With deep reverence to the great soul and philosopher Mahakavi Bhai Sahib Santokh Singh ji whose great and monumental work Gurpartap Suraj Granth, 1843 (Despite the shortcomings which came to light later on) was straightway acclaimed by a grateful community & Joseph Davey Cunningham who wrote his updated History of the Sikhs, (1849), in advance of his times, Suffered for it, fell a victim to the truth, but gave the Sikh people a definitive account of their history PREFACE Histories of the peoples or of the nations have been written and rewritten continuously. With the rise of nationalism in Europe in the 18th century, histories of various European countries, including that of England, have been rewritten during the 19th century from their respective national perspectives. So has been the case during the present century with the histories of colonised people who during and after the colonial rule have found new contours of their past. History of India too has been rewritten from that perspective. For instance, yesterday’s extremists and terrorists have been acclaimed as today’s heroes and revolutionaries. With the decolonization of the subcontinent in 1947, the Sikhs for the first time in history came under the tutelage of a reviving Hinduism. Brahminism, whenever in ascendance, has been intolerant of non-conforming faiths. It was time for the Sikhs to reexamine their history and draw appropriate lessons. That was all the more so, as there have been persistent attempts to overturn the Sikh history and theology. The beginnings were made in the early 17th century by dissident Minas who in collaboration with Brahmins played havoc with Guru Nanak’s Janam Sakhi, biography. Then followed the Brahminical infiltrators at the hour of the Sikh triumph in the second half of the 18th century. They, in collaboration with Brahminical malcontents, made serious inroads into the Sikh theology. The worst part of it was that the contamination came to be passed on as the original. Even scholars like Bhai Santokh Singh (Gurpartap Surajgranth, 12 volumes, 1823 - 43) fell a prey to the duplicity and were seen to propound the untenable viewpoint that the Khalsa was created as a swordarm to protect a decadent and decrepit Hinduism. The Sikhs throughout history have been deeply influenced by certain basic postulates. One constant factor has been the deep hostility of Brahminism to the Sikh movement. That was quite discernible right from the beginning when Guru Nanak set up a new settlement of Kartarpur Ravi, away from the bustle of the existing habitats, for the new faith to germinate in an atmosphere free from the existing social pressures. The founding of new townships later, of Goindwal, Amritsar, Tarn Taran, Sri Hargobindpura, Kartarpur off-Beas, and eventually Kiratpur and Anandpur Sahib are to be seen in that light. The other facet of the same coin was the Sikh movement’s underpinning of the downtrodden classes. This lent them the strength, but further accentuated Brahminical opposition. The third factor has been the variable quality of the Sikh leadership. For instance, the Sikhs had a unified leadership for about half a century after the assassination of Guru Gobind Singh when they passed through the period of worst persecution, and during the Gurdwara Reform Movement in 1920s, except the final phase when they were splintered. Conversely, the Sikhs have easily fallen prey to their ego problems, and wiles of Brahmins who throughout history have sought to undermine and subvert the Sikh movement. The Sikhs have yet to find a viable counter to the Chanakya niti (policy, rather diplomacy) of sam (equality), dan (concession), dand (repression), bhed (dissensions) of which they have been victims right from the era of third Sikh Guru, Amar Das (1552-74), and more glaringly from 1699 when the hill chiefs successfully manoeuvred an imperial campaign to retard the consolidation of the nascent Khalsa. The Brahminical Hindus seemed to change sides during Abdali’s numerous invasions only to infiltrate Sikhism at the hour of its triumph in latter half of the 18th century, eventually to subvert the Sikh kingdom in post-Ranjit Singh era. By 1849, when the Sikhs entered the modern phase of their history, Brahminism had shattered the Sikh political power and shaken Sikhism to its core. Another complicating factor has been the fact that the Sikhs had emerged as a nation in pre- modern times, when the sub-continent was a conglomeration of various races, tribes, and ethnic groups. The Marathas too emerged a nation under Shivaji, contemporaneously with the Sikhs. Bengalis attained an identical position in the 19th century under inspiration of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s Anand Math, and the partition of Bengal in 1905 was rightly considered by them as an attack on Bengali nationalism. Tilak, who had re-invigorated Maratha nationalism by reviving Ganesh festival in 1893, contended shortly before his death in 1920 that India was not yet a nation. Swami Dayanand articulated in parts the Hindus of Punjab and neighbouring provinces. Swami Vivekanand had sought to overarch various brands of Hindu nationalism by instilling in them a sense of pride and dignity. The mantle of all these Hindu revivalists fell on M.K. Gandhi. He, to begin with, unsuccessfully sought to overarch pan-Hinduism and pan-Islamism represented by Khilafat in early 1920s. His blessing Swami Shraddhanand’s shuddhi movement (for reconversion of Muslims to Hinduism) in mid-1920s signified that Gandhi had lost interest in Hindu-Muslim modus vivendi. During this half decade, Gandhi showed critical lack of understanding of Sikhism. Right from the beginning, he emitted total hostility to Sikhism and rabidly sought to undermine the Sikh identity. India was yet to evolve as a nation on the eve of decolonisation of the sub-continent in 1947. Significantly, Lord Louis Mountbatten, the last British Viceroy and independent India’s first Governor General, stated in spring 1947 that India was “a great subcontinent of numerous nations.” That was notwithstanding M.K. Gandhi being acclaimed father of “our nation”, at first by Subhash Chandra Bose for his own reasons in 1944 and later by Jawaharlal Nehru in his inaugural address to the Constituent Assembly in December 1946. Pertinently, Gandhi was proclaimed father of “our nation” before the partition had become inevitable. That only showed the Hindu unwillingness to accommodate the Muslims except on their own terms. The Congress policy laid down during the freedom struggle for minorities and othernon- conforming groups for the post-independence period, in the words of Lord Wavell, was “to deal with them through bribery, blackmail, propaganda and, if necessary, force.” Jinnah fully understood the Hindu gameplan. The Sikhs, who, as if, had put on blinkers, did not, and have come in for that treatment. The Sikh predicament in post-1947 era can directly be attributed to that. As the Indian saying goes, there are three stipulations that associate a citizen to the state. These are sunwai (being heard with patience to get right the wrongs), izzat (maintenance of human dignity), and iqbal (ability to shape one’s destiny). The Sikhs right from the day of Indian independence in 1947 had no sunwai with the Indian setup. They lost their izzat in 1982 when at the time of Asian Games every Sikh, irrespective of his political affiliation or background or even nationality was humiliated while crossing Haryana, with a few offering apologies. After the Operation Bluestar and the November 1984 pogrom against the Sikhs in all parts of India, they lost iqbal. The book deals with this situation. It is in this background that I have narrated an account of the Sikhs in the context of Indian history. This work is like an inverted pyramid, with over half the space going to the contemporary history from 1947 onwards. It spells out the contours of the ongoing struggle - its origins, growth and development, the present state, and possibilities in the near future. Right from 1947, there have been no attempt to harmonise the Sikh aspirations to those of the Hindus who rather have emerged as a ruling race. The absence of Conflict Resolution departments, much less, faculties, in the Indian Universities and institutes has only helped in the lopsided growth of Indian consciousness. I have throughout been conscious of the fact that writing contemporary history is a highly sensitive affair. It has been my humble endeavour to present to the student of the Sikh history, a comprehensive account to understand the present Sikh dilemma in the current of their history. As a historian, I have been conscious that facts are sacred, while interpretation is one’s own. My commitment has been to history, pure and simple, and not to the personalities involved however high the position they might have held, or, may be holding. I must place on record my indebtedness to the numerous scholars who, during the last four decades or so, have done considerable work on various facets of the Sikh history. Special mention must be made of the Spokesman weekly, New Delhi, founded by S. Hukam Singh in 1951; Punjabi University Patiala’s bi-annual journal, Punjab Past and Present, launched by Dr. Ganda Singh in 1967; and the voluminous documentation done by Dr. Gurmit Singh, Advocate, formerly of Sirsa, who single-handedly has sought to delineate the correct moorings of the political development of the Sikhs in pre and post independent India. The need for a reappraisal of the Sikh history has been uppermost with some of the thinking Sikhs during the last two decades or so. The Kendri Sri Guru Singh Sabha right from its coming into being in 1973 was seized of it. By 1980, it made earnest attempts at a reappraisal of a segment of Sikh history.