I just received a note from a very senior government officer in India. He is a Sikh and feels the pain of the Sikhs. After spending some time visiting the Sikh community in the United States, he has raised several issues and I think he is both right and wrong. Let us examine some of his concerns.

He recognizes that Sikhs abroad need "proper identity and respect." He laments the facts that we are busy building gurdwaras and do not realize the importance of good public relations. He is quite correct that we have been slow in seeing the power of the media and how they operate, but there is growing awareness, even though it is belated and inadequate. Things are changing largely by dint of a new generation of Sikhs, primarily the products of this society. Our travails, though frustrating, are nothing new; every new immigrant community has faced similar challenges. It is like a trial by fire.

Then he broaches a second matter. Let me quote him,

"I do not understand why the Sikhs in America speak against India. We may dislike certain Governments but not the country. The present Government is very friendly to us and have done so much that we all appreciate them. To raise slogans of Khalistan in Sikh congregations and denounce India will not pay us. The so-called Sikh leaders, who instigate on this mater, should be avoided. The Sikhs in America should look to their future in that country and need not worry about us."

It is this point that spurred this column; it deserves a fuller exploration and an ongoing discussion. Let us put things in perspective Let me start by saying that having lived away from India and in America now for over 40 years - I came here when there were hardly two or three Sikhs in New York - my identification now is with the political entity of America. Yet I am a product of the culture and ethos of India. That cannot be denied nor do I wish to.

But I separate the country and the nation that is India from the governments that come and go every few years. A government is not the country. Indira is not and was not India even though she was promoted as such. (That was the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.) We must separate the nation from its leader, no matter how wise, farsighted, warmhearted and sagacious he or she might appear to partisan supporters! Politicians need not be mythologized. Friendship between nations and in the political arena is not the same as personal friendship. To criticize a government, a politician or a policy does not automatically translate into criticism of a country.

To cast a critical eye on a government - to be a watchdog - is not only a citizen's right but also duty in a democracy. I know that half the country routinely criticizes the policy initiatives of the U.S. President at any moment of any day without being afraid of any repercussions. I believe such rights and duties are sacred in any democracy. But I see that in fact the writer is questioning why those Sikhs who live outside India criticize the Indian government.

He asserts that the present government is "friendly to us" and that may be so, but is it wrong to raise questions because of such perceived friendship? Let me be clearer. If sitting in America I can ask uncomfortable questions about apartheid in South Africa or the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East, atrocities in Bosnia, or the singling out of Hindus in Afghanistan, why must I remain silent about human rights in India?

As friendly as the present Indian government might be to us, as the writer claims, does he believe Sikhs around the world should remain untouched by the seeming complicity of the allies of the same government in the destruction of the Babri Masjid or the antichristian violence in India. If the Indian government or the Hindus around the world can raise their voices about the treatment of Hindus in Afghanistan why can Sikhs not speak of what they perceive as governmental neglect or highhandedness in Punjab?

His last sentence "The Sikhs in America should look to their future in that country and need not worry about us here" saddens me. By this logic, the world was wrong to raise its voice against the slaughter of Jews by the Nazis, no Hindu in India need speak for his brethren in Afghanistan, no Jew or Arab in America should concern himself with the Middle East, no country or organization may speak for or against any policies of any other government, and Guru Tegh Bahadur need not have spoken for the Hindus in Kashmir.

By no means do I imply that when Sikhs raise slogans here they are always accurate, precise or justified in their context but they have the right to speak and, I think, also the obligation. It is discussion and debate in the public arena that focus the harsh light of scrutiny and accountability; it is only then that truth emerges or painfully dribbles out. That, to me, is the essence of the American way. Living democracies have to reconcile themselves to the fact that the people are watching and public discussion will always be contentious.

Khalistan, as we all know, is a complex issue; grown women and men can disagree on it. Both Khalistanis and antiKhalistanis have greeted my writings on it with equal displeasure - perhaps I have said something right. Look at the fact that the Irish in America have been intimately involved with the civil war in their homeland for over fifty years. Jews in America disagree on Israeli policies everyday. This is how perceived injustices become internationalized; governments often respond only to groundswell of pressure and protest. There is little wrong in this.

Sikhism is now a global religion. Our local imperatives define what we do and how we react to situations. We have to give each other the freedom to act according to our conscience, even foolishly at times. We need to ensure that the ties that bind the far-flung Sikh communities to our faith remain strong without becomingly suffocating and controlling of each other.