Hawayein 1984 - Critial review

[Akaali]

Subject: Hawayien - A Critical Review

Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:38:43 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Guys !! Following is my review on the newly released Hindi movie Hawayien. You need a BIG heart to read this. Please don't if you haven't.

ATTN: This review reveals the movie content.]

Liquefying the Sikh faith Again, the start of the film witnesses the sinister plot of the Bharatya Janata Party (BJP) government to subordinate the Sikh religion, and dissolve it into the Hindu faith. The Sardar who fought so gallantly for India, earning him a Vir Chakar is allowing the marriage of his son (Sarabjeet Singh) to a Pandit's daughter (Muskaan) To emphasise that there is no difference between the faiths, the boy and girl ask each other ''is there anything different between us''. An explicit example of the extent to which the government is prepared to implement its Article 25 (2) of the Indian Constitution, stating that Sikhs are a sect of Hinduism, not a distinct race created by Guru Nanak Dev Ji and nurtured to independence by the Gurus thereafter. Sinister remark about Operation Bluestar Although the film had to start from a specific point, the manner in which Operation Bluestar is mention is scandalous.

The 'hero' of the film, Sarabjeet Singh asks his father why the Golden Temple was allowed to be converted into a complex of heavy artillery, a place which sanctioned death warrants rather than the singing of devotional hymns. Thus, suggesting that it was the militant Sikhs that were to blame, giving the Indian government no choice but to 'flush' them out as they sought sanctuary in the Golden Temple Complex. Nevertheless, such an assez

tion by the film is totally unfounded. Dr. J. M. Pettigrew, a Scottish anthropologist, who spent much time in Punjab doing independent research on the Punjab problem, writes in "The Sikhs of the Punjab" "The initial crime (Operation Blue Star) was caliberated and indeed had been planned for a year beforehand. The Darbar Sahib complex, a place of a great beauty, the spiritual and political centre of the Sikh way of life and of the Sikhs, as a whole, their historic home through years of invasion from the West, had its sanctity shattered.

The army went into Darbar Sahib not to eliminate a political figure or a political movement but to suppress the culture of a people, to attack their heart, to strike a blow at their spirit and self-confidence". Evidently, the sole purpose of Operation Bluestar was to destroy the Sikh morale, and force them into submission. So why does the film attempt to blame the Sikhs for Operation Bluestar, and then claim not to be anti-Sikh in ints film? Yet Hawayein callously ignores this, and attempts to shift the blame to Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindranwale. If the army really only wanted to flush out those who wrote and sanctioned death warrants, then why did they choose to invade the holiest shrine on a highly religious day, when pilgrims were arriving from ever nook and corner of the globe? Punjab was littered with government intelligence throughout its anti-Sikh policies in Punjab, are we really lead to believe that the government failed to realise that it was a holy day? Hawayein fails to address this. The fact that India as a whole condoned the acts of 1984 reveals the direness of the Sikh predicament. The pogroms of 1984 were masterminded by the government and enjoyed popular support; else the carnage would not have been allowed to overrun the country for days.

Nearly all would agree that those who are silent in the face of atrocities are as much to blame for them as the perpetrators themselves. So why in Hawayein, did it not emphasise the integral role the govern

ment played. A fascist Hindu is heard shouting, ''we only have 36 hours'', the truth is that the bloodbath was allowed to carry on for 5 whole days, organised and carefully planned butchery of Sikhs. DEFAMATION OF SIKHS § Legitimate rights of the Khalistani militants not addressed. In the film, a shocking and unpardonable representation of the Khalistani militants is made. The manner in which the Khalistani militant movement is portrayed is deplorable.

They are shown as not spear heading any serious movement, a bunch of arsonists, bandits, looters, murderers, plunderers, drunkards and rapists with no popular support, outcasts and rejects of society who have nothing better to do than brandish an AK-47 at innocent by-standers and police officials. There are two groups of militants in the film: A) the good militants (Kanpuria, Sarabjeet etc) who are mere victims of the system, forced to use arms as a result of the heavy handedness of the government in its desire to eradicate the Sikhs of India. On the other hand there are B) the bad militants who are rapists, murderers, drunks, lead by Pakistan who want the creation of a separate Sikh state, Khalistan. The aim is to make you and I believe that Khalistan is a dirty word, only advocated by those who violate lives, property and women. However, a quick look back in the chapters of Indian history reveal some startling information. Prior to Indian independence (in which Sikhs played a dazzling role, giving 90% of the sacrifices), in appreciation of the great patriotic spirit of the Sikhs and in gratitude for the tremendous sacrifices made by them, a special political status within India was agreed to by the Indian National Congress and announced publicly by Jawahar Lal Nehru himself.

He said; "The brave Sikhs of the Punjab are entitled to special consideration; I see nothing wrong in an area

and a set up in the North where in the Sikhs can also experience the glow of freedom." The Congress Party, in its annual session at Lahore in 1929, passed a resolution that on achieving independence, no Constitution would be framed unless it was acceptable to Sikhs. Gandhi declared: "I ask you to accept my word and the Resolution of the entire Congress that it will not betray a single individual much less a community. Let God be the witness of the bond that binds me and the Congress with you". When pressed further Gandhi said that Sikhs would be justified in drawing their swords out of the scabbards as Satguru Gobind Singh Ji had asked them to, if the Congress would waver from its commitment. Therefore, the demands of the Khalistani militants is as legitimate as the claims of a woman to her new born baby. When all the Indian leaders promised the Sikhs a separate homeland before independence, then why does the film try and make those who want Khalistan as a group of immoral and revolting characters? When in fact, the real immoral and revolting characters are those like Ghabdi and Nehru who promised and assured Sikhs that they would experience the glow of freedom in their own state, but then discarded such promises. J. N. Sahni, a veteran editor of the national daily, Hindustan Times, says "The letting down of... the Sikhs was not an act of carelessness on the part of the Congress leaders nor even a blunder, but an act of gross unpardonable betrayal."

§ Diverting the blame for the Punjab crisis The film suggests that the militant Sikhs were the initial perpetrators of violence in Punjab, but the Guardian sheds some truthful light: "Ever since the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980, New Delhi has kept alive a crisis in Punjab ... to achieve three questionable objectives : to oust the Akali-led coalition state government of 1977-80, to prevent a legitimate constitutional settlement of Punjab's territorial, river waters and other political and economic disputes with the Centre and, fin

ally, to forge a psychological wedge between Hindus and Sikhs. The Congress Party's obsession with power, its dwindling standards of political behaviour and its aversion to losing elections, is what led it to become the midwife of extremism in Punjab".

§ Hindu Massacre? If one delves into Cynthia Keppley Mahmood's book, 'Fighting for faith and Nation', it becomes vividly clear that the majority of the militants never advocated the mass killings of innocent people. During Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindranwale's leadership, only those who were known instigators of atrocities against innocent people were brought to justice. On a number of occasions Sant Bhindranwale helped Hindu families, and even sent a band of his men to rescue a Hindu girl who had been seized by a gang of Hindu youths. In any case, where is the evidence that Hindu's were massacred in Mandir's and on buses? Are we really supposed to believe that the militants who advocated the creation of Khalistan would be prepared to take the lives of innocent people? These militants envisioned in Khalistan a state where justice, peace and love for all mankind would prevail, would these militants kill innocent people? Kashmiri and Mcandrew's book 'Soft Target' sheds some astonishing information. In June 1985, Indian Intelligence Agents blew Air India's Plane in the skies, off the coast of Ireland and blamed it on the Sikhs.

This truth and harsh reality is revealed in the book Soft Target, which has been banned in India for obvious reasons."Soft target" is an espionage term used to describe a country, institution or group of people that is easy to penetrate and manipulate for subversive purposes... For several years, India has been engaged in a devious and ruthless operation to manipulate and destabilize the Sikh population. The operation has been orchestrated by India's intelligence service and has left the Sikh community estranged from Canadian society. Canadian Security Intelligence Service (

CSIS) eventually woke up just after the tragic Air-India bombing that left 329 people, mostly Canadians, dead in June 1985. It chased the culprits right to the Indian embassy and consulates. If the Indian Government could sink as low as killing its own people just so the blame could be pointed at the 'terrorist' Sikhs, then as the film shows, would it really be a big deal if these government officials tied turbans and killed a few Hindus, just so Sikh militants could be blamed? The fact of the matter is that these Sikh militants never advocated or even perpetrated these acts of blunder.

Zuhair Kashmiri and Brian McAndrew, in Soft Target, write that the Indian government had created a top-secret organization called the Third Agency to unlawfully neutralize the Sikh separatist movement in Punjab. Julio Ribero and K. PS Gill, the men charged with exterminating Sikh militants in Punjab, writes in his autobiography, Bullet for Bullet, that special operations teams were sent in to neutralize Sikhs by any means necessary. These teams would even dress themselves as Sikh militants and target innocent civilians to demolish the public support enjoyed by Sikh separatists. § Who are the real terrorists? For the Indian government, as reflected in Hawayein, the word terrorist is left vague and broad, so that any type of protest against humiliation, indignities and torture can be labelled as such. The Sikhs who want Khalistan in Hawayein are portrayed as the worst type of terrorists, trained by Pakistan with the sole purpose of disintegrating the unity of India. However, students from the Gurdaspur Zaffarwal College had this to say in an independent investigation by the 'Citizens for Democracy, India's foremost Civil Rights Organisation in an article 'Oppression in Punjab, 1982-1984' that ''Police are terrorising the people. All those who are supposed to protect us, like B. S. F, Punjab Police, Central Reserve Police Force, military and Central Government forces are the real terrorists an

d extremists, because terrorists are those who have crossed all limits of law and humanity. Now the government and its agencies have crossed all those limits.

It is not Pakistan which is training terrorists, it is these agencies of the government who are doing all that. '' There we have it, another blunder in Hawayein exposed, Pakistan was not training 'terrorist' Sikhs to obtain an independent state, the government were training its police and army on how to torture innocent Sikhs. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch continually condemn the Indian police and Army for its genocide of the Sikhs, yet to be fair, they are only carrying out orders. If they had tortured Sikhs, they had the green light from the Central Government. India is the only country which did not sign the new UN Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. The Indian rulers who say they believe in democracy, secularism, freedom of worship and human rights have themselves enacted black laws and have let loose unabashed State terrorism which has been unleashed specially on the Sikhs- because they are Sikhs. So how are we supposed to loath the militants who want Khalistan, a separate state when they live in a country that does not believe they have a right to live because they wear a turban? ''...violence makes Sikhs fear for their future in India'' (New York Times, Nov. 11, 1984) Why does Hawayein fail to illustrate this? Instead adopting to view the Khalistan movement as an evil plot to bring about the destruction of India. V Seek the truth! In the end, what we should never forget before, during and after watching the film Hawayein is that it was sanctioned and censored by the Indian Government being lead by the BJP (Bharatya Janata Party) who believe that ''India was and is a Hindu nation'', to quote their official website.

This BJP is an openly fascist regime, who have made their intention towards the Sikh faith and its people perfectly

clear, its fragmentation as a distinct identity, and to then dissolve it into the Hindu faith. The question therefore beckons, why would they release a film on the international stage, that would show the merciless killings of Sikhs in November 1984? Because they could then kill two birds with one stone. 1)Operation Bluestar was carried out by the Congress Party, although they too represent the Hindi majority, by showing the blunder of Operation Bluestar, it blackens Congress as a legitimate political force, thus ensuring that people would think twice about electing them again. Paving the way for prolonged BJP rule in India.

2)While they blacken Congress, they are then allowed to stem the desire for Khailistan (because it will give Sikhs greater autonomy) and condemn Khalistani militants as blood thirsty animals. After watching the film, the unaware and uneducated viewer would for future reference come to view the word Khalistan as a dirty word, because it conjurs images of rapists and looters. The Sikh Republic of Khalistan was declared independent in 1986 but due to the state terrorism from India Govt, the people of Punjab and Sikh's in India have suffered greatly and suppressed into silence. Those brave enough to speak of Khalistan in Punjab or India are treated as a criminals or terrorists. That's the political genius of the corrupt Indian machinery, as they condemn both Sikh militants and Congress, while they smell of roses because they released a 'hard-hitting' film! V Should we forget how the Sikh reference library was burned in a Nazi like manner three days after the attack? V Should we forget those Hindus that came running into the streets and gave ladoo (sweets) and whisky to the soldiers burning Amritsar? Should we forget the "tilaks" (sacred Hindu marks) that were put on tanks as they mutated the city of Nectar into the flames of Hell? V Should we forget the operations Woodrose or Blackthunder that were a follow-up to Bluestar? Should we forget how an entire generation of Si

kh boys were literally exterminated village by village? No we should not, but the government and the makers of Hawayein obviously want us to, because none of these feature in the film. Undoubtedly, not every aspect of the conflict can be covered from every angle, but if the producer/director, Ammtoje Mann has embarked upon a venture of retelling the story of Punjab, then to omit and exclude this is to rob the viewer of the truth. What the government thinks u the viewer are, is a soft target, prove them wrong and challenge the notions who hear about the militants by doing your own research. Although the gruesome systematic oppression of the Sikh community has aroused international attention, in this film, India as a nation must prevail, not the truth..

A.S. Kang

[Guest SikhForLife]

didnt read it.. although i think i have a big heart

isnt ASkang a singer?

[S1ngh]

I read the whole thing.. and its very well explained !!!