Khalistan movement

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) at 07:52, 14 July 2006 (Protected Khalistan: edit-warring ). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:52, 14 July 2006 by YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) (Protected Khalistan: edit-warring )(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:TotallyDisputed

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.
When placing this tag, consider associating this request with a WikiProject.

Khālistān (Template:Lang-pa) (lit. "The Land of the Pure") was the name given to the proposed nation-state, encompassing the present Indian state of Punjab and all Punjabi-speaking areas contiguous to its borders, the creation of which has been violently agitated for by separatist organisations.

A Sarbat Khalsa (general congregation of the Sikh people) was convened at the Akal Takht, the Sikh seat of temporal authority in Amritsar, on January 26, 1986. The gathering passed a resolution (gurmattā) favouring the creation of Khalistan. Khalistan was envisaged by its proponents as a secular state. The Khalistan movement and the violence it entailed claimed the lives of a total of 11,694 civilians between 1981-1993, including 7,139 Sikhs. The movement lost its support amongst the people in the 1990s

Causes of conflict

It has been suggested that this section be split out into another article. (Discuss)

Sikh representation in India

With the possibility of an end to British colonialism in sight, the Sikh leadership became concerned about the future of the Sikhs. The Sikhs and the Muslims had unsuccessfully sought separate representation for their communities in the Minto-Morley Scheme of 1909. The Congress, which had a predominantly Hindu leadership, denied Sikhs a separate identity and labelled them a sect of Hinduism. Indeed, in a document written in response to the Simon Commission (1927), the Congress leader Motilal Nehru defined the future of British India in terms of the Hindu and Muslim communities alone, despite the fact that Sikhs occupied 19.1 percent of the seats in the Punjab Legislature. Nehru’s report evoked strong condemnation from Sikh leaders.

Diarchy was introduced in 1935, guaranteeing a majority for Muslims in Punjab; political expediency now dictated a change in Hindu attitudes towards the Sikh demand for separate electorates. The Hindus aimed to reduce the Muslim majority in the Punjab Legislative Council. At this time, the Hindus not only accepted the Sikhs as a community distinct from themselves, but also supported the Sikh demand for adequate political representation. In December 1929, Sikh leaders were assured by Motilal Nehru and Mohandas Gandhi that Congress would accept no political settlement of the future of British India unless it proved agreeable to the Sikhs. Accordingly, the Congress passed the following resolution during its Lahore session (1929):

"...as the Sikhs in particular, and Muslims and other minorities in general, have expressed dissatisfaction over the solution of communal questions proposed in the Nehru Report, this Congress assures the Sikhs, the Muslims and other minorities that no solution thereof in any future constitution will be acceptable to the Congress that does not give full satisfaction to the parties concerned.

Congress Assurances and Subsequent Repudiation

Jawaharlal Nehru reiterated Gandhi’s assurance to the Sikhs at the All India Congress Committee meeting in Calcutta in 1946. He declared:

The brave Sikhs of Punjab are entitled to special consideration. I see nothing wrong in an area and a set-up in the north wherein the Sikhs can experience the glow of freedom.

With the Muslims proposing the creation of Pakistan to safeguard their interests, some Sikhs put forth the idea of likewise carving out a Sikh state, Khalistan. In the 1940s, a prolonged negotiation transpired between the British and the three Indian groups seeking political power, namely, the Hindus, the Muslims and the Sikhs. During this period, the Congress Party continually extended assurances designed to prevent Sikhs from allying with the Muslim League. To win Sikh support, Jawaharlal Nehru again declared:

Redistribution of provincial boundaries was essential and inevitable. I stand for semi-autonomous units…if the Sikhs desire to function as such a unit, I would like them to have a semi-autonomous unit within the province so that they may have a sense of freedom.”

These pledges, made by Nehru and Gandhi on behalf of the Congress party, were formalised through a resolution passed by the Indian Constituent Assembly on 9 December, 1946. This resolution stated inter alia that:

Adequate safeguards would be provided for minorities in India…It was a declaration, pledge and an undertaking before the world, a contract with millions of Indians and, therefore, in the nature of an oath we must keep.

During a press conference on 10 July, 1946 in Bombay, Nehru made a controversial statement to the effect that the Congress may “change or modify” the federal arrangement agreed upon for independent India; this came “as a bombshell” to many. As a consequence, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, leader of the Muslim League, declared himself impelled to seek the creation of a separate state, Pakistan, in order to safeguard the interests of his community.

After the departure of the British, the Congress Party would repudiate all pledges and Constituent Assembly resolutions promulgated to safeguard Sikh interests. Many Sikhs felt that they had been tricked into joining the Indian union. On 21 November, 1949, during the review of the draft of the Indian Constitution, Hukam Singh, a Sikh representative, declared to the Constituent Assembly:

Naturally, under these circumstances, as I have stated, the Sikhs feel utterly disappointed and frustrated. They feel that they have been discriminated against. Let it not be misunderstood that the Sikh community has agreed to this Constitution. I wish to record an emphatic protest here. My community cannot subscribe its assent to this historic document.

Growth of Sikh national consciousness (1947-1966)

The Sikhs, whose participation in India’s independence struggle was disproportionate to their small numbers (see Table 1), were labelled as a "criminal tribe" in postcolonial India. According to Kapur Singh, who was the Deputy Commissioner at Dalhousie and a member of the Indian Civil Service (ICS) at the time:

In 1947, the governor of Punjab, Mr. C.M. Trevedi, in deference to the wishes of the Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru and Sardar Patel, the Deputy Prime Minister, issued certain instructions to all the Deputy Commissioners of Indian Punjab…These were to the effect that, without reference to the law of the land, the Sikhs in general and Sikh migrants in particular must be treated as a “criminal tribe”. Harsh treatment must be meted out to them…to the extent of shooting them dead so that they wake up to the political realities and recognise “who are the rulers and who the subjects.”

Master Tara Singh summed up Sikh sentiments in his Presidential Address to the All India Sikh Conference on March 28, 1953:

English-man has gone, but our liberty has not come. For us the so-called liberty is simply a change of masters, black for white. Under the garb of democracy and secularism, our Panth, our liberty and our religion are being crushed.

Language issues

In the 1950s and 1960s, central government proposed to declare Hindi as the national language. This invoked vehement opposition in Punjab. The Shiromani Akali Dal, the party representing the Sikhs in Punjab, initiated an agitation in August 1950. The agitation lasted for over two decades. The Akali Dal sought to create a Punjabi suba, a Punjabi-speaking state. The case in favour of this was presented to the States Reorganisation Commission established in 1953. The Akali Dal’s manifesto declared:

The true test of democracy, in the opinion of the Shiromani Akali Dal, is that the minorities should feel that they are really free and equal partners in the destiny of their country...to bring home a sense of freedom to the Sikhs, it is vital that there should be a Punjabi speaking language and culture. This will not only be in fulfillment of the pre-partition Congress programme and pledges, but also in entire conformity with the universally recognised principles governing formation of provinces…The Shiromani Akali Dal has reason to believe that a Punjabi-speaking province may give the Sikhs the needful security. It believes in a Punjabi speaking province as an autonomous unit of India.”

The nationwide movement of linguistic groups seeking statehood resulted in a massive reorganisation of provincial boundaries based on the principle of common language in 1956. However, Punjabi, Sindhi and Urdu were the only three languages not considered for statehood.

A section of the Hindus were opposed to the adoption of Punjabi as an official language in the Punjabi-speaking areas. This created a rift between Hindus and Sikhs of Punjab and took its toll on the relations between the Akali Dal and the Congress government.The States Reorganization Commission, declining to recognize Punjabi as a language that was distinct grammatically from Hindi, rejected the demand for the creation of a Punjabi suba or state. Another reason cited by the Commission for its refusal to recommend the creation of such a state was the alleged lack of general support for the proposal from people inhabiting the region, a reference to the Punjabi Hindus who were opposed to the creation of a Punjabi-speaking state. The Sikhs felt discriminated against by the commission. Hukam Singh of the Akali Dal wrote, “While others got States for their languages, we lost even our language.” The Akali Dal saw the refusal of the Commission to concede Sikh demands as a sign of intolerance against a religious community that spoke a distinct language, which was both linguistically and lexically distinct from Hindi..

Akal Takht movement

The Akal Takht played a vital role in organizing Sikhs to campaign for the Punjabi suba. During the course of the campaign, twelve thousand Sikhs were arrested for their peaceful demonstrations in 1955 and twenty-six thousand in 1960-61. Finally, in September 1966, the Punjabi suba demand was accepted by the central government and Punjab was trifurcated under the Punjab State Reorganisation Bill. Areas in the south of Punjab that spoke a language that is a derivative of Braj formed a new state of Haryana and the Pahari- and Kangri-speaking districts north of Punjab were merged with Himachal Pradesh, while the remaining areas formed a new state of Punjab. As a result, the Sikhs became a majority in the newly created Punjabi suba with a population of a little over sixty percent.

The Nirankari-Sikh Clashes

Tensions had been escalating between the Sikhs and Nirankaris for some time. Finally, in April 1978, a convention of Nirankaris was attacked by a few hundred Sikhs, led by Bhindranwale and by Fauja Singh of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha. On the way, they hacked off the arm of a Hindu sweetmeats seller. This was regarded as probably the first act of terrorist violence in Punjab. On arriving at the convention, Fauja Singh tried to behead the Nirankari leader with his sword but was shot by the leader's bodyguard. The brawl that ensued thereafter, left 13 of the raiding party dead, including two of Bhindranwale’s followers. Another eleven of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha were killed. Three Nirankaris were also killed. Bhindranwale himself was reported to have fled the scene just as the violence broke out which damaged relations between him and the Akhand Kirtani Jatha. Fauja Singh’s widow often blamed him for her husband’s death. It was also alleged that the then ruling government in Punjab did little to avoid the violence despite having enough grounds to believe that such a violence would take place.

Sixty two Nirankaris, including the head of the sect, Baba Gurbachan Singh were charged in connection with the killing of the 13 Sikhs in the clash. They faced trial and were acquitted on the grounds that they had acted in self defence. This irked the sikhs and in April 1980 Baba Gurbachan Singh was shot dead in retaliation. Twenty persons, including Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale were charged with the murder. All of them were later set free upon a announcement by the then Home Minister of India, Giani Zail Singh, that Bhindrawale was not involved in the murder. Apparently, there was no trial or investigation.

River waters dispute

Before the creation of the Punjabi suba, Punjab was the master of its river waters, as per the provisions of the Indian constitution. When the Punjabi suba was created, the central government made a special provision applicable only to the newly constituted states (Punjab & Haryana), depriving them of control of their river-water resources. Sections 78 to 80 in the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, stipulated that the central government “assumed the powers of control, maintenance, distribution and development of the waters and the hydel power of the Punjab rivers.”. It has been alleged that as much as seventy-five percent of Punjab’s river water was being diverted to Haryana and the non-riparian Rajasthan. Failure of the Judiciary to resolve the water dispute in Punjab led the Sikhs to believe that they were being targeted because of their religion.

In a judicial decision concerning the question of whether the Narmada river - which passes through the territory of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat states, but not through Rajasthan — could be shared by Rajasthan, it was ruled that: “(i) Rajasthan being a non-riparian state in regard to Narmada, cannot apply to the Tribunal, because under the Act only a co-riparian state can do so; and (ii) the state of Rajasthan is not entitled to any portion of the waters of Narmada basin on the ground that the state of Rajasthan is not a co-riparian state, or that no portion of its territory is situated in the basin of River Narmada.” See Government of India, The Report of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal, vol. III, New Delhi, 1978, p. 30. </ref>

Helplessness of the judiciary in water disputes: The following anecdote describes the helplessness of the judiciary in India when it came to such disputes. According to the Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh:

"An organisation of farmers had filed a petition in the High Court, Punjab and Haryana, regarding the unconstitutionality of the drain of the waters of the Punjab to the non-riparian states under the Reorganisation Act. The issue being of fundamental constitutional importance, the Chief Justice, S.S. Sandhawalia admitted the long pending petition and announced the constitution of a Full Bench, with himself as Chairman, for the hearing of the case on the following Monday, the 25th November, 1983. In the intervening two days before the hearing of the case could start, and these two days were holidays, two things happened. First, before Monday, the Chief Justice of the High Court was transferred to the High Court of Patna. Hence neither the Bench could sit, nor could the hearing of the case start. Second an oral application was given by the Attorney General in the Supreme Court requesting for the transfer of the writ petition from the file of the High Court to that of the Supreme Court on the ground that the issue involved was of great public importance. The request was granted; the case was transferred. And there this case of great public importance rests unheard for the last nearly twenty years."

Akali Dal's demands

The Akali Dal led a series of peaceful mass demonstrations to present its grievances to the central government. The demands of the Akali Dal were based on the Anandpur Sahib Resolution , which was adopted by the party in October 1973 to raise specific political, economic and social issues. The major motivation behind the resolution was the safeguarding of the Sikh identity by securing a state structure that was decentralised, with non-interference from the central government. The Resolution outlines seven objectives.

The transfer of the federally administered city of Chandigarh to Punjab.
The transfer of Punjabi speaking and contiguous areas to Punjab.
Decentralisation of states under the existing constitution, limiting the central government’s role.
The call for land reforms and industrialisation of Punjab, along with safeguarding the rights of the weaker sections of the population.
The enactment of an all-India gurdwara (Sikh house of worship) act.
Protection for minorities residing outside Punjab, but within India.
Revision of government’s recruitment quota restricting the number of Sikhs in armed forces.

Along with these demands, the issue concerning the unconstitutional diversion of Punjab’s river waters to non-riparian states has been of fundamental importance. Writing about the nature of these demands, The Wall Street Journal noted:

"The Akali Dal is in the hands of moderate and sensible leadership...but giving anyone a fair share of power is unthinkable politics of Mrs. Gandhi ...Many Hindus in Punjab privately concede that there isn't much wrong with these demands. But every time the ball goes to the Congress court, it is kicked out one way or another because Mrs. Gandhi considers it a good electoral calculation."

The assassination of Lala Jagat Narain

In a politically charged environment, Lala Jagat Narain, the owner of the Hind Samachar group of newspapers, was assassinated by Sikh militants in September 1981. He had been instrumental in persuading Punjabi Hindus to declare their mother tongue as Hindi. His editorials consistently attacked the Akali Dal’s leadership. His assassination led to mob violence by Hindus, who set Sikhs' shops on fire and burnt the offices of the Akali Patrika, a Punjabi newspaper that represented Sikh interests. In September 1981, Bhindranwale was arrested for his alleged role in the assassination. He was detained and interrogated for twenty-five days, but was released because of lack of evidence. After his release, Bhindranwale relocated himself from his headquarters at Mehta Chowk to Guru Nanak Niwas within the Harmindar Sahib precincts. Many Sikhs today criticise this move because they believe that it gave the state an excuse to attack the temple.

Dharam Yudh Morcha

In August 1982, the Akali Dal under the leadership of Harcharan Singh Longowal launched the Dharam Yudh Morcha, or the “battle for righteousness.” Bhindranwale and the Akali Dal united for the first time; their goal was the fulfillment of demands based upon the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. In two and a half months, security forces arrested thirty thousand Sikhs for their peaceful demonstrations to the point that protesting volunteers could not be accommodated in the existing jails.

In November 1982, Akali Dal announced the organisation of peaceful protests in Delhi during the Asian Games. To prevent Sikhs from reaching Delhi, the police were instructed to stop all buses, trains and vehicles that were headed for Delhi and interrogate Sikh passengers. The Sikhs as a community felt discriminated against by the Indian state. Later, the Akali Dal organised a convention at the Darbar Sahib attended by 5,000 Sikh ex-servicemen, 170 of whom were above the rank of colonel. These Sikhs claimed that there was discrimination against them in government service.

Religious confusion

During this turmoil, the Akali Dal began another agitation in February 1984 protesting against clause (2)(b) of Article 25 of the Indian constitution, which defines Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains as being Hindu. Several Akali leaders were arrested for burning the Indian constitution in protest.

From the point of view of religious affirmation, India’s defining of its Sikh, Buddhist and Jain citizens as being part of the Hindu community provides provided cause for discontent. For instance, a Sikh couple who marry in accordance to the rites of the Sikh religion must register their marriage either under the Special Marriages Act (1954) or the Hindu Marriage Act (1955), there being no separate marriage act dealing with Sikh marriages. Although the legal registration of weddings is not required, under Indian law, to establish in court that a marriage existed, this circumstance was viewed by some as being a coercive in often obtaining a tacit declaration from the couple to the effect that they were Hindu. According to one stream of opinion, the contents of clause (2)(b) of Article 25 of the Indian constitution and the laws based on its interpretation are arguably in violation of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) calling for free exercise of religion, because Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains have no way of asserting their religious identity in certain situations: they must choose between affirming themselves Hindu or making no statement at all on religion .

Operation Bluestar

Operation Bluestar, was aimed at flushing out militants from the holiest Sikh shrine - The Golden Temple. To flush the terrorists and their masterminds out of the Golden Temple complex, the army launched what is possibly its most controversial action, Operation Bluestar, under the command of Major General Kuldip Singh Brar (a Sikh himself ) , who later retired as lieutenant general. The army had been ordered to destroy the movement to create Khalistan and to cleanse the Golden Temple of all the militants hiding there, including the leader of the militants, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale.

Lieutenant General Kuldip Singh Brar ,then Major General who commanded Indian Army soldiers to enter the Golden Temple, says :

"Apparently, the government had no other recourse. The events in Punjab had reached a complete breakdown. The Sikh militants were in total control of the state machinery. There was a strong feeling that Khalistan was going to be established at any time. Bhindranwale was being seen as a prophet; he was making very strong speeches against (the then Prime Minister of India) Indira Gandhi and non-Sikhs; and trying to send a message across to the rural areas that the Sikhs are being given second-grade treatment and that it is high time we formed our own independent state of Khalistan. There was a strong possibility of Pakistan helping them and I think there was the possibility of a Bangladesh being repeated."

" I can't comment on the inside of politics, but I assume that after taking everything into consideration, the prime minister and the government decided this was the only course of action left if we were to keep this country together, to prevent its fragmentation, to prevent Khalistan. And having seen reports of about 2,000 militants inside (Amritsar's Golden Temple) with any number of machine guns, different types of weapons, it was clearly beyond the capabilities of the police force to flush out the militants from the Golden Temple; the task had to be entrusted to the Army."

He also alleges that Pakistan would have recognized Khalistan if Khalistan was declared.

Criticism of the attack

For over a year, the Indian army had been preparing for an attack on the Darbar Sahib. According to Subramaniam Swami, a member of the Indian Parliament, the central government had launched a disinformation campaign in order to legitimise the attack. In his words, the state sought to “make out that the Golden Temple was the haven of criminals, a store of armory and a citadel of the nation’s dismemberment conspiracy.”

The assassination of Indira Gandhi and subsequent rioting

On the morning of 31 October, 1984, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was shot dead by two Sikh security guards in New Delhi. The assassination triggered organised violence against Sikhs in the National Capital Delhi and some other parts of the country. Eminent writers allege that Politicians belonging to the ruling Congress party met to decide how to teach the Sikhs a lesson they would never forget. Hordes of people from the suburbs of Delhi were transported to various localities in the city where the Sikh population was concentrated. The mobilisation suggested (the) backing of an organisation with vast resources. The mob carried crude weapons and combustible material, including kerosene, for arson. They were allegedly supplied with lists of houses and business establishments belonging to the Sikhs in various localities. It was also alleged that State-operated national television was used by the state to incite violence against the Sikhs. In all, 2146 sikhs lost their lives in Delhi, while another 586 were said to have been killed elsewhere in the country .

The Perpetrators

Two major civil-liberties organisations issued a joint report on the anti-Sikh riots naming sixteen important politicians, thirteen police officers and one hundred and ninety-eight others, accused by survivors and eye-witnesses. In January 1985, journalist Rahul Bedi of the Indian Express and Smitu Kothari of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties “moved the High Court of Delhi to demand a judicial inquiry into the riots on the strength of the documentation carried out by human rights organisations. Justice Yogeshwar Dayal dismissed the petition after deprecating 'those busybodies out for publicity, who poke their noses into all matters and waste the valuable time of the judiciary.'”

Denial of justice

A number of politicians who organised the violence allegedly retained or attained positions of importance in the Congress party and even in the central government. The role of Delhi police also came into question with allegations of not just negligence in protecting the Sikhs but also of conniving in and instigating the riots. The Misra Commission was appointed to investigate the killings. According to Patwant Singh:

The Government received the Misra Commission’s report…and took six months to place it before parliament...(this finally happened) a full 27 months after the killings. A weak and vapid report, it let key Congress figures off the hook and characteristically recommended the setting up of three more committees…The third committee spawned two more committees plus an enquiry by the Central bureau of Investigation (CBI). When one of these two, the Poti-Rosha Committee, recommended 30 cases for prosecution, including one against Sajjan Kumar, Congress MP , and the CBI sent a team to arrest him on 11 September 1990, a mob held the team captive for more than four hours! According to the CBI’s subsequent affidavit filed in court, “the Delhi Police, far from trying to disperse the mob, sought an assurance from the CBI that he (Sajjan Kumar) would not be arrested.” The CBI also “disclosed that file relating to the case was found in Sajjan Kumar’s house.” The MP was given “anticipatory bail while the CBI team was being held captive” by his henchmen.

Patwant Singh continues,

Justice Mirsa became the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and after retirement, chairman of the National Human Rights Commission; the accused MPs, except one, were again given Congress tickets to stand for parliament; one of them, H.K.L. Bhagat, became a cabinet minister; three accused police officers were promoted and placed in high positions…The Sikhs, determined to see those they believe to be guilty punished, continue to press for justice although fully aware of the fact that in India too, as Solzhenitsyn wrote about his country, “the lie has become not just a moral category, but a pillar of the state.”

In May 2004, two senior Congress politicians, Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler, widely cited as perpetrators of the 1984 riots against Sikhs by survivors and witnesses. However, Lalit Makhan, another congress leader was gunned down by terrorists for his alleged involvement in the riots.

Sikh Militancy

During the late 1980s and the early 1990s, there was a dramatic rise in Sikh militancy in Punjab. Evidence suggests that the militants enjoyed some support within the Sikh masses in Punjab, atleast at the peaceful beginning of the Khalistan movement. The Times of India reported:

"Often and unwittingly…journalists fall prey to the government disinformation which suavely manages to plant stories…The confusion gets compounded when government agencies also resort to feeding disinformation on letterheads of militant organisations since there is no way of confirming or seeking clarifications on press notes supposedly issued by militants who are underground and remain inaccessible most of the time."

Peace Initiatives

It was alleged that there was reluctance on the part of the Central Government to recognise Sikh grievances. The Central government attempted to seek a political solution to the grievances of the Sikhs through the Rajiv-Longowal Accord, which took place between the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Harchand Singh Longowal, the then President of the Akali Dal. who was later assassinated. The accord recognised the religious, territorial and economic demands of the Sikhs that were thought to be non-negotiable under Indira Gandhi’s tenure. While the agreement provided some basis for a return to normalcy, it was denounced by Sikh militants who claimed that the Indian state could not be trusted. Harchand Singh Longowal was later assassinated by terrorists. The transfer has allegedly been delayed pending an agreement on the districts of Punjab that should be transferred to Haryana in exchange. The table below provides the solutions outlined in the agreement and the status of their implementation.