Dear S Gurmit Singh jio,
Waheguru ji ka Khalsa; Waheguru ji ki Fateh.
Thank you for sharing Dr Iqbal Singh Dhillon's article on the attack on Darbar Sahib and for pointing out the omission of RSS and Hindutva forces in the theory presented.
I am going to restrict my comments to the Soviet Union theory as hinted at by Dr Dhillon.
1. The way I heard (from two prominent "Rashtarvadi Sikhs") the story of Soviet Union's role in the attack of 1984 is this: Soviet Union was facing ever increasing problems in Afghanistan at the hands of Mujahideen, who were funded and armed by USA with Pakistan providing safe bases for them (the Mujahideen) to operate from. In order to neutralize the Mujahideen, Soviet Union needed to destroy their bases in Pakistan. In brief, the theory goes that Soviet Union and Indian governments planned a surprise attack on Pakistan - Soviets from Afghanistan side and Indian army (present in Punjab on the pretext of "tackling" the "threat" of Taksal) from the Indian side. The aim supposedly was to completely annihilate Pakistan.
2. So why did it not happen? Again, supposedly, America got wind of this plan and brought in a battleship in the Arabian Sea to threaten India that if it went ahead with the planned attack, America will directly come to the aid of Pakistan. It seems that there indeed was a US battleship in the Arabian Sea in June 1984.
3. On the surface, the theory seems logical. But a little deeper look reveals many problems with it. Chief amongst these is the issue of "Rashtarvadi Sikhs" - the emphasis here is on the "Sikhs", so that we may exclude people like Maj General K S Brar, whose "Sikh" identity has been completely absorbed by his "rashtarvad". These were Sikhs working at virtually every level of Indian administrative structure, with links to non-Sikh decision-makers (or those in the know of the decisions being made) - amongst these one may mention Khushwant Singh of those times and Indian Foreign Service officer H S Khalsa who resigned his position in Norway. Patwant Singh may also be mentioned, who perhaps was one of the most well-connected Sikhs living in Delhi.
4. Hypothetically speaking, if these Sikhs knew that the attack on Darbar Sahib was an actual plan (and not just a threat or smokescreen), they would have done something to stop it. Just imagine the situation Indira Gandhi would have been in if Khushwant Singh had returned his Padam Vibhushan in, say January 1984. Or if HS Khalsa had threatened to resign his IFS post. Or Patwant Singh had written in some international journal about what an horrendous decision it would be. All this before Indira had a chance to send the army into Punjab.
5. It also seems inconceivable that people like Patwant Singh and Khushwant Singh were not aware of Darbar Sahib model being used in Chakrata to train commandos. But the reactions and actions of these and people like them post June 6, 1984 clearly show that they were all taken by surprise. This is only possible where they were given an alternative scenario about why the army was being sent to Punjab and why Intelligence agencies were creating an atmosphere of intimidation and violence there.
6. This alternative scenario was the Soviet-Union-attack-from-Afghanistan-and-Indian-attack-from-Punjab-on-Pakistan. This is exactly the sort of power-play that people like Khushwant Singh (and other "rashtarvadi Sikhs") enjoy - making and breaking fortunes of nations, and carrying a false sense of having done something "for the country".
7. It is also my belief that even Sant Jarnail Singh did not believe that army would attack. For him to stay on inside the complex, he also must have been given a reason. The simplest one that comes to mind is this - when he was arrested in 1981 and then unconditionally released, local populace, especially those who had borne the brunt of police atrocities during Naxal movement in Punjab, or during incidents like one at Chando Kalan and in their daily lives, saw Sant Jarnail Singh as "a saviour strong enough to even make the Indian State release him unconditionally"; it was only after his unconditional release that he achieved critical levels of popularity. Would he have refused to play a part in a scenario where he could "turn away the whole Indian Army's might"? For after all, who in their right minds could think that Indian army, especially led by a "Sikh" general, would attack Darbar Sahib?
8. Perhaps, he was told that this was the end game to strike a fatal blow to Akalis by raising his profile? If we are to believe (and I have no reason to not believe) Tully and Jacob's description of Sant Jarnail Singh's worried and unresponsive demeanour on the morning of army laying siege to the complex; then RL Bhatia's official car coming to pick up Bhai Amrik Singh and Bhai Amrik Singh returning after two hours; and the same afternoon Sant Jarnail Singh responding to Tully and Jacob that he was ready to respond in kind to any attack on Darbar Sahib - it is easy to conclude that he was given some sort of reason to stay on inside the complex. For if he had decided to court arrest - as he had done in 1981 (so there was nothing to fear in being arrested) - the whole plan of Indira Gandhi would have collapsed. For the only reason Indian Army had laid siege to the complex was to arrest Sant Jarnail Singh - with him arrested, army could not enter the complex or destroy Akal Takhat and the reference library, or attack 200 other Gurdwaras.
This is only a theory - for the persons who told me the Soviet Union story still believed that if America had not threatened direct intervention, Pakistan would not exist today. On my asking as to why then did the army not simply return to its barracks, the answer was that it would have "made Bhindranwale far too strong, which could not be allowed".
I think the fact is that "rashtarvadi Sikhs" were fooled completely and felt betrayed. Those who still cling to the notion that "India is our country" need some justification for what was done to us in 1984 and continues to be done today - and they get that justification by laying all blame on Sant Jarnail Singh. I agree with what has been written about Giani Zail Singh's role in recruiting Bhindranwale. But I am a little surprised as to why Sanjay Gandhi's name is missing in Dr Dhillon's article, as also the name of Prof VN Tiwari whose steno Harsimran Singh was. This gentleman (Harsimran Singh) nowadays runs a school in Anandpur Sahib - perhaps he is satisfied that his Dal Khalsa has attained the goal of Khalistan!
Also, there are many people alive today who had heard and seen Prof Tiwari brag about setting up Dal Khalsa in Aroma Hotel. Is it not possible that Tiwari was killed (by agencies) because of his loudmouth? Media at that time said Bhindranwale was to blame for the killing - but Tiwari's wife is on the record as having said that he (Bhindranwale) phoned her and said he had nothing to do with the killing of her husband.
These are questions and possibilities that we need to explore in order to get a whiff of the truth - unless of course someone who was involved in running people like Harminder Sandhu decides to spill the beans about what exactly was going on.
Regards,
Verpal Singh
Auckland