Dear Editor,
In the October 1, 1993 issue of World Sikh News, on reading your front page news entitled “Neil Dhillon on a Mission” I feel compelled to write this letter.
The article mentions that Neil Dhillon is a man on a mission, what mission? If it is a Sikh mission then let Mr. Dhillon know that Sikhs are a separate people. Or would Mr. Dhillon have us believe that Sikhs should accept the concept that the integrity of India is the right concept and we should sit back at home and ignore the last 10 years of atrocities of Indian government on Sikhs, Or is Mr.Dhillon’s mission to go to Congress and speak out against Khalistan and Sikh issues so that the Indian government can say look here is a Sikh that does not want Khalistan. Is that the mission you are boldly and proudly talking about on your front page?
The article mentions that he wants “to break the glass ceiling.” Sikhs believe in the concept of Chardi Kala there are no ceilings let alone glass one’s for Sikhs. Had Mr. Dhillon bothered to tum the pages of history, he would not have said this. If Mr. Dhillon is talking about being the first to go to Congress he is obviously unaware that the ribbon already has been taken in the U.S. by Dr.Saund and by others in Canada and also in England. I am at a loss to understand what he is offering the Sikh Community, It certainly is not support for the Sikh cause as I have yet to hear Mr. Dhillon stand up and say what the Indian Government has been doing in Punjab for the past 10 years are atrocities and genocide.
Your article seemed to be mesmerized by Mr.Dhillon’s outer appearance as it says, “A young man of 31, Neil vibrates with energy and has the flush of ambition, and His eyes sparkle and his facts and figures are at his fingertips.” Unfortunately the Cobra also has a silver body and his eyes do sparkle as well but he will strike at will and destroy you. As to “‘facts at his fingertips,” which facts are being referred to? The facts as they relate to what government of India gave him in his meeting with Ray? Or the facts of how many young lives have been destroyed in the last 10 years? Or the facts about the broken promises to Sikhs? Which facts are you writing about? (Shame Shame).
Your article mentions that he is an “excellent campaigner and has the ability to handle difficult situations,” for whom is he an excellent campaigner? Certainly not for the Sikhs, that he can handle difficult situations let him handle the Sikh situation first.
Your article mentions he is “appealing to the whole Asian American Community and because of this it is going to put him in a difficult path with the hard liner Sikhs.” I find your remark of the hard liner Sikhs rather confusing I would like to understand who and how you categorize hardliner Sikhs? Someone who is a Khalsa? Someone who believes in Khalistan? Someone who speaks out against the Indian government? Someone who speaks for human rights violations? Someone who sees Sikhism as a separate religion? Who is a hard liner Sikh? If all of the above are hard liners then Mr. Dhillon is going to have a problem with just, about everybody who is concerned for Sikhs in India.
You mention that Mr. Dhillon is proud of his heritage. How much pride can he have in a heritage when before his very eyes that heritage is being tom limb by limb? He says he is proud of his heritage and yet as a candidate has not the guts to stand up and be counted or to speak up against the atrocities being committed against the Sikhs for the past 10 years.
You mention that Mr. Dhillon states that his ancestors came from near Jullundur. What ancestors? He was born in England and his parents migrated to England then the U.S.A. so did a lot of people.
You mention that Mr. Dhillon does not support Khalistan? In your article he is quoted, “How can I support Khalistan? As an American my first obligation is my countrymen here,” I really find this amusing. Are we to believe that Dan Burton is not then living up to his obligation because he supports Khalistan? Or Green or Fazio, are these and other honorable gentlemen in the house less Americans than Mr. Dhillon? By the same argument, Stephen Solarz was more of an American because he spoke out against Khalistan and the Sikh issue, what is the point, or is it that Mr. Dhillon is doing a song and dance and thinks that Sikhs are going to be fooled by this. We know about the cunning of the tongue twisters, here you have another wound up toy of the Indian government who speaks his master’s voice. I was informed by an. Indian gentleman who had heard this man that when asked how we could trust that he would not tum against us, his answer was “trust me and I will not betray your trust.”
Name alone does not make one a Sikh. It is a faith based on action; it is a display of your deeds that determines whether or not you are a Sikh. If name alone determines that you are a Sikh then are we to call K.S.P. Gill, Zail, Beant, Buta, Sparrow, Khushwant Sikhs, I think not. Should we call every turncoat a Sikh? Balbir Singh Ragi Union City, CA.
Article extracted from this publication >> October 15, 1993
