In a cat­e­goric, stern and straight-for­ward, in-depth analy­sis of the events af­ter 1984, the sta­tus of the Sikhs since then, the dys­func­tional Sikh lead­er­ship which even with the best in­ten­tions has not been able to make much head­way, British writer-ac­tivist Jagdeesh Singh ex­poses the role of the In­dian state in sub­ju­gat­ing the Pan­jaabi-Sikh na­tion. In this con­text, mak­ing a re­view of the past 36 years, he ar­gues that struc­tural in­ad­e­qua­cies, de­mo­c­ra­tic lax­ity and acute lack of in­tra-com­mu­nity di­a­logue are hin­drances which block the progress of Sikhs as a peo­ple. 

AS WE MARK THE 36TH AN­NIVER­SARY OF THE SIKH GENO­CIDE MONTH OF JUNE 1984, it is a mo­ment to take a re­flec­tive overview of the en­tire In­dian state and es­tab­lish­men­t’s re­sponse and ap­proach to the his­tor­i­cally-on­go­ing Pan­jaabi-Sikh ques­tion.

Pre­sent over-sized In­dia was born di­rectly out of the du­plic­i­tous trans­fer of con­quered and con­sol­i­dated ter­ri­to­r­ial power from a white-British im­pe­ri­al­ist elite to a brown-Hindu-In­dian elite. The in­ter-con­nected amal­gam of so­cial, re­li­gious and po­lit­i­cal guardians, lead­ers and ben­e­fi­cia­ries of this gi­gan­tic, mega-In­dian state; have abun­dantly proven them­selves in­tol­er­ant and ag­gres­sively hos­tile to­wards any men­tion, dis­cus­sion, di­a­logue or pro­posal about dif­fu­sion and de­vo­lu­tion of their cen­tralised power. The pe­riod of 1947 to 2020, has been the story of the start and rise and fur­ther rise of the su­prema­cist Hindu-In­dian state.

Com­mu­ni­ties and coun­tries like the Pan­jaabis, Sikhs and Pan­jaab; which have come to be en­trapped and caught in the ter­ri­to­r­ial and po­lit­i­cal drag­net of the In­dian mono­lith from 1947 on­wards, passed over like an im­pe­ri­al­ist pos­ses­sion from British con­querors, have been made a di­rect tar­get of po­tent Hin­dui­sa­tion and In­di­an­i­sa­tion poli­cies and prac­tises ap­plied by the In­dian state. All dis­cus­sion, talk, pro­pos­als and cam­paigns for Pan­jaabi au­ton­omy, Sikh self-de­ter­mi­na­tion, po­lit­i­cal rights and free­doms, Sikh per­sonal laws, recog­ni­tion and of­fi­cial back­ing for the Pan­jaabi lan­guage, recog­ni­tion as a dis­tinct na­tional group, calls for a ref­er­en­dum to de­ter­mi­nate the po­lit­i­cal sta­tus of Pan­jaab: have been met with a de­cid­edly bel­liger­ent and hos­tile re­sponse. All this is crushed and con­demned in an em­bit­tered and ven­omous man­ner.

Like other big na­tions, In­dia too has a wholly power-cen­tric, im­pe­ri­al­is­tic mind­set, which stands against the strug­gles of hun­dreds of na­tions through his­tory. It is racist, im­pe­ri­al­is­tic, dog­matic and su­prema­cist.

Like other su­per­states, In­dia too has a wholly power-cen­tric, im­pe­ri­al­is­tic mind­set. The In­dian state ma­chin­ery has a men­tal blindspot and dis­abil­ity, in be­ing able to un­der­stand and com­pre­hend that peo­ple may wish to sep­a­rate and live freely and in­de­pen­dently from their rule. This is a con­di­tioned and self-in­duced men­tal dis­abil­ity, which has be­come main­streamed and nor­malised. It di­rectly con­tra­dicts In­dia be­ing sep­a­rated and made in­de­pen­dent of the British em­pire; and, to Bangladesh be­com­ing in­de­pen­dent of Pak­istan. To any new state com­ing into be­ing, upon sep­a­ra­tion and in­de­pen­dence from a larger state. It is a wholly power-cen­tric, su­per­im­pos­ing mind­set, which stands against the strug­gles of hun­dreds of na­tions through his­tory past and pre­sent. It is racist, im­pe­ri­al­is­tic, dog­matic and su­prema­cist.

Re­cent com­ments by the SGPC ap­pointed ‘Jathedar’ of Akaal Takht -Gyani Harpreet Singh, mak­ing com­pli­men­tary ref­er­ences to ‘Khal­is­tan’ on the oc­ca­sion of the an­nual June 1984 gath­er­ing at Akaal Takht Sahib; have been fever­ishly seized upon by the In­dian me­dia and po­lit­i­cal es­tab­lish­ment. He is swarmed by their prob­ing ques­tions and chal­lenges. This is demon­stra­tive of their para­noia, in­se­cu­rity and bit­ter in­tol­er­ance for any men­tion or di­a­logue about in­de­pen­dence and se­ces­sion. Com­mend­ably, so far, he has man­aged to re­spond in a steady, pro­por­tion­ate and undi­min­ished man­ner. He has stated af­fir­ma­tively that in­de­pen­dent Khalsa state­hood ‘is in every Sikhs heart!’.

Through its 73-years of sus­tained vi­o­lence, ter­ror, re­pres­sion and geno­cide; the In­dian state has sought to de­hu­man­ise the Sikhs and the sur­round­ing, con­nected Pan­jaabi pop­u­la­tion too. In­di­a’s clear and self-ev­i­dent pur­pose is to bat­ter and ham­mer the Sikhs phys­i­cally, de­mor­alise them cul­tur­ally and psy­cho­log­i­cally, de­grade and un­der­mine them eco­nom­i­cally; and gen­er­ally, trau­ma­tise and break them into com­plete sub­mis­sion to In­di­an­ism and its con­nected Hin­dutva iden­tity, cul­ture and over­ar­ch­ing shape and form.

Re­cent com­ments by the SGPC ap­pointed ‘Jathedar’ of Akaal Takht -Gyani Harpreet Singh, mak­ing com­pli­men­tary ref­er­ences to ‘Khal­is­tan’ on the oc­ca­sion of the an­nual June 1984 gath­er­ing at Akaal Takht Sahib; have been fever­ishly seized upon by the In­dian me­dia and po­lit­i­cal es­tab­lish­ment. He is swarmed by their prob­ing ques­tions and chal­lenges. This is demon­stra­tive of their para­noia, in­se­cu­rity and bit­ter in­tol­er­ance for any men­tion or di­a­logue about in­de­pen­dence and se­ces­sion. Com­mend­ably, so far, he has man­aged to re­spond in a steady, pro­por­tion­ate and undi­min­ished man­ner. He has stated af­fir­ma­tively that in­de­pen­dent Khalsa state­hood ‘is in every Sikhs heart!’.

The pat­tern of op­pres­sion, vi­o­lence, sub­ju­ga­tion and dev­as­ta­tion is sim­i­lar to what has been seen across the world map with re­gards to many sim­i­lar in­dige­nous na­tions tar­geted and vic­timised by im­pos­ing pow­ers. Cur­rently, we have the Kurds, Pales­tini­ans, Uighurs, Ti­betans, Baluchis and Tamils, for ex­am­ple.

The con­scious Sikhs with their in­trin­sic sense of self-iden­tity and self-de­ter­mi­na­tion, eth­nic­ity, cul­ture rooted and in­te­grated into their in­dige­nous Pan­jaabi home­land, coun­try, lan­guage, cus­toms and life; pro­lific in­spi­ra­tion and phi­los­o­phy from the Gu­rus; in­vari­ably poses in­vari­ably pose a chal­lenge and threat to the over­whelm­ing power cen­tric In­dian state. The Sikhs have demon­strated them­selves to be a lead an­noy­ance to the In­dian es­tab­lish­ment, re­sult­ing in the fully or­ches­trated geno­ci­dal on­slaught of June 1984, No­vem­ber 1984 and 1984-1995 in Pan­jaab, in­tended to fi­nally teach us a crush­ing les­son! In­dige­nous na­tions are al­ways a counter to bul­ly­ing state power and their power ac­cu­mu­la­tion and power im­po­si­tion.

Like fel­low small in­dige­nous na­tions, we Pan­jaabis and Sikhs are a peo­ple caught up in a forced and abu­sive mar­riage with In­dia. When we have com­plained about mis­treat­ment and de­manded dig­nity, equal­ity and jus­tice; we have been re­buked, hit and bru­talised. When we have now de­manded a di­vorce, we have been fur­ther threat­ened, bru­talised and taunted and crim­i­nalised for dar­ing to speak up and speak out! We re­main stuck in a forced and abu­sive mar­riage to In­dia, since 1947.

The In­dian state is a po­lit­i­cal and ter­ri­to­r­ial struc­ture led and run by a mixed power elite, pre­dom­i­nantly Brah­min with var­i­ous non-Hindu col­lab­o­ra­tors who ben­e­fit from the riches, po­lit­i­cal po­si­tions, mil­i­tary ca­reers, fi­nan­cial wealth and se­cu­rity that in­volve­ment with the In­dian state af­fords to them. Ex­actly sim­i­lar, to the re­la­tion­ship which every hu­man elite has with a par­tic­u­larly ter­ri­to­r­ial and po­lit­i­cal struc­ture. Such as China, the British Em­pire, Pak­istan, Saudi Ara­bia, and so forth.

In­di­a’s strat­egy to grind the Sikhs and Pan­jaab into sub­mis­sion, is one that it has con­sis­tently du­pli­cated across other com­mu­ni­ties and re­gions like Kash­mir, Ma­nipur, Tripura, As­sam, Ben­gal, etc. The BJP has sim­ply con­tin­ued a pre-ex­ist­ing trend and tra­jec­tory, which started in 1947, Hindu-In­dian elites com­ing to new­found power. A power no­to­ri­ously handed to them by the out­go­ing British es­tab­lish­ment, in a du­bi­ous po­lit­i­cal ne­go­ti­a­tion.

Some de­luded in­di­vid­u­als have per­ceived a ‘dif­fer­ent’ In­dia which was ‘de­mo­c­ra­t­ic’ and ‘sec­u­lar’. Such minds clearly are in­sen­si­tive or ig­no­rant, or both,  to the seven decades of suf­fer­ings of the Sikhswhich some de­luded saw as a dif­fer­ent In­dia which was a ‘de­mo­c­ra­t­ic’ and ‘sec­u­lar’. Such minds clearly are in­sen­si­tive to the suf­fer­ings of the Sikhs, Na­gas, Kash­miris and more. In­deed, there were many who felt the British Em­pire pro­vided a de­cent and rea­son­able life. It is a mat­ter of per­cep­tion and prej­u­dice.

Like fel­low small in­dige­nous na­tions, we Pan­jaabis and Sikhs are a peo­ple caught up in a forced and abu­sive mar­riage with In­dia. When we have com­plained about mis­treat­ment and de­manded dig­nity, equal­ity and jus­tice; we have been re­buked, hit and bru­talised. When we have now de­manded a di­vorce, we have been fur­ther threat­ened, bru­talised and taunted and crim­i­nalised for dar­ing to speak up and speak out! We re­main stuck in a forced and abu­sive mar­riage to In­dia, since 1947.

Mean­while, thirty-six years af­ter the dev­as­tat­ing on­slaught of June 1984, there is much for us as an af­fected and trau­ma­tised com­mu­nity to re­flect on about the pre-1984 and post 1984 ex­pe­ri­ence in strug­gle and con­flict with the In­dian state and our own growth and de­vel­op­ment.

There is much soul-search­ing to be done about our own in­ter­nal un­de­mo­c­ra­tic and op­pres­sive poor qual­ity and cor­rupt ‘lead­er­ship’; and the cy­cle of im­ped­i­ments, di­ver­sions and stag­na­tion that they have caused to our na­tional jour­ney. There is much to con­sider about the in­fra­struc­ture in­ad­e­qua­cies and acute lack of democ­racy and de­mo­c­ra­tic di­a­logue which pre­vails across our small, medium and large or­gan­i­sa­tions and our cen­tral in­sti­tu­tions and de­ci­sion-mak­ing struc­tures.

Mean­while, thirty-six years af­ter the dev­as­tat­ing on­slaught of June 1984, there is much for us as an af­fected and trau­ma­tised com­mu­nity to re­flect on about the pre-1984 and post 1984 ex­pe­ri­ence in strug­gle and con­flict with the In­dian state and our own growth and de­vel­op­ment.

Be­com­ing free, in­de­pen­dent, self-de­ter­min­ing and sov­er­eign; as pow­er­fully demon­strated by our in­deli­ble Gu­rus, starts with em­pow­er­ing and en­gag­ing the grass-root masses. There is a pre­sent, pal­pa­ble re­al­ity and dan­ger, that, the In­dian de­fects have been re­pro­duced and in­fected into our own de­crepit, self-im­pos­ing and self-styled crude ‘lead­er­ship’ which is presently tak­ing us nowhere but stag­na­tion and into con­tin­u­ous sta­tus quo.

The Gu­rus brought hon­esty, prin­ci­ple, democ­racy, en­gage­ment, di­rect­ness into the life of Pan­jaab. Those will be the win­ning and lib­er­at­ing qual­i­ties which will make our fu­ture.