Outlook magazine’s Anniversary special edition on 1984 in October 2009 had articles and photo-features on 1984. Most of these carried the typical government line of thought with the exception of Sikh writers.  In response, Jagmohan Singh had written an Open letter to the editor of Outlook -Vinod Mehta, challenging the Indian media for perpetuating myths and stereotyping Sikhs.

Outlook editor Vinod Mehta was known for his liberal views and also afforded opportunity to those missed by mainstream media. Yet, this anniversary special failed to come up to his neo-liberal standards. Read the Open Letter, which is still relevant as regards Sikhs vis-a-vis Indian media.

Dear Vinod Mehta:

Let me congratulate you for bringing out the first of its kind issue on 1984. With journalism becoming more and more heartless, it is nice to see the work of someone with the heart in the right place. Well, almost.

I still recall your work with the Indian Post in Mumbai, though sadly it did not last long.

The October 19 issue entitled 1984-the year that changed India is a classic product in the style and genre of Girilal Jain’s issues of Times of India of the 70s and 80s of the last century, circumventing the main issue at hand, oversimplifying the crux of the issue and perambulating on the periphery.  The lead essay by columnist Ramchandra Guha almost holds the Sikh community responsible for what happened to them in June 1984 and November 1984. There is no attempt to go into the history of the discord between the Sikhs and India with the pre-British period as the background or even earlier.

“The distinctiveness of a Sikh from the Hindu is not based on hatred but a religio-political construct which the scholar and contemporary history writer in a hurry does not deliberately pause to comprehend. Sikhs today too, are distinct from Hindus -religiously, socially, culturally and politically. Anyone who thinks otherwise must spend some more hours in the history classroom. ”

The genesis of the events in Punjab and in Delhi has been reduced to a mere Congress political exercise. The role of then home minister P V Narasimha Rao in November 1984, his prevarication in calling in the army to stop the marauding mobs from killing and burning alive Sikhs on the streets of Delhi or maybe even his complicity in the conspiracy of genocide with others at the helm of affairs, is not even hinted. According to Guha, he was simply paralysed by inaction.

In less than five paragraphs, the pogrom degenerates into “anti-Sikh riots”.  In an essay on 1984, the genocidal acts of Congress leaders and their lumpens is no more than four lines.  The agreement, called the Rajiv-Longowal Accord in 1985 is touted as a bold initiative, without mentioning that none of the clauses of the accord were ever fulfilled or whether the Congress still has the intention of doing so. There is a mention at the end of the article that the killers of the Sikhs have not been punished, despite the twenty year lapse. No attempt has been made to look into the why and how of it.

The distinctiveness of a Sikh from the Hindu is not based on hatred but a religio-political construct which the scholar and contemporary history writer in a hurry does not deliberately pause to comprehend. Sikhs today too, are distinct from Hindus -religiously, socially, culturally and politically.  Anyone who thinks otherwise must spend some more hours in the history classroom.

When it comes to the Sikhs and their history, every bit of liberty is taken with impunity. Friend of India –Mark Tully also errs when he says that “neither the outrage among Sikhs at the desecration of their shrine nor indeed the anti-Sikh riots following Indira Gandhi’s assassination four months later fulfilled Bhindranwale’s ambition of constructing a Sikh identity based on hatred of Hindus.”

“In 1984, India’s politicians learnt the art of killing people, getting away with it and then going on to win elections in the aftermath. They have repeated that in Mumbai and Gujarat and somebody somewhere may be making the next preparations. ”

The distinctiveness of a Sikh from the Hindu is not based on hatred but a religio-political construct which the scholar and contemporary history writer in a hurry does not deliberately pause to comprehend.

It took 239 years for the Ten masters –from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh and the Guru Granth Sahib -the scripture which is today the living Guru of the Sikhs, to develop and harness the distinct identity of the Sikh. It did not need a Bhindranwale to build it, it was there and it is there and it will continue to be there. Bhindranwale only reiterated it. He had too. After all, he was the head of a seminary whose basic job is religious discourse. The Indian media cleverly and deliberately distorted his idiom and hyped his views.

Shockingly, the research work done by your team to put together the edition is also wanting, a la Girilal Jain. The drawing by the twin sisters Amrit and Rabindra Singh is apt, but the photograph of Sikhs coming out of the Golden Temple complex with hands above shoulders, in a manner of submission and surrender is not of Operation Bluestar.

Apparently the photo editor is aware of this and has deliberately done this mistake. Otherwise why is there no caption? It is a photograph of Sikh renegades, planted by the then security forces in Punjab including the police, coming out of Darbar Sahib, during Operation Black Thunder. Even if the editorial team had read the accompanying Mark Tully article, they would know what the Sikh fighters did to the Indian army “everything but surrender!”

A classic miss of this issue is an in-depth incisive investigative story of the last twenty years for those who are in search of justice. The human angle is no doubt there with the pictures of the widows and other family members, but without a detailed description of how the perpetrators have been let-off scot-free.

Nevertheless, I give you credit for putting together the issue, because you had the good sense to ask two Sikhs to write articles and one Sikh woman to put together a photo-essay.  Though this too is the typical balanced journalism approach of mainstream Indian media, the Sikh writers drive the point home. I say this for like many a Sikh, I have lived these twenty five years understanding the pain of my people. What I am worried about is that if your non-Sikh readers accept only the non-Sikh writer’s viewpoint, then that would be a very sad day for you. Isn’t it?

I asked advocate Phoolka, “don’t you think the Outlook title is wrong? He said, “Why?” I said, “It should have been, 1984 –the year that did not change India”, instead of “the year that changed India”, for since then nothing has changed, same set of rulers, same thinking, no justice, no rule of law, same police, same impunity.  Phoolka cut me in between and said, “No, no, Outlook is right. It was the year that changed India.

 If you like our stories, do follow WSN on Facebook.

In 1984, India’s politicians learnt the art of killing people, getting away with it and then going on to win elections in the aftermath.  They have repeated that in Mumbai and Gujarat and somebody somewhere may be making the next preparations. I am sure you did not have that in mind.

Anyway, thank you for small mercies.

Sincerely

Jagmohan Singh