24 AM
7 Comments:
I'm about to say three very controversial things. But I happen to believe them. They may not be popular opinions in your neck of the woods, but they are legitimate opinions that can and should be argued about.
A person who thinks O-B was justified is:
1. Someone who feels that Khalistan is a bad idea for Sikhs, and for non Sikhs in Punjab. (Does the world really need another theocracy? Would our leaders -- of whom the corrupt leaders of the SGPC are our best example -- really do a decent job running an independent, landlocked country sandwiched between India and Pakistan? And what about the non-Sikhs in Punjab -- Sikhs are currently a minority *even in Punjab*? Why would they want to be part of Khalistan?)
2. Someone who feels that terrorism is wrong, and that Bhindranwale was a terrorist. In the wake of 9/11, when half the world is confusing Sikhs with Osama Bin Laden, I feel we must be absolutely clear on this point. [And I think your conservative friends would agree with me] If you have a grievance, take it to court. If you want your own country, build up a mass-movement and do it by civil disobedience. It may take 50 years, but so be it. Don't start blowing up buses with innocent people on them (Khalistanis often did such things in the early 1980s).
3. Someone who feels that storing arms in the Akal Takht is the absolute worst defacement of Sikhi. There were arms there, there is no dispute about that. Why?
The vast majority of Sikhs in India -- and even in North America -- are essentially with me on these points. They are opposed to Khalistan, they don't want another Bhindranwale. They want peace and prosperity. They also want improved human rights accountability in India, and some kind of redress for the wrongs done by the Army in and after 1984. It's really only in Sikh youth camps (in which I have participated) that strong Khalistanist ideas are being bandied about. It's time to let it go.
If you find these opinions horrifying and unspeakable, just delete this comment. I'll leave you alone.
Call me a person you dislike, and that you disagree with. But don't call me an "enemy of the Sikhs." I am no such thing.
Amardeep Singh is a very confused person.
Facts about Operation Bluestar
1. Foreign News Media were expelled from Punjab.
2. The attack took place on Guru Arjan Dev Ji's Gurpurab when it was known to the Government that thousands upon thousands of Sikhs would be visiting Darbar Sahib.
3. 38 other Gurdwaras were attacked at the same time.
4. The Times of London reported, "Several... Sikh militants killed. . . were shot at point-blank range by troops who first tied their hands behind their backs, a doctor and police official said. A Police Superintendent also reported that 'at least 13 Sikhs were tied and shot by submachine-gun-toting soldiers'. . . . The sources say that the militants' turbans had been removed and their hands tied with it. Each of them
had been killed with a single shot fired at their forehead."
5. The official government figure of civilians and "terrorists" killed was 493. However, it is obvious that a government does not keep track when it slaughters its own people. The number of dead estimated by the independent group Citizens for Democracy was 8,000. Other human rights activists have asserted that the number murdered by the State is at least double that figure. We will never know how many men, women,
children, and elderly died at the hands of their own government.
6. After securing the premises of the Golden temple, the soldiers then proceeded to destroy Sikh religious and historical artifacts kept in a museum in the Golden temple premises, including centuries old religious manuscripts and articles belonging to the Sikh Gurus.
There are many other gruesome details that can be found at many websites detailing what exactly happened back in June 1984.
In regards to Amardeep's points, Khalistan was not really an issue until after Operation Bluestar, the government's actions is what started the violence in Punjab for the following 10 years. However Khalistan would surely be a better country to live in than India who had butchered thousands of Sikhs in 1984 particularly in June and November of that year.
What did Bhindranwale do that was a terrorist act? He did not blow up any buses, nor did he take part in the planning of any such acts. The amount of people he brought into Sikhi, and his power is what scared the atheist congress. Just as Sikhs had defended the Akal Takhat during previous Ghalughara's, Bhindranwale and his men would do their best to defend it as well.
I wouldnt be surprised if Amardeep's position is based on having relatives who turned on their own people and actually took part in Operation Bluestar.
This argument will lead nowhere--only because both of us will have a conflicting view of the 'facts'. Before I begin I want to say that I can't do justice to 'my side' of the argument as I'm not as fully aware of all the information as I'd hope to be, but let me see what I can do.
Operation Bluestar has nothing to do with Khalistan as Khalistan was not really an option pre-1984. Jarnail Singh never explicitly called for the creation of a Sikh state, he only asked for Sikh grievances to be addressed by the federal government.
Sikh are definitely a minority in the entire province of Punjab, yet they're still technically a majority in the Indian part of Punjab, and they definitely constitute the majority of voters. However, any Sikh state would be democratic. Anyways, all of this is completely besides the point because O-B had nothing to do with Khalistan or independence.
You're right about terrorism being wrong. Jarnail Singh never encouraged the killing of civilians--NEVER. In the years leading up to the attacks, he did encourage resistence to corrupt Indian police officers who were raping villages and randomly executing Sikhs... but never did he encourage the killing of civilians. There were some Sikhs who did, a small minority, and they were condemned by the Sikh leadership, including Jarnail Singh. The Sikhs who did committ terroristic acts played into the hands of the Indian government, and no sane person would actually consider them Sikhs.
How is storing arms in the face of what turned out to be a very legitimate threat the worst defacement of Sikhi? It is the right of all people to stand up for themselves against oppression, including state-sponsored oppression. Storing weapons is a whole lot different than going out there and using them unprovoked, (which is largely wrong).
Khalistan was a very popular idea in the Punjab - back in the late 80's, however, you're right, it is definitely not as popular today and for obvious reasons.
The Sikh "freedom" struggle was conducted horribly, with no clear mission, organization, objectives, etc.
Anyways, I take back any "enemy of the Sikhs" statement. I looked back at your post and you did condemn the disrespect of the Indian army's actions, however, you still seem to generally the support the idea of O-B and I still find that disturbing.
Because in my mind O-B can only be seen as regrettable in the eyes of every community, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim... I'll assume that you're simply showing your support for O-B in an effort to show that you're against Khalistan, (which is a far more legitimate position).
I ask you to revise your positions and understand the difference between being against Khalistan and calling O-B neccesary. O-B was the cause behind mass-support for the Khalistani movement until the early '90s. O-B did nothing except to hurt Hindu-Sikh relations. A desire to kill Jarnail Singh did not in any way justify the extent and degree of the Indian army's actions.
Sant Jarnail Singh never hid anywhere, he was ALWAYS out in the public. There were many many oppurtunities to kill him if that was truly the governments intention. Unfortunately, their true agenda was to hurt the sikhs, at their heart.
Regarding storing weapons at akal takht sahib. There is absolutely nothign wrong with it. If that is sacriligeous or a terrorist act, then go tell Guru Gobind Singh who made sure his armies were well armed with guns and cannons. When our Guru himself brought heavy artillery, guns, weapons and other shastars/astars into darbar sahib, how can you criticize when his followers do that?
we are sant SIPAHIS and to deny your warrior heritage is to deny your sikhi.
Between January 1 and June 1, 1984, militants working for Bhindranwale killed about 300 people in Punjab, most of them Hindus, nearly all of them innocent civilians. In just the five days before Operation Bluestar, terrorists killed 48 people. (See Mark Tully's book Amritsar: Mrs. Gandhi's Last Battle). You all have conceded that he worked with such people. I don't see why you don't concede that he (Bhindranwale) was directly involved in terrorism.
The Akal Takht was stocked to the brim with arms. You can go to a theological defense of it if you want (as a side note, I think it's absurd -- the Akal Takht is the house of God, it's not a fortress or a political headquarters; can't you see the difference?). When you do that, however, you are ignoring the actual political objective of those arms: Bhindranwale, with the AISSF and various ex-Generals from the Indian army, was training an army to fight a civil war against India.
Indira Gandhi was an incompetent politician. She was also cruel and authoritarian. And, she could have waited a day longer to strike. But ultimately, anyone in her position would have had to use military force against Bhindranwale, which means an assault at the Golden Temple. Her Sikh generals -- who implemented the attack -- agreed with her. I think they were not acting against Sikhism, but rather following their loyalty to the state of India.
I agree with you that the assault was humiliating, an awful affair. The army probably used gratuitous violence, and their poor planning probably resulted in worse bloodshed than necessary. I don't dispute that it was ugly. But I continue to feel it was necessary to avert a civil war in India, which probably would have turned into a full-on war between India and Pakistan that would have been even worse for everyone in Punjab.
I dispute your numbers. The government numbers list 600 dead. Following Mark Tully, I believe it is probably closer to 1000. I do not believe it is 6000 or 8000. But this is all speculation on both sides. We need a list of names... we need real documentation, verified by eyewitnesses, recorded on tape. Anyone can throw around numbers (including myself).
Though the attack on the Golden Temple was symbolically the worst event, I think the assasination of IG and the following riots in November 1984 did more real, lasting damage to Sikhs. I am still angry that certain Congress Party officials who probably committed communal murders were acquitted, and are still MPs in various parts of Delhi (i.e., Sajjan Kumar).
And I actually think that Rajiv was worse than Indira for the Sikhs. He signed an agreement with the Akalis (Longowal) in 1985 which conceded most of the Sikh demands regarding Chandigarh and water rights (roughly along the lines of the 1970 Anandpur Sahib Resolutions). But then he failed to hold up his end of the bargain, which weakened the Barnala government, and fed the flames of Sikh militancy.
[If you don't know all those names and dates, read un unbiased history of the Punjab in the 1980s.]
The worst part of all (after the riots in Delhi) were the horrific police actions in Punjab in the late 1980s, upto 1992 -- more than 15,000 people were killed, many of them arbitrarily, and nearly all without due process of law (and that number I do fully believe).
I support Jaskaran Kaur in her work with Ram Narayan Kumar to get the extrajudicial killings that occurred in that period documented. They are doing excellent work -- they have spent years in Punjab talking to survivors, recording detail, sifting through hard records. They have real legal training (Jaskaran is a lawyer)... if you want to do something about human rights in India, your best bet is to follow in those footsteps.
I am also happy that the NHRC has ordered the government to start paying restitution to the families of the 'disappeared'. It's just 109 families -- but it's a start.
first of all. i'm only posting on this site because japnaam singh asked me to, and when it comes to getting some small degree of importance from a malik i take it. as japnaam and hardeep know though, i am VERY busy (ie very important), so this will be brief.
1. khalistan was never spelled out in concrete terms. sikhs were never given the opportunity to create a constitution or really openly and discuss the issue in any real way. government oppression was SO harsh and devastating that what we may now term the "khalistan war" which was waged from 1986-1994 was not so much a war for khalistan as a natural and instinctual response from a nation under siege. the nation was the khalsa, and those who fought for khalistan fought for the survival of the sikh people, its ideals and institutions.
yes, there can be no doubt that there were a horrendous level of human rights abuses. the vast majority of these were committed by the government. others were done in the name of "khalistanis". what most human rights observers (see amnesty international and human rights watch) would agree though is that part of kp gill's counter terrorism involved creating false "khalistani" groups that would turn the population against the khalistanis. mahmood in her book, fighting for faith and nation, quotes sources that state that by the early 90's over half of almost all khalistani groups were comprised of agents for various indian government military and para-military organizations. there can be no doubt that india takes no chances when it comes to its national "security and integrity". its actions against the tiny nation of nagas in eastern india is indicative of the indian state's irrational and brutal treatment of its own "citizens" (here i put citizens in quotes because areas like naga and kashmir never willfully joined the indian state but were forced into it.)
concerning the issue of sikhs being a minority in punjab. most serious demographers do not take the indian government's statistics on this matter seriously. if you took the effort to study some of these studies maybe you wouldn’t make such a stupid claim. since the 1960's and most likely even earlier, the government has kept its methodology of performing census in punjab secret and has refused to allow its raw data to be studied by outside researchers. back in the punjabi suba days (which i'll get to later) when the clowns channan singh and fateh singh were negotiating with indira, she pretty much admitted to them straight up that the percentage of sikhs in punjab was being severely underreported for obvious political reasons. as of right now, sikhs are a bare 51 percent majority in punjab. the reality is probably much higher.
but this is a mute point. the sarkar-e-khalsa of (maha)raja ranjit singh was a sikh state, a khalistan, but was in existence when sikhs were a mere 12 percent of punjab's total population. while ranjit singh's rule was not ideal and he was not a great sikh either, it can be safely stated that those 50 years of punjab history were some of the most peaceful in terms of communal tensions. muslims, sikhs, hindus and christians lived in peace in relative peace all over punjab, from the borders of afghanistan to what is now himachal. ranjit singh's inspiration for this lack of oppression against other religious groups were the principals of the khalsa.
the issue of punjab being landlocked is fucking stupid one that should be forgotten. there are MANY countries in the world that are landlocked, most of which lack the resources that punjab has. according to kumar's books on troubles in punjab written back in the early 1980's he stated that engineers sent from the US at the request of the government of india estimated that punjab's water resources to be in the BILLIONS. that was 20 years ago. today, i can not fathom how much punjab's rivers are worth. in addition, punjab's agricultural worth is already famous. finally, through the policies of the central government, industrialization has not been encouraged in punjab. this was one of the reasons why kairon was against punjabi suba, because he knew that the government would only industrialize haryana and not punjab. this was not a reason to demand a punjabi state but kairon's fears came true. if punjab were allowed to reinvest its own resources and industrialize, despite being a land locked country it could be a very powerful economic force not only in south asia but perhaps the world.
what needs to be understood is that NO ONE knows what kahlistan means. it was the dreams and hopes of a people striving desperately for freedom. it was never spelled out and written in stone. for me, khalistan may mean something very different than for somebody else. to reject the idea completely though is fairly shortsighted and unfair. the principles of guru nanak and guru gobind singh applied correctly to politics and the art of running a state would be of unfathomable benefit for all punjabis, not just sikhs. khalistan need not be a theocracy and it would definitely not oppress the rights of other religious groups. guru tegh bahadur sacrificing his own HEAD in the streets of delhi ensure that sikhs can NEVER ever justify taking away political, social and religious freedoms from ANY group so long as their beliefs do not harm the greater good. built on these ideals then, khalistan has the potential to be a shining beacon to a world mired in religious and ethnic violence.
concerning shaheed baba jarnail singh. i do not know what to say. just the other night i was talking to my wife about jarnail singh. i was saying that anyone who does not believe him to be one of the greatest sikhs ever is, simply put, an idiot. jarnail singh's life is a grand and eloquent example of what guru gobind singh created 300 years ago. he is the ultimate expression of what it means to be a khalsa of akal. you need to be able to get past the propaganda and see the reality of the situation in the late 1970's and early 1980's. i would ask that you read the following document, which forms the introduction to the excellent resource put out by ranbir singh, an english translation of every single speech made by baba jarnail singh from 1982 to 1984. after reading the intro you should really try and track down the whole book. it should go far in forcing you to question the garbage you've believed all these years. (http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smspublications/SantJarnailSingh.pdfhttp://www.gurmat.info/sms/smspublications/SantJarnailSingh.pdf)
about the other thing you said, about even if it takes 50 years a group should not stop using peaceful means to try and achieve their goals. sikhs invented peaceful protest while gandhi was still calling africans savages and dogs in south africa in 1914 when they protested the destruction of gurdwara rikab ganj's walls by the british. this was the first instance of civil mass disobedience in the model to be later used by gandhi. sikhs invented it! and they used the same model of "morchas" for the next 70 years until 1984!
after sacrificing SO much for indian independence, sikhs began right away to fight for the right or ALL punjabis for a punjabi speaking state as promised by congress leaders years earlier. this is all well known, but it should be kept in mind that sikhs ALWAYS used peaceful means ALL these years. first sikhs had to fight for the right just to SAY punjabi suba zindabad! meaning, long live the punjabi state. this is known as the punjabi suba zindabad morcha and tens of thousands of sikhs went to jail just for this right!
after that, over 600,000 sikhs went to jail, peacefully it should be remembered for the creation of a punjabi speaking state. this was finally given but it was a sham, a disgrace, and was a slap in the face to the efforts of all those sikhs. it should be remembered that over 20 sikhs were killed during these morchas by government forces including a young boy thrown down a well by the punjab police.
even after all this, the sikhs remained peaceful. they then held a political conference at anandpur sahib where they created a brilliant and wonderful document called the anandpur sahib resolution, which should be read by ALL sikhs since it is this document that jarnail singh fought so hard for. the ASR was written primarily by the genius sardar kapur singh, the father of the modern idea of a sikh nation. the ASR still did not advocate a separate sikh state but instead asked for autonomy, NOT only for the punjab but for ALL states in india. it was a beautiful idea and it should be remembered through all this that sikhs were fighting for the rights of ALL punjabis, knowing full well that a new punjabi state would mean they would be an even thinner majority (according to government stats) in punjab. yet they strived on. greater autonomy is not impossible and many distinct ethnic areas in the world enjoy considerable autonomy from their central governments and it is not considered to be a big deal at all. the ASR stated that in matters of international and national trade, international and national defense and other important areas the central government would still reign supreme. this idea of a decentralized state is exactly what the USA is, and it works fine for them. in fact, those who actually died and fought for a free india in the early part of the last century envisioned a "united states of india", not the undemocratic, draconian central indian government we know today.
to implement the asr, the sikhs remained peaceful. the first terrorist act of the pre-1984 period was launched by the government itself when unarmed (besides kirpans of course) PEACEFUL protesters led by shaheed bhai fauja singh were brutally shot down on the streets of amritsar.
still, after this, the sikhs remained largely peaceful, with some retaliatory attacks occurring against those directly responsible for the deaths of the innocent sikhs. even these killings only occurred after the government refused to distribute its own internal report on the massacre and those responsible were let off without a single conviction despite overwhelming evidence. only when the indian justice system failed them did the sikhs turn to their own form of justice.
and still, peaceful protests continued. if you were to read jarnail singh's speeches of the period and if you were to study the history of the period from an unbiased perspective you would see that sikhs desperately tried to maintain peaceful in the face of increasing government repression. it should never ever be forgotten that over 208 young sikh men were killed by the government BEFORE 1984 in false encounters. these included the famous cases of kulwant singh nagoke, the first such victim, gurmeet sikh dhulkot whose nails were pulled off and whose fingers were then burned along with many other tortures and seetal singh who was a sikh in the indian army wrongly accused of a minor infraction and whose body was stuffed with over a KILO of red chili powder in a horrible and extended torture. in addition, dozens of gurdwaras were attacked, especially in haryana and rajasthan, guru granth sahib jee's were desecrated and countless young sikh girls were gang raped by police and right wing hindu organizations.
for all of these crimes NOT one person was even charged! it was in the face of these oppressions that jarnail singh was FORCED to respond to the government's aggressions. he was not a terrorist by any definition. he did not "terrorize" innocents but instead tried desperately to protect his brethren from brutal oppressions that were otherwise going unanswered.
he is the grand hero of 20th century sikhism.
i could write plenty more in response to your first two points but i will go on to your third point now. i don’t think you really understand what the akal takht is or what its importance is to sikh history. if you go to akal takht today you will see that more than the guru granth sahib jee itself, the historically important weapons of gurus and famous sikhs are WORSHIPED at the akal takht. these include a gun used by guru hargobind sahib jee.
guru hargobind sahib sat on the original akal takht, which was just a platform, and put on two weapons as we all know. he then proclaimed boldly the sovereignty of the sikh nation. the akal takht is NOT a gurdwara. it is not meant to be treated like a place of worship. it never was before 40 years ago and should not be thought of as a religious institution. it is a political and military institution. it is the legislature, supreme court and pentagon of the khalsa nation all in one.
before 40 years ago there was NO guru granth sahib installed in akal takht sahib. wherever there is a guru granth sahib, that place must be open to anyone wishing to do darshan of the guru. the takht was not suppose to be open to everyone! it was a place to make decisions for the political and military future of the sikh nation! that is what it served as from the time of baba banda singh bahadur until ranjit singh, under his drive for unlimited personal power, stopped holding sarbat khalsas in 1802.
the akal takht was always a place where weapons were kept. in fact, the proper name for the akal takht is takht sri akal bunga sahib. akal takht refers only to the original platform that guru hargobind had baba buddha and bhai gurdas build 400 years ago. the building we know as the akal takht is the akal bunga built around and over the akal takht to protect it. bunga is a building used to house SOLDIERS and ARMY EQUIPMENT AND RESOURCES. it was a military centre of the sikhs as well as their meeting place for our unique form of consensus democracy (practiced 50 years before the french revolution and 70 years before the american revolution). it was also where religious and CIVIL judgments were passed by what was then known as the mukh sevadaar and is now wrongly called the jathedar of the akal takht.
in the early 1900's the british attempted to enter the akal takht. sikhs were so horrified at the thought that spontaneously the sangat there built up a human chain, several layers thick, all around the akal takht and refused the british to get even within 10 meters of the building. the reasoning being that non-amritdharees were not allowed inside or even to TOUCH the akal takht. why this apparent inequality? would you allow a non-military, non-american enter into the decision making centres of the pentagon? would you allow a non-mp onto the floor of the legislative building while parliament was in session? of course not. the akal takht was never meant to be a gurdwara! it was only transformed into one for the purpose of making more money from the golak and through akhand paths. before the 1940's the guru granth sahib was not formally installed in the akal takht except on special divans when panthic meetings were being held. as anyone can see even today, the weapons are the focal point of worship at the akal takht since physical weapons are the manifestation of the temporal power of god/guru.
i wrote a more detailed article concerning the legitimacy of jarnail singh's defense of the akal takht a few years back. maybe ill post it for further clarification if you so wish.
hope this answers some of your questions.
cause no one asked i decided to post my essay on why baba jarnail singh was right in defending akal takht sahib anways. it was originaly written for sikhe.com, as evident in the first line of the essay. the original date of the article is at the end.
Journey of Sovereignty
Over the last few days a debate has been going on Sikhe.com concerning the role of Jarnail Singh in the destruction of the Akal Takht and the army action against the Darbar Sahib Complex in 1984.
For the last seventeen years the constant claim of some Sikhs, that somehow Shaheed Baba Jarnail Singh was to blame for the destruction of the Akal Takhat and how it would have been much better had he not been in the complex and that by being there he invited the army action, makes two things clear to me. One, we are a people with a slave mentality. We blame ourselves for the crimes committed against us by the State. And two, our knowledge of Sikh history is narrow and lacks an intelligent understanding of our history and traditions.
The belief that the sanctity of a place, especially the Darbar Sahib complex, must be kept at all costs and that Jarnail Singh should have done everything in his power to ensure it was not defiled in any way is an argument that flies in the face of Sikh ideology and tradition.
The Akaal Takht Sahib (properly called Takht Akaal Bunga Sahib) is a building: brick and mortar, marble and gold. What is more important than the actual building, is the sovereignty of the Khalsa Panth; is the freedom of the Akal Takht. When given a choice between letting a government control the Takht or defending it, and thus perhaps then brining about its destruction, the Nation of the Sikh would rather have it destroyed than come under government control. If to keep its independence the building is destroyed, then that is of no consequence to the Panth. If, after its destruction, the government still takes over, then at least the Khalsa Nation can say we tried our hardest to ensure that the "Throne of the Infinite" remained sovereign. Let us look at some key examples in Sikh history that should help prove this point.
In 1764, Bhai Gurbakhsh Singh and his twenty-nine sathees were the caretakers of the Akal Takht Sahib and the adjoining gurdwaras. Bhai Sahib was one of the top students of Baba Deep Singh and was from the Damdami Taksaal / Shaheedi Misl. At the time, the majority of the Khalsa were in the jungles to the north of Punjab and the deserts in the Rajasthan area. The Sikhs were under heavy persecution from the governments of the time and the Khalsa was regrouping in these wild lands. Very few Sikhs were left in Punjab and these thirty Sikhs had volunteered for the seva of up keeping the Darbar Sahib Complex, especially the Akal Takht and Darbar Sahib. Bhai Gurbakhsh Singh was what we would now call the Jathedar of the Akal Takht Sahib, though that position was not called so until much later in Sikh history.
When the Afghanis under Ahmed Shah Duranni came through Punjab on one of their many invasions of the sub-continent, they found Amritsar deserted (at that time Amritsar was called Chak Guru, Chak Ramdaspur, Guru ka Chak, or just Chak). They came to Darbar Sahib, which they had planned to occupy. Now, if there were no Sikhs there, they would have just occupied the buildings and left. And Sikhs today, would probably say, let them, because then the buildings will be saved. But no. The Khalsa cannot allow any power to have control over the throne given to it by Akal Purakh. This is a timeless throne, one that the Khalsa rules from, answerable only to God. Its independence must be maintained. So, those thirty brave Sikhs came out and took on a large Afghani army. The odds were hugely stacked against them (like they were in 1984), but the thirty Singhs fought extremely bravely. They destroyed many Afghani troops and, ultimately, they were all killed.
For them, dying there and doing everything they could do to protect the sovereignty of the institutions of the Khalsa was much more important and dear to them than their lives. So long as Sikhs were in the Akal Takht, they would not voluntarily let it be taken over by a foreign power.
Now let us look back ten years earlier, to 1757. Baba Deep Singh is considered one of the giants of Sikh history, and rightly so. The first Jathedar of the Damdami Taksaal, his accomplishments are many. He was taught directly by Bhai Mani Singh in intellectual, philosophical and martial traditions. He prepared the first copies of the Guru Granth Sahib from Bhai Mani Singh's original Damdami Bir, the one Guru Gobind Singh had transcribed to Bhai Mani Singh in 1703 at Damdama. Baba Deep Singh fought in battles under Guru Gobind Singh. He fought with Shaheed Baba Banda Singh Bahadur in those early campaigns of the Khalsa Panth after Guru Jee's passing. He was the leader of one of the five Jathas of the Taruna Dal. He was the founding Jathedar of the Shaheed Misl. He fought in the lesser holocaust, the chota Ghallughara, and in all major Sikh battles up to his martyrdom.
In 1757, the Durrani Afghanis were again on an invasion into the sub-continent. They came to Darbar Sahib and occupied the buildings. There were no Sikhs to stop them, or the Sikhs that were there thought they could do nothing to stop the occupation. Baba Deep Singh was at Damdama Sahib at the time and received news of the occupation of the buildings only a few weeks later. When he found out, what did he do? The key question is, what did he do that was any different from what Jarnail Singh did. Sikhs today would have had him sit back and allow the buildings to have been occupied. The Afghanis would use and abuse the buildings and, when it came time to leave, they would, leaving the buildings to be taken over again by the Khalsa. Sikhs today would say, fine, let them, as long as the complex is not destroyed. They would have Baba Deep Singh sit back and say to himself, "Hmmmm, maybe I should let them have it, if we cause problems, maybe some "beyadbee" will come to the buildings." But of course, he did not. The greater "beyadbee" is for the gurdwaras and the Takht of the Khalsa Panth to be under the control of anyone but the nation founded by Guru Nanak.
Upon learning of the Afghani occupation, Baba Deep Singh set out with his students from the Taksaal at Damdama Sahib in southern Punjab. He was well into his seventies, an age when most would have left their warrior days behind. Of course, a Sikh warrior's days are never behind them. On the way to Amritsar up to five thousand Sikhs joined him. They met the Afghanis at Tarn Taran, about fifteen kilometers from Amritsar, where the battle began. There were at least twenty thousand Afghanis. Baba jee and all the other Sikhs fought bravely.
We all know what happened to Baba Deep Singh. He received a sword blow to his neck and his head left his body. Despite this he kept on fighting, fulfilling a promise he had earlier made in front of the Guru Granth Sahib. He made it close to the Darbar Sahib Complex and fell there, throwing his head to the parkarma of the Darbar Sahib.
Like in 1984 and 1764, the battle of 1757 was lost by the Sikhs. It was an impossible battle to win, one where the question, "why bother", would be asked. Why bother fighting a losing battle? Why go out and be slaughtered if you know your chances of success are slim to none? Why go and fight, if by fighting you are brining more destruction to the very buildings you are dying to protect?
Well, firstly, an unwinnable battle has never been an excuse to not fight for the Nation of the Infinite. In fact, the great Sikhs, like Baba Deep Singh, will travel far distances and pray to God for the chance to be able to partake in such a battle. Yes, ultimately the buildings were destroyed (the Akal Takht Sahib has been destroyed seven times, eight now, and the Darbar Sahib twice), but the Khalsa tried it's everything to keep it free.
Jagmeet Singh has already countered my above points to some extent. He has written that the situation of Baba Jarnail Singh in 1984 is not comparable to Baba Deep Singh's situation of 1757 and Bhai Gurbaksh Singh in 1764. Let us look at the situation of 1984 a little closer. For a better understanding of the situation one should read Jarnail Singh's own speeches, as translated by Ranbir Singh, or better yet, hear the originals.
In 1982, four young students of the Damdami Taksaal were arrested by the police on trumped up charges. The Taksaal was been targeted because of Jarnail Singh's rising popularity, the success of the campaign of getting Sikhs to take Amrit, and the fast growing strength of the All India Sikh Students Federation (AISSF).
Jarnail Singh had been head of the Damdami Taksaal, jatha Bhindran-Metha, since 1978 when Bhai Kartar Singh was killed in a supposed car accident. He deputed Kartar Singh's eldest son, Bhai Amrik Singh, to deal with the situation. Bhai Amrik Singh was also the President of the AISSF. The AISSF is an organization set up in the 1920's that had grown stagnant and useless over the years. After the emergency that Indira Gandhi had called in 1975 ended, largely due to the non-violent protest of the Sikhs, Bhai Amrik Singh was elected president in 1978 and he revitalized the foundering organization, the numbers of members in the Indian wide organization went up from ten thousand in 1978 to one hundred thousand by 1980. Those federation activists became the backbone of the movement that Baba Jarnail Singh and Bhai Amrik Singh were to lead.
Bhai Amrik Singh, after going to make enquiries, was also arrested, again on false charges and sent to jail. Jarnail Singh then sent Baba Thara Singh to find out why these innocent Sikhs had been arrested, on what charges and for what reasons. Baba Thara Singh was one of the older members of the Damdami Taksaal, a respected Sikh, whose advice was sought after. He too was arrested. (On a side note, as prisoners, Bhai Amrik Singh and Baba Thara Singh caused the prison officials a lot of problems. All of the Sikh prisoners, who were in jail with them, would quickly renounce alcohol and drugs and to start keeping their hair. They would take amrit, and within a few weeks, the entire Sikh population of a jail would have become religious. They had to be moved from prison to prison. In one jail, where Amrik Singh and Thara Singh had a gurdwara built for the Sikhs, the Hindu inmates asked Baba Thara Singh for him to build something where they too could worship. Baba Thara Singh, of the Damdami Taksaal that the government has claimed again and again was anti-Hindu, then had a Mandir built in the prison for the Hindus.)
Baba Jarnail Singh surveyed the situation and decided on a course of action. Six of the members of his Jatha had been arrested on false charges and were being tortured in jail. Two of them were the top Sikhs of the Taksaal. In mid-July 1982, he went to Akal Takht Sahib and there did an ardaas and launched a morcha against the government to secure the freedom of these six innocent Sikhs. Jarnail Singh was already hugely popular and many thousands had been administered amrit by the Damdami Taksaal in the previous few years, so the morcha quickly became a large-scale movement.
Traditional Sikh leaders, specifically the Big Three of the Akali Dal, Chief Minister Parkash Singh (Badal), President of the SGPC Gurcharan Singh (Tohra) and President of the Akali Dal, Harchand Singh (Longowal), decided to start a panthic wide morcha and merge it with Jarnail Singh's morcha. They thought they could feed off the popularity of Jarnail Singh, that he would be under their control and that they could use him as a figurehead, a pawn of theirs. They underestimated his morals and principals and his ability to understand the wider situation, to comprehend what was really on the line. They especially failed to understand how intelligent he really was, something that western commentators have also done, believing this was just a "simple rustic preacher".
All of them also discounted the ability of his "lieutenants". Bhai Amrik Singh galvanized the Sikh youth around India and was seen as a pious and deeply religious man. Harminder Singh (Sandu) had a brilliant organizational mind and it was he who organized many of the morcha's actions. Bhai Manvir Singh (Chaheru) and Bhai Surinder Singh (Sodhi) were trained in the police and army and they carried and planned out many of the covert actions that later became necessary when the government began to target innocent Sikhs. And of course former army General, Sahbeg Singh, who organized the defenses to the army action of June 1984. All of these Sikhs and many more were at the disposal of Jarnail Singh during the two yearlong morcha.
The Akali Dal leaders named their morcha the Dharam Yudh Morcha or, translated, the Holy War Morcha. What is a morcha? When and why did they come into popularity with the Sikhs as a tool for political change?
Morchas literally means an armed position in a war. In the past century it has come to mean a non-violent mass protest. Morchas were first used to free historical Gurdwaras from the control of the corrupt Hindu mahants, who were backed by the British Government, and to secure specific demands from the government.
The first morcha was the Rikab Ganj Morcha, which began when the British tore down a wall of the Rikab Ganj Gurdwara in New Delhi, where Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib's body had been consigned to flames, to build a road. After that first morcha, more and more morchas began until the government finally allowed the Sikhs to set up their own central body to govern Gurdwaras, the SGPC.
Famous morchas were the Guru ka Bagh Morcha, Jaito Morcha (when the British officials of Nabha state stopped an Akhand path of the Guru Granth Sahib midway), Chabian da Morcha (when the keys to the toshakhana of the Darbar Sahib complex were confiscated) and, of course, the massacre at the Nankana Sahib Morcha.
Later, after the British left the sub-continent, morchas were taken out soon after so called independence. One of the early ones was a morcha to be able to say Punjabi Suba (the new so-called democratic Indian government had banned the slogan of "Punjabi Suba Zindabaad", or "Long live the Punjab state", and then of course the long hard fought fight for Punjabi Suba itself. The morchas against Indira Gandhi's false 'emergency', which she imposed when the Supreme Court found her guilty of election fraud, are also famous.
How is a morcha conducted?
They work on a principle of non-violence. Sikhs would go out to the Gurdwara they were trying to free, or just out into the streets, and court arrest. The idea being, that the mass arrests and civil disobedience would force the government to cede to the demands. Also, the mass arrests would bring the government's prison and justice systems to a halt. Against the British, who weren't interested in the complete destruction of the Sikhs, and who did not partake in extra-judicial killings, torturing of innocent citizens and other excesses, the morchas were successful. But as the Indian Government grew more and more blatant in its effort to destroy the Sikhs, these morchas grew inefficient.
The Dharm Yudh Morcha was taken out in order to bring about the Anandpur Sahib Resolution (ASR). The ASR written in 1972 at Anandpur Sahib, hence the name, made a long list of demands of the government. Many were small simple demands, like having a radio broadcast from Darbar Sahib, attaining holy city status for the city of Amritsar, renaming a train after the Darbar Sahib and other such things.
But the key demands were much more serious in nature. They demanded that Chandigarh be given to Punjab, along with other Punjabi speaking areas left out of the 'Punjabi speaking Punjab' whose boundaries were drawn up in 1968 on a linguistic basis. Water rights were also integral to the Resolution. The free right to carry arms and the recognition of the Sikhs as a distinct nation (much as the Quebec sovereignists demand that French Canadians be recognized as a distinct nation).
The key demand was that India be reorganized so that the states would have more autonomy from the center. It was envisioned that the center would only have control over foreign affairs, defense, currency and internal trade. Every thing else would be under the provision of the individual states. This was a demand that would have begun to solve many of the problems of the Indian state that had been more than obvious after the British had left the sub-continent in 1947.
Panthic wide morchas were taken out in a very specific way. The panthic leaders would all make an ardaas at the Akal Takht, promising that they would not stop the morcha until the panth's demands were met. Then, the panthic leaders would stay in the Darbar Sahib complex, usually at Guru Nanak Nivaas or in the Sarais.
Living at the Akal Takht was not unheard of and Jarnail Singh was not the first to stay there (also, he was forcibly kicked out of Guru Nanak Nivaas by the Babbar Khalsa under Sukhdev Singh, who had been told to do so by Bibi Amarjit Kaur of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha and Harchand Singh Longowal). Fateh Singh had also stayed in the Akal Takht when he was taking his supposed fasts unto death in the 1960's. As Jarnail Singh pointed out, Fateh Singh stayed on a bed in the Takht, while Jarnail Singh slept on the floor. In addition, Bhai Gurbakhsh Singh and his twenty-nine sathee Singhs also stayed in the Akal Takht. Living in the Takht itself was not a unique thing.
On a daily basis, volunteer Sikhs would come in large numbers, go to Darbar Sahib and then go on to listen to speeches of the Panthic leaders and to kathaas, tadis, poems and other speeches. The morcha participants would then go do ardaas at Akal Takht and then go to court arrest. These Sikhs would come organized in groups, with a Jathedar at their head. This had become the pattern of running a morcha. The Dharam Yudh Morcha was taken out in the same way.
Jarnail Singh started his morcha only for the release of the Sikhs of his jatha who were unjustly arrested. After the Panthic leaders started their morcha and joined it with the one Jarnail Singh already had going, he threw himself in full force with the panthic wide morcha. At the Akal Takht, all the Panthic leaders and Jarnail Singh did ardaas, saying they would never stop the morcha until the Panth's demands were met.
As a leader of the morcha, Jarnail Singh stayed in the Darbar Sahib complex, just as leaders had for the last forty years and just as the different Akali Dal leaders were doing at the same time. His staying in the Darbar Sahib complex was exactly in line with Panthic tradition. Harchand Singh (Longowal), Gurcharan Singh (Tohra), Balwant Singh (Ramoowalia) and other panthic leaders were all staying in the complex as well.
Many thought that once the Sikhs of the Damdami Taksaal had been released, Jarnail Singh would then stop his morcha or take a back seat position. When it became clear that his personality was taking over the morcha and that the masses were following him and not the old Akali Dal leaders, those leaders were hoping for such a turn of events. But, Jarnail Singh maintained that he was not going to go back on the ardaas he had made at the Akal Takht.
Now, for those who have no respect for the Guru Granth Sahib, or for the Guru Khalsa Panth, taking an ardaas in front of the Guru and making a promise in front of the Guru is no big deal. But for those Sikhs who have respect for the Granth Sahib and think of it as their true Guru, such a promise must be fulfilled. Come what may, that promise must be kept.
Just as Baba Deep Singh had made a promise to fight and free Darbar Sahib, just as Bhai Gurbakhsh Singh had made a promise to defend the Darbar Sahib complex whatever the circumstances, Jarnail Singh made a promise that he would keep the morcha going until its demands would be fulfilled. There could be no going back on a promise made before the Guru. There can be no negations on terms that one has decided on in front of Guruji. The Akali Dal leaders had no problem with going back on promises made before the Guru, promises they had made to the sangat again and again. Those same leaders who had said they would fight to their death for the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, quickly sold out the Sikh people in negotiations with the Centre, ignoring many of the key demands of the Resolution.
When Harchand Singh signed the Rajiv-Longowal accord in 1985, he had gone back on most of the promises he had made in front of the Guru. Except for Longowal, many of these Akali Dal politicians are now leaders in the Punjab Government and have not even tried to bring about one the demands of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, forget the major demands, not even the minor ones. The number of promises that Chief Minister Parkash Singh himself has broken would be a mile long. But Jarnail Singh was no Badal. A promise that he made in front of the Guru Granth Sahib could never be broken. He had made a promise that he would bring about the demands of the Dharam Yudh Morcha, or die trying, and he did just that.
As I stated earlier, Indira Gandhi's response to the Dharam Yudh Morcha, ensured that it would not be successful. In the old days they would arrest the Sikhs, thereby putting them into the justice system. What Gandhi began to do, was to release the morcha participants right away, without charging them. While they released the common Sikhs, the police would keep the leaders of the morchas in jail and torture or kill them. This served completely to nullify the tactics of the morcha. As the police, the Hindu right wing organizations and the Hindu governments of neighbouring states to Punjab, especially Haryana and Rajasthan, began to target Sikhs more and more, Jarnail Singh became increasingly the man that the Sikhs turned to for assistance and protection. What he did in that situation is also widely misunderstood, but to get into that right now would be going too far off the topic.
Let us now look at another common criticism of Jarnail Singh concerning the destruction of Darbar Sahib. Many bring up the point of the carrying of arms by Jarnail Singh and other Sikhs who were with him. They also criticize the armed encampments and fortifications built into the Darbar Sahib complex by Shaheed General Sahbeg Singh. Some quotes of Guru Gobind Singh should help clear up the point. He should be the expert on what is and what is not allowed for the Khalsa.
Guru Gobind Singh Sahib has said:
"Panj hathiar bahn keh, darshan koh avana."
"Wearing five arms then come and do my darshan."
Many critics of the Khalsa say that a kirpan is a useless weapon in the modern world. That one cannot do anything with a kirpan. I hate to use this as an example, but the terrorists of September 11, 2001 did quite a lot with just box cutters. A kirpan, of a decent size and of good quality, is the bare minimum of personal defense. With one, a person can at least defend himself or herself or defend others who are in distress. In a choice between nothing and a kirpan, a kirpan can help in an emergency. It is the least the Khalsa should wear on themselves. If you are able, and if the situation thus requires, a Sikh of the Guru should wear more weapons on their person. Guru jee asks for at lest five.
Guru Gobind Singh further writes:
"Binaa shashtre keshang narang bhaid jannoh.
Ghai kahn teh pakreh leh saidahnoh.
Eh morh aagya sunoh meraih pyareh
Bina tegangh keshang divoh nah deedareh"
Which translates as,
“Without weapons and uncut hair a person is but like a sheep.
Held by the ear they can be taken anywhere.
Listen to this command of mine, my beloved:
Without a sword and uncut hair, do not come into my presence.”
Weapons are integral for attaining sovereignty. As Mao said, "Power comes through the barrel of a gun." Guru jee made an incredibly astute statement on the role of politics, religion and weapons in the following quote. This quote is the central guiding principle of Sikh polity:
"Tabh in bhinoh Gareeb navaj
Shashtren keh adeehn heh raj
Raj binah neh dharma chaleh heh
Dharam binah sabh dhaleh maleh heh"
The translation of which would be
“The Protector of the Poor says
Weapons are the key to sovereignty
Without sovereignty religions cannot flourish
Without religion all are completely destroyed."
The above three quotes are of Guru Gobind Singh jee's hand. I wonder if those who criticize Jarnail Singh for arming himself and for putting up fortifications around Darbar Sahib would have it in them to criticize Guru Gobind Singh.
In this ongoing debate, some one has also brought up the point that Guru Har Gobind made sure not to fight in the Darbar Sahib complex, that he first sent a small contingent of Sikhs out to fight at Lohgarh the night before the main battle and then the next day the battle took place at a village close to Amritsar.
Guru Har Gobind had a strong fort built on the outskirts of the city. He had control of all of Amritsar and many of the adjoining villages. It is not comparable to draw a parallel between this and the 1984 situation. The Sikhs did not have control of all of Amritsar in 1984. If they did, they would have, for sure, ensured that the battle took place far from the Darbar Sahib complex, hopefully on the out skirts of the city. But how could a few hundred fighters ever hope to defend and fortify an entire city when they had no control of it? Remember also that the army made the first move. They surrounded the complex completely and then attacked. On the Sahaheedi Purb of Guru Arjun Sahib at that. A strange choice considering the huge number of devotees who always come and visit the Gurdwara on that day. The battlefield was not Jarnail Singh and Sahbeg Singh's to decide.
Could the attack on the Darbar Sahib Complex and the Akal Takht been avoided. Yes, if the government had ceded to the legitimate and just demands of the Sikhs. If they had not started to kill hundreds of Sikhs in torture cells and false encounters (the number of innocent Sikhs killed from 1980 to 1984 was up to 300 by the time of Blue Star), if they did not set up riots in Hindu dominated States (read Haryana) that targeted Sikhs. If young Sikh women were not raped by police and armed forces. If Guru Granth Sahib's were not desecrated.
Sikhs today blame Jarnail Singh for the escalating nature of the conflict. They blame him for brining about the attack on the Darbar Sahib when all he ever did was try and show the Sikhs that they were slaves in the Indian system and tried to defend the Sikhs against illegal killings and tortures.
If the Operation BlueStar attack was truly done in order to stop the so-called terrorists that had holed themselves up in the Darbar Sahib Complex, then why attack on Guru Arjun Shaheedi purb. Why trap thousands of innocent Sikhs in the complex. Why pretend to be the Red Cross and when people come out for assistance, shoot them dead? Why enact a statewide curfew and a full media blackout? Why stop trains to and from Amritsar? And most importantly, why attack up to 80 other Gurdwaras on the same day? Was Jarnail Singh in all of them? Had he made fortifications in all of those Gurdwaras, over half of which were historical Gurdwaras? Why, after having killed thousands of Sikhs and destroying the Akal Takht, did the army burn down the Sikh reference library, which contained over 1,000 historical Guru Granth Sahib Birs and other texts, many of which were signed and authenticated by the Gurus? Which contained the writings of the Gurus, the arms and clothing of the Gurus and famous Sikhs. Which contained treaties and government orders of the Independent Khalsa Nation from hundreds of years ago. Why burn that down? Why attack all of those Gurdwaras?
Those who say again and again that Jarnail Singh was a pawn in a larger game, or claim that he is to blame for the destruction of the Akal Takht and the death and misery that was to descend upon Punjab in 1984 and after, really do need carefully study the history of events before coming to conclusions. One of the biggest problems the panth faces today, and we do face many, is that we lack an ability to look at our history, put its events into context and learn from them so that we do not make the same mistakes again and again.
Concerning the modern day situation, we need to take a step back and look at the policies of the Indian state in relation to the Sikhs. Learn about how the government has treated us, and is. See how much they respect us, how much care they have for our freedom, our liberty and our lives.
Jarnail Singh is not the man who caused the destruction of the Akal Takht. He is the man who died defending it so that the Khalsa Nation could be woken from its century long slumber and again walk the path of personal sovereignty and independence for itself and for all the peoples of the world. He should not be blamed, but praised, as a shinning example of what a true Sikh is and how a true Sikh lives.
Baba Deep Singh, Bhai Gurbakhsh Singh and now Jarnail Singh. These are some of the heroes of the Khalsa nation, who gave their heads to try and maintain the freedom of the Akal Takht, but never backed down on their principles.
If only we had more Sikhs like them. We wouldn't be nearly as badly off as we are now.
December 14th, 2001
Post a Comment
<< Home