Article on Operation Bluestar - Rebuttal !
Dear S Gurmit Singh jio,
Waheguru ji ka Khalsa; Waheguru ji ki Fateh.
Thank you for sharing Dr Dhillon's second brief response to Dhesi Sahib (I have still not read Dhesi Sahib's article, hence am in the dark as to what he says, except what Dr Dhillon mentions in his article). 
1. I think we as a community have moved way past the point where we need to discuss whether Bhindranwale was a Congress agent or not. (Of course if, say, someone with first hand knowledge, like former PA of Giani Zail Singh and former Minorities Commission member Tarlochan Singh comes clean about Giani's role as also what he was going to mention in his biography, before suddenly dying in an "accident", then definitely the debate can recommence.)
2. Whichever way we look at it, Hindu elite (whether in the form of Congress or BJP/RSS) cannot escape responsibility for what was done in 1984 to the Sikhs.
3. This raises the question - why is the Hindu elite doing, what they have and what they are, to the Sikhs? What exactly was their aim behind the attack of 1984? What is their end game?
4. To answer this we have to come out of the framework of Congress vs. Akalis vs. Bhindranwale. It is plain and simple Hindu elite vs. the Sikhs (not Sikh elite, because the attack is on Sikh worldview and total annihilation of Sikhs who are true to the Guru).
5. What it means is that whether it is Congress or BJP/RSS or anyone else - unless we start identifying the pattern and from that their ultimate goal, we will keep "fighting" an aimless battle.
6. To begin with, let us go back to pre-1947 times, when we were clear as a community that we wanted to see Punjab as an independent entity - evidence of this was available as early as 1915 (when Ghadar was organised to free Punjab, and not India). Debate about Punjab being separate from rest of Indian sub-continent was happening even in 1880s when Sandhawalia family was planning to bring in Dalip Singh from England to lay claim to Maharaja Ranjit Singh's former domain, while Singh Sabha Lahore was preparing a memorandum which clearly stated that independence from British rule was not their aim.
7. Even in 1946 Sikhs laid claim to an independent Sikh country (Khalistan) when Muslims were asking for Pakistan and Hindus were asking for Hindustan. Clearly Hindus got Hindustan and Muslims got Pakistan - so their goal was achieved. But the Sikhs did not get Khalistan (I personally think that there are far more suitable names for a sovereign Sikh State, but that is a debate for another time). 
8. This clearly means that our claim - staked as a community before 1947 - remains unfulfilled. There is nothing to stop us from continuing to  work to achieve it.
9. As a corollary to this is the fact that we were not fighting to "keep India intact" anytime before 1947. So how did "keeping India intact" ("Bharat ki akhandta") became our goal? 
10. Clearly, the demand for a "Punjabi suba" was prompted by the need to defend against the charge of seeking to destroy "Bharat ki akhandta". Safeguarding "Bharat ki akhandta" was never our aim and should never be our aim. In fact, if Kashmiris or North-East Indian tribes want to secede from Indian State, why should we oppose that. 
11. Our concern is our rights as a community, as a people, as a Nation. And we must accept this fact that we cannot seek to struggle to achieve these while saying we are "loyal citizens" of India. If the Governor of Texas can say he will hold a referendum seeking secession from United States and now be one of the contenders for the post of President, why do we not have this right to voice our aspirations as a community and as a separate Sikh nation? 
12. Muslims drew the line in 1940 when Muslim League passed the Lahore resolution asking for Pakistan. We need to draw a clear and well-defined line as well that states two things - a) for all intents and purposes India is a Hindu State mainly concerned with the interests of Hindu majority; b) Sikhs always have been and always will be a world religion which enjoyed political sovereignty in the 18th and 19th centuries - we seek to regain that political sovereignty that we lost in 1849 to the British colonists and after 1947, to the Hindu elites.
In this framework, it matters little whether Bhindranwale was a Congress agent or not. And whether Badals wear Khaki nickers under their pajamas or not. 
 Kind regards,
 Verpal Singh
 Auckland