|
A Requiem for The Lost Glory of The Sikhs
Dr Jaspal Singh
Dedicated to our
editorial stance of featuring opinions other than those held by the
management and editors of the WSN, we bring you the first of a
two-part review written by Dr. Jaspal Singh, covering the two books
by well known scholar of Sikhism and political analyst S. Ajmer
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) and 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.
5
December, 2007
|
Read Also
