In June 1984, citing the paramount needs of India's integrity and unity, the Indian government led by Indira Gandhi launched an attack on the Golden Temple and 40 other gurdwaras across Punjab, sealed Punjab from the rest of India and the world, and converted it into a virtual prison. Repressive laws and genocidal policies directed primarily against the Sikhs followed.

Sikh militants seeking justice assassinated Indira Gandhi and her Chief of the Army. Thousands of Sikhs across India were massacred, many more arrested. There was no trial and no justice. Many Sikhs in Punjab erupted in anger and retaliated. The bulk of this book consists of interviews with ordinary Sikh men and women, who suffered the inhumane and oppressive policies of the Indian government and, in trying to reclaim their dignity, took up arms against the Indian government. The book is not a justification of what they did, nor is it meant to be; it is however, a very moving and clearly articulated documentation of their behavior in their own words.

Yes, oral history has major problems. Narratives are virtually impossible to corroborate independently. Witnesses cannot help being biased. Their vision is almost always limited, their perspective narrow. Yet, oral history must never be discounted. It remains an invaluable resource for future historians. If enough subjects are interviewed and, if the interviewer is a trained, knowledgeable specialist, the contradictions will be weeded out and truth will emerge - perhaps dribble - however painfully or slowly. For example, a most persuasive portrayal of Nazi terror comes from the diary of Anne Frank; and Samuel Pepys personal account is a marvelous window on London of a certain era.

Cynthia Mahmood is well aware of the difficulties and limitations of the personal interview. She worries about possible loss of objectivity on her part, she frets about making their cause her own, becoming identified with those about whom she needs to remain dispassionate. So, she lays out her concerns in painstaking detail, methodically and clearly. And, she is a trained scientist who did not saunter in unprepared.

Even though the Sikh insurgency in India appears dormant at this time, Mahmood correctly notes, "India has probably not seen the last of this issue." Most astute political observers see the current lack of armed conflict in Punjab as more of a cease-fire and a breather, not a true peace, because the issues that sparked the insurgency still remain unsolved and baffling.

The front cover carries a picture of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale who is identified on the back cover as "the founding figure of the Khalistani movement." With this we must register our disagreement. Since 1984 the Indian government has repeatedly made this unsubstantiated charge; the government has spent the past thirteen years trying to demonize Bhindranwale with scant evidence but excellent results. The fact is that never in his short life did he raise a slogan for Khalistan, or hoist a flag and proclaim, "We are an independent, sovereign nation of Khalistan. This inch of space is not India but Khalistan." Not even when the Indian army attacked the Golden Temple and he faced certain death, not even when he publicly lambasted the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi did he make such a claim, although, I must admit, that by the manner of his death and subsequent to it, he has become the principal inspiration and symbol for Khalistan.

In judging Bhindranwale one needs to look at two very contradictory images that exist of the man. One stems from the widely cited claim that he was propped up and supported, at least initially, by Indira Gandhi and her government, the second is based on the fact that only days before the attack on The Golden Temple Rajiv Gandhi publicly called him a "saintly religious preacher." We are not trying to defend Bhindranwale, merely insisting that, though dead, he deserves fair play. A formal declaration of "independent Khalistan" as noted by Mahmood did not occur until April 1986.

The magic and mystery of the ceremony that makes a Sikh into "Amritdhari" comes alive in all its majesty from the descriptions of the many Sikh men and women that Mahmood interviewed. These conversations also dramatically reveal the anguish and suffering of the ordinary Sikhs in Punjab.

Cynthia Mahmood touches upon the twin issues of State-sponsored terrorism as opposed to terrorism against the State (page 16) but the discussion needs further elaboration. The difference between the two is critical. When law-abiding citizens take up arms against the State, that per se is a very serious indictment of the laws or policies of the State. Such acts speak primarily of the lives of desperation of the people. When a government initiates terrorism against its own citizens, it is an admission that the government has lost all claims on the loyalty of its citizens and has no right to govern them.

Mahmood puts things in a perspective that educated non-Sikhs can appreciate when she writes " ...whether the Nicaraguan contras were "freedom fighters" or "counter-revolutionaries" or whether the PLO is a "terrorist" or "nationalist" organization will recognize the element of relativism that comes into any serious discussion of political conflicts ..."

Over the past decade I have often thought that Indira Gandhi, the daughter of a gifted though amateur historian of India, governed India but was blissfully ignorant of history of Punjab or its people. If she had read the history of the Sikhs, she would not have attacked Punjab with India's army, nor would she have lost her life, or brought the country to the brink of fragmentation. Cynthia Mahmood's interviews with ordinary, desperate Sikh men and women reconfirm my convictions.

Drawing from the example of "Feminist Scholars" Cynthia Mahmood makes a convincing argument that the contours of academic inquiry need to be redefined by merging academic study with those who practice the discipline. Thus the study of religion should not be divorced from religious people.

But she weakens her very good position by focusing a whole chapter on the book "Construction of Religious Boundaries" by Harjot Singh (Oberoi) of the University of British Columbia. Harjot Singh's work is straight social history of nineteenth century Sikhs, and it may shed some tangential light on Sikh community life of that period, it has little, if anything, to do with the rise of militancy in Punjab. The roots of the present Punjab problem lie in the complexities of Hindu-Moslem-Sikh politics prior to the partition and independence of India. The crisis in Punjab has much to do with the sense of betrayal that the Sikhs have carried in their hearts in independent India over the past fifty years.

Cynthia Mahmood is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Maine. She writes clearly and economically. Her prose has a lyrical, moving, haunting, almost seductive quality. Never is she strident or boring, though she is occasionally pedantic. The book is well referenced.

She closes one chapter with Kant's query, "What ought I to do?" It could serve as a poser and a prod for students of the Punjab problem. This book is a must "read" for policy makers in the Indian government.

I.J. Singh, New York University
Gagandeep Kaur, New York

Dr. Inder Jit Singh is Professor & Co-ordinator in Anatomy, New York University. Among other publications, he is the author of two books: 'Sikhs and Sikhism: A View With a Bias' and 'The Sikhs Way: A Pilgrims Progress'.

I.J. Singh is on the editorial advisory board of 'The Sikh Review', Calcutta and 'The Encyclopedia of Sikhism', Punjabi University, Patiala.

Feedback is welcome: ijs1.