Though his report is not comprehensive one to tell what exactly transpired at the seminar. But a comments he attributed to some debaters there and other related observations made, are enough to convey the spirit and essence of the interaction there.
Correctly,Pirthipal Kapur must be interested in pinpointing some historical discrepancies in Ajmer's books and Amarjit Paraag should be highlighting ethical aspects of Sikhism shorn of its political implications.And, a classical Marxist ( rather a mechanical Marxist) like that of Sumit whose interpretation should have been closer ( on the same pattern) to KPS Gill's interpretation of the Sikh ethos. And in describing Left thinkers' approach to the Punjab events of 1980s and onward as 'nationalistic one' he was able to put a finger on their mindset ( Classical Left thinkers rarely visualise why their approach comes closer to that of the ruling elite which is evidently more interested in keeping India as a bigger economic unit for imperialistic plundering of its vast natural and human resources, thus, the latter raise the slogans of 'Unity and Integrity of India'). And in overlooking the nationalities question they reduce their political positioning near to that of the BJP and Congress and CPI and CPI(M) for that matter.Charanjit also aptly pinpointed that the Left thinkers conveniently pick-up a few lines from Bhinderawale's speeches which fit them in their logic or exaggerate the killings of Hindus pulled from buses just to cover -up all excesses of the Indian State, killings of thousands of innocents and humiliation of womenfolk in villages. Perversion and butchery of professional police and paramilitary killers, unheard in the Indian history, thus, conveniently ignored by these classical thinkers.
They seem to be ended up as satisfied as the ruling elite and look like sounding that those political naive Sikh youth who dared to pick up gun against the Indian State,have rightly met their fate they deserved to. Otherwise, some such 'intellectuals' heard saying that the Indian State's excesses in Punjab and against Sikhs are nothing as compared to killings of thousands of Armenian Christians by Turks, genocide in Bosnia and butchering of Jews in Holocaust and so many other violent happenings in Europe and around. By implication, they seem to suggest that Indian State had proved to be 'a soft one' in Punjab and should have acted more ruthlessly against those who dared dismember the country and challenged ' Indian democratic set -up". And, they seem to suggest that the Sikhs are lucky to have escaped a fullest fury the Indian State was (is) capable of wreaking on the dissidents.
In a larger perspective , Charanjit Teja rightly pointed out the classical Left have not emerged out of mental straitjacket that nationality struggle could be anti-Marxist defeating the tempo of 'class-struggle' they are pursuing through .They hardly visualize why their political prescription has not worked in Punjab and why they got themselves reduced to political non-entity there. Anyhow, If Charanjit correctly attributed to Prof Rajesh that the '' political silence of the Hindus in Punjab is too contributory to the Punjab trouble is noticeable", is worth mentioning. But, unfortunately, the Punjabi Hindus, by and large, identified themselves with the Indian State and latter, in return, acted on their behalf in Punjab. The Indian State projected itself as saviour of the majority and virtually got the majority's mandate to suppress minorities.Thus, the Indian ruling elite's strategy worked in projecting India as a 'Nation State'--- a late 19th century concept of state craftsmanship.
Most of speakers spoke there are known to me and I know their views and their ideological commitments and their political positioning. The basic question is that the book which became the basis of that seminar was edited and got published by Amolak and Gurdial Bal as a reaction to what Ajmer has written in his three books. Ajmer's projection of the Punjab bloodshed as an communal aggression of the Indian state on the Sikh minority,is an anathema to the Left thinkers as the latter hold Bhinderanwale and his men (euphemistically described
as fountain of Sikh fundamentalism) solely responsible for the trouble. In fact, most of the Left thinkers including Left parties leaders go to the extent of saying that the whole trouble that resulted in killings of thousands of innocents and large scale humiliation of the womenfolk in Punjab and outside, was instigated by the "Bhinderanwale desperadoes as they had themselves invited the bloodshed". Thus, these people in their wisdom exonerate the Indian State and those Congress rulers led by Indira Gandhi of all those excesses.
I even myself heard some of them saying that "the Indian State was (is) capable of doing much more that what it did in 1980s particularly... the Indian rulers had acted with some restraint despite enormous provoking by the gun-toting Sikhs". They justify their contention by profusely quoting historical events as elimination of a million of Armenians by Truks and genocide of Jews in Holocaust so on --so forth. How can these people digest Ajmer's political diagnosis that Indian State rulers had played the 'Hindu Card' ,pampered the majority and infused and fed it with ultra-nationalist slogans of " Jai Bharat mata" and used (misused) the police-military apparatus to suppress minorities and Sikhs particularly during 1980s?
After more than two decades, these Left thinkers have not budge an inch from their earlier political position which subordinated Marxist ideology to the mandatory requirement of retaining the 'unity and integrity of country' at cost of whole-sale suppression and repression on a community. How could they justify in the name of Marxism that land mass of Indian sub-continent is more sanctimonious than the freedom of a MAN inhibiting that area. The
MAN (Human beings) should be the centre of politics and not the unity of the Indian sub-continent which had , at the altar of political expediency ,already been divided into three pieces--- ironically each of that part claiming itself a 'nation-state'---- now three nation-states- India,Pakistan and Bangladesh-- are housed in the Indian sub-continent. Indian sub-continent is, in fact, composed of a number of 'nationalities' each having been evolved as a distinct political and cultural entity and had distinct standings for centuries. Anyhow, The British integrated them as one administrative unit with the use of force. And it is known fact, that power of that amalgamated unit was transferred by the Britishers at their convenience to their lackeys created to lead the propped up political outfits- Congress and Muslim League. Thus, the Britishers had left the country unharmed and their at their own terms. They had however,divided the sub-continent in two pieces that suited to geopolitical needs of the day.If they had felt otherwise, the Britishers could have divided the Indian sub-continent into several pieces as the imperialist force did by dismembering the African continent into many parts and creating several rulers in the Arabic world. So, in the above context, what sanctity could be attached to the land mass called India except subscribing to the Indian elite notion of upholding India as a Nation-State. The 18th century concept of Nation-State suits the Indian big capital -- Reliance, Tata et al who have a large economic unit called India at their disposal to plunder its resources through the willing and submissive India State apparatus paddlers--- politicians and bureaucratic machinery. Interestingly, those who do not subscribe to the Nationalistic Approach of such a section of Leftists are being branded as "Separatists ... Khalistanis ....so on".
They are unmindful of the fact, their nationalist standing is nothing else but corroboration of the political positioning of Congress- BJP that (Arya Samaj version) ultra-nationalism laced with religious pandering and Vedic era Indian great golden past. In fact, the nationalistic positioning of a bigger section of the Left inadvertently supported and upheld the Verna-Ashram and wretched Indian caste system since days of S.A Dange , the founder member of the Communist Part of India.Here I would like to quote Arundhati Roy that "despite all the rhetoric about working class solidarity that CPI did not find objectionable that "untouchables " were kept out of the weaving department because the work involved using of saliva on
threads, which other classes considered 'polluting". On this issue, Ambedkar got disillusioned with the Communists and felled out with Dange during textile workers strike in Bombay in 1928. Thus the great majority of Dalits, the backbone of the Indian working class left in lurch or left them for deliverance and dignity to the constitutionalist approach". She further says " The shame as well as a large part of blame for the turn of events goes to India's communist movement whose leaders continue to be predominantly upper caste---for years it has been tried to force fit the idea of caste into Marxist class analysis, it has failed miserably in theory as well as in practice". A section of the Left who have been supporting the notion of strong Indian nation should realise that their approach is not different from that of Brahmanism plank, unpronounced political positioning of the Indian elite which made Jawahar Lal Nehru, an English educated Congress leader to prefix 'Pandit' before his name. Pandit Nehru soft-peddled 'Hindutva' in uniting and subordinating a larger land mass under the India elite by deftly using elections and democracy as a convenient tool for perpetuating the Brahimnical rule . In the case of the Sikhs, both class and caste mix worked against them.The Indian nationalism has , thus came to be identified with Brahmanical caste system mainly espoused by the Vaisnavite Hindu mythological genre. Historically, the Sikhs emerged from lower castes and down-trodden strata of the Indian society.
In fact, as Arundhati Roy pointed out that Marxist class struggle never practised as it should have been in India that is why the Left movement could not advance in the country. Yes, a façade of 'class struggle' was always maintained even by the CPI and CPI(M) despite their participation and elections and power politics. Here, in the case of Punjab and for that mater the Sikhs, that section of the Left always opposes the Sikh struggle in the name of opposing 'Identity Politics' which, according to them, is anti-Marxist and is a negation of ''class struggle". Does not their opposition directly take them to the known political position
of BJP and its ilk ?
Theoretically, the class struggle is ideal as propounded by Marx at the turn of 19th century when he visualised that 'communist revolution' would take place in the industrialised Europe first. But it did not happen rather revolutions took place Soviet Union and China non-industrialised and backward agriculture based societies. To sum up, the world has now changed to such an extent that 'class struggle' in strict Marxian sense is not seen taking place anywhere rather the world is rife with "identity based struggles".
Hence, turning blind eye to Indian state excesses as if those pursuing identity struggle deserved that,can not be justified at all. If the Sikh struggle was identity politics which, according to them, cannot produce or herald social and economic justice, how Indian nationalism or Indian nation state could bring about social and economic equality. But they support the Indian unity and integrity? But that section of the Left is mum on the Indian State sponsored butchery and killing. if they are not vocal against the Blue Star Operation
and Army rule in Punjab then they, end up supporting the Sikh genocide in November 1984 in Delhi and other Indian cities because they take the anti-Sikh riots as natural corollary of what Bhinderanwale and his men did.
That section of the Left, particularly those in Punjab are not open-minded and are dogmatic in their approach towards Marxism. But , strangely even their party leaders in Delhi and other parts of country are ready to debate on the nationality issue and identity politics spectrum.
So, it looks like their opposition to the Sikh struggle is emanating from their personal prejudices and social upbringing than from any ideological plank. However, they always tend to cloth their opposition in ideological nick-picking .But they should remember that their base in Punjab has shrunk. And they should ponder why?
ਜਸਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਸਿੱਧੂ ਅੰਗਰੇਜ਼ੀ ਤੇ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਪੱਤਰਕਾਰੀ ਦਾ ਜਾਣਿਆ ਪਛਾਣਿਆ ਨਾਂਅ ਹੈ।'ਆਪਰੇਸ਼ਨ ਬਲਿਊ ਸਟਾਰ' ਮੌਕੇ ਖਬਰ ਏਜੰਸੀ ਯੂ.ਐਨ.ਆਈ ਦੇ ਪੱਤਰਕਾਰ ਵਜੋਂ ਅਮ੍ਰਿਤਸਰ ਨਿਯੁਕਤ ਸਨ।ਉਹਨਾਂ 84 ਦੇ ਦੌਰ ਨੂੰ ਬਹੁਤ ਨੇੜਿਓਂ ਵੇਖਿਆ ਹੈ।ਦਿੱਲੀ 'ਚ ਪੱਤਰਕਾਰੀ ਦੇ ਮੁੱਲਾਂ ਲਈ ਜ਼ਮੀਨੀ ਲੜਾਈ ਲੜਦੇ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ।
