Communist Documentary On Khalistan/India Conflict

[dalsingh101]

Obviouly this has a bias of a communist perspective but I still found it fascinating. It contains interviews with the surviving family of Bhagat Singh, some apparent kharkoos as well as everyday Panjabi village folk. It also gives an excellent portrayal of ground level political activism in Panjab.

Let us know what you think if you have the inclination.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7755841238032552309&ei=4LZRS6H6LIrN-QaoyYXWCg&q=in+memory+of+friends&hl=en#

Edited January 18, 2010 by dalsingh101

[tonyhp32]

From the date of the meeting, the documentary seems to have been filmed in April 1987. I was in India a year after in 1988 and I can tell you no one was interested in what the Communists or Kaamraids have to say in Punjab. The film is a propaganda piece at a time when the Communists were fully backing the Indian state against the movement. Remember 1987 was when the Soviet Union was still in existence and funds from the party in Moscow would be forthcoming for the indoctrination of the rural population in Punjab. The two parties mentioned in the film, CPI and CPM did have some political clout in Punjab in the late 70s when educated Sikh youths would be more likely to be involved in communist activities than in the Akali Dal. This all changed when the AISSF was led by Bhai Amrik Singh and who turned the inclinations of these youths towards Sikh politcs and Panthic concerns.

The decline of communism in Punjab has been dramatic since the 1970s. The vote share in the assembly elections for both of these parties shows that for the most part Punjabis whether Sikh or Hindu have rejected the class struggle politics of these parties.

Election 1969 -- 1972 -- 1977 -- 1980 -- 1985 -- 1992 -- 1997 -- 2002 -- 2007

% of votes 7.91 -- 9.91 -- 10.09 -- 10.52 -- 4.45 -- 6.04 -- 4.77 -- 2.51-- 1.04

No of seats won --6 -- 11 -- 15 -- 14 -- 1 -- 5 -- 2 -- 2 -- 0

The results for 1992 election is skewed due to the low turnout of 23%

Edited January 19, 2010 by tonyhp32

[dalsingh101]

Where'd you get that data from Tony?

[tonyhp32]

The past election reports are available on the election commission of india site

http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/ElectionStatistics.asp

scroll down to the relevant state

[dalsingh101]

Thanks for the link. Had a quick peek at the 2007 report for Punjab. Didn't know BJP was that popular. Really though the contest seems to be between Congress and SAD and about even. Given teh demographic changes taking place in Punjab I wonder how long SAD will keep its hegemony? Right now INC and SAD seem almost neck and neck.

I was thinking about the video and there where bits where some lads are talking about killing people who smoke and drink as well as retaliating to the murder of innocent Sikhs by doing the same back to random Hindus. I know the program is obviously biased towards 'kamrads' and all but still, the way in which some Singhs seemed to have dealt with matters seems barbaric.

I think people may have forgot the idea of having the moral highground and descended to tit for tat tactics. Didn't help the movement at all.

[HSD1]

Goddamn reds. We needed to be wary of how international politics leads to the forming of certain organisations in our own back yard. History is littered with examples of weak nations being infiltrated and then controlled by outsiders who use locals to do their dirty work. Communists were notorious for this during the cold war.

[dalsingh101]

Goddamn reds. We needed to be wary of how international politics leads to the forming of certain organisations in our own back yard. History is littered with examples of weak nations being infiltrated and then controlled by outsiders who use locals to do their dirty work. Communists were notorious for this during the cold war.

Looking at the stats in Tony's post, commies seem inconsequential, plus they seem a lot better than Congress. They wont ever take off in Panjab because of their athiesm. People generally WANT to worship there, even if it is some dodgy dera sant type! It is like a Panjabi/Indian characteristic.

Thing is some of the issues in the video are pretty transparent, our lot seem to have got bogged down into tit for tat and some lost the moral compass. Historically the Khalsa always had wide ranging popular ground level support in our itihaas. Something people seemed to have forgot. Which is easy in the madness of jung.

It's like historically speaking, some Sikhs had positioned themselves in a way that in the late 1700s, even Hindu and Muslims wanted them to rule Panjab. Look at how Lahore was offered on a plate to Ranjit Singh. Albeit because of Bhangi incompetence. Would people have been happy to 'remove' their everyday Hindu neighbours in order to get Khalistan?

Edited January 20, 2010 by dalsingh101

[kdsingh80]

I just want to add that it is not only Punjab where communists declined .All over India they declined expect Bengal,Kerala and tripura .There is no Doubt that communist politician in India are most honest but because of their Rigid ideology they end up ruining a state rather than doing good.Also these days money plays a very important role in winning elections and all that come from businessmen,who will never allow commies to win.

On the point of Atheism of communists I just want to say that these days they are flexible.In kerala Communists are doing moral policing these days which is not even in their ideology

[dalsingh101]

One thing has been bugging me. In the video some of the 'comrades' had pagh dharay. I thought communists were meant to be athiest? Were they Sikh looking athiests?

I know apnay Panjabis can be mad like that, like being Christian and having a pagh dhara.

What's the score?

[chatanga1]

most of the sikh commies had pag. this is an old film, i seen it many moons ago. the bhagat singh brigade are emmissaries for peace not justice. their arguments are bullsheet.

[dalsingh101]

I don't know, I think some of them (comrades) may have had their heart in the right place.

So are they keshdhari athiests or what? I've met a couple recently! Guys who wear paghs because of family pressure but don't have any faith, not even sure if God exists! wtf??

[kdsingh80]

I don't know, I think some of them (comrades) may have had their heart in the right place.

So are they keshdhari athiests or what? I've met a couple recently! Guys who wear paghs because of family pressure but don't have any faith, not even sure if God exists! wtf??

Dal singh ji

Why do you think that guys who have super faith in sikhi keeps their hair or wear pagh.My younger brother don't even know the names of 10 Guru's or First pauri of japji sahib.Still he wears a turban and don't even trims his beard.May be it is because he was raised in joint family where religious persons taught him that if you cut your hair then you don't remain a sikh.so reason of wearing a turban could be anything Family pressure,social factor ,or just because you are raised with this beleif and you don't have problem with it apart from having faith in sikhi

[bhooliya]

The movie is one sided and shows the communist views but it also exposes clearly how militant groups were so unorganized in Punjab.

Quotes from movie:

1. We don't want any land we're just fighting for the cause to have religious freedom.

2. Well, whoever makes the above statement is basically scared and nervous. We want all our Takhats and for that we have to take over the whole India.

3. Sikh student federation without knowing Bhagat Singh's ideology running around in villages claiming him to be their hero.

Edited January 21, 2010 by bhooliya

[dalsingh101]

Dal singh ji

Why do you think that guys who have super faith in sikhi keeps their hair or wear pagh.My younger brother don't even know the names of 10 Guru's or First pauri of japji sahib.Still he wears a turban and don't even trims his beard.May be it is because he was raised in joint family where religious persons taught him that if you cut your hair then you don't remain a sikh.so reason of wearing a turban could be anything Family pressure,social factor ,or just because you are raised with this beleif and you don't have problem with it apart from having faith in sikhi

I know, I'm being naieve I guess. That being said, having people with the overt external Sikh identity who are indifferent to the faith can't be a good thing. I do find it strange myself although what you posted describes how it can easily happen.

I don't think I'll ever get over keshdhari athiests or Christians. It seems almost retarded to keep the external form when you are consciously following another path or no path. Seems pointless?

Bhooliya: Yes you're right, they seem seriously unorganised. Hindsight shows us that many Khalistani groups were heavily infiltrated by government types and that they were frequently at each others throats as opposed to being united with a common aim.

One thing strange is how they wanted the severest punishment (death) for certain infractions. None of the extant rehat-namas give any precedent for this. I think people got a bit trigger happy myself.

It would be interesting to see if any of those guys survived and what they think now. The blatant statement made by one that "all Hindus in Panjab are our enemies" shows you how media savvy these guys were........

Edited January 22, 2010 by dalsingh101

[tonyhp32]

Dalsingh101

Although I don't agree with the statement that all Hindus in Punjab are enemies of the Sikhs, yet it is a fact that some of the staunchest opponents of Punjab rights such as control over river waters, Chandigarh, Punjabi speaking areas etc were Punjabi Hindus usually of the Arya Samaji variety. Ironically the family of Bhagat Singh were also staunch Arya Samajis. His uncle has tried to cause mischief in the Canal Colonies in 1907 amongst the Sikh peasants. You need to understand the statement by the AISSF in the background of what was happenining. You had Bluestar a few years before and then the 1984 organised pogroms. Even in Punjab some Hindu groups had attempted to create a Delhi type situation in the larger cities of Punjab. Only the fear of the surrounding villages kept them back. A year before the Hindus in Batala had attacked Sikhs and the Sikhs villages around Batala had laid siege to the town. Around the time of the documentary, Hindus had started to flee the rural areas of Amritsar-Gurdaspur for Haryana and Delhi. So the atmosphere was communalised and for the common Sikhs not only was he harrassed by the CRFP Hindu police but also the Punjab police. I think the tame talk of not wanting Khalistan and other confusing statements do not show the true picture of Punjab in the 1987 -88 period. In 1988 Sikhs openly talked of Khalistan. Even the Hindus were convinced that Khalistan was coming. In 1988 we needed to get some revenue documents from the Patwari's office in Jagraon, the Hindu patwari there complained of how the filing system was totally obsolete, the Sikh Patwari said he didn't know when, if ever the files would be organised better, the Hindu retorted that when Khalistan comes all files will be reorganised. He wasn't making a sarcastic statement. Travelling by bus in early evening at the end of the route when there were virtually no Hindu passengers, the Sikh conductor started to talk about how the Hindu myths are all about their gods fighting for women but the Gurus and Gursikhs always fought for justice and equality. In 1989 when I was back there although the Kharkus had been forced from the Durbar Sahib in operation Black Thunder yet the atmosphere was still of Khalistan becoming an eventual reality. I was in Punjab in Nov-Dec 1989 and that was when Simranjeet Singh Mann's Akali Dal won 6 seats in the Lok Sabha elections by themselves and 2 seats of independents they supported. The Badal Akali had lost their deposits in all the seats they stood for.

[kdsingh80]

I know, I'm being naieve I guess. That being said, having people with the overt external Sikh identity who are indifferent to the faith can't be a good thing. I do find it strange myself although what you posted describes how it can easily happen.

I don't think I'll ever get over keshdhari athiests or Christians. It seems almost retarded to keep the external form when you are consciously following another path or no path. Seems pointless?

I know Its pointless but many times social pressure is one of the biggest factor for wearing Turban or keeping kesh.Don't you find it strange that a good percentage of sikhs that are living in Liberal environment of Delhi,Bombay keeps their hair or wear turban while the rural sikhs mainly jatt sikhs were the first one to discard kesh and turban.The reason is simple cutting hair became acceptable in jatt sikh community so majority chooses it to cut their hair on the other hand Sikhs in Delhi,bombay are of Khatri,Arora ,ramgaria caste where cutting hair is still very much not acceptable so large number cannot go against their families or don't want to go against their family.Sikhism is the only religion where this thing is opposite .Rural muslims may keep their beards but urban one hardly or never ,Many rural Hindu's still wear janeu ,keep their bodi but urban one very rare.keep it

Edited January 22, 2010 by kdsingh80

[Mithar]

Very true Tony hp Jee. Although most Hindus were good people. But the Congressi/Arya Samaji Punjabi Hindus before 1984 were a very aggressively anti Sikh. Before 1984 the tune of the Sikhs was that of Sikh-Hindu reconciliation. Sikhs would try their best in trying to flatter the Hindus. Sikhs were bending over backwards to please Hindus into accepting Punjab’s rights. But when Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawala came to the scene, he did not care about being politically correct. He said it the way it was. The Arya Samaji/Congressi media in Jalandhar would do all they could to demonise Sant Bhindrawala.

Back then, Sikhs in the cities were a small minority. After operation blue star, in the big cities of Punjab such as Ludhiana city there were some areas where Sikhs would fearful to enter, Hindu goondas were very powerful in those areas. Sikh militancy did have a humbling effect on the North Indian Hindu population even to this day.

[Mithar]

The reason is simple cutting hair became acceptable in jatt sikh community so majority chooses it to cut their hair on the other hand Sikhs in Delhi,bombay are of Khatri,Arora ,ramgaria caste where cutting hair is still very much not acceptable so large number cannot go against their families or don't want to go against their family.Sikhism is the only religion where this thing is opposite .Rural muslims may keep their beards but urban one hardly or never ,Many rural Hindu's still wear janeu ,keep their bodi but urban one very rare.keep it

Strange but very true observation you have made.

[dalsingh101]

Hmmm...what's with the discarding of kesh by the rural Jatt masses, especially when, as KDS mentions, other jaats don't seem to have this problem in a comparative way? Any ideas of the reasons?

PS - I know that Sikhs aren't supposed to be into this jaat paat nonense, before anyone says. I only wish the day comes when this actually becomes a truth.

[kdsingh80]

Hmmm...what's with the discarding of kesh by the rural Jatt masses, especially when, as KDS mentions, other jaats don't seem to have this problem in a comparative way? Any ideas of the reasons?

PS - I know that Sikhs aren't supposed to be into this jaat paat nonense, before anyone says. I only wish the day comes when this actually becomes a truth.

To be honest Even I don't have answer what type of reason a Rural sikh could give for not keeping kesh or wearing turban.There are plenty of reason which an urban sikh or a sikh living outside India can give but for rural sikh hardly any or no reason

Rural people of India are known to have traditional and religious mentality than their urban counterparts

which are more westernised.

[Akaal_Das]

Very true Tony hp Jee. Although most Hindus were good people. But the Congressi/Arya Samaji Punjabi Hindus before 1984 were a very aggressively anti Sikh. Before 1984 the tune of the Sikhs was that of Sikh-Hindu reconciliation. Sikhs would try their best in trying to flatter the Hindus. Sikhs were bending over backwards to please Hindus into accepting Punjab’s rights. But when Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawala came to the scene, he did not care about being politically correct. He said it the way it was. The Arya Samaji/Congressi media in Jalandhar would do all they could to demonise Sant Bhindrawala.

Back then, Sikhs in the cities were a small minority. After operation blue star, in the big cities of Punjab such as Ludhiana city there were some areas where Sikhs would fearful to enter, Hindu goondas were very powerful in those areas. Sikh militancy did have a humbling effect on the North Indian Hindu population even to this day.

Right said Hindus hate sikhs alot . Even today finding a house on rent is difficult in places like Delhi. I dont understand what these Hinduas want . Hatred for Sikhs and Muslims is in Hindu Blood . Check out the report from Indian Minority Commission which Show Muslims and Sikhs suffers most from Raceism in India. Down with Hindu Stan . China shold should takeover this country to teach Hindus a lesson.

[kdsingh80]

Right said Hindus hate sikhs alot . Even today finding a house on rent is difficult in places like Delhi. I dont understand what these Hinduas want . Hatred for Sikhs and Muslims is in Hindu Blood . Check out the report from Indian Minority Commission which Show Muslims and Sikhs suffers most from Raceism in India. Down with Hindu Stan . China shold should takeover this country to teach Hindus a lesson.

Only a minority of Hindu's hate sikhs.Yes they do hate muslims but they don't put sikhs in the bracket of muslims.

Also are you joking about sikhs not getting rooms in Delhi.Of course some people do have reservation against sikhs but then some have against Bihari's and others so at last it depend on the landlord and in present environment sikhs hardly face discrimination in gEtting rooms

[dalsingh101]

KDs

There are some Hindus who 'like' Sikhs, because they refuse to accept Sikhs and Hindus follow distinct religions. One you air the view that the Sikh religion is independent of Hinduism, they start to get paranoid and hateful.

That being said, Sikhs who blindly hate all Hindus on an individual level are morons.

I think we need to open up the debate to what Khalistan actually means to some of us in the modern context. I mean, many of us here in the west are minorities. How would we deal with minorities in a theoretical Khalistan? What can we bring from our experiences as minorities to help figure this out? Judging by the grim attitudes shown by some here, Panjabi minorities were probably right to fight Khalistan tooth and nail. Hell, the behaviour I see between Sikhs of different castes is bad enough!!

I'll be frank, I don't think we were truly ready for Khalistan back then, I think we are not ready now either. Unless the aim of the nation is really economic rather than theological. In the end we want a Khalistan we can be proud of. Not one that makes righteous people want to hang their heads in shame with what is going on within. And a HELL OF A LOT of Sikhs seem perfectly happy with all sorts of zulm from our side.

I'm not the angelic, hippy, peacenik type myself but sometimes lines have to be drawn.

Edited January 23, 2010 by dalsingh101

[kdsingh80]

KDs

There are some Hindus who 'like' Sikhs, because they refuse to accept Sikhs and Hindus follow distinct religions. One you air the view that the Sikh religion is independent of Hinduism, they start to get paranoid and hateful.

First of all sikhs themself need to look whether they are independent religion or not.Even on this forum there are sanatn sikhs which discussing and trying to prove their level best that sikhism is just a branch of hinduism.I am family of firm beleivers that sikhism is independent religion still there extended relatives of mine who believe that sikhism is branch of Hinduism.

some also hear Devi bhajans and visit vaishno Devi.In this type of situation How could we blame Hindu's For not accepting sikhism as separate religion when they see Turbaned sikhs visting mandirs worshipping devi devta's etc

Also It is not like that majority of Hindu's love or hate sikhs.At ground level vast majority of India mainly in East,west,south and central don't have any Idea who are sikhs what is their beleif? are they part of Hindu religion or not

[HSD1]

Only a minority of Hindu's hate sikhs.

A minority of a billion people is an awful lot of people.

As for the jatts in the pinds cutting their hair, do you think it has something to do with the hypocrisy of some keshdharis/amritdharis who use their physical appearance as a reason to be lofty above the moneh? Combine that arrogant attitude with the blind eye turned towards sexism and casteism by these 'holier-than-thou' types it's not hard to see why some of them are indifferent to looking like sikhs, or even think that there are more important things to overcome.

I think we need to open up the debate to what Khalistan actually means to some of us in the modern context. I mean, many of us here in the west are minorities. How would we deal with minorities in a theoretical Khalistan? What can we bring from our experiences as minorities to help figure this out? Judging by the grim attitudes shown by some here, Panjabi minorities were probably right to fight Khalistan tooth and nail. Hell, the behaviour I see between Sikhs of different castes is bad enough!!

Finally! You can have the honour of starting it off then lol.