|
Brahmanical
Attitudes & the Fawning Sikh Leadership
Dr. Amrik Singh, Sacramento
 Attitude,
competency and knowledge are three components of problem-solving and
positive environment. Experts believe that mere knowledge gaining
skills can’t help in building positive environment if social
attitudes that hamper it are not challenged. Indian universities and
colleges may have promoted knowledge and competency, but appears to
have done very little to challenge social attitudes. Ingrained in
our consciousness, attitudes determine our responses to commonplace
social situations. Quite often, we become helpless in getting out of
the ghettos of our attitudes, even when it is socially and
economically unviable. As a consequence, we are ready to jeopardize
social cohesion, economic loss and political stability. Political
parties form alliances to accommodate prevailing attitudes.
Gerrymandering guided the creation of states, constituencies and
districts. The challenging and dismantling of all those
attitudes which warp our judgment requires a conscious decision.
In Punjab, attitudinal politics of religion, class and caste created
two types of diametrically opposite leaderships: urban leadership
represented by Congress and BJP and the rural leadership represented
by Akali Dal. Left and Dalit parties dangled between these two
poles having no solid identity of their own. For their presence they
indirectly supported the agenda of the two: quite often one over the
other. The urban leadership is based on the assumption that Sikhs’
political aspirations were separatist. It supported the programs
that subverted the nucleus of Sikh ambitions at the political and
religious levels. Congress coordinated all efforts from within and
without to lead other Indians about Sikhs’ secessionism. Four
decades of power provided governmental and media support to
Congress’s efforts. The rural leadership represented by Akalis
couldn’t create support at the national level to reverse Congress
and RSS systematic campaign. The support of Dalits could have
created national support, but Akalis’ fixation with Hindutva
restrained them from going into that direction. Paradoxically,
Akali leadership instead helped Congress and RSS with all the
proofs they needed to prove Sikhs’ separatism. The opposition
between the Secular and the Secessionist had many advantages for
Congress and the RSS as it became easier to execute pending plans
like demolition of Babri Mosque at a greater scale.
The
tension between the secessionist and the secular was allowed to
reach climaxes at many times. But attitudes never changed, or
challenged or sought to be reconciled, simply because the simmering
pot is what determined the unique character of Indian democracy. In
the context of Punjab, cows' heads and tails were found once in
Hindu temples, cigarettes in Sikh Gurdwaras and pages of Guru Granth
Sahib in the streets. People of Punjab still didn’t come out in the
streets to slit one another throats. They only wondered why
political leaders were thrusting difficult choices on them. Concrete
evidence was collected of the involvement of a political party in
power, but that was dismissed. Urban leaders created
fears of agitating peasantry as a threat to the Nation on the Move.
News media promoted passionately all that was imaginary.
It is a time for the public to scrutinize the role of Sikh and Hindu
leadership across party lines in maintaining negative attitudes and
thus endangering peaceful coexistence. The post emergency politics
of the Congress targeted Punjab for its sectarian politics.
Sikh-Nirankari disputes should have been only the affair of Sikhs
and the Nirankaris, but it developed into Sikhs and the rest of
India issue. Lala Jagat Naryan representing Punjabi Hindus supported
Nirankaris’ contention that Guru Granth Sahib was not the eleventh
Guru. Lala had no intention of accepting Nirankari chief as his
spiritual Guru, but he supported him because such an attitude had a
record of politics behind it. The confrontation started the row that
brought Indian Army to the Golden Temple in 1984 and plunged Punjab
in the tragic mode. Even when people of one community were targeted
in buses and trains, Hindus and Sikhs didn’t kill each other in the
streets. However, mainstream Hindu leaders projected the movement of
peasants for their social and political rights as anti-India. The
establishment had not only maligned Punjabi peasants, but also
everyone professing Sikh religion.
|
In Punjab, attitudinal politics of religion, class and caste
created two types of diametrically opposite leaderships: urban
leadership represented by Congress and BJP and the rural
leadership represented by Akali Dal. Left and Dalit
parties dangled between these two poles having no solid identity
of their own. For their presence they indirectly supported the
agenda of the two: quite often one over the other. |
|
Urban Punjab suffered a lot. Many businessmen left Punjab to other
states, but couldn’t get traction in their business. The rise of
militancy and its veering towards terrorism should have taught many
lessons to both Hindu and Sikh leaders, but it only strengthened
their resolve to repeat the tragic play again when the politics
required it.
The failure of both Sikh and Hindu leaders of Punjab in dismantling
negative attitudes speaks of the degradation of ethics in the
polity. Sikhs in BJP, Congress, and left parties not only subscribed
faithfully to the party agenda, but also showed more enthusiasm in
clobbering members of their own community. Instead of challenging
negative attitudes of their respective parties, they donned the
cloak of pseudo-nationalism that had no place for those Sikhs who
demanded their social and political rights under the constitution of
India. Such pseudo-nationalism has been also denying basic rights to
Dalits for several millenniums.
Ledership of the Shiromni Akali Dal after a prolonged and
unsuccessful battle with the Congress conceded defeat and submitted
to invincible Hindutva for its political existence. Akalis have
come to such a pass that they couldn't even express their difference
of opinions. On December 6th, Akalis felt paralyzed in front of
supermen of RSS, Shiv Sena and BJP. They yielded to them
unconditionally, thus plunging once again a phase of uncertainty in
Punjab.
 During Dera Sauda melodrama, Punjab BJP at no time shared the
perspective of Sikhs that they had a right to respect Guru Granth
Sahib as their Guru. Harish Bedi, a sitting MLA evoked all those
attitudes that would humiliate Sikhs. It is strange that Badals
could not convince their coalition partners about the explosive
nature of the situation. On the other hand, Badals became
apologetic to Hindu hardliners. Unable to resist the Congress’s
subtle attacking policies, they went for a total submission. Badal’s
unconditional support to BJP was the only way to maximize his vote
bank that he lost to congress. Hindus being in majority would help
him more than Sikhs in minority can bring him back to power. His
dependence on Hindu hardliners created many anomalies in the
practice of Akali Dal’s policies.
Sikh leadership across party lines can't be absolved of its
complicity in the genocide of Sikh community. Analysts argue that
after Indira Gandhi’s assassination, the President Giani Zail Singh
appointed Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister of India by violating all
the protocols. Gaini only wanted to exhibit his unconditional
loyalty to Nehru family. Constitutional experts averred that had
Giani been a statesman, he would have appointed the senior most
cabinet member as interim PM. The senior most cabinet member at that
time was the present Finance Minister Parnab Mukherjee. Recently,
his statement in the parliament that 1984 Sikh Massacre was most
tragic in India’s history, implied Giani Zail Singh’s faux pas.
|
The Badals in Punjab have become apologetic to Hindu hardliners,
going in for total submission. The Akali Dal’s unconditional
support to the BJP was the only way to maximize the Badal vote
bank that he had lost to Congress. Hindus being in a majority
would help him more than the prospect of minority Sikhs bringing
him back to power. His dependence on Hindu hardliners has
created many anomalies in the practice of Akali Dal’s policies. |
|
Zail Singh's personal allegiance to Nehrus crossed all limits of
decorum in which pluralistic fabric was of utmost importance. By
appointing the senior most cabinet member, the president would have
given time to Congress party to decide the leadership questions
later. Giani acting out of his extreme servitude had cleared all
decks for party members to concentrate their energies in arranging
Sikh massacre all over India. It was the only way to show devotion
to newly appointed Prime Minister who happened to be the grieving
son of the assassinated leader. It is often alleged that Giani Zail
Singh by indulging in unprofessional, un-statesmanlike behavior
connived in murder and mayhem of Sikhs. The Sikh president clearly
saw how circumstances were building up, but he didn’t respond even
when he could have. Giani Zail Singh blinded by his unconditional
faithfulness, abject servility, and apologetic fixation might have
made an oblique statement that he would remain a lapdog at the
doormat of Nehrus even at the cost of his own people. He performed
the role for which he was fashioned all those years: a Sikh who
won’t mind to becoming complicit in the extermination of his people.
Is it the only way for Sikh leaders to show their loyalty?
 When the
entire Indian leadership tries to answer this question, it will find
that the Brahmanical attitudes are a major hurdle in India’s
emergence as a humane society. Dismantling their power requires a
historical decision for which the country was never as ready as it
is today.
23
December 2009
|
Read Also