They say a good soldier is one who follows orders obediently. They also say a man is known by the company he keeps. So, what to say of someone who does not follow and abide by the constitution and senior leadership of the organisation to which he belongs to? And what to say of those who rally round the renegade, discarding the commitment and loyalty owed to the establishment? In the context of pro-Khalistan politics it is a reflection of the overall lack of direction, discipline and professionalism that has been plaguing the movement for long.

The fault for such scenarios is always placed on the leadership. Never do the stalwarts to the cause or to a particular organisation ever sit back and think to themselves that perhaps they too are to take responsibility for the downfall of the movement, and to the continued struggle it is in trying to revive it politically in the mainstream.

The parting of ways between a faction of the US based unit of the Dal Khalsa with its Punjab based parent body is a perfect example of how typical it is in Sikh politics for personal interests to be prioritized above the overall functioning and welfare of an organisation. Rather than resolving the issues in a principled and professional way, it has become all too common for differences within an organisation to lead to factionalism and eventual splits and running of parallel groups operating under the same identity as their parent body. One which they were supposed to have discarded.

Whatever differences may have occurred in the US unit of the Dal Khalsa among themselves and with their parent body, there is no justification for the floating of a parallel "Dal Khalsa America". Though the floating of a separate "Dal Khalsa America" may now give the freedom to the renegade group to operate in a way in which they personally desire, the consequence of such a move is the further destabilizing and fragmenting of an already battered and broken movement; notwithstanding the damage it does to an already well established organisation. Whether knowingly or unknowingly, the splitting of established organisations such as the Dal Khalsa benefits only those who are opposed to Khalistan and self-determination for the Sikh Nation.

But unfortunately, the "Dal Khalsa America" has not learnt from the mistakes of history. The pitiful state of affairs in relation to the factionalism of the Shiromani Akali Dal and the many Khalistan factions of bygone years should have served as an everlasting reminder that "united we stand, divided we fall". Sometimes in life we just cannot have everything go our own way and must play by the book.

It is regretful that some within the Dal Khalsa of America felt the need to disassociate themselves from their parent body and float a parallel organisation. Had some of these members been genuinely unhappy with the workings of the organisation the sensible and professional thing to have done would have been to attempt to resolve the issues through a dialogue and take the senior leadership into confidence on where any grievances may have been. In the event that any differences were unable to be solved, the principle move then would have been to retire from the organisation and join another. Or if really necessary, float an altogether new group with its own identity.

Ultimately, the original and main body of the Dal Khalsa is unlikely to be affected in the long term by this split in its USA unit. It is the parallel group which has put a noose around its own neck by severing its relationship to and losing all credibility it once had with the Dal Khalsa seniors in Punjab and elsewhere in the World. The time will come when "Dal Khalsa America" will realize that it will be unable to operate effectively on its own, let alone provide leadership to and spearhead the movement for Khalistan. Let us hope that they will realize this error before it is too late and after all bridges have been burned, if they have not been burned already.

Article by A.Soni from England