1984: Lessons on How to Live and Die
Teer Kaur | @BiketheWind
ਰਾਮਕਲੀ ਕੀ ਵਾਰ ਰਾਇ ਬਲਵੰਡਿ ਤਥਾ ਸਤੈ ਡੂਮਿ ਆਖੀ
ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
ਨਾਉ ਕਰਤਾ ਕਾਦਰੁ ਕਰੇ ਕਿਉ ਬੋਲੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਜੋਖੀਵਦੈ ॥
ਦੇ ਗੁਨਾ ਸਤਿ ਭੈਣ ਭਰਾਵ ਹੈ ਪਾਰੰਗਤਿ ਦਾਨੁ ਪੜੀਵਦੈ ॥
ਨਾਨਕਿ ਰਾਜੁ ਚਲਾਇਆ ਸਚੁ ਕੋਟੁ ਸਤਾਣੀ ਨੀਵ ਦੈ॥
ਲਹਣੇ ਧਰਿਓਨੁ ਛਤੁ ਸਿਰਿ ਕਰਿ ਸਿਫਤੀ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਪੀਵਦੈ॥
ਮਤਿ ਗੁਰ ਆਤਮ ਦੇਵ ਦੀ ਖੜਗਿ ਜੋਰਿ ਪਰਾਕੁਇ ਜੀਅ ਦੈ॥
ਗੁਰਿ ਚੇਲੇ ਰਹਰਾਸਿ ਕੀਈ ਨਾਨਕਿ ਸਲਾਮਤਿ ਥੀਵਦੈ॥
ਸਹਿ ਟੀਕਾ ਦਿਤੋਸੁ ਜੀਵਦੈ ॥੧॥
#NeverForget1984 is one of the most used hashtags by Sikhs who feel dardh for the Panth. Over the last decade, the panth has shifted away from using the Indian state’s militaristic language, such as Operation Blue Star, and reclaimed language rooted in Sikh Itihas. As transnational repression intensifies in the diaspora, with the recent shaheedia of Khalistani activists Bhai Paramjit Singh Panjwar, Bhai Hardeep Singh Nijjar, and Bhai Avtar Singh Khanda, it is essential to dissect the language and frameworks that are used to understand the events that unfolded in June 1984. By doing so, we can recognize the dangers of historicizing 1984 and demarcating those events as static and of the past, bound by Western notions of temporality.
Therefore, as we mark the 40th anniversary of June 1984, we are forced to confront two key questions: Is our memory and remembrance of 1984 rooted in a politics of mourning, with appeals to humanity and external recognition? Or, does the 40th Anniversary of 1984 remind us of the inherent contradictions when the Indian state launched an attack on our most sovereign place, Darbar Sahib? 1984 is a defining moment for Sikhs that clearly illustrates the antagonistic relationship between Sikhs and the Indian state in this current conjuncture. Suppose we understand the third Ghallughara as ongoing and Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale's theorization of the structural conditions of Sikhs as one of gulaami. In that case, the 40th anniversary of 1984 is not one of remembrance of the past but rather a reckoning of how those structural conditions of gulaami have evolved in the last four decades.
Another way to understand this reframing of 1984 as an evocation of our current gulaam conditions is to grasp how Sikhs share and evoke saakhiya from Sikh Itihas. For example, Kathavachaks and Dhadhi courageously and powerfully share saakhiya about Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji and Baba Deep Singh Ji’s shaheedi at Gurudware in almost every region of the world to evoke the Sikh spirit – a reminder of who we are and the spirit that resides within us. In katha and dhadivaara, kathavachaks and dhadhi collectively raise the Sikh consciousness about shahadat within Sikh epistemologies rather than framing shaheedi within the language of mourning and victimhood.
Since the 1980s, Sikhs have migrated and been displaced from Punjab, building homes and places of refuge in countries including Canada, Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, and throughout the world. Some Sikhs were exiled from Punjab, hoping to contribute to the movement from abroad, and remained unapologetically steadfast in their commitment to the panth. While some regions of the Sikh diaspora now have second, third, and fourth generations, Punjab is still undergoing a mass exodus as rural Punjabi Sikhs are now migrating abroad through student visas and all means available, including selling all assets in Punjab. One of the dangers of historicizing 1984 and demarcating the events as a one-off is that the mass migration of Sikhs from Punjab is often examined in isolation from the structural fissures from the last four decades.
The terrain of Sikh politics and advocacy has evolved since June 1984 as Sikhs navigate hyphenated identities and consist of a diverse population. Therefore, Sikhs in the diaspora have used an array of strategies, slogans, and narratives to raise awareness about the Sikh Genocide abroad, which has, at times, resulted in a dilution of the Sikh perspective on historic events in the Panth. To have the atrocities recognizable to the Western spectator, Sikhs and Shaheeds are often framed as victims with little to no agency. Some draw on legal frameworks of human rights to draw the West’s attention to June 1984. Others’ efforts fall into traps of recognition and redemptive politics, asking local and state officials in imperialist countries, who often exert brutal state violence on marginalized populations in their region, to recognize the 1984 Genocide. In the process, the lessons to be learned from June 1984 are clouded and drift away from an approach rooted in Gurmat, which may have significant ramifications on the next generation of Sikhs who can only connect with 1984 through duniyavi politics. In 1992, Bhai Jaswant Singh Khalra wrote with much clarity on this topic, he said,
“The Khalsa Panth seeks to wield political power as instructed by Gurmat. The Khalsa is not fighting with the Indian state to set the price of wheat and paddy–the Khalsa is fighting to establish the principles and value of dharam. If the Khalsa renounces this very dharam and goes to war by adopting Brahminical influences, then on which definition will victory and defeat be decided?This is like the tale of the battle between the elephant and the lion. When the lion thought that he needed to be as tall as the elephant in order to defeat him, he begged the horse, “Let me stand on your back to fight the elephant.” When he got on the horse and squared off against the elephant, the elephant laughed at him and said that there is no point in fighting anymore. “You have lost the confidence to fight on your own terms, and that is why you tried to imitate me instead. At this point, whether you win or lose is meaningless–you’ve already accepted defeat.””
-Bhai Jaswant Singh Khalra
“The Game of Elections: Should it be Played or Not?” Originally published in Liberation Khalistan (February 1992)
Sikh calls for statehood and rights, along with descriptions of state violence, are frequently translated into colonial confining languages of human rights, borders, and statehood, which dilute Sikh epistemologies of patshahi. June 1984 and the countless atrocities faced by Sikhs are often framed as individualistic feelings and stories without much examination into the structures that have produced this conjuncture of massive displacement from Punjab. After Bhai Hardeep Singh Nijjar’s shaheedi in Canada, an array of scholars, journalists, activists, and others have commented on the rising fascism in India. In many accounts, the framing problematizes Modi, his rise to power, and human rights violations rather than India as a nation-state that had continuously subjugated Sikhs before Modi took office. Without dissecting and problematizing India as a nation-state, these frameworks reify India as a democracy that has just now begun to subjugate its minority populations, namely Sikhs.
While it is essential to use all strategies to advance the movement, these narratives of mourning and victimhood and the historicization of 1984 cause internal confusion for apne naujawan, who are growing up in the diaspora and receiving contradicting messages about patshahi dava. The struggle for Khalistan is an intervention in a world order that produces subjectivity, conditions of poverty, and premature death.
“The Khalsa is never a satellite to another power. They are either fully sovereign or in a state of war and rebellion. A subservient coexistence they never accept. To be fully sovereign and autonomous is their first and last demand.”
-Sri Gur Panth Parkash
In our reflections on June 1984, the panth, must contend with how the Akal Takht was attacked by the Indian army and military and how that can only be understood as a hamla on Sikh sovereignty and being that affects our consciousness to this day. Today, Sikh consciousness looks to the Akal Takht for leadership to move beyond seeking justice through electoral politics, government pleas, and failed leadership. But, how do we move beyond seeking justice through verdicts, electoral politics, and other structures that do not belong within Sikh epistemologies? What is justice from a Sikh perspective? It is about our patshahi, pushing beyond reactive discourse and appeals to imperialist regimes’ sympathy. Instead, sitting with the dardh can push us toward a deeper understanding of our subjectivity and ways to move forward that center the sangat’s demands for self-determination and liberation. The dardh that we feel as a panth is an essential marker of the limitations of assimilation and best served as a rallying point toward expressing our patshahi.
In a letter by Shaheed Bhai Harjinder Singh Jinda, on October 27, 1989, he wrote,
“The judge then called me to the stand. He also gave me the award of death. Just like veer, I, too, shouted jaikaray in happiness and shouted slogans for Khalistan and Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. We also thanked him for sending us to the gallows.
We then said to the judge, “Today is a very happy day for Khalistan. On this, our happiest occasion, we want to throw a party.” The judge replied, “I am very thankful to you. You have helped me very much.” We also thanked the judge. We told the judge that we wanted to meet the Press, but the judge requested that we not do so today but some other time. We agreed.
We were then taken back to jail. We came back and began to distribute barfi (Indian sweet). When the people in the jail found out we had been sentenced to death, they didn’t eat it. So we ate it ourselves.
But mother, your sons slept very happily that night. It was just like a farmer sleeps happily after having taken care of his crop.
Mother, Father, veer ji, at this happy time, do not feel sad. Mother, remain in Chardi Kala just like you were in Poona. What greater happiness can a mother have than for her sons to be executed for their faith? To celebrate this happy moment, ladoos should be given out.”