The Sikhs at Partition: A Struggle for Identity and Autonomy

Before the partition of India in 1947, the Sikhs were the third largest community in the subcontinent, following Hindus and Muslims. This raises an intriguing question; while Muslims secured Pakistan and Hindus retained India, what did the Sikhs gain? Did they ever demand a separate nation, or were there circumstances that led them to align elsewhere? And were they ever invited to join Pakistan? These questions delve into the complex history of a community at a crossroads during one of the
most turbulent times in the subcontinent’s history.

Sikhism, a peaceful religion, originated in the fertile land of Punjab under the spiritual guidance of Baba Guru Nanak, towards the end of the 15th century. Despite being a relatively newer faith compared to Islam, Hinduism, and Christianity, Sikhism thrived, with Punjab becoming its heartland. Even today, nearly 90 per cent of the world’s Sikh population of 27 million resides in Indian Punjab, while smaller diaspora communities exist in countries like Canada, the United States, and England.
Punjab’s identity and history remain inseparable from the Sikh religion, with the land being revered as the cradle of their faith.

During the early 20th century, as the demand for British withdrawal gained momentum and Muslims began rallying for Pakistan, the idea of a separate Sikh state also emerged. However, the Sikh position was inherently different. While Muslims made up 24 per cent of the subcontinent’s population, Sikhs constituted a mere 2 per cent or even less than that figure: 1.5 per cent. Moreover, they lacked a majority in any district, with their population dispersed from Peshawar to Delhi. Yet, their influence far exceeded their numbers. Sikhs maintained strong ties with the British and held significant representation in the Indian Army, forming 20 per cent of the British Indian forces during World War I.

Their historic legacy as a martial race and their contributions to governance during Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s rule made them a strategically significant community in Punjab. The British annexation of the Sikh Empire in the mid-19th century marked the decline of Sikh political authority. After the collapse of the Sikh empire, a large number of Sikh soldiers joined the British Army and kept good relationships with British and maintained their stronghold in the Indian military and economy, positioning themselves
as key players in the region. By the 20th century, their martial reputation and historical prominence gave them leverage, even though they were numerically a minority.

As independence drew near, their political alliances and loyalties became critical for both Hindus and Muslims. Both communities sought Sikh support, especially given
Punjab’s fertile lands and strategic importance.

Jawaharlal Nehru and Gandhi promised Sikhs a province within India with maximum autonomy, fostering a Sikh-Hindu alliance. However, discontent arose in 1928 when Sikh leader Baba Kharrak Singh criticised Congress’s proposed constitution for ignoring Sikh rights. Although, Master Tara Singh also protested, he refrained from severing ties with Congress, aiming to stay within mainstream politics. Assurances from Gandhi and Nehru temporarily mended relations. During the Congress session in 1929, Nehru and Gandhi personally reassured Sikh leaders that no future Indian constitution would go against Sikh interests, keeping the Sikh-Hindu alliance intact.

On the Muslim side, Muhammad Ali Jinnah extended an olive branch to the Sikhs. In April 1947, during meetings with the Maharaja of Patiala, Jinnah proposed an independent Sikh state in Punjab, stretching from the west of Panipat to the eastern banks of Ravi, with the Maharaja as its head. He envisioned a semi-independent confederation with Pakistan, ensuring significant rights for Sikhs, including representation in parliament and armed services. Jinnah cited examples from history, such as the
agreement between Egyptian leader Zaghlul Pasha and Christian minorities, to assure the Sikh leadership of his sincerity. In spite of Jinnah’s promises and reassurances, Sikh leaders rejected the offer, largely due to their alignment with Congress and mistrust stemming from recent communal violence in Punjab.

The British also explored the possibility of a separate Sikh state. In May 1947, the British Cabinet suggested to Baldev Singh, a Sikh representative, that Sikhs could establish a distinct political identity. This was detailed in Kapur Singh’s book, ‘Some Documents on the Demand for the Sikh Homeland’, where he recounts that British officials proposed a unique status for Sikhs, independent of both Hindus and Muslims. However, Baldev Singh declined, reaffirming Sikh faith in the Congress promise of autonomy within India.

Historically, Sikh leaders had floated the idea of an independent Punjab as early as the 1930s. They proposed a state comprising Jalandhar, Lahore, Ambala, Lyalpur (present-day Faisalabad), Montgomery (present-day Sahiwal), and parts of Karnal and Hisar. Even though these efforts took place, Sikh demands were constrained by their population size, which accounted for less than 15 per cent of Punjab’s total population. According to the Governor of Punjab at that time, Jenkins ‘A non-Muslim state could be made using such formulas but a Sikh state could not’, and the British Secretary of State for India also states that ‘Undoubtedly, Sikhs are a great people and their role in the economy and armed forces of India, is far greater than their population but it is also a fact that there are only 4 million Sikhs in the 25 million population of Punjab. Furthermore, the Sikh population’s lack of majority in any district rendered their demand for a separate state unfeasible under democratic principles.

Post-partition, Sikhs found themselves dissatisfied with Congress’s unfulfilled promises. The Indian Constitution of 1950 omitted the promised autonomy, fuelling Sikh discontent. Additionally, Congress included Hindu-majority areas like Haryana in the new state of Punjab, further diluting Sikh representation. While efforts in 1966 led to the reorganisation of Punjab into a Sikh-majority state, contentious issues like the status of Chandigarh remained unresolved, perpetuating Sikh grievances. Events like the 1984 Golden Temple incident deepened the rift between Sikhs and the Indian government.

In hindsight, had Sikhs aligned with Pakistan, Punjab could have remained united, potentially altering the subcontinent’s political and cultural fabric. A 13 per cent Sikh population could have made united Punjab, with its fertile lands and shared cultural heritage, Pakistan more diverse, while Sikh sacred sites like Amritsar, Nankana Sahib, Kartarpur, and Hasan Abdal would have remained connected. Furthermore, the inclusion of Sikhs could have significantly bolstered Pakistan’s agricultural and, military capabilities; as large number of Sikh soldiers would have gone to Pakistan.

However, these are mere hypotheticals. The Sikh leadership made decisions they deemed best at the time, influenced by historical, cultural, and political ties. The consequences of those decisions, whether advantageous or otherwise, remain subjects of historical debate. As Kapur Singh noted, the promises made to Sikhs during independence were never fully honoured, leading to ongoing tensions in the decades that followed.

The history of Sikhs at the time of partition reflects the complexities of identity, political strategy, and the harsh realities of demographics. While the decisions made during that period continue to shape the present, they also leave room for contemplation about alternative paths that history could have taken.