Issue 51 Vol III, November 15, 2007

L I T E R A T U R E

A Requiem for The Lost Glory of The Sikhs-I
Dr Jaspal Singh

HERE are a couple of books by a dedicated Sikh scholar Ajmer Singh about Sikh politics of a century and a half.  Vihvin Sadi di Sikh Rajniti, (Sikh Politics of 20th Century) Sikh Rajniti da Dukhant: Kis Bidh Ruli Patshahi (Tragedy of Sikh Polity: Whither Went Sovereignty). The third volume in the same series is in the pipeline thus making it a triology though it seems the author originally did not conceive it as such. The first volume begins with Singh Sabha Lehar in the late 19th century and goes upto Operation Blue Star. It covers the issues like the problems of Indian nationalism, Gurdwara Reform Movement and the great Morchas of Guru Ke Bagh and Jaito da Morcha, Independence of India and its aftermath, betrayal of the Sikh cause by the Sikh leadership, Punjabi Suba Agitation and its fallout, contribution of Master Tara Singh, Sant Fateh Singh and Sant Harchand Singh Longowal, problems of Indian federalism and Hindutav Unitarianism as practised by the Indian State, Baisakhi of 1978, Hindu revivalism in India, rise of Sikh militancy and the Dharamyudh Morcha leading to Operation Blue Star, limitations of moderate Akali politics, death of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and so on.

The second volume dealing with the ‘tragedy of Sikh polity’ is a historical itinerary that begins from 18th century reaching upto the emergence of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale after having meandered through the turbulent 19th century that witnessed the rise and fall of the great Khalsa Raj of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. The historical period covered by both volumes overlaps in parts hence leading to repetition of sorts. The articles collected in the second volume are couched in a rambling style so the author takes freedom of moving back and forth in order to prove his point.

The traditional Sikh leadership according to the author has been responsible for the decline of the glory of the Sikhs because at every crucial moment they allowed themselves to be cheated by the “Hindu Indian State”. He flays this leadership for being too opportunistic and self seeking at the cost of the thrust reposed in them by the Sikh masses. Bhindranwale, according to him was a paragon of bravery and sacrifice that as a crusader par excellence awakened the “Sikh Nation” from the slumber of centuries. While eulogising the controversial Sant, the author does not make any effort to psychoanalyse him in his developmental process as an individual being. His anti-Hindu tirade that painted him as a fiend for the common Hindus is just glossed over. At the conceptual level the Sant was mixing up the Indian State with the ordinary Hindu folks who had nothing to do with the affairs of the State as a political construct. Very few among them can be motivated by communal feelings and a faith in Hindu. Bhindranwale’s tacit sanction of the killings of the poor innocent Hindus was beyond all civilized norms. While turning a blind eye towards these brutalities, the Sant failed to understand that State is a coercive structure based on power relations irrespective of any permanent affiliations and loyalties to particular creeds. It can use the communal card if it helps it in retaining the overall dominance and sovereignty. At times it may become ultra secular if this creed helps it in the maintenance of the power structure. Religion, caste, community, language, region etc. are the tools that State can use to consolidate its hold on the power structure. There cannot be any fixed characteristics associated with any State. Ajmer Singh imposes his own preconceived fixed categories on the Indian State that makes his conceptual framework a little wobbly. Bhindranwale’s mistake was that he could not properly identify his enemy. To achieve his objective he was supposed to fight against the Indian State not its common people who had negligible role to play in the organisation of the power structure. Consequently his strategy antagonised the entire mass of the Hindu populace. Maybe he was trying to implement Jinnah’s formula of “direct action” that had compelled the people to be migrated and exchanged in the wake of Partition in 1947. It seems that the Sant thought that if the Hindus are scared away and thrown out of Punjab then as a retaliation the Sikhs from other parts of India would also be forced to fall back to Punjab and such a cross migration would automatically create Khalistan. Secondly in his limited vision he overlooked the might of Indian State and its strategic manipulatory skills. The Sant failed to realise that as a conceptual power structure State can be totally inhuman and brutal since feelings and sentiments are not its basis. Objective, not the means to achieve it is the concern of the State. Whether it is an ancient, medieval or modern State the basic constructs that make it do not change. Even the most humanistic States can be ruthlessly brutal when their fundamental structure is undermined or taken for a ride. Ajmer’s profuse deification of the Sant and his glorification of his death in the military action is a result of such conceptual ambiguities. Of course Bhindranwale and his companions fought very bravely and ultimately died for their cause but that does not prove that they had not indulged in adventurism. Whenever anti-State forces or individuals take shelter in religious shrines, the State’s brutal might does not hesitate to blow up the most sacred of places even though such places belong to the faith of the functionaries of the State executing the task. Secondly, ‘sovereignty’ is the most sacrosanct trait of the State, so a state within a State can never be tolerated.

Ajmer Singh blames the traditional Sikh leadership for its ambivalence on various issues. But he does not realise that the demography of Punjab has always been against the Sikhs before the reorganisation of the state in 1966. The Sikh leaders could never take an overtly anti-Indian or anti-Hindu stand because whatever the new classes or castes converted to Sikhism were originally Hindus and the Hindus taking Sikhism for a fraternal community never minded such conversions.

The notion of Sikh sovereignty as conceptualised by Ajmer Singh through the concept of “Patshahi” does not stand the test of historical times. Even the Khalsa Raj of Ranjit Singh that lasted only for a few decades failed to build any permanent institutions of the State structure that could withstand the ordeals of times. In the absence of any constitutional or institutional framework the Khalsa Raj manifested acted as a ‘military state’. After the collapse of the Khalsa Raj in 1849, the Sikhs became very docile and faithful servants of the British who showered perceptible favours on them, though later on the ordinary Sikhs joined the freedom struggle in a big way and made examplary sacrifices. The author is right when he says that vis-à-vis Hindus and Sikhs, the Muslims in pre-partition days were more conscious of their distinct identity and they never bothered to flaunt their extra-patriotic feelings for the embryonic Indian nation. As a community they almost always rose to the occasion to defend their separate identity and were thus able to secure for themselves maximum mileage in political bargaining with the British and the Hindus. The Sikhs being a small minority dotting a large area were in no reckoning at the national level. The Gurdwara Sudhar Movement had brought the Sikhs in confrontation with the British, though soon after a large section of Sikhs made up with them and the nationalist element among them joined the freedom struggle under different denominations.

BACK