On thing though is for certain. Whether or not Sikhs want to secure autonomy “within India” or “without India” India simply is not giving it to them. Nor is India going to give it to them, All you need to look at is the history of India vs. Sikhs in the time that has elapsed since India got Independence in 1947. The events that have occurred in this time, affecting the collective existence of Sikhs, should be a pointer understandable even by a moron. That much at least each and every Sikh must be able to learn, discern and know clearly in his or her mind from this history.

Though the Sikhs, as a very young and politically inexperienced people, had been no match for the Machiavellian leadership of old time majority Hindu people, the political events of the past 40 odd years have served to provide to the Sikhs at least the necessary trauma and training to identify and present with lesser uncertainty, their true political objectives. In fact, the process is still ongoing. It has not finished. It could be many more years still before it begins to yield the inevitable results for their relief.

The Sikh struggle in a sense is comparable to the tenacious but fractious struggle put up by the Afghan Mujahideen, who are racially, esoterically and historically akin to Sikhs.

The dilemma then really is, What is a Sikh to expect? The answer has to be, “defeat or a program to defeat”. Both to the “Within India” Sikhs as well as of course, to the “Without India” Sikhs the same answer is patent. The Sikh “struggle for rights” or political ambition, is really going to go nowhere, That has to be the message to them, as far as India is concerned. The Sikh notions of “self-respect” “honor” or whatever else they feel they deserve, are not going to be fed or nourished by an unsympathetic and even hostile political majority engulfing Sikhs,

It was different with the British. Now the Sikhs are facing, not the British but “Indians” themselves who are in a vast majority. There is a world of a difference between the British and the Hindu.

Even at this moment, the Sikh political old guard are languishing in Indian jails, For what? Is their ordeal by incarceration not to prove the love of the Sikh for freedom? The collective Sikh freedom? Is their liberty sacrificed only for the sake of some lesser or baser advantage? The political jailing of Gandhi and Nehru culminated in the freedom of India. Is the value of the political imprisonment of the Sikh old guard any different? Are they being randomly tested to gauge the waters of Khalistan? It is up to them to see that their sacrifices are not undervalued.

It is up to that old guard to make sure that the price for their commodity is not cheapened by the strategies of the political adversary.

The dilemma can slowly find resolution if each and every Sikh first begins by telling himself of herself what the historical reality or truth is as above pointed out.

It can only be succeeded by the realization that the only real solution is self-determination in the final analysis. This has been the tried and true solution for the collective existence of kindred people in the experience of mankind. Without the membership in the global community, no people can be assured of any “rights” or “honor” or the continuation of their “life style”. That is the reason nations were formed, that is why “countries exist, That is why “territorial sovereignty” wis necessary Sikhs haven’t got it. Yet they expect to be allowed to experience the life style that only sovereignty can guarantee.

Look at the PLO. They have waged a longer political struggle in modern times than the Sikhs. And what have they got so far? No terroritoral sovereignty Only some form of recognition in the political market. but with what stark difficulties and strife. We have enough to learn from them.

If Sikhs haven’t got Khalistan it is not because it is not possible. It is because they have not yet to the discipline that their Panthic survival vehemntly demands in the present chaose. IT IS US who are not giving us Khalistan, really! Even if for the sake of clinging to power, Rajiv Gandhi is prepared to amend the Indian Constitution giving greater autonomy to the village councils. “Panchayats” in India. Gandhi and his camp are drumming up plans to hold “Panchayat” elections in the future. This betrays the fact that the Indian Constitution is not divine, or sacrosanct. It can be changed around to suit the political party in power and its prime minister. In fact it has been amended umpteen times since 1947. The rulers have done everything to keep their grip on India at any cost.

But when it comes to addressing the Sikh political question, Gandhi, like his deceased mother the former Prime Minister, maintains that the government can deal with Sikhs only “within the constitution”. The pronouncement hopes to lend a divine sanctity to the Indian constitution on the one hand, while the other it ensures the safety of limitation of negotiation in favor of the party holding the power. The phony stance is both insulting and hypocritical, Assuming, however, that the negotiation was to proceed from the threshold of “constitution” could there be any valid reason why the constitution could not be amended or altered to make peace with Sikhs? That is, if a sincere motivation existed to grapple with the problem? So far, the dynastic prime minister ship has been hiding behind the constitution without making any serious attempt to resolve the Sikh question. Twenty three years have elapsed since the reorganization of Punjab that was unwillingly acceded to by the formation of the “Punjabi Suba”, Punjabi state.

The present fractious state of the Sikh political struggle is apparent. Butit is nothing unusual. It fits their style and political primitiveness. Nevertheless, it is characterized by a clear overall objective of self-determination and self-aggrandizement collectively. There is no mistaking their objective. That is one thing.

But why are Sikhs not better organized and united? Why has it taken so long for them to delineate and project their summum bonum ? Why, one may ask, not a united commitment to the ideal of Khalistan, a Sikh state, lock stock and barrel? Why are there still Sikhs around. including former Punjab premiers and other political remnants of old, who cringe and shirk a clear stand on the ultimate Sikh goal? Is this a peculiar form of Sikh diplomacy? Or is it a manifestation of a lurking thirst for power of provincial or state ministry? If so, then they are not politically mature or trustworthy. The forward section, all along in the meantime, is paying a heavy price in terms of self-sacrifice and human suffering in spearheading and continuing its pure struggle for Sikh self-determination.

In this duality surrounding the ordinary common Sikh, there is nothing but daily bewilderment. What is he or she to believe in? What is Sikh politics? What do Sikhs want as a people? What do they want collectively? Do they know?

Article extracted from this publication >>  June 9, 1989