DATE : MARCH 24, 2012

Subject : ZAFARNAMA

Place : Palatine Library

Time : 10:00 A.M.

FIRST SESSION

Tea and Snacks : 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m.

Harvind Kaur will conduct this session.

IFCAPS President 5 minutes key note speech 11:00 a.m. – 11.05 a.m.

• Prof. Kulwant Singh Hundal 11.10 a.m. – 11.50 a.m.
• Prof Jagindar Singh Ramdev 11.55 a.m. – 12.35 p.m

Break Time 12.35 p.p. to 1.00 p.m.

• Dr. Pashaura Singh 1.05 p.m. – 1.45 p.m.
• Dr. Swaranjeet Singh 1.50 p.m. – 2.30 p.m.

Question Answer: 2.35 p.m. – 3.15 p.m.

SECOND SESSION

COMMUNITY PERSONS

3.20 p.m. – 4.20 p.m.

IFCAPS is dedicated to promoting educational awareness regarding conflicts in South Asia and resolve those conflicts through dialogue. IFCAPS is focused on South Asian Minority, Religious, Political, Economic, Water disputes and other Social conflicts. IFCAPS major agenda is to create a positive dialogue and an archive of research materials and artifacts on south Asian conflicts.

President of IFCAPS Sadhu Singh Rikhiraj welcome the Scholars and community members.

Dr. Swaranjeet Singh, Executive Director of IFCAPS explain the reason behind this dialogue said,”South Asia is home to many different religions and these religions do not always live in harmony. Also, different religions have disputes inside their communities. These dispute are inter-related with the South Asian Political system. In the recent years a large conflict has arisen between the Scholars and Communities in regards to the approach to understanding scripture. We respect both sides approaches and interpretations. However, Communities feel Scholars are misrepresenting their beliefs and Scholars feel Community members do not have skills to understand the dimension of scriptures. This is a dispute between belief and logic. To remove this dispute we need a positive dialogue. Lets talk about this agenda how both of them respond to each other to begin a positive movement in South Asia through religious dialogue.”

Harvind Kaur Singh Director of Communications of IFCAPS facilitate the program. She said, A DIALOGUE: SCHOLARS AND COMMUNITIES RESPOND TO EACH OTHER Event is part of the Institute For Conflict And Peace Studies, (Otherwise referred to as IFCAPS) ongoing lecture series. Post 9/11 atmosphere religion has become an area of public and political concern. As the world grasps to find meaning, religion plays an integral role in both unifying pluralistic societies and dividing them, by painting some traditions as too radical or too much the other. There is also, particularly in South Asia, the ascendence of more radicalized forms of religion that have taken over the public and political conversation. This is true for both major Countries in the region: India and Pakistan. With these ideas in mind and the mission of IFCAPS at the fore our board realized that the two parties in this debate who need to be able to sit at the table and share ideas are scholars and the communities they study.pastedGraphic_1.pdf

Professor Wendy Doniger is the Mircea Eliade distinguished service Professor of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago. She is also in the department of South Asian Languages and Civilizations, the committee on Social thought, and the College. She has her MA and PhD from Harvard a D. Phil from Oxford University. She is a prolific author and her research and teaching interests focus around Hinduism and Mythology. To her credit are translations from Sanskrit of the Rig Veda, the Laws of Mannu and much more. Her recent book, The Hindus: An Alternative History has been met with resistance. She is the foremost Scholar on Hinduism in the World and brings to us not only a wealth of knowledge, but significant insight from the study of original texts over a lifetime of amazing achievement.

She focused her discussion on the current reaction of Hindus to academic work that is promoted by the new political agenda of India. Her current book is banned in India and she herself is unable to travel there because of fear of arrest She believes that the current assault against her academic work and others is based on a change in how Hindus have re-Defined themselves due in large part to Vivek Ananda. She terms this more ‘Philosophical’ Hinduism which is increasingly less pluralistic and Reaching for a singular definition that does not allow all aspects of ancient Hindu culture to be recognized but forces only certain aspects to be considered real regardless of Historical fact facts and textual studies. Dr. Doniger is disturbed and concerned by this trend because of the fear and threats posed by community members opposed to such scholarship.

DR. Pashaura Singh holds the Dr. Jasbir Singh Saini Endowed Chair in Sikh and Punjabi studies at the University of California, Riverside. Prior to this Dr. Singh taught Sikh Studies, Punjabi Language and Religion of India for thirteen years at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor. His tenure there was fraught with discord due to the lack of Dialogue between the Sikh Community and Dr. Singh’s scholarship relating to the Adi Granth. His scholarship focuses on contemporary issues in the Textual studies. Canonicity, Hermeneutics, Literary theory and the History of religion.

Dr. Singh focused his topic on the three main ways that texts relating to religious communities are approached.He explained Doctrinal reading, Historical reading and Literary reading three ways during his discussion. He used this method to outline that the believers reading of the Text has different outcomes due to the method of trying to understand a Text versus an academic looking through the lens of History or literature.

Oakton Community College faculty, Students and Sikh community members participated in the discussion panel. Holly Graft, Madhuri Deshmukh, Inderjit Singh Mukker and Harmeet Singh played a really well role to make this event successful.

Pashaura Singh
(Lecture delivered at “A Dialogue: Scholars and Communities Respond to Each Other” organized jointly by the Institute for Conflict and Peace Studies (IFCAPS) and Oakton’s Peace and Social Justice Studies Program at Oakton Community College, Des Plains, IL, November 13, 2010)

Let me begin with a brief introduction to my presentation at the outset. First, I will briefly talk about the title of my presentation, ‘pulpit versus podium’. Second, I will walk you through the PowerPoint presentation how we introduce the students to pulpit and podium approaches at the university by addressing the questions: What are the faculty obligations in teaching controversial issues in the classroom? What approaches are followed in studying a scripture by different readers? Third, I will address the reasons for the charged religious reaction to academic scholarship in the field of Sikh studies. In fact, it has affected me on a most personal level. The audience may be aware of the controversy in the media over my doctoral thesis over the last eighteen years. When the controversy began in October 1992, I decided I would assist in the calm conclusion of the matter by saying nothing. Most of the people who had started the debate were not following academic norms. Some of the reviews were extremely hostile, violating the spirit of reasoned debate and civility, and some were simply personal attacks. In view of this stressful situation, I somehow managed to stay calm. Finally, I will talk about ‘town-gown conversation’ in which scholars and communities enter into a creative dialogue.

Pulpit versus Podium:

In our society, there are two chief ways through which religions are studied. The differing purposes and functions of these two ways are aptly captured in the images of pulpit and podium as described by June O’Connor in her brief article.¹

The pulpit represents the confessional approach to understanding religion. This approach is universally followed by religious preachers who instruct and nurture the understanding and religious participation of their communities. For instance, this approach is visible in the work of priests and ministers who preach the messages of Christianity in the churches, in the work of rabbis who explain the riches of Judaism in the synagogues, and in the work of imams who communicate the meanings and values of Islam in the mosques. Similarly, Hindu priests, Buddhist monks, and Sikh gianis inform and nourish the religious life of their communities in Hindu and Buddhist temples and Sikh gurdwaras. Likewise, the spiritual leaders of other religious communities share their views and values, beliefs and practices in home and temple, on land and in lodge, practicing and preaching their religions in ways that will nurture the religious faith of their communities.

The podium represents the academic approach to understanding religions. The academic approach is visible in the work of scholars and professors in colleges and universities who seek to inform students about the religions of the world. The academic study of religions uses the tools and resources of the human sciences. Thus, students and scholars of religions employ a variety of approaches characteristic of the humanities, social sciences, and arts as they respond to a wide range of academic questions. They tap historical, psychological, sociological, anthropological, textual, philosophical, ethical, and comparative methods, seeking to satisfy their curiosity, inform their minds, expand their thinking, and develop their abilities to examine religions and the many debates about them both appreciatively and critically. Religions are studied as cross-cultural features of human life. In the University, we seek to understand what religious people believe, think, do, value, and hope for — and what critics of religion have to say as well. We work to understand the ways in which religions operate in the world, for good and for ill. Students are encouraged to engage in the processes of inquiry and investigation with open-minded attention to sources such as texts, practices, and participants. In the process of doing so, they are expected to grow in the skills of paying disciplined attention to the facts, noticing and analyzing claims, engaging in appreciative, critical, and comparative analysis and interpretation, and developing skills in oral and written communication through which they express their developing insights, understandings, and new questions.

These differing approaches to the understanding of religions are not oppositional. But neither ought they to be confused with each other, for each has its own distinctive mission and purpose.

Different Approaches to Studying a Scripture:

We can illustrate the pulpit and podium approaches followed in the study of textual traditions of world religions. In order to make sense of different approaches to studying a scripture let us look at the following Figure 1 carefully. From the theoretical schema given in this diagram, we notice that in the case of doctrinal reading there is a screen of beliefs and other theological presuppositions in front of the eye of the reader. The interpreter is approaching the text with preconceived intentions. In other words, there is a world before the text through which the interpreter is trying to make sense of the text. This mode of interpretation may be seen in almost all major schools of interpretations within the Sikh tradition, although the theological presuppositions will be different in each individual case. In certain instances, this approach turns into a fundamentalist variety that leaves no room for any other interpretation.

Figure 1

In the case of historical reading, the critical historian is trying to make sense of the world behind the text. That is, one is interested in understanding the cultural, historical, and literary influences that gave rise to individual texts. One is further interested in knowing the author’s original intention. The interpreter in this case approaches the text through the new lens of historical reason and research rather than through the perspective of theology and traditional formulations. It should be emphasized here, however, that it is not entirely possible for any historian to be absolutely free from any preconceived intention. At times, one might not be aware of one’s own unconscious subjectivity. But the goal of the historian should always be to utilize the rigors of investigation based on the principles of truth and detachment, and to offer no more than tentative claims based upon historical probability. Indeed, true scholarship aspires to do no more. The nature of historical knowledge is always limited by the character and extent of evidence, and can be altered by the discovery of new evidence or by the development of new methods of analyzing the available data.

Finally, in the case of literary interpretation one approaches the text without preconceived intention in order to explore the many possibilities of its meaning, and confronts the world in front of the text. For instance, each act of hermeneutic encounter with the Adi Granth text is unique since it is the encounter with the eternal Guru as disclosed in it. Thus it is the text that illumines the interpreter like radiance, not the interpreter who illumines the text. In order to appreciate this phenomenon we need to look at Paul Rocoeur’s magical looking-glass theory of textual meaning. He asserts that the meaning of a text does not lie behind it, in the region of intention and ostensive reference, but in front of it in the space of interpretation. Thus the interpretation of a text begins to show itself only in action and conduct.²

These are the three important approaches to studying a scripture. While the doctrinal reading reflects the pulpit approach, the historical and literary readings demonstrate the podium approach followed in the university setting.

Controversies in Sikh Studies:

In the west, Sikh Studies is a newly emerging field in the larger context of the study of religion and South Asian studies in the academy. Like any other new field of enquiry it is passing through the phase of ‘growing pains’ in its quest for legitimacy in academic mainstream. During the last three decades there has been a charged religious reaction to academic scholarship from a small but a vocal minority of Sikhs who are incapable of adjusting to the secular nature of Western universities. These critics of ‘critical scholarship’ have been nurtured in the more traditional mode of interpretation of the Sikh tradition. Following the legacy of the Singh Sabha (“Society of the Singhs”), a nineteenth-century reform movement which attempted to bring contemporary Sikhism more into line with Eurocentric understandings of religion, they adopted an approach to rebut perceived distortions or misrepresentations of Sikh religion and history. Any kind of scholarly ideas and interpretations that did not appear to pass a litmus test of “authentic representation of tradition” became the target of their polemical attacks. This organized group was able to exercise considerable control over the Sikh press and mobilize public opinion against both Sikh and non-Sikh scholars, following the historical-critical method in their study.

The censure of scholarly research was intimately linked with the complex political situation of the Punjab. As a result of Operation Blue Star of 1984 and the rise of militancy in the Punjab, the role of Akali leadership was marginalized within the Sikh community to a large extent. But in the early 1990s the movement of a separate state of Khalistan was crushed by the Congress-led government in the Punjab. This suppression of militancy created a vacuum in Sikh politics that provided an opportunity for the Akalis, particularly the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committe (SGPC), to stage a political revival. The scholarly controversy provided a handy tool for the SGPC leadership to assert its authority. Thus they used the very powerful rhetoric of “Granth in Danger” (in contrast to the famous slogan of “Panth in Danger”) to regain their lost credibility. Not surprisingly, the picture on the dust jacket of J.S. Grewal’s book Contesting Interpretations of the Sikh Tradition, showing the destruction of the Akal Takhat in 1984 by the Indian army, rightly links the scholarly controversy with the agony through which the Sikh community passed in that period. For almost a decade after the events of 1984 the Sikhs worldwide were undergoing a traumatic experience. This was the highly inflamed political context in which scholars were trying to develop an intellectual understanding of the Sikh tradition through the lens of the Punjab crisis. It is no wonder that this was the time when the number of Sikh critics of W.H. McLeod’s scholarship dramatically increased with the inclusion of ‘retired judges, civil servants, army officers, former ministers, and Vice Chancellors’. McLeod was seen as serving the interests of those forces which were inimical to the Sikh tradition and hostile to Sikh aspirations. Both the external and internal forces within the Panth successfully used the scholarly controversy to mobilize public opinion.

The political situation in the Punjab, however, must be placed in the larger context of what is happening in India in recent times. There has been a growing – and scary – tendency in India to try to convert religious commitment into political discipline. This is happening not only within the Sikh community, but also among Muslims and Hindus. One manifestation of such a tendency would be the enforcement of overt orthodoxy and a very literal reading of sacred texts. It should be emphasized that depth of religious commitment may have very little to do with such matters. What is important is the number of potential supporters that one political block can show to another, all marching in lock step and willing to vote or protest together. In the context of insecurities about their place in India and the future of their youth growing up in the diaspora, these vigilantes attack non-conformist scholars to fill a convenient ideological space, demonstrating the solidarity of Punjab-based scholars and diasporan Sikh professionals with contemporary projects of nation building and religious revival. In the process they make desperate attempts to control the memory of Sikh past in ways that suit their own ideological agendas.

The main objectives of any scholarly inquiry remain the ideals of truth and understanding. Throughout his works Guru Nanak has stressed the “search for truth” and the “sense of distinction” (bibek) between factual and stereotypical statements. He declares: “A [true] researcher (khoji) always grows, whereas a [mean-spirited] wrangler (badi) vanishes” (AG, p. 1255). A genuine academic intent is not to demean, dismantle, or offend. Rather, it is to explore, probe, and imagine, using the various disciplinary approaches – even drawing on forms of interpretation that may not be indigenous to a particular religious tradition but may be illuminating and novel. Academic techniques are certainly going to be different from those of theologians and traditional scholars. To understand a religious tradition from an academic perspective we must follow the established scholarly norms and resolve academic issues through academic methods. Advancement of knowledge takes place only through the presentation of better evidence, not by attacking the proponent of the idea we dislike. Civility and respect for people holding different views must be maintained at all levels of an academic debate.

Academic scholarship cannot be based on conspiracies. People often do not agree on certain issues, and this is precisely the nature of an academic debate. What we need to learn is an open attitude towards all serious questions. We should always keep in mind that the intolerant reactions to academic scholarship are sometimes heightened by ideological positioning within different factions in the body politic of a religious community. The real issue is, however, between academic freedom, a value taken for granted in the West, and a dogmatic stand based on the unholy mix of religion and manipulative politics which does not tolerate alternative interpretation of a sacred text.

The kind of socio-religious controversy surrounding the works of the scholars of the Sikh tradition is not something new. It is surprisingly archaic and happens most of the time in homogenous old-world societies. Thus it is structural / political and is similar to the experiences of scholars working in comparable contexts. The issues pertaining to South Asian modernization and diaspora provide the key to understand its true nature. There are certainly many conservative followers of Western traditions, too, who do not like much of the academic discourse about their traditions. They have, nevertheless, adapted to the existence of that discourse. Although they may ignore academic discourse as trivial in its disregard of real religious truth, they frequently glean insights from it despite perceived distortions. In the classroom, we frequently observe that analytic understandings help many contemporary students come to terms with their own traditions and appreciate them all the more at this stage of their development. In the West, Sikh Studies is a new field, and much of the reaction to scholars’ work reflects the Sikh community’s relative lack of experience with analytic understanding of their tradition. As that experience grows, Sikhs are likely to make adaptations and discoveries similar to those of their counterparts from other religious traditions–often ignoring analytic works as not serious, sometimes appreciating them in part.

Occasionally, a small number of ‘self-appointed guardians of sentiment’ can successfully coerce and intimidate others in an academic setting. They try to silence the scholars because they claim to take offense and insist that their sentiments trump scholarly pursuit of knowledge. Reflecting the postmodern discourse of power these zealots want to take away power and agency from the scholars and want to erase them through intimidation. In view of this alarming situation scholarship must continue as a moral practice to pursue the search for truth and understanding. As scholars we must protect the integrity of what we do and do our work with utmost clarity, resolve, and diligence. We have a moral responsibility to be accurate, and if we are in error we must own our mistakes. We must use extreme caution and circumspection in presenting our innovative ideas for critical appraisal by our readers. Above all, we must rededicate ourselves to our vocation of critical inquiry when we are attacked by the vigilantes.

Town-Gown Conversation:

Today, the total population of the Sikhs in the world is around twenty-five million, a figure which is higher than the global population of the Jewish community. This fact notwithstanding Sikhism, as the youngest ‘world religion’, receives far less attention academically than Judaism, the oldest ‘world religion’, despite the affinities which exist between both the Sikh and Jewish traditions. The reasons for this are many and varied. One is the shear fact of their chronological existence. As the world’s youngest major religion, Sikhism has had to address issues and divergent approaches in a more “compact” time frame and within a context of persistent political turmoil. Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other major religions have spent centuries working through various theological, philosophical, and cultural dilemmas while Sikhism has only just begun to make its impact in both the scholarly field and the world of comparative religion and ethics.

In fact, a great deal of ignorance still persists in North America about the Sikhs and their religious traditions. Not surprisingly, the first victim of racial backlash during the recent crisis after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 was a Sikh, Balbir Singh Sodhi of Arizona, who was shot dead by an angry gunman calling himself a patriot. Mr. Sodhi became the target because of a mistaken identity. Despite the economic success of the Sikhs in America, they have largely experienced social isolation, an experience which springs from a pervasive ignorance about Sikhs and Sikhism in this part of the world. People simply do not know who Sikhs are. The town-gown conversation will certainly go a long way to make Sikhs more familiar to members of the University community and will help break down barriers which exist between Sikhs and other people who perceive them in a stereotypical manner.

The internet has indeed exposed the colorful diversity of Sikh life in its global context. No single group can afford to monopolize the debate on any single issue. Surfing through different Sikh websites and discussion groups one can easily realize that there is a need to look at Sikhism from a global perspective. There are multiple ways to approach Sikh topics in various academic disciplines. As a matter of fact, the early twenty first century continues to be a very exciting time for Sikh Studies. Within the last generation scholars have begun to question the prevailing attitudes towards the study of Sikhism in both the west and India itself to the point that this least examined and perhaps most misunderstood of South Asia’s religious and cultural traditions now occupies seven academic chairs within the United States and one in Canada, with more proposed. It should therefore elicit little surprise that undergraduate and graduate courses in Sikh Studies, particularly Sikh history and religion, have been increasing dramatically over the last decade, a rise which corresponds in part to Sikh immigration into Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. But the field of Sikh Studies will come of age only when it becomes an integral part of academic mainstream in North American universities.

Let me conclude this formal presentation with an impassioned plea to the members of the Sikh community, particularly Sikh organizations of North America, to work together in the discipline-based training of a new generation of promising young scholars in the area of Sikh Studies. This will open up a wide range of academic appointment options for the young man or woman contemplating commitment to a lifetime of scholarship in the field. These trained scholars will be an asset to the community at large. They will be able to provide the Sikh youth with university-level instruction in their religious and cultural tradition, and to make that tradition accessible to the wider non-Sikh community. Let us set aside confrontation in pursuit of a win-win strategy that will help usher in a new era of cooperation and understanding.

Notes

1. This section is adapted from June O’Connor, “Pulpit and Podium,” Journal of Theta Alpha Kappa, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring 2003): 63-4.
2. The details of these three approaches is taken from my The Guru Granth Sahib: Canon, Meaning and Authority (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, originally published in 2000; sixth paperback impression, 2009), pp. 259-261.

Last Saturday, Dr. Cynthia Keppley Mahmood from the University of Notre Dame was honored with “ਹਾਅ ਦਾ ਨਾਅਰਾ” award by IFCAPS in recognition for her dedicated services to the study of Sikhs. The Institute for Conflict and Peace Studies honored her for her commitment to honesty, integrity in her academic pursuits and for standing on the side of truth regardless of the consequences. The award was in the form of a Certificate and a check for $1000.00. The event took place at Oakton Community College in Des Plaines, IL. The award was presented to Dr. Mahmood by the President of IFCAPS, S. Sadhu Singh Rikhiraj. Explaining the idea behind this award Executive Director of IFCAPS Dr. Swaranjeet Singh said “This award has been established in memory of the courageous deed of sympathy and compassion shown by Nawab of Malerkotla who fearlessly opposed cruel martyrdom of the younger Sahibzadas of Guru Gobind Singh ji. With the same fervor and zeal Dr. Mahmood is fighting for the rights of the Sikhs in courthouses of the Western Hemisphere. This award will not be an annual event: however it will be awarded to those courageous enough to dedicate themselves to serving the cause of Truth and giving voice to the oppressed. This award will transcend all geographical, social and religious boundaries. Dr. Mahmood is the first deserving, brave and selfless woman candidate for this award who risked her personal safety and her career to stand by truth and justice. Sikhs will always remain indebted to her for this invaluable service.

The program started with S. Sadhu Singh Rikhiraj welcoming the participants; remembering and reminding the audience about the agonizing tragedy of 1984. Thereafter, IFCAPS Director of Communications Bibi Harvind Kaur recited Gurbani Shabad. The audience maintained silence in memory of those who were mercilessly massacred in 1984. During this silent tribute, the audience was shown the horrific reality of the Delhi Pogroms and the Operation Blue Star through historic photographs. Bibi Harvind Kaur introduced Dr. Mahmood and invited her to express her views about the ghastly tragedy of 1984 and the plight of Sikhs today. Without mincing words she expressed the following, “In reflecting on the twenty-five years since the tragedies of 1984, I focused particularly on the wider context of the conflict in Punjab and the Sikh movement for self-determination. Based on twenty years of intimate research with the Sikh community, I noted the insularity of this community and its tendency towards concentration on internal dynamics rather than building relationships with other communities, working on shaping the external perception of the Sikh experience, and learning from the comparative history of other movements for self-determination. I emphasized the notion of readiness to seize moments of opportunity, and discussion ensued around how the global Sikh panth could work now on issues of unity, communication and planning that have thus far been elusive.” She further said within her lecture that, “It is impossible for Sikhs to forget the tragedy of 1984. There are many facets to this tragedy. This tragedy is the direct result of establishing a Centralized System of government that took away the rights of states to self determination .In the changing circumstances of today, 1973 document prepared by Sirdar Kapur Singh, is the best alternative and solution to the problems faced by minorities in India. Sikhs should unite and pursue this course. In the changing circumstances of the last twenty five years, Sikhs should also change their approach. Because of the curse of prevailing caste consciousness, the Dalits are moving away from mainstream Sikhism. Negative approach towards splinter groups- within the brotherhood – by the mainstream Sikhs and their insular mentality and preoccupation within the Gurudwaras has given birth to too many problems that they face today. Current statistics show that Sikhs top in domestic violence. This is highly disappointing to Sikhs and sympathizers seeking solutions to the problems faced by the Sikhs.”

During question/answer session Dr. Mahmood provided highly logical answers. During this time Dr. Swaranjeet Singh, also clearly expressed IFCAPS position on the complex river waters issue in Panjab, he said “This issue of river waters should be settled according to International Law. This issue pertains to riparian rights of states. It is a problem: not a conflict. The division of 1947 is a conflict that has lead to this agonizing problem. Since the Punjab has been divided many times, its riparian and geographical integrity has been violated. Solution to this nagging problem lies in re-establishing a riparian state from the Sindh River to the Jamuna River. The division of the Panjab is the root cause of this problem. Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinah both are responsible for this problem. Sikhs are paying price for the problem created by them.”

To conclude the event, Prof. Kulwant Singh Hundal thanked all the organizers and lecture attendys. He also acknowledge the work of Inderjit Singh, Ifcaps, Director of Public Relations and outreach. He was special thankful to the donors who support the Ifcaps. Lakhwinder Singh Cheema, Surinder Singh, Narinder Singh, Harmeet Singh, Ravi Singh, Karamjit Singh, Amardev Singh, Santokh Singh, Hardeep Singh Gill, Inderbir Singh Gill, Ujagar Singh Gill, Mandeep Kaur Gill, Upawan Kaur, Irwinpreet Singh, Sukhvir Kaur, Kuldeep Singh Makkar, Surinderpal Singh Kalra, Dr. Baldev Singh, Prof. Jagindar Singh Ramdev, Thakar Singh Basati. Jaswinder Singh,Harjinder Singh Jindi, Harbans Singh, Amrikpal Singh, Bibi Jasvir Kaur, Bibi Gurbachan Kaur , Bibi Mann Kaur, Gurdev Singh, Tirlochan Kaur, Gaurav Singh, Hardeep Singh Komal, Amrit Kaur, Sewa Singh Virdi, Narinderpal Singh Marwaha, Amolak Singh, R.S.Mahal, Jaspal Singh Bajwa, Tara Singh Hundal, Bhupinder Singh Hundal, Lal Singh, Surinder Singh, Sarwan Singh, Harpinder Singh, Rajinder Singh, Inder Kaur, Ginni and more Chicago land respectable families participated in the event.

- Dr. Amrik Singh

This is regarding the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, unanimously passed by the Punjab Assembly on July 12, ’04, which has shaken the country to its roots resulting in the President of India seeking Supreme Court’s verdict whether or not the Act was lawful.

Among the series of injustices and deprivations suffered by Punjab since the partition of India in 1947, the Government of India again struck a deadly blow to Punjab while passing the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, by incorporating there in the unconstitutional provisions of sections 78, 79 and 80 in regards to control of Bhakra Dam Project and its hydel works. When the Punjab Akali Dal Government challenged it in the Supreme Court, it was dismissed by the Government of India . The new Congress Chief Minister Darbara Singh had to withdraw the case from the Supreme Court under pressure.

Water being of crucial importance, some Punjab Farmers Organizations put in Writ petitions in the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the illegality of these sections. The Chief Justice S.S. Sandhanwalia after preliminary arguments, constituted a full bench, with himself as the Presiding Judge, and ordered on 22.11.1983 the last working day of the week, that the case be heard on 25.11.1983. During the intervening two days (holidays) two things happened. Justice Sandhanwalia was transferred to Patna High Court. The Attorney General of India made an oral request to the Supreme Court that the case being of national importance, it should be decided by the Supreme Court. The request was granted. The case was taken on the Supreme Court file for adjudication in Nov. 1983 where it is still pending for the last 21 years.

Much later, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on Jan. 15, 2002 , responding to a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution ordered the completion of the S.Y.L. (Sutlej Yumna Link) Canal within one year of this order. It is this order that the Punjab press and politician all over India are asking for compliance by the Punjab Govt. forgetting about the cases filed by the Punjab Farmers Organizations in 1983, which are still pending.

The Indus Basin Water Treaty, 1960.

Before partition of India , Ravi , Beas and Sutlej rivers flowed into the present Pakistan areas as well. But later, during the fifties of the last century when Indian Govt. tried to divert the waters of these rivers to India , a war like situation developed between India and Pakistan . In view of these explosive circumstances, the World Bank intervened to construct two dams for water storage and some new Canal system in Pakistan and provided massive financial assistance amounting to 1.09 Billion dollars for this project besides other technical expertise. While emphasizing the urgency for this project, President Mohd. Ayub of Pakistan pleaded with the President of World Bank saying, I have travelled the areas likely to be affected by the withdrawal of these water to India. People have told me very plainly that if they have to die through thirst and hunger, they would prefer to die in battle. …………This is a human problem of grave nature and can not be blinked away. With the help of friendly countries such as USA, the UK, Canada, West Germany, Australia and New Zealand who provided funds and other needed assistance, the Indo Basin Water Treaty, 1960, came into force allocating the three eastern rivers Ravi, Beas and Sutlej to India and the western rivers Chenab, Jhelam and Sindh to Pakistan. This saved a very ugly situation in the Indian Sub Continent.

It was during the investigation by the World Bank regarding the use of waters of these three eastern rivers, that India in order to strength its case for more waters included Rajasthan’s need of 8 M.A.F. (Million Acre Feet) water which later resulted in construction of the Harike Headworks for carrying water to Rajasthan. But let it be clearly understood that it was a different matter to do this exercise for consumption of the World Bank, but drastically tragic, inhuman, immoral and above all unconstitutional act to carry away 75% of the Punjab river waters to the non-riparian states of Rajasthan, Haryana and Delhi. The late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi gave her award in 1976 in respect of the 15.2 M.A.F. waters of the three Punjab rivers as under;

Punjab and Haryana to get . . . . . . 3.5 M.A.F. each

Delhi to get . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 M.A.F.

Rajasthan to get . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 M.A.F.

This unfair distribution was done when the entire water of these rivers was not sufficient even for the Punjab as the following figures would show;

a) Total cultivable area in Punjab ……………………………..105 Lakh Acres

b) Annual water requirement per acre of land for

two crops of wheat and rice…………………………………5 Acre feet of water

c) Total annual water requirement of Punjab ……………105 lakh x 5 = 5 Crores and

25 Lakhs Acre feet of Water

Total water annually available in the three rivers ………..3 Crores and 27 Lakh Acre feet

In other words, Punjab is short of about 2 crores acre feet of water annually.

The illegal and unethical 75% allocation of the three Punjab river waters to non-riparian states had resulted in the following situation in Punjab during the eighties of the last century.

a) Areas irrigated by canal waters……………………………..35 Lakh Acres.

b) Areas irrigated by tubewells………………………………..50 Lakh Acres.

c) Areas without any means of irrigation, except rainfall………20 Lakh Acres.

In 1960-61 there were 91 thousands tubewells in Punjab . By 1981 this number increased to 6 Lakhs, half of them run by diesel.

Irrigation by canal water is the cheapest and the best. Tubewell irrigation by electricity is three times more costly and by diesel is ten times more costly than by the canal water.

Besides this, the ground water table in Punjab is shallow. As such not more than thirty lakh Acre feet of water should be drawn out by the tubewells. But by 1981, 120 lakh acres feet of water was drawn out by the 6 lakh tubewells. A quarter century later, i.e. at present, situation has become chaotic. It has resulted in water level table going down by 15-20 feet in Punjab rendering many tubewells dry and unworkable and resulting in many cases of suicides by the Punjab farmers. It is this Punjab who had made the starving Indian nation a surplus state in foodgrain through Green and White Revolutions during the Sixties of the last century and got itself turned into a semi – desert. A Prof. of Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana , recorded, How long shall this state of affairs last? We must take steps to correct the situation, lest our children and grand children inherit a land returned to semi-desert.

According to Tribune, Chandigarh , of Aug. 3,’04 ( internet ) the four – point reference by the President had sought the Supreme Courts opinion on;

I ) Whether the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act 2004, and its provisions

are in accordance in the Constitutions of India .

II ) Whether the said Act and its provisions are in accordance with the provisions

of Section 14 of the Inter – State Water Dispute Act, 1956, Section 78 of the

Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, and the Notification of March 24, 1976 ,

issued there under.

III ) Whether the State of Punjab has validly terminated the Agreement of Dec 31,

1981, and all other Agreements relating to Ravi – Beas Waters and is discharged

from the obligation under the said Agreements.

IV ) Whether in view of the said Act, passed by Punjab on July 12,’04 , it is

discharged from the obligation flowing from the Supreme Court Judgment

on Jan 15, 2002 and June 4, 2004 , in the S.Y.L. Canal .

The following maxim is inscribed on the steps of Supreme Court in Washington DC :

Where Law ends, tyranny begins !

But where the law is tyrannical, what happens !

The river waters is a State Subject according to the Constitution of India. As such, the Govt. of India cannot pass any law with regard to the management of river waters but by the inclusion of Sections 78, 79 and 80 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, the Govt. of India retained control of the Bhakra Dam Project and its hydel works, which is clearly un Constitutional. It is, therefore, that the Supreme Court has not taken up the petitions of Farmers Organization during the last 21 years. It was under these suffocating circumstances that the Punjab Assembly had passed the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, to avoid disaster to the Punjab State . Also, the Punjab Assembly had rejected even earlier the above quoted distribution of Punjab River Waters to the non – riparian states vide its resolution of Nov. 5, 1985. Hence the imperative need is to request the Supreme Court to first pronounce on the Writ petitions of Farmers Organizations, pending since 1983, before taking up the President’s reference for opinion.

This is, Sir, the background to understand the present Punjab River Waters problem requiring immediately petitions of mercy to the Supreme Court for which a model is given below.

Yours Sincerely,

Karnail Singh.

Dear Hon’ble Chief Justice,

Some Farmers Organizations and other Punjabis had filed some Writ petitions in the Punjab & Haryana High Court in 1983. The purpose of these writs was to challenge the Constitutional validity of sections 78, 79 and 80 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act 1966. The Hon’ble Supreme Court transferred these cases to itself for adjudication during the year 1983. It is the contention of the Punjab farmers as well as Constitutional experts that the above quoted sections violate the principles enshrined in the Constitution of India.

We the undersigned are concerned about the fate of the Punjab which squarely depends upon whether it will be able to retain its own river water or not. We request the Hon’ble Court through you to give a judicial finding on these Writ petitions taken up by the Court 21 years ago and never heard of again.

We further believe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot render proper and legal advice to the President of India over the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act 2004 unless it first pronounces upon the legal aspects of the above mentioned writ petitions pending before the Supreme Court since 1983.

The Hon’ble Mr R.C. Lahoti,

Chief Justice of Supreme Court Yours Faithfully

Tilak Marg,

New Delhi, India. ( )

C.C.

1. The Hon’ble Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam

President of India ,

Rashtra Bhavan, New Delhi .

2. Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh,

Govt. of India ,

Central Civil Secretariate,

New Delhi , India

3. Capt. Amrinder Singh,

Chief Minister,

Govt. of Punjab ,

Chandigarh India

- Gurtej Singh, Ex-IAS

Water Needs of Punjab: Punjab has a cultivable area of 105 lac, acres. According to the experts, the normal acre of wheat-paddy rotation needs about 5 acre-feet of water, per acre or 52.5 M.A.F. for its entire cultivable area. Since Punjab Rivers have only 32 M.A.F. of water in its Rivers, its water resources are hardly adequate for 60% of its cultivable area. But, the unfortunate position today is that out of 32 M.A.F. the major share has been allotted to non-riparian states. Punjab, thus, is obliged to reduce its surface water supply rate per acre to less than to 2 acre feet, and have resort to heavy, expensive, and, to an extent, suicidal tube-well irrigation. At present, of the 90 lac acres irrigated in the Punjab, less than 38 lac acres are irrigated by canals and over 52 lac acres irrigated by over seven lac tube-wells of which only about half are run by electricity.

Unconstitutional Contrivance used for Usurpation of Punjab Waters and Hydel Power
Under item 17 of the state list-II, Shedule 7 of the Indian Constitution, River waters, irrigation, canals, Hydel power and land are state subjects and the state legislature and government have exclusive legislative and executive powers under Articles 162 and 246(3) of the Indian Constitution. But, in 1966 when the Centre was obliged to create the Punjabi Suba, it incorporated Sections 78 to 80 in the Punjab Re-organisation Act of 1966 (P.R. Act) vesting in the Central government powers of control, maintenance, distribution and development of the waters and Hydel power of Punjab Rivers. Under these Sections any unresolved dispute between Punjab and Haryana regarding River waters is referred for Central decision. This Act was patently violative of the Indian Constitution because (a) it made a legislation about the River waters and Hydel power of Punjab Rivers which subjects were in the exclusive jurisdiction of the State, and, (b) it was discriminatory since, on the one hand, it applied the riparian principle to Yamuna waters by letting it remain as a subject for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Haryana Govt. and legislature, and, on the other hand, it took Central control for the maintenance, distribution and development of the waters and Hydel power of Punjab Rivers running exclusively in the state. It is, thus, an obvious case of heads I win and tales you lose, and a patent violation of the Indian Constitution which embodies the universally accepted riparian principle, based on the equitable convention that those who for centuries have suffered losses in life and property from the ravages and floods of a River are the only people entitled to the benefits of its waters and Hydel power. It is this principle which has been observed at the time of division of the Madras state into Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, again, at the time of the decision about Narmada Water when it was clearly laid down that Rajasthan had no locus standi nor any rights to its waters, it being non-riparian regarding that River.

But the Central Government maneuvered, rather coerced the Punjab State, when it had a Congress Government, into coming to an agreement with the Congress Governments of Haryana and Rajasthan and part with a major portion of its River waters as indicated above.

As to Hydel power, the PR Act provided that Hydel power to Haryana would go to it in proportion so the Punjab Rivers waters alloted to it. In 1984 Punjab had constructed a Thermal plant and wanted the use of its own River waters for its cooling arrangements. But the Central Government, which was in control of the Bhakhra Project, would not allow it, and used that control as a lever to pressurise Punjab into entering into an agreement with Haryana and Rajasthan Governments accepting that all Hydel power disputes would be submitted for decision to a Commission appointed by the Centre.

The Economic Future of Punjab Jeopardized:
The losses of Punjab are manifold.
(1) The capitalised value at the 1980 rates, of the Punjab waters transferred to the non-riparian states is Rupees 36000 crores.
(2) The recurring loss of crops alone and corresponding gains to the non-riparian states is about Rupees 2500 crores per annum.
(3) The loss on account of industrial production because of transfer of Hydel power to non-riparian states is many times that of the annual loss of agricultural production.
(4) Electric tube-well irrigation being six times, diesel irrigation being twenty times more expensive than canal irrigation, the additional expense incurred by way of investment and interest is over hundreds of crores each year.
(5) The flood loss suffered by Punjab each year is colossal. The enormity of this injustice and drain can be judged from the fact that in the 1988 floods alone, the Punjab state suffered a loss of over 20 billion rupees in property alone apart from loss, and suffering of human life, while the principal beneficiaries of Punjab waters and Hydel power, namely the non-riparian states of Rajasthan, Haryana and Delhi, and their people did not suffer even a penny worth of loss from the Punjab floods.
(6) The greatest anticipated calamity from this unconstitutional diversion, is the continuous lowering of the water table and the feared cessation of most of the tube-well irrigation. The mannual re-charge of sub – soil water is considered to be between 4 and 5 M.A.F. But the suction of sub-soil water by the 7.5 lac tube-wells irrigating 52 lac acres is considered to be over 11 M.A.F. The present position has been that each year the sub-soil water table has gone down from 5 to 15 feet in about three fourth of the Punjab areas. Accordingly, such three fourth of the Punjab Community Development blocks have been declared as black, meaning thereby that tube-well irrigation is un-economic there. The dismal damage would be that by 2010 majority of these tube-wells would become useless, involving a proportionate fall in the present tube-well irrigation area of 52 lac acres and in the Punjab becoming a desert.

The above losses and dangers are well known. The unconstitutional drain of Punjab Waters and Hydel Power to the non-riparian states is considered ruinous for the agricultural and industrial future of the state and its people.

All Attempts to Undo In Justices Frustrated
As the above unconstitutional drain of the natural resources of Punjab was being continued, the Sikh peasantry and the Akali Party resorted to two constitutional means to undo this drain of Punjab’s wealth. First, since 1966 they have been agitating and making peaceful protest through fasts, morchas and otherwise. The last civil dis-obedience movement was started in 1981, in order to prevent the construction of the S.Y.L. canal, the foundation of which had been laid by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The simple demand of that protest was that the water and Hydel power issue should be referred to the Supreme Court since the same concerned a constitutional matter, so purely within the purview of the Supreme Court. But, instead of referring the issue to the Supreme Court, the camouflage of law- and – order, separatism and terrorism was used to hide and side-track the reality. It is too well known that this policy led to the tragic events of Attack on Darbar Sahib’, ‘Woodrose Operation’, November 1984 massacres, the murder of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and the extra judicial killing of hundreds of thousands of the young Sikhs. The second step the Akali Government look was to file a case in the Supreme Court for a judicial verdict regarding the unconstitutional character of the section 78 to 80 of the PR Act of 1966. But, by the afore mentioned coercive agreement among the Congress Governments of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan, the judicial process was abrogated and the pending case in the Supreme Court was withdrawn before it could adjudicate upon it. Another attempt to file a similar case in the Punjab and Haryana High Court met a similar fate. As soon as the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court admitted the writ petition and constituted a full Bench to hear it, the Chief Justice was immediately transferred, and on the request of Attorney General the pending case was taken over by the Supreme Court on its own file. Since 1984 that petition remains unheard. The above has been the tragic fate of all peaceful protests for over two decades, and resort to the judicial process for attempting to save Punjab from the continuous drain of its wealth and the economic ruin of its people.

It is an irony that the so called Accord which was supposed by the Government to be a solution of the Punjab problem, involved the very acceptance of the S.Y.L. canal and the drain of Punjab’s natural resources which the people had tried to stop during the earlier two decades both through peaceful protests and the judicial process. As to how the people have reacted to the so-called Accord and the solution there – under, is evident from the present fate of all those leaders who had directly or indirectly supported the Accord considered by the voters to be a betrayal of their interests.

Conclusion: It has to be understood that sections 78 to 80 of the P.R. Act are a real strangle hold. Because, first, Punjab’s political fate stands sealed in so far as it will remain perpetually a sub-state with the crucial subjects of water and Hydel power virtually in Central hands and being worked for the benefit of non-riparian states. And, second, because economically, its growth will remain artificially dwarfed, in so far as an unalterable ceiling has been placed on the development, use, and exploitation of Punjab Waters and energy, the key factors for all industrial and agricultural progress. In this context, it would be sheer moonshine for the Government on the one hand, to go on digging the S.Y.L. and the Rajasthan canals and continue the unconstitutional drain and on the other hand to assure the people of the sincerity of the Government in solving the Punjab problem and doing justice to the people of the state.

The only hope for the state lies in the Supreme Court accepting the validity of Punjab Termination of Agreements Act of July 12, 2004. It is, as we all know, now being examined by the Supreme Court which is to advise the President of India on its legal status.

Primary difficulty in understanding the Sikh faith has been the attempt of scholars to interpret it in the context of the prevalent notions about spiritualism and religion.

Complete appreciation of the Sikh position is also marred by the use of terms current in religious terminology to describe religious experience and religious fundamentals.

The Sikhs believe that theirs is the ‘third way’ distinct in all essentials from both the Semitic and the Indic pathways.

To emphasise the unity of thought and belief, the ten originators of the Sikh faith all call themselves Nanak after the first who bore that name. Nanak (1469-1539 CE) was not a ‘prophet of the Semitic belief’ nor was he an ‘Indic incarnation;’ he was a Guru (a teacher). In an act of supreme significance, the last Nanak (1666-1708) merged his body into the congregation of believers and his thought (soul?) into the Granth. This compilation of their views is now, along with the body of believers (the Khalsa), the ‘eternally reigning Guru,’ known and revered as Guru Granth Sahib. It teaches the faithful to believe as follows:

1. God is One. The very first ‘word’ of the Guru Granth is the absolute numeral ‘1’ to emphasise the unity of Godhead without reservation. He is not ‘our one God’ opposed to ‘their one God.’ S/he is just one God common to all humankind. One important implication of this belief is that we do not view the world as the strife-torn planet where Jew-Gentile, Christian-Heathen, Muslim-Kafir or Hindu-Mallechha are in perpetual conflict.

2. All religions are valid though they need to be updated according to their own original preaching.

3. Luring or terrifying innocent people with temptation of heaven or fear of hell is wrong. Neither hell nor heaven exists. Purity of life is a reward in itself as impurity is a curse.

4. There is no “original sin,” evil is a product of wrong appreciation of Reality and has no independent existence. God is immanent in His creation; no Satan can exist therein. No intermediary, be he a prophet, ‘son of God,’ Guru or a priest can take anyone’s sins upon himself or can absolve another of them. No verbal formula (the kalmia, the mantra, for instance) or expression of faith in another can redeem anyone. There is no such thing as mukti, moksha, nirvana, salvation, deliverance or final release after death. These concepts are irrelevant to religious living – which is merely an expression of love.

5. Realising the Will of God as is depicted in the Word of the Guru is the only pursuit worthy of a spiritually inclined person. Imbibing the Will within the self as spontaneous programme of action is the only religious activity worth pursuing. Acquiring the mental and physical skills, habits and attitudes that equip one to accept and promote His Will as the basis of conscious living (turia avastha, the fourth state of existence), alone is holy. Actually striving incessantly to help in implementing the Will in human affairs alone is salvation. It is a state (jiwan mukta) that must be obtained while one is living. This is salvation, mukti, moksha, final release, nirvana or deliverance. It is the summum bonum of human existence.

5A. God loves all. S/He wills that all should lead tension free lives (in complete absence of coercion). Everyone is entitled to unlimited spiritual progress (likened to transforming the beast and ghost within, to angelic state) and has the right to make socially compatible material progress.

A seeker after God must let his facial and head hair grow long in full acceptance of His Will. Some, who among them are sufficiently motivated and have trained themselves adequately, take a formal vow ( undergo amrit sankar) to make the implementation of His Will the sole concern, while still leading a normal house-holder’s life. Such people adopt five symbols of faith to act as constant reminders that they are in the service of God and His creation.

Those who take such vows and adopt the symbols, have been known to history as the Order of the Khalsa or the society of the Khalsa or simply as amritdhari Sikhs. Their primary aim is to bring about a moral revolution for the benefit of humanity. This Order seeks ultimately to make everlasting bliss a normal condition by promoting harmony amongst all living beings.

That was also the aim of the European and English thinkers of the 18th and the 19th centuries. The teachings of the Guru sometimes appear paraphrased in their writings. The secular policies of the French government, as far as we know, are formed under the influence of these great thinkers and philosophers. There is no contradiction between the teachings of our Guru and the aims of the French polity.

Though our culture can be described as ‘faith’ of a different category, the term religion is wrongly applied to us by conventionalists who must use the prevalent vocabulary to describe the phenomena. It certainly is misapplied to the Order of the Khalsa. Arnold Toynbee understood its character much better. While rejecting the claim of Lenin that his Communist Party was the first political organisation wedded to an idea, he said words to the effect, that ‘the Khalsa of Guru Gobind Singh is a true precursor of Lenin’s Communist Party.’ The symbols of the Khalsa are a badge of a people committed to one of the noblest ideals evolved by humankind – they, including the turban and are not sectarian ‘religious symbols.’ Limitation of vocabulary, resulting in inadequate articulation, is severely hampering the understanding of our wholly original society. Our spiritual literature tells us that the Khalsa is to regard itself as outside the conventional world of religions, races, castes, and other interest groups.

The French government may consider tolerating the Sikh turban. It is no conventional religious symbol but is a badge of the Khalsa dedicated to the same ideals that are the bedrock of laudable secular policies pursued by France.

II. Having conceded that, it still appears difficult to define the turban as a ‘symbol of the Sikh faith.’ Bhai Nand Lal Goya, a contemporary Persian poet and disciple of Guru Gobind Singh has specified the five symbols of the Sikh faith or, rather, the Sikh’s faith in God. He says these are five article beginning with the Persian letter ‘kaaf.’ (Nishan-e-Sikhi ast een panj harf kaaf) This is also the universal opinion of history. According to it ‘kesh’ or full length hair are a symbol. If a students cannot wear a turban in school, he will be removing that which is not a symbol and will be displaying what actually is a symbol – the unshorn hair. Would the government see that it is not achieving the object it set out to achieve and needs to allow the turban to keep the real symbol of faith neatly tucked away?

III. It may also be considered that the turban has been an item of a gentleman’s attire much before Guru Nanak, originator of the Sikh view of life. It retains that position in various countries and cultures. No evidence is required to be cited as the turban is conspicuous by its presence in many states of India besides the Middle east, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa and so on. It finds acceptance amongst votaries of various religions and adherents of several cultures as has been already stated. The Sikhs proudly adopt it as an efficient and the most revered headgear in all history. They, thereby preserve an aspect of the heritage of humankind. What will France gain by seeking to eliminate this elegant headgear that has been adorned by the noblest people in the past including some of the greatest benefactors of humankind?

* [This analysis may kindly be studied. Any required clarification will be supplied promptly. It may suggest a way out of the problem that the French government has with the global Sikh community. May be the exercise is worth undertaking if it helps in imparting a more humane image of the French government among the Sikh people, the world over.]

The above note, appended to Memorandum of the Khalsa Action Committee, was presented to His Excellency Mr. Jerome Bonnafont, the Abmbassador of the Republic of France to India on January 22, 2008, with the hope that it will be processed and put up to His Excellency the President of the Republic for favourable consideration.

- Gurtej Singh, Ex-IAS

In this context, the three instances quoted by Media (such as The Hindu in its editorial of May 18, 2007), may be briefly analysed. The Sikhs believe that the launching of the casteless, seamless Order of the Khalsa by Guru Gobind Singh on the Baisakhi day of 1699 was a great event in human history as it initiated a well founded process to realise the dream of universal human brotherhood capable of affording solace to the entire humankind. The import of what happened on the occasion may be recalled. The great Guru abolished personal guruship by substituting it with that of the Divine Word (the Guru Granth) and that of the Guru Panth (the people collectively). He emphasised thereby that every human being was capable of achieving the highest spiritual development under the guidance of truthful philosophy. This was a revolutionary step in every conceivable way in a country preoccupied with Manu’s Code reserving the privilege to a miniscule minority of Brahmins. Not only that, it is demonstrably a revolutionary act in all other cultures divided between ‘ours’ and ‘others,’ or to be more precise between, ‘momins’ and ‘kafirs’, between ‘Jews’ and ‘gentiles,’ and between ‘Christians’ ‘heathens.’ The other hostile divisions among humans that account for most of the mundane misery are racial divisions, caste and gender inequalities, national pride and a host of other evils were sunk by the Guru in that great steel bowl and consciously stirred away to evaporation by him with his double-edged sword.

The Guru administered this nectar to the first five persons (coming from the so-called low castes) to whom he applied, thereafter, the exalted epithet of the ‘beloved of God.’ This was the end product of the self-sacrificing ten Gurus’ striving of two centuries. Guru Gobind Singh himself was the most self-sacrificing of prophets (having sacrificed his entire family of mother, father and four sons at the alter of causes dearest to humanity) and by the administration of amrit called into existence a ‘voluntary society of God’s warriors’ to serve humanity following his own model, to counter and combat fear and tyrannical imposition of any kind at all future times. To always keep them on the straight path, he prescribed a strict ethical code, combining personal purity of thought and action of the highest order with social responsibility in the fullest measure. In the most potent gesture in spiritual history, he bowed humbly to these five he had pulled right out of his heart to emphasise the importance he gave to their mission and their status as the ‘army of God’ (akalpurakh ki fauj).

It is written all over subsequent history that the great Guru’s efforts were not wasted. The Order of the Khalsa maintained the confidence reposed in it by their incomparable spiritual guide and performed altruistic deeds that are truly without a parallel in the social, spiritual and military history of humankind. Details are edifying in every way and make a wonderful narration but do not concern us here.

It does not strike any one in the Media that both the Nirankaris and the Sirsa dera aimed at caricaturing the amrit ceremony, at ridiculing the most potent human force ever created for common good and at mimicking the Guru whom the Sikhs regard as the greatest human of all times. The Bhaniaranwala tried to denigrate the Guru Granth the embodiment of the Whole Truth, enthroned by the same Guru, the inspiration for the noblest deeds in history and capable of transforming the human society. The Order of the Khalsa is the custodian of the thought of the Guru Granth and is the carrier of the immortal and the most benign universal message ever delivered. By implication all the duties cast upon the Order of the Khalsa are also cast upon the Sikh society in particular and the society of right thinking human beings in general. It is the duty of the Sikh people to protest and to protest with all their might, when they see deliberate acts being committed to denigrate, ridicule the values and cultural mores codified in the Granth, held so dear by their Gurus and furthered by them at the cost of their very lives. No society could look at a situation like that with equanimity.

An example or two will come in handy to illustrate the point being made. Suppose a couple of long bearded mullas complete with Taliban headgear, decided to display a sacred thread by baring their torsos, adorned the unstitched cloth of a hotra and proceeded to perform a gomedh yajna, what would be the Hindu reaction to the act? Suppose they decided to do this on the banks of the holy Ganges, the Telugu Ganga or at Benaras, Kashi or Ayodhia, would not the whole of Hindustan burn down to ashes by the evening? If these hotra mullas decided to roast that meat of the sacrificed animal in public view and prepared propaganda compact discs and photographs depicting particularly the Hindu public consuming it, would they be allowed to proceed even for a single minute? A similar image concerning hog meat being prepared in a holy place by a Brahmin with a sacred thread acting as a fake mullah, could be projected to illustrate the expected Muslim outrage. None can have doubt that the entire world would be aflame at the attempt.

The false images of caste war being conjured up by certain journalists and TV personnel are the product of their monumental ignorance. Unfortunately, the caste war is now on in Rajasthan. It is soon to spread to most of the north Indian states. The toll today is 15 innocent people dead and will cross a score tomorrow, promising to reach a century mark before long. The worst fears of these sanguine media-persons obsessed with ‘caste war,’ are about to be realised and then, perhaps, they will be able to discern a caste war when they are able to see it without blinkers of Sikh hatred on their eyes.

The Sikhs have no words to describe their outrage when they are counselled restraint on the plea that their religion, as preached by Guru Nanak is the embodiment of tolerance. They feel all the more disgusted when they see those accused of rape, murder and much more, wearing the robes that their Guru, undoubtedly the noblest human of all times, is represented as having adorned. Contempt of the Sikhs knows no bounds when they are represented as violent, unreasonable and ridiculous, while their adversaries who actually fit the description are described as peaceful and washed in cow’s milk (see, “The sword and the olive branch,” The Hindu, May 31, 2007). In the present case, the Sirsa dera initiated violence in Bhatinda when they attacked the Sikhs peacefully proceeding to present a memorandum to the authorities. The dera followers descended upon the unarmed Sikhs and injured at least fifteen of them. They came in trucks and can be seen to be holding bamboo sticks of a uniform length and thickness. This suggests pre-planning and deliberate attempt to disturb the peace. They went on a rampage burning police vehicles, ransacking government offices and setting everything they could, on fire. The only person to have died so far is Kanwaljit Singh who opposed such elements. Until yesterday the score of those seriously injured by the dera followers was fifty. Today it is fifty two as the dera followers have, according to today’s papers, injured two more Sikh travellers proceeding to their homes on a public road in a village near Moga. Not even for the sake of form can the other side show a single individual who has so much as has received a discernable bruise at the hands of a Sikh. In spite of all this the Sikhs are portrayed as aggressive and violent just because they carry kirpans for self defence as any society not sure whether the police will protect them, is bound by normal prudence to carry.

Media reaction was the same when the Nirankaris, on that fateful Baisakhi day of 1978 killed thirteen peacefully protesting Sikhs at Amritsar. The Nirankari head was let off by the courts, just as Bhaniaranwala was later and just as dera Sirsa head will be let off in the days to come. The Sikhs know that as a mature people and law abiding citizens they are to maintain their cool. Will any one tell them why the law has always turned a blind eye to drug pedalling, intimidation, extortion, forcible occupation of land, repeated rapes and murders, committed by the dera head at Sirsa? How are these heinous crimes being buried under delay by agencies such as the CBI that has been on the job of investigating them for the last five years. It has as yet produced no discernible result despite repeated severe admonitions by the High Court which entrusted the investigation to it under its own supervision? None of the, glibly talking, bewitchingly smiling female anchors of various TV channels who believe their brightly clad anatomy is a part of the argument and the most honourable editors drawing fat salaries at public expense, say why this is happening.

In the absence of any credible explanation being offered by anyone in the last half a century since India’s decolonisation, to bring about which the Sikhs played a pre-eminent role, the aggrieved party is left free to prospect for possible answers. What the Sikhs clearly see in all this is the constant Media support that the Sikh baiters are always able to rely upon. They have also noticed that the law which throws a Sikh into the gaol at the slightest pretext and retains him there even after the end of the prescribed term of incarceration (as is the position even as these lines are being typed), the law that commits a ‘judicial murder of Kehar Singh’ merely on the suspicion of involvement, has a magnanimously large blind spot when it comes to punishing those who are perceived to be actively engaged in trying to dismantle the Order of the Khalsa. All crimes are forgiven to them. In fact the dera heads commits them with impunity and a glee knowing full well that as long as they are seriously engaged in inflicting harm on the Sikhs and their religion, they will remain secure in an assiduously created psychological sanctuary where neither law nor constitution will apply to them.

The feeling that it gives to the aggrieved can be best understood if a concerned Hindu can imagine himself witnessing an attack on the temple of Somnath at Kathiawar, or if a Jew can see himself being present at the fall of Masada. Without doubt the attempts of the pseudo saints are no sporadic cultural attacks by individuals with over inflated egos and insufficient intelligence quotient. To the Sikhs, the Nirankaris, the dera Sirsa people, the Bhaniarianwalas et al represent a concerted onslaught on Sikh thought, culture, identity and the Sikh way of life by organisations not merely supported by the government at the Centre, but clearly sponsored by the parties forming it. It is in this belief that the Sikhs react to situations created for them by individuals and organisations crawling out of the witch’s cauldron kept on the boil for at least the last sixty years and carefully nurtured by the obliging Media more loyal than the king. Those who would judge them would do better to judge them in this context if they care about being true to their profession, to the salt they eat, to the mother earth in whose lap they must seek final refuge and above all, to their boldly underlined vows of commitment to Truth.

[About the author: The author, a post graduate in history, a former IAS man, is a student of history and is an author of eight books on history, religion and politics. He writes both in Punjabi and English and has contributed scores of articles to reputed papers, magazines and research journals].

It is amazing that all the exciting art at the Louvre, the walk on the grand and magnificent Champs-Elysees will not become a reality for me or my family. You see I am a Sikh. I am not welcome in France. Why you might ask, it is the same question I have been pondering. The more I think about it the more appalled and angry I become.

It is 2006. We are in a new millennium. But France seems to be walking backwards. The reasons I’m sure are plenty, but a nation who has dominated various areas in Western humanities is actually a raging bigot.

France is so concerned about the minorities in its mist that it has passed a law, that they openly claim is targeted towards its Muslim population, banning all religious clothing in schools. The law now goes beyond schools and now even includes entering any public space or in ones effort to get a driver’s license. This law is meant to discourage Muslim women from wearing the hijaab. It also means that any Sikh who wears a turban is also no longer allowed in public schools or public institutions.

I understand that we are living in a post 9/11 world. However, hasn’t this pivotal point in our historic moment taught us what happens when we marginalize or ignore the issues that affect those we conveniently think of as the “other”?

Just this week, France’s highest civil authority once again upheld their law requiring Sikh men to remove their turbans for their driver’s license photographs. The Sikh community in France is very small. But they are present. They are working to fit into French society. They speak French and are trying to be lawful abiding citizens. But how can you be a citizen in a country that blatantly, regardless of history, is denying you the basic right to your identity.

Let me explain. To ask a Sikh to take off his/her turban is like telling a Sikh to strip and stand naked. It is a sign or utter humiliation and shame to be forced to go bareheaded without the glorious turban on a Sikhs head.

However, I doubt the French are unaware of the importance of the turban to Sikhs. This is just like what the Nazi’s did. They are dehumanizing the minorities amongst them; marking them so that they can’t be who they really are. They are teaching them to live as the oppressed with the constant fear of not being considered French. Can you imagine this type of situation in today’s world? Can you imagine how horrifying this situation must also be for Muslim women?

My conclusion from this whole affair is quite simple; the French are hate-mongering and arrogant people. Have the French so conveniently forgotten the sacrifices the Sikhs made to liberate the French people during the Great War? If you go to www.unitedsikhs.org there are many wonderful pictures and lists of the Sikh regiments and battles that were fought by those regiments. All the Sikhs in those photographs are in full military regalia, including their turbans. Was it okay to wear a turban if you were willing to take a bullet to save French lives?

If the French are averse to remembering their history, then let’s go to Hollywood and literature. Maybe they should read the English Patient or watch the film.

I would like to believe that all those who promote a more tolerant and equitable society/world will send a message to the French Government and the French people. They are encouraging religious bigotry and hatred. As we all know this is what breeds hate crimes and violence. Are they prepared for the seeds they are sowing? Have they not even learned from meeting with India’s Prime Minister (a turban wearing Sikh)? Did they make an exception in their law when he visited? Is this exception only good for visiting heads of state? Maybe Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should have sent a message to the French, kindly refusing any invitation to visit France until this issue is resolved. The French: Truly Obnoxious

My outrage is so intense I can only hope that those who feel the same will boycott all and everything that is French. I am also frustrated with myself. I took French over Spanish as my foreign language in College. What was the need when France is a country I cannot even consider visiting let alone living in. I will not allow any nation to deny me my identity. I will not remove my turban to visit French society. There are too many other places and countries that deserve my patronage and yours.

It is a shame that a nation that boasts of its high and mighty civilization and its achievements in philosophy, art, literature etc. is actually just a racist giant that has been wakened. Where are Frances intellectuals now? Where is the outrage? For that matter where is the outrage everywhere else?

For more information regarding the contributions of Sikhs in France please go to:
www.unitedsikhs.org
www.sikhcoalition.org
www.sikhs.org

Also you can receive other important information from the Council on Islamic American Relations.

Please share my thoughts with all your friends. Spread the word regarding this very important issue.

- Harvind Kaur Singh