Did Khalistani guerrillas engage in "terrorism"?
Did Khalistani guerrillas engage in "terrorism"?
Khalistan Centre | @KhalistanCentre
The theory and praxis of Sikh political violence has been developed and deployed by Guru Granth-Panth for centuries. Not only is armed force justified for self-defence in this framework, but also expected of a Sikh to ensure the "protection of the marginalized, destruction of the tyrants" and sarbat da bhala1. It is on these terms that Sikh jujharoos engaged in an armed political struggle against the Indian state. In their own words:
It should be clear to every person that the concept of Khalistan is no sudden revelation to Sikhs. This is neither a romantic dream of some youth who have been swept by the irretrievable emotions nor is it a conspiracy of a ‘handful of disappointed’ and astray people against the so-called unity and integrity of India, as we are accused each day. The sacred concept of Khalistan is already inscred well before us in the historical phrases of ‘Raj Karega Khalsa’ and ‘Khalsa ji de bol bale’ that have become and shall remain an inseparable part of the Khalsa Ardas. This concept has emerged from an intense desire to realize the grand ideal of Ardas into a ‘definite geographic territory’ with a ‘distinct milieu’ on this land...2
To this end, the jujharoo jathebandiyan “unanimously discarded their ‘terrorist’ identity since they took to violence under compelling constraints form the Indian nation-state. They were selective and purposeful about the use of violence against the exploiting classes and the state apparatus.”3
For Sikh jujharoos, such violence was tactically employed as a last resort due to the inhibitions on political organizing as a result of intense state repression which indiscriminately targeted all Sikhs.
Despite the damning evidence of government-led disinformation to demonize Sikh guerrillas, and police authorized death squads, it is true that some violent excesses were committed by other non-state actors. While the context of Sikh armed resistance and the role of the media in demonizing Sikh jujharoos has been established, there were other incidents of violence that occurred during the period.
What is important to a clear understanding of this reality however, is a critical analysis and assessment of the facts rather than allowing disinformation and state propaganda dictate the narrative.
During the course of a fierce armed struggle and significant degrees of state breakdown that occurred in 1980s/1990s Punjab, it is undeniable that some unscrupulous elements took advantage of the circumstances to perpetrate crimes against unarmed populations. What is clear however, is that Sikh jujharoos, the militant leadership, and jujharoo jathebandiyan constantly condemned indiscriminate forms of violence.
One of the earliest allegations of excesses committed by alleged “Sikh terrorists” revolved around an incident in which a bus was hijacked in Dhilwan, Kapurthala in October 1983. Passengers were allegedly separated on the basis of religion and six Hindu passengers were gunned down. No one was charged following the investigation and no jujharoo jathebandi took responsibility for this attack. To the contrary, Sikh leaders across the specturm—including Sant Jarnail Singh jee clearly condemned their murder repeatedly.4 These condemnations were clear, unequivocal, and ongoing in response to similar events.
The jujharoo jathebandiyan made their intentions clear:
Once again we want to make it clear that our struggle is not directed against any religion, community, caste or race. We respect the great cultures of the subcontinent and diversity of its people, their cultures, customs, rituals and modes of dress. But we also expect from them a reciprocal recognition of the distinctive and divine truth of Khalsa culture. We wish to see India a good and gentle neighbour… We believe in coming together after breaking off because that would let you realize the real meaning of equality among nations.5
Where such incidents did occur under the leadership of the jathebandiyan however, it was swiftly acknowledged and condemned by the leadership who took initiatives to address it.6 In this regard, it is important to note that there was a clear, coherent chain of command and leadership that spoke for the jujharoo lehar. This took the form of the Sarbat Khalsa and the jujharoo jathebandiyan organized under the umbrella Panthic Committee.7
It is important to recognize however, that other entities chose to operate autonomously outside of this organizational framework despite all efforts to coordinate a single, united front.
Lastly, it is important to acknowledge the hostile and chaotic environment that Sikh jujharoos were operating in at the time—organizing underground while confronting the brutal, widespread violence of the state. Investigation, communication, and accountability were not always possible when individuals deviated from official policy. While Sikh jujharoos may not have been able to stop each occurrence of indiscriminate violence from occurring, they made clear attempts to do so in order to ensure accountability for perpetrators wherever possible. They were forthcoming in acknowledging wrongs committed, clearly condemned those incidents, and affirmed their commitment to hold responsible parties accountable.
What is clear from countless statements and resolutions of the jujharjoo jathebandiyan, is that indiscriminate violence was not a part of the discourse or movement for Khalistan, nor official policy of the jathebandiyan. It is undeniable that there is a need for accountability for any excesses committed during the conflict, but the occurrence of such incidents by those who may or may not claim allegiance to the struggle is not characteristic or defining of the Sikh sangarsh or Khalistan as a whole.
The welfare of all elements of Akaal Purakh’s creation. This is not limited to humans alone, but includes everything within this biosphere and beyond.
General Labh Singh and Bhai Gurjant Singh Budhsinghwala, “Eh Jang Sadi Jitt Nal Hi Mukegi” (1989) 58 Jantak Paigam translated and cited by Birinder Pal Singh, “Sikh militants’ terms of discourse: Religion, Khalistan/nation and violence” (2017) 12:2-3 Sikh Formations at 194.
Birinder Pal Singh, Violence as Political Discourse: Sikh Militancy Confronts the Indian State (Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2002) at 76.
Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bhindranwale, Struggle for Justice: Speeches and conversations of Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bhindranwale, translated by Ranbir Singh Sandhu (Dublin: Sikh Educational and Religious Foundation, 1999) at 298 & 301.
Bhai Paramjit Singh Panjwar, Bhai Gurjant Singh Budhsinghwala, Bhai Rachhpal Singh Chhandran, Bhai Daljit Singh, “Ehu Benati”, cited in Birinder Pal Singh, “Sikh militants’ terms of discourse: Religion, Khalistan/nation and violence” (2017) 12:2-3 Sikh Formations at 4.
Bhai Paramjit Singh Panjwar, Dr. Sohan Singh, Bhai Harminder Singh Sultanwind, Bhai Daljit Singh, Bhai Shahbaz Singh, Bhai Satinder Pal Singh Khalsa, “Kharku Jathebandian vich Bhra Maru Jang”, Punjabi Tribune (July 4 1991) cited in BP Singh, supra note 72; Bhai Daljit Singh, Bhavikh Phir Vi Sada Hai (Chandigarh: Human Rights and Democracy Forum, 1996) at 6.
Virginia Van Dyke, “The Khalistan Movement in Punjab, India, and the Post-Militancy Era: Structural Change and New Political Compulsions” (2009) 49:6 Asian Survey at 989.