The author points out that Sikh fundamentalist have not succeeded in articulating their vision of world in any great detail; He attributes this lack of an elaborate model to the social origins of Sikh activitis. He says A great majority of them come from the countryside and would be classified as peasants by social anthropologists. Historically peasants have not been known to come up with grand paradigms of social transformation Peasant societies are by definition made up of little communities and their cosmos is invariably parochial rather than universal. This is his favourites theory which can explain all major questions relating to Sikhs and Sikhism In an earlier paper read at Berkley(2) the author wrote: if there is any such thing as a key to historical problems in case of the Sikh tradition it is to be found in its social constituency. Sikh religion is first stand foremost a peasant faith. Sociologists have often spoken of how Islam is an urban religion. Sikhism may be spoken as rural religion When dealing with belief rituals and practices of the Sikhs-be they religious or political it is always worthwhile to constantly remind ourselves that we are fundamentally dealing with the peasantry.
The above explanation is obviously unsatisfactory and inadequate So the author also looks at correlations between Punjab’s Political economy and the nature of dissent in Sikh society the demand for a new personal law for the Sikhs and finally the famous Anandpur Sahib Resolution a document that may be considered as the Magna Carta of Sikhs.
The discussion of political economy revolves around the size of holdings which is not of much help since their distribution and size are not significantly different from those in other states. Green Revolution is also prominently mentioned particularly its social costs and the polarisation of Punjabi Society over the last two decades. Some of the inferences are difficult to accept. For example it has been stated that small holdings ranging from 210 5 hectares have become increasingly less viable. Green Revolution entails adoption of high yielding variety ies. and modern farming techniques which raise the productivity per unit of land. So if at all the Green Revolution should make small holdings more viable than before This enabled even the subsistence farmer to spare something for the market after meeting his family requirements. Also the author has not explained why the Green Revolution occurred only in the Punjab while the two major requirements viz. better varieties and modem technique of farming were available in all the countries of South Asia {including other states of India. Is it not due to the more progressive altitude of the Sikh peasants of Punjab towards modem methods of farming? However in the authors Judgement using Webers fundamentalists badly fail.
In the entire discussion of the Political economy and the Green Revolution the author has not suggested anything with fundamentalist connotations on the part of the Sikhs. Nor has he been able to point out any such thing while dealing subsequently with the other two major topics that fill the body of his paper viz. the demand for Sikh personal Law and the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. Hindus have a personal law. So have the Muslims. They are not dubbed as fundamentalists on that score Then how could Sikhs turn fundamentalists by mercly making such a demand? The suggestion that the Sikhs do not have a uniform code at the present moment is. no disqualification for making such a demand. Similarly the Anandpur Sahib Resolution the author himself does not find anything wrong which is no more than a demand for greater provincial autonomy already voiced in several other states. The author himself concedes that its like an election manifesto of a political party in India or any other county.
The authors own discussion lends little support his thesis of Sikh fundamentalism. He is however determined to put this tag on the Sikh struggle. Therefore in the conclusion he formulates three new arguments which convince nobody except himself. These are: First in the Punjabi word involved. Sikhs possess a term that exactly corresponds to fundamentalism. Is it an argument? Second many orthodox Sikhs have no patience for textual analysis of Sikh scriptures. The statement is baseless. But even if it were correct how could views of a few orthodox Sikhs expressed today (7) impant fundamental character to a demand made over 40 years ago ? Third the current Sikh movement manifests many tendencies like militemarianism prophetic vision revivalism and puritanism tends that are commonly associated with fundamentalism No evidence is given in support of this contention. The statement appears to be a product of the authors own prophetic vision.
In the quest for material to support his unsustainable thesis the author (who is probably an anthropology is has wandered into areas religions and politics where he does not belong. That is why he has wasted his scholarship on matters which are completely irrelevant to the Sikh struggled He has missed the real issues.
Normally we should have been reluctant to take up current issues for academic discussion. But as Oberoi and some other scholars have ventured to make uncalled orandignorant observations concerning the Punjab problem it appears necessary to give perspective historical account of the major issues underlying the current crisis. In this paper we hall mainly confine ourselves to the paper of Harjot Oberoi read at Anaheim. In his paper there appears an evident tempt to camouflage the realities of the situation by introducing unrelated matters like Sikh ideology the Miri Piri concept modernity Sikh pluralism secularism the Nirankar issue Turners Theory of social structure etc.
For our discussion we shall hrst lake up the Punjab Problem and ills genesis which the author has carefully avoided and then discuss his observations to show their it relevance except as an attempted cover to hide the realities in Punjab.
Punjab Problem Commitments with Sikhs before 1947:
In 1929 when Shri Jawahar Lal Nehru was the President formal resolution was passed by the Indian National Congress at Lahore that no constitution of India would be finalised until it was acceptable to the Sikhs. The second assurance was the clear statement of Nehru in 1946 that there was nothing objectionable in the Sikhs having an area demarcated in the North West of India where they could enjoy the glow of freedom. It was a significant statement since it was given in the context of Jinnahs offering to the Sikhs constitutional guarantees in a separate state in the Eastern part of the contemplated Pakistan
Third there was the statement of Mahatma Gandhi(6) saying that his words should be accepted and that the Congress would never betray anyone and that if they did the Sikhs knew how to use their Kirpan. Finally there was the statement of Nehru(7) in the Constituent Assembly in December 1946. White proposing a federal system with autonomous states he moved the executive resolution which envisaged The Indian Union as an independent sovereign republic comprising autonomous units with residuary Powers wherein the ideals of social political and economic democracy would be guaranteed to all sections of the people and adequate safeguards would be Provided for minorities backward communities and areas described the resolution as 4 Declaration a pledge and an undertaking before the world a contract of millions of Indians and therefore in the nature of an oath which we want to keep. These were some of the commitments regarding an autonomous area in a federal system which the Congress had solemnly given 19 the Sikhs on the basis of which they had agreed to throw their lot with India
Commitments violated:
Unfortunately after 1947 the Congress completely changed its views and stand. The Sikhs were aghast when the draft of the pro: posed Indian Constitution was Circulated to the State Assemblies in 1949 because instead of autonomous states and a federal Constitution the draft was for a purely unitary type of structure Unanimously all the Sikhs of the Punjab Assembly objected to the draft and wrote as follows (8)It has been the declared policy of the Congress that India is to the a union of autonomous states and each unit is to develop in its own way linguistically culturally and socially. Of course Defence Communications and Foreign Affairs must remain the Central Subjects.
To change the basic policy now is two run counter to the oft repeated creed of the Congress. in the considered opinion of the. Akali Dal the residuary powers should be with the states. The list distributing legislative powers should be based on the principle that the Centre or the Union Parliament should be limited to Defence Communications and Foreign Affairs only. But in 1950 the Congress violating the earlier assurances and policies framed a constitution leaning heavily towards a unitary form of government In protest the Akali members declined to sign it .It is evident that the Anandpur Sahib Resolution of 1978-79 is just reiteration of Nehrus commitments in the Constituent Assembly in 1946and of the reminder the Sikh Legislators unanimously gave in 1949 t0 the Central Government that it was violating its repeated assurances. Hence it is sheer ignorance on part of the author to suggest that The Federal views initarea document of secession Neither was Nehru a secessionist nor would he or the Congress have made commitment that could be detrimental to the interests of the country. Is it the function of a scholar just to be the mouthpiece of the Establishment and echo its voice or to detail and examine the problem? The latter the author has failed to do either out of ignorance or design. In fact while the Sikhs in 1949 suggested three subjects for the Centre the Anandpur Sahib resolution proposed Currency t00 to be a Central subject Thus factually it is the Congress and the Central Government who have shifted their stand and not that the Sikhs are asking for anything new and unreasonable
A Diametric Change:
It was soon after Independence that the Sikhs felt that the Centre or the Congress had diametrically deviated in their approach and policy towards them. The major indication was its framing a unitary form of constitution with Sikhs to be kept a permanent minority in the State. A very significant indication of the Central approach to the Sikhs is what Patel conveyed to Tara Singh when he wanted a Punjabi Suba to be carved out. No less a person than the Prime Minister Charan Singh has described it thus (10) When Master Tara Singh was there he was talking of Punjabi Suba Then he had a talk with Sardar Patel. Sardar Patel said: am ready to concede it But you will have only that much land that falls to your share on grounds of
Population So Punjab area will be halved. Now you form 17% of the Army. They will have to be dismissed Are you prepared for it?
The above made it plain what would thereafter be the Central approach towards the Sikhs.
In a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion Anaheim November 1989 Harjot Oberoi department of Asian Studies University of British Columbia Vancouver B.C. says that fundamentalism among the Sikhs today is apparently the basic cause of the current political unrest in the Punjab. Without giving any evidence in support of this contention he proceeds to describe it a primarily a movement of resistance and a universe that is characterised by incoherence and disorder.
And then as a social scientist he seeks to provide meaning and shape to what appears to be chaotic and meaningless or to discover what ma) be termed as theory and practice of Sikh fundamentalist although on the authority of Jurgen Habermas quoted by him in the epigram he maintains that Meanings…can be made accessible only from the inside. Readers would like to know whether he is interpreting the movement as an insider or outsider.
Article extracted from this publication >> July 24, 1992
