Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!gatech!ut-sally!raghu
From: raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Response by a Sikh
Message-ID: <3123@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 06:39:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.3123
Posted: Tue Oct  8 06:39:54 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Oct-85 04:07:36 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 83


bajwa@decwrl posted an article presenting a Sikh point of view. Some
questions and comments:

-> You state that two Sikhs assasinated Indira Gandhi 'as individuals and
   not as part of a conspiracy'. This maybe true, but what is your source?

-> 'Bhindranwale went into the Golden Temple when he realised that the Govt.
   had decided that he was expendable.'

   How was this allowed to happen by the temple authorities? Since policing
   of the temple by outsiders is considered sacrilegious, one presumes that
   some internal authority is responsible for maintaining order. Where was
   this authority during the long period when Bhindranwale used the temple
   as a terrorist base?

   Given that Bhindranwale was in the temple and misusing its protection,
   what was the alternative to entering the temple?

-> ' ... and several hundred pilgrims were indiscriminately killed.'

   Given that curfew was declared, that the army surrounded the temple for
   days before entering, and given that none of the papers (including anti
   Govt papers like the Express) reported such massacres, I find it hard
   to believe. The press may be muted, but its not muzzled. Again, what
   was your source?

-> 'Mutiny by Sikh soldiers was an unfortunate but understandable happening.'

   This use of 'understandable' is akin to swami@uiucdcsb's usage of the
   word in describing subsequent anti-Sikh riots. This is misplaced
   understanding.

-> 'By now everyone is aware that the post-assasination riots in Delhi etc.
    were planned and directed ...'

   By now everyone is aware of allegations (some or all of which might be true)
   to this effect. This is a far cry from taking it for granted that all such
   riots were incited and masterminded by the Congress party with the 
   connivance of the police.

-> Two articles (authors unknown) were included in the posting. Both made
   questionable statements, but the first was particularly objectionable.

   -> The Urban Govt/Rural Problems paradox is not unique to Punjab. Nor
      is the rampant corruption within the Govt bureaucracy.

   -> The rhetoric, in its praise of Sikhs (well-deserved praise, in my 
      opinion), is also insulting to other Indians. (Examples: 'Indians 
      consequently have been rendered effete.  They see no escape from 
      a life of servitude ... The Sikhs have decided that it is time this 
      slavery ended ... to throw off this colonialistic bureaucracy.' 
      Many Sikhs are dynamic, but so are many non-Sikhs. 'Their religion 
      rejects such passivity.' The implication is that other religions 
      promote passivity! This is, at best, a cheap shot.)

   -> The article openly advocates separation. I find this unacceptable. 
      'And Punjab and its people have come to realize that
      they have to be free to transform themselves and in the process to
      shake off the parasite that feeds on them.' The phenomenon of 
      one state feeling itself to be exploited is not new, and partition
      is not the solution.

      The article makes no distinction between the views of an extremist 
      segment and the views of Sikhs at large.

   -> The second article takes for granted things such as 'hate campaigns'
      and orchestrated mass killings. These are statements that many
      consider greatly exaggerated at best. Drawing a parallel with the
      Nazi persecution of Jews is unwarranted.

Articles such as the two included in Bajwa's posting serve to inflame and 
incite, rather than to inform. What is needed is not hot-headed rhetoric 
but authenticated facts and suggestions for healing the rift which now 
exists between Sikhs and non-Sikhs. 

As I understand it, certain grievances (some justified, some not) of Sikhs
(or Punjab, if you prefer) were taken up violently by an extremist faction,
and in quelling this violence, things happened which deeply offended all Sikhs.
This was partly (or wholly, depending on your point of view) due to 
insensitivity and vested interests in the Govt. The question, of course, is
how are these (old and new) grievances to be redressed? Any constructive
suggestions (I dont consider partition to be one of them!)?