Ranfateh Chattha: Bhai Amritpal Singh And Resurging Sikh Politics
"Moreover, those that accuse Sikh activists of fomenting political turmoil and provoking state violence always seem to miss the obvious target in their criticisms – the state itself."
Ranfateh Chattha
March 6, 2023 | 7 min. read | Opinion
After decades of apathy and cynicism, a profound shift seems to be taking place in the political landscape of Punjab. Over the course of a year, Bhai Amritpal Singh has garnered an impressive following amongst the Sikhs of Punjab around, among other things, the issue of self-determination.
We saw glimpses of this sentiment during the Kisaan Morcha. However, those that sought to link agro-economic issues to the more fundamental issues of political autonomy and self-determination (particularly in the Punjabi context) were shunned for being inopportune.
Now, through Bhai Amritpal Singh’s groundwork, the issue of Sikh sovereignty has taken centre stage.
Critics of Khalistan have come after Bhai Amritpal Singh over the past year, making sure to voice their skepticism regarding his ideology and intentions at every step (in spite of the fact that he speaks candidly and effectively about both). By and large, these critics (including Indian media puppets, Hindu-nationalists, Indian-liberals as well as members of the Sikh community) are either dogmatically opposed to the notion of Sikh self-determination or simply uninformed/misinformed about what this notion actually means.
The smear campaign against Bhai Amritpal and his movement follows the usual anti-Khalistan rhetoric, offering nothing new. Yet it is still frustrating to see how quickly sections within the Sikh community itself sound the alarms of impending socio-political unrest and state suppression in their opposition to Bhai Amritpal Singh. In so doing, they effectively (whether or not intentionally) establish the discursive foundation for the very state violence that they often seem to fear.
I do not wish to denigrate all those that voice their concerns about what Bhai Amritpal Singh’s movement may mean for Sikhs and Punjab. The fears of rampant state violence, discrimination and socio-political turmoil are prompted by an immense trauma within the community, a consequence of decades of state-sponsored genocide and oppression. These are serious concerns and are not to be readily dismissed. However, as has been the case since the militancy in Punjab, the moral responsibility for the cognizance of these concerns is thrown almost exclusively on those advocating Sikh sovereignty.
Furthermore, as evident with regard to Bhai Amritpal Singh and his movement, the raising of concerns often transforms into accusations of deliberate provocation.
Similar accusations of fomenting political disruption and turmoil were lobbed against Sikhs for Justice for organizing referendums across the globe on the issue of Khalistan. Sikhs for Justice was especially criticized for engaging the issue of Khalistan outside of Punjab, the charge being that Khalistan interested only the diaspora and did nothing but complicate the lives of Sikhs in Punjab (as the following surrounding Bhai Amritpal Singh has shown, however, the demand for Sikh self-determination is present in the homeland as well).
Whether intentional or not, these accusations (especially when coming from within the Sikh community) merely serve to promote a mindset of political impotence. Those that rely on them in discourse seem content with the necrosis of Sikh political aspirations, which are (regardless of what these critics may think) foundational to Sikh identity and praxis.
Therefore, regardless of intention, at the level of discourse such accusations serve only to bolster the position of the state, as well as the anti-Sikh elements within the body politic in Punjab and India, both of which vehemently oppose the exercise of Sikh sovereignty.
Moreover, those that accuse Sikh activists of fomenting political turmoil and provoking state violence always seem to miss the obvious target in their criticisms – the state itself. To accuse Sikhs engaging in referendums, protests, lobbying etc., of provoking state violence is utterly misguided, if not intentionally twisted: if state violence results from political demonstrations or procedures that are effectively democratic, then it is without question the state that should be criticized.
Sikhs have stretched their good faith by going through democratic institutions and practices to express their grievances regarding major issues in Punjab, such as rampant drug use, riparian rights, religious degradation and the release of political prisoners (all of which are tied to the discussion of Khalistan); if these same activists become political targets of the state (as well as other elements of Indian society), it is absurd to put the blame on them for potential unrest. Nevertheless, this line of argument has been deployed time and again to delegitimize virtually every pro-Khalistan voice that manages to penetrate the mainstream.
It is perhaps partly for this reason that Bhai Amritpal Singh has been vocal about his disillusion with electoral politics (a cornerstone of contemporary democracies) and his refusal to engage in it: it is clear that no matter how peacefully or democratically Sikhs approach the issue of self-determination, they will be rebuked for fuelling political turmoil.
It is useful here to interject with a discussion of the event that occurred at Ajnala last week.
Briefly, Lovepreet Toofan, an activist and member of the ‘Waris Punjab De’ organization led by Bhai Amritpal Singh, was arrested on charges of kidnapping and assault. Bhai Amritpal Singh, asserting that the arrest and subsequent treatment of Lovepreet Toofan were politically motivated and legally illegitimate, made the call to mobilize a protest at the Ajnala police station to secure Toofan’s release.
Maybe on the boundary of peaceful, the protest was by no means deliberately violent. But neither was it the type of frail, pacifist demonstration that liberals could get behind – protestors asserted themselves in response to police attacks. As such, it is perhaps a useful reference point for what a contemporary Sikh politics looks like.
The immense presence of the Sangat outside of the jail, many wielding Kirpans and rifles, was determined by Bhai Amritpal Singh to be a necessary show of force – it brought immediacy and pressure to the police stationed at Ajnala for the release of Lovepreet Toofan in a manner that no ordinary legal process could effect.
While initially, the call to mobilize seems not to have been taken seriously by the authorities, it was quickly presented as a foundational threat to the stability of Punjab in the aftermath. However, despite the frustration and fervour evident in Bhai Amritpal Singh’s correspondence with reporters and the Sangat during talks with the police, he employed impressive political tact after the fact. More than anything else, he seemed to emphasize the illegitimacy of the arrest and the legal formality and paperwork underlying the dialogue with the police. The intention appears to be to highlight the fact that Lovepreet Toofan was not broken out of jail, but rather that he was officially and legally released.
The effect is twofold. First, it presents the protest at Ajnala as being effectively legal so that it cannot be condemned as an attempt to bypass the legal structure. At the same time, it communicates the mobilized Sangat’s ability to pressure the police itself into acting in accordance with the law. The implicit message is that the Sangat did not reach Ajnala to break the law and breach social trust, but rather to uphold the law and ensure the state’s compliance with it.
Despite these efforts, the Indian media and anti-Khalistan critics have (of course) cried foul at the top of their lungs. Biased media sensationalism, tasked with both downplaying and weaponizing resurgent Khalistani sentiments, has been followed up by both veiled and blatant calls for anti-Sikh genocide within Indian/Hindu nationalist circles.
On the question of Sikh sovereignty, and on the rights of minorities in India more generally, these voices have always acted in bad faith: the same media and government officials that exaggerate the breakdown of law and order and screech for President’s rule in Punjab over the protest at Ajnala are largely silent about the recent violent BJP protests in Odisha.
This is not simply a BJP-Modi issue, as Indian liberals may want to believe. For decades, the ‘law and order’ rhetoric has almost exclusively been applied to minority groups such as Sikhs. When members of the Hindu majority engage in destructive and violent demonstrations, their actions are (if recognized) excused and swept under the rug.
Such hypocrisy is not novel, but the timing of these two protests and subsequent media coverage/silence is illustrative. Swiftly, we are reminded that Sikh efforts to remain lawful and cordial in the struggle for sovereignty are thankless and futile.
Viewing the Ajnala event in the broader context of the movement for Sikh sovereignty, the confrontation between the Sangat and police illustrates what Bhai Amritpal Singh means when he insists that Sikhs are not ‘asking’ the state for anything. The protesting Sangat at Ajnala effectively determined the law in that moment – it just so happened that it was through the state’s law that it sought the release of Lovepreet Toofan.
In a sense then, opponents of Bhai Amritpal Singh do have cause for concern regarding the challenge he poses, especially to established power structures in Punjab and India. But, more importantly, those who support him (and the notion of Khalistan more broadly) have something to look forward to: an apparent change in the political landscape of Punjab through which the recognition of Sikh sovereignty has become vital.
While the event at Ajnala may seem simple at first, it is a demonstration of the sensitive balancing act of both engaging politically within the boundaries set by the state while simultaneously trying to subvert them. Going forward, Bhai Amritpal Singh’s movement will be occupied with navigating and renegotiating what is deemed politically legitimate/admissible by the state in relation to what is politically necessary for the furtherance of self-determination for Sikhs in Punjab.
Already, the Indian media has been hard at work demonizing Bhai Amritpal Singh as an agitator and dissident that threatens the professed harmony of the country. Here I am inclined to agree, albeit from a positive outlook. As Bhai Amritpal Singh himself is well aware, a Sikh politics of the Kirpan simply cannot conform to the dictates of the state as it presently exists. Something will have to give.
Ranfateh Chattha is an MA graduate from the University of Toronto. He is currently studying the relationship between religion, power and sovereignty. You can find him on Twitter at @ranfatehchattha
Baaz is home to opinions, ideas, and original reporting for the Sikh and Punjabi diaspora. Support us by subscribing. Find us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok at @BaazNewsOrg. If you would like to submit a written piece for consideration, please email us at editor@baaznews.org.