E T T E R
30, 2002: California, USA
This is an excellent example of precisely why it is critical
for all Sikhs (including those in the diaspora) to demand and exercise
SGPC voting rights
The SGPC's well-documented acquiescence in the face of Sikh terrorism has contributed to a significant blemish on the Sikh community worldwide.
As your article indicates, Sikhs are paying the price to this day.
References to Sikh terrorists no more imply that all Sikhs
are terrorists than the almost daily references to Palestinian terrorists
imply that all Palestinians
The Anandpur Sahib Resolution, a platform openly supported by Jarnail Singh, was clearly aimed at significant Sikh autonomy from India - not that there is anything wrong with desiring autonomy and is only barely distinguishable from separatism.
The comparison with Quebec's separatists is really a stretch. Quebec's separatists employed entirely democratic tools. They did not carry arms, hold places of worship hostage, or engage in violence.
While the "State terrorism" charge against India is valid, unfortunately both sides (the government of India and the Sikhs) are guilty on that count.
Finally, individuals, such as McVeigh, can hardly be assumed to represent entire communities. A certain threshold (albeit a subjective measure) of community involvement is required before an entire community can be implicated.
©The Sikh Sentinel 2003