Book folder

[acharya]

Check this out


http://www.sikhspectrum.com/022004/unite.htm


Unite and rule

baldev

by Baldev Singh
This is a review of the book Bharat Da Napunsak Loaktantar ‘Vartman Ate Bhvikh (Impotent Indian Democracy: Its Present and Future)’ (Punjabi), by Professor (retd.) Amar Singh Dhaliwal Professor Dhaliwal lives in Canada and is member of the Editorial Board of Understanding Sikhism – The Research Journal, published from Montreal, Canada. --Author

Dear Professor Dhaliwal

In your brilliant analysis of several Indian election results you have demonstrated without any shadow of doubt that India’s current election system is deeply flawed. The governments elected by this system represent only the will and voice of a small minority. The election system must be reformed to represent the aspirations of all the citizens. Your solution would go a long way in rectifying the situation if the Indian rulers adopt it! I have no reservation in applauding your noble concept of “joro te raj karo (unite and rule).”

However, there are statements that I shall discuss later, which are extraneous to the main thrust of your thesis. Such statements do not enhance the value of your research rather they are distractions. Then there are other statements that don’t reflect your very distinguished academic credentials: Giani, B. A., B. Ed., M. A. (Punjabi), M. Med. and Ph.D. (Psychology). And I take issue with these views. It is surprising that neither Harhajan Singh Halvarvi,3 nor Professor Pritam Singh took notice. I don’t know Halvarvi, but I know Professor Pritam Singh and his controversial research on Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS).4,5 Since it is not possible to discuss every word let me point out the following.

On the dedication page you have stated that a commission appointed by former President R. K. Narayan and headed by retired Supreme-Court Justice M. N. Vanktachalia, will investigate whether the Indian Constitution is working effectively to achieve its desired goals. You have further asserted that the commission will make recommendations to improve the Constitution, which will usher a golden era of “unite and rule.” I think it represents wishful thinking on you part. Are you familiar with the history of commissions in India?

You must have heard of the Sarkaria commission! What happened to its recommendations? Numerous commissions were set up in India to investigate the corruption in government, police, armed forces and universities and also the atrocities committed by police on Dalits (suppressed people, the so-called untouchables) and minorities -- and the massacre of Muslims, Dalits, Christians and Sikhs by Hindu mobs. Have the findings of these commissions brought about any positive change in India?

Three commissions were established to investigate the murder of more than ten thousand innocent Sikhs all over India after the assassination of Indra Gandhi. Now the Vajpayee government has appointed a fourth commission. What have these commissions accomplished? Have the perpetrators of heinous crimes against the Sikh community been brought to justice?

Let us suppose that the Indian government does accept the recommendations of the commission and the Constitution is amended to bring about a change in the election laws to govern the country on the basis of your concept of “unite and rule.” What is the guaranty that it won’t be changed in the future? It is not very reassuring on the basis of past experience. The constitution has been amended many times. The majority community can amend the constitution and pass laws any time it wants.

Note for example, Promulgation of National Security Act Ordinance on June 22, 1984, Terrorist Affected Areas Ordinance on July 14, 1984 and the draconian Terrorist and Disaffected Area Act (TADA) in May 1985. These Black Laws gave a free hand to the police to exterminate Sikhs and to deny them justice in the judicial system.3

The constitution has been abused to dismiss elected governments headed by minorities -- Sikhs, Muslims and Christians -- in Panjab, Kashmir and the Northeastern states, respectively, on the flimsy grounds of breakdown of law and order. On the other hand lawlessness in states like Bengal, Bihar, UP, Maharastra, Andhra Pradesh and Gujrat has been ignored in spite of the fact that opposition parties in these states have called for the dismissal of these governments.

The constitution is a document, which cannot enforce itself on the people. It is the people who interpret it and enforce it. In the United States of America, it took nearly two hundred years to apply the clause “all are equal” to black Americans. In a country like India where every thing is considered from a communal angle, no constitution how perfect it may be, can protect the rights and safety of minorities until the majority sheds its communal outlook and accepts minorities as equal. Observers of Indian politics are unanimous that the Indian polity has become more and more communal and criminal since 1947.

For example, it was reported in The Tribune, (December 24, 2001) that a SSP of Lucknow had issued a circular to junior police officers that they should keep a close watch on all Muslims and Sikhs. He asked them to monitor their activities and movements because he thinks that Muslims and Sikhs may be helping Pakistani agencies to carry out terrorist activities.

Professor Dhaliwal, you have dedicated your book to former President Narayan, former Supreme Court Justice Vanktachalia, former and present Chief Election Commissioners, Dr. Manohar Singh Gill and Mr. J. M. Lingdoh, respectively, and to honest, sincere and loyal Indian citizenry. What actions these noble citizens have taken against this circular of the SSP, who considers all Muslims and Sikhs as unfaithful to India? What was the stand of President Narayan or Justice Vanktchalia on TADA?

India is not a democracy but a tyranny of majority over the minorities. More than ten thousand innocent, hard working and law abiding Sikhs were killed throughout India under the instructions of Rajiv Gandhi and his Cogress party after the assassination of Indra Gandhi. But this genocidal crime did not perturb the conscience of your rishis, munis, and noble citizens. Of course, solitary voices of sympathy were raised for the victims, but there was no outrage or protest of any significance. No resolution of condolence was introduced in the assembly of Central Government nor any State Government for the Sikh victims. The exception is Akali / BJP Government headed by Badal, which did pass such a resolution, but this was done keeping an eye on the coming assembly elections. Contrast this with the resolutions passed not only in government assemblies, but also all over the country to mourn the deaths of victims of a chemical accident in Bhopal.

You have used the words “naik-neeat, vfadar and emandar” for people to whom you have dedicated your book. These three words and other words like ‘izzat and shhadat’ have been adopted in Punjabi from Arabic and Persian languages. In Sanskrit and related Indian languages, there are no words equivalent to the words mentioned above. The vocabulary of any language is developed by a society over a long period by constructing words and phrases to express its feelings, emotions, desires, moral values, characteristics, and habits. Shouldn’t this simple fact surprise us?

You appear to be obsessed with the mythical idea of “bharat maan di akhandta (unity of mother India).” Could you point any time when the whole of Indian subcontinent was under one rule? There were four periods when a major part of the Indian subcontinent was under one rule: Ashoka the great, Guptas, Mughals (Aurangzeb) and British. It was under the British that the maximum territory was under one rule. The British used the maps from Auragzeb’s period to demarcate the boundary with China and they inherited the Northwest province from the Sikh kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

Even during the British period, there were hundreds of semi-independent territories. I am not in favor of countries based on religion or race or ethnicity. But what is the solution for a country where minorities are persecuted and treated as second-class citizens and live at the mercy of the majority? I see no harm in dividing such countries. We can’t close our eyes to what is happening in the world. National boundaries have kept changing throughout human history and are changing at the present time. Then what is so sacrosanct about the “akhandta of bharat maan (unity of mother India)?

The former Soviet Union has split into about a dozen sovereign countries. The same thing happened to Yugoslavia. Most of these newly formed counties are small in territory and population. The world community including India recognizes them. India would follow the course of Soviet Union sooner or later if the majority continues to persecute and treat the minorities as second-class citizens.

Besides, there is no evidence that a big country is inherently better than a small country for the prosperity and wellbeing of its citizens. Compare India to the city-states of Singapore and Hong Kong or small nations like Taiwan, Malaysia and South Korea. According to World Health Organization and the UN Development Agency reports, India remains one of the poorest country in the world -- half of its population earns less than two dollars a day and is malnourished.

Also, India has the largest number of illiterate, blind, deaf and sick people, and child and bonded laborers. It has also the dubious distinction for being number one in dowry deaths, in female infanticide and feticide, and the situation is so bad that the male / female ratio has dropped to about 10 / 7 among children below the age of ten in the Northern states. This abominable crime forced Brenda Karat, a sensitive, kind and frustrated feminine activist to remark sarcastically “For God’s sake why any female would like to be born in India?” Since 1947, the so-called democratic India has killed more of its citizens -- mostly minorities (about 90%) -- than the British colonists did in three hundred years. What have the noble citizens done to stop these heinous crimes against humanity?

On the reverse of the dedication page you have stated, “ It is my unbreakable belief that the sun of the golden age of the policy of ‘joro te raj kro (unite and rule)’, put forth by my rishismunis, peer-pagambers and Gurus is about to rise in India.” I think it is unfair to rope together rishismunis, and peer-pagambers with Sikh Gurus as their teachings are different. Besides, the ethics of the Indian rulers reflect the teachings of rishis, and munis. There is no evidence that there was any rishis, or munis who advocated the policy of “unite and rule”. On the contrary, two of the renowned rishis/munis, Manu and Kautilya (Chanakya), who are responsile for shaping the destiny of Hindu society were strong advocates of the policy of “divide and rule.”

Manu was the architect of the caste system, which divided the Indian people into four castes and myriad of subcastes. This system was designed to serve the interests of a small minority of people – Brahmins, at the expense of the vast majority belonging to other castes -- the bulk of whom belonged to the shudar caste. Lower still were the untouchables (outcastes), whose mere shadow could pollute the upper castes. Never in the history of mankind such an evil and cruel system was conceived by intelligent but devious people for the exploitation of man by man. It took away the human dignity of vast majority of Indians and subjected them to untold injustices and atrocities. The untouchables were treated worse than animals for thousands of years and this is continuing in villages across India even today.

The cunning Brahmin invoked divine sanctions to perpetuate this system for eternity. Sacred Hindu Scriptures proclaim that the caste division is a divine law. Strict observance of caste rules and regulations was made the essence of Hindu religion and transgressors were severely punished. To protect Brahmins and their defender kshatriyas (warrior caste) from the rage of inhumanely treated masses; it was declared sinful to wear arms and keep arms by people other than the kshatriyas. Even black smiths and carpenters, the so-called progeny of the mythical “super engineer” Vishav Karma, who made the weapons, were not allowed to use these weapons. They were not allowed even to fit the plowshare with an iron tip because it could injure the oxen (offspring of the holy cow).

After 1947, a large number of Sikh farmers were settled in Haryana and Uttar Pardesh. Their Hindu neighbors were surprised to see Sikh farmers using European style iron plows or iron-tipped plowshares. The agriculturist tribes -- Jats, Gujjars, Sainis, Yadavs, Ahirs, Patels, Kurmis, Kamas, Reddys and many others were allowed to keep wooden clubs (luth, lathi,soti, and dang), which they used very effectively to split each other’s heads, beat their animals, wives and children.

Next came the doctrine of Karma to desensitize people’s sense of justice and compassion against atrocities committed on the masses to enforce the caste system. According to this divine law, one reaps the fruit in this life for the deeds performed in the previous life. So, if a person is subjected to injustice and cruelty in this life, it is the due to one’s own actions in previous life, not due to the perpetrators of cruelty and injustice. By observing the caste rules strictly and serving the superior castes faithfully one can earn the reward for the next life. This exploitation of the masses reduced them to the level of dumb driven cattle.

The caste system not only destroyed the vitality and creativity of the Indian masses but also the glue of love and compassion for fellow human beings, which is essential for a healthy society. In due course of time India was like giant dead tree whose roots had been eaten by termites and was waiting to be toppled by a wind gust or in Indian parlance like a sick Brahma bull ready to be devoured by wild dogs and vultures.

In 710 AD, a young Muslim commander, Mohammad Bin Qassem led an expedition to Sindh. After defeating the Indian forces, he marched deep into the Northwest Territory meeting very little resistance, because the populace was disarmed due to the imposition of strict caste regulations, which allowed only kashatriyas (Rajputs and Khatris) to wear arms. He looted towns and temples, plundered and murdered people by the thousands and went home taking away thousands of Indian men and women as slaves. The news of his victory spread like a wild fire in the Muslim world. Muslim daredevils from Afghansitan and central Asia made their own forays into India. Small bands of Afghans and Turks carved out small and large principalities for themselves all the way up to Brahmputra and south India, and finally the Mughals established their own empire in India.

“What is painful is that, sometimes, a handful of foreigners overran vast tracts of the land without countering any sizable resistance. Shihab-ud-din Gauri won the second battle of Tarain (near Delhi) in 1192, and within fourteen years his General, Bakhtiyar Khilji had reached the bank of Brahmputra. Nadiya was occupied with an advance party of no more than eighteen horsemen and this opened the way for the establishment of Muslim rule in Bengal.” Jagjit Singh, The Sikh Revolution, 4th reprint, p 149. The Cambridge History of India, Vol. iii, p 46.

During the Muslim invasion, the Khatris and Rajputs, who used to practice their martial art on the defenseless down trodden lower castes, were nowhere to be found to defend the motherland and its people. The entrepreneurial Khatris offered their services to their conquerors, whom they called malesh (polluted ones) in private. Guru Nanak (1469-1539) rebuked the Khatris for their hypocrisy,

“The Khatris have abdicated their duty of protecting the country, weak and women, instead they have adopted the language and manners of their masters whom they call the polluted ones (AGGS, p 663).”

Commenting on the atrocities committed on the Hindu masses by Muslim rulers, Guru Nanak exposed the nexus between bigoted Muslim rulers and the Khatris and Brahmins in a beautiful political satire. It was the bigoted Muslim ruler, who was responsible for the persecution of Hindu masses, but it was the Khatri officials who executed the orders of their master, and the Brahmin priests approved the doings of the Khatris.

“The man eater is the one, who performs namaz ( Muslim prayer). Who carves out the flesh for him is the one who wears the sacred thread around his neck (Khatri). The Brahmin blows the conch in the Khatri’s house to sanctify his doings (AGGS, P 471.”

The Brahmins came up with a clever scheme to enter Emperor Akbar’s household and court through the back door. They advised the Rajput rulers to give their daughters in marriage to Emperor Akbar. It was (is) an anathema even for an ordinary Rajput to marry his daughter to a non-Rajput Hindu, what to speak of a Rajput royal marrying his daughter to a Muslim, whom he considered as malesh (polluted one). But this case was different as this matrimonial alliance was blessed and sanctified by the Brahmin.

The Rajput rulers led by the Amber family accepted this proposal without blinking an eye.7 This opened the door for Brahmins, Rajputs and other Hindus in Akbar’s administration. Many of them held prominent positions; Birbal and Todar Mal were among the jewels of Akbar’s court and Raja Man Singh was a very distinguished commander in the army. In gratitude, Akbar cancelled the jazia (tax on non-Muslims) imposed by the earlier Muslim rulers. The Rajputs played a major role in the expansion and consolidation of Mughal Empire. The Brahmins coined a new mantra “Eeshvro va Dilishvro va, (The emperor of Delhi is as great as God).”8

The invasion from the Northwest continued until the Khalsa forces put an end to it. The British, who came to India as traders, replaced the Mughal Empire. During the entire British rule, there were never more than 200,000 British people at any time in India. Their administration was supported and run mostly by the Indian elite. The British left India in 1947. This is the legacy of Mahan Rishi Manu and to honor this “great Hindu thinker,” his statue was installed in the Rajput sate of Rajsthan.

You have stated on page viii that the British educated Indian leaders gave preference to the “deceptive and perverse” policy of “ paro te raj karo (divide and rule)” over the humane policy of “joro te raj karo (unite and rule)” conceived and nurtured by Indian civilization. On the contrary, the deceptive and perverse policy of “divide and rule” is the foundation of the Indian civilization as discussed earlier and in the following paragraphs. I don’t think that the policy of “divide and rule” is exclusively Western or British. All groups of people throughout human history, who have subjugated and enslaved others, have used the policy of “divide and rule.” It is happening even today – look at India!

You have used the expression “kutil niti (Machiavellian policy)” again and again in the book. Do you know who was the father of kutil niti - the deceptive and perverse policy of divide and rule? It was Kautiyla muni (Chanakya), who used to teach it to Indian rulers long before the British came out of their hovels; currently it is a part of the manual to train Indian intelligence agents.

Moreover, what about morality turned upside down where good becomes evil and the evil becomes good; In Bhagvad Gita, Lord Krishna urges the reluctant Pandvas, who not only gambled away their kingdom but also their only wife, to declare war against their cousins, the Kaurvas. When the Pandvas start loosing the war, Lord Krishna urges them to use all means including deception, and lies to win the war by breaking the rules, which both sides had agreed to observe before the start of the war. The Pandvas win the war through treachery.

The hard working and law abiding Kaurvas who fought fair battles up till the end are called evil. The high stake gamblers, who loose their only wife to pay their debt, and who won the war through evil means are called righteous. The lesson to learn here is that victory being everything deception, treachery and foul means to achieve it is moral.

Dropti is considered a highly virtuous woman, an idol for young girls to emulate. Her obvious virtue is that she complied with her mother-in-law’s order to be a wife to five brothers to keep peace in the family! What kind of a role model is Dropti for any young girl? She accepted to be treated like cattle and was disposed of like cattle, to pay the debt! Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of peace considered Gita as his most favorite scripture in spite of the fact that the battle of Mahanbharat was fought between kith and kin, and more people were slaughtered in the battle of Mahanbharat than any other battle according to the story. So Gandhi’s pacifism runs parallel to Lord Krishna’s moral teachings. No wonder, the renowned Indologist, Al-Biruni remarked, “The Hindu mind is incomprehensible to non-Hindus.”

You seem to think that ancient India was the center of human civilization as if it was the lighthouse of knowledge and wisdom when the rest of the world was groping in darkness, which is contrary to the truth. The Indian subcontinent does not have any signs of past greatness -- ancient monuments. Like the pyramids of Egypt, the Great Wall of China, Acropolis of Greece, Samarian and Babylonian ruins of Iraq, ruins of the Roman Empire and the massive and beautiful cities built by the Mayas and Incas in South America.

Moreover, the Muslims introduced the Persian wheel irrigation system in India, and the British introduced the canal system of irrigation by damming rivers. The Muslims also brought the know- how of paper making, which they had acquired from the Chinese. The list can go on and on. One is disappointed when one searches for ancient India’s contribution to the development of human society.

On page fourteen you have discussed village panchayts (village councils). Panchayats are not unique to Panjab or India. Primitive tribes all over the world had such tribal councils, and they are functioning quite well even today in some counties like Afghanistan. Panchayats are the product of man’s innate yearning to be the master of his destiny and it was through Panchayats that he was able to make input into the governing of his affairs. The modern secular democracies are much bigger reflections of panchayats as they include all the tribes within a country.

On page twenty-one you have stated, “The perverse and deceptive policy of “divide and rule” may convince a Western mind, however, a mind nurtured by Indian culture, especially Punjabi culture, can only be satisfied by the humane policy of “unite and rule.” This is a chauvinistic and parochial view. I think human intelligence is uniformly distributed throughout the world. People do inherit the traits of their ancestors. However, what they become as adults, is influenced by the milieu under which they grow up. Let us first look at the Western mind.

I think the Western mind to some extent has risen above the age-old prejudices. For example, West Europeans have opened their borders to each other by creating a common market under one currency. In comparison, India is at war with its own minorities since 1947, what to speak of good relations with its neighbors -- Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka. Contrary to your belief that the Indian civilization is based on the noble principle of “unite and rule” India was the villain in the dismemberment of erstwhile Pakistan and it clandestinely trained Tamil Tigers to destabilize the tiny island nation of Sri Lanka. Indian rulers since 1947 have been playing this game of “divide and rule” by inciting communal hatred among the Indian people. Look, what has been happening in the Northeast, Kashmir, Punjab and Gujrat.

Now let us look at your “specially” noble Punjabis. To say that a “mind nurtured in Punjabi culture” can only be satisfied by the humane policy of “unite and rule” is oxymoron. There is no evidence in the history of Punjabis, except a short period of Khalsa rule under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, when they were governed by the policy of “unite and rule.” More recently, the Punjabis played into the hands of non-Punjabis, Mahatma Gandhi and Mohamed Ali Jinah resulting in the partition of their homeland – Punjab, which was one of the greatest upheavals of the twentieth century. Almost one third of the population of Punjab – eleven million people lost their homes and hearths where their ancestors had lived for hundreds of years causing untold suffering and misery.

In the ensuing communal frenzy and carnage, may be as many as one million people perished and thousands of women were kidnapped and raped. No Punjabi has so far written any well-researched and well-documented account of loss of life and suffering as a result of partition, and who was responsible for it. Like small children, Punjabis keep pointing fingers at each other for the “killing fields” of 1947.

Besides most Punjabis don’t know what it means to be a Punjabi? For majority of the Punjabis being a Punjabi does not mean the same as what it means for a Bengali to be a Bengali or a French to be French. In Punjab of Pakistan, Punjabi was not taught in schools until the 1980s and it is still not the official language of that state. In Indian Punjab what Punjabi Hindus have done to Punjabi is unprecedented. They disowned their mother tongue and adopted Hindi instead. Since 1947 they have been deriding the culture of their ancestors and preventing the growth of Punjabi language, culture and the economy of the state.

Well-known journalist Kuldip Nayyar and former Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral have been lately beating the drums of Punjabiat (Punjabi heritage). Notwithstanding his loud proclamation of Punjabiat, while responding to the members of the parliament, who insisted that he should speak in Hindi, Gujral said, “My mother-tongue is Hindi, so I would love to speak in Hindi. Since these proceedings are being seen and heard throughout the country, I wish I may be heard by all through English.”9 Having grown up in Jhelum (Pakistani Punjab), it is doubtful that his mother tongue is Hindi. Was he telling the truth in the parliament? Later that same year when the Queen of England visited India, she expressed her wish to pay homage at Harimandir Sahib (Golden Temple) and Jallianwala Bagh Memorial. But Gujral tried his best to persuade her to cancel the visit.10

Jallianwalla Bagh Memorial was built in honor of the Punjabis who were massacred by Genral Dyer on Baisakhi, April 13, 1919 (379 were killed and over 2000 thousand wounded). Golden Temple is a prominent Sikh gurdwara and most of the victims of Jallianwala Bagh massacre were Sikhs.11 Is Golden Temple and Jallianwalla Bagh not a part of Gujral’s punjabiat?

Journalist Nayyar does not hide his feelings about Punjab and Punjabi even. He stunned the audience at the Chief Khalsa Diwan’s Annual Meeting held in Nov. 2002 by proposing that Punjabi Suba (state) should be disbanded and merged with Haryana and Himachal Pardesh.12 However, he did not make any adverse comments when very recently three Hindi sates -- Uttar Pardesh, Bihar and Madhya Pardeh were partitioned to create three new states. Neither he nor any other Punjabi Hindu has ever suggested that Haryana and Himachal Pardesh should be merged, as both are Hindi speaking sates.

On the top of page forty, you have stated that Greeks, who called “Bharat” Indstan or Sindhstan, came and went away. Not all of them went away, some of them stayed behind and ruled over western Punjab (King Menander).13 Who developed the Gandhara art? Of curse, the Geeks! If India was known by the name Bharat at that time, why would the Greeks call it Indstan or Sindstan? Is there any similarity between Bharat and Indstan or Sindhstan? Why didn’t the Bharti people correct the Greeks? There is likelihood that India at time did not have a definite name. That’s why the Greeks gave it their own name.

In Pashtu, the language of the largest Afghan tribe Pashtuns, Hindu is pronounced as Indu (h is silent). The Greeks called the Indian people Indos or Indus and hence the names Indus and India. The word Bharat may be in Hindu scriptures, but the Indian subcontinent was never known by the name Bharat. Why did Persians and Arabs, who were (are) next-door neighbors of the so-called Bhartis, called their country Hindustan? Later, the Europeans who came to trade with Hindustan used the Greek name and called it India. Even at that time no Bharti came forward to correct their mistake. Well, who can read a Bharati mind? Once a Bengali Brahmin tried to explain to me the origin of the word Hindu. He said that Hindu is the corrupted version of the word Sindhu. Well, if we use your logic then Sindh should have been called Hind and Sindhi as Hindi. Do you know any person who calls Sindh as Hind and Sindhi as Hindi? That ended the conversation.

Professor Dhaliwal on page forty you have stated that Guru Nanak’s verse “avn athatre jan stanva hor bhi uthsi mard ka chela AGGS, p 722” was composed to honor a farsighted Muslim ruler Sher Shah Suri. First of all you have quoted this verse incorrectly. Second, wherever Guru Nanak saw hypocrisy, he denounced it, wherever he saw injustice, persecution and exploitation, he condemned it and expressed solidarity with the victims. He called the rules of his time as ferocious tigers and their officials as wild dogs, who were harassing and persecuting the innocent masses who were minding their own business (AGGS, p 1288). So it is does not make any sense that Guru Nanak wrote this verse to honor Sher Shah Suri.

Additionally, there is no evidence that the Indian people regarded Sher Shah Suri as a hero. Moreover, Guru Nanak died (S. 1596), less than a year before the battle between Sher Shah Suri and Humayun (S. 1597). There is no evidence in Sikh annals or any other historical source that Guru Nanak ever met Sher Shah Suri. Furthermore, Sher Shah Suri did not drive Humayun out of the country. Humanyun was able to establish his foothold in the country and his son Akbar was able to establish the Mughal Empire in India. The verse you have quoted is from Guru Nanak’s composition (Baburi-Bani) about Babur’s invasion of India.

According Sikh traditions, Guru Nanak was an eyewitness to the battle between Babur and Ibrahim Lodhi. He has described very vividly the atrocities committed by Babur’s forces on the civilian population. In Babur-Bani Guru Nanak has dealt with the questions like: Why did Babur invade India? Why his forces committed atrocities? What caused the defeat of Lodhis? When would his rule come to an end? The verse under discussion is about the last question. “ O, my beloved people, in due course of time this rule will end – may be in twenty years (hor vIhW swlW qk). They have come in S. 1578 and may be they will depart in S. 1597 (Bikrami Era).” It is just a historical coincidence that Sher Shah challenged Humanyun in S. 1597. Ignorant and superstitious people who believe in witchcraft, astrology and soothsaying see this connection between the verse and year of the battle and interpret this verse the way you have done.

Guru Nanak totally rejected superstitious beliefs based on astrology, witchcraft and soothsaying. In Babur-Bani (AGGS, P 418), Guru Nanak has mentioned that the witchcraft of pirs engaged by the Pathans did not stop the advance of Mughal forces or save the palaces of Pathans from destruction or the supernatural powers of the pirs could not blind the Mughals. Guru Nanak’s use of the “interval of twenty years” is a figurative expression to say that the Mughal rule will end in due course of time. It reminds me of Punjabi phrases like, “satra bahatra” means an old person, not 70 / 72 years old, “babe adam vele dian galan” means old tales, not back to the time of Baba Adam and “tanu milian yug beet gae ”mean it is long time since I saw you, not a reference to any mythical period (yug).

Besides, during Guru Nanak’s time most people could not count more than twenty. Their business transactions, measurement of time and distance were done on a scale of “twenty (vih).” Even when I was growing up in my village in the 1940s, the term vih was used quite often. For example: If someone asked a farmer, “For how much did you sell your oxen?” “For four “twenties” and five rupees,” the farmer would say. Similarly, “Baba (old man), how old are you?” “Four twenties and four years,” the old man would say.

In the top paragraph of page forty-six, you have claimed, “Budhism. Jainism and Sikhism do no believe in any entity called God or God-Power. Guru Gobind Singh regarded people power as God-Power.” These statements are utterly false, unbelievable and shocking. It is unbelievable that you have not studied Gurbani as you have a Master's degree in Punjabi and you started your academic career as a Giani (Punjabi teacher in) in my village at Guru Nanak Khalsa High School Takhtupura. How could you forget the meaning of the opening verse of Aad Guru Granth Sahib, which you taught us in the divinity class: “The One and Only – the One That is Ineffable – the Creator.”

You have distorted the meaning of the verse attributed to Guru Gobind Singh. Guru Gobind Singh did not say, people power is God-power. Guru Gobind Singh was expressing his solidarity with the downtrodden masses of India, who had been subjected to untold injustices and atrocities for thousands of years. He was rallying them under his banner for their liberation -- to make them a sovereign people. This was no different than what Guru Nanak proclaimed two centuries earlier, “I will stand by the lowest of the lowest caste rather than with the elite -- the high castes (AGGS, p 15).”

The statement on page fifty-two, sacrificial goats became martyrs “bali da bakra ban ke shhidian pa gayian ”, indicates that either you don’t know the difference between bali or shahadat (martyrdom) or you are poking fun at the concept of shahadat. Shahadt is an Arabic word and a Muslim concept. A shahid sacrifices his / her life willingly for the sake of his or her faith. In Sikhism, shahid and shhadat are used in the same sense. Guru Arjan Dev was the first shahid of Sikhs. On the other hand bali is a form of life sacrifice, which was practiced all over the world by primitive people. Bali is performed to appease, please, and thank a deity. However, a person offering a bali rarely sacrifices his or her life, some other human being or animal is sacrificed on his or her behalf.

I n the olden days human sacrifice was very common but with the advancement of civilization only animals are offered for bali and this practice is still prevalent in some religions as the bali of goats at the temple of goddess Kali in India. So, how could a sacrificial goat be considered a shahid (martyr)?

In the second paragraph of page forty you have also stated that Emperor Akbar broke bread with the Rajupts and established matrimonial alliance with them. This statement is partially true. This matrimonial alliance was only a one way affair. Rajputs did marry their daughters to Mughal rulers. However, there is no evidence that any Mughal ruler ever married his daughter to a Rajput. Regarding inter-dining between Muslims and Hindus, the story is not that simple as you have stated. It is reasonable to believe that royal Rajputs and Mughals entertained each other and enjoyed each other’s cuisine. However, sharing food with Muslims was a taboo for the upper caste Hindus. The upper caste Hindus always regarded outsiders, whether they were Muslims or Europeans as malesh (polluted). I don’t think that Emperor Akbar had any appreciable influence on the inter-dining between Muslims and upper caste Hindus.

For example, even in the Congress Party headed by Gandhi, there were some Hindu members, who did not eat in the same room where Muslims were eating. At the Congress conference held in Lahore in 1935, some non-Punjabi Hindu participants brought their own food and water because they regarded Punjab as the land of the maleshas. What does the expression “Hindu pani (water) and Muslim pani”mean?

In the third paragraph on page forty-six you have accused Dr. Ambedkar as being a coward for not taking a stand against the partition of India. How could Ambedkar have prevented the partition, when the British, the congress party and Muslim league were determined to do so? You say that Dr. Ambedkar was representing the voice of fifty million advasis (aborigines). This may be true in theory. The advasis were the poorest and the least educated people in India at that time and they were scattered all over the country. They were not a cohesive group to exert any influence. Furthermore, Ambedkar's efforts to get them recognized as a distinct group by the British were thwarted by the machinations of Gandhi.

It is a pity that Muslims, who were a vibrant community and had sophisticated and intelligent leaders, failed to see through the trickery of Gandhi. Contrary to the propaganda that Jinah was responsible for the partition, it was the Congress party dominated by the upper caste Hindus, who was the prime culprit? Upper caste Hindus, who were less than 12 % of the Indian population, wanted to usurp the political power after the departure of the British. However, an assertive and aggressive Muslim minority was an obstacle in their path to establish their “Ram Raj.” To overcome this obstacle, the Hindu elite under the leadership of Gandhi came up with a two-pronged strategy.

First, visionary Hindus like Subash Chander Bose who believed firmly in the unity of the country and its people were expelled from the Congress party. Second, frequent provocative statements by Hindu leaders like Nehru led to the exodus of Muslims from the Congress party and it polarized the communal atmosphere in the country. As a consequence, the Muslims formed their own party, Muslim League. Every time the Mulim League tried to come to some understanding with the Congress party to avoid the partition of the country on communal lines, it was pushed away by ambiguous and provocative response from the Hindu leaders. Finally, being fed up with the attitude of the Hindu leadership, Muslims under the leadership of Jinah asked for the partition of the country.

The Hindu elite congratulated Gandhi for the success of his well-planned strategy. However, Gandhi maintained a façade of Hindu / Muslim unity. When in 1946 the first wave of Hindu / Sikh refugees from Western Punjab arrived in Delhi and other towns, Gandhi lectured them to go back. He promised them that India would be divided only over his dead body. Nobody believed him except the lunatic fringe, like Gulzari Lal Nanda, Sushila Nayyar and her brother Pyare Lal. India was divided into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India on August 15, 1947. Gandhi was hale and hearty, singing prayer songs and giving sermons from his favorite scripture, the Bhagvad Gita.

The classification of Indians into advasis (native) and non-advasis s is meaningless biologically. Before the invasion and migration of numerous Caucasian tribes from central Asia, dark skinned people inhabited the Indian subcontinent. However, due to miscegenation over thousands years, there are not very many pure Caucasian or advasis people in India. The complexion of modern Indians varies from a light tan to ebony-black and most of them are quite dark. It does not matter whether they call themselves Aryans, Brahmins, Rajputs, Jats, Khatris, Aggarwals etc., they all inherit the genes from their advasis ancestors.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that interests of all the people should be represented in the government. Having said that let us discuss the statement on page fifty-six:

“Mr. Badal’s conscience, who is a product of Punjabi culture, did not allow him to impose a one party government on the people of Punjab. This farsighted, broad minded and consensus builder visionary leader invited Bhartiya Janata Party to join his government to set a precedent for multi-party governments in Punjab.”

This is an erroneous statement. First of all, Badal is one of the most corrupt and decadent politician in Punjab.14 Second, he expelled about 20 MLAs from his own party who opposed his policies. Why didn’t he try to build a consensus first within his own party? Third, he did not invite the Congress party and others to join his government. Therefore, you can’t call his government a multi-party government. Furthermore, the government headed by Justice Gurnam Singh, if my memory serves me right, was a coalition of three parties!

Moreover, Badal is not what you have described him to be. How many innocent youth did the first government headed by Badal kill during the Naxalite movement? Didn’t Badal and his Akali party incite innocent and gullible people in the name of religion for their personal political gains? Didn’t Badal and fellow Akalis start the Dharam Yudh Morcha (righteous agitation) under the dictatorship of Longowal, solely for gaining political advantage? Doesn’t this morcha (agitation) share responsibility for what happened in Panjab over the last two decades? Is Badal’s Punjabi conscience immune to the bloodbath of Punjabis during the last two decades? What about the other Punjabis, the protagonist of Punjabiat. Have they recognized Punjabi as their mother tongue? Do they still consider Punjab a bilingual state? Do they still regard Gurmukhi as a crude script?

On page ninety-three you have included Canadian government in the category of the governments of India, Pakistan, Burma and Sri Lanka. Don’t you see any difference between the Canadian government and these other governments? Pakistan and Burma have been under military dictatorship most of the time since their independence from the British. Indian and Sri Lankan democracies represent the tyranny of majority over minorities. On the other hand, Canadian government in spite of its shortcomings is a government of law, which considers a person innocent unless proven guilty, unlike the Indian democracy, which considers a person guilty unless proven innocent, and whose police kills thousands in custody and fake encounters on the order of their superiors, who get sadistic pleasure from the gory details.

Furthermore, the Canadian government does not harass the members of opposition parties or put them in jail on false charges. Canadian government has allowed the development of a humane society, which is responsible for the welfare of its citizens. Even elderly immigrants who have made no contribution to the Canadian society enjoy the fruits of its generosity.


NOTES & REFERENCES

1 Amar Singh Dhaliwal. Bharat Da Napunsak Loaktantar ‘Vartman Ate Bhvikh’ (Punjabi), Printwell, Amritsar, 2001.This book is written in Punjabi and the Constitution Review Commission, headed by the retired Indian Supreme-Court Justice, M. N. Venkatachaliah has translated it into English.

2 Professor Amar Singh Dhaliwal lives in Canada and he is a member of the editorial board of Undersatnding Sikhism – The Reseach Jouranl published by Professor Devinder Singh Chahal of Canada.

3 Harbhajan Singh, a Marxist journalist has serialized the first five chapters of this book in the Punjabi Tribune and written a brief introduction to the author and the central theme of the book

4 Professor Pritam Singh, who wrote the preface, retired as the head of the department of Guru Nanak Studies, Guru Nanak Dev University. He is also a Marxist and a Punjabi poet.

5 5 Daljit Singh, Essays on the authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir and the integrated logic and unity of Sikhism, 2nd ed. 1995, p 73-77.

6 S. Sinha, J. Singh, Sunil, G. K.C. Reddy, Army Action in Punjab: Perlude and Aftermath. R. N. Kumar, A. Singh, A. Agrwaal, J. Kaur (Committee for coordination on Disappearance in Punjab), Reduced to Ashes: The Insurgency and Human Rights in Punjab, 2003.

7 Jagjit Singh, Sikh Revolution, 4th reprint, 1998, p 213-218.

8 Gokul. C. Narang, Transformation of Sikhism, 5th ed., 1960, p 98.

9 Spokesman, May 1997, p 13-14.

10 Spokesman, November 1997, p 20-21.

11 Spokesman, November 2002, p 23-24.

12 Sangat Singh, The Sikhs in History, 4th ed., 2001, p 159.

13 J. S. Grewal, The Sikhs of Punjab, first paperback ed., 1994, p 3.

14 Parkash Singh Badal, several ministers of his cabinet and many officials associated with his government have been charged with corruption.


Copyright©2003 Baldev Singh. About the author