An important issue that's transfixed the Sikh community globally is the potential hanging of Bhai Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar. I won't go through the background of his case, as that can be found here. Rather, I'd like to discuss the reaction Sikhs are displaying. Just as last year with the Bhai Balwant Singh Rajoana case, Sikhs are organizing protests in order to commute the death sentence and/or release Bhullar Sahib. With the utmost respect, I find this path of action foolish and playing into the hands of the Hindu Establishment, due to the reactionary nature of the protest, the terms of most protests, and the lack of future goals.
Protests in most situations are not the culmination of a grassroots effort to achieve anything. Instead, they are in direct opposition taken by another body of power. In most cases, protests arise from the reaction of the populace towards its own government. Protests, however, are not an effective predictor of revolution or fundamental change. In the protests of both Rajoana Sahib and Bhullar Sahib, Sikhs effectively gathered in front of Indian embassies worldwide. Hardly ever had the community been collectively galvanized in such a way over the last twenty years. Yet, Sikhs find themselves today in the same position as last year, protesting in order to save one man. The reactionary force of the protest of last year did not or could not lead to a proactive force afterwards. I expect the same effect or lack thereof this year. Issues such as life and the death penalty are easy to oppose and therefore easy to gather support in order to save a life. However, the underlying issue of the continuous and established injustice from the Indian government towards Sikhs is a much more controversial topic that fractures our community. So again this year Bhullar Sahib's life may be spared by the pressure of the international community, and again we will show India that we are capable of exerting pressure in order to save one man. But could this be how India wants us to behave? It's unlikely that India did not expect a reaction this time around having witnessed the protests of last year. Additionally, I would expect the Central Government to have plenty of stratagems of how to keep us under its thumb. To think that we forced India not to hang Bhai Rajoana Sahib last year is frankly naive. Protesting Bhullar Sahib's execution order with a singular message of attaining his liberty is not a threat to India. Yet, in the case where a new Shaheed were to arise in our Panth, I would anticipate the stimulus to confront India on more substantial plane would come about.
A second issue I have with these protests are the terms on which they are delivered. As our community is particularly fractured on our Panthic aims, the protests deliver a mixed message. There is a mix of those of us that believe Khalistan ought to be the next step, while there are perhaps an equal number that are opposed to Bhullar Sahib's death penalty but not Punjab's inclusion in India. Most protests are the coming together of two parties with an equal interest in a matter. For example, the Civil Rights Protests, Iraq War Protests, or event the Occupy Wall Street Protests are all examples of both parties confronting a topic under the conjoining umbrella of the nation as a whole. Thus, a protest at Capitol Hill or Downing Street by the respective citizenry conveys some things that are not stated. First of all, the protests accept the power of the office ,before which they protest. Secondly, that the protest is not an act of revolution but a lawful act within the construct of the nation as a whole. So to come back to the Sikh protests before the Indian Embassies we are effectively accepting that India is a legitamate power, before whom we ask/demand an action, and that our efforts are self-contained to the issue and not a challenge towards the office. If one looks back on successful revolutions or independence movements, of which there have only been a handful in human history, protests were irrelevant in comparison to intellectual indoctrination, underground sabotage, or out and out violence. So, to see our protests now in the same vein as what Bhai Bhindranwale Sahib did is simply untrue. We are making a simplistic demand without providing or spreading a concrete intellectual alternative to India.
This leads me to the fact that the Panth does not have an aim of what we want to achieve or how to achieve it. This has less to do with the dispersal of Sikhs across the globe, but rather the lack of a unifying authority to lead us through the times. The corruption that is rife throughout Punjab from the state government through to SGPC and Akal Takht have robbed the Panth of its leadership. The importance of this leadership cannot be overstated. In its place tens of organizations have emerged all pushing their own agenda and in some cases an alternative form of Sikhi. Thus, where we should have one aim, guided by Guru Granth Sahib Ji and dictated by the Akal Takht as per the decision of the Sarbat Khalsa, we have several aims all supported by different groups of Sikhs. Without an agenda or a manifesto of what the Panth collectively seeks to achieve in the coming years, we will just continue to go through the motions of regular nagar kirtans and protests without a demonstrable aim.
In conclusion, I think it is important for the Sikhs both abroad and in Punjab to avoid aimlessly confronting the central government. It plays into the hands of both India and Badal to regularly create an issue to agitate Sikhs, allow for a temporary release of tension and then watch as we recess from the political arena. However, if we were to become the agitators by creating a concrete agenda, working on regional goals in Punjab then facing the Central Government as we did in 1984 the tables would be turned, and India would be forced to become the reactionary ones.
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
