Kids Corner

Homepage image: courtesy - Bharti Kher.

Columnists

1984
What The Past Teaches Us

by I.J. SINGH

 

 

The past speaks eloquently because it reveals what we have become - and then it directs what we are and where we are headed. History teaches us; it is a prologue to the future.

I know these are critical days in our sometimes fragile sense of self.  June 1984 is a constant thorn in our sides and a reminder of how far we seem to have fallen from where we think we were not so long ago.  It is a double whammy not only for what happened then, but also because the attack on the Harmandar at Amritsar by the Indian army was timed for the anniversary of the martyrdom of Guru Arjan, the Fifth Sikh Master.

Let me unearth a couple of nuggets from our contentious history and draw some lessons from them.

At the end of Guru Nanak's days when he transformed a Sikh, Bhai Lehna, into Guru Angad to lead the Sikhs, he purposefully dismissed the claims of his own two sons to the title and to the position of the Guru that they thought was their birthright.  "From father to son..." isn't always the way it is or needs to be?  It may be the way of the world but not of the House of Guru Nanak.

We all know this.  We also know that such battles of succession are common enough in most families anywhere in the world.  It does not have to be Guruship or a kingdom that's at stake; it may be something trivial - even a broken down shack mortgaged to the hilt.

From Guru Nanak, who was born in 1469, to Guru Gobind Singh, whose life here on earth ended in 1708, Sikhs celebrate ten Gurus in human form. Except for three instances, every Guru's life was marked by family discord and divisions at the time of succession to the title.

Out of these three, one time was at the end of the life of Guru Gobind Singh. He named no successor in human form and decreed that the Sikhs as a collective (panth) will inherit the authority over temporal issues of the community as long as they wielded it with cognizance of the spiritual authority vested in the Guru Granth. This left no room for pretenders. 

It was also a time of much strife and warfare when Sikh survival hung in the balance - not a time for easy pickings. Some pretenders appeared on the scene but not immediately in those troublesome days; they tried to set themselves up as Gurus much later, and then it was largely too late. 

Look at the contrast: When the ninth Guru, Tegh Bahadur, ascended to the Guruship there were as many as 22 pretenders to the title; one even tried to shoot the Guru.

The other two times that no pretender appeared on the scene are, to my mind, most instructive of human character.

One was the time immediately after Guru Arjan was martyred. Again, it was a time of much ferment, turmoil and uncertainty.  Guru Arjan, along with his associates, had been inhumanly tortured. How Guru Arjan was martyred and how he faced death were no secret. It even moved non-Sikhs to tears and anger; a Muslim saint, Mia(n) Meer, was so moved that he offered to intercede on the Guru's behalf - an offer that was appreciated but not accepted by the Guru. The Guru's equanimity and demeanor remained such that it melted even the stone-hearted.

That's not the time when pretenders would come out of the woodwork. And none did.

Guru Hargobind became the sixth Guru and there were absolutely no claimants from his family or elsewhere for the honor.

Mind you, when Arjan became Guru, there were plenty of rival claimants, including Arjan's brothers, who wanted the office and divided the community in internecine divisions. Some even set up fairly powerful rival movements. But all this happened when things were peaceful and copacetic, before Guru Arjan was arrested and tortured to death. The important thing is that these ambitious claimants promptly disappeared when the hard times came and political power laid siege to Sikhism.

The second time when succession to Guruship was not contested was similar. When Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth Master, was executed on the orders of Aurungzeb, the Mughal Emperor of the day, Guru Gobind Singh was immediately nominated to the Guruship. There is no historical evidence indicating any significant conflict in the matter. The schismatic movements that started in and before the time of Guru Arjan had largely gone underground. The times were dangerous and they were in hiding. There were no rivals.

The reason is simple. Again, the times promised very rough seas ahead. Remember that when the young sons of Guru Gobind Singh were walled up alive, the crime was so heinous that a Muslim nobleman, the Nawab of Malerkotla, was moved to intercede on their behalf.  (His intercession failed.)

Pretenders are there for the good times, not when there are stormy skies ahead, not when a leader demonstrates by personal example how to put one's head on the line for a principle.

Pretenders to a throne need calm seas and peaceful times to enjoy the rewards. They are risk-averse. They want the respect, adoration and rewards of Guruship without the hard times, sacrifice and danger. That's why when times were peaceful, the process of succession from the 6th to the 9th Gurus speaks of a bucket-full of pretenders, with 22 claimants from the 8th to the ninth; but from the 5th to the 6th and from the 9th to the 10th Gurus, the road promised nothing but potholes. It drove away the comfort-seeking ambitious office-seekers and the matter of succession was never challenged.

Pretenders come out of the woodwork only when the living is easy. Not that they feel no pain or never think of the road they have taken or the implications of the compromises that they make in life, but demands of self-preservation and dreams of glory trump everything else and all principles. 

Also, don't forget then even in their most compromising mode, they may do some good at times.

Perhaps this explains why in and around 1984, sant-babas were relatively rare in Punjab when times were dangerous. Now that there is relative calm, the countryside is littered with them, each plying his own trade - a shop for profit.

As difficult as some of these contentious times were, such as the decade of the 1980's, they remind us of the adage that nothing unites a people as a common enemy. The adage in the days of a world divided between the Communists and the Capitalist democratic societies was that a Martian invasion of the world would unite the enemy camps in a trice.

That's how I look at the two ends of the spectrum post-1984 - ranging from those who compromise to those who don't.  From Bhindranwale and those who continue to be inspired by him, to those at the other end of the spectrum - some like Manmohan Singh, who compromise their soul but not without doing considerable visible and measurable good.  When the going seems good, many more come out to walk with us; when it is not, one can count on one's fingers who will take that chance.

And that's life.

This little sermonette is going to be deliberately short. There are many views of 1984; each is incomplete. There were those who fought the good fight and died for it, and those who took the easier road to live for another day. 

 

June 10, 2010

Conversation about this article

1: Inni Kaur (Fairfield, CT, U.S.A.), June 10, 2010, 9:19 AM.

There are those who say "Forget 1984, and move on!" and then there are those that say "As long as there is breath, as long as there is strength, I will speak and act, for I remember..." Thank you, Inder - this piece was sorely needed.

2: Surinder (Massachusetts, U.S.A.), June 10, 2010, 11:10 AM.

I appreciate this good piece of writing. You write "... some like Manmohan Singh, who compromise their soul ..." How did Dr. Manmohan Singh compromise his soul? Can you clarify, please?

3: Daljit Singh (Canada), June 10, 2010, 12:15 PM.

A leader has to have the strength to do what is right. When one compromises and fails to deliver justice to the tens of innocent thousands who are dead - burned and mutilated alive - and, instead, advises to "Forget the past...", that person has indeed compromised his soul.

4: I.J. Singh (New York, U.S.A.), June 10, 2010, 2:28 PM.

Surinder, much as I admire Manmohan Singh's competence with which he is steering India, I also acknowledge that his presence on the stage has benefited the Sikh image all over the world, perhaps even in India. But I also find his denial of the abuses of 1984 and that decade distressing and a compromise. No one is perfect and people operate within the limitations of the situation that they find themselves in. And that's what I mean in my implied criticism of him. These are human beings - never are they going to be perfect, and rarely is our individual judgment going to be entirely correct, since we act out of partial information of the constraints on any any person or situation. Daljit, whose comment follow yours, also addresses this matter.

5: Gurpal (United Kingdom), June 10, 2010, 4:19 PM.

Excellent article. I've been thinking along these lines for some time. If one of these dera leaders is a spiritual wiz, then let him show us how to sit on a hot metal plate for an extended amount of time. It reminds me of an account I read in one of the many books published by the radha soamis of dera beas, where the Charan Singh Grewal was being interviewed and got asked by a western interviewer on why he wore a kara. His reply was that it was a gift from his mother on his wedding. In other words, his view of the kara was rooted in motherly 'moh' based on the surrounding 'Sikh culture' rather than being rooted in Sikh religious values. Many wear gold or even steel karas without understanding, but this was a person viewed as a spiritual leader by his followers. The dera heads have all been keshadhari. Why, if they don't believe in it? I do wonder how the deras would respond if they were under the sort of persecution meted out to Sikhs in centuries gone by? Would they go martial like the Khalsa? or would they be all meek and be wiped out? What is their response to persecution?

6: Gur Singh (Boston, MA, U.S.A.), June 10, 2010, 6:36 PM.

Deradom is just the political manifestation of unrepresented groups in the S.G.P.C. which when kept isolated from political power for longer times tend to deviate from principles and give rise to cults. Well, it may not be an easy thing to explain in brief words. But, the easiest way to assimilate deradom is to make all dera leaders sit at the round table. As long as mainstream Sikhs keep isolating them, deras will keep fomenting trouble and more deras will appear, but if we allow them to participate in S.G.P.C. elections, which might happen in near future, and if it does, it will mark the beginning of their end. It might sound funny to some people that the likes of Sacha Sauda and the current power mongers in the S.G.P.C. are just some of the many heads of the political hydra eating Sikhism - they can be finished only if they are allowed to contest in the S.G.P.C. democratically and with time we might see the true Sikh leaders on the scene. I don't know how many people will agree to me, but with ultimate faith in the Guru Granth Sahib, I am ready to take such a risk.

7: Kanwarjeet Singh (Franklin Park, New Jersey, U.S.A.), June 10, 2010, 10:05 PM.

Reminds me of Maskeen ji's kathaa post on 1984. The sangat asked him: 'ke Sikh sangat te eh sare balaa kadoon niklege?' ('When will the Sikhs be free of these troubled times?'). Maskeen ji replied: 'Kadeh nahin!' ('Never!'). He explained that only a burning lamp has the fear of being extinguished but it still fights the wind and lights the lives, only a live person has the fear of dying. Similiarly, the Sikh quom (nation) is a live one, as long as there is life in us, we will face these dangers. The day these problems are gone - whether they be sant babas, Indira Gandhi, RSS, BJP, Akali Dal, fake Sikhs, Radhasoamis, Nirankaris, etc. - these problems will not go away till there is life in Sikhi. The day Sikhi is freed of troubles, it will be the end of Sikhi and it will only exist as just another community, absorbed probably into Hinduism like Jainism and Buddhism.

8: Surinder (Massachusetts, U.S.A.), June 10, 2010, 11:08 PM.

Dear Prof. I. J. Singh, thanks for your response. We want our leaders to be do a lot of things. We want them to provide "justice", which often means only what we consider to be the version of justice. Leaders are not God, they are not all powerful and cannot right every wrong of the past. They operate under practical realities of life. Dr. Manmohan Singh is a decent man. To accuse him of compromising his soul is a rather too strong an accusation. Something I wish he does not deserve. He has not spoken fully and clearly about what he thinks of the events of 1984 and later. It is unfair to assume he has compromised his own principles. We are so adamant that we are not able to see multiple interpretations of the events of 80's. Dr. Manmohan Singh was right there in the Punjab, while most of us were either in foreign lands, or in diapers. It does not do justice to lay such serious blame on so decent a man.

9: N. Singh (Canada), June 11, 2010, 11:26 AM.

Under the law of India there is only one version of justice. Killing someone in cold blood by throwing kerosene over them is a criminal act. There is no other interpretation of the law. The people who did this or orchestrated it need to be bought to justice! Regardless of the alleged acts of Bhindranwale, the killing of Indira Gandhi or any other acts committed by rogue groups, the killing of innocent people based on their ethnic and religious identity is a crime under local and international laws and classified as 'genocide'. Dr. Manmohan Singh has a legal and moral responsibility to ensure that justice is done. It is the law of the land and not his personal decision as to what should or should not be done. He is a graduate of both Oxford and Cambridge and therefore has the intellectual capacity to read and understand both the case files as well as numerous literature available to him on the subject. Ignorance of the facts is no excuse. He has chosen to ignore the law and moral codes recognized all over the world and therefore falls short of the descriptives, 'decent' and 'having integrity'!

10: Devinder Pal Singh (Delhi, India), June 11, 2010, 11:41 AM.

I.J. has given a quick insight into human behavior, and whatever he has cited there is quite relevant to this day. The Sikhs are still dependent on individuals to seek a passage for restoring the pride which was dented by the gruesome instances of 1984. It's a pity that, given that the community has done very well in regaining some of its losses, has still not found an able leadership. Its woefully missing in gurdwara managements and also in the political streams. Perhaps we are too egoistic, which makes us forget the community. We will exhibit religious fervor but are never willing to practice the all important lesson of humility handed out to us by our Gurus. Squaring on individuals may not be desired, however these leaders should exercise their influence in making things happen like getting justice for the sufferers of the 1984 pogroms. It's difficult for the individual but the community has to get its act together and get the right representation ahead to meet its objectives.

11: Jodh Singh (Jericho, New York, U.S.A.), June 12, 2010, 8:48 AM.

Until we realize why this Ghalughara happened, we cannot learn much from it. Has any one analyzed the leadership role of Bhindranwala? He was illiterate politically, diplomatically and had poor foresighted. Unfortunately, the other three leaders - Harchand Singh, Tohra and Badal - also remained unconcerned and did nothing to stop the use of the Akal Takht as a defence bunker. Other than Swaran Singh, nobody pleaded with him to stop this. Badal remained aloof and now he is enjoying ruling Punjab for many years and giving it to his son. Until the day we shall have an unbiased account of all events, we cannot say what we have learned from the experience.

12: Gurmukh Singh (London, United Kingdom), June 14, 2010, 11:02 AM.

As one who has always enjoyed reading Dr I.J. Singh's essays which help the reader to reach own conclusions, I did find the flow of the above item interrupted on reading, " - some like Manmohan Singh, who compromise their soul...". That is not I.J.'s usual style. Perhaps, it shows the extent to which we all feel so helpless, despite having a Sikh Prime Minister of India, who has done so much for the country, and who is so admired by the world. For truly, "Justice delayed is justice denied."

13: Bibek Singh (Jersey City,U.S.A.), September 19, 2010, 10:01 PM.

Thought provoking ... Thanks!

Comment on "1984
What The Past Teaches Us"









To help us distinguish between comments submitted by individuals and those automatically entered by software robots, please complete the following.

Please note: your email address will not be shown on the site, this is for contact and follow-up purposes only. All information will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy. Sikhchic reserves the right to edit or remove content at any time.