It has been several weeks but Sikhs all over the world cannot hide their jubilation. First it was the elevation of Manmohan Singh to the office of the Prime Minister of the world's largest democracy, and now it is General J.J. Singh who has become the chief of the Indian army - the third largest in the world. Manmohan Singh is the first Sikh, the first non-Hindu to wield power in India. J.J. Singh is the first Sikh to lead the Indian army. . The honors are well deserved.

In a truly secular country such appointments would attract no notice. If a man deserves an office, why shouldn't he have it? But in India even secularism is defined with a twist. Many Sikh generals have reached the top echelons in the army's officer corps, perhaps nail-biting distance from the peak, but the prize has always eluded them until now. Manmohan Singh's reputation as a world-class economist is beyond dispute, his honesty and integrity held up as models for emulation, even though he is not a politician in the traditional sense. Similarly awesome is General J.J. Singh's record.

The question is why only now, fifty-seven years after India became independent have these Sikhs been able to or allowed to reach the pinnacle of their expertise? Dear readers, look not for conspiracies that speak to our paranoia but do look for likely reasons why some good sense seems to have emerged in the murky world of India.

Let me illustrate my thinking via some history in a different part of the world. During the Second World War, the United States rounded up over 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry and interned them for the duration. Why? Because America was at war with Japan and Japanese-Americans were, by definition, suspect. But such large-scale internment of Americans of Italian or German descent was never attempted. Japanese were Asian after all and easily recognized and branded as different.

An undercurrent of racism is as American as God, motherhood, country and apple-pie. So the Nisei suffered, yet they were Americans and proved their patriotism during the war in many ways, including valorous service in fighting America's enemies.

But it is not so easy for a sovereign country to admit fault, even to its own citizens. Saying "sorry" is never painless. It requires years of drilling before children can learn it. America did recognize its error but it took years of foot-dragging and a lot of insistent reminding to do so. A generation had to pass so that harshness of the memories could recede but not the injustice, before a government would admit the error of its ways. In the meantime a nation had to be prepared to face the consequences, admit fault and move on, putting the past behind it. Preparing a nation for such an about turn in policy takes time.

So in the intervening years before a formal apology and redress, a serious attempt was on way to recognize Japanese citizens as full members of American society; several became prominent in politics and civic society. Their contributions were publicly highlighted. A generation passed. A government could then make a public acknowledgment of a misdirected policy, and did so fifty years after the horrible error.

The larger the sin the longer it takes to publicly face it. That's why the years of slavery weigh so heavily on the country's conscience even today. That's why the corrective steps to dismantle segregation and racial prejudice are taking so long. Gender discrimination has been around even longer and is equally vicious; no wonder it is so difficult to eradicate.

In India Sikhs have been protesting the discriminatory practices of successive Indian governments for as long as India has been independent. It seems that finally the message may be getting through that to be truly secular India needs to show a just face both to its own people as well as to the world. The elevation of Manmohan Singh and J.J. Singh may thus be symbolic of this newfound awareness. (This is not to diminish their ability or merit; they deserve their honors.)

Could be that in the upper reaches of the policy makers in India, the movers and shakers are waking up to the wrongs done to India's minorities over the years? If my hypothesis holds, I wonder where the major credit should do? To the minorities who valiantly suffered against horrendous odds over the past half century of independence? To the current power behind the throne in India, Sonia Gandhi and whatever coterie advises her? Perhaps Sonia Gandhi could think somewhat outside of the Indian politico-cultural box because she is not a product of this box. Could it be the influence of globalization, which makes us all fellow citizens of a global village, where sins cannot stay hidden for too long? Or are technocrats like A.J. Kalam and Manmohan Singh, two first-rate technocrats, the first Indian leaders to wield power honestly?

On the matter of the killings of Sikhs as Indian state policy in the 1980's, it might still be too early for the Indian state to face the truth publicly. But the fact that there is a never-ending stream of inquiry commissions may be pointing to the possibility of a healthier change someday. I say this even though so far every commission has left its job unfinished. Perhaps a day of atonement will come though I am not ready to hold my breath for it.

With honest atonement of one's sins comes redemption. Most religions promise it, as does Sikhism. I am sure it is just as true for governments and nations as it is for individuals.

Nevertheless let us acknowledge and celebrate a good thing when we see it.