Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Discussions on various aspects of Sikhi
JasbeerSingh
Active Forum User
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:36 am

Re: Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Post by JasbeerSingh »

It sounds very condescending. You are asking me about future plans of khalistanis regarding Sikhs living outside Punjab. Since it is not something that I am for nor against, you would be better off directing that question to someone who was involved in that movement.
Ranjit ji, it's you who took the line of favouring khalistan while replying me saying that you will play a devil's advocate, so onus is upon you to at least provide a convincing answer sir, how can it be a sarbat da bhala when you (While playing role of devil's advocate) are not sure about the future of sikhs in India? In that sarbat are the Sikhs who have settled in various parts of India not included?

The gurudwara issue in Pakistan is not very relevant to this discussion. Sikhi did not collapse when Pakistan was formed and some gurudwaras were left in Pakistan. When you put Sikhi and ISIS in the same sentence, that is a comparison. I am sure that Pakistanis are not considering Pakistan to be a failed nation. There are many successful Islamic states in existence. You cannot just cherry pick some states to try to make a point the a Khalistan would suffer the same fate.
Sikhi did not collapse when Pakistan was made.. BUT IT DID COLLAPSE IN PAKISTAN, Note my words veerji.. we lost lahore, Nankana, Multan, Jhang and lot of other places along with hundreds and thousands of sikh lives. A new nation will skew the Sikhs further to a small area of Punjab, sandwiched between India & Pakistan the two arch rivals and nuclear nations? And I am not saying Pakistan is a dangerous country their own media is reporting that, World economic forum is saying that
http://tribune.com.pk/story/1198159/pak ... try-world/

I do not understand why you keep obsessing about the UN. No one needs their permission to form a country. The UN is not the one that recognizes the existence of countries. It was formed after WW2 to promote cooperation amongst countries, not to confer recognition. All the countries that you mentioned existed long before the UN. This again has nothing to do with the topic.
Sir in 21st Century UN matters, otherwise please elaborate how will khalistan be made, Will Indian Govt offer it themsleves to Khalistanis? If you think UN is not important could you please tell what are the other ways and means to make Khalistan?
I do not want to rehash the history of why the Punjab was divided the way it was. The Sikhs had only a small voice and were caught up between the two major religions. Again, this issue of Pakistan has nothing to do with why the Khalistan movement gained some momentum in India. All my readings has let me to conclude that it was also stoked by the powers in India..
Why pakistan has nothing to do Veerji? Lahore the capital of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Nanakana Sahib Birthplace of Guru Nanak, kartarpur the first city of Guru Nanak.. The Khalistanis themselves are so fond of quoting Ranjit Singh's rule again and again why they forget Pak Punjab then? Rather if you look at the loss to Sikhs it has been more terrible in Pakistan than in India.. Veerji have you ever pondered that why in Pakistan Sikh population never rose beyond few thousands.. while in Indian Punjab Muslims have increased exponentially and their population stands close to half a million, while Sikhs outside Punjab are 5 million.. statistics speaks for themselves that where Sikhs have been treated badly and in a discriminatory way.. An important point is whenever khalistan demand has been raised in Past it has included Punjab of both India & Pakistan, but then why Pakistan is again never discussed neither it is targeted for it's crime like India

If Khalistanis are so confident that nothing will happen to Sikhs in India even after snatching away a land from it, then I guess then there is no need for khalistan as India is so trustworthy, isn't it?
I am sure you know that the Indian government has slaughtered tens of thousands of Sikhs in India. [/quote]
Well, the current Govt itself has admitted that it was a genocide but that never was the answer to my question.. I ask it again.. What are the plans to safeguard the interest of Sikhs in India.. That never means that there will be a genocide, but of course it will make life difficult for Sikhs and if something untoward happens then how can they be assured of safety, you are even negating the role of UN.. so who will look after the interests of Sikhs in India? you cannot put both legs on same boat.. Without UN approval Sikh lives will be at risk.. also what about Hindus in Punjab and their co-operation?

I had this feeling that someone will bring in he names of land locked European countries, to answer that all these countries are part of EU has a common currency Euro and the agreement that ensures free passage of movement to the coastline countries.
These land locked countries existed way before the formation of the EU. The rest of what you wrote is merely conjecture about what will happen should Khalistan exist. The issue of Sikhs in the UK is irrelevant to this discussion. If you want to discuss those issues, then you can start another topic.[/quote]

Yes they existed WAY BEFORE FORMATION OF EU, but then ultimately EU was formed.. To use the coastline for various needs you need to pay hefty amount to that country, India will surely not allow it, Pakistan will have a monopoly..

I find this ironical you always shrug off crimes done on Sikhs by UK & Pakistan, and just want to talk of India.. Veerji, an Ideal Khalistan will take care of issues concerning Sikhs globally.. This 'selective outrage' is mind boggling to me.. Anything in UK, Pakistan (UK finished the Sikh rule in 1849, while Pakistan finished Sikhs and Sikhi from their land) seems unreasonable to you then why select only India..
Ranjit S Bhinder
Active Forum User
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:26 am

Re: Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Post by Ranjit S Bhinder »

It would be helpful if you can simply answer a question and not answer a question with endless questions. I understand this is a bit desi style, however this makes the posts much longer and repetitive.

Playing the devil’s advocate is a technique of taking the opposite side of a debate, not as one committed to the idea, but with the purpose of getting the opposite party to flesh out their thoughts further. The topic you started is ‘Why Khalistan is a bad idea’. You go on to break the discussion into 6 topics. The technique is to challenge some of your assertions, while trying to get you to clarify others.
Ranjit ji, it's you who took the line of favouring khalistan while replying me saying that you will play a devil's advocate, so onus is upon you to at least provide a convincing answer sir, how can it be a sarbat da bhala when you (While playing role of devil's advocate) are not sure about the future of sikhs in India? In that sarbat are the Sikhs who have settled in various parts of India not included?
I was not playing the devil’s advocate there. You are simply mixing and matching my comments. Sarbat da bhalla is wishing all of creation well, not just Sikhs. When the Sikhs were busy fighting and killing Muslims, Hindus, and British in wars there was not much of sarbat da bhalla on their minds.

I do not understand why you are going on about Pakistan when the topic is about Khalistan. The idea of Khalistan formed in India due to a whole chain of events starting with the broken promises of an autonomous state within India. I believe that Pakistan was not in the minds of Sikhs who were demanding a Punjabi Suba. They were asking to be treated equally according to how the rest of the Indian states were formed. If their concerns were addressed legitimately, it is my believe that there would have not been a Khalistan movement. The Indian leaders chose to play communal politics because Sikhs are a small minority. This, I believe, was a contributing factor to the Khalistan movement. Another contributing factor may also have been poor Sikh leadership.
If you think UN is not important could you please tell what are the other ways and means to make Khalistan?
You are twisting my words here. I did not say the UN is not important. I said that the UN’s permission is not needed to carve out a country. As for forming Khalistan or any other country, I do not know how simply because I do not have any experience in doing so. I suppose if there are enough people with the necessary might and spirit, it can be done. Countries have been forming and being destroyed throughout history.
Veerji have you ever pondered that why in Pakistan Sikh population never rose beyond few thousands
No and it is irrelevant to the discussion. When the subcontinent split, Sikhs and Hindus on the Pakistan side either fled or were killed. The same happened to the Muslims on the Indian side.
An important point is whenever khalistan demand has been raised in Past it has included Punjab of both India & Pakistan, but then why Pakistan is again never discussed neither it is targeted for it's crime like India
Obviously because it was not Pakistan that promised the Sikhs an autonomous state within India as an enticement for Sikhs to join with India.
Well, the current Govt itself has admitted that it was a genocide but that never was the answer to my question
Admitting genocide and not bringing justice to the perpetrators means no justice has been done.
What are the plans to safeguard the interest of Sikhs in India
There are no safeguards. I suppose as a general rule, one should always be prepared. That is one of the Guru’s lessons to his Sikhs. I will ask you a question, ‘What were the safeguards when the Sri Harimandar Sahib and 52 gurudwaras were attacked and thousand of Sikh pilgrims were slaughtered and what were the safeguards when thousands of Sikhs were slaughtered in New Dehli, and finally what were the safeguards when thousands of Sikhs youths were slaughtered in the two decades that followed’?
Without UN approval Sikh lives will be at risk.. also what about Hindus in Punjab and their co-operation?
Again, the UN is not in the business of giving approval to nation forming. If by some miracle the UN says that Sikhs should have their own homeland, do you truly believe that India will go along? How do you propose ‘safeguarding’ Sikhs then?:
Yes they existed WAY BEFORE FORMATION OF EU, but then ultimately EU was formed..
I just find it fascinating that you do not know the EU was formed in 1993 and that prior to that those landlocked countries existed just fine.
I find this ironical you always shrug off crimes done on Sikhs by UK & Pakistan, and just want to talk of India.
That is because you wish to create red herrings and not stick to the topic you created. I am going to ask again that if you want to discuss crimes by the UK and Pakistan, start another topic and everyone will get a chance to discuss that topic by itself.
JasbeerSingh
Active Forum User
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:36 am

Re: Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Post by JasbeerSingh »

I was not playing the devil’s advocate there. You are simply mixing and matching my comments. Sarbat da bhalla is wishing all of creation well, not just Sikhs. When the Sikhs were busy fighting and killing Muslims, Hindus, and British in wars there was not much of sarbat da bhalla on their minds.
Ranjitji, aren't sikhs out of Punjab a part of creation? aren't Hindus in Punjab a part of lord's creation?
I do not understand why you are going on about Pakistan when the topic is about Khalistan. The idea of Khalistan formed in India due to a whole chain of events starting with the broken promises of an autonomous state within India. I believe that Pakistan was not in the minds of Sikhs who were demanding a Punjabi Suba. They were asking to be treated equally according to how the rest of the Indian states were formed. If their concerns were addressed legitimately, it is my believe that there would have not been a Khalistan movement. The Indian leaders chose to play communal politics because Sikhs are a small minority. This, I believe, was a contributing factor to the Khalistan movement. Another contributing factor may also have been poor Sikh leadership.
Punjabi suba was a statehood demand, Khalistan is a separate country, pls understand the difference and it's not me the khalistan supporters in past have marked entire Punjab of India & Pakistan as part of Khalistan, so that is why pakistan needs to be mentioned.. I do not understand how can you forget the erstwhile Capital lahore and guru Nanak's birthplace Nankana which falls in Punjab and were a part of Sikh Kingdom..

you are twisting my words here. I did not say the UN is not important. I said that the UN’s permission is not needed to carve out a country. As for forming Khalistan or any other country, I do not know how simply because I do not have any experience in doing so. I suppose if there are enough people with the necessary might and spirit, it can be done. Countries have been forming and being destroyed throughout history.
Well again you are wrong here sir, all countries are recognised by UN, if Khalistan doesn't get UN recognition there will be no point in making it, South Sudan, Kosovo all newly made countries have been made by UN help so u need to take this into account.
No and it is irrelevant to the discussion. When the subcontinent split, Sikhs and Hindus on the Pakistan side either fled or were killed. The same happened to the Muslims on the Indian side
Again you fail to see the difference, the Muslims in Punjab only account for 2% of population with their nos. running in 5,00,000 now this is the natural growth.. while in pakistan Sikhs are like before not more then 30k.. so you can see the difference sir that how Pakistan has never allowed to grow sikhi in their Punjab

Obviously because it was not Pakistan that promised the Sikhs an autonomous state within India as an enticement for Sikhs to join with India.
Then why Pakistan punjab was shown in past always a part of Khalistan? why Maharaja Ranjit singh's rule is always quoted as an example? How can you give a clean-chit to Pakistan when at one hand it shows so much concern for Sikhs and have been a constant supporter of khalistan..

Admitting genocide and not bringing justice to the perpetrators means no justice has been done.
yes I agree, but then how making khalistan will make a difference to lives of those people who suffered during the genocide?

There are no safeguards. I suppose as a general rule, one should always be prepared. That is one of the Guru’s lessons to his Sikhs. I will ask you a question, ‘What were the safeguards when the Sri Harimandar Sahib and 52 gurudwaras were attacked and thousand of Sikh pilgrims were slaughtered and what were the safeguards when thousands of Sikhs were slaughtered in New Dehli, and finally what were the safeguards when thousands of Sikhs youths were slaughtered in the two decades that followed’?
So openly you are admitting that sikhs can be displaced what is the use of such khalistan that cannot guarantee the safety of Sikhs? May I ask then a Khalistan made by trampeling the lives of so many sikhs be acceptable? why Khalistanis mostly are residing abroad why don't they come to India and demand it, that's another question
Again, the UN is not in the business of giving approval to nation forming. If by some miracle the UN says that Sikhs should have their own homeland, do you truly believe that India will go along? How do you propose ‘safeguarding’ Sikhs then?:
Sir again u are forgetting that all sikhs are living in UN recognised nations like US, Canada, UK , Malayisia, Australia.. and UN is most unlikely to support it as you yourself use the word "miracle" ...that says it all
I just find it fascinating that you do not know the EU was formed in 1993 and that prior to that those landlocked countries existed just fine.
no sir they weren't fine otherwise there was no need for formation of EU
That is because you wish to create red herrings and not stick to the topic you created. I am going to ask again that if you want to discuss crimes by the UK and Pakistan, start another topic and everyone will get a chance to discuss that topic by itself.
Why I bring in Uk, Pakistan because a lot of injustice has happened due to their mishandling of Sikh Population in past, Khalistan should be a guarantee of Safety of 'Sikh Interests' all over the World not only India.. when khalistanis have an apathetic attitude towards crimes of other nations and cannot even speak on it, I wonder is it being made as only for 'Hate India' purpose?
Romesh Kumar
Power User
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:04 am
Location: Nigeria

Re: Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Post by Romesh Kumar »

No idea is good or bad by 100% but khalistan or any other religion based independent country is neither feasible in independent India nor good for Sikh community.
Sikhs need India much more than India needs them.
Romesh Kumar
Power User
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:04 am
Location: Nigeria

Re: Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Post by Romesh Kumar »

Nihal Singh Kanakpuria wrote:As per UN report , Punjab before and during 84 was the most Industrially advanced state in India, However Indian govt policies strategically planned to reduce Sikhs dominance and industrial growth , once again please its Hindu population.
It was Hindu (minority) Punjabis in Punjab who had contributed in industrializing Punjab.
JasbeerSingh
Active Forum User
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:36 am

Re: Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Post by JasbeerSingh »

Romesh Kumar wrote:No idea is good or bad by 100% but khalistan or any other religion based independent country is neither feasible in independent India nor good for Sikh community.
Sikhs need India much more than India needs them.
Well it's not a question of 'needing' some nation, Sikhs despite after large scale migration to abroad in today's world are largest in India, Sikhism was born in India. Separating India and Sikhs, I feel is the impossible, some people may have problems with political regime but dissent is a part of democracy
Romesh Kumar
Power User
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:04 am
Location: Nigeria

Re: Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Post by Romesh Kumar »

JasbeerSingh wrote:Well it's not a question of 'needing' some nation, Sikhs despite after large scale migration to abroad in today's world are largest in India, Sikhism was born in India. Separating India and Sikhs, I feel is the impossible, some people may have problems with political regime but dissent is a part of democracy
Very well said, which answers all the questions of the people who believe that khalistan is a good idea.
Bik1999Singh
New User
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:23 am

Re: Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Post by Bik1999Singh »

JasbeerSingh

Looking at how India is going today, the only way that Sikhi will survive in south Asia is by the creation of Khalistan. It is interesting that a Sikh from India who is sitting today on the powder keg of a country becoming increasing anti-minority, anti-dalit and anti-human rights is looking at reasons against the creation of Khalistan. Contrary to Romesh Kumar, the Sikhs do not need India as many millions have shown by voting with their feet and making a success of their lives in the west. The fact is that many of these Sikhs are pro-Khalistan and these Sikhs aren't as the Indian propaganda machine would have gullible Indians believe, in the employ of Pakistan's ISI or making money out of Khalistan, it is their concern for the future of Punjab and the Sikhs that makes them aspire for Khalistan. If you do not believe in Khalistan then you need to change the last lines of the Ardas as these lines are the clearest declaration of Sikh sovereignity available. There is no need for a declaration of Khalistan or a Sarbat Khalsa to declare Khalistan. Guru Gobind Singh made us a sovereign people and the fact that we are not free today is caused by us falling short of the aspirations that Dasmesh Pita had for us.
gurmail
Active Forum User
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:43 am

Re: Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Post by gurmail »

I never have seen a manifesto or political discourse. The only thing I have heard are some quotes from Guru Granth Sahib or ardas. There is always harking back to Ranjit Singh's kingdom. Well!!. It is all in Pakistan. Is the idea to take over Pakistan?

So in the Indian Punjab what is the grand plan my friends? We have Khalistan. How is the government going to function? Aaah tax of course. Who you going to tax to do sarbat ka bhala. You need money my friends. Revenue. How you going to communicate with outside world? Oh, through Pakistan because you have just told India to go away in very rude no uncertain terms. So, Pakistanis are killing each other at the moment. Look at the news. Shia places of worship are being suicide bombed, Shia family prayer gatherings are being sprayed with bullets. So you want to rely on them? Where will you get money to pay transition fees? Ask Americans what Pakistanis did to them on transition fees. Aaaah, so you will pay jazia. That is one way. Well who will you tax to raise the revenue? The poor dirt farmers. That is it. Grind the poor farmers to ground while you guys swan around wearing chola and Kirpans and chanting sarbat ka Bhala.

For heavens sake, think things through. Why do you think Khalistan movement failed? Why didn't the ordinary people of Punjab support it? Why did it happen straight after chhhatisgarh massacre of Sikhs? People sitting comfortably in their nice warm houses, eating their nice food in the western countries are supporting it. Pakistani government with a few khalistanis living a comfortable life paid for by Pakistani government are supporting it.

You want a viable Khalistan then Let us have some intellect on the job, and not a few slogans. If you must have slogans then base them on something original. I know 11year old school boy with Better idea of how to make nations work?
Bik1999Singh
New User
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:23 am

Re: Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Post by Bik1999Singh »

Gurmail Singh

That's a lot of loaded questions along with a lot of assumptions. Yours in the typical 'Indian' response. While Sikhs are great as cannon fodder and jokers for the sake of Bollywood but any time that Sikhs want freedom from India suddenly we are capable of nothing and don't even know our own minds. For me anywhere where Sikhs enjoy freedom then there is nothing that they cannot achieve. Freed from the slavery of the Indian state and it's colonial set up the Punjab/Khalistan can become a beacon of light in South Asia. All political commentators agree that if just one part of India or Pakistan breaks away the whole edifice of Hindustan/Pakistan will come crashing down. This is what can happen, free states like Baluchistan, Kashmir, Assam, Tamil Nadu, Sindh etc. Khalistan when it is created will not be a state enclosed by India and Pakistan but a state bordering other free states which have achieved freedom from the colonial states of India and Pakistan.

The access to the sea argument is a pretty outdated one given today's high tech globalised world. Khalistan will not be at the mercy of both India and Pakistan trying to sells it agricultural produce to the rest of the world. The greatest resource that Punjab will have is its population. They can make a success of their lives no matter where they settle yet under the Indian colonial set up, they are just cannon fodder for the Indian colonial state or captive customers for the drug and alcohol mafias controlled by the Indian state. Free from the grip of these mafias and with the benign government and with the aid of the global Sikh diaspora, Khalistan can actively become a hub for the new emerging technologies.
Locked