Linkages between the Ethnic Diaspora
and the Sikh Ethno-National Movement in India
|
States are neither the
only, nor necessarily the most important, sponsors of ethno-national
insurgent movements. Diasporas – immigrant communities established
in other countries – frequently support kindred ethnic uprisings
in their homeland, which has been controlled or colonized by
the state dominated by a particularly majority group or/community.
Despite being separated by thousands of miles, homeland struggles
are often keenly felt among immigrant communities. Indeed, ethnic
fighters receive various and important forms of support from
their respective migrant communities. Significant Diaspora support
has occurred in the every region of the globe. Migrant communities
have sent money, arms and recruits back to their countries,
which have proven pivotal in sustaining ethno-national campaigns.
This support has, at times significantly, increased insurgents’
capabilities and enabled them to withstand Government counter-insurgency
efforts.3 In fact,
reliance on Diasporas to wage an insurgency has become an increasingly
common phenomenon in recent years. The Sikhs provide a particularly illuminating
case study of attracting sympathy and support from their co-ethnics
living abroad in Diaspora, for the ethno-national struggle against
the Indian state. The Sikhs are a dispersed people. Although
their origins are in the ‘People of the same blood attract!’ is
a fact of an unconscious, non-rational and emotional side of
mankind.9 ‘Blood and
soil,’ as Bismarck had said, can’t be bartered.10 Thus the
Sikhs living abroad, like other immigrant communities, also
adapted to the circumstances within which they found themselves,
but even then, never did de-link themselves from their ethnic
kin and the soil of their ethnic homeland, Punjab. From time
to time, they involved themselves in socio-economic and political
activities in Punjab. The early Sikh Diaspora remitted a great
part of their income to their kin in Punjab. Through these remittances,
they intended to promote the izzat
or prestige of their extended families.11 Since, they
planned to return to their homeland, they expected these contributions
to ensure them a ‘comfortable family life.’12 Most of
the Sikh Diaspora’s remittances, then, went to buying land and
expanding farms, in accordance with the ethos of Sikh farmers,
who favour land as a source of social prestige and social security.13 Further,
inspired by the organizations or political parties like the
Chief Khalsa Diwan of Amritsar and Singh Sabhas, overseas Sikhs
also founded certain Diaspora organizations such as the Khalsa
Diwan Society in 1907 at Vancouver, and later in California.
Similarly, the Sikh Diaspora set up Singh Sabhas and provided
funding and advertising to Punjabi causes.14 Due to the
political mobilization of Sikh Diaspora by the political activists
of Punjab in the early part of the 20th Century,
Sikhs overseas started taking interest in homeland politics.
Two intellectuals – Lala Hardayal and Taraknath Das – mobilized
the Sikhs in United States and Canada respectively. They advocated
the liberation of India through armed struggle. In 1914, when
Hardayal tried to convince his militants to return to India
and embrace the fight for independence, 3200 Indians, a majority
of who were Sikhs, answered his call and attempted to start
an uprising in the homeland against the British Empire.15 Though, due to the Sikh peasants’ loyalty towards
colonial empire and in the absence of local political and public
support, they did not succeed, this event had an important outcome,
with the Sikh Diaspora starting to develop its own politics.
Again, albeit symbolically, overseas Sikh got involved in homeland
affairs during the Gurdwara Reforms Movement. One Canadian Sikh
delegation, which was joined by several Sikhs from Shanghai,
Hong Kong, Singapore and Penang, took part in the Jaito Da Morcha
of 1923-25. The Jatha started from Vancouver on July 13, 1924,
and reached at Jaito in Punjab, in February 1925. These events reflects that, from 1915
onwards, political actors and issues of Punjab mobilized the
Sikh Diaspora, benefiting from its funding and advertising and,
retroactively, the overseas Sikhs started developing their own
politics, influencing the Punjab polity and supporting the homeland
cause in return.16 In the post-independence period, the green
revolution strategy in Punjab was financed partly by immigrants’
remittances. The financial clout provided by relatives abroad
helped many Sikh farmers to take the risks with the newly introduced
hybrid varieties of wheat. In Jalandhar and Hoshiarpur, where
water logging constituted a major hindrance to farm productivity,
overseas funds provided for many preventive measures.17 Similarly,
investments in new agricultural machinery, seeds, harvesters
and tube wells were made possible by overseas contributions.
Between 1953 and 1966, during the Punjabi Suba movement, the
Vancouver-based Khalsa Diwan Society provided volunteers and
funds for the movement. Further, between 1981 and 1984, during
the Dharam Yudh Morcha, the Babbar Khalsa and Khalsa Diwan Society
provided volunteers and funds to their community.18 Tracing the origin and development of
the demand for Khalistan among the overseas Sikhs, in the present
paper, efforts have been made to analyze how the Sikh Diaspora
got involved in the Sikh ethnic uprising in India. What was
the nature and modus operandi of its involvement? Further, what was the response
of the Indian as well as host states, especially United Kingdom,
Canada and the United States, on the issue, and what measures
were adopted by the Indian state to prevent the Sikh Diaspora’s
involvement in the ethnic homeland imbroglio? The demand for a separate Sikh State called
‘Khalistan’ came from the Sikhs within Punjab. However, the
history of a demand for Khalistan among the Sikh Diaspora can
be traced from the arrival of Davinder Singh Parmar in London
in late 1954. He began promulgating the view that Sikhs required
an independent Khalistan in order to ensure their survival as
a community. Only one person supported Parmar during the early
stages of the movement, but he, nevertheless, contributed to
newspapers, distributed pamphlets and debated with his fellow
Sikhs regarding the question of Sikh separatism. Parmar’s idea
of Khalistan was validated, however, during his 1970 meeting
in London with Jagjit Singh Chauhan, who shared the formers
unrelenting commitment to Khalistan. In 1970, the Khalistan
movement was formally launched in London at a Press Conference
in Aldwych, located just opposite India House, where the Indian
High Commission offices are situated. During this early stage, membership of
the movement consisted of three individuals: Parmar, Chauhan
and Mangat Singh. All these years, support for the movement
within the Sikh Diaspora community was negligible and many Sikhs,
including the ‘devout’, viewed them as ‘madmen’.19 Chauhan
continued to single-handedly disseminate his message to a largely
unsupportive audience. He unfurled a Khalistani flag at an event
in Birmingham where hundreds of Sikhs were in attendance. In
1971, he organized a demonstration in Hyde Park in which demonstrators
displayed several slogans proclaiming Sikh sovereignty. Chauhan’s
blatant anti-India display was a continuous source of embarrassment
to most of the Sikhs who regarded India with deep affection
at the time. Issuing formal edicts against what they termed
‘unpatriotic’ behaviour, numerous Gurdwaras (Sikh place of worship)
imposed sanctions against Chauhan and barred him from attending
their services.20 In September
1971, Chauhan held a Press Conference in London and made allegations
of the oppression of Sikhs in India. On October 13, 1971, he
sponsored a half-page advertisement in The
New York Times explaining why he wanted Khalistan.21 In October
1971, prior to the start of the India-Pakistan war over Bangladesh,
Chauhan attended the birth anniversary celebrations of Guru
Nanak’s birthplace in Nankana Sahib in Pakistan and announced
his intention to establish a ‘Rebel Sikh Government’ at Nankana
Sahib.22 The Pakistan
media immediately seized upon his statements about an independent
Khalistan, and the ensuing publicity resulted in most Indians
hearing about Khalistan for the first time.23 However,
Chauhan had negligible support from the community and most of
the Sikhs in Britain, Canada and United States viewed his separatist
position as extreme. The Akali Dal in Britain and Akali leaders
in India, including Sant Fateh Singh, publicly condemned his
statements and expelled him from the party. In 1977, Chauhan came to India and stayed
for three years and later returned to Britain in 1980. On June
1, 1980, Chauhan distributed a press release of the International
Council of the Sikhs to the British media, which stated that
it would institute consulates in the United Kingdom, Germany
and other Western European countries. In the vision of Chauhan
and his supporters, Khalistan was to be 850 miles long, stretching
from Porbander on the Arabian Sea to Chamba in Himachal Pradesh.
The map stated that the creation of Khalistan was approved by
the All Parties Sikhs Conference of London. Another goal was
to obtain counsellor status in the United Nations, but their
bid was subsequently denied in 1987. Their plans also included
setting up a government-in-exile in the U.S.A. and organizing
an army of 10,000 there, and printing Khalistan passports, currency,
and other ‘state’ documents that would serve to legitimize the
movement.24 The Government
of India did pressure the American, British and Canadian Governments
to curb the political activities of Chauhan and other Khalistan
activists. Host Governments, however, maintained that they could
not press charges against Khalistani sympathizers as no laws
were being violated in their respective countries. Chauhan was not the only early promoter
of the Khalistan movement among the overseas Sikhs. Ganga Singh
Dhillon, a naturalized American Sikh and the President of Nankana
Sahib Foundation, also committed himself to the promotion of
Khalistan since the beginning of the 1980s. In March 1981, he
visited India and was elected the President of the Sikh Educational
Conference organized in Chandigarh by the Chief Khalsa Diwan.
The main outcome of the Conference was the adoption of a resolution
which authorized the pursuit of associate membership in the
United Nations for the Sikhs. Chauhan and Ganga Singh Dhillon
were also in contact with Pakistani officials through General
Daniel Graham, Co-Chairman of the American Security Council.
He had arranged a meeting between Chauhan and Agha Shahi, Pakistan’s
Foreign Minister. Dhillon claimed Senator Mark Hatfield and
Representative James C. Corman as patrons of his Foundation
and Chauhan maintained contact with Hatfield, Senator Jesse
Helms, Senator Sam Nunn, Charles Percy and Alexander Haig. Due to his anti-Indian activities, the
Indian Government cancelled Chauhan’s passport in April 1982.
However, when he was denied a visa to enter the United States,
Senator Helms helped circumvent the barrier by inviting Chauhan
to testify before the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee. He
travelled to the United States under a British Certificate of
Identity. While in the U.S., he led 200 Sikhs representing about
10 organizations in Canada and the United States in a demonstration
outside the United Nations (UN) asking for UN intervention for
persecuted Sikhs in India.25 Anti-India
feelings were noticeable in Canada by May 1982 when the Indian
High Commissioner, Dr. Gurdial Singh Dhillon, himself a Sikh,
was pelted with eggs and rotten tomatoes during a visit to Vancouver.26 Although,
the idea of Khalistan was advocated early on by some individuals
like Chauhan and Ganga Singh Dhillon in the Diaspora, and was
discussed and designed in the UK, the US and Canada since 1970s,
it did not receive much popular support either within the Diaspora
or in Punjab before the attack on the Golden Temple by Indian
security forces. The events of 1984 were to drastically
change the Khalistan movement, which had been, until then, considered
by most overseas Sikhs as unworthy of serious attention. The
events that occurred in the Punjab in 1984, created a deep sense
of insecurity among the Sikhs in India as well as abroad. The
actions taken by the Indian Government helped to expand and
popularize the separatist movement among the common masses.
When the overseas Sikh heard the news of the Indian Army’s assault
on the Golden Temple, they reacted with extreme anger and grief
and ensured that the feelings of their community were publicly
known. The assault was perceived by many Sikhs as a premeditated
act of brutal sacrilege, a gesture of contempt, the manifestation
of a conspiratorial plan to annihilate the Sikh traditions and
humiliate the Sikh nation.27 The desecration
of the Golden Temple resulted in moderate Sikhs reassessing
their earlier loyalties towards India and reasserting their
collective ethnic identity. Many Sikhs, who had, prior to 1984,
regarded themselves as moderate, became increasingly sympathetic
to the separatist position of the hardliners.28 In the United Kingdom, frenzied activities
followed Operation Blue
Star, with British Sikhs turning out en
masse on June 10, 1984, at a London demonstration protesting
the desecration of the holiest shrine. Over 25,000 Sikhs from
diverse backgrounds took part in the march that began in Hyde
Park and ended outside the Indian High Commission office. They
proclaimed ‘Khalistan Zindabad!’ (Long live Khalistan!) and
unequivocally denounced the actions of the Indian state. Similar
demonstrations were organized by Gurdwaras in Birmingham, Bristol,
Coventry and other cities with large Sikh populations.29 The Sikh
outrage over the Army action in the Golden Temple was expressed
in numerous forms. Several young British Sikh volunteers offered
their services in response to a call in the Punjabi media to
‘liberate the Golden Temple.’ However, plans to return to Punjab
were swiftly aborted by the introduction of stringent visa regulations
by the Indian Government designed to curb Sikh extremism from
abroad.30 Punjabi
newspapers continued to be filled with vitriolic editorials,
articles and readers’ correspondence denouncing the action of
the Indian Government. Photographs of Bhindranwale, Shahbeg
Singh, Amrik Singh and other Sikh militants killed during the
attack were displayed prominently next to the ubiquitous portraits
of Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh in the Sikh homes and Gurdwaras.31
Moderate and respected Sikh leaders, especially Sardar Sampuran
Singh Chima, Giani Amolak Singh and Gurcharan Singh, were upset
over the way the armed action was conducted. They perceived
the invasion of Golden Temple as an attack on Guru Ram Das,
Guru Arjun Dev and Guru Gobind Singh and on the Sikhdom as a
whole.32 Earlier,
moderate Sikhs were of the view that any solution to the Punjab
problem will have to be resolved by the Sikh leaders within
India and a Punjab out of India, in the long run, would be injurious
to the very interests of the Sikh community. Besides, in Britain,
there was a common opinion among the moderate Sikh leaders that
unless the whole Sikh community of India and especially of Punjab
would not stand for separate Sikh state, i.e., Khalistan, their
demand for such a state would be a mockery of the whole concept
of Khalistan. However, the armed action brought a radical change
in their opinion. Following Operation
Blue Star, they decided to support the Sikh uprising in
India and also to make efforts for Khalistan, on their own part,
using diverse methods.33 On June
21, 1984, a group of top Sikh community leaders in London asked
the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for an interview to
clarify the misunderstanding that had been created in her mind
as a result of Indira Gandhi’s communication with her on the
Punjab situation. The Sikh leaders said that they were also
approaching Amnesty International, the International Red Cross
and the UN to ask them to investigate what they called was a
‘crime against humanity’, which Mrs. Gandhi had committed on
the Sikhs.34 They added:
We want a list of the dead, wounded and the missing persons,
men, women and children, from the Red Cross and we hope that
Mrs. Gandhi will co-operate with them.35 Giani Amolak Singh, President of the Shiromani
Akali Dal in London, said that three organizations, i.e., Amnesty
International, the International Red Cross and the UN, could
find out the truth about the arms, weapons and drugs that were
allegedly found in the Golden Temple complex. He said that the
Sikhs would abide by their verdict. At the spot, a group of
Sikh leaders decided to go on a world tour to explain the cause
of the Sikhs to various Governments. They also decided that
after the completion of their tour they would hold a World Conference
of the Sikh community in Vancouver, which would be attended
by Sikh representatives from Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand,
Malaysia, and all over Western Europe. It was also decided that
they would bring unity among the diverse Sikh factions and a
united front would be formed to fight against the Indian Government.36 During the
preparations to mobilize a worldwide public opinion against
the armed operation in the Golden Temple, the interview of Mrs.
Indira Gandhi on BBC TV became a subject of debate among
the community leaders. They concluded that, from all accounts,
Mrs. Gandhi appeared to be very tired and faltered several times
while answering questions, for instance, she called Mrs. Thatcher
‘head of state’ instead of ‘head of the government.’ Her answer
about the Akal Takhat was also not convincing. They were also
not convinced with her statement that the sanctity of the Golden
Temple had been maintained during the Army action and the troops
had gone there to weed out the terrorists and terrorism, not
to kill the innocent Sikh people. The community leaders also
criticized Mrs. Gandhi over the argument that Pakistan was involved
in the Sikh affairs. The argument was not convincing and just
gave an impression that she was trying to implicate the General
Zia-ul-Haq Government in Pakistan unnecessarily. All moderate
Sikh leaders appealed to the Sikhs and Hindus in India and Britain
to live as brothers. Giani Amolak Singh and Sampuran Singh Chima
said that the Sikhs and Hindus would always remain brothers.
And, moreover, a true Sikh will never hurt his Hindu brother.37 The Sikh Diaspora in Britain had made
a clear ‘Oust Indira’ plan and determined, simultaneously, to
work for an independent and sovereign Sikh state, for which
Diaspora members called various meetings and passed resolution
on diverse issues. On June 23-24, 1984, Sikh leaders, along
with hundreds of their supporters, met in Southall and Kent.
In Southall, the moderate Sikh congregation passed a resolution
saying that the Sikhs’ ultimate goal would be to create a separate
state.38 To this
end, they formed a five-member committee. At the Kent Gurdwara,
they passed a resolution asking all the Sikhs in Britain and
other parts of the world:
Despite regular appeals by Sikh leaders
to community members to follow the Kent resolution, many Sikhs
continued to travel to India by Air India. However, some started
withdrawing their savings from the Indian banks and an insignificant
number of them stopped their standing orders to banks regarding
the monthly remittances to their relations in Punjab. However,
finally, young Sikhs who took over the leadership of the Sikh
community from the elder leaders, became more active in persuading
the others to act seriously on these resolutions.39 Nevertheless, Sikh Diaspora organizations
lacked unity on the various issues despite their common agenda
for the establishment of a separate homeland state called ‘Khalistan’.
The calls for ‘Khalistan’, in fact, created further confusion
among the disorganized members of the Sikh Diaspora community.
Immediately, after the military operation in June 1984, Sikhs
in Britain were confused over the announcement of two separate
‘Khalistan’ governments in exile. A committee of five members
belonging to the Dal Khalsa declared that it had established
a Sikh government in exile and released the names of its ‘Cabinet
Ministers’, which included Harjinder Singh Dilgir as ‘Foreign
Minister’ and Jaswant Singh Thekedar as ‘Minister for Home Affairs’.
However, on June 14, 1984, Jagjit Singh Chauhan, the self-styled
President of ‘Khalistan’, also announced the existence of his
own government-in-exile and inaugurated his ‘embassy building’
with a purpose to issue ‘passports’ to ‘Khalistan citizens.’40 Two governments-in-exile
in one city (London) not only angered the ‘sober-minded’ elderly
Sikhs, but also some young elements, who made it known that
this kind of ‘gimmick’ would not serve the cause of the Sikh
community. According to them, some ‘ambitious’ Sikhs were making
a mockery of their own cause and religion. Sampuran Singh Cheema,
President of the Presidium of the UK Akali Dal, Gurnam Singh,
Chief Advisor to the International Council of Sikhs, and Harnam
Singh, another Sikh leader, were upset over the Sikh ethnic
uprising being exploited by the ‘opportunists’, as they obliquely
described these elements. On the other hand, the extremists were
also unhappy. They were upset with General Arora’s television
interview on June 13, 1984, in which he had not condemned the
role of the Indian armed forces strongly. He merely said that
it was true that the military action had hurt his co-religionists
and created more problems than solutions. Sikh leaders, especially
the militants, had expected him to call for ‘revenge.’41 Like the British Sikhs, the Sikhs in Canada
and America showed their disapproval over the stand on their
‘Vatican’. By the evening of June 3, 1984, when the news of
the Army action in the Golden Temple spread, many Sikhs converged
on their neighbourhood Gurdwaras and extraordinary gatherings
took place. They interpreted the assault as an act of sacrilege,
a premeditated brutality, a gesture of contempt and the beginning
of a process to destroy the Sikh traditions. Tejinder Singh
Kahlon, President of the Sikh Cultural Society in New York,
called it ‘outrageous immoral’. According to him, “by doing
so Mrs. Gandhi was laying the foundation of a separate Sikh
state.”42 Various
Gurdwaras arranged prayers for those who fought for the sanctity
of the Golden Temple Complex. On June 8, 1984, 250 Sikhs held
a demonstration at Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C.,
a few blocks from the Indian Embassy. The very next day, 400
Sikhs protested outside the Indian Consulate in Chicago.43 On June
10, 1984, processions were held in New York, San Francisco,
Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto and Los Angeles. Over 25,000 Sikhs,
a majority of whom were moderates, marched on the streets of
Vancouver wearing black arms bands in protest against the military
operation, chanting ‘Death to Indira’. At a major Gurdwara in
Vancouver, an emotional appeal for funds saw many Sikh women
taking off their gold bangles for donations while barely concealing
their tears.44 Some of
the anguished Canadian Sikhs burnt the Indian National flag
and raided the Indian consulates. They also dishonoured Mahatma
Gandhi’s portrait in the Toronto Consulate.45 On July
28, 1984, Didar Singh Bains led 3,000 Sikhs in a rally in Madison
Square Garden, New York City, which resolved to establish Khalistan,
an independent sovereign country of the Sikh nation encompassing
the present Punjab and the Sikh majority areas of India.46 On June
24, 1984, representatives of the Federation of Canadian Sikh
Societies asked the Canadian Government to stop deporting Sikhs
who had applied for refugee status until ‘the internal political
strife’ in Punjab was over. Federation representatives and their
lawyer met immigration department officials in Ottawa in an
effort to seek special consideration of their demand. They said
that the Sikhs constituted the largest ethnic group applying
for refugee status in Canada. Between 1980 and January 1984,
Ottawa had rejected the refugee claims of 2,470 Sikhs who came
to Canada and staked their claim for permanent residence, and
had ordered them deported. Further, another 300 to 400 non-immigrant
Sikhs still living in Canada, who applied for refugee status,
had been ordered to return to India. Under a new order issued
by the Canadian Federal Cabinet in February 1984, the immigration
officials had been granted wide powers to refuse visas to those
people who were married to Canadian citizens or landed immigrants
in an effort to stop ‘marriages of convenience.’47 Prior to
Operation Blue Star,
for most of the Sikhs in Canada, Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale
was a ‘potent source of terrorism on Canadian soil’. However,
after his death while fighting against the Indian Army, he emerged
as a great martyr of the community. In Vancouver, bumper stickers
announced, ‘I love Bhindranwale’.48 After the events of June 3, 1984, in a
communally surcharged atmosphere, Akali leaders in India and
abroad were questioned within the Gurdwaras and through the
Press. They were asked to resign for they had ‘betrayed the
Panth’. The Akali Dal was paralysed, as its members were denounced
as ‘collaborators’, ‘agents’ or ‘stooges’ of the Indian state.49 Henceforth,
in the given circumstances and political vacuum, the new leadership
came forward and formed numerous new organizations to struggle
for the communal cause. United Kingdom saw the emergence of
new Sikh organizations like the Khalistan Council (in 1984 in
London), International Sikh Youth Federation (in 1984 in London
and Midlands) Dal Khalsa (in 1984 in Midlands) and Punjab Unity
Forum (in 1986 in London). In the United States, Sikh leaders
formed certain important organizations including California
Sikh Youth (1984), Sikh Youth of America (1986), Council of
Khalistan (1986), World Sikh Organization (1984), International
Sikh Organization (1986), Anti-47 Front (1985) and Babbar Khalsa
International (BKI).50 Similarly,
International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF, 1984), World Sikh
Organizations (1984), National Council of Khalistan (1986) and
BKI, came into being in Canada with centres in important cities
like Vancouver, Toronto and Edmonton.51
These new organizations played a crucial role to mobilize the
Sikh community and further, to internationalize and propagate
the issue of Sikh homeland, while raising funds and lobbying
in the host states to put pressure on Indian state to stop alleged
human rights violations and suppression of the Sikhs. Propaganda
was disseminated in a number of ways by these organizations,
including electronic mail, the Internet, telephones, hot lines,
community libraries, mailings, television programmes and radio
broadcasts, as well as political, cultural and social gatherings.
They arranged various rallies, seminars, discussions and publications
and highlighted the plight of the Sikh community under the “Brahmin
Hindu rule” of the Indian state. Major organizations, e.g., the World Sikh
Organization, Council of Khalistan, ISYF, Khalistan Council
and Babbar Khalsa, started a number of daily, weekly, fortnightly
and monthly newspapers, journals and magazines in English as
well as Punjabi languages. The name of certain prominent dailies,
weeklies and monthlies such as World Sikh News, The Sword,
Awaz-e-Quam, Chardi Kala, The Sikh Herald,
Shamsheer-e-Dast,
Sikh Messenger, Wangar, Sangharsh, Jago, Watan, Hamdard and Itihas are mentioned in this context.52 Apart from the print media, Sikh organizations
established a prominent presence on the Internet, with many
of their websites fully documented and indexed on popular search
engines such as Yahoo, Google, Altavista and Alltheweb. Leading
pro-Khalistani Websites included: www.khalistan.com, www.khalistan-affairs.org,
www.dalkhalsa.org, www.worldsikh.org, www.burningpunjab.com,
www.panthkhalsa.org, and www.khalistan.net53 On these
Websites, Khalistani organizations advertised Khalistan, their
workers’ achievements and biographies of their leaders. Through
print and electronic sources, the Sikh Diaspora propagated the
discrimination, atrocities and oppression – real and imagined
– of the Government of India against the Sikhs in India. Sikh
Diaspora organizations argued that Sikhs were slaves in India
and that nobody was defending their interests; their homeland
had always been treated as a colony and that they had been discriminated
against and exploited on the socio-economic, political and cultural
fronts; everything produced by Sikh farmers was bought at a
discounted price by the Indian establishment; Sikhs had contributed
disproportionately (26 per cent) to the Indian Government’s
budget, but only 2 per cent of the budget was spent on their
homeland, Punjab. In the literature, it was also propagated
that the Sikhs were least favoured in Governmental jobs and
that they had only one per cent of jobs within the Central sector.
The Diaspora also highlighted certain
‘factual’ information of military oppression of the Sikhs by
the Indian Government.54
For example, the Council of Khalistan claimed that the “Indian
state had murdered 250,000 Sikhs since 1984 and had held 52,268
Sikhs as political prisoners” without charge or trial. It was
also asserted that the kind of treatment that had been meted
out to the minorities, especially the Sikhs, by the Indian state
confirmed that India is a ‘fundamentalist Hindu theocracy’ and
not a secular or democratic state at all. In 1997, Narinder
Singh, a spokesman for the Golden Temple, told America’s National
Public Radio: The Indian Government … always boasting that they are democratic,…
and secular. They have
nothing to do with secularism, nothing to with a democracy.
They just kill Sikhs just to please the Hindu majority.55 The Sikh Diaspora argued forcefully that
the Guru had granted the sovereignty to the Sikh nation saying,
‘In grieb Sikhin ko deon Patshahi’ (Give
these poor Sikhs dominance (kingship). The Sikh community, according
to the Diaspora organizations, always remembers this dictum,
reciting, ‘Raj kare ga Khalsa’ the Khalsa (meaning the Sikhs,
but also the ‘pure’) shall rule every morning and evening. It
was then put forth that the Sikh nation must achieve its independence
to fulfil the mandate of the Guru. The Sikhs should unite and
start a ‘Shantmai Morcha’ to liberate their homeland from ‘Indian
occupation’. The main objective of this propaganda was to mobilize
the Sikh community and galvanize international support for the
Sikh cause, while discrediting New Delhi by disseminating a
consistent message of oppression and suppression of the Sikh
minority. The experience reflects that Sikh organizations were
far ahead of the Indian Government in the propaganda war. This
shortcoming, occasionally, has allowed the groups to embarrass
New Delhi and gain political capital at its expense.56 To propagate the ideology and generate
common support, Sikh Diaspora organizations used the Sikh religious
institutions. Operation
Blue Star changed the opinion of a majority of Sikhs residing
in the West, especially in the UK, USA and Canada. Now, a majority
of the Sikhs started looking for an independent Sikh state to
protect their faith and identity from further persecution by
the ‘Hindu Indian state’. Sensing a change in the public sentiment,
Sikh Diaspora organizations and sympathizers implemented a strategy
to consolidate their support in the Sikh Diaspora. The strategy
invoked taking control of the central institutions in the Sikh
faith, the Gurdwaras. Sikh organizations and sympathizers understood
that if they were able to control the functioning of Gurdwaras,
they would have access to a large congregation to whom they
could preach the virtues of establishing Khalistan and who could
provide them with access to the financial resources of these
institutions to support the Khalistan movement. During this
period, there was a dramatic shift in the composition of democratically
elected committees of Gurdwaras, with moderate committees being
removed and militant organizations being elected into power.
Many of these Sikh Gurdwaras were controlled by or had links
to Sikh militant organizations like the Dal Khalsa, World Sikh
Organization (WSO), BKI, ISYF, Khalistan Commando Force (KCF)
and Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF), as well as other small
organizations which were operating in Punjab from the foreign
soil. Between 1984 and 1993, these Sikh organizations controlled
the religious institutions and entrenched their ideology in
the Western Sikh consciousness. As the Khalistani lobby consolidated its
power in Gurdwaras, it began to expose the Sikh congregations
to the extremist ideology. Executive committee members, granthis (Sikh preachers) and dhadis
(religious hymn singers) gave fiery sermons condemning the actions
of the Indian state. The Sikh masses were exposed to stories
of Sikhs being persecuted in Punjab and were shown images of
‘Sikh martyrs’ who had sacrificed their lives for the communal
cause. They spoke to their public about the need for an independent
Sikh state based on religious doctrine, in order to protect
the Sikh population from further persecution. They justified
the use of violence in this pursuit as it was a ‘last resort’
thrust upon the Sikh population. Thus, the Gurdwaras emerged
as a new platform from where the Khalistani lobby justified
and legitimately propagated the ideological underpinnings of
the Sikh ethno-national movement in India.57 Alongside propaganda, a significant amount
of money used to support and fight for Khalistan was raised
from the Sikh Diaspora. In fact, after the Indian Army’s attack
on the Golden Temple complex, support and money for the revolutionary
cause had increased dramatically among Sikh emigrants. Britain
emerged as the biggest centre for financing the Sikh militants
in India. Funds were being illegally funnelled out of Britain
to Pakistan and other countries where the Sikh militant leadership
was located.58
Gurdwaras in the United States, England and Canada gave thousands
of dollars a week to support the ‘revolutionary movement’ in
Punjab. Manbir Singh Chaheru, Chief of the Khalistan Commando
Force in Punjab, had confessed that he had received more than
60,000 dollars from Sikh organizations in Britain and Canada.59 In Canada,
the ISYF, which controlled Gurdwaras in Abborts Fort, New Westminster,
Surrey, near Vancouver and on Ross Street, Vancouver, had raised
huge amounts of funds from the Sikh Diaspora. In 1984, it had
launched a membership drive in Canada and charged five dollars
as fees. Those who did not enrol were branded as agents of Government
agencies. To avoid suspicion, most Sikhs became members. The
ISYF also established a ‘human rights organization’ known as
the Khalsa Human Rights Group, which subsequently emerged as
a powerful fundraising unit of pro-Khalistani Sikh militants
located in foreign countries. In 1991, the ISYF launched the
‘Bhai Amrik Singh Shaheed Fund’ in UK, reportedly to assist
the families of Sikh militants killed in security forces’ operations
in Punjab. It also promised to send more money in the future.60 The World
Sikh Organization, another Sikh Diaspora organization, had financed
and arranged the visit of Canadian parliamentarians Barbara
Greene, Derek Lee and Svend Robinson to Punjab from January
15 to January 22, 1992.61 The overseas Sikh organizations had also
received funds from the Government in Canada. According to Indian
diplomatic circles in Canada, the Federation of Sikh Societies,
many of whose members were advocating a separate Sikh state,
was receiving funds estimated to be 9,000 dollars yearly from
the Canadian Government since 1982 when the Sikh Federation
had been started. However, the Government funds were not being
given to the Sikh organization to preach and promote secession
in India, but were being wrongly used for that purpose. The
money so given was part of a budgetary fund that was earmarked
every year for the promotion of Canada as a multi-cultural society.
Representative groups emanating from different countries of
the world that had settled in Canada received the funds from
Government to enable them to maintain their ethnic identity.
Thus, the Indian community as a whole received part of this
funding every year. But the Sikhs who were part of the Indian
community received special treatment and received large sum
of money, much of which was used to promote militant activities
against the Indian state.62
India and Canada are both members of the Commonwealth and, as
such, are tied by such bonds of friendship and are expected
to discharge certain political and diplomatic obligations towards
each other. Thus, when funds provided by one Commonwealth country
were going to finance militant ethnic secessionism in the other
Commonwealth country, this surprised many.63 Sikh Diaspora organizations sent money
to militant organizations in Punjab to buy arms and ammunition
and to fulfil other requirements in the field. In 1981, the
Babbar Khalsa reportedly raised 60,000 Canadian dollars in the
UK and Canada and this was sent to Babbar Khalsa militants active
in Punjab. In 1982, Talwinder Singh Parmar received 35,000 US
dollars from Canada, which was later used to sponsor Babbar
Khalsa attacks against the Nirankaris and Indian authorities.
Besides the militant organizations, in the post-1984 period,
funds were sent for humanitarian causes as well as legal expenditure
to defend the militants and other people put on trial before
the Indian judiciary. The Diaspora organizations transferred
money to militant groups in Punjab primarily through three methods:
First, money was deposited or transferred directly into Indian
bank accounts controlled by the Sikh militant group or individual
members sympathetic to the communal cause, with funds later
withdrawn for organizational use. Second, money was sent through
third parties, mainly unregistered foreign money exchanges.
These foreign exchanges transferred money through agents to
specific locations within India and all over the world. This
method of money transfer was effective because the money could
not be traced and senders remained anonymous. Third, human ‘mules’
who were the members or supporters of the Sikh militant organizations
based abroad were used to transfer the money to the Sikh militants
in Punjab. Many times, these individuals travelled to India
or Pakistan with huge amounts of money in their possession.
Once individuals arrived in India or Pakistan, they made contact
with the specific organizations and distributed the money through
their organizational structures. It is well established that
members of the BKI, ISYF, KCF and WSO travelled to India and
Pakistan to provide funds, raised abroad, to their militant
organizations.64 The Diaspora leadership lobbied with various
Government officials, parliamentarians and international human
rights agencies. The strategies of the Sikh Diaspora were determined
by their perceptions, resources and also by the lobbying system
of each host state. In the United States, ethnic diplomacy is
well established and is a part of Congressional proceedings.
Consequently, the Sikh Diaspora gained considerable support
from US Congressmen for the cause of Khalistan and on the issue
of human rights violations by the Indian state. In fact, the
Sikh lobby led by Gurmit Singh Aulakh of the Council of Khalistan
in the United States made extensive contacts with US Congressmen.
To get their support, the Sikh lobby exploited the poor history
of India-US relations. With Pakistan as a stable ally since
1959, India had been relatively peripheral to the US strategic
and political interests in South Asia. The United States was
not satisfied with several aspects of India’s domestic and foreign
policy, such as its Afghan policy, rejection of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and its refusal to discuss the nuclear
restraints with Pakistan; its missile and space programmes,
trade frictions with the United States and the sharp deterioration
of its relations with Nepal and Sri Lanka.65 The Sikh
lobby exploited the situation to get the support of US Congressmen.
Sikh Diaspora leaders, especially Aulakh, highlighted anti-US
activities by the Indian state, focusing on
the anti-US stand at the United Nations and India’s help
to Iran to build up its military arsenal. The Sikh lobbyists
honoured the Congressmen and contributed to their campaign funds.
The Sikhs had established early links with the US Congressmen
from California, Norman Shumway, Wally Herger and Vic Fazio.
In October 1986, Herger was given $ 10,000 for a fundraising
dinner.66 Later on,
in August 1988, Dan Burton was presented with a Sikh Heritage
Award.67 Again, in
February 1993, he was presented with a plaque in recognition
of his solidarity and support to the Sikh nation.68 Fizio was
honoured at the National Press Club in February 1993, while
Pete Geren was honoured in a Gurdwara.69 When meeting
with these Congressmen, Sikh leaders discussed the issue of
the alleged large-scale violation of human rights against the
Sikhs in India. These Congressmen heard the Sikhs’ pleas
with sympathy and they emerged gradually as consistent supporters
of the Sikh cause. From time to time, these US Congressmen introduced
resolutions in the House of Representatives in support of the
Sikh cause and ultimately to pressurize the Indian Government.
Thus, in August 1988, Shumway introduced a Congressional resolution
concerning human rights of the Sikhs in India. The debate was
usually initiated as an amendment to the House Foreign Aid Bill.
In 1989, Wally Herger moved a resolution proposing that United
States not only freeze its bilateral aid to India but also prevent
international financial institutions like the World Bank from
extending economic assistance to the Indian state until it stopped
the human rights violation in Punjab and abandoned its missile
development programme. The US bilateral aid to India, at that
time, was a mere 25 million dollars, but India’s dependence
on World Bank and IMF aid was considerable. Therefore, the Herger
move was not easy to ignore for India. It was hotly debated
in the House and was defeated by 212 to 204 votes, a margin
of a mere eight votes. Of course, the Herger amendment, to be
sure, had little chance of being passed into law, even if the
House of Representatives had adopted it.70 Nevertheless,
the considerable support that it received was a sufficient booster
for the Khalistani lobby. Consequently, they moved many other
resolutions against India. In 1991, Dan Burton sponsored a more
stringent resolution to stop the US development assistance programmes
for India unless international agencies were allowed to monitor
human rights. In 1992, a similar resolution was passed, which
led to a small reduction in development assistance to India.
Burton reintroduced a bill to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
in the House of Representatives in June 1993. In the bill, Burton
had sought to cut off aid if India failed within 60 days to
repeal five preventive detention laws, which included the Terrorist
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) of 1987, National
Security Act (NSA) of 1980, Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety
Act of 1978, and Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special
Power Act of 1990. It took 10-hours to debate the bill before
it was defeated by 233 to 201 votes. Despite the defeat of the
Burton Amendment, 1993, the Sikh lobby succeeded in convincing
a large number of US Congressmen about human rights violation
in India. Even the members who had voted against the Bill shared
Burton’s concern for human rights. Further, pro-Sikh Congressmen
succeeded in the House when, on the same day, the House adopted
another amendment, by voice vote and without discussion, seeking
to deny India USD 345,000, allocated in the bill under the International
Military Education and Training (IMET) Programme.71
The American Overseas Interests Act stipulates
the cut of 70.4 million in US development aid to any country
that did not vote with US at the UN at least 25 percent of the
time. India’s record of voting against the United States at
the United Nations, consequently, became an issue due to which,
on May 24, 1995, the US Congress passed the Burton Amendment
effectively cutting USD 364,000 from the IMET Programme.72 On May 25,
1995, Dan Burton stated in the House of Representatives: …the House approved my amendment to deny development aid to
any nation that votes against the United States more than 75
percent of the time at the United Nations. One of the countries
that votes against us at the U.N. 80 to 90 percent of the time
every year is India… India is also one of the world’s worst
human rights abusers. For years, I have criticized the atrocities
committed by Indian security forces against Sikhs in Punjab,
Muslims in Kashmir and Christians in Nagaland… this issue is
one of the main reasons I offered my Amendment. Any country
that consistently votes against us at the U.N. and systematically
violates the human rights of innocent civilians should not receive
foreign aid from us. Indian security forces in Punjab and Kashmir
routinely torture political prisoners, gang rape women, and
abduct innocent people to demand, ransoms from their families…
In Punjab, torture and murder victims are thrown into canals,
usually with their hands and feet still tied. Dozens of bodies
are found every time a canal is drained for repairs... we must
demand that India respect the human rights of all people, and
grant them freedom, democracy and basic human rights. Until
India stops the abuses and begins to vote with us even occasionally,
at the United Nations, we should not give that country our foreign
aid.73 Obviously, Congressmen and House of Representatives
emerged as a big platform for the Sikh Diaspora. Through it,
the Diaspora succeeded to pressurize the Indian state on the
issue of human rights, by introduction of Foreign Aid Bills
in the House. On numerous occasions, they succeeded in passing
the bill to cut off US aid to India. Furthermore, pro-Sikh Congressmen
challenged India’s democratic status and argued in favour of
designating India as a ‘terrorist state’. For instance, Congressman
Edolphus Towns, contended, on October 6, 1998: …the Government of India has murdered more than 250,000 Sikhs
since 1947, almost 60,000 Kashmiri Muslims since 1988, and tens
of thousands of Assamese, Tamils, Manipuris, Dalits and others…
between 1992 and 1994 the Indian Government paid over 41,000
cash bounties to Police officers for murdering Sikhs. Two Canadian
journalists published a book called Soft Target in which they
proved that the Indian Government blew up its own airliner in
1985 just to blame the Sikhs. In this light, the United States
must declare India a terrorist state we must then impose all
the sanctions that we impose on any other terrorist state.74 In the changing atmosphere of Indo-US relations,
the resolution failed to attract the attention of significant
numbers of US Congressmen and of public opinion. But, again
on the part of Sikh Diaspora, this was another major achievement
on the propaganda front as it put the democratic image and reputation
of world’s largest democracy at stake before the international
community. Sikh lobbyists also sought support for
the Sikhs’ right to self-determination. On February 22, 1995,
Pete Geren along with another 28 Members submitted a resolution
in the House of Representatives stating that the Sikh nation
should be allowed to exercise the right to self-determination
in their homeland, ‘Punjab-Khalistan’. The resolution was referred
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.75 In a separate
move, in March 1997, Gary Condit and Dana Rohrabacher introduced
a bipartisan resolution, H. Con. Res. 37, which argued: …the Sikh nation should be allowed to exercise the right of
national self-determination in their homeland, Punjab, ….a plebiscite
should be held in Punjab, Khalistan, on the question of independence,
under the international supervision, so that the Sikhs can determine
their political future in a free and fair vote in accordance
with international law.76 On occasion, under the strong influence
of Sikh lobbyists, US Congressmen wrote to the Indian Government
to improve their ‘human rights record’, particularly against
the Sikh community. For instance, on January 30, 1995, David
E. Bonier wrote to the then Indian Prime Minister, P.V. Narasimha
Rao, to review the case of Simranjit Singh Mann, who was arrested
under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act. He also urged
the Government to amend the ‘draconian laws’ to conform with
international human rights standards.77 The Congressmen also expressed concern
at the proposed extradition treaty with India. On February 10,
1995, 43 members of the House of Representatives wrote in a
letter that ‘anti-perspective’ provision should be included
in the proposed extradition treaty between the Government of
India and Government of United States, so that individuals could
be protected from persecution on the basis of race, religion,
nationality, or political belief in India.78 Gurmit Singh
Aulakh himself opposed the India-US Extradition Treaty. He decried
the treaty’s effect on political asylum seekers by claiming
that: …if Sikh activists are returned to the clutches of the Indian
tyrants I fear for their lives. They will almost certainly be
tortured and murdered by the world’s largest democracy.79 Aulakh wrote many letters to international
personalities for which he got some positive response. For instance,
on February 5, 1997, the then US Vice President Al Gore wrote
a letter to Aulakh in which he described the Sikh uprising in
Punjab as ‘the ongoing civil conflict in Khalistan’ and viewed
it as a ‘serious situation’. Gore wrote: Civil conflict in any nation, and the inevitable hardships
and bloodshed that inflicts on that nations’ civilian population,
offends our sense of human dignity and our humanitarian ideals…
A high priority of this nation’s foreign policy agenda is to
strengthen efforts to promote democracy and uphold human rights
in regions across the globe.80 Again, this was a major achievement for
the Sikh lobbyists, especially for Gurmit Singh Aulakh. In a
Press Release on February 25, 1997, the Council of Khalistan
said that, by acknowledging the civil conflict in Khalistan,
Al Gore’s letter implied “recognition of Khalistan’s independence.”
The letter energized the struggle for Khalistan.81 It appeared
that U.S. foreign policy supported human rights including the
basic right to self-determination, which underlined the Sikh
struggle for an independent Khalistan.
The Khalistani activists were aided by
a long history of ethnic diplomacy in the United States and
were able to pressurize the Indian Government through US Congressmen.
However, the United Kingdom and Canada, with their respective
parliamentary systems, did not prove as accommodative of their
efforts to influence Indo-British and Indo-Canadian diplomatic
relations. Hence, the British and Canadian Khalistan activities,
in comparison to their counter-parts in the US, were much more
limited in scope. Because of the Sikh concentration in certain
areas, however, a few British Members of Parliament, such as
Terry Dicks and Lord Avebury, did voice concern in the British
Parliament regarding the Sikh issue. They tended to focus almost
exclusively on the Indian Government’s human rights record in
Punjab. Both the ISYF and the Khalistan Council highlighted
the cases of the relatives of British Sikhs who were allegedly
tortured, killed or who disappeared while in the custody of
the Indian security forces. In November 1992, Dicks, a Conservative
MP from Hayes and Harlington, opened the debate in the House
of Commons by saying: I want to mention yet again in the House, the persecution of
Sikhs in the Punjab. Members of the Sikh community living in
my constituency and Sikhs throughout the world have been concerned
for the safety of family and friends living in the Punjab. The
rape of young women, the beating of old men and the murder of
young boys, to say nothing of the imprisonment without trial
of many thousands of innocent people, has been going on since
1984 and continues unabated. Indian security forces are killing
hundreds of innocent Sikhs in fake encounters and there is evidence
that those forces have swept through villages in the Punjab
intent on nothing less than widespread slaughter.82 Dicks then referred to the continuous
central rule over the ‘Sikh homeland’, Punjab, the ‘unfettered
powers’ given to the Security Forces under ‘special legislation
relating to national security’, the resultant lack of ‘legal
safeguards for the protection of human rights’ and ‘a similar
campaign of oppression’ in Kashmir. Referring to the role of
the British Parliament in this regard, he stated that Parliament
had refused to condemn atrocities carried out by the Indian
Government, …No matter how well documented they are by Amnesty International.
It has happened because of friendship of British Government
with India as a Commonwealth country… and due to its close relationship
with the Indian Congress Party and the Gandhi family in particular.
Actions of this kind, that were condemned elsewhere by the British
Government, have been ignored in India (sic).83 While questioning the successive Indian
Governments’ claims that they rule the world’s largest democracy,
he castigated the British Government:
How can governments, who went to war to defend the rights of
the Kuwaitis, in their own country refuse to bring pressure
on the Indian Government to recognize the rights of the Sikhs
in Punjab? Are the Kuwaitis more important than the Sikhs? Or,
can it be that much of the world’s oil comes from the Middle
East but only food to feeding millions of hungry mouths is produced
in the Punjab?84 Further, he added that the abuse of human
rights cannot be condoned no matter whether it takes place in
a Middle Eastern country or a country that belongs to the Commonwealth.
Therefore, the British Government should have a consistent position
on human rights.85 According
to him, the British Government had a unique moral responsibility
in this regard, because, In 1947, when India obtained its independence, it was the British
who accepted a guarantee by the Hindus, who make up 84 percent
of the population, that the self-determination of the Sikhs
in the Punjab would be recognized. On that basis the British
Government granted India its independence. Unfortunately for
the Sikhs the British Government has done nothing to enforce
the guarantee and successive Congress Party dominated Indian
Governments have been able to ignore the pledge.86 Dicks held that both the Indian and British
Governments were responsible for the Sikh ethno-secessionist
uprising in Punjab. He demanded that the British Government
should pursue a policy linking overseas aid to a country’s human
rights record. He was of the view that the new approach would
be brought firmly to the attention of the Indian Government
who, at that time, received more than GBP 100 million annually
under the British Overseas Aid Programme.87 He also
pleaded that if the British Government were to take a tough
stand on the abuse of human rights in India and persuade the
Indian Government to recognize the rights of the Sikhs in the
Punjab, the majority of the Sikhs throughout the world would
be prepared to renounce violence as a method of achieving their
objective of self-determination and would welcome the opportunity
to meet with anyone at an international forum in an attempt
to come to a peaceful settlement of the problem.88
Jacques Arnold, another Conservative MP
from Gravesham, supported Dicks on the human rights aspect of
the Sikh uprising. Though he refrained from making any comment
on the ‘self-determination’ aspect raised by Dicks, Arnold highlighted
the concerns and anxieties of his Sikh constituents who expressed
great misery and anxiety about the fate of their families in
the Punjab where, according to him, there was a total denial
of democratic rights by the state.89 In more recent years, Sikh activists have
received the support of other Parliamentarians, such as John
McDonnell, Gabrielle Farrell, Khalid Mehmood, Rob Morris and
Caroline Spelman. The Federation of Sikh Organizations, on various
occasions, honoured these MPs and received their support for
their cause in the United Kingdom. Among these, Khalid Mahmood,
the Labour Party MP from Perry Bar, at a conference organized
by the Federation of Sikh Organizations on the occasion of ‘Khalistan
Day’, on April 29, 2003, at Birmingham stated: …every nation has an inalienable right to self-determination
and, as with the case of both Punjab and Kashmir, it was self
evident that when people are grossly mistreated by the state,
they will take the necessary steps to control their own destiny.90 The British Parliamentary Human Rights
Group, a cross-party group of the Members of Parliament that
shapes the perceptions about human rights in the corridors of
power, especially in the UN Commission on Human Rights, viewed
Punjab as one of the regions of the contemporary world where
a persistent violation of human rights had occurred. The group
also organized occasional hearings on the Punjab. Subsequently,
in March 2005, another organization known as the Human Rights
Advisory Group of the Punjabis in Britain All Party Parliamentary
Group recognized the right to self-determination of the Sikhs
in Punjab in the following words: Self-determination is… the bedrock of all human rights in international
law; without self-determination all individual human rights
can be breached with impunity… self-determination is a key to
the resolution (and prevention) of scores of violent conflicts,
which invariably have a massive cost in terms of human life
and development… The Sikhs, as a nation, have a lawful right
to self-determinations. It is hoped that the international community
will recognize this in order to take forward the cause of peace
and justice and the rule of law in South Asia.91 The Sikh Diaspora, in Britain, United
States and Canada, through organizations like the Council of
Khalistan, Nankana Sahib Foundation and World Sikh Organizations,
had tried to get legitimacy for their struggle by attempting
to secure membership or get a special status in certain international
institutions, such as the UN and the Unrepresented Nations and
Peoples Organizations (UNPO). On May 17, 1984, Jagjit Singh
Chauhan, President of the National Council of Khalistan, appealed
to the then UN Secretary-General, Perez de Cueller, to call
upon the Government of India to desist from activities directed
at the violation of human rights in respect of the Sikhs in
India.92 The overseas Sikh leadership had also
approached the UN and lobbied with various subcommittees of
the world body. In the mid-1980s, they made a request for non-governmental
organizations (NGO) status to the Sikh nation. The UN Committee,
composed by Cyprus, Sri Lanka, France, Bulgaria, Cuba, the Soviet
Union, the United States and Malawi, considered the application
on February 25, 1987, for the category of consultative status,
but it was rejected. In rejecting its application, the Committee
felt that an NGO status to ‘Khalistan’ would undermine the sovereignty
of a member state, i.e., India.93 After Operation Black Thunder in 1988, Manohar
Singh Grewal, President of the World Sikh Organization, wrote
a letter on the ‘genocide of the Sikhs’ in India to the UN Secretary-General
Javier Perez de Cuellar. He pleaded: Your Excellency, the situation in the Punjab is becoming more
alarming... again Indian paramilitary forces are holding innocent
people in the Golden Temple as hostages… they can’t drink water
or even go the toilet without being shot at… the Indian Government
has been engineering incidents to justify a new wave of oppression.
Since Punjab is closed to the foreign press except for the guided
official tours, the world does not know the truth about Punjab.
As per the records of Human Rights reports, (there is a situation
of) an undeclared, unilateral ruthless war against hundreds
of innocent defenceless men and women in far away tiny villages
of Punjab from where their voices do not reach the rest of India.
In the letter, Grewal wrote, further: The bleeding Sikh nation is in agony. Your Excellency, as Secretary
General of the World Organization, you represent the conscience
of humanity and the UN inspires hope for freedom and justice…
Thousands of innocent Sikh orphans, widows and older parents
whose loved ones have been lynched, for them freedoms of religion
and expression have been reduced to the ‘right to cry in the
wilderness’… Their voices, though inaudible amidst the media
blitz of misinformation and deception, are appealing to the
world community and the UN to urge the ruling regime of India
to stop the genocide of the Sikhs… In the meantime, the 1948
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide should be invoked. India should be asked to lift the
occupation of the Sikh homeland… when the normal conditions
are restored the people of Punjab should be given the opportunity
to determine their own destiny through an independent and impartial
referendum…94 In 1990, the Sikh delegation made a presentation
to the UN on the violation of human rights against the Sikhs
in India at the Centre of Human Rights in Geneva. The Sikhs
also took part in the UN Human Rights Day ceremony on December
10, 1991, in San Francisco.95 Significantly,
during June 14-25, 1993, when the UN World Conference on Human
Rights was being held in Vienna, the Sikh delegation presented
their case carrying placards and documents on India’s alleged
human rights abuses in Punjab. In this conference, the official
delegation of the Indian State, which was led by the then Finance
Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, along with Atal Behari Vajpayee
and a Punjabi newspaper editor, Jagjit Singh Anand, and Gurcharan
Singh Galib, Member of Parliament, faced strong opposition from
the Sikh delegation.96
Through their letters or sometimes by
sending joint delegations to these organizations, the Sikh Diaspora
did not merely attempt to convince these institutions on the
issue of Khalistan but also sought to secure some kind of status
in these organizations for ‘Khalistan’, which they demanded
should be completely separate and independent from India. In
1993, the extremist element within the Sikh Diaspora achieved
a major milestone in this regard. It succeeded to securing the
recognition of ‘Khalistan’ as the newest full member of the
Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO).97 The ‘Nishan
Sahib’ (Insignia of Sikh religion) was hoisted at Hague in the
Netherlands during the Annual General Assembly of the Organization.
The General Assembly of UNPO was attended by renowned dignitaries
like Lord Ennals, Member of the British House of Lords; H.S.H.
Prince Hans-Adams-II of Liechtenstein; and Ireland’s Noble Peace
Prize Laureate M. Corrigan Magquire, President of the Peace
People, Belfast. The extremist Sikh Diaspora was of the view
that UNPO membership for Khalistan would increase the international
pressure on the Indian state and would eventually lead to the
formation of Khalistan, with its own membership in the United
Nations.98 Gurmit Singh
Aulakh, who headed the Sikh delegation to the UNPO, described
it as a big boost to the movement for Sikh freedom, adding that
it would increase “international pressure on the Indian state
to honour the independence of Khalistan and cease its violation
of human rights against the Sikh nation.” According to him,
India is not one nation but a conglomerate of nations held
together against the will of the people. Like the Soviet Union,
India too will disintegrate into its natural parts. We now have
behind us an organization recognized by the international community
for its integrity. India can no longer malign the Sikhs in the
eyes of the world with its disinformation… its tactics of government
by oppression will no longer be accepted by the International
community… The Sikh nation will have its freedom. India has
no other choice.99 For the other members of Sikh delegation,
including Paramjit Singh Ajrawat and Bhupinder Singh of Holland,
it was an occasion of pleasure, as the Sikhs were accepted by
the UNPO as ‘a nation without state’. According to them, India had sought to keep the Sikhs isolated from the international
community for years, but now, with help of this new platform,
they will spread the news of India’s oppression of the Sikhs
throughout the world community. Bhupinder Singh opined that, “Now India cannot hide. Its brutality
will be exposed.”100 Overseas Sikhs also used militant methods
to achieve their desired goals. In Canada, the militants had
organised a small segment of the Diaspora Sikh community. They
were mostly concentrated in areas like Vancouver, British Columbia,
Toronto and Winnipeg. They exploited the weaknesses of the basically
liberal political system of Canada. Such militant action was centered in,
but not limited to, Canada. The Babbar Khalsa had reportedly
launched an all-out effort to recruit Sikhs abroad for the creation
of Khalistan through a Khalistan Liberation Army. In February
1982, the organization hired Johan Vanderhorst, a veteran mercenary
who had fought in Rhodesia, to train Sikh recruits in British
Columbia. Vanderhorst hired fellow mercenaries by putting advertisements
in Canadian papers offerings salaries of 1,250 US dollars monthly
to train people in the use of weapons and combat techniques.
The Indian Government had obtained clandestine pictures of the
training camps in British Columbia which had been handed over
to the Canadian Government.101 The ISYF and Dal Khalsa also indulged
in militant activities. One of the prominent militant leaders
was Talwinder Singh Parmar, a Canadian citizen and leader of
50 members of the Babbar Khalsa, a militant Sikh group demanding
the creation of Khalistan. They had claimed responsibility for
40 murders in Punjab between 1979 and 1981. Another leader was
Lakhbir Singh Rode, a nephew of the late Bhindranwale, who headed
the ISYF with 150 members in Canada. His coordinator in the
United States was Arjinderpal Singh Khalsa. Violent reactions
are seen to have started in Vancouver when the acting Indian
High Commissioner in Canada, K.P. Fabian, visited Manitoba on
July 18, 1984. He was pelted with eggs and attacked, although,
he was not seriously injured.102 The Indian
Independence Day celebrations of 1984 in New York, Toronto,
and Vancouver, were disrupted by Sikh secessionist demonstrators,
while in Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and
Ottawa, protests were more peaceful.103
In May 1985, when Haryana’s Chief Minister Bhajan Lal was in
the United States for medical treatment, five Sikhs reportedly
plotted to kill him. He was particularly hated because he had
worked against the Sikhs as the Chief Minister of the State
neighbouring Punjab. One of the Sikhs accused in this case was
Gurpartap Singh Virk, who was convicted of violating America’s
neutrality laws in March 1986. Virk, along with other conspirators
from New York and Jatinder Singh Ahluwalia of New Orleans, were
also accused, but not convicted, of planning to assassinate
Rajiv Gandhi during his visit to the United States. These Sikhs
had also selected a site for a guerrilla training camp in New
Jersey. Virk and his accomplices had attended the ‘Ricondo School’
which offered a course in guerrilla warfare for mercenary soldiers.
Frank Camper, who was running the school, and his assistant,
testified that Sikhs were openly trying to learn about terrorism
because they wanted to ‘kill thousands with a single blow’.104 In October 1985, when Indian Prime Minister
Rajiv Gandhi visited England, a plot by 15 Sikhs and Kashmiris
to assassinate him was foiled. It led to the conviction of two
Sikhs in December 1986. In June 1985, Sikh militants bombed an
Air India flight, Kanishka,
killing all 329 people aboard, including 154 Canadians. Canadian
authorities believed that the bombing was masterminded and perpetrated
by the Sikh militants operating from Canada, including some
Canadian citizens. Two Canada-based Sikhs, Ripudaman Singh Malik
and Ajaib Singh Bagri, who were eventually released by the Canadian
Court, were put on trial in Vancouver for involvement in the
aircraft bombing and for another suitcase bombing at the Narita
Airport in Tokyo, that killed two baggage handlers.105 On November
26, 1985, two senior diplomats of the Indian Embassy in the
Pakistani capital Islamabad, Councillor B. Jain and First Secretary
K. K. Khanna, were attacked by some Canadian Sikhs within the
Dehra Sahib Gurdwara Complex at Lahore. Both the officers sustained
head injuries and were admitted to a Lahore hospital.106 In 1991,
a British Columbia-based Sikh militant, Inderjit Singh Reyat,
was convicted of building the Tokyo bomb and pleaded guilty
in February 2003 to aiding in the construction of the Air India
bomb. It is believed that the bombings were the part of a conspiracy
by British Columbia-based Sikh militants to take revenge against
the Indian Government for its 1984-storming of the Golden Temple
complex.107 On May 25, 1986, the Punjab Planning Minister,
Malkiat Singh Sidhu, who was visiting Canada to attend his nephew’s
wedding, was shot four times in the chest at Campbell river,
a town on Vancouver Island. Canadian authorities had arrested
four suspects at a Police roadblock and they were charged with
attempted murder. They were later convicted and sentenced to
20 years in prison. In the United States, in May 1986, Police
arrested five Montreal area Sikhs, who were involved in conspiracy
to blow up an Air India jumbo jet out of New York City. Out
of the five, two men were tried, convicted and given life sentences
for the conspiracy, while the others were jailed for a month
and subsequently released.108 Dilawar Singh, the human bomb who killed
Beant Singh, the then Chief Minister of Punjab, on August 31,
1995, was linked to the Babbar Khalsa International. Similarly,
in June 1995, Delhi Police arrested a suspected suicide bomber,
Rachhpal Singh of the Babbar Khalsa, who was on a mission to
kill the former Punjab Police Chief K.P.S. Gill.109 The Indian Government’s reaction and response
to the activities of extremist overseas Sikhs started as early
as the late 1970’s, when Mrs. Indira Gandhi made public statements
about problems created by the Sikhs in Vancouver. In 1981, soon
after some Sikhs hijacked an Indian Airlines Boeing to Lahore
in Pakistan, the Government of India pressured the United States,
Canada and Britain to oust Khalistan leaders, or at least counter
their activities.110 In April
1981, the Indian passport of Jagjit Singh Chauhan was revoked,
and subsequently a case of sedition and promoting hatred among
different communities was registered against him in August 1981.111 In July
1984, after Operation
Blue Star, the Indian state assessed the extremist Sikh
Diaspora’s role in its official report, the ‘White Paper on
the Punjab Agitation’. Out of 58 pages of this report, nine
pages were devoted to the subversive overseas Sikh organizations
and how they fostered separatism in the period up to 1984. While
referring to the role of external factors in the White
Paper, the Government of India argued, The recent occurrences in Punjab cannot be divorced from the
wider international context… Powerful forces are at work to
undermine India’s political and economic strength. A sensitive
border state with a dynamic record of agricultural and industrial
development would be an obvious target for subversion. In this
context the activities of groups based abroad acquire special
significance. A section of the foreign media is deliberately
presenting totally distorted versions of the Punjab situation,
which have the effect of encouraging and sustaining separatist
activities.112 In the White Paper, the Government of India remarked that it was certain
overseas Sikhs who had provided the ideological underpinning
for the demand for a separate Sikh state. It was also pointed
out that numerous Sikh organizations indulging in secessionist
activities were operating from foreign countries. According
to the report, the National Council of Khalistan, Dal Khalsa,
Babbar Khalsa and Akhand Kirtani Jatha were the main organizations
which had raised the slogan of a separate Sikh state called
‘Khalistan’. The National Council of Khalistan headed by Jagjit
Singh Chauhan was active in the UK, West Germany, Canada and
USA. Dal Khalsa activities were primarily in UK and West Germany,
while the Babbar Khalsa was operating largely from Vancouver
in Canada. The Akhand Kirtani Jatha had units in UK and Canada.113 The Government of India was of the view
that the Sikhs were among the large number of Indians settled
or working abroad. Their love and patriotism for the Indian
state was not in doubt. Nevertheless, some were misinformed
or misled by interested parties. Some others were vulnerable
to pressures in their host states. Moreover, it is not always
easy for the affluent settled aboard to identify with the basic
socio-economic interests of the working masses in India. As
a result, for some of them, the troubles in Punjab were a good
opportunity to project themselves as leaders of the Sikh community.114 The Government of India took numerous
legal, political and diplomatic steps to curb anti-Indian activities
among the overseas Sikhs and their radical organizations. In
London, the Indian High Commission drew the attention of the
British Government to the continuous anti-India activities in
Britain that began immediately after Operation Blue Star. Jagjit Singh Chauhan
had announced awards for beheading Indira Gandhi and her family
members and is also said to have despatched a ‘hit squad’ to
India to ‘take revenge’ against the Indian Prime Minister. Through
these announcements and statements, Chauhan secured unexpected
publicity in the British media.115 In a way,
it was helping him to gain popularity among radical elements
within the overseas Sikh community and was also instigating
the Sikhs to violence against a ‘particular community’ and against
the Indian state, both in India and abroad. Due to such developments,
the then High Commissioner, Pushkar Johari, took up the issue
with the British Foreign and Home Affairs Ministers, as well
as with the BBC, in the strongest possible terms.116 In New
Delhi, on June 22, 1984, the youth and student wings of the
Congress (I) organized separate demonstrations before the British
High Commission to protest the anti-India propaganda on the
BBC. In private correspondence,
India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi wrote to her British counterpart,
Margaret Thatcher, about events in Punjab and clarified the
position of the Indian state in this regard. She also requested
her to prevent the activities of individuals and organizations
in UK who were supporting the secessionist movement in India.117 Through diplomatic channels, the Government
of India tried to justify its military action in Punjab, and
also to persuade the overseas Sikh community, as well as world
public opinion, in its favour. For example, in Washington on
June 22, 1984, in a talk show “Evening Exchange” on a local
TV station, the Deputy Chief of the Indian mission in the United
States, Pete Sinai, stated that the Government of India had
no option but to enter the Golden Temple Complex and neutralize
the Sikh militants. In this talk show, two local Sikhs, including
the President of the Guru Gobind Singh Foundation, Ujjagar Singh
Bawa, were also present which made it more significant and relevant
from the Indian point of view.118 Indian
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi herself told a foreign journalist
that “…Army action was not against the Sikhs. It was only to
remove some hidden groups of individuals in the Temple Complex,
who were indulging in terrorism and anti-national activities.”
She also said that there was “…false propaganda” about killings
of children and women during the military action. “Not even
a single child or a woman was killed,” she asserted.119 She admitted
that there was widespread anger among the Sikhs over the situation
but said that they would gradually understand the situation.
The Indian Embassy in Washington reportedly distributed video-cassettes
to American Television Centres. In these cassettes, the interview
of Giani Kirpal Singh, Jathedar of the Akal Takht (Chief Priest
of the highest seat of temporal authority for the Sikhs), was
recorded, in which he admitted that, during Operation Blue Star, Sri Harmandir Sahib (Golden Temple) and Kotha
Sahib (where the Holy Book, the Guru
Granth Sahib, is safeguarded each night) had not suffered
any damage. The main objective of the distribution of these
cassettes was to pacify the anguished Sikh Diaspora by giving
them “true information” regarding the military operation and
the aftermath.120 As a large number of Sikhs from India
had acquired citizenship of Commonwealth countries and a section
of them was encouraging the ethno-secessionist movement in Punjab,
the Government of India reportedly discovered ‘unmistakable’
foreign links with the militants in the Golden Temple Complex,
which apparently impelled the state to take certain steps for
regulating the visits of foreigners, especially Sikhs of Indian
origin that could have been used for undesirable purposes in
India.121 The Government
of India also imposed strict visa regulations for overseas visitors.
On June 3, 1984, the Government of India prohibited the entry
of foreigners into Punjab.122
And on June 15, 1984, the Indian Ministry for Home Affairs issued
a notification in which citizens of Britain and Canada were
brought under the new visa regulations. On the very next day,
it was notified that it would be compulsory for citizens of
all Commonwealth countries, including Britain and Canada, to
obtain visas from Indian missions before visiting India. For
those who were already in India, the Government imposed a requirement
that they obtain a residential permit within 15 days of the
notification, for their continued stay in India.123 Extremist elements of the Sikh Diaspora
had gained the sympathy and support of US Congressmen, British
Parliamentarians and human rights organizations such as Amnesty
International, by claiming widespread repression of and human
rights violations against the Sikhs. Consequently, at various
national and international platforms, Indian authorities clarified
their position before the international community and criticized
the biased reports against India in this regard. For example,
during a speech at the University of London on September 21,
1992, the Indian Home Minister, S. B. Chavan, stated that reports
prepared by human rights groups accusing India of human rights
violations against the Sikhs in Punjab were not authenticated.
He said “We are proud of our concern for human rights and we
feel hurt by unfair, biased, exaggerated and unverified accusations
of human rights violations.”124 To clear
the misunderstanding about the Indian Government’s stand on
human rights, Chavan invited Amnesty International to send a
delegation to New Delhi to engage in a meaningful discussion.125 Further, on various occasions, the question
of the involvement of elements within the Sikh Diaspora in the
Punjab problem was also discussed and debated in the Indian
Parliament. This debate also focused on the soft attitude of
host states towards the Sikh militants living and operating
from their territories. As the US Congressmen were criticizing
India for its poor human rights record against the Sikhs, Indian
Parliamentarians, including K.K. Tewary, Saifuddin Chaudhury,
Bhagwat Jha Azad, E. Ayyapu Reddy, et
al, jointly criticized them for interfering in India’s internal
affairs. On April 18, 1985, while speaking in the Lok
Sabha (Lower House of Indian Parliament), Saifuddin Chaudhury
stated that the US Congress Annexe had actually become a platform
to spread anti-India feelings, with the vociferous participation
of extremist Khalistani leaders like Ganga Singh Dhillon and
Jagjit Singh Chauhan.126 K.K. Tewary
pointed out that America itself had a poor human rights record
which had evolved out of the “…genocide and butchery of Red
Indians, Negroes and other indigenous populations. All these
races were decimated and destroyed by them.” They were guilty of exposing humanity to atomic
extermination in the Second World War and were also responsible
for the “monstrous brutality” in Nicaragua, Chile and a host
of other countries. They had, consequently, no moral right to
speak about the human rights’ situation in India, he opined.127 Defending
the use of force by the Indian state, Ayyapu Reddy argued that
every nation has the right to protect its integrity and to prevent
its disunity and disintegration. Therefore, Reddy asserted,
“if according to the US Congressmen, trying to prevent secessionist
tendencies amounts to suppression of human rights, then Abraham
Lincoln should also be considered guilty of suppressing human
rights, because he had led the war against the disunity and
disintegration of United States.”128 Another
Parliamentarian, G.G. Swell, argued that, as the Americans and
the rest of the world considered Abraham Lincoln as the “greatest
President”, “a man of God” and “a man of prayer”, they should
also put Indira Gandhi in the same “pantheon”, since she had
fought and died for the unity and integrity of India.129 Further,
parliamentarians like Kamal Nath, Bala Saheb Vikhe Patil, S.M.
Bhattam, N.G. Ranga and Datta Samant expressed serious concern
over certain institutions in the USA and Canada, which were
imparting training to Sikh militants. The Indian Government
had reportedly traced 25 schools which were providing facilities
for such training, including the Ricondo School of Frank Camper
at Hueyville in Alabama and the Eagle Combat and Body Guard
Training School of Roy Maia in Estminster, British Columbia,
which had become the focus of discussion and debate in the Indian
Parliament.130 The Government
of India had drawn the attention of USA and Canada to these
developments, while requesting urgent investigation and appropriate
corrective action.131 As pointed out earlier, according to Indian
diplomatic sources, the Canadian Government was granting funds
to minority groups to strengthen their culture and to expand
their cultural activities. These funds were, however, misused
by different Sikh organizations. Indian parliamentarians also
protested against such financial help being provided by Canada.132 They also
emphasised the issue of fund raising and misuse by the Sikh
extremists in Britain. For example, on December 2, 1985, during
a discussion on the issue in Lok Sabha, S.M. Bhattam disclosed that,
Large sums of money are being collected regularly in Britain
in about 30 to 40 Gurdwaras to buy weapons and pass them on
to Sikh extremists in Punjab… about one lakh133 to two
lakh Pounds (GBP) are raised every week and this amount is being
utilized for the purpose of buying light weapons, sub-machine
guns and explosives from illegal European markets to be sent
to the subversive elements of the Sikh community in Punjab.134 On its part, India maintained its links
with the host governments while requesting them to take appropriate
measures against the militant activities of the extremist elements
within the Sikh Diaspora. On October 15, 1985, for instance,
Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, during his visit to the United
Kingdom, had pressed Margaret Thatcher to do more about the
Sikhs who were involved in terrorist activities directed against
India. He also requested that a bilateral extradition treaty
be established to deal with the issue of Sikh militancy in Britain.135 Responding
to the politico-diplomatic pressure of the Indian state, the
British Government expressed regret for statement Jagjit Singh
Chauhan on BBC Radio. The British Minister of State
for Foreign Affairs, Baroness Young, met Pushkar Johari, High
Commissioner of India in London, on June 14, 1984, and conveyed
regret over the issue and hoped that such statements would not
be allowed to affect the traditionally good relations between
Britain and India.136 Meanwhile,
the British Government asked the Sikhs living in Britain to
observe restraint and not to resort to any form of violence
in reaction to the ‘events’ in Punjab. Immediately after Operation
Blue Star, the British Minister for Home Affairs, David
Waddington, had urged the Sikhs, in a meeting held in Birmingham,
to act like responsible human beings. Besides, David Mellor,
a junior Minister in the British Home Office, also called the
Sikh representatives and told them to act within the confines
of the law.137
Clarifying the stand of the British Government, the British
authorities explained, on June 25, 1984, that the British Government
was fully aware of the sensitivities of the Indian Government
over these matters, including the public statements of some
of the Sikh leaders and the security of Indian diplomatic missions
and personnel.138 He disclosed
that British authorities had told the Sikh leaders that a serious
view would be taken of any unlawful act. According to him, the
Government sought and obtained assurances that reactions to
the events in Punjab would be peaceful in Britain. At the same
time, responding to a question on the formation of the so-called
Government of Khalistan-in-exile by some Sikhs, he said that,
in Britain, organizations and individuals are allowed to espouse
any case so long as they do not break British laws. Therefore,
as these organisations had not broken any law, these could exist
within the British legal framework. However, the British Government
had not accorded any diplomatic status to the Government of
Khalistan-in-exile, since Britain recognizes only states and
not ‘governments’.139 At the other end, the Governments of the
United States and Canada also assured India that they would
not allow Khalistani Diaspora organizations to act against the
Indian Government from their territories. Due to the huge efforts made by the Indian
state, Western analysts, once pessimistic, consciously began
to accept that Punjab would gradually stabilize itself.140 James W.
Michael, editor of Forbes,
strongly defended Indira Gandhi’s response to the Sikh ethnic
uprising by arguing, …when traditional societies modernize, they frequently spew
up reactionary groups which violently challenge the new society.
Thus, we have the bloody and obscurantist Khomeini regime in
Iran, the bizarre rule of Gaddafi in Libya and the terror by
Sikh fanatics of northern India. These fanatical groups, Michael argued, can’t be negotiated
with due to their “irrational and fascist” nature. Thus, Michael
viewed Indira Gandhi’s “effective” military action as a “triumphant”
reassertion of Government with the consent of the governed.
According to him, “…to blame Mrs. Gandhi for the violence was
a little like blaming Abraham Lincoln for bringing the civil
war” in United States to an end.141 The Government of India signed extradition
treaties and confiscation agreements with Canada, Britain and
the United States. On February 6, 1987, Indian External Affairs
Minister N. D. Tiwari and the Canadian Minister of State for
External Affairs, Charles Joseph Clark, signed a treaty agreeing
to extradite any person who was accused or convicted. The treaty,
which came into effect on February 10, 1987, proved a landmark
in the history of Indo-Canadian relations. India was able to
successfully extradite from Canada certain Sikh militants wanted
in India.142 For instance,
in May 1995, Tejinder Singh Pal, a Dal Khalsa member, convicted
of hijacking an Air India flight, entered Canada using a fake
name and claimed refugee status. Subsequently, he became the
subject of a Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS)
investigation. Eventually, on December 22, 1997, the Federal
Court of Canada issued an order of deportation against him.143 In 1998,
a Sikh militant of the Babbar Khalsa was deported from Canada.144 Further,
in January 2000, Davinder Pal Singh, a member of the Babbar
Khalsa who was involved in non-combat related activities, including
fund raising, was ordered to be extradited to India.145 In December
2000, another active member of the Babbar Khalsa, Harjinder
Singh Patwal, who entered Canada without documentation, admitted
to his links with the militant organization and consequently,
became a subject of immigration proceedings.146
Encouraged by the Indo-Canadian treaty
of 1987, India signed an extradition treaty and an agreement
on confiscation of militants’ assets on September 22, 1992,
in London. The treaty, which was signed by Home Minister S.
B. Chavan and British Home Secretary Kenneth Clark, excluded
the political factor in crimes of violence as a defence against
extradition and provided that any crime carrying the sentence
of 12 months or more in either country would be a subject of
extradition. The Agreement on Confiscation provided forfeiture
of funds and assets of any individual or organizations involved
in terrorism or drug trafficking in either country. The assets
of the guilty would be confiscated not only in that country,
but also in the other country. The Agreement also provided for
the orders of the courts in one country to be executable in
the other country. Under the authority of this Agreement and
Anti-terrorism Act, searches and seizures were also made at
the premises of suspect individuals and organizations. The Agreement
on confiscation of terrorists’ and drug- runner’s assets was
the first of its kind in the world, where two countries agreed
to act together on the subject, and India was the first country
with which Britain signed such an agreement. Thus, along with
the extradition treaty, the Agreement ensured that Britain would
not be the shelter to anti-Indian extremists operating from
British territory. It also ensured that Britain-based patrons
of Indian militant groups lost their capacities to operate with
impunity.147 The extradition treaty between India and
Britain was significant for India on the diplomatic front as
well. In September 1992, before the extradition treaty, Sikh
and Kashmiri extremist groups had launched a campaign against
the treaty. A group demonstrated outside the 10-Downing Street
residence of the British Prime Minister and urged him not to
sign the treaty. They also launched a signature campaign against
the treaty and secured the signatures of 130 Members of British
Parliament. In a joint appeal, Sikh and Kashmiri militants told
British Parliamentarians that “It would appear that Britain
is anxious to secure trade contracts with India and was even
prepared to swap Sikh and Kashmiri militants.”148 After prolonged negotiations, an extradition
treaty was als signed between India and the United States on
June 25, 1997. Saleem Shervani, Minister of State for External
Affairs, and Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State of the
United States, signed the treaty. Both parties agreed that,
“…extradition shall be granted for an extraditable offence regardless
of where the act or acts constituting the offence were committed.”
Though the two states unanimously accepted that, “…extradition
shall not be granted for a political offence,” they also said
that “…murder or other wilful crime against a Head of State
or Head of Government or a member of their family, aircraft
hijacking offences, aviation sabotage, crimes against internationally
protected persons including diplomats, hostage taking, offences
related to illegal drugs, or any other offences for which both
contracting states have the obligation to extradite the person
pursuant to a multilateral international agreement, shall not
be considered to be political offences.”149 Extradition
treaties with the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States
were a symbol of diplomatic victory of the Indian state against
the Sikh Diaspora lobby, since they had actively lobbied against
these treaties. As
a result of these extradition treaties, many Sikh militants
were extradited to India. For instance, Kulbir Singh alias Bira,
a self-styled ‘lieutenant’ of the Khalistan Commando Force (Panjwar
faction), was extradited from the US. Kulbir Singh, who was
wanted in over 30 cases of mass murder, including the killing
of ex-ministers, political activists and Security Forces’ personnel,
and also of robbery and extortion, had fled to the United States
in 1993 on a fake passport, where he was arrested and imprisoned
immediately on landing. The Government of India had sought his
extradition in 1993 too, but it did not take place in the absence
of an extradition treaty between the two states. However, due
to the treaty and a decision of the Federal Appeals Court of
the United States to deport Kulbir Singh, Indian authorities
were able to secure an expedited extradition process.150 Again,
in May 2006, Indian authorities succeeded in extraditing Harpal
Singh Cheema from the United States. Cheema, a militant associated
with the Sikh Students’ Federation, had been living in the USA
for the preceding decade. On March 12, 1992, the Jalandhar Police
had arrested him along with explosives and narcotics and had
registered a case against him under the TADA.151 He jumped
bail in July 1992 and managed to flee to the United States in
the same year, using illegal channels. After 1997, he spent
nine years in US jails for not possessing valid immigration
documents.152 In July 2006, Canada deported Gurcharan
Singh of the BKI. He was alleged to have plotted to assassinate
the former Chief Minister of Punjab, Parkash Singh Badal, and
former Police Chief of Punjab, K.P.S Gill. Earlier, his application
for asylum was rejected by the Canadian authorities and he was
consequently imprisoned. He remained in a Canadian jail for
about three years before being deported to India.153 These examples make it clear that, to
some extent, extradition treaties did prove effective in bringing
back Sikh militants living in the West, especially in the UK,
USA and Canada. This was a significant achievement of the Indian
diplomatic front against the extremist element within the Sikh
Diaspora, since it was their leadership that had financed the
terrorist elements, and was defending them legally in the host
states. On the diplomatic front, the Indian state
achieved another milestone in 2000, when the United Kingdom
outlawed two Sikh militant groups under the Terrorism Act, 2000.
Among the 25 proscribed international groups were the Babbar
Khalsa International and International Sikh Youth Federation.154 Furthermore, one of the groups that international
security officials believed supported the violent Sikh ethnic
uprising in India, was the Babbar Khalsa Society. In Canada,
it was registered as a religious group and charitable organization
in 1993. However, according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
the group raised money in Canada to buy weapons for the Sikh
militants in India. Consequently, the Canadian Government revoked
its charitable status in 1996.155 Canada
added the Babbar Khalsa International to its list of banned
organizations indulging in militant activities. In a nutshell, the discourse on the Sikh
Diaspora’s involvement and support to the Khalistan movement
in India establishes that using a combination of peaceful, democratic
and, violent methods, the radical element in the Diaspora community,
in the post-Operation Blue Star period, sponsored and
supported the militants struggling for a separate sovereign
state of Khalistan. Through various demonstrations, they criticized
the ‘repressive policies’ of the Indian state against the Sikhs.
They internationalized the issue of Khalistan, publishing literature
in the form of newspapers, magazines and books, and also launched
various Websites. While discussing the issue of human rights’
violations with the political parties, and legislative and executive
bodies of host states such as USA, Canada and UK, radical Sikh
Diaspora organizations and protagonists of Khalistan raised
various demands to put the pressure on the Indian state to end
alleged atrocities and human rights’ violations against the
Sikh community. They also approached the UN and other international
fora on various occasions. In Canada, a few Sikh militant organizations
like the BKI, Dal Khalsa and ISYF used violent methods to lodge
their protests against the Indian state. Members of these groups
also indulged in killings in Punjab and attempted to assassinate
prominent personalities of the Indian state. The assassination
of Beant Singh, Chief Minister of Punjab, and the Kanishka bombing,
were results of such attempts made by Sikh militant organizations
in the Diaspora. In other words, through both peaceful
and violent methods, the Sikh Diaspora not only supported the
ethnic separatist cause but also posed a serious challenge to
the Indian state. To deal with this challenge, the Indian state
activated its politico-diplomatic channels at the international
level and also clarified its position before the world community.
The Indian leadership imposed visa restrictions on certain foreigners
and put pressure on the host Governments, especially of USA,
Canada and UK, to take action against the Sikh militants. Due
to such diplomatic efforts, the Indian state succeeded in signing
extradition treaties with the US, Canadian and British Governments
and also managed to secure the deportation of a few Sikh militants
from the host states. Besides, the host Governments also banned
certain Sikh militant groups. However, even today, certain sections
of the Sikh Diaspora keeps the Khalistan movement alive in host
states, though the very ideology has died in the perceived homeland
and home-state of the Sikhs.
|
|