|
The Year that did not change India
Jagmohan Singh
| |
The fourteenth anniversary Special edition of magazine Outlook
is an issue on 1984. It begins with the issues that concern the
Sikhs. It has articles and photo features on 1984. Most of these
articles carry the typical government line of thinking except
that of HS Phoolka and the interview with a retired military
lieutenant colonel –Gurinder Singh Ghuman. The editor of the
magazine is generally known for his reasonable views and also
for giving an opportunity to those who are generally less heard
and read. Jagmohan Singh writes an open letter to the editor of
the journal pointing out the role of the media vis-a-vis the
Sikhs over the decades. |
|
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.
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 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 Narsimha 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.”
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. His idiom
was deliberately distorted and published all around in a hyped
manner. 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.
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,
the perpetrators have been let off scot free.
|
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.
|
|
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 view point, 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. In 1984, this country’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
Jagmohan Singh is the editor of World Sikh News. He may be contacted
at jsbigideas@gmail.com
4
November 2009
|
Read Also