In a recent op-ed, Sarju Kaul, the resident editor of the Times of India, talked about Amritpal Singh’s rising popularity and insinuated as if Sikhs, in general, are the ‘anti-establishment’. First and foremost, using anti-establishment is in itself problematic in this case. Anti-establishment essentially means opposition to the conventional social, political, and economic principles of a society. It is a political philosophy. The Khalistan movement is anything but that. It is a terrorist movement that wants to break India and has historically been involved in mass murders of Hindus. Times of India, therefore, at the very outset, whitewashed the Khalistan movement by calling it anti-establishment instead of what it really is – anti-India.
Going through the op-ed as a Punjabi Hindu, there are a lot of aspects that need to be discussed. Kaul started with a very problematic statement ‘ Punjab is never in sync with Delhi’. To prove her point, the author used the historic anti-establishment sentiments that the people of Punjab had before India gained independence. It was claimed that the sentiment drives support for all causes and protests at an organic level.
But how far is it true? It is a well-established fact that the farmers’ protests were not limited to the repealing of farm laws alone. Some elements propagated pro-Khalistan sentiments during the protests and attempted to drive youth towards the demand of Khalistan. Notably, actors like the late Deep Sidhu, who established Waris Punjab De before his death, tried his best to target youth during farmer protests and make it about not just the farm laws but the religion itself.
The author compared the recent anti-India sentiments during farmer protests to the pre-partition Punjab where the sentiment was not against India but against imperialists. By such a comparison, was she trying to propagate that the whole of Punjab does not want to stay with India? There are many Sikhs and Punjabis who are against the idea of Khalistan, and they often openly speak on social media and offline about it. Even leaders like General Secretary of Shiromani Akali Dal Bikram Singh Majithia has spoken against the idea of Khalistan in connection to the rise of Amritpal Singh in the state.
Sikhs have been historically against the invaders. The formation of Khalsa was to fight Mughal invaders and later British invaders. Kaul talked about the concept of Miri-Piri given by Shri Guru Hargobind Singh Ji, the sixth Sikh Guru. The concept discusses temporal authority (Miri) and spiritual authority (Piri). Guru Hargobind Singh Ji was the first Sikh Guru to establish an army to fight against the invaders, i.e. Mughals. Comparing that resistance with the rise of anti-India sentiments in today’s Punjab due to alleged injustice in sacrilege cases, demolition drives, and police firing holds no ground.
Differentiate between centre and state matters
Punjab, which is known for its agricultural stature, is the biggest beneficiary of the procurement drives of the central government. Data that is present with OpIndia shows that since 2014, there has been a substantial increase in the MSP and procurement every year. Thus, the issue of alleged injustice by the central government is hard to digest. Furthermore, the problems like sacrilege, police firing etc., are state matters. If there has to be any resistance, it should be at the state level.
If we talk about the central and state-level “injustice,” it should be mentioned that for years the Central Government tried to pay the money against procurement directly to the farmers. Still, the state government created hurdles in it. The state wanted the procurement payments to occur via arthias or middlemen. It was only in 2022 that the payments were made directly to the farmers in Punjab. From infrastructure to industrialisation and schemes for farmers to the general public, most issues are state subjects. If there are any anti-establishment sentiments, they should be against the state government. How is it linked to Punjab being part of India?
Later in the op-ed, the author compared Bhagat Singh to Sidhu Moosewala. Putting these two in a single sentence is unimaginable at every level. First, Amritpal Singh and his followers do not consider Bhagat Singh, their hero. On the other hand, they despise the murder of Sidhu Moose Wala as he talks about “the issues of Punjab” through his songs.
Bhagat Singh’s ideology is immaterial – the fact is that he lived and died for India and her independence. Bhindranwale and his followers in the past, or Amritpal Singh and his followers in the present times, follow a radical religious ideology. These two segments are entirely different. Bhagat Singh talked about ‘one nation, one language’. On the other hand, those who call for Khalistan demand a separate nation. The ideologies and the structural demands are different from each other. Furthermore, Moosewala was possibly killed due to personal enmity and not because he resisted the state or the centre. Pertinently, Moosewala was also a strong proponent of Khalistan and therefore, it is unthinkable that the Times of India would compare him to Bhagat Singh – a patriot.
The political loss of SAD
Shiromani Akali Dal lost its ground in Punjab in the recent Assembly elections. It was portrayed by the author as if it was a sign of SAD’s inability to side with Punjabis’ sentiments. It has been claimed that the SAD-controlled Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) is losing the ground support it gained by invoking Sikh identity and religion. The loss that has been because of the unhinged politics is seen as the reason for the resistance in the youth towards the traditional parties and favouring the separatist values.
However, in reality, the people of Punjab, let it be the majority of Sikhs or Hindus or other communities, would not prefer a separate nation. They chose to bring a fourth party to the play to give them a chance to rule the state. Had there been any sentiments of a separate state, Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar) would have contested and won all seats in the Punjab Assembly elections.
Punjabi Youth and future in farming
The author further said that Punjabi youth wants to shift to other countries like Australia and Canada as they do not see any future in agriculture. Had it been the way it was presented, why were there protests against the Agriculture Laws in the first place? The youth would have sold land and shifted to other countries, something a percentage of Punjabis have already done. The reality is Sikhs, or Punjabis will never leave their motherland and Agriculture. Many landlords rent out their farms and enjoy a good income.
The youth of Punjab needs support from the state government, and that too beyond the lines of politics. There have been practices in farming that are not sustainable and need an overhaul. There is no need to demand a separate nation for Sikhs but a dedicated government that the people of Punjab have failed to choose for decades. There is a need to come out of the fear that industrialisation or capitalism will ruin the state. It will help the state in bringing sustainable income. There is a need to educate youngsters to stay away from drugs and guns and not push them towards the sentiments of a separate nation.
