British complicity in the attack of the Golden Temple provides a disturbing revelation for British-loyal Sikhs

“We deliberately offered ourselves to bear the penalty for what we had done and to let the imperialist exploiters know that by crushing individuals, they cannot kill ideas…”
Bhagat Singh
Eastern Punjab, 1984 
On 1 June 1984, approximately 70,0000 armed servicemen cut off the Punjab from the outside world. Responding to the activities of the Sikh political group, the Akali Dal, the Indian army stormed the most holiest site for Sikhs: The Golden Temple in Amritsar. The consequences of the attack unleashed a major insurgency in the Punjab leading to the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (who was shot dead by her two Sikh bodyguards) and a resulting pogrom of Sikhs, leaving thousands dead. Payal Singh Mohanka writes: 
“Sikh homes were systematically singled out for brutal destruction. Sikhs were hounded, tyres were put around their neck, petrol doused on their faces and they were set ablaze. More than 3000 were either burnt or butchered in Delhi itself. Two hundred Gurdwaras were burnt in Delhi, hundreds of shops looted.” 
The pacification of Punjab took many years and led to numerous claims of oppressions and human rights violations. There was hardly a Sikh family who did not suffer at the hands of the Indian security forces. This may seem like a conflict in a far away land about issues that did not concern Britain, and indeed there was no indication that the British government of the day was supporting Indian military operations. 
Thirty Years On 
William Hague recently admitted in parliament that the British government was <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/04/uk-advised-india-golden-temple-attack-william-hague">“sort of” involved</a> in the 1984 attack on the Golden Temple. This case raises many important issues, challenges and questions for the Sikh community in Britain and worldwide. Many statements from the Sikh community in the UK have expressed understandable sentiments of anger, but perhaps more telling, feelings of betrayal. The anger part I can certainly relate to, but the sense of betrayal not so easily, because to be betrayed implies a relationship of trust, allegiance and of loyalty. For me, pledging allegiance to any western state that has practiced colonial rule is problematic. The findings revealed so far about Britain’s involvement is not so shocking – in fact, such acts are often part and parcel of colonial regimes. Take for instance the way in which the Belgians pitted the Hutus against the Tutsis, culminating in the horror of the Rwandan genocide. In short, the colonisers are never the friends of the colonised. 
For Sikhs here in Britain, however, the sense of betrayal is precisely because large sections of our community have felt a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-25058504">“special” relationship</a> with imperial Britain for many years. The incorporation of Sikhs into the British imperialist apparatus facilitated migration to Britain in the wake of the Second World War and associated reconstruction labour shortages. Following the collapse of British colonialism and India’s independence of 1947, many Sikhs migrated and settled in the UK resulting in a somewhat ambivalent association with Britain. Proud to be classed as one of the “martial” races – enthusiastic in their service of the British Empire, complicit with colonial rule in Uganda and Kenya, and lauded as a <a href="http://www.obv.org.uk/node/6398">“model minority”</a> community in contemporary Britain – Sikhs have a uniquely uncritical relationship with their colonial masters. If that’s not enough, some Sikhs love the English so much that they have their own division in the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jun/15/what-makes-sikh-join-far-right">English Defence League</a> &#8211; how’s that for a grand gesture of affection? 
I am not trying to be facetious or unkind, nor am I attempting to generalise or undermine the feelings of the Sikh community. I am, however, calling for Sikhs to question years of loyalty to beloved Britannia. Hague’s comment is a haunting reminder that despite the special relationship we so naively thought to have secured, our colonial masters never cared and our desperate efforts to seek validation as a hard-working and <a href="http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/03/14/comment-british-sikhs-are-the-best-example-of-cultural-integ">assimilated community</a>, “more British than the Brits”, is a futile exercise in propping up and legitimising colonial structures. 
In wake of recent findings, this is a chance for a profound and deep decolonisation of the Sikh community. Historically, the struggles that have helped to establish a distinct Sikh identity in the context of British race relations legislation often implied a politicisation which did not represent Sikhs as a compliant law-abiding community. In the choice between nation and faith, Sikhs were prepared to disobey national laws in order to obey the scriptural injunctions of Sikhism, which can be seen in previous mobilisations around the right to wear the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/9/newsid_2523000/2523691.stm">Turban</a>, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/jul/30/schools.religion">Kara</a>, and Kirpan. This determination to be Sikh meant the denaturalisation of the Anglo-centric order which instituted the very fabric of Britain, and in these struggles, one can see a glimmer of the decolonial. 
What is now required is a narrative that stitches these fragments together to offer a vision of Sikh identity which is critical and politically-conscious. Only the development of such common sense within Sikh communities across the globe can guarantee the future of a distinctly decolonised Sikh presence, secure in the knowledge that breaking the chains of coloniality would reinforce, rather than undermine, their future. 
This is a wake-up call to the Sikh community to use recent events as an opportunity to decolonise once and for all, and demand a public apology for the honour and memory of the thousands of people massacred in 1984 at the hands of the Indian and British government. It’s time to pledge allegiance to our brothers and sisters struggling both here and in the Global South, for it is those who deserve our loyalty. 
In the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfRqTQyHMTM">words of J.B Lenoir</a>, “I never will love Alabama, Alabama seem to never have loved poor me.”
<pre>Image from: http://www.sikhnet.com/files/news/2012/10-October/006.jpg</pre>

British Sikhs: Is it Time to Decolonise?

The Winconsin attack reflects an inherent problem of racism in US society, not a problem of religion 
&nbsp; 
The recent news of the shooting in the Gurdwara in Wisconsin made me sick to my stomach. Avidly watching the story unfold for more details, my initial suspicions were confirmed as it became clear this was a hate crime. A day after came the news that a mosque in the US had also been burnt down to the ground in an arson attack. What can we learn from these acts of violence? There are a number of points that I think need to be addressed. 
Both events are the tragic reminder that 11 years on since 9/11, Muslims and Sikhs remain victims of violent hate crimes. In relation to the Gurdwara attack there was speculation that this had been the manifestation of mistaken identity in which the gunman confused Sikhs for Muslims. Reports of this kind were focused on defending Sikhism as a peaceful religion, which disappointed me on a number of levels. Firstly, whether Sikhs, Muslims or Hindus, it does not matter, as none of these religious groups are more deserving of such violence than any other, thus the need to assert that Sikhism is peaceful is neither here nor there. Every religion is premised on ideals of peace and love, so by stating Sikhism is peaceful implies that others, in this case, Islam, are not. I find this line of reasoning problematic as it plays directly into the hands of those perpetuating divisions between ethnically marked communities. Surely the focus should not be that these attacks were based on a case of mistaken identity, but rather the attention should be centred upon issues of racism and its white supremacist devotees. The need to describe one’s religion as peaceful, prior to soliciting condemnation on attacks on a place of worship, is the very hallmark of racism. 
Reports also made links to this being another issue surrounding <a href="http://www.the-platform.org.uk/2012/07/31/usa-shooting-a-losing-battle/">America’s gun policy</a> following the attacks in Colorado earlier this month. Undoubtedly America’s cavalier and violent gun policy needs urgent intervention, but in the absence of political will, this is unlikely to change in the near future. The focus on gun crime thus diverts the attention being placed on America’s problem of racism and white supremacy. The gun debate is a crucial one to be had, but the comparison between Colorado and the Gurdwara is not so simple, as the killings in Colorado were not motivated by a sense of white supremacy unlike the case in Wisconsin. By conflating both tragic cases, the issue of racism is downgraded because the emphasis shifts to questions of gun control, demonstrating once again the difficulty in talking about racism even in the context of such murderous provocations. This illustrates perfectly the hegemony of the post-racial which Sayyid argues is ‘characterized by a sense that we have seen the ‘end of racism’ and its expulsion from the public domain’ (See, Sayyid, S. (2010) ‘Do Post-Racials Dream of White Sheep?’ TOLERACE Working Paper, University of Leeds: Leeds). This case is not one simply concerned with the actions of a psychotic individual neo Nazi; it is the reflection of the problems of racism entrenched throughout American society as a whole, where black presidents and white supremacists are perfectly possible. As Sayyid argues: 
“By focusing on racism as something to be found in the mind of racists, it makes it difficult to understand a world in which there could be racism without self-ascribed racists. By connecting the existence of racism to racists (whether through delusion, occultation, or ignorance), the solution to racism is individual reform rather than social transformation. This liberal perspective on racism tends to reject the idea that that racism has any structural effects” (Sayyid 2010: 5). 
Americans need to wake up to their domestic issues rather than preaching democracy and human rights to the rest of the world. Both the attacks on the Gurdwara and the mosque are issues of America’s embedded racism, Islamophobia and white supremacy. There may be a black man in the White House but white supremacists are still to be found behind white picket fences, in the malls, trailer parks and suburban sprawls littering the American landscape. In terms of the ethnically marked communities who have been victims to such terrible attacks, instead of defending their values and beliefs to the national majority, we need to politicise and mobilise by any means necessary. The ugly battle and struggles to fight racism are still ongoing and we need to open our eyes to the fact that racism is a reality not only in America, but also throughout the west &#8211; it is endemic. This is not a religious fight, it is a political fight and the impact of racism can no longer be denied. 
My condolences go out to all the victims.
<pre>Image from: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/06/us/sikhs-bias-crimes/index.html</pre>

Gurdwaras, Guns and Grudges

The recent Asian grooming case represented an opportunity for ethnic groups to stand together in condemnation but instead finds them taking sides and pointing fingers 
&nbsp; 
I have been following the media coverage of the ‘grooming’ case in Rochdale quite closely with a degree of frustration, as it is becoming all too predictable nowadays. As soon as a crime is committed by people of colour, it is regarded a scandal and those involved are almost always racialised and framed as monsters somehow predisposed to perform this type of behaviour. 
So I took a deep breath and read this joint statement from Sikh and Hindu organisations denouncing grooming. The first thing that came to my mind was a reflection made by Kundnani, post 9/11 when a Sikh man wearing a turban was shot down in the US because he was thought to be an Arab, mistaken for a terrorist. In the aftermath of this event many demonstrations against Islamophobia erupted and Kundnani recalls the following scene: “Some Sikhs, instead of marching with Muslims and calling for an end to any revenge attacks, marched separately with banners saying &#8216;we are not Muslims&#8217;, as if American Muslims were any more valid as targets for revenge than they were” <a href="http://www.irr.org.uk/2002/july/ak000001.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">(Kundnani: 2002)</a>. 
This sums up exactly what this statement is about- ‘we are not Muslim’. There is no attempt to find a common cause with Muslims from these organisations. Such a statement illuminates the hegemonic discourse in these communities attempts to articulate a position in which Sikh and Hindu interests (i.e. not to be confused with Muslims) are seen to be more important than the general principles of justice and equality (i.e. the exclusionary and discriminating nature of the disciplining of ethnic minorities). It is troubling that this approach appears to naturalise Islamophobia rather than contribute to its questioning. 
A primary concern being explicitly evoked in the statement centres around the category of ‘Asian’ being ‘unfairly’ applied to target the men involved in the grooming case. The implication is that such a crime represents Pakistanis only; not Sikhs and Hindus: “We note with concern that the so-called &#8216;Asian&#8217; sex gangs recently and all too often in the news are in fact almost always of Pakistani origin.&#8221; The use of the term &#8216;Asian&#8217; to describe the perpetrators of these crimes is wholly inaccurate and unfair to other communities of Asian Origin. 
The breakdown of a unified South Asian subject position, caused by the emergence of a Muslim political identity, creates a number of perceived challenges for the British South Asian community. In an effort to avoid being tarnished with the same brush, the concern becomes focused on the different classifications of the ethnically marked function. By separating themselves from Muslims they are forgetting not only previous struggles for racial equality but also present struggles where racism continues to condition the life experiences of Britain’s ethnically marked populations. 
It would more useful to argue that there are no specific Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist or Christian crimes, nor are there any specific Black, White, Indian or Pakistani crimes; there is just crime. The responsibility of the grooming crimes in this statement is believed to belong not to individual criminals but to specific communities. The fact that some Pakistani men were found guilty of grooming tells us no more about the Pakistani community than paedophilia does about the white community. For example, the 2009 case when a white nursery school worker and two white accomplices were found guilty of child sex abuse. 
The contrast between Sikhs and Hindus on the one hand and Muslims on the other, has paved the way for articulating a separate Sikh and Hindu identity which aligns itself with the majority community. Such a process of ethnic unmarking enables Sikhs and Hindus to integrate into the majority community and also facilitates the narration of a western character (Sayyid, A Fundamental Fear: Eurocentrism and the Emergence of Islamism: 2003). There is a clear paradox being created where we see the organisations attempting to assert a Sikh and Hindu identity but can only imagine this in the context of a westernising gaze which sees no future for these proud heritages except through uncritical assimilation into the host society. 
In relation to the second point it is argued in the statement that, &#8220;the same sex gangs have also targeted Hindu and Sikh girls in the same manner and these cases are rarely reported on as they hardly ever reach the courts.&#8221; Furthermore, it is claimed that, &#8220;political correctness stifles debate and will not facilitate a frank and mature discussion or solutions to get to the root of why the above pattern is emerging in these crimes and how to help find a solution to the problem.&#8221; 
From Anders Breivik to the fulminations of xenophobic shock jocks, political correctness is blamed for the inability of these people to convince others of their paranoid fantasies. Thus, it is not at all surprising that the statement ascribes blame to political correctness for a lack of corroborating evidence. This can be illustrated in the case of ‘forced’ conversions which I studied for four years. 
The &#8216;forced&#8217; conversions narrative tells the story of brave Sikh and Hindu men trying to save ‘their girls’ from the Muslim ‘predator’ whose only agenda is to aggressively convert through means of trickery and manipulation <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14746681003798060" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">(Sian: 2011)</a>. It is a narrative which continues to circulate, and through the articulation of the Muslim as a &#8216;threat&#8217;, a line of separation is established. There are many problematic points with this discourse. Firstly, there is an acceptance that the phenomenon of ‘forced’ conversion is happening in the absence of any evidence (despite claims, no police evidence has been recorded on this issue). Secondly, the authenticity of this narrative is rarely contested in mainstream circles. There is no concern raised about the possibility of such ‘false flag’ propaganda in which material is often fabricated for Anti-Muslim groups. Such descriptions reaffirm notions of Muslim ‘predatory’ behaviour towards Sikh and Hindu girls and exposition of the grooming case concerning white girls strengthens this Islamophobic position. Discussions of ‘forced’ conversions rarely occur in Muslim circles, thus it appears that Muslim men are converting Sikh girls almost absent-mindedly (Sian: 2011). 
The organisations involved in this statement seem oblivious to the way in which their claims and prejudices align with such well-known lovers of ethnic diversity including the BNP and the EDL. The BNP tout their lonely Sikh member and the EDL are always pushing forward their members of colour to demonstrate their non-racial and multi ethnic character. Most legitimate Afro-Caribbean, Hindu and Sikh organisations have condemned such pandering. I would like to conclude by recalling the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller: 
First they came for the Communists 
 And I did not speak out 
 Because I was not a Communist 
 Then they came for the trade unionists 
 And I did not speak out 
 Because I was not a trade unionist 
 Then they came for the Jews 
 And I did not speak out 
 Because I was not a Jew 
 Then they came for me 
 And there was no one left 
 To speak out for me… 
Islamophobia may start with targeting Muslims but the forces unleashed will not necessarily stop there and the murder of the turbaned Sikh in the US is a haunting reminder of the uncertain fate that lies ahead.
<pre>Image from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17914138</pre>

Dr Katy Sian