Search the Community

A very bold essay of sorts. If only Indians can read this and improve themselves. Sikhs have been gracing Indian jails with their presence since the nation's official inception during the British period. They have been no stranger to the brutal human rights violations which continue even uptill this day in the world's largest democracy. The figures for Sikhs in jails increased on the onset of the Khalistan movement. Whether militant or civilian, the law herded them into prisons (which by this point in time had become virtual slaughterhouses) without any discrimination. One recent prisoner who has set the Sikh nation aflame once more, with a desire to cast off the Indian yoke, is Balwant Singh Rajoana. Rajoana's case has many points which are beneficial to the judiciary and polity in any nation. An ex-cop he, along with Babbar Khalsa militants and one other accomplice, assassinated the chief minister of Punjab via suicide jacket in 1995. Those living at the time still remember the C.M. Beant Singh's state sponsored terrorism which resulted in the death of more than 50,000 Sikhs irrespective of age and gender. It was to stop this never-ending carnage that Balwant Singh took the step of assassinating him. Balwant Singh Rajoana. Of course it has extensively been argued, by the Indian judiciary that he (Balwant Singh) had anti-social motives in assassinating the C.M. Not only did he blow the C.M. to kingdom come but also 17 other armed personnel. On one hand this same Indian judiciary pays obeisance to the so-called heroes of the Indian mutiny, who indiscriminately butchered white women and children in the name of independence and patriotism. Given Singh might have maimed and crippled 17 others who were doing their duty, but again sacrifices have to be made in the line of duty to one's faith. Armed personnel often represent and protect the very institutes which deprive individuals of their rights. They themselves know the risks involved in their occupations, it might not be their doing that they became soldiers and guards yet it is up to them whether to have a conscience or not. In this case the 17 chose duty above humanity and paid the price, which of course any soldier would pay including both revolutionaries and militants. The big question which hits one after reading about Singh, is why he did what he did? What was in store for him other than 27 years of his life wasted in a third-world jail. He gained no monetary benefit through his action, on the contrary his family became deprived of any finance they possessed since his incarceration. For 17 years the Sikh nation and the world forgot about him, leaving him to fester in solitary confinement. Yet the man himself never lost his sanity and valor Despite losing his own future and a prosperous one at that, he is happy to at least have granted millions of others a chance at living. Of course the Indian state has extensively repeated promises to grant justice to the Sikh nation for the horrors of the 80's, but each and every time an opportunity has been presented for it to make it's words come true it has absconded. The sophisticated Hindu majority itself is baying for the blood of any Sikh who goes against it's illusion of "one Hindu nation, for the Hindus." Opportunity arrived in the form of the Sikh nation's demand for Singh's release, but the same cliche manifested itself once more and the Indians turned the tide. What was not surprising, for many individuals who have seen this cycle being played out in India continually, was the extensive media and political campaigns which were undertaken by the state against the Sikhs in response to the Sikh demand. The Akalis, the Sikh political party, were blamed for whipping up the Sikh community in a frenzy order to gain easy votes on the heels of Hindu-Sikh violence. What is important to note is Hindu-Sikh. Where the Hindu's dominance and pull over the Sikhs is reassured. Furthermore Sikhs were presented as being vulgar and stupid with no sense of their own good. It seems than, according to Indian logic, that at least 90% of Punjab's 12 million Sikh community must be highly stupid and incapable of taking care of itself. Furthermore Singh's image was presented in the same light which Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale's image was presented in during the 80's. That of a charismatic but fascist leader. Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. Another question which rises, from the Balwant Singh situation, is that what is a proletariat supposed to do when the state itself condemns and persecutes him without fair reason? Does he do what Balwant Singh and countless other militants do, or does he wait for the proper channels to open up while suffering under the state's power? For those who lived under Beant Singh's reign Balwant Singh's actions are justified. Since the 50's the state had shut it's eyes regarding Sikh matters. Punjab, where the community resided, became the state's toy; to dispose of at it's will. It was split, it's possessions and territories unlawfully snatched away and the state was not even aloud to state itself as a Punjabi speaking state. Even today the land of the five rivers is derived of it's rivers. To protest this the Sikh polity, and the common man launched a massive agitation which the Indian state presented as being detrimental to Hindu rights and a challenge to Hindu sovereignty. This had the effect of a massive genocide being launched on the Sikh population in India, by the 80's this covert genocide had succeeded to such an extent that the Sikh faith was all but finished from Punjab. Unfortunately for the Indian state though, it's policy makers had not studied Sikh history. When the faith is poised on the brink of extinction, it is then it rears it's head and strikes at the foe. The ultimate catalyst for a Sikh revival came in the form of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. His name and image was slowly demolished and re-moulded into that of a terrorist by the Indian state controlled media. To such an extent that he was finally labelled as "Killer of All Hindus." To stop this killer a massive and murderous attack was launched on the Punjab, by the state, which resulted in the deaths of many Sikhs and Hindus. Jarnail Singh on the other hand cautioned the Sikh nation from retaliating rashly and to only counter-attack by targeting guilty politicians and armed personnel. Finally under the pretext of defeating terrorism Operations Bluestar, and Wood-rose were launched in Punjab which resulted in the deaths of more than 3 million Sikhs. All this justified by stating "Hindus have to defend Hinduism. Indians have to defend India." This situation continued until the mid-90's when Balwant Singh assassinated the C.M. At the time of the assassination state sponsored terrorism was at it's peak in Punjab. The Sikh freedom movement was all but over due to mass infiltration by the Indian intelligence agencies, and lawlessness ran rife. What is surprising is that all this was being done by a government, and a politician who was only voted into power by less than 5% of Punjab's population. Thus not only did the state fan the flames of a genocide but also add fuel to it. If the state truly had been concerned about it's citizens, it would have surely listened to them. Yet it takes a loud noise to make the deaf hear. Rajoana provided the last bang in the 90's. But did his actions, and did those of his accomplices achieve anything? Did they prove fruitful for the Sikh nation at large? There are two different perspectives to this. One, their separatist actions achieved nothing more than prolonging a bloody conflict; or two, not only did their actions result in lives saved but also ensured an uneasy peace in the state. But this leads further to other important questions. 1.) To what extent does the state, especially a democratic state, have the right to suppress the right of any specific community in its domain? 2.) Does religion control politics, in India, or do politics control religion? 3.) Do minorities have no right to decide their own futures? Are they expressly dependent on the state, and if so do they not have the rights which a citizen of the majority possesses? 4.) For a minority such as the Sikh nation, who has not signed the Indian constitution, is a secessionist state not possible? 5.) Why is the role of the state ignored by Indians, when any talk of the Sikh militancy comes up? 6.) Twenty-eight years later why has no justice been granted to the Sikh populace in North India, who suffered at the hands of the state? 7.) Can a minority exist alongside a majority, in a perverted democracy such as India? 8.) Do the victims of state sponsored terrorism have any right to defend themselves? 9.) In a democracy is state sponsored terrorism accepted as justice and keeping law-and-order? 10.) Why has the Indian state only hanged individuals who have defended themselves, and not individuals who attacked them? Bhai Balwant Singh Rajoana and Baba Surjeet Singh, jathedar Budha Dal 96crori. Of course these questions are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, but on that note one has to wonder what parameters truly define a democracy? Is democracy truly evident of the saying "democracy is th right to decide our tyrants." Or is it (like any other man-made creation) a proverbially excellent idea which over time has become corrupt? It is now up to the Sikh nation to decide what it's future steps will be, but the impertinant need of the moment is to free not only Balwant Singh Rajoana but the countless other Sikh prisoners languishing in Indian jails since the 80's, and before. http://tisarpanth.blogspot.co.nz/2013/02/the-80s-and-rise-of-rajoana.html