bajwa@nacho.DEC (BAJ DTN 381-2851) (10/02/85)
A while back someone asked to hear from a Sikh on the happenings
in Punjab and elsewhere concerning the Sikhs. Let me respond.
( By the time I finished, I realised that this message was
outrageously long, therefore you may want to print it and read it
off line. My apoligies for that; but then again the issue is of
serious concern).
The fundamental issues involved are things like justice, equality,
rights, etc.; issues which are fundamental to a democratic system
and without which all the nonsense about democracy is just that.
India, it is claimed, is the largest democracy. Unfortunately only
one of those is true. In my opinion, over the last decade or two,
most fundamental institutions of democracy ( press, media, the
judicial system, police, etc.) have been highly politicised. The
"Sikh problem" is just a symptom of these problems and unless some
of the fundamental issues are addressed I predict that there may
be several more of these problems.
As regards the "Sikh problem" in particular, I think that the
factor that has contributed the most to making the situation
deteriorate so much is the stranglehold of the Indian govt. on the
media. Most Indians are really not aware of what has been really
happening to the Sikhs. The govt has used it's control over the
media to give a false picture of the happenings in the Punjab
region.
Until about two years ago, Sikhs were considered to be simple,
loyal, hard-working, patriotic people. In the last two years, tens
of thousands of them have been killed, their holiest shrine
desecrated and destroyed and now they are the outcasts in India,
and their loyalty id being seriously questioned. Yes, it is also
true that Indira Gandhi was assasinated by two Sikhs ( as
individuals and not as a conspiracy as publicly stated by several
govt officials immidiately after the assasination ) and also that
some non-Sikhs were killed in Punjab during the same time. But
overall, the sequence does not make logical sense. It is almost
that the victims are being pointed out as being the villians.
Sikhs constitute one of the wealthiest communities -- that does
not constitute an environment that would foster terrorism; they
would stand to lose the most. Before the Golden Temple assault,
there was perhaps a handfull of Sikhs talking of Khalistan, after
the attack many in Punjab began to talk about it and then after
the massacres in Delhi and other North Indian cities, most Sikhs
talk about a Khalistan. Note that the talk about Khalistan is
merely a reaction and in my opinion is borne out of a feeling of
insecurity caused by diminished trust of the govt.
I will list a few issues here which may not be known or well
understood outside the Sikh community;
-- Most linguistic states were automatically formed within a few
years of independence. Punjab, as a punjabi-speaking state, was
the last to be formed in the late sixties, and that too after much
peacefull agitation by the Sikhs (Tara Singh, Fateh Singh etc.).
This irked the Sikhs even more considering that more than 75% of
those either killed or sent to Andaman during the independence
struggle were Sikhs (a fact not well publicised in commonly
prescribed history books in schools; yet another sour point from
the Sikhs' perspective).
-- At the time of partition there were about 40% Sikhs in the
armed forces. Now there are about 15%. This was accomplished by a
concious policy to limit their recruitment to 2% (their population
ratio). (This was done despite the fact that there was an overall
shortage of volunteers). What is wrong with such a "quota system"
you might ask? Well, this was not a case of normal quota
allocation; normal quota rules are used to promote, rather than
limit, a minority's participation! For example, would it be
acceptable to limit Brahmins to say 3% of govt jobs, because that
might be their population representation? Of course not!
I really believe that many of the young Sikhs who were followers
of Bhindranwale and died fighting the Indian army in the Golden
Temple, would have been soldiers in the Indian army, had this
ceiling not been the policy. What a pity, when you consider that
they would have fought just as fiercely defending India if they
hadn't been denied recruitment.
-- The Indian govt would have you believe that the assault on the
Golden Temple was necessary and justified. The facts, however, do
not back up the rhetoric. Consider the following;
. No charges were filed and warrants issued against
Bhindranwale and his men. There had been a media blitz against him
with implications that he was involved in the killings in Punjab
(which may or may not be true; but the proper process is very
essential).
. Bhindranwale was a smalltime religous leader before the govt
(Sanjay Gandhi and Congress people in Punjab, in particular) built
him up (with money, publicity, political backing etc.) in order to
divide the Sikh votes and ensure Congress rule in Punjab.
. Bhindranwale had been arrested on at least two occassions and
released by orders from some 'highups' in the govt.
. Bhindranwale went into the Golden Temple when he realised
that the govt had decided that he was then expendible.( It may be
interesting to note that Indira's father, Nehru, had also taken
shelter in the same temple to avoid arrest during British rule).
. The Indian army had been rehearsing an attack on the Golden
Temple almost a year prior to the actual assault. This was being
done at Chakratta (in UP) where a mockup model of the temple had
been constructed.
. It wasn't only the Golden Temple in Amritsar that was
attacked by the army. All major Sikh temples in Punjab were
simultaneously attacked. At some of these several hundred pilgrims
were indiscrimately killed.
. The particular day chosen for the attack was a Gurpurab (Sikh
holy day) when tens of thousands of pilgrims visit the Golden
Temple and other Sikh shrines.
-- Mutinees by Sikh soldiers were an unfortunate but
understandable happenings. Knowing the part that religon plays in
the psychology of the Indian soldier, the mutinees should have
been anticipated. Most of the soldiers involved are being punished
and at least one Sikh battallion has been disbanded. What irks the
Sikh community, however, is the inconsistancy with which these
incidents are being handled as compared to others. In the past
there have been wartime mutinees by large groups of non-Sikh
soldiers, at which time those involved were let off with light
reprimands.
-- By now everyone is aware that the post-assasination riots in
Delhi etc. were planned and directed by various leaders of the
Congress party, with the active participation of the police in
many instances. The investigation by the People's Union 0f Civil
Liberties and the Citizens for Democracy is summed up in their
report titled "Who Are the Guilty?". The govt, including Rajiv
Gandhi, have stated that there was no need of an inquiry. The govt
agreed to an investigation in April (after 5 months), but as of
now nothing much has been done. Although I don't condone the
rationale, most people believe that the assasinations of the two
congress leaders (Lallit Maken and Arjun Dass) in Delhi were a
result of their involvement in the massacres. Union ministers like
HKL Bhagat have also been named in the civil liberties groups'
report. The report by the way has been banned in India, but
substansial copies are circulating there and abroad.
-- The Indian Government's 5-year $270 million relief plan for the
Bhopal victims is commendable. The unfortunate aspect of this,
however, is the glaring inconsistency it shows when contrasted to
the government's attitude towards the victims of the horrible
anti-Sikh massacres. The differences become even more apparent
when one considers that the Bhopal tragedy occured later than the
anti-Sikh riots and that it was an industrial accident as compared
to the massacres which were acts of contemplated criminal
behaviour, perpetrated over several days. Furthermore, the
government initially refused to even hold an inquiry into the
anti-Sikh events despite several reports by civil liberties groups
indicating that several Congress Party officials and the Police
were involved. This was in contrast to a flurry of activity by the
government in mobilizing legal assistance in trying to maximize
compensation for the Bhopal victims.
This is just one example, amongst many, of the anti-Sikh bias of
the Indian government. It also casts serious doubts about its
sincerity in solving the crisis involving the Sikh community.
-- The same civil liberties group's have published the results of
their investigations of the events in Punjab, clearly indicating
the brute repression carried out by the police and the army. The
report has been banned and its writer and publisher jailed. Some
excerpts of what appeared on the news wires a few days ago:
[Details are now available on the banning of a report on Punjab
and arrest of a civil right activist. The police arrested on Sept.
11 two people, ND Pancholi, general secretary for Citizens for
Democracy and Prakash Gupta, printer of the document "Report to
the Nation - Oppression in Punjab." They along with other authors
- Amiya Rao, Aurobindo Ghose, Tejinder Singh and Sunil
Bhattacharjee- of the report were charged with sedition and
inciting disaffection between Hindus and Sikhs. Two days later,
Pancholi and Gupta were granted bail. The police had also seized
over 2000 copies of the report. The report was released to the
press by an eminent jurist VM Tarkunde on Sept. 8 and it
reportedly created a furor in Congress headquarters. Congress(I)
general secretary Srikant Varma immediately demanded the arrest
of Tarkunde and the authors of the report. According to many, the
arrests were politically motivated. The report is in there parts:
first part describes what it calls the "inhuman barbarities
the Sikhs in Punjab were subjected." It gives specific instances
of alleged army atrocities holding it responsible for "harassing,
torturing, and killing innocents on fake suspicion of being
terrorists." The second part gives the nonofficial version of what
happened before and during the Operation Bluestar. It said, "June
4 was the wrong date to enter the temple since on June 3, nearly
10,000 pilgrims were inside the temple for gurpurab and most of
them were killed during the operation. "The last part details an
account of several "existing black laws in Punjab." It declares
"the situation is really desperate and it will be surprising if
the brutal torture by the police does not encourage retalitation
and fresh violence and create fresh terrorists." Opposition
leaders condemned the arrests and banning of the report.]
This report sheds a totally different light on the situation in
Punjab than the one projected by the Indian govt through its
controlled media. Perhaps it helps non-Sikh Indians understand why
the Sikhs are so angry and it might explain why so many of them
have turned into "extremists and terrorists". The history of the
Sikhs is one of fighting against tyranny, opression and injustice.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
-- Most of us here in the US are aware of the haste with which the
Indian govt. blamed the Sikhs for the Air India crash. Within a
few hours of the crash the Civil Aviation minister was sure that
it was an explosion that brought down the plane and that the Sikhs
were responsible. Most Indian Newspapers carried bold headlines
indicating that the "Khalistanis" were involved. Many months later
with many experts working on the investigation, it is yet to be
established that it was in fact an explosion that downed the
aircraft, let alone that the Sikhs were responsible. The
damage, however, had been done; people all over the world have the
impression that Sikhs blew up the plane.
-- Most people wonder why most of the Sikhs aren't rejoicing at
the recent Rajiv-Longowal agreement. As usual most people go by
their impressions (which are formed by what the media puts out)
rather than actually reading the text of the agreement. Except for
the transfer of Chandigarh (although what portion of the Union
territory goes to Haryana is yet to be decided) by 26-Jan-86, most
of the rest of the agreement is vague and to be decided by
commissions to be appointed by the govt. For instance, one of the
points calls for the center to send a circular to all state
governments to provide protection for the minorities! More
importantly, however, the Sikhs find it difficult, based on its
past record, to trust the govt. Had te agreement been more
concrete and assured that the Sikhs did not get short changed (by
giving them an adequate say in the commission appointments, for
example), I'm sure most Sikhs would have been satisfied and happy.
I hope that some of the points made above will help in trying to
understand why the Sikhs feel so alienated. I would like others to
comment on these or add to them. It is always good to have a
healthy dialogue amongst people with differing viewpoints.
I am appending two articles written by friends. They represents
more of the feelings within the Sikh community.
[ THE PUNJAB PROBLEM - AN ANALYSIS
"The political independence of the new Third World countries,"
according to the French sociologist Jean Duvignaud, "must be followed
by social independence, which today does not exist." He continues on
to say that " the elite group that won political freedom has become a
petrified ruling class whose very existence broadens the gap between
the city and the steppe."
Though Duvignaud wrote this in the year 1968 in his study of the
Tunisian village of Shebika, he could easily have been talking about a
village in India. Does India have social independence today even
thirty-seven years after gaining political independence? If by the
concept of "social independence" we mean the ability to obtain for
itself an individual or collective freedom and to find "spontaneously
... the social forms of its adaptation to change," the answer is no, it
does not. India is colonized by its urban elite, who have stepped in
where the British left off.
The killing of thousands of Sikhs in the Indian state of Punjab
last June seems a repetition of the massacre by the British of hundreds
of Indians at Jallianwalla Bagh (Amritsar), which, curiously enough,
lies only a few hundred yards from the Golden Temple. Mrs. Gandhi's
action showed the same callous disregard for human life that was shown
by the British, furthermore it reveals a disregard for religious
sentiment by the invasion of the religious shrine of an industrious,
thriving minority of India.
The government in India has openly shown that it has become, to
the Sikhs, a colonial power. Like the British, it governs the Punjab
as though it were a colony, exploiting its labor and its resources
while not putting anything back into it. It governs by means of a
bureaucratic structure that was taken over intact from the British,
except that now an urban elite, which Duvignaud so aptly called a
"petrified ruling class," fills the slots that were the prerogative of
the British. Indians have to, even today, call these Tax Collectors
and District Administrators "Sahib" as they did their British masters.
They must still treat them as an aristocracy that is far above them in
rank. And it is not merely that anti-egalitarian, hierarchical aspect
of this bureaucracy that is objectionable to the common people, it is
also that this bureaucracy is riddled with corruption. Every cog in
this bureaucratic machine takes, or demands bribes as their right and
as a prerequisite of their position. From the District Administrator
to the peon who guards the Administrator's door, to every official in
the Tax service, the public works department, the police, the telephone
service, graft and bribery is the normal way of living. No ordinary
person can exist without giving bribes at some time or the other,
whether it is to get the very essentials of life like cooking gas or
train tickets, or to obtain electricity or water for the farms, or even
the use of government-owned harvesters when the crops have ripened.
Every person must compromise her or his integrity regularly in order to
survive.
Indians, consequently, have been rendered effete by this
bureaucracy. They see no escape from a life of servitude to these
rulers, and feel bound by a consciousness of their shameful complicity
in this dishonesty. The Sikhs have decided that it is time this
slavery ended. It is time to really be a democracy, to be active
participants in their own future, to throw off the cumbersome, stifling
colonialistic bureaucracy that hinders dynamism and change.
This bureaucracy is, furthermore, governed by a central government
that is urban and elite, and which hence has very little knowledge of
rural India, or even of the immense differences that exist at a
regional, or even village, level in the various parts of the country,
imposing plans and projects from a distant, alien city, the rulers are
turning villages into merely negative spaces -- spaces that are
non-urban, non-dynamic, non-progressive. The central government
encourages the villages to become parasites on it by allowing those
changes that it brings itself. The bureaucracy effectively stifles any
self-help or self-transformation. Consequently, the city becomes, to
the villager, the only place where wealth or change is possible, ending
up, unfortunately, in the pitiful slums that exist in every Indian
city.
The Punjab, however, is not a state which thrives on its cities.
Its life lies in the farms and the farmers who inhabit the villages --
the same farmers that grow enough food to feed the rest of India. And
the central government prevents improvements in the villages by its
efforts to remain a powerful, urban elite. By electric power cuts of
12 hours or more a day, by siphoning off Punjab's waters, by imposing
artificial wheat prices that allow a minimal profit to the farmer while
allowing the merchant in the city to sell in the free market, by
nationalizing banks and farming co-operatives as well as much of the
farming industry, the center stifles the transformation of the Punjab.
Even though, compared to the other poverty-ridden states of India,
Punjab is considered to be well-to-do and its desire for autonomy
supposed to be merely a desire to grab whatever cake there is while
much of India starves, yet Punjab does not get back anything comparable
to what it gives. New Delhi is, for Punjab, just as exploitative as
London was during the British rule. Punjab is denied the capacity to
improve or transform spontaneously into what it has the potential to
be. The Punjab farmers do not feel that their labor is given just
recompense. They do not feel that they are "fated" to remain poor or
starving. Their relegion rejects such passivity.
The Sikhs have always been called "progressive." They are not
content to remain a petrified society. The Sikh relegion, which was
essentially a movement of reformation created out of elements of
Hinduism and Islam, has built a society and an ethic in Punjab that is
very different from that of the Hindu majority in the rest of India.
First, it stresses egalitarianism. Sikhism rejected the cast system,
saying instead that all people were born equal. No person was fated to
be a collector of refuse as a consequence of birth. It is out of this
Hindu belief in the caste system that the present toleration of the
hierarchy of urban elite and village poor, of Brahman rulers (to which
caste Mrs. Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi belong by birth) and common people,
exists. To the Sikhs such hierarchical divisions are intolerable.
Sikhism, secondly, proposes that the right way to live is a life of
work and family and service to the community. The life of meditation
or reclusion is not requisite for salvation, anyone can be a priest,
anyone can have access to holy writings. To the Sikhs, therefore, work
and community are necessary. Labor that does not benefit the family or
the community -- which is what the artificial, minimal price of wheat
ensures -- therefore becomes a source of immense dissatisfaction at the
grass roots level.
The militancy of the Sikhs, by virtue of which the government of
India is branding every Sikh a terrorist, has historically been a
result of fighting for freedom against the Mogul rulers and later, the
British. At present the fight for economic, social and religious
freedom is arousing militancy that every Sikh can call up because of
the historical past. During the fight for independence against the
British, the reputation for being a warrior sect served to make many
Sikhs fight and die for India. It served as well to make Sikhs enlist
in the Indian Army in large numbers -- many of them realizing that the
farms were getting smaller from generation to generation and that
farming would not be profitable if everyone farmed. So the Sikhs went
into the Army. They also emigrated, in the twentieth century, in large
numbers. Most Sikh families have at least one member who lives abroad
-- and sends money home. The simplest research can reveal that it is
not the farming alone that makes Punjab prosperous because the
Government's fixed price and policy of allowing only 18 acres of land
to any family ensures otherwise. It is the emigrants who send money
home, who buy land, subsidize their families, pump foreign currency
into the economy. Village banks have most of their investments from
abroad while at the same time the local farmers remain indebted to
them.
So the Indian government, the ruling urban, westernized, elite,
afraid of Punjab's self-transformation afraid that its wheat and its
immigrants, in a free economy would take the power and wealth from the
center and make Punjab an island of prosperity which the rest of India
does not hope to achieve, is determined to keep Punjab a colony of
India. Under the religious issue, which has become a rallying symbol
for the Sikh fight for freedom, lies the threat to the center of
Punjab's desire for social independence -- its determination to throw
off the neo-colonialist rule of the urban aristocracy. Punjab is
determined to step into a new life and not remain in what George
Balandier in Sociologie Actuelle de l'Afrique Noire called "the
surviving remnant of the colonial period," by which is meant that no
man's land between traditional culture and the new life which keeps a
society static. Having an inadequate concept of the structure of every
village community, applying programs and laws across the board without
taking into consideration diversities of culture, the center has failed
to take India anywhere. Corruption, poverty, starvation, and religious
animosities that have now arisen out of the failure of the elite that
governs India. India, to the dynamic and hardworking Sikhs, seems to
be going nowhere. And Punjab and its people have come to realize that
they have to be free to transform themselves and in the process to
shake off the parasite that feeds on them.]
[ SIKH MASSACRES IN INDIA -- THE BEGININGS OF ANOTHER HOLOCAUST?
On this the 40th anniversary of the holocaust it is not only
important to remember those tragic events it is also important to
ensure that they will never be repeated. We can achieve that in two
ways; we must first attempt to recognize events that bear any
resemblance to those that led up to the holocaust and then we must
speak out against them and their perpetrators.
In this context it was disappointing to observe the general lack
of outrage and condemnation, especially amongst the western
democracies, at the carnage that took place in India following the
assasination of Indira Gandhi. It is not that violence is unheard of in
the Indian subcontinent, but what is unusual is that it was directed
specifically at the minority Sikhs, much as the Jews were singled out
in Nazi Germany. Like the Jews in Nazi Germany the Sikhs in India are a
tiny but visible and prosperous minority. Just as in Germany, the
masses in the country were aroused by an anti-Sikh hate campaign and
the violence often had the sanction of the government. The riots that
killed several thousand innocent Sikh men, women and children were
master-minded and organized by right wing elements of the major
political party. Police and paramilitary forces looked on and in some
cases joined in the looting, burning, raping and killing. Fortunately,
there were a few non-Sikhs who saw the injustice and had the courage to
shelter some of the potential victims at great risk to their own lives.
The media and press were used by the government to either misrepresent
or supress the extent of the violence towards the Sikhs. The killings
were trivialized to the point that the government saw no need to hold
an inquiry. And just as during the supression of the Jews, the rest of
the world stood by silently.
Let us, in remembering the anniversary of the holocaust, resolve
that we will never hesitate to speak out when we see something like
this happening. That is the surest way to not let history repeat
itself.]
swami@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (10/04/85)
first, thanks for responding at such length. i, for one, did not really have a good idea of how educated SIkhs who support the agitation feel. i have difficulty swallowing just one thing about all this - that india's media is quite *that* stifled. i know, certainly, that the press is not entirely free, and that publishing anti-Govt material gets papers into trouble. But what about traditional anti-Govt papers like the Express, and somewhat neutral papers like Statesman? 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? 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. 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). So should we just lie down and take injustice? i don't know.
reddy@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (10/07/85)
Response by a non-Sikh: Dear Mr. Bajwa, I could make this response as long as your yours, and counter almost every point you make. But, I won't. 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. All states which have opposition parties in power or at least have strong opposition parties were discriminated against by the Congress administration at the center. There are no exceptions to this. The Punjab case is just an instance. I am not justifying Congress in this, but the Sikhs' reading of "persecution" in this is quite farfetched. Most linguistic states were not automatically formed. They all had to fight for them. My own state (Andhra Pradesh) had to loose a freedom fighter who died of hunger strike. While the division of Punjab was painfully late in the coming, remember that the division of Assam was even later. As you can clearly see, the call for division both in Punjab and Assam came from outside the Congress party, whereas in the other states it came from within it. Thus, this was a political struggle and not a religious one. The blurring of the distinction between the two is Punjab's misfortune. Akali Dal exists for and because of Sikhs. For its own survival, it has to paint Congress as a "Hindu" party, which Congress, in its turn, resents. Whenever Haryana gets something at the cost of Punjab, because of the special influence of one of its Congress leaders, Akali Dal reads into it "Hindu imperialism". Disputes always exist between states and between various communities within a state. Perceiving religious persection whenever you loose a dispute is crying wolf. Imagine Andhra people becoming terrorists because they did'nt get their well-deserved steel factory! There were 40% Sikhs in the armed forces at the time of independence for a definite historical reason. The British bestowed a special favour on the Sikhs for their not participating in the Mutiny (So much for the Sikhs' love of freedom). Much of the prosperity of Sikhs before the independence and even after it, owes to this. To expect independent India to maintain the same state of affairs with regard to Sikhs' position in the armed forces is ridiculous. 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 Indian govt would have you believe that the assault on the >> Golden Temple was necessary and justified. The facts, however, do >> not back up the rhetoric. Consider the following; 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. >> . No charges were filed and warrants issued against >> Bhindranwale and his men. There had been a media blitz against him >> with implications that he was involved in the killings in Punjab >> (which may or may not be true; but the proper process is very >> essential). 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. >> . Bhindranwale was a smalltime religous leader before the govt >> (Sanjay Gandhi and Congress people in Punjab, in particular) built >> him up (with money, publicity, political backing etc.) in order to >> divide the Sikh votes and ensure Congress rule in Punjab. True. >> . Bhindranwale had been arrested on at least two occassions and >> released by orders from some 'highups' in the govt. Plausible. He is said to have been released for lack of evidence, which is equally plausible, given the efficiency of the police. >> . Bhindranwale went into the Golden Temple when he realised >> that the govt had decided that he was then expendible.( It may be >> interesting to note that Indira's father, Nehru, had also taken >> shelter in the same temple to avoid arrest during British rule). Do you mean to say that Nehru never got arresed? I find this hard to believe, but even if it were true, Nehru never operated a hit squad from inside the temple. The facts are, Mr. Bajwa, Bhindranwale was a criminal, an outlaw and a continuing threat to the society. What do you expect the Govt to do under the conditions? >> . The Indian army had been rehearsing an attack on the Golden >> Temple almost a year prior to the actual assault. This was being >> done at Chakratta (in UP) where a mockup model of the temple had >> been constructed. It is certainly reasonable for the army to rehearse the attack. It is incredible that they did it a year in advance. I would like to know where you get your facts from? >> . It wasn't only the Golden Temple in Amritsar that was >> attacked by the army. All major Sikh temples in Punjab were >> simultaneously attacked. At some of these several hundred pilgrims >> were indiscrimately killed. Yes, it wasn't only the Golden Temple where the terrorists operated from. There was Emergency declared in Punjab for two days. Pilgrims should have (and would have) known. There were warnings, there was curfew, and people were asked to come out of the temples and surrender. 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. Knowing how hearsay and rumours spread in India, nobody would indiscriminately believe statements like these. 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? 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.
paturi@harvard.ARPA (Ramamohan Paturi) (10/08/85)
swami@uiucdcsb writes > 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. there is no doubt that It seems to me that Swami is not clear as to what he means by "understandable". Some facts and clarity point to only one thing: "It is understandable" means it is pardonable or it is some happening such that the people who caused it are not totally responsible or it is something which can be taken lightly. The parenthetical "not justi- fiable of course" seems to have been added to cloud the meaning of the word "understandable". Here is why I think so. Consider the two possible and relevant meanings of "understandable" in this context: 1). An act is "understandable" means that the motives and the circumstances concerning the act can be understood (in a purely straightforward sense like in 'I understand binomial theorem'). But, this usage is TAUTOLOGICAL in this context. Even the actions of the most insane person can be understood given enough information, expertise and time. This leaves us with the alternative meaning which is 2). An act is "understandable" means that one can understand (possibly too well) the motives and the circumstances leading to the act. In addition, it means some sympathy or leaning toward the people who committed the act. In the least, it connotes a trace of positive stance towards the person who did the act. (Usually, people make use of this usage to pretend that one has the sympathy, but the inexorability of self-interest prevents him to act otherwise as in 'I understand, but I do not agree'.) Now the facts about New Delhi killings. Again, consider the following two cases. 1). Some crazed mobs acted emotionally on the spur of the moment with some or with out any provocation. Such mobs are highly dangerous to any society. They are no less criminal. Being soft on such mobs is self- destructive. But, most evidence points out that most of the killings in New Delhi are not by crazed mobs acting on the spur of the moment, but are conspired. This leads us to the next case. 2). A bunch of crooked politicians and policemen ganged up to kill a lot of innocent Sikhs. These are organized killings. These people are the worst criminals. Enough of my clarification. Is it not that such an "understanding" attitude the cause of many of India's ills? -Ramamohan Paturi paturi@harvard
raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) (10/08/85)
bajwa@decwrl posted an article presenting a Sikh point of view. Some
questions and comments:
-> You state that two Sikhs assasinated Indira Gandhi 'as individuals and
not as part of a conspiracy'. This maybe true, but what is your source?
-> 'Bhindranwale went into the Golden Temple when he realised that the Govt.
had decided that he was expendable.'
How was this allowed to happen by the temple authorities? Since policing
of the temple by outsiders is considered sacrilegious, one presumes that
some internal authority is responsible for maintaining order. Where was
this authority during the long period when Bhindranwale used the temple
as a terrorist base?
Given that Bhindranwale was in the temple and misusing its protection,
what was the alternative to entering the temple?
-> ' ... and several hundred pilgrims were indiscriminately killed.'
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?
-> '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.
-> 'By now everyone is aware that the post-assasination riots in Delhi etc.
were planned and directed ...'
By now everyone is aware of allegations (some or all of which might be true)
to this effect. This is a far cry from taking it for granted that all such
riots were incited and masterminded by the Congress party with the
connivance of the police.
-> Two articles (authors unknown) were included in the posting. Both made
questionable statements, but the first was particularly objectionable.
-> The Urban Govt/Rural Problems paradox is not unique to Punjab. Nor
is the rampant corruption within the Govt bureaucracy.
-> The rhetoric, in its praise of Sikhs (well-deserved praise, in my
opinion), is also insulting to other Indians. (Examples: 'Indians
consequently have been rendered effete. They see no escape from
a life of servitude ... The Sikhs have decided that it is time this
slavery ended ... to throw off this colonialistic bureaucracy.'
Many Sikhs are dynamic, but so are many non-Sikhs. 'Their religion
rejects such passivity.' The implication is that other religions
promote passivity! This is, at best, a cheap shot.)
-> The article openly advocates separation. I find this unacceptable.
'And Punjab and its people have come to realize that
they have to be free to transform themselves and in the process to
shake off the parasite that feeds on them.' The phenomenon of
one state feeling itself to be exploited is not new, and partition
is not the solution.
The article makes no distinction between the views of an extremist
segment and the views of Sikhs at large.
-> The second article takes for granted things such as 'hate campaigns'
and orchestrated mass killings. These are statements that many
consider greatly exaggerated at best. Drawing a parallel with the
Nazi persecution of Jews is unwarranted.
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.
As I understand it, certain grievances (some justified, some not) of Sikhs
(or Punjab, if you prefer) were taken up violently by an extremist faction,
and in quelling this violence, things happened which deeply offended all Sikhs.
This was partly (or wholly, depending on your point of view) due to
insensitivity and vested interests in the Govt. The question, of course, is
how are these (old and new) grievances to be redressed? Any constructive
suggestions (I dont consider partition to be one of them!)? rkp@mgweed.UUCP (Rakesh Khetarpal) (10/09/85)
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. > -- At the time of partition there were about 40% Sikhs in the > armed forces. Now there are about 15%. This was accomplished by a > conscious policy to limit their recruitment to 2% (their population > ratio). 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 threat to integrity of the country. This must also apply to other groups like Rajputs, Tamils etc. Any political party that is not democratic in structure should also be banned. This will include political parties with religious base such as Akali Dal. > -- The Indian Government's 5-year $270 million relief plan for the > Bhopal victims is commendable. The unfortunate aspect of this, > however, is the glaring inconsistency it shows when contrasted to > the government's attitude towards the victims of the horrible > anti-Sikh massacres. Compensation received by the Hindu-Sikh riot victims is far more than paid to any earlier communal riot victims. > ....the Sikhs are so angry and it might explain why so many of them > have turned into "extremists and terrorists". The history of the > Sikhs is one of fighting against tyranny, opression and injustice. > One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who is freedom fighter here? These terrorists were not fighting for the freedom or principles. They are paid criminals who either worked for or were manupulated by shrewed politicians who otherwise had no chance of being elected. > -- Most of us here in the US are aware of the haste with which the > Indian govt. blamed the Sikhs for the Air India crash. 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, Indian government may never come out with the truth if indeed it was a bomb by Sikhs. > ..........Most Indian Newspapers carried bold headlines > indicating that the "Khalistanis" were involved...... News media here too carried similar headlines and so did rest of the world.
dss00@amdahl.UUCP (dss00) (10/09/85)
In article Message-ID: <101800005@uiucdcs> reddy@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU writes among other things > 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? I strongly object to calling Rajneesh a Hindu. Even he does not call himself a Hindu. Please get your facts straight. Now for my own two bits... I do agree that, as a principle, religious places should not be used to hide from law. It is indeed tragic that a political problem got transformed into a Hindu - Sikh problem. What Bhindranwale did was deplorable but then neither was Mrs. Gandhi above guilt. Mr Bajwa is right on the dot when he points out that Congress(I) had a big hand in making Bhindranwale a force in the first place. What does make me feel good though is the fact that things are coming out in the open and we are talking again. While we may debate this issue to its death, let us not forget that as a conflict grows, all sides share some wrong doings. Unfortunately while we are quick to fault the other side (some times even without basis) we are blind to our own faults. Right on............. -- Deepak S. Sabnis ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!dss00 (408) 746-6058 (Usual Disclaimer Here)
swami@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (10/11/85)
point conceded. all i meant to say was that your scenario 1 was likely. But from all available indications, the attacks on Sikhs in Delhi was definitely a case of scenario 2. swami