The Power of Words and La­bels: ‘Khal­is­tan’ or ‘Pan­jaab’

 -  -  344


In the case of the his­toric and en­dur­ing in­de­pen­dence move­ment for the land of five rivers, the use of slo­gans, la­bels and words like ‘Pan­jabi Suba’, ‘Khal­is­tan’ and ‘Pan­jaab’ are im­por­tant mat­ters to con­sider and think about con­sciously and care­fully. Sikh British writer, ac­tivist Jagdeesh Singh ar­gues that words and la­bels have a pow­er­ful mean­ing, sen­ti­ment, ex­pres­sion, emo­tion and give off a pow­er­ful mes­sage. A par­tic­u­lar word can unify a wide num­ber of peo­ple. A par­tic­u­lar word can con­fuse peo­ple. A par­tic­u­lar word can alien­ate. A par­tic­u­lar word can en­er­gise and ac­ti­vate.  He chooses Pan­jaab over Khal­is­tan and pre­sents his co­gent rea­sons for do­ing so. WSN places the is­sue in per­spec­tive for Sikh thinkers, ac­tivists, writ­ers and his­to­ri­ans. 

OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST 100 YEARS OF OUR HIS­TORY IN PAN­JAAB, in its bid to re­claim free­dom and sov­er­eignty, and re­turn to its in­de­pen­dent sta­tus; var­i­ous move­ments, ac­tivists, cam­paign­ers have used the fol­low­ing mix of words at var­i­ous junc­tures:

Inki­laab Zind­abaad!
Pan­jaabi Suba Zind­abaad!
Khal­is­tan Zind­abaad!

They are all multi-faceted ex­pres­sions of the same un­der­ly­ing sen­ti­ment of Pan­jaabi peo­ple­hood, na­tion­hood, self-de­ter­mi­na­tion, em­pow­er­ment and se­cu­rity as a free, sov­er­eign, in­de­pen­dent state and coun­try.

The mat­ter of lan­guage and la­bels used for ex­pres­sion is im­por­tant in any ma­jor so­cio-po­lit­i­cal move­ment, as much as the ac­tions. Words and slo­gans can be em­pow­er­ing and en­gag­ing. Equally, mis­in­formed and mis­guided words and slo­gans can be di­vi­sive and dis­cour­ag­ing. 

Also, words and la­bels can be pre­cise or they can be too gen­eral and vague. This is the power of words, which the Gu­rus used so evoca­tively, po­et­i­cally and fer­vently in their Gur­bani ex­pres­sions and af­fir­ma­tions.  

Words and slo­gans can be em­pow­er­ing and en­gag­ing. Equally, mis­in­formed and mis­guided words and slo­gans can be di­vi­sive and dis­cour­ag­ing. 

There­fore, in any grip­ping, ex­cit­ing, ac­tive move­ment; the choice of words, la­bels and the mes­sages be­ing given needs to be well-thought-out and needs to in­spire re­spon­sive­ness, en­gage­ment, par­tic­i­pa­tion and in­clu­sion. 

Words need to ex­press the core val­ues and ethics of a move­ment, and, be vi­sion­ary in their scope and ob­jec­tive. 

A healthy and vi­brant move­ment will in­vari­ably have a range of slo­gans, mot­tos, buzz­words to re­flect the di­verse sce­nar­ios and sit­u­a­tions that it weaves and flows through. 

In this con­text that, I wish to share and speak about the sig­nif­i­cance and proper us­age of two par­tic­u­lar com­monly used words ‘PAN­JAAB’ and ‘KHAL­IS­TAN’. They have been used plen­ti­fully side-by-side, and of­ten in con­junc­tion with each other since the 1940s to the cur­rent day; to ex­press the long-run­ning, wind­ing and weav­ing free­dom strug­gle in, of and for Pan­jaab. 

First and fore­most, it is per­haps help­ful to state that, many long-run­ning, his­toric peo­ple and na­tion em­pow­er­ment move­ments around the globe, have used such spe­cific and ex­act words to ex­press them­selves that are de­rived di­rectly and pre­cisely from their in­dige­nous iden­tity. This is a highly sig­nif­i­cant and sem­i­nal point, though not dis­cussed or analysed any­where. 

Some il­lus­tra­tive ex­am­ples are : 

Kash­mir for Kash­miris
Ma­nipur for Ma­nipuris
Na­ga­land for Na­gas
Baluchis­tan for Baluchis
Sindh for Sind­his
Pales­tine for Pales­tini­ans
Scot­land for Scots
Ire­land for Irish
Cata­lan for Cat­alo­ni­ans
Ti­bet for Ti­betans

The la­bel or word for in­dige­nous land, coun­try, lan­guage, peo­ple and eth­nic­ity is of­ten in­ter­twined, over­lap­ping and a vari­a­tion of each other. 

Pan­jaab, Pan­jaabi and Pan­jaabiyat be­ing such a prime ex­am­ple. 

In the con­text of Pan­jaab and its in­dige­nous, core Sikhs, the words ‘Pan­jaab’ and ‘Khal­is­tan’ have been used in­ter­change­ably to ex­press their move­ment for free­dom, self-de­ter­mi­na­tion and in­de­pen­dence. 

In the con­text of Pan­jaab and its in­dige­nous, core Sikhs, the words ‘Pan­jaab’ and ‘Khal­is­tan’ have been used in­ter­change­ably to ex­press their move­ment for free­dom, self-de­ter­mi­na­tion and in­de­pen­dence. 

In the past, var­i­ous or­gan­i­sa­tions in­side and out­side of oc­cu­pied East Pan­jaab have used the term ‘Khal­is­tan’ to re­fer to the en­dur­ing in­de­pen­dence strug­gle. 

In my opin­ion, a more rel­e­vant, di­rect and in­dige­nously ap­pro­pri­ate word to de­fine and spear­head our col­lec­tive free­dom strug­gle, should be PAN­JAAB. 

This di­rect, sim­ple and fun­da­men­tal word, ex­presses us, in­side out. It ex­presses our his­tory, lan­guage and civil­i­sa­tion. It is the es­tab­lished name of our in­dige­nous coun­try. It is the name that shines through his­tory as a pow­er­ful, vi­brant in­de­pen­dent, sov­er­eign ter­ri­tory on the global map. It is the name of our in­dige­nous, in­clu­sive, uni­fied cul­ture, eth­nic­ity and na­tion­hood as a peo­ple. 

It is or­ganic, nat­ural and in­dige­nous. It is in­stinc­tive to our psy­che.  

In con­trast, the word ‘Khal­is­tan; whilst well-mean­ing, is a mo­men­tary knee-jerk re­ac­tion to the term Pak­istan or Hin­dus­tan. Khal­is­tan as an an­guished call for Sikh-Pan­jaabi ter­ri­to­r­ial em­pow­er­ment emerged af­ter the pass­ing of the 1940 ‘Pak­istan’ state res­o­lu­tion in La­hore by the Mus­lim League and gained cur­rency prior to the events of June 1984.

‘Khal­is­tan’ and ‘Sikhis­tan’ were ex­pres­sions of the Sikh feel­ings and as­pi­ra­tions for sep­a­rate, in­de­pen­dent state­hood, in the 1940s in the run-up to the dev­as­tat­ing and geno­ci­dal 1947 British Trans­fer of Power.

For the in­dige­nous peo­ples and na­tions be­ing steam­rolled in this un­de­mo­c­ra­tic process, like the Pan­jaabi-Sikhs, this dev­as­tat­ing carve up and over­rid­ing of any po­lit­i­cal state­hood to them, was in­tol­er­a­ble. Thus, the calls for ‘Khal­is­tan’ and ‘Sikhis­tan’.

‘Khal­is­tan’ and ‘Sikhis­tan’ were ex­pres­sions of the Sikh feel­ings and as­pi­ra­tions for sep­a­rate, in­de­pen­dent state­hood, in the 1940s in the run-up to the dev­as­tat­ing and geno­ci­dal 1947 British Trans­fer of Power.

How­ever, nu­mer­i­cally small, po­lit­i­cally in­signif­i­cant to the British: the Sikh as­pi­ra­tions and anx­i­eties were en­tirely sac­ri­ficed to the greater British plan of en­sur­ing a tran­si­tion to Pak­istan and In­dia with­out any third force get­ting in the way.

It is in this con­text, that the high com­bus­tion, hate­ful sec­tar­i­an­ism, po­lit­i­cal com­pe­ti­tion, eth­nic cleans­ing and geno­cide and highly charged and twisted state of af­fairs which pre­vailed over South Asia in the 1940s as the British es­tab­lish­ment set about its de­vi­ous games and strate­gies of putting into some crude form its cut and run exit; saw the emer­gence amongst the pan­icked and dis­em­pow­ered Sikhs and their mixed bag of lead­er­ship the terms ‘Sikhis­tan’ and ‘Khal­is­tan’.

These were clearly as­serted as Sikh based ter­ri­to­r­ial states, to en­sure that the Sikhs were able to move on­wards post 1947 into a free, in­de­pen­dent ter­ri­tory of their own: as they were prior to the British in­vaders com­ing and taken their once sta­ble, pow­er­ful and size­able coun­try of Pan­jaab in 1845-1849.

Thus, these two terms were mo­men­tary re­ac­tions to an ab­nor­mal, geno­ci­dal, highly-threat­en­ing state of af­fairs in the 1940s, wherein the Sikhs were not be­ing treated as equals. The over­ar­ch­ing British, Mus­lim League and In­dian Na­tional Con­gress: this trio dom­i­nated and mo­nop­o­lised the no­to­ri­ous Trans­fer of Power de­ci­sion-mak­ing and its im­ple­men­ta­tion, in­clud­ing the bru­tal and geno­ci­dal par­ti­tion of Pan­jaab.

‘Khal­is­tan’ emerged as a re­ac­tion to this cruel, crush­ing and geno­ci­dal Trans­fer of Power im­posed on Pan­jaab and its most fer­vent and in­dige­nous Sikhs. This term has resur­faced as an ex­pres­sion of the Pan­jaabi-Sikh an­guish with the love­less, forced mar­riage with the abu­sive In­dian state.

‘Khal­is­tan’ emerged as a re­ac­tion to this cruel, crush­ing and geno­ci­dal Trans­fer of Power im­posed on Pan­jaab and its most fer­vent and in­dige­nous Sikhs. 

To me, Khal­is­tan lacks the same vigour and or­ganic thor­ough­ness and in­ti­macy with our Pan­jaabi peo­ple­hood and col­lec­tive­ness. 

On care­ful and con­struc­tive re­flec­tion, in my earnest opin­ion and long ex­pe­ri­ence in the move­ment, the most ap­pro­pri­ate and fit­ting word should be ‘PAN­JAAB Zind­abaad!’ Why re­sort to an ar­ti­fi­cial word, when we al­ready have a highly vi­brant, pow­er­ful in­dige­nous word.  

‘Pan­jaab’ ex­presses our in­dige­nous be­ing, char­ac­ter, civil­i­sa­tion and whole­ness. It is us and we are Pan­jaab. No word can be a sub­sti­tute for Pan­jaab. No word can cap­ture and ex­press the depth and feel­ing that this in­dige­nous word alone can. We are Pan­jaab, and Pan­jaab is us. 

Pan­jaab is shared, in­clu­sive and uni­fy­ing. Whereas, Khal­is­tan is prone to be mis­con­strued, mis­in­ter­preted and mis­rep­re­sented by dif­fer­ent sec­tors and au­di­ences: not least the mis­chie­vous In­dian po­lit­i­cal es­tab­lish­ment and me­dia.  

‘Pan­jaab’ ex­presses our in­dige­nous be­ing, char­ac­ter, civil­i­sa­tion and whole­ness. It is us and we are Pan­jaab. No word can be a sub­sti­tute for Pan­jaab. No word can cap­ture and ex­press the depth and feel­ing that this in­dige­nous word alone can. We are Pan­jaab, and Pan­jaab is us. 

Pan­jaab is a solid and en­dur­ing word, whose au­then­tic­ity, pur­pose and va­lid­ity can­not be chal­lenged even by the hos­tile Hindu-In­dian su­prema­cist sources. 

Pan­jaab is the his­tor­i­cally ac­cu­rate, cor­rect and proper rep­re­sen­ta­tion of our strug­gle, our ob­jec­tive and our in­ter­wo­ven iden­tity. 

Pan­jaab is the his­tor­i­cally ac­cu­rate, cor­rect and proper rep­re­sen­ta­tion of our strug­gle, our ob­jec­tive and our in­ter­wo­ven iden­tity. It is a pos­i­tively af­fir­ma­tive ex­pres­sion of our ex­is­tence, iden­tity, as­pi­ra­tion, our in­de­pen­dence and on­go­ing strug­gle! 

It con­nects the past with the pre­sent, and vice-versa. Land with peo­ple. With his­tory and lan­guage. With our ge­og­ra­phy and ecol­ogy. 

With East and West Pan­jaab. Un­di­vided, un­bro­ken -land of five rivers. 

Pan­jaab Zind­abaad!  

 

344 rec­om­mended
4134 views

2 thoughts on “The Power of Words and La­bels: ‘Khal­is­tan’ or ‘Pan­jaab’

    Write a com­ment...

    Your email ad­dress will not be pub­lished. Re­quired fields are marked *

    Oldest
    Newest
    Most Upvoted