Senseless Excuses

I don’t want to move back.

A person’s unwillingness to move to Khalistan does not justify Sikhs not having a free country. It is up to the individual to decide where they wish to live. Just because some people do not want to move back does not mean millions of Sikhs suffering all over the world have to pay the price by giving up their freedom.

Time is different now. There is peace in Punjab.

This is only a misunderstanding. Time may be different but situation is no different. Discrimination, mistreatment and mockery of Sikhs have increased more in last couple of years than before. Sikhs are still in jails. Innocent Sikhs are still being picked up by the police and then are killed in fake encounters. The criminals of Delhi massacre are still in high ranking positions in Indian politics. How Bhai Jagtar Singh Hawara was tortured in jail by the police officials and how his religious rights were violated clearly proves that the situation is only getting worse. Hundreds of innocent Sikhs were picked up by the police without any liable proof in the name of terrorism.  

If everything is at peace and Sikhs are free in India then:

1)    Why the criminals are still not punished?

2)    Why innocent Sikhs arrested in 1984 are not being released?

3)    Why is the government spending millions of rupees to rewrite the Sikh history in Hindu way?

4)    Why is the government funding living gurus to preach against Sikhism?

5)    Why are the Sikh farmers committing suicide?

6)    Why Sikhs are not being recognized as a separate nation?

7)    Why Indian movies are misrepresenting the image of Sikhs?

8)    Why Chandigarh is not returned back to Punjab?

9)    Why the control of electricity and water is not handed over to Punjab government?

10)  Why Amritsar is still not given the status of Holy City and other demands of Anandpur Resolution are not met?

The list goes on but these questions require clear cut answers. The government’s intentions are to annihilate Sikh religion not to provide answers which exposes the true face of their Nazism.

Khalistan is linked with Pakistan.

Khalistan has nothing to do with Pakistan. Sikhs are instructed to live as liberators. Freedom is our right. Sikhs have been facing discrimination since India's independence. Sikhs are slaves in India. They do not have equal rights in a country that attacked their holiest place, killed them in fake encounters and insulted their religion. After suffering for decades, Sikhs do not wish to live in India and want to have a separate country. We don’t need Pakistan to make us feel that we don’t belong in India, a country that attacked our religion from inside and outside and wants to destroy us completely rather than give us equal rights.

Of course, Pakistan has helped Sikhs in the past but that is only because Sikhs want independence. USA was helped by France. Bangladesh was helped by India. Indian leaders worked closely with the British. Azad Hind Fauj (Indian Liberation Army) sought the help of Japan and Hitler. There are numerous other examples of one country helping the other to gain independence.  

People in Punjab don’t support it anymore.

People of Punjab very well support a country where they can live happily, peacefully and equally. They have not forgotten the police raids that terrorized them every night and raped their women. They have not forgotten the disappearance of the future Sikh generation. They want to have freedom. Which community does not wish to be free? Which community wishes to live under someone else’s rule? The reason Sikhs in Punjab don’t speak up is because they know they will be picked up by the police and tortured to death. Everyone knows the situation of Punjab. The youth is into drugs and farmers are committing suicides. During the freedom movement more than 90% people supported the idea of Khalistan. If they do speak up they will be arrested by the police. Will anyone do anything about it? Once the movement starts people will join it. After Mughal rule was established in India, there is not a single event recorded in history about a Hindu raising his voice against the Muslims but that did not mean Hindus were in favor of the Mughal rule. In 18th century, Hindus did not help but turned against the Sikhs and kept quiet but that did not mean Hindus liked the Muslim rule or they did not wish to be free. Just because people of Punjab  are quite about Khalistan now doesn’t mean they are against it.

Prime Minister of India is a Sikh. Chief of army is a Sikh. This proves India has changed its policy against Sikhs.

A person is a Sikh only if he is Amritdhari, follows the rehat of Guru Sahib and does not commit any of the four cardinal sins. Manmohan Singh is neither an Amritdhari nor does he keep any rehat.  He has not done anything for cause of the Sikh Nation. In 1992, he openly said in the U.N. Convention that there was no human rights abuse in Punjab. He is a puppet of Madam Soniya who is the backbone of Congress, the same party that is responsible for attack on Darbar Sahib and November 1984 massacre. The way Soniya played her politics fooled many. After winning the elections, she appointed Manmohan Singh instead of taking the position of Prime Minister for herself. This way she managed to please the Sikh Nation on 20th anniversary of 1984 attack and avoided the wrath of the RSS and likeminded Hindu terrorist groups. Soniya Gandhi being the president of the Congress party always remains as one of the main consultants of Manmohan Singh in political affairs. Manmohan Singh elected people like Tytler and others directly involved in Sikh killing in 1984 as NRI Minister. He did nothing about the turban ban in France. He sent some Hindu guy to talk to the French officials. This clearly shows his carelessness towards the Sikh community. He is concerned about Indian nuclear power more than the wellness of the Sikh Nation and other minorities. He has done nothing for Punjab. Problems that existed in Punjab before he became the Prime Minister are getting worse day by day. Rights of Punjab put forth in Anandpur Sahib Resolution are still not met.

We must not forget that Manmohan Singh represents India and was appointed as the Prime Minister for his loyalty and allegiance to India not to the Sikhs. Had he been a Sikh concerned about his community he never would've been elected. He was chosen to serve the majority voice. It was a great political game of Hindus. This way they posed themselves as democratic and secular by appointing someone from the minority community while having him serve the majority agenda at the same time. The world thinks India is the "largest democracy" where equality is practiced while the fact is that they've got a perfect puppet for themselves. Manmohan Singh serves the majority Hindus and fulfills their demands while showing himself as a Sikh. The Hindus avoid the labels like biased, tyrant, oppressors etc. because they claim that they cannot oppress the minority Sikhs when a Sikh is the Prime Minister. But we (Sikhs) should never forget that Giani Zail Singh, Partar Singh Kairon, Baldev Singh, Kartar Singh, Boota Singh, Surjit Singh Barnala, Beant Singh (Chief Minister) and K.P.S. Gill, Kuldip Brar etc. were all from Sikh families who whole heartedly served the Indian government in suppressing the Sikh rights and killing them in large numbers. Manmohan Singh is a puppet of the government which became clear when he asked Sikhs to forget 1984 events. (http://news.oneindia.in/2010/06/29/pm-urges-canadian-sikhs-to-put-1984-riots-behind.html). One more fact Sikhs need to remember is that even if Manmohan Singh was a perfect Sikh, he still would not have made any difference because one person alone cannot change the Constitution or political policy of the government. The law must still be passed by the majority vote which will always be the Hindus. Further, he could never have served as the Prime Minister forever. His term is limited and after he is gone, someone else will come who might be against Sikhs as much as the Gandhi family. On one hand, it is a common excuse of the Hindus that Manmohan Singh represents the entire India not just the Sikh community while on the other hand they dismiss Khalistan by stating that appointment of a Sikh as the Prime Minister is good enough to show that India's policy towards the Sikhs has changed. Both arguments cannot be true at the same time. If the Prime Minister is a Sikh then he must pay attention to  the Sikh community and its long delayed rights. If he represents the entire India (which he does) then he cannot be looked upon as a Sikh leader by the Sikh community. His decision must be agreed upon by the majority vote which again will always be the Hindus in India. Using the same argument it can be said that there would be no need for India to exist anymore if a Hindu ever became the President of the United States (hypothetically speaking)? Would Hindus give up India if the situation ever arised? Whether a Sikh becomes President of the USA or any other country for that matter, it makes no difference to the Sikhs when it comes to their need of having a separate country that will represent them and protect their rights all across the world.

The Chief of Army is a person with trimmed beard who looks like a Sikh. He is a follower of fascist Indian policies. Has he done anything for Sikhs in the army? During British rule, it was a requirement for Sikhs to become Amritdharis before joining the army. This rule was thrown out the window by the Indian government. Cutting hair and trimming beards was popularized in the army. Promotions are given to those who cut their hair. Sikhs with religious values are discouraged, discriminated and mistreated in the army. Thousands of Sikhs from the army were arrested in 1984. They are still in jails. What has the new chief of army done other than giving statements of crushing the Sikh freedom movement?

Indian government can put turban on any person's head and declare him a president or minister but he will NOT become a Sikh. If they want to appoint a Sikh as the chief of army then they should bring forward someone like Sant Jarnail Singh and General Shabegh Singh. If they want to appoint a Sikh as the president then they should bring forward someone like Sirdar Kapoor Singh. Whether a "Sikh" becomes president or not does not change the history and our determination to have a separate country. Many Hindus enjoyed high ranking positions in the Mughal rule and even in the army of Muhammad Gauri (who attacked India 17 times) but it did not change the fact that Hindus were treated as slaves and killed mercilessly. Similarly, just because some people from Sikh families wish to serve the majority Hindu by turning their backs on their own faith and community does not change the fact that Sikhs at large are suffering as second class citizens and struggling for survival.

We should forget about the past and move forward.

1984 and Sikh struggle are part of Sikh history which can never be forgotten. Sikh Ardaas is also a collection of historical events that are remembered by every Sikh at least twice daily. History not only instills sense of pride in an individual but serves as a guidance to learn the truth and act accordingly for future actions. Those who don’t learn from history and forget it are doomed to repeat it. The Indian government and its officials attacked Darbar Sahib in 1955 and 1984 and entered its premises many times with shoes on. Guru Granth Sahib has been ransacked numerous times. We need to learn that there is no guarantee that it won’t happen in the future and establishing Khalistan is the only best option available to us.

Sikhs have not forgotten attacks on Gurdwaras during Mughal and British Empire then why should they forget the most recent happenings? Why should they forget that the government they considered their own turned against them and attacked and killed them like a foreign enemy? Hindus have not forgotten demolition of Ram Mandir 400 years ago evidence of which is very unreliable. Then why should Sikhs forget bombardment of Akal Takhat Sahib? If Sikhs should forget their history then everyone in the world should do the same which means burning history books, official records, religious artifacts, ancient documents and taking history subject out of education system in schools, colleges and universities. People suggesting Sikhs to do such thing perhaps should act on it first and forget about their ancestral background and eliminate any evidence of their family heritage. How sensible would this be? I leave it to readers to decide.

India’s economy is booming.

A country’s economic situation has nothing to do with human rights violation or one’s right to freedom. Mughal Empire’s economy was booming during Akbar’s reign and wealth of Afghanistan was increasing significantly during Abdali’s attacks but Sikhs cared for freedom and justice which is why they opposed the tyrant rule. Oppressing humanity and dishonoring women is not acceptable no matter what the situation is. Attacks on Sikh nation and killing of innocent Sikh men, women and children are not justifiable on any grounds. Situation of Punjab has not changed. Sikhs are still classed as Hindus in the Constitution and perpetrators of 1984 are not only enjoying high ranking positions in the government but are protected with government security forces. Giving up our freedom just because India is gaining some wealth is highly foolish and ludicrous. It is unwise to assume that India during its economic boom will do anything better for the Sikhs when it failed to do any good while it was termed as a third world country.

Give India some time. Progress is always slow.

How much time does India need before the government realizes its responsibilities towards its citizens? Can anyone in the world guarantee protection of Sikh religion and its institutions? Can anyone give an estimate of how many years would it take for the government to recognize separate identity of Sikhs and eliminate caste system, remove drugs from Punjab and restore Punjab’s political and economical rights? “Giving some time” to India is not an option because democracy is being practiced all around the world and has been around for over 200 years. Besides, protecting and safeguarding the citizens and their property was the responsibility of the government even when monarchy was practiced. This is not a rocket science. India is very well aware of this principle. The Indian government is very well conscious about Hindus' rights and protection then why should Sikhs "give India some time"? Had India been ignorant, the Hindus just like minorities would’ve suffered to the same extent as Sikhs. But this is not the case. Indian government deliberately attacked Sikhs and is hell bent on trying to eradicate Sikhi.

I agree that progress is always slow but how does that change the situation of the Sikh nation in India? It does not make a tiny difference. Why is the statement “give it some time” not applied to economic viability of Khalistan? Khalistan too will have slow economic progress so give it some time. If India and Pakistan can start out as third world countries and still survive after 60+ years then Khalistan too can start off as a third world country, survive and slowly make progress.