Khalistan, a reality or a shambles?

[lakwinder singh]

[quote="Romesh Kumar"
lakwinder Ji,
Thanks for your balanced words.
If Sikhs are secular and do not discriminate on the basis of religion and they follow the teachings of SGGS Ji and Dasam Granth Ji then they do not need a separate homelnd based on religion in India of today. Let me agree with all the bad talked about India and Indians of today except the fact that more than 85% of Indians regardless of states and regions 'do not look down at any religious place nor at any type of way of worshipping'.There is real and actual religious freedom in India. Problem starts when that religious freedom is exploited for political, personal and vested interests.
Thanks[/quote]

Romesh ji,

I think you know what happened to sikhs in Nov. 1984 . As a non sikh you may not realize it, but we have faced it.
I do not say that India does not allow religious freedom. What about people who govern it? Where was the law of
the land when they were murdering Sikhs indiscriminately.The person who was responsible for defending his citizens
life and property said " when a big tree falls earth shakes."

Leave aside bringing the culprits to justice, the same people are rewarding them with high offices. That proves
that such people have the strength to bend rules to their whims. Who knows what they will do to minorities in future
to get votes of majority community. India has a long way to go to become a model democracy.

[VeeruS]

In religious domain, maryada of religion should prevail.

When i say people of all denominations should be equal in sikh rule it means administration impartiality while governing. It has happened in Maharaja Ranjit Singh's time. Most of his ministers were from other religions.

His was a sikh rule. A sikh has no caste and hence his caste was of no significance. He struck coins in the name of Sikh Gurus. He did seva of gilding of Harmandir sahib as a humble servant Gurus.

There were non sikh administrators, Governors and ministers under him but i am hearing first time that there were other kingdoms under him.

It seems to me that all you care about is having a Sikh in-charge of the state or country you call Khalistan or United Punjab through selection rather than election. Even though no system is perfect, today, most governments are elected rather than selected, which we call democracy.

In a democratic country, there is supposed to be freedom of religion and freedom of religion means freedom to choose any religion and freedom not to choose any religion at all. In a democratic country, nobody is supposed to be denied justice because of his or her religious status. A judge is not supposed to look at what religion he or she belongs to or whether or not he or she belongs to any religion.

If you claim that Maryada prevails in a religious country, all that means people who did not entirely follow Maryada would not be getting justice in a Sikh rule and that's my point.

You and I both live in California and you and I both have same rights as any other American citizens. Then why would I wish to live in a Sikh state where I would not have equal rights as you? Why would majority of the people who claim to be Sikhs want to live in a Sikh state where they would not have equal rights compared those who followed Maryada?

It's ironic that only a couple days ago, I was thinking about Ranjit Singh gilding Harmandir Sahib. I am not sure if I would be proud of an emperor gilding the temple of my worship. Was it his hard-earned money he used or was it just the money he acquired after invading different kingdoms?

But the bottom line is that no Khalistan could ever guarantee freedom of religion to all.

Plus, Ranjit Singh invaded all those small kingdoms to establish his own empire. Just as he forced others out, British managed to destroy his empire. Once British took over, it was not considered Sikh empire anymore. In order for Sikhs to reestablish Sikh empire again. they would have to fight the British because after British left, democracy had been established and it was too late.

[lakwinder singh]

Veeru ji

When i said maryada, it means that all religions have their own protocols.For example a sikh has to maintain a conduct
in order to be qualified as a sikh.State has no interference in that.

USA is a democracy in action where all are treated equal.If someone subverts law he/she is brought to book whosoever he/she might be. When there was a backlash against sikhs because of mistaken identity , Govt was quick to address the issue and frame guidelines. It makes us to feel proud as Americans.

When British freed india there were three groups, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, to claim separate regions.Sikhs were made to throw their lot with India on assurance from Congress leaders that they would be given a region where there will be some sort of autonomy so that 'Sikhs could enjoy glow of freedom" ( These were exact words of Nehru)" AS a leader he should have kept that word but he backed out saying circumstances have changed.

The result was agitations by akalis to demand their rights first a lingual state then a limited autonomy on the lines of USA states.That ended in their butchery in 1984. Now perpetrators of that butchery are not brought to book till this day.

If israel was not there Jews would not have been able to get justice and bring Nazis to jails/gallows. The rights of Jews are safe there and yet it is a functioning democracy wherein about 20 percent of its population is Arab who are entitled to equal rights.

[lakwinder singh]

An interesting article

http://www.fairobserver.com/article/pun ... d-cleansed

The partition of the Punjab in mid-August 1947 took place as part of a negotiated settlement brokered by the British between the Indian National Congress, the All-India Muslim League and the Sikhs of Punjab to partition India and transfer power to India and Pakistan. The total population of the undivided Punjab Province was 33 million. It included territories directly administered by the British (pop. 28 million) and several princely states. The Punjab was a Muslim majority province while Hindus and Sikhs together made up a very large minority of 44-47%. The principle on which India and the Punjab were divided was that Muslim-majority areas were separated from the rest of India and given to Pakistan. The demand to partition India was made by the main communal party of the Muslims, the All-India Muslim League. It insisted that Indian Muslims were not a minority (one-fourth of the total population of India) but a separate nation by virtue of their Islamic faith and culture. When the Muslim League demanded the partition of India the Sikhs of Punjab demanded the same principle to be applied to the Punjab. The Indian National Congress wanted to keep India united but realizing that the Muslim League was insistent on the partition of India on 8 March 1947 it threw its weight behind the Sikh demand for the partition of the Punjab. Viceroy Mountbatten came to the conclusion that the partition of India had become inevitable. Therefore on 3 June 1947 the Partition Plan was announced which required the Punjab and Bengal assemblies to vote on whether they wanted to keep their provinces united or partitioned. Both assemblies voted in favour of partitioning their provinces.

[VeeruS]

Lakwinder Ji,

I understand Indian Government has done wrong to Sikhs, especially the innocent ones who were killed by Police, Militants or in the riots.

Of course, that was very bad.

But, my question here is: Would Khalistan benefit all of the people who claim to be Sikhs?

I understand that there are about 25 million people who claim to be Sikhs. But out of those 25 million, only a handful would have any rights at all in Khalistan. As you said, Maryada (or religious protocol) prevails in a religious country, in Khalistan, Puran Hindus, Puran Muslims and Puran Sikhs would have all the rights; however, Monas and Sehajdharis would not have any rights at all. I am not sure how Puran Sikhs are out there but my guess is that they are less than four to five percent of those population who claim to be Sikhs. So, basically, what you are saying that only about one million Sikhs would have any rights at all in Khalistan. The rest of the 23-24 million Sikhs would have no to very minimum rights in Khalistan.

Having said this, however, I do not claim to know who is Puran Sikh and who is not.

Then why would 23-24 million Sikhs in their right mind support Khalistan at all? If I were one of those 23-24 million Sikhs, I would rather live in a country like the US than Khalistan, where I would have right at least equal to others, if not more.

If you feel proud of a country like the US where you have equal rights, then why would support a country where people would not have equal rights?

Also, as we have discussed this before, depending on the boundary of this so-called Khalistan, Hindus or Muslims would make higher percentage of the population in so-called Khalistan. If Khalistan consisted of United Punjab, then Muslims would make majority and if it were only the original Indian Punjab (Punjab, Haryana and Himachal), then Hindus would make majority. But it seems to me that you would want Khalistan to be governed by Sikhs only. In other words, you would not want democracy in Khalistan. Nobody at all should support a country without democracy. Even Pakistan is a democratic country. So, as far as the democracy goes, I would rather support Pakistan over Khalistan.

And if Khalistan were a democratic country, Sikhs could not make majority in the government.

[lakwinder singh]

Veeru ji

Sikhism does not debar anyone to their Gurudwaras be they sikh or not. Neither it debars monas born of sikh parents.
Everyone is treated equal, have access to free food and lodging. But as far management of these Guru ghars is concerned
that is to be by khalsa .I see nothing wrong in that as they are the legitimate care takers.

You agree that great injustice has been done to sikhs in the recent past . We all say that but where are the redress measures? It all points out to intentional killings or genocide.It has happened and may happen in future too.

Present Punjab is a sikh majority state.If there is an autonomous region carved it does not become sikh minority area as
you are suggesting. Sikhs never demanded that.Having gone through a phase of utter humiliation and physical annihilation
in the recent past sikhs are justified to have a safe haven where they can practice their religion without any fear.
Muslims are not going to give any territory to anybody.They have their country and it is a done deal.

Visit Punjab and see how Punjabi culture/language is being stifled knowingly/unlnowingly. It is very essential that sikhs have their own area, may be within India, where they enjoy glow of freedom as promised by Indian national congress in 1947.

I have you a very simple example of Israel to understand what i am talking about.

[lakwinder singh]

The following is excerpt from speech of Akali MP Sardar kapur Singh in Indian parliament in 1966 and very relevant to this thread giving background how sikhs were betrayed after 1947.

http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/ar ... t2000.html

"The brave Sikhs of the Punjab are entitled to special consideration. I see nothing wrong in an area and a set-up in the North wherein the Sikhs can also experience the glow of freedom"

In these words, an autonomous State to the Sikhs, within India, was promised. Fourthly, in the early Winter of 1946, the Cabinet Mission, while at Delhi, communicated to the Sikhs through the late Sardar Baldev Singh that if the Sikhs are determined not to part company with Hindu India, the British Parliament, in their solicitude for the Sikh people, was prepared to so frame the Independence Act of India, so that in respect of the Sikh home-land, wherever these areas might eventually go, in Pakistan or India, no Constitution shall be framed such as does not have the concurrence of the Sikhs. But Sardar Baldev Singh, in consultation with the Congress leaders, summarily rejected this offer which went even beyond the assurances given by the majority community, in 1929 and in 1946 by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in Calcutta. Fifthly, in April 1947, Mr. Jinnah, in consultation with certain most powerful leaders of the British Cabinet in London, offered to the Sikhs, first through Master Tara Singh and then through the Maharaja of Patiala, a sovereign Sikh State comprising areas lying in the west of Panipat and east of the left bank of the Ravi river on the understanding that this State then confederates with Pakistan on very advantageous terms to the Sikhs and Master Tara Singh summarily rejected this attractive offer. The Maharaja of Patiala declined to accept it in consultation with Sardar Patel and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Sixthly, on the 9th December, 1946, when the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly was held under the Chairmanship of Babu Rajendra Prasad, Pandit

Jawaharlal Nehru moved the first and the fundamental Resolution in which it was said: "Adequate safeguards would be provided for minorities... It was a declaration, a pledge and an undertaking before the world, a contract with millions of Indians, and, therefore, in the nature of an oath*, which we must keep." "To take recourse to a solemn oath, to inspire confidence that might be betrayed when convenient, is quite in the political tradition of the Indian National Congress. On 16th March, 1931, Mahatma Gandhi came to a special Sikh congregation held in Gurdwara Sisganj, Delhi, where he was asked as to what guarantee there was that his Indian National Congress would implement the assurances, given to the Sikh people in 1929, at Lahore. His reply is published in his Young India, of the 19th March, 1931, and it contains the following: "Sardar Madhusudan Singh has asked for an assurance that the Congress would do nothing that might alienate sympathies of the Sikhs from the Congress. Well, the Congress, in its Lahore Session, passed a Resolution that it would not enter into or be a party to any settlement with regard to the minority question that failed to satisfy any of the minorities concerned. What further assurances the Congress can give to the Sikhs, I fail to understand. I ask you to accept my word and the Resolution of the Congress that it will not betray a single individual much less a community. If it ever thinks of doing so, it will only hasten its own doom�. I pray you, therefore, to unbosom yourselves of all your doubts... What more shall I say? What more can I say than this. Let God be the witness of the bond that binds me and the Congress with you".

When further asked as to what may the Sikhs do in case of betrayal he said, the Sikhs could, in that case, take their kirpans in hand with perfect justification before God and man. What happens in case of political perjury is not a point I propose to discuss today, for, when neither the feelings of shame, the reproaches of conscience, nor the dread of punishment from any bar is there, the sufferers can only pray to God, which the Sikhs are doing today. But since it is the perquisite of power to invent its own past, I am putting the record straight for the public opinion and the posterity by recapitulating this sorry tale of betrayal of the Sikhs, a trusting people Seventhly, in the month of May, 1947, precisely on the 17th May, Lord Mountbatten, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Nawab Liaqat Ali Khan and Sardar Beldev Singh, flew to London on the invitation of the British Cabinet, in search of final solution of the Indian communal problem. When the Congress and the Muslim League failed to strike any mutual understanding and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru decided to return to India, the British Cabinet leaders conveyed to Sardar Baldev Singh that, if he stays behind, arrangements might be made: "So as to enable the Sikhs to have political feet of their own on which they may walk into the current of World History."

Sardar Baldev Singh promptly divulged the contents of this confidential offer to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and in compliance with the latter�s wishes, declined to stay back and flew back to India after giving the following brave message to the Press: "The Sikhs have no demands to make on the British except the demand that they should quit India. Whatever political rights and aspirations the Sikhs have, they shall have them satisfied through the goodwill of the Congress and the majority community." Eighthly, and lastly, in the month of July, 1947 the Hindu and Sikh members of the Punjab Legislative Assembly met at Delhi to pass a unanimous Resolution favouring partition of the country, in which Resolution occur the following words: "In the divided Indian Punjab, special constitutional measures are imperative to meet just aspirations and rights of the Sikhs." It is these very Hindus of the Punjab, who, with the ready aid of the Government of India leaders, even when their understanding was not qualified to keep pace with the wishes of the heart, adopted every conceivable posture and shrank from no stratagem to keep Sikhs permanently under their political heel, first, by refusing to form a Punjabi-speaking State in which the Sikhs might acquire political effectiveness, and second, by falsely declaring that Panjabi was not their mother tongue. The Bill before the House is a calculatedly forged link in the chain, the story of which I have just narrated. When in 1950, the present Constitution Act of India was enacted, the accredited representatives of the Sikhs the Shiromani Akali Dal declared vehemently and unambiguously in the Constituent Assembly that: "The Sikhs do not accept this Constitution: the Sikhs reject this Constitution Act"

[VeeruS]

Lakwinder Singh Ji,

Since there could never be equality of all mankind in Khalistan, all I know is that Khalistan does not deserve to exist as a country, especially at the land that belongs to non-Khalistani and today we call it Punjab.

When Khalistanis want to show the majority of Sikhs in Punjab, they start counting monas and so-called sehajdharis as Sikhs and when it comes to equal rights for all people, including monas and sehajdharis, they are denied to monas and sehajdharis.

It really does not make sense that you want Khalistan where majority of the land belongs monas and sehajdharis and deny their rights at their own land.

Having Khalistan is going backward. Only equality of all people can take us forward, not any form of discrimination. Saints preached equality of all mankind. If we are willing to follow their footsteps, we must guarantee equality of all man-kind. When people don't practice what they preach, then it becomes hypocrisy.

Jews are in an entirely different situation than Sikhs. They have unconditional support from the US and European countries and that's the only way they were able to reestablish themselves.

However, it really does not matter whom you compare Sikhs to, if there is no equality of all is guaranteed in Khalistan, then there is no need for Khalistan, at least not in a land belonging to monas and sehajdharis.

[lakwinder singh]

Veeru ji

Your main concern is that mona sikhs and sehajdharis are being discriminated in sikhism. Per you this trend will
continue in future set up of sikhs.

Please let us know in what way sehjadhari and monas are being slighted in sikhi.

[suji singh]

It is quite obvious to observe who controls the Golak or who owns the franchise. Mona Sikhs need not apply. They are not even considered Sikhs or even sikhs.

Back to the topic, suppose Khalistan becomes a reality. What happens to Sikhs who are spread all over India? Do they have to move back to Khalistan as during 1947 partition. How do you accommodate Punjabis including Sikhs, mona or not, who do not want to be part of Khalistan?

Infinitely many bad unintended consequences!

Sikhs must follow teaching of Guru Nanak to embrace others, learn to love and live with others. Make a commitment to education to free yourself from parochial thinking. Guru Gobind accepted Pathans as his soldiers.