Special Report
Editorial
Op-Ed
Opinion
Columns

Politics
Literature
Music
Art & Culture
Sikh Religion
Rights
1984
Books
Education
Business

Entertainment
Lifestyle
Travel
Health
Heritage
Sports
Kids Corner

Panjab
India
Pakistan
South Asia
US of A
Canada
Asia-Pacific
UK
Europe
Middle East
Africa
World
 

Archives
Newsletter
Advertise

Obituaries

Feedback
Contact Us
About Us
Site Map

Academic Rigours & the Tragedy of Lost Sovereignty

This is the second part of the two-part review written by Dr. Jaspal Singh, of the two books by well known scholar of Sikhism and political analyst S. Ajmer Singh. The first part appeared in the last edition of the WSN, and can be accessed at www.worldsikhnews.com  The author has commented on the books Vihvin Sadi di Sikh Rajniti, (Sikh Politics of 20th Century) and Sikh Rajniti da Dukhant: Kis Bidh Ruli Patshahi (Tragedy of Sikh Polity: Whither Went Sovereignty).

Ajmer Singh’s hypothesis ‘whatever the R.S.S. says is Hindu Nationalism which in all respects is equivalent to Indian Nationalism’ is debatable if not utterly wide of the mark. Similarly the Jews analogy to Sikhs and of Khalistan to Israel is completely irrelevant. Better the Sikhs don’t get a nation like the one the Jews have got. Moreover the Jews in Christian era have never been in power in any country before 1948 but the Sikhs did remain in power though for a few decades and were never persecuted after the seventies of the 18th century till the gruesome events of eighties of the last century.

Ajmer Singh maintains that India is a “multinational State”. This postulate is debatable. India is a multi-nationality State if nationality is defined as an ethnic mass of a people over a territory with a common language, culture and historical experience. As per this definition Punjabis do make a nationality and the Sikhs are part of it. One nation can have many nationalities and many religions and one nationality can be dispersed over an area falling in many nation states like the present day Kurds who are spread over a contiguous area falling in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. So are the Punjabis in different countries. The notion of one religion one nation does not hold good. The ‘two nation’ theory that divided India in1947 exploded in 1971 with the creation of Bangladesh.

Guru Gobind Singh strove for spiritual freedom for the Sikhs not for political freedom as maintained by the author. When the temporal powers create obstacles in the practice of spiritual freedom only then religious communities and sects have to confront the temporal power structures sometimes with the force of arms. The authors claim that Guru Nanak did not speak against Babur because he was a foreigner (Second Vol.p.112) but only because of his cruelty and barbarism too is debatable. In the same paragraph he maintains that the Lodhi rulers were “cruel predators and greedy debauches”. Now the question arises –if Guru Nanak could raise his voice against Babur’s cruelties why did he not speak against the Lodhis who were equally cruel? Obviously there was some other reason that the great Guru raised his voice against Babur. The author further maintains that Guru Nanak’s world-view had nothing to do with “Nationalism” as his vision was cosmic not nationalistic. Now the question arises - why did Guru Nanak use the word Hindostan not Punjabi in his hymns about Babur’s cruelties? Of course there was no idea of Nation at that time, nevertheless the Guru was conscious of the conceptual land mass called Hindostan and Babur too was moving ahead to capture this land which in Babur Nama is designated by this very name. Incidentally Babur used the term Hindostan nearly thirty years before Guru Nanak made use of it in his “Babur Bani”.

Ajmer Singh’s claim that Western philosophy emphasizes ‘similarities’ in nature, society, things and phenomena (2nd vol.p.117) is far removed from facts. Western philosophy rather lays stress on “differences” and “distinctive features” rather than on “similarities”. In fact Eastern philosophy particularly Vedanta maintains that everything in essence is the same. While debunking the Western Epistemology (pp.117-18) Ajmer Singh maintains that secular intelligentsia became a slave of Western thinking and it started emphasising for the separation of Church and State. What the author does not understand is that if the intelligentsia had not believed in this postulate then it would have to fall back on Vedanta or other eastern schools of thought which are equally anathematic to the author. While presenting E.H. Carr’s views on history, the author holds that in order to understand historical discourses, one must try to understand the historian’s worldview and conceptual framework. This is equally applicable to Ajmer’s enterprise. He is not writing a “history of” but a “history for”. He has his own preconceived notions and beliefs which he tries to prove through his narrative by making a selective use of historical facts and data. After reading the very first page one can guess what the last page would carry. If the historians can’t be objective, how can Ajmer be so? Eclecticism and selectivism do not lend objectivity.

According to the learned author the greatest contribution of Bhindaranwale was that he put an end to the Akali petty manipulatory politics of “fasts” and betrayals. Master Tara Singh defiled two fasts and Sant Fateh Singh three. Yet they are heroes for Badal, Barnala and other Akali functionaries. Ajmer Singh maintains that he fought and died for his cause but Badal and company are reaping the benefits of his struggle and sacrifice after having thrown into the dustbin all the demands and aspirations for which so many people had to a great deal.

Lastly, the author pleads for a genuine federal structure in India without realizing that federalism is concerned with territorial autonomy not with communitarian or religious autonomy which anyway has been guaranteed in the constitution. But the author’s concern is for autonomy or sovereignty for the Sikhs. One does not understand as to how federal autonomy can be extended exclusively to a religious community? Federal autonomy is required for all the states of India. Federalism as a concept of modern political theory has nothing to do with spiritual concerns of the religious communities. The author erroneously holds that sovereignty to Sikhs has been granted by the great Gurus, as if sovereignty is something that can be achieved through divine blessing. In fact it has to be attained through struggle, usually through war and violence which the Sikhs achieved for short time. So the entire argument leads to confusion of means and ends.

As a scholar Ajmer Singh has really worked very hard. He makes use of many dependable primary and secondary sources to spin an interesting narrative, though with controversial conclusions. He has a rare command of the Punjabi language. His narrative style is commendable. Both these volumes are immensely engaging, but it needs some patience to go through the 750 odd pages of this long tragic tale of struggle, betrayals, unethical compromises, lust for power, unparallel sacrifices, exemplary bravery and even foolhardiness. The author now is planning to come out with the third volume of this series which may eventually cover the history of the Punjab region after “Operation Blue Star”. Hopefully this attempt would be equally interesting. The publishers-Singh Brothers, Amritsar have done an admirable job.

12 December, 2007
 

Bookmark with

Reddit    Yahoo     Furl    Delicious