Operation Blue Star

[Jaybee]

Hello all, firstly I appreciate that this is going to be a raw-feeling subject even a quarter of a century later. I myself remember the events as I was a teenager then, and had a couple of Sikh friends who were twins, and who had no qualms about letting me into their home, chatting to their parents/sisters. I knew very little about world affairs back then, but in hindsight, I am delighted they allowed a couple of Hindu boys (I converted to Christianity 13 years later) into their home and treated us as honoured guests.

Now, it seems to me that Sikhs excel at professions that require discipline, ie Police work, Security etc, possibly because of the disciplines laid down by your faith at a very early age. I understand (though as a Pacifist, I certainly do not share) the sikh martial philosophy which leads the Indian army to recruit so many of your people as soldiers. One such tenet of the military is the chain of command - that you follow the orders of your superior, because you have sworn an oath to do so.

And to my mind, there lies the contradiction; general Kuldip SIngh Brar, a Sikh, under orders emanating from Indira Ghandi, executed an assault on the Golden Temple, which was to him the holiest point on Earth. His oath put him in direct conflict with his faith. He was forced to choose whether to respect his faith, or his oath, and he chose the latter.

My question is, should he, as a Sikh, have have refused the order, and if necessary, resigned his commission if his superiors insisted he execute it? Or do you believe the Nuremberg Defence, used by many Nazis to excuse genocide during post-WW2 tribuinals, is valid here ("I was only following orders") ?

I look forward to your thoughts, gentlemen.

[swarn bains]

he should have, because there were others who refused and were fired. at the same time he did not get any further promotion as well. as a jat sikh the govt of india was not going to make him a general. so he did not gain anything. it is not that he should have followed the orders. it was a wrong thing done by the govt of india which had the support of sikh higher ups. that led to the invasion

[NSJ]

Jaybee,
You are right. It remains a raw subject. The only consensus you will get is that it was a tragedy no matter how you look at it. It was a great political blunder on the government’s part, however there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides for why it happened at all.

No Sikh would lead an assault on the Golden Temple as you put it. But historically Sikhs have fought their way in to liberate the Golden Temple whenever it has fallen into the wrong hands. General Brar must have believed this to lead this operation against the militants inside and not against the holiest place in his faith. There was no contradiction of faith against oath for him.

Sikhs are still divided over whether the Golden Temple was in the wrong hands leading up to the military operation. This debate will go on for the foreseeable future. I hope this answers the first part of your question.

The premise for the second part of your question with reference to WWII trials is false.

SSA

[Romesh Kumar]

he should have, because there were others who refused and were fired. at the same time he did not get any further promotion as well. as a jat sikh the govt of india was not going to make him a general. so he did not gain anything. it is not that he should have followed the orders. it was a wrong thing done by the govt of india which had the support of sikh higher ups. that led to the invasion

swaran bains Jee,
No one had refused from among the units who were tasked, nor any one was fired.
There was mutiny like situation in Sikh Regimental Centre, Ramgarh, Bihar who were not among the ones tasked.
Lt Gen K.S.Brar was neither rewarded nor ignored. He was Major Gen at the time of Operation Blue Star. He was promoted to and retired as Lt Gen based on his seniority and turn.
I think you do not know about Air Marshal Arjun Singh and Gen J.J.Singh
Right and wrong depends upon the way you look at it and also upon your knowledge on background of this operation that what led to it.
In my opinion soldier respected both, his faith and oath.
SSA

[Jaybee]

Jaybee,
You are right. It remains a raw subject. The only consensus you will get is that it was a tragedy no matter how you look at it. It was a great political blunder on the government’s part, however there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides for why it happened at all.

No Sikh would lead an assault on the Golden Temple as you put it. But historically Sikhs have fought their way in to liberate the Golden Temple whenever it has fallen into the wrong hands. General Brar must have believed this to lead this operation against the militants inside and not against the holiest place in his faith. There was no contradiction of faith against oath for him.

Sikhs are still divided over whether the Golden Temple was in the wrong hands leading up to the military operation. This debate will go on for the foreseeable future. I hope this answers the first part of your question.

The premise for the second part of your question with reference to WWII trials is false.

SSA

HI NSJ, thank you for the detailed, thoughtful reply.

What you state about the administration of the temple agrees with many reports I have seen online about gurdwaras worldwide straying from agreed administrative practices, as reported by many worshippers, and I now see it can (and did) happen in the Golden Temple itself. It does, however, beg some further questions:

1) Who runs the Golden Temple?

2) Who decides who runs the Golden Temple?

3) By what process should this decision be reached?

4) Was the presence of Sikh militants in the temple any of the business of the Indian government, or was this strictly an internal matter for the Sikh community?

[NSJ]

Jaybee,

As an answer to your followup questions #1, 2 & 3, the text below was taken directly from the SGPC website, http://sgpc.net/the-sgpc/index.asp :

"S.G.P.C. the abbrevation for the SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE. It is directly elected by an electorate of the Sikh Nation, male and female above 18 years of age who are registered as voters under the provisions of Sikh Gurdwara Act 1925. This act enables SGPC to control all the Historical Gurdwaras as well as Gurdwaras under Section 87 of this act. The elections to SGPC are held after every five years. SGPC is also called Parliament of the Sikh Nation."

#4. All religious disputes are an internal matter until they degenerate into a law and order situation, then the government may act to restore order.

It's my opinion that the SGPC had effectively lost control of the Golden Temple complex to militants who were engaged in activites that disturbed law and order. However the way the government chose to restore order was a complete disaster.

SSA.

[Nihal Singh Kanakpuria]

Jaybee,

Something like this shouldn't be contradiction for him between his faith and orders, he wasn't the one who was physically fighting, Indian govt happened to be smarter than that, it was non sikh regiments who were executing the attack.

Instead him being a sikh should have ideally helped conduct the operation in a respectful way, coz he was leading it, etc, however history shows otherwise.

I suggest you read "Mrs Gandhi's last Battle", a book by Mark Tully and Satish Jacob , although i dont think journalist have really been truthful when it comes to pinning responsibility and have evaded some key questions, it does give an account of what happened.

It also touches on reaction and mutiny of sikh regiments and reactions of some high level sikh generals and military commanders.

i personally agree with some of their reactions, as in how crappy/botched was the operation and how it could have been handled in a way that was not so demeaning to the sikh community. For quite a few sikhs, what was hurtful was not that an operation or an attempt was made to capture Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, but how the operation was conducted and the timing of the operation.

- Nihal

[swarn bains]

reply to arjun singh
i am an airforce man and i met arjun singh a few times. no more

[Punjabi G]

My question is, should he, as a Sikh, have have refused the order, and if necessary, resigned his commission if his superiors insisted he execute it?

In my opinion, absolutely! The bottom line is if/when we are faced with such situation in life, what we choose represents who we are. Yes, he was a Sikh but it was pretty evident that Indian govt. (specifically Indira Gandhi's) premise for this assault was fabricated and was not a Law and Order situation as they tried to portray in the media. Therefore, as a Sikh he should have declined. But we know that it requires strength and conviction which Brar obviously did not have. At the least, he could have tried to salvage the situation as best he could. But that did not happen either. Innocent pilgrims, including women and kids who came out of Golden Temple were shot point blank after tying their arms behind their back by military.

Perhaps lesser known fact is that before Brar and Vaidya, Vice Chief of Army S.K. Sinha was asked to plan for the operation but he advised against it. He was later by-passed for promotion as Army Chief and Gen. Vaidya was promoted instead. General Vaidya was the one, who planned Operation Blue Star under instructions from Indira Gandhi. Even President of India who is also Supreme commander of Armed forces was kept in dark about the operation.

[Jaybee]

Jaybee,

Something like this shouldn't be contradiction for him between his faith and orders, he wasn't the one who was physically fighting, Indian govt happened to be smarter than that, it was non sikh regiments who were executing the attack.

- Nihal

Hi Nihal,

By stating that "he wasn't the one who was physically fighting", you are in fact using the Nuremberg Defence. That is equivalent to stating that Adolf Hitler was not responsible for the murder of 20 million humans, as he did not personally strangle/gas/shoot etc anybody. No human should abrogate the responsibility for the morality of his own actions. Had I been in Kuldeep Brar's position (though I would never be in his position, as I would never volunteer for military service) I would have refused the order, the consequences of that refusal be damned.

As far as I am concerned, all the people involved, from Indira Ghandi, right down to the soldiers who stormed the temple, are responsible for the bloodshed. It may well be the case that the temple was wrongfully occupied, but violence is never the answer. To my knowledge, many Sikhs resigned from the Indian armed forces/Government upon hearing of the attack.

I put it to you that Brar, having co-ordinated the attack, was every bit as responsible for it (and it's consequences) as the people who ordered him to plan it out.