bajwa@nacho.DEC (BAJ DTN 381-2851) (10/31/85)
Here are some responses to the various comments on my original
posting:
>"I don't remember reading anywhere about attacks on several
>other major temples during Bluestar, or of several hundred
>pilgrims being killed - surely not the kind of thing that can
>be kept secret for long?"
Although not a secret, this fact hasn't been well publicised;
proving that bulk of the media and press in India are quite
compliant to the govt's line. I have talked to eyewitnesses
and visited several of the gurudwaras.
>"the attacks on Sikhs after Mrs.Gandhi's assassinations was
>understandable, (not justifiable of course) given mob
>mentalities, and that by then there was already a great deal
>of activism among the Sikhs."
I'm sorry but I find it shocking that you consider the Sikh
massacres (almost 3,000 Sikhs in Delhi alone according to
govt's own figures; possibly many more) "understandable".It
has been clearly established in several publications (WHO ARE
THE GUILTY, MANUSHI, etc.) that the riots were not an
expression of "madness and of populur grief and anger at Mrs
Gandhi's assassination". Instead they were "masterminded by
some powerful organised groups". Crowds were led by Congress
(I) leaders and the Delhi police were often involved ( all
Sikhs in the Delhi police were disarmed and confined to their
barracks!).
>" there is no doubt that the indian govt has never been fair,
>but many minorities (and perhaps some majorities too!) have
>suffered equally. I felt that the articles quoted ignored
>that aspect, and tended to project Sikhs as the only people
>discriminated against. in that respect, it is not at all
>comparable to the Nazi holocaust. if every affected minority
>began agitating, it would lead not to a revolution but to
>chaos - violent agitation changes few things, i would say
>that is the reason why there is usually little support for
>terrorists, however just their cause (South Africa is an
>exception)."
It was never implied that the Sikhs were the only people
discriminated against. The comparisons were to the BEGINING
of the holocaust ( also keep in mind that this is 40 years
later!). I wish you had commented on the specific analagies
stated.
Not that I advocate violent agitation, but I'm curious why you
consider South Africa an exception?
>" So should we just lie down and take injustice? i don't
>know."
I know that the Sikhs won't.
>"I could make this response as long as your yours, and
>counter almost every point you make. But, I won't. "
I wish you had. Let's have a healthy dialog; maybe that will
be doing our little bit in solving the problem.
>" Of important concern are two aspects that come out of your
>statement:
>1. Your perception that there is a systematic and organized
>attempt to persecute Sikhs.
>2. Your support for Bhindranwale and his gang."
Persecute no, but discriminate yes.
Support for Bhindranwale etc. was never implied.
>"Now to the attack on Golden Temple. Most of us non-Sikhs
>fail to fathom what you consider to be "desecration of our
>holy shrine" or how any temple can be out of bounds for the
>law. Suppose Rajneesh started raging a holy war from inside
>his ashram, and the American forces had to attack it. Do you
>think all the Hindus are going to cry that our holy shrine
>was desecrated?
The Golden Temple represents the holiest of Sikh shrines.The
Indian army's assault resulted in almost the total destruction
of the Akal Takht (photos available), several hundred bullet
and artillary holes in the main temple (hurriedly patched up
by the army; a sloppy job as the patches were clearly
visible). Many other buildings in the complex were destroyed.
The sacred pool was almost full of floating corpses (the color
of the water was pink according to eyewitnesses). The Sikh
history museum was burnt (a day after the fighting stopped)
and the gurudwara treasury was looted.
Comparing the Golden Temple to Rajneesh's ashram is quite
unfair.
>"I happen to have been in India before and during the
>assault. I can tell you that the Indian govt did not have to
>make anybody believe that the assault was necessary. On the
>contrary, everybody thought it was necessary and that it
>would happen. The question on our minds was not why the govt
>had to attack it, but why it attacked so late. The ready
>answer was that Sikhs were touchy about their temple being
>attacked. The reports were coming in everyday about bombings
>and killings by the terrorists and everybody felt hopeless.
>What you call media blitz! If there is one thing about India
>that I feel proud of, it is its free press. It won't do you
>any good if you characterize it as media blitz, rather than
>face up to the facts."
You imply that being in India at the time of the army assault
was somehow advantageous in knowing what was really going on!
On the contrary the people of the country were preped for the
assault by the govt controlled media. If you had been tuned
into the BBC, US wire services(AP etc.) you would have known
more than those even in Amritsar.
I can't believe your statement about the free press in India!
A friend of mine (non-sikh) from Delhi sent me the cuttings
from the 4 or 5 papers for the week of the Golden Temple
assault; reading them was a joke (compared even to the govt
accepted version of the events after several months).
>"This is some ridiculous propaganda misinformation. The very
>reason Bhindranwale went into hiding was that he was to be
>arrested. If you still believe that he was innocent, you are
>living in an imaginary world. He may have been killed, but
>many of his followers are being charged and convicted even
>today. There is a mass of evidence about his activities from
>the statements of his followers alone."
I only questioned the process, not whether Bhindranwale was
guilty or not.
>"I did not see any reports that hundreds of pilgrims were
>killed, except for the Associated Press report, which did not
>stand up to investigation later."
Just think of what you are saying here. Just because you
didn't hear any reports, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The
only reason that Brahma Chellaney (Associated Press reporter)
was able to report from Amritsar was because he had arrived
very late the previous night at the hotel and by chance was
allowed to sleep in a room without registering at the desk.
The next morning the army came in and escorted out of Punjab
all the journalists that were registered at the hotel, leaving
him behind. His report not only stated that at least over a
thousand bodies were cremated but that several people were
shot with their hands tied behind their backs (with their
turbans) and that several of them were women and children.
This has since been verified by other eyewitness accounts.
>"I am aware of Citizens for Democracy having reportedly
>alleged that "nearly 10,000 pilgrims were inside the temple
>and most of them were killed during the operation". I find
>it hard to believe. I find it hard because I have read about
>the operation in detail and there is no chance for such a
>thing to have happened. In the first place, the army
>surrounded the temple for several days before attacking it.
>In the second place, ample opportunity was given for the
>pilgrims to come out before the attack. In the third place,
>the temple was attacked for several hours from outside before
>the army really entered it. If there was no opportunity for
>anybody to escape,
>
>how did the Akalis escape?"
You've obviously read only what the govt has put out. The
white paper put out by Indira Gandhi's govt was a farce. For
example, even Rajiv admitted to the press that more than 700
army men died in the Golden Temple assault.
In general, the civil liberties groups do not have an axe to
grind. Instead they have taken tremendous risks to investigate
such issues. As an intelligent, educated person who would you
rather believe, the govt.(which incidentally is party to the
conflict) or the civil liberties groups?
The Akali leaders were taken out by the army ("perhaps by
prior arrangement" as stated in the 60 minutes report by Harry
Reasoner).
>"I am not saying that I know that such killings did not
>happen. If they did happen, it is certainly deplorable. But
>the Sikh propaganda machinery that operates in this country
>and in Britain is equally deplorable. What all of us are of
>afraid of is that the Sikh community seems to have gotten
>lost to this propaganda."
Trying to balance the killings with the "Sikh propaganda
machinery" is unfair. The Indian govt has spent orders of
magnitude more money and resources in propagandising the
issue. You have it backwards!
> " Given that Bhindranwale was in the temple and misusing its
>protection, what was the alternative to entering the temple?"
Common sense dictates that the govt should have attempted to
end the crisis with minimum damage. The army should have tried
to cut off electricity, food supplies, water etc. before
chosing to send in the commandoes, tanks, armoured carriers,
helicopter gunships, artillery etc. The fact that all the
"terrorists" were in one place is somehow projected as being
dangerous. On the contrary, that was exactly what should have
made it easy to overcome them without too much bloodshed and
damage.
>"Given that curfew was declared, that the army surrounded the
>temple for days before entering, and given that none of the
>papers (including anti Govt papers like the Express)
>reported such massacres, I find it hard to believe. The press
>may be muted, but its not muzzled. Again, what was your
>source?"
That is just my point! Now that the civil liberties group had
published its report, the govt (at the instigation of the
secretary of the Congress (I) party of all people) moved to
confiscate the report and arrest its authors. All other
publications reporting on the Golden Temple attack or the Sikh
massacres were similarly banned in the past.
>"Mutiny by Sikh soldiers was an unfortunate but
>understandable happening.'
>This use of 'understandable' is akin to swami@uiucdcsb's
>usage of the word in describing subsequent anti-Sikh riots.
>This is misplaced understanding."
Not quite akin! In one case the people violated the law by
breaking rank and trying to rush to Punjab to protect their
temple, families etc. In the other case people actively
participated in *brutal* killings, rapes etc.
>" The article makes no distinction between the views of an
>extremist segment and the views of Sikhs at large."
Don't hide your head in the sand (listening to one-sided
propaganda by the Indian govt.) This IS the view of the Sikh
community at large.
>"Articles such as the two included in Bajwa's posting serve
>to inflame and incite, rather than to inform. What is needed
>is not hot-headed rhetoric but authenticated facts and
>suggestions for healing the rift which now exists between
>Sikhs and non-Sikhs. "
I'm sorry you feel that way. I agree that we need
constructive, objective, fair suggestions at closing the rift.
>"I do agree that, as a principle, religious places should not
>be used to hide from law."
Couldn't agree more. In fact more effort should be made to
seperate religion and politics (much like the constitutional
seperation of church and state in the US).
>"First of all I do not accept the fundamental notion apparent
>in the posting that Sikhs are Punjab. This is a common
>mistake by Sikhs. "
I agree that Punjab = Sikhs is wrong; but this feeling has
more to do with the Punjabi HIndus (especially the Arya
Samaji's who have disowned the Punjabi language-- "Hindu-Sikh
Conflict in Punjab, by Sathananthan, Lalvani, Iyengar,
Mansukhani, Bhatnagar, Godbole et al ) than the Sikhs. Many of
the "Sikh demands" were really Punjab issues, but were never
really supported by non-Sikh Punjabis.
>"Any potential sectionist group whether religious or
>non-religious must not be allowed to become dominant in any
>country's defense forces. This is common sense. Had there
>been 40-50% Sikhs in the Indian army, the history of India
>would have been different today. I am not advocating that
>they be limited to their population ratio of 2%, but the
>proportion should be limited such that in time of crisis it
>won't pose any threatto integrity of the country. This must
>also apply to other groups like Rajputs, Tamils etc."
Sorry, but I disagree. By the same argument the govt should
limit any community's domination in trade, politics,
transportation, agriculture, academics etc.; these professions
may be just as strategically risky!
>"Compensation received by the Hindu-Sikh riot victims is far
>more than paid to any earlier riot victims."
Compensation in not the real issue here. Besides, in talking
to several of the victims one quickly realises that much of
the compensation and loans haven't really materialised (except
of course in the media!)
>"To the best of my knowledge so far Indian government has not
>made any official comment about possible cause of the crash.
>In fact they are still trying to get the salvage out. If they
>deliberately wanted to blame Sikhs they would not be
>spending millions of dollars on salvage hunt. However, other
>governments have definitely made official comments about it.
>I have myself seen and heard US Secretary of State on TV
>blaming it on terrorists. In light of the limited evidence
>available most of the international experts still agree that
>it was an explosion that caused it and possibly a bomb. Also,
>minutes after the crash a Sikh group had first accepted the
>blame. Now, what concerns me the most is that to please the
>Sikhs, Indiangovernment may never come out with the truth if
>indeed it was a bombby Sikhs."
The Indian Aviation Minister, Ashok Gehlot, made a statement
within hours of the crash, stating that the cause was a "bomb
by Sikh terrorists". I have access to Associated Press etc.
where this was clearly mentioned.
>"* India consists of people belonging to different religions.
>* No matter which state you belong to, you are an Indian.
>* We can thrive in this world iff we are united.
>* Any violent attempts of separatism should be curbed
>violently.
>* The Delhi killing of innocent Sikh people is deplorable and
>ought to to be condemned.
>* Equally deplorable is the money sent by Sikhs living
>abroad towards the creation of a separate Sikh State."
Again, the killings of Sikhs in Delhi etc. are being
"balanced" against, in this case, money sent by Sikhs from
abroad. That is unfair.
Thinking about all the issues raised, I can't help but point out
that there is a great difference of knowledge and belief in what
has happened to the Sikhs in the past year, between Sikhs and
non-Sikhs. I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in between, but it is
clear to me that the Indian govt has spared no effort in coloring
the news coming out of the country. In fact, the bulk of Sikhs'
anger and alienation comes from the belief that not only was their
community brutalised but also that most other Indians either don't
believe or care to know. The media is a very powerfull weapon,
especially in countries like India. The Sikhs may be a martial and
brave community when it comes to fighting conventional battles with
arms etc. but they are not well organised to fight the media blitz.
For example, the Rajiv-Longowal agreement is a farce when you
really analyse it; yet it has been projected to have been a
"historic agreement" (I'll post my analysis in a seperate message).