Where Unity Is Strength
Header

‘Sikhs should be wary of Hinduism’s capacity to act like ‘the boa constrictor of the Indian forests’ in absorbing other faiths and beliefs.’

Max Arthur Macauliffe

India’s boast of being a secular democracy exposed as hollow

On 10th November 2019 India’s Supreme court issued a seriously flawed and politically motivated judgment granting ownership of the disputed Ayodhya Babri Masjid site to the Hindu community.

In a lengthy, judgement, the court accepted that the demolition of the mosque in 1992 had been illegal, as was the surreptitious placing of Hindu idols in the mosque in 1949 claiming that they had ‘just miraculously appeared’ and were a proof that the mosque had been built on the site of the birthplace of the Hindu god Ram. Instead, the Supreme Court anxious to implicate Sikhs in their narrative, relied heavily on fake history of the Sikh Gurus, asserting that they were Hindus and pejoratively referring to Sikhism, the 5th largest world religion as a ‘cult’, it went on to conclude that the site should go to the Hindu community.

The timing

  • The Supreme Court judgment was given on eve of the 550th anniversary of the birth of Guru Nanak and the opening of the Kartarpur Corridor from India to the Guru’s birthplace in Pakistan. The gurdwara at Katarpur Sahib and the surrounding area had been generously renovated by the Pakistan government.
  • The growing friendship between Sikhs and Muslims was seen as a threat to the BJP’s avowed aim of turning India into a Hindu State, by absorption of Sikhs into Hinduism and subduing of other minorities. Mr Modi decided to use a compliant Supreme Court to try to create suspicion and distrust between Sikhs and Muslims while at the same time relegating members of Sikhs to the status of a Hindu ‘cult’.

Absurd and biased arguments used by the Supreme Court

Fake history

  • False assertion that Guru Nanak and other Sikh Gurus made pilgrimages to Ayodhya because they were Hindus and it was an important Hindu holy site.
  • God appeared to Guru Nanak and ordered him to go to Ayodhya.

Facts

  • No historical evidence was produced to show the site was of historical importance to Hindus.
  • Guru Nanak argued against the practice of going on pilgrimages.
  • Guru Nanak rejected the Hindu faith and refused to wear the Hindu sacred thread. He also criticised central aspects of Hindu belief such as the caste system, idol worship, multiplicity of gods and goddesses. Guru Arjan wrote, ‘I am neither a Hindu, nor a Mussalman.’
  • The idea of God appearing to people is contrary to Sikh teachings which state God has no physical form.

Concluding Note

In 1990 Advani, the then president of the BJP rode through India on a truck designed like a chariot to whip up support for the Babri masjid to be converted to a mandir (Hindu temple).

The latest shenanigans of the BJP and their use of the Supreme Court to further their determination to make India a Hindu state are being watched and condemned by a wider world.

We call upon all Sikhs and people of other faiths to condemn the BJP’s attack on religious freedom. In the spirit of Guru Nanak’s teachings, we pledge to oppose all forms of religious bigotry and work for tolerance and respect for people of all faiths and beliefs.

Social media campaign for Jagtar Singh Johal

The gangster-like behavior of Indian authorities in arresting a Scottish born Sikh Jagtar Singh Johal for ‘influencing the youth through social media’ is a matter of major concern to the British Sikh community.

We understand Mr. Johal’s crime was highlighting Indian government atrocities in 1984. There appears to be little other information about the circumstances surrounding his case, other than the nature of his arrest and his handling by Indian authorities. Mr Johal was on holiday in Punjab, when according to reports he had a sack thrown over his head and was bundled into a van. Days later, his newly wed wife and family were told he had been arrested.

We like his Member of Parliament Martin Docherty-Hughes, want to make sure Mr Johal is treated fairly, his family is updated about his whereabouts, and that he has access to legal representation in the event the case against him progresses. Our Director Lord Singh, will be writing to the Foreign Office to flag his concerns. It cannot be right that a British citizen is treated in this way, his family deserves answers and his wellbeing is paramount.

Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO)

Capt. Kamal Bakshi with his parents before the 1971 Indo-Pak war,

Missing POWs: Capt. Kamal Bakshi with his parents before the 1971 Indo-Pak war.

The Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO) has pledged its support for two British women in their quest for answers in relation to the case of their missing relatives who were detained during the 1971 Indo-Pak war.

Over four decades on, Mrs Niki Kumar and Mrs Rajwant Kaur Singh have been provided with no information as to the whereabouts of their missing brothers – Captain Kamal Bakshi, and Flt. Lt. Gurdev Singh Rai. Despite their tireless campaigning, they have been met with silence from both Indian and Pakistani authorities.

However Jas Uppal from Justice Upheld, a human rights group (affiliated to the NSO) who have been campaigning on the issue is hopeful. In 2012 the group were instrumental in securing the release of a 76 year old detained unlawfully for 36 years in a Pakistani prison. Ms Uppal says there are at least 54 other missing prisoners of war (POWs); some of whom she believes may still be alive. She has issued a petition in the Indian Supreme Court seeking an Order for answers.

Meanwhile, Ms Uppal has made representations to a number of British politicians. In January, Hilary Benn (Shadow Foreign Secretary) asked the Foreign Secretary if any representations had been made on the matter to Pakistani authorities. Although Mr Hammond acknowledged Britain’s role in reminding states of their obligations to abide by International Humanitarian Law, he said: “We regard establishing the fate and whereabouts of combatants, and arranging for the release of any surviving combatants as a bilateral issue for India and Pakistan to resolve.”

A few days later Minister of State Hugo Swire wrote to Cabinet member Priti Patel, in which he said the issue was a “bilateral matter” for India and Pakistan. Although Mr Corbyn’s office has been informed of the matter, they have not (at the timing of writing) taken any steps to raise the issue further. Although they expressed interest, Mr Corbyn’s office said, “It may not be his first priority.”

Lord Singh, the NSO’s Director has taken up the case. He has written to Baroness Scotland of Asthal – the Secretary General of the Commonwealth nations, and the High Commissioners for both India and Pakistan.

In his letter to Baroness Scotland, Lord Singh writes:

“The families of the POWs have been pleading for information for the last 45 years and there is reason to believe some prisoners may still be alive.” He went on, “in any event their families should not have to live with their continuing heartache and uncertainty.” Lord Singh has requested Baroness Scotland’s help in the matter in order to “bring closure” to the families.

Jas Uppal said: “This is a humanitarian issue of significance importance; these Officers were captured and detained as prisoners of war. The latter status affords them protection under international Conventions including the prescribed requirement of detailed records of their respective detention.”

She went on, “two of the kin of the Indian POWs are British nationals who urgently need the support of their Government to ascertain the fate of their kin. The British authorities helped and intervened in Shaker Aamer’s case; they have a good diplomatic ties to both India and Pakistan, therefore Britain is the best placed to mediate in this situation.”

Captain Kamal Bakhsi’s sister Mrs Niki Kumar said: “My parents were given hope that the politicians would resolve various issues and the prisoners of war would be released. They grew older and frailer, but never gave up hope. They were deeply religious, which helped them bear the tragedy. We had young families so we were distracted, my mother cried everyday of her life, father put up a brave front, he did not show his emotions.”

Mrs Kumar’s parents have since passed away, however she is determined to continue pursuing her brother’s case until there is some form of resolution. Virendra Sharma MP who initially raised the case with Mr Corbyn’s office said: “Any suggestion that loved ones are being kept from their families is extremely troubling. I have raised this issue with the FCO and inside the Labour Party. I hope that Mrs Niki Kumar and Mrs Rajwant Singh can both find the truth out, whatever it is, about their brother’s fates and seek some solace in that.”

 
[Ends]

Links for editors:

http://www.justiceupheld.org.uk/
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20061217/spectrum/main1.htm
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-01-18/22899

For media inquiries please contact info@nsouk.co.uk or alternatively help@justiceupheld.org.uk

Skip to toolbar