–

I sent a message to SM requesting that they post news about this report by ENSAAF: http://www.ensaaf.org/ft-report.html. It directly contradicts the disturbing assertions of fact that Prof. Amardeep Singh (who unfortunately has the same name as me) made in the following post: http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001893.html.

As someone who has researched and worked with the victims of state violence in Punjab, I was deeply disappointed that Prof. Singh had a stage from which to make assertions of fact (in this case that Sikhs had engaged in terrorism) that: a) came from the most dubious of sources; and b) have the effect of defaming a substantial portion of the brown community.

As I wrote to the folks at the newstips address, I truly enjoy SMÂ’s posts about neat events and also the occasional exchange of ideas on matters of substance. I think however that SM posters should tread carefully when making statements of fact that come from dubious sources and alienate segments of our community.

I’m not sure SM’s posters understand how raw the wounds remain from the worst periods of torture in Punjab (note I write “worst periods” because torture still remains as ENSAAF’s report chronicles). Perhaps the period of protest and effigy burning in Delhi this summer can give you some insight into the pain that still exists. Unlike the suffering of the victims of the Delhi pogroms in 1984, the torture meted out to the rural victims of state violence in Punjab has not been acknowledged by any substantial segment of the Indian community. Most of India and the Indian elite consider those tens of thousands of victims to be either terrorists or terrorist supporters who got what they deserved. Their families, already brutalized beyond comprehension, live as pariahs. The police who engaged in the torture of their family member’s are hailed as national heroes.

The news of the human rights report that I request SM post, is another in a now voluminous number of reports that demonstrate that the assertions of fact that come from people like Prof. Singh are all too often fabricated while the victim endures electric shock to genitals or endures watching the torture of a loved one. These confession of “terrorism” are confessions at the point of the gun. What disturbs me is that Professor Singh could so flippantly and lightly endorse the Punjab PoliceÂ’s story (for example – “All of the people arrested in the past few weeks seem to be talking to police — often openly confessing their crimes — and their videotaped interrogations are being shown to reporters. Moreover, theyÂ’ve written down the names of all their collaborators in handy little notebooks”) when he should know better.

I was disturbed that Prof. Singh had a forum from which to make assertions of fact that are so ignorant of these realities. The fact that he is a Sikh who wholeheartedly bought the government line, likely gave those who responded to his post the wherewithal to engage in the disturbing gang mentality condemnation of the supposed terrorists who ENSAAFÂ’s report demonstrates are often innocent victims of politicized torture.

In the future, I would again request that SMÂ’s leaders/posters tread carefully before making assertions of fact that come from dubious sources and have the effect of defaming and alienating a substantial segment of the brown community.

Amar

Amardeep Singh Legal Director The Sikh Coalition 396 Broadway, Suite 701 New York, New York 10013

Thanks for the reply. I’ll check out the link you mentioned.

Kumar

Sorry for the delayed response — actually I don’t know the answer to your question.

Nowadays I rarely see any of the people I used to know with those kinds of views, and I frankly haven’t kept up with their take on what’s happening in Kashmir. You might try the Sikh Bloggers list at SikhWiki. There are some interesting voices there, though obviously I don’t endorse the views etc etc.

“…its not up to you to let sikhs know what they went through in the 80′s…”

Hey, here’s a novel idea for you to mull. Read before you post: I’ve not written anything about how Sikhs should or shouldn’t feel. My post related a Khalistani view that I found worrisome, so I asked Dr. Singh how popular it is among the Khalistanis and Sikhs in general. You know, I “…ask[ed]…” in the hope that he would “…have plenty to say…”.

You’re not suggesting, surely, that only Sikhs have the right to opinions about the conduct of the GOI during the counter-insurgency, do you? Or, only Sikhs have the right to an opinion about Kashmir (&Punjab)?

That’s a manifestly absurd view, with anti-democratic implications, one I’d like to see you justify. By this sort of ‘logic’ only I, a Kashmiri Pandit, had the right to express an opinion on Kashmir in my argument with that 2nd gen. diaspora Khalistani twit.

Oh, btw, expressing an opinion on such matters doesn’t mean necessarily abandoning empathy for someone who may not agree with that opinon.

Kumar

agreed, that was really sad and I remember even as a 9 yr old kid that I couldn’t believe what was going on. I hope that never happens again.

its not up to you to let sikhs know what they went through in the 80′s. ask them and many will have plenty to say

An anecdote and a question.

At my university recently, I got into a bit of an argument with a Khalistani Sardar–a resident at the hospital affiliated with the university’s medical school–over his rather vocal championing of Kashmiri Muslim secessionists. Indeed, his car sports a prominent sticker w/ an Indian map absent J&K and Punjab.

What is the extent of support for Kashmiri Muslim secession among Khalistanis in particular ? And among the general Sikh population here (America) ?

sonia:

lovin overdoes his praise for India, to be sure. And Operation Bluestar ought not to have happened–it was a mistake, morally and military. But I don’t think it can underwrite an inference to systematic malice towards Sikhs on the part of the Govt. For all its many faults, India is recognizably democratic.

As for Amnesty et al., well I think it long ago ditched its admirable non-political mission to highlight human rights abuses everywhere, without favor to one or another side. Certainly its coverage on J&K–something I regrettably know a lot about–is disgraceful. I find its selective outrage nauseous. Given this politicization, I think GOI’s stance on allowing Amnesty to visit various places is quite defensible.

And those who are fans of Amnesty et al., please spare me citation of ‘CYA’ reports/quotes to ‘prove’ that Amnesty et al. are impartial chroniclers of human rights abuse. The acid test is to see which sorts of rights abuses, against whom, etc. which are relentlessly spotlighted by these organizations.

Kumar

Are you serious? Are you really f***ing serious?

I didn’t know sanctity could be restored by destroying sacred scriptures and killing innocent Sikhs. If India was really so “holy,” Amnesty International would be allowed in to share India’s “holiness” with the world.

one; bhinderwale never asked anyone before he went into the Golden Temple. almost all sikhs had no say in that. two, indira gandhi created binderwale in the first place. three, no matter what, Operation Blue Star was obscene. four, the dehli riots and the subsequent discrimination against Sikhs was a true black mark on indian history. a gross violation of the rights of Sikhs from pillar to post. no one was spared.

a sikh can be against khalistan but i doubt many could be for the repression of the 80′s. it was a black mark in indian history, no ifs ands or buts.