Politics of Identity & Independence: Sikh Political

Activism at Home and in the Diaspora

Binoda Kumar Mishra∗

The paper seeks to analyse the complex interconnection between the identity
politics of the Sikh community in the diaspora and the Sikh homeland
politics in India. Building on the history of Sikhism, the paper focuses on the
continuity and changes in the nature of political activism of the Sikhs both in
the diaspora and homeland in the context of globalisation.
Throughout the late 20th century a new pattern of conflict emerged in which
identity groups – racial, religious, ethnic, cultural – have become central.
There is a debate about whether this “new pattern” should be dated back to
1945 (and include the decolonisation wars of the 1950s and 1960s, and the post-
colonial civil wars of the 1970s and 1980s) or if it only began with the ending
of the Cold War in the 1989. Without adding any other reference point to
this debate, this paper aims at arguing that group identity has always been a
source of conflict; only the nature, scope and objectives change in response to
changing exogenous socio-political environments. The focus of the paper is
the case of the Sikhs, a religious community indigenous to India. The
intention is neither to project a monolithic picture of the Sikhism hiding all
its nuances nor to create a stereotype, but to understand the reasons and
implications of political activism of religious communities in a multi-ethnic
and multi-religious society like India. Sikhism is the youngest religion in
India. Sikhs claim a logical home in the Punjab and boast of a huge global
presence. There is an interconnection of the political activism of Sikhs in
India and in the diaspora. The objective of the political activism of Sikhs in
India and in the diaspora has been the same, i.e. protection of Sikh identity,
but the nature of political activism differs drastically. In the host lands Sikhs
have behaved pragmatically and used methods prescribed within a

∗
Binoda Kumar Mishra is Fellow at MAKAIAS
72 Political Roles of Religious Communities in India

democratic set up such as legal procedures, lobbying and at the best

demonstration. On the other hand, Sikhs at home have showed their
determination to take recourse to militancy in order to protect their identity.
In time line, the political activism of Sikhs can be divided into three phases
namely, the pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial periods.

A Brief History
Sikhs started asserting their identity no sooner than the articulation of their
identity was completed. In the history of religions in India, Sikhism is
unique in the sense that it is the only religion which carried a political
connotation from its birth. Sikhism originated in 1499 with their first Guru
(Teacher), Guru Nanak, attaining enlightenment. Beginning as a reform
movement against the rigidities of Hinduism and Islam, Sikhism evolved to
the status of a religion by the contributions of ten preachers known as Gurus.
The evolution was complete with Guru Govind Singh abolishing the human
incarnation of Gurus and assigning the Granth (Holy Text) the status of 11th
and permanent Guru. The nature of the Sikh religion varies in
interpretations. Some believe that “Sikhism is a syncretistic religion,
originally related to the Bhakti movement within Hinduism and the Sufi
branch of Islam, to which many independent beliefs and practices were
added.”1 According to Khushwant Singh, “Sikhism was born out of a
wedlock between Hinduism and Islam after they had known each other for a
period of nearly nine hundred years.”2 Some believe that Sikh religion is a re-
purification of Hinduism; they view Sikhism as part of the Hindu religious
tradition. Many Sikhs disagree; they believe that their religion is a distinct
development and emerged from the religious fluidity of medieval India – a
religion that was not derived from either Hinduism or Islam.3 However, over
the course of time, Sikhism assumed a distinct identity of its own and Sikhs
are willing to protect this identity in the face of any other identity or
religion. Sikhism had a political character from the beginning. As the
teachings of Guru Nanak started getting popular for their liberal and
democratic nature, the Gurus attracted the atrocity of the Mughal emperors.
Of the ten Gurus, two were killed by the Mughal rulers – which somewhat
contributed to the formation of identity in the first place, and forced the
 Sikh Political Activism at Home and in the Diaspora 73

Gurus to advocate militancy for protecting the identity that had barely yet
been articulated.
By the time Guru Gobind Singh died, the Sikh religion had achieved a certain
degree of social popularity but lacked political clout. It does not suggest that
the Sikh Gurus were not aware of the importance of having political clout,
but given the struggle at hand against the Mughals, the importance was
placed on elevating the socio-economic status of the Sikhs. But the Sikhs
were constantly involved in a political struggle with the Mughals from the
time of the sixth Guru, Guru Hargobind Rai. He for the first time tried to
mix religion with politics. One of the measures he initiated was wearing ‘two
swords girded around the waist, one symbolising the spiritual authority and
the second symbolising the temporal power. He started accepting horses and
arms in gifts from followers. From this time, the Sikhs were involved in
political battles with the Mughals. But these struggles did not have a
territorial ambition, which makes the Sikh religion distinct from other
religions of that time. However, Sikhs remained engaged in Low Intensity
Conflicts4 and sometimes in open military clashes with the Mughals. There
was a brief period of peace as Shah Jahan adopted the policy of keeping away
from the religious centres. But the armed struggle against the Mughals again
resumed during the time of Aurangzeb who killed Guru Tegh Bahadur, the
9th Guru of the Sikhs. Following his execution, the tenth Guru propagated
militant activities against the Mughal rulers. He termed such militancy as
Dharmayudh. It was Guru Gobind Singh who created the Khalsa with the five
‘Ks’ as their symbol. They were: Kes (Unshorn hair), Kanga (comb), Kachha
(Short drawers), Kara (arm bracelet) and Kripan (sword). These easily
discernible symbols created a brotherhood among the Sikhs and established
their separate identity distinct from the Hindus. The salient features of the
prolonged Sikh militancy from its inception till the arrival of the British
were: struggle against the inability to express one’s free will; an expression of
dissatisfaction against social discrimination; and finally an expression of the
collective will to protect and follow their religion.5 It is to be noted here that
during this phase there was no political ambition of establishing a separate
territorial state for the Sikhs.
74 Political Roles of Religious Communities in India

In a sense, territorial expansion began with Banda Singh Bahadur who was
handed over the political powers of the Sikhs. The Sikh religious leaders
remained in charge of political affairs till Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s rise to
prominence as a secular ruler. He could create and manage a big empire
because he convinced the people of Lahore and the Punjab that he did not
intend to create a Sikh state. Rather, he aimed at establishing a secular
“Punjabi” state. This conception remains as the reference point for the Sikhs
in terms of their political claims to be made much later.

The British Period

The activism of Sikhs during the British period was more religious and social
than political. The British realised the utility of the Sikhs for their battles.
Thus, they attributed special qualities to the Sikhs by branding them as a
martial race. They also respected the Sikh religious practices and symbols.
The British also encouraged the Sikhs to preserve their own identity as
separate from that of the Hindus. In the words of Lord Dalhousie: “Their
great gooroo Govind sought to abolish caste and in a great degree succeeded.
They are, however gradually relapsing into Hindooism, and even as they
continue as Sikhs, they are yearly Hindoofied more and more; so much so,
that …in 50 years the sect of Sikh would have disappeared.”6
The encouragement by the British and their promise to protect their religious
identity yielded them complete Sikh loyalty. This became evident from the
role the Sikhs played during the Revolt of 1857. The Sikhs not only remained
aloof from the Revolt but also took active part in favour of the British to
crush the revolt. Another instance of Sikh loyalty to the British was
felicitation of the Jallianwallah Bagh culprit General Dyer by Arur Singh,
the manager of the Golden Temple. Some Sikhs, with the hope of winning
British sympathy and thus patronage, accepted this; the majority of the
Sikhs, however, disapproved the move and joined the nationalists in their
struggle against the British. The activism of Sikhs during the British colonial
days goes on to prove the protectionist attitude of the Sikhs. During this
period, there were large-scale Sikh conversions to either Christianity or to
Hinduism. This trend bothered the Sikhs, and to protect their identity they
created religious institutions, namely, Singh Sabhas. These Sabhas proliferated
 Sikh Political Activism at Home and in the Diaspora 75

in number and an institution namely, “Chief Khalsa Diwan” was created to

coordinate the functioning of the Sabhas.
The principal objective of Sikh activism during this period was to save Sikh
identity from the influence of resurging Hinduism. The Arya Samaj
movement started by Swami Dayananda Saraswati, with its call to go back to
the Vedas, sounded warning bells for Sikh identity. It is said that Swami
Dayanada argued that Sikhism is a development to be noted, and forgotten.
Sikh interpretation of the call of the Arya Samaj to “go back to Vedas” was
that of “India for Hindus”,7 that Hindus are trying to establish their religious
supremacy over the country, ignoring the other religions and particularly the
Sikhs. At this time, there was no clear articulation of a homeland for the
Sikhs independent of India. As independence neared and more importantly
the division of the country on communal lines became apparent, the Sikhs
feared for the loss of their identity. The Sikhs were never in favour of
partition; they always advocated a multi-religious Punjab for them within
undivided India. Thus, the religious revivalist movement suddenly took on
political colours and started demanding a separate homeland for the Sikhs in
line with Muslim demands. The demand for a separate Sikh homeland was
formally articulated in the resolution adopted by the Akali Dal executive
committee in March 1946. The demand was for creation of a separate
Sikhistan or Khalistan with the following objective:

…whereas the entity of the Sikhs is being threatened on account

of the persistent demand for Pakistan by the Muslims on the
one hand, and absorption by the Hindus on the other, … the
Akali Dal demands, for the preservation and protection of the
religious, cultural and economic rights of the Sikh nation, the
creation of a Sikh state.8

Master Tara Singh, who represented the Sikhs and spearheaded the
movement for India's independence, did not press for a separate Sikh
homeland – for which he was subjected to severe criticisms. Later in his
autobiography he admits that, “the reason for us not pressing the demand for
76 Political Roles of Religious Communities in India

a Sikh state was our ignorance of history and world politics.”9 At this time
the Sikhs were interested more in a homeland not necessarily outside the
Indian Union of India but that a state that would ensure their identity. This
demand was fulfilled in 1966 when Punjab was trifurcated, creating a Sikh
dominated Punjab.

Post-Independence India
Even after getting a Sikh majority state, the Akalis were not satisfied and
started questioning the power sharing arrangement between the centre and
the states as is evident from the Anandpur Sahib Resolution of 1977, in which
they demanded measures to recast the constitution of India, to make it a
federation, and establish Khalsha dominance.

Question of Identity
Identity has always been a contested concept for the Sikhs. Though the
articulation of Sikh identity – that was started by Guru Nanak, the first Guru
of the Sikhs – was completed by the first five Gurus of the Sikh religious
order, it remained contested. Often Sikh identity was made blurry by the
Hindus who claimed the Sikhs to be brothers of Hindus, and Sikhism a
militant face of Hinduism in the face of Islamic onslaught on Hindus. But
for all purposes of reference, the creation of the Adi Granth in 1604 by the
Guru Arjan, the fifth Guru is decisive. The Adi Granth became the key
symbol of Sikh identity. Being a political religion, the sphere of influence of
Sikhism varied with time and the changing political situation of the country,
but the question of Sikh identity remained, though contested, largely
unharmed during the colonial period, which followed the Mughal rule over
the country. The question of identity for the Sikhs became important again
after the British left the country, dividing it on communal lines. The
assertive and religiously independent Sikhs revived their aspiration for a
homeland to firmly establish their identity. The homeland movement that
began in India just after independence was militant in nature, and highly
mobilizational in method.
The Sikh mobilisation over the issue of identity crystallised primarily due to
the initiative of the diasporic Sikhs. It was the racial discrimination by
Canada and the United States that ignited the spirit of otherness among the
 Sikh Political Activism at Home and in the Diaspora 77

Sikhs which prompted them, as per their characteristic of being reactionary, to

vent their ire by launching the first independent struggle of the then
recognised motherland, “India”. The story of Hardayal-initiated Ghadr
movement appealed to Sikhs across the globe. But it failed miserably. The
Ghadr movement failed because the initiative was presumed to obtain mass
support in the homeland that is the Punjab. But, on the other hand, the
homeland Sikhs were found to be aligned to the British who took enough
care to respect the separate identity of the Sikhs and also promoted their
distinctiveness. Declaring the Sikhs as a martial race boosted the ego of the
Sikhs to the extent that they remained loyal to the Raj, despite understanding
the alien nature of the governors. The inference one can draw from this
discussion of the nature of identity manifest among the diaspora and from
that among the homeland Sikhs is that Sikhs are politically reactionary and
not proactive.

Homeland Demand
There are conflicting accounts about whether the Sikh homeland movement
was primarily an initiative of the diaspora or the homeland Sikh religious
and political organisations. But the fact is that the homeland movement
began at the time of Indian independence. Just before India attained
independence, the prospects of division of the country on communal lines
became evident. Sikhs, by virtue of their loyalty to the British Raj, hoped to
gain the political sovereignty they enjoyed under the reign of Maharaja
Ranjit Singh. In the event of that not happening, the Sikhs felt betrayed by
the Raj. The promise of greater autonomy by the centre pacified the Sikhs. It
is interesting to learn, despite continuous racial discrimination in western
countries, particularly in Canada and the US, that neither the diasporic nor
the homeland Sikhs raised the question of a Sikh homeland for some time.

Diasporic Priority
Without getting into the argument of who initiated the violent Khalistan
movement, one can conclude that there was a convergence of expectations
among the homeland and the diasporic Sikhs on the question of homeland.
But the priorities of the diasporic Sikhs differed from those of the homeland
78 Political Roles of Religious Communities in India

Sikhs. The nature of the homeland visualised by the homeland Sikhs was in
no way similar to that of the diasporic Sikhs. The homeland Sikhs were
interested in establishing a “theocratic” state. According to the Document of
Declaration of Khalistan, “control of religion over the state shall be
constitutionally established and Sikh religion will be the official religion of
Khalistan. It will be the duty of the Government to promote Sikhism”.10 The
diasporic Sikhs were not at all interested in creating a Sikh theocratic state.
The initial support of the diasporic Sikhs towards Sikhistan or Khalistan was
their need for a political reinforcement of their economic standing in the host
societies without having any clear concept of a Sikh nation. It was more of
an emotional issue, particularly for that section of the Sikhs (mostly the Jat
Sikhs), who had a strong material (economic) connection with the Punjab
and intended to return in their advanced years.
The second explanation of the involvement of the diasporic Sikhs in the
homeland separatist movement is that this presented an opportunity for the
Jat Sikhs, the relatively more prosperous among the Sikhs, to establish their
domination in the diaspora and in the homeland. Though such an
explanation obfuscates the nature of diasporic involvement in the Sikh
separatist movement, the fact remains that the entire movement was led
primarily by the Jat Sikhs either at home or in the diaspora, and the other
minority sections of the Sikhs (Namdharies, Nirankaries, Radhasoamis and
Ravidasis) were highly critical of the Khalistan movement.

Diaspora Support for the Khalistan Movement

The support of the Sikhs from the diaspora towards the homeland movement
was largely moral, and to a limited extent material. Only a small section of
the diasporic Sikhs seriously associated themselves with the homeland
movement directly till 1984. But Operation Blue Star proved to be a turning
point. The event generated instant reactions among the diasporic Sikhs. The
fever of Sikh nationalism spread to Sikhs of all walks of life in every part of
the world. A closer reading of the events reveals that the entire separatist
movement, which had a very local reach and a small demand such as a
satisfactory degree of autonomy, changed into a full-scale war for
independence on account of political manipulation or intervention of major
political organisations of the country. The rise of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale
 Sikh Political Activism at Home and in the Diaspora 79

and his turning into a Frankenstein is largely due to the secret intervention
of Mrs Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of the country. However, the
diasporic Sikhs got involved in the real sense of the term only after the
critical events of 1984 called Operation Blue Star and Operation Woodrose.
The events, mainly Operation Blue Star, convinced the Sikhs the world over
about the need for a separate Sikh homeland. Before the critical event, the
political activism of the diasporic Sikhs was limited to mobilising themselves
in the host society for articulating and aggregating the identity requirements
of the local Sikhs. The methodology of such political action, more often that
not, involved use of democratic methods such as taking legal steps and
organising peaceful protests. The initial involvement of the diasporic Sikhs
in the separatist movement was also to a great extent democratic, as they
used their economic and socio-political standing in the host community to
lobby the host political establishment and the international community for
the cause of a Sikh homeland. It is only a section of the diasporic Sikhs, like
the Jat Sikhs, who took part in the violent movement. Once the separatist
movement was suppressed at home, it ceased to be a priority of the diasporic
Sikhs. The important feature of the involvement of the diasporic Sikhs in the
homeland movement is that the nature of support was directly related to the
socio-political treatment the Sikhs received in their host countries. It is
known that Sikhs from the United Kingdom and Canada were more
involved in the homeland cause more actively than Sikhs in other countries.
In these countries Sikhs had greater economic status but socially they lacked
acceptance and respect from the indigenous population. This is an evidence
of the reactionary attitude of the Sikhs, and their historically inherited nature
of being protective about identity.

Conclusion
The current era of globalisation on the one hand is driving the world to a
stateless economic system, on the other hand the world is facing assertions of
ethnic and religious nature that challenge the persistence of the current form
of political formulations. Identities are en route11 and constantly change their
nature of assertion on their way under the influence of global changes of the
world system. The problem is particularly severe in the developing societies
such as in South Asia. It is in this context of an incomplete nation building
80 Political Roles of Religious Communities in India

process in India, that the role of religious communities has to be clearly

understood and directed, since it can help escalate the conflicts inherent in
this multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. After the partition of the
country on communal lines in 1947, India experienced another major threat
of communal disharmony and possible partition from the Sikhs.
This brief overview of the evolution and political activism of the Sikh
community suggests that this is a classic case of social determinism. A
benign reform movement, in response to social and more importantly
political “interventions”, evolved into a search for a distinct identity, and
assumed a militant character. Thus, if the purpose of academic analysis is to
explain, predict and, if possible, control future events, the lesson to be learnt
is that religious identities do not cause conflicts on their own. Most often
than not, their political roles are manipulated or influenced by political
forces. Therefore, if politics does not cease to intervene in religion with a
pugnacious intent, religion or religious identity has the potential to create
political and social instability in India and in South Asia, as is evident from
the story of the Sikhs.
 Sikh Political Activism at Home and in the Diaspora 81

ENDNOTES

1
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sikhism1.htm.
2
Khushwant Singh, A History of the Sikhs, Volume I, New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 1999, p. 17.
3
Gurudharm Singh Khalsa, “The End of Syncretism: Anti-Syncretism in Sikh
Tradition”, in Pashura Singh and N. Gerald Barrier (eds.), Sikh Identity: Continuity and
Change, New Delhi: Manohar, 1999, pp. 93-107.
4
Vivek Chadha, Low Intensity Conflicts in India: An Analysis, New Delhi: Sage
Publications, 2005, p. 168.
5
Ibid.
6
Khushwant Singh, My Bleeding Punjab, New Delhi: USB Publishers, 1992, p. 33.
7
Dr. Griswold observes that in the watchword, “go back to the Vedas”, is implicit the
idea that … Hindu religion is for Indians and Indian Sovereignty for Hindus. Cited by
Khushwant Singh, A History of Sikhs, Volume I, New Delhi: OUP, 1999 p. 147.
8
Rajiv A. Kapur, The Sikh Separatism: The Politics of Faith, London: Allen and Unwin,
1986, p. 185.
9
Jaswant Singh (ed.), Autobiography of Master Tara Singh, cited in Vivek Chadha, Low
Intensity Conflicts in India: An Analysis, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2005, p. 186.
10
Document of Declaration of Khalistan (Issued from the Golden Temple on April 29,
1986, by the five member Panthic Committee), cited in Laurent Gayer, “The
Globalisation of Identity Politics: The Sikh Experience,” Working Paper, May – 2002.
11
Jan Aart, “Globalisation and Collective Identities”, in Jill Krause and Neil Renwick
(eds.), Identities in International Relations, London, New York: MacMillan/St. Martin’s
Press, 1996, p. 50.