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

Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Post by JasbeerSingh »

This thread is in response to pro Khalistan threads. I being an Indian Sikh feel appalled to talk about this idea that doesn't seem to be in line with the central idea of Sikhi which is all about 'Sarbat Da bhala'.

The opinions expressed are my personal viewpoint, all those who are not in line with my idea are requested to not be impulsive and provocative in case if you reply and a humble request be open to the 'other side'

Here are my reasons of why Khalistan is a Bad idea. I will cover Broadly six major factors. Politically, Demographically, Economically, Historically, legally, Ethically

1.)Politically.. It is really difficult to make a separate Sikh country. First of all let us be very clear that at this moment the UN or any Nation in the World will never support making of a Country based on 'Religion' after the ISIS fiasco in Iraq & Syria where a group tried to establish a theocratic state on the basis of Islam and Shariat coupled by Failure of Pakistan and a Chaotic Israel in the Middle East. Secondly, a demand with the name of "Sikh" Nation is least likely (or u can say very surely not likely) to get the support by largest religious community in Punjab i.e. Punjabi Hindus and Muslims.

2.)Demographically.. A request to all the people who are die hard Khalistan supporters please study the current demographics of Indian Punjab, Pakistan Punjab, Haryana and Himachal as both of them were a former part of greater Punjab in India. We just have one Indian Punjab measuring 50,000 sq km with a simple Majority of Sikhs around 57% (2011 census) rest all other states are either overwhelmingly Hindu or Muslim, so demand of Sikh Nation will ideally qualify for just a small piece of land which is the Indian Punjab that too without any Coastline, we either have to depend on India or Pakistan for the Trade. Then the most important point please spare a thought about the 5 million Sikhs (2011 Census) who are settled outside Punjab in India and the Gurdwaras (Two Takhts, bangla Sahib, Sis Ganj, Bandi Chor, Nanak Piao, Nanak Mata) which will be left out of Khalistan to which we currently have easy access as all are a part of India and which are maintained in a very good state.

3.)Economically.. To earn and churn money for a nation Govt needs to have multiple sources, if we just look at the current Punjab state it is heavily dependent on agriculture (that too takes a massive hit if the rains are less) apart from Industrial production houses. Other than that Punjab has negligible source, for example there are no Raw materials produced or mined in Punjab then there is no coastline and neither there is any income from Tourism except for Sikh Religious Places which cannot be kept for revenue generation. Then a major point that Punjab depends heavily on the labour from the state of UP & Bihar in India which will of course be blocked after it gets separated, thoughts must also be given as to whom the production (agricultural and industrial) can be sold to, currently all of the things get absorbed in India and some exported. Last but not the least the Banking & Finance sector in entire South Asia lags far behind when compared to Europe and North America or pacific, so thinking that we may make Punjab a future banking Hub will amount to a wishful thinking.

4.)Historically.. Now Talking about History, Many will claim that Guru Gobind Singh gave a clear message of making a nation on the basis of line 'Raj karega Khalsa'. Without arguing it further on ideal lines and deeper meanings let me take it litreally for now and ask you. Didn't we Rule during Maharaja Ranjit Singh's time? and didn't we loose our Raj due to our own mistakes giving in to an opportunist, expansionist British Empire? Also it is an interesting thing that in the entire History of Punjab since the time of Guru Nanak. Punjab has been ruled by Mughals, Afghans, Pathans, Sikhs, British and then Divided between India & Pakistan.. Sikh rule was from 1799 to 1849 (in which we started loosing territories after 1845) looking by that logic in a big span of five hundred year History Sikhs have ruled for just 50 yrs on that basis how can a Community lay claim on it? Going by that Tomorrow Iranians can come and claim Pakistan or entire India by saying their ancestors Ruled India for 200 yrs.. As a Sikh we may be biased but we have to have a look at it logically and ask ourselves will anyone will agree to such thing?

5.)Legally.. Analysing the legality of the issue the major point comes which land we lay our claim to? I have heard people quoting Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Rule to prove it's legality but then if that's the basis, where was his Capital and why we forget itr? It was Lahore that is currently the Capital of Pakistan Punjab and along with it the bigger Punjab happens to be in Pakistan even after combining Haryana and Himachal (Erstwhile Punjab of India). So then demand must be raised to Pakistan first instead of India then. Khalistanis counter this point by giving the reason of Sikh Population in Pakistan.. Well, then it makes us Sikhs stand in the dock , are we ignoring the deplorable crime committed by Pakistan against Sikhs and just selctively getting outraged at India? It's an unfortunate reality that Pakistan never allowed Sikhs to grow in their country and Sikhs are not even 0.1% of entire Pakistan where they use to be more then 10% (just Pakistan) while in India outside Punjab Sikh Population is well settled and run in millions, so are we giving a freeway to Pakistan then? Why we just cherry pick India and it's crime? Are we setting an example of selective outrage? During the Durbar Days the Dogras, Muslims, Pathans use to be loyal to Sikh Empire what steps been taken to take every one along..?

6.)Ethically.. By Demanding Punjab, that too India's are we sending a message to the World that Sikhism is faith meant to be practised only by Punjabis? In this Globalised World where we see Religions and it's practices becoming global (like Yoga, Tai Chi, Zen, Kung Fu etc.) we are fighting to make it shrink to just one state in South Asia? This will be the grave injustice to those Sikhs who are not Punjabis. Precisely this is the reason why Sikhism has been so limited in it's spread. It is also an indirect kind of an insult to org. like 3HO whose relentless efforts and prachaar got Sikhi the recognition of official Religion in Chile? How this was achieved? This was done by Amalgamating Sikh ethos with local language and Culture, separate nation in a particular geographical region will just tarnish the image of Sikhi as we may be and will be looked upon as people who are obsessed with Punjab and Punjabi Culture, how can then we spread Guruji's word to the World at large?

NOTE:Please read my points clamly and with open mind. It's my personal opinion and should be the opinion of many Sikhs like me as well (not all of course)
gurmail
Active Forum User
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:43 am

Re: Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Post by gurmail »

One main reason for Khalistan being a bad idea is their manifesto. They never defined how people's life was going to improve.
From their pronouncements it seemed to me that a theocracy was on offer, with feudalistic governance. Feudal lords would have run around in Chola/pyjamas with long swords dangling by their side. People would have tilled the land to keep these feudal lords in a regal life style.

The current situation is that a Sikh has the opportunity to become the Prime Minister of the country and introduce midday meals for all school children of the land, a universal Langar. All paid for by the central government from the taxes.

Sikhs reside in all parts of the country. I don't know how they fare nowadays but before the troubles everyone respected the sikhs and were secretly jealous at their success.

Question is what can the Khalistanis do for the people? In the absence of a properly costed manifesto, the only thing that come mind is enslavement.
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 »

One question I have asked from countless supporters is about political boundaries of the Khalistan they talk about.

No one has ever agreed or said that at least Lahore, Sheikhupura, Jhang districts of pakistani punjab are supposed to be part of that. Khalistan sounds like a joke if birth place of Shri Guru Nanak Dev and seat of Sikh empire is not part of that !!!

It is Indian Punjab only, they have been targeting, because Constitution of India allows freedom of speech.
Thanks.
JasbeerSingh
Active Forum User
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:36 am

Re: Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Post by JasbeerSingh »

gurmail wrote:One main reason for Khalistan being a bad idea is their manifesto. They never defined how people's life was going to improve.
From their pronouncements it seemed to me that a theocracy was on offer, with feudalistic governance. Feudal lords would have run around in Chola/pyjamas with long swords dangling by their side. People would have tilled the land to keep these feudal lords in a regal life style.

The current situation is that a Sikh has the opportunity to become the Prime Minister of the country and introduce midday meals for all school children of the land, a universal Langar. All paid for by the central government from the taxes.

Sikhs reside in all parts of the country. I don't know how they fare nowadays but before the troubles everyone respected the sikhs and were secretly jealous at their success.

Question is what can the Khalistanis do for the people? In the absence of a properly costed manifesto, the only thing that come mind is enslavement.
You have raised a very good point Gurmailji.. So thought provoking. Yes you are right a Sikh has all the right to contest election from anywhere in India and become a member of parliament. The best example is SS Ahluwalia an elected MP from West Bengal that barely has any Sikh Population.. Moreover, there are so many problems inside the Panth that needs immediate readdressal, Khalistan will just divert the attention and make the things more worse
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:One question I have asked from countless supporters is about political boundaries of the Khalistan they talk about.

No one has ever agreed or said that at least Lahore, Sheikhupura, Jhang districts of pakistani punjab are supposed to be part of that. Khalistan sounds like a joke if birth place of Shri Guru Nanak Dev and seat of Sikh empire is not part of that !!!

It is Indian Punjab only, they have been targeting, because Constitution of India allows freedom of speech.
Thanks.
Your point is bang on target. From such things it looks as if this entire case is of 'Selective Outrage' where only India's crime is visible to them, but all of them will ignore Pakistan and it's atrocities committed on Sikh Heritage, Culture and Monument and the areas lying there. I agree it is useless to talk of separate Sikh Nation which doesn't have Guru Nanak's Birthplace and Lahore the Erstwhile Capital of Maharaj Ranjit Singh (Whose Rule is always quotes by Khalistan supporters)
ADS
Active Forum User
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 12:25 am

Re: Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Post by ADS »

All of you above have said what one should determine for Khalistan state. My views are in line with all of you. And I am quite sure there are many sikhs and punjabis who have same ideas in their mind. I hope this message transfer among many sikhs and punjabis and enlighten them about the pros and cons of Khalistan state.
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 »

I will begin by saying that I am not an advocate for either side of the issue of Khalistan. However, I would like to answer some of your assertions and sometimes play the devil’s advocate.

Firstly, you are asking any respondents to be open to the other side. I hope that sentiment applies to you also. Sarbat da bhalla and having Khalistan are not divergent issues. One can have both.

It is always difficult to make a separate country. Usually, this occurs by force. Rarely is a country ever split off without violence. I also make an objection to you comparing Sikhi to ISIS because there is no theological basis for gaining territory or maintaining a country based on Sikh principles. One also does not need UN’s permission to form a country.

Demographically, there was a larger Punjab that had been cut into three pieces by a Hindu majority government. You can read all about why that happened. As for the Takths being outside Punjab, why should that be a problem? Not all muslims live in Arabia nor do all catholics live near the Vatican. Since I don’t live in India, can you enlighten us as to who maintains the Takths outside Punjab? Is it Sikh organizations or the Indian government? If Sikhs are maintaining them, why should those buildings fall out of a good state?

Coming to the economic situation, who is responsible for not bringing technology or manufacturing jobs to Punjab? Who has the responsibility to make Punjab less dependent on agriculture? To your point of being landlocked, please look around the world and you will see countries like Switzerland, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, etc, etc, which don’t have a coastline. So, this no-coastline argument is pretty weak.

As for historical or legal arguments, we all know the history of the Sikh kingdom and the fall to the British. Please study as to why the Khalistan idea was propagated. Maybe it had to do with the injustices and broken promises that Sikhs felt they were subjected to by a Hindu majority India. If the issues had been handled more appropriately at the time, this idea of Khalistan would not even have taken hold and tens of thousands would not have needed to have died.
JasbeerSingh
Active Forum User
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:36 am

Re: Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Post by JasbeerSingh »

Ranjit Singhji there is no problem is playing devil's advocate, but I do have some counter questions and comments on your arguments. Please read them carefully , a Humble request
Firstly, you are asking any respondents to be open to the other side. I hope that sentiment applies to you also. Sarbat da bhalla and having Khalistan are not divergent issues. One can have both.
What plans do the kahlistanis have for 5 million Sikhs who are living outside Punjab as a microscopic minority in rest of India, won't they be subjected to hatred then in India after this idea of khalistan is floated, also tell me how it is possible to take care of Gurdwaras which will be left in India? Pls don't give Pakistan Gurdwara management argument, because in reality only few Gurdwaras are taken care that too mostly where Sikh sangats pay their regular visits apart from that the situation is pitiable. Pls visit this site that will tell how terrible has been the loss in Pakistan of Sikh's legacy http://lostheritagebook.com/.. It was a thorough research done by a Sikh named Amardeep Singh who found that Sikh legacy is in shambles in Pakistan.. would you like the same fate to get repeated in India also?

It is always difficult to make a separate country. Usually, this occurs by force. Rarely is a country ever split off without violence. I also make an objection to you comparing Sikhi to ISIS because there is no theological basis for gaining territory or maintaining a country based on Sikh principles. One also does not need UN’s permission to form a country.
Please read my comment carefully I never compared Sikhi with ISIS, what I meant was that due to ISIS menace the U.N and World is less likely to support a theocratic state based on a particular religious ideology, even Israel has come under lot of criticism due to their high extremist Jewish leanings and so is the failure of Pakistan (a country based on so called Islamic principles). And if not UN then what are the other means? The passionate Khalistanis outside India are mostly living in UN recognised countries like Canada, US, UK I don't understand this point of yours of negating the importance of UN in today's world. Without the support of UN or any powerful country it wouldn't be possible sir
Demographically, there was a larger Punjab that had been cut into three pieces by a Hindu majority government. You can read all about why that happened. As for the Takths being outside Punjab, why should that be a problem? Not all muslims live in Arabia nor do all catholics live near the Vatican. Since I don’t live in India, can you enlighten us as to who maintains the Takths outside Punjab? Is it Sikh organizations or the Indian government? If Sikhs are maintaining them, why should those buildings fall out of a good state?
But veerji what about the Punjab that had been taken away by Pakistan which rightfully belonged to Sikhs and where unfortunately Sikhi has never been allowed to grow and prosper, this is Exactly what startles me that most of the khalistan supporters never even talk about the Historical injustice and menace that has been done by Pakistan on Sikhs and will just do 'selective outrage' directed at India only'? As far as maintain the takhts are concerned, bottom line is the sangat must be there, population must be there at least to maintain the Gurdwaras, by demanding Khalistan we jeopardise lives of Sikhs in India that brings me back to the first argument that how will khalistanis ensure that Sikh lives in India outside Punjab are safe? 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?
Coming to the economic situation, who is responsible for not bringing technology or manufacturing jobs to Punjab? Who has the responsibility to make Punjab less dependent on agriculture? To your point of being landlocked, please look around the world and you will see countries like Switzerland, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, etc, etc, which don’t have a coastline. So, this no-coastline argument is pretty weak.
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. Now India will certainly not allow free access to the sea then we will have to depend entirely on Pakistan, that will again put khalistan in loose-loose situation. To your first two questions I just have one answer, labour is required in both agriculture & Manufacturing which is currently totally dependent on other Indian States
As for historical or legal arguments, we all know the history of the Sikh kingdom and the fall to the British. Please study as to why the Khalistan idea was propagated. Maybe it had to do with the injustices and broken promises that Sikhs felt they were subjected to by a Hindu majority India. If the issues had been handled more appropriately at the time, this idea of Khalistan would not even have taken hold and tens of thousands would not have needed to have died
Well, again it is interesting to note that you acknowledge British betrayals but then bring your argument back to 'Hindu Majority India' May Ask Ranjitji why don't the UK sikhs (the British Citizens) never ask from their respective Governments about the endless list of betrayals done by them? What are they scared off? The Jalianwalla Bagh, the Nankana Sahib Massacre in 1920s, the partition of Punjab (done by British) and then British participation in Operation Bluestar, the Koh-i-noor diamond.. UK govt has never given any account on why gen dyer still figures in the list of "Distinguished officers" instead of terming him as plain terrorist even till now??? Despite all this, I just see only India in the radar of Khalistanis ironically which is the only country to make a Sikh as the Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staff (two times) and which has the highest Sikh Population, then the millions of Sikh lives lost in pakistan and then Pakistan never allowing Sikhi to flourish in their land.. So now please answer me Why Only India? why not the endless list of injustices done by UK & Pakistan ever pointed out??

Then there is a major point of Punjabi Hindus, who form almost 40% of current Indian Punjab Population how can you be so sure that they will back Khalistan? They never support khalistan that is a fact, the Sikh Kingdom during Maharaja Ranjit Singh functioned smoothly because the Punjabi Hindus as well as Muslims were on his side, you cannot afford such a big dissenting session.. You tell me has any punjabi Hindu in Punjab ever backed Khalistan? if yes then pls do provide the name of that person

From all the rhetorics it just seems that Khalistan is all about 'Selectively hating' one country India and conveniently ignoring crimes of other nations
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 »

I would like to make a request that you not ask to read your comments ‘carefully’. 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.

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.

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.

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.
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.
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.
Nihal Singh Kanakpuria
Power User
Posts: 745
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:17 am

Re: Why Khalistan is a BAD Idea..

Post by Nihal Singh Kanakpuria »

Ranjit S Bhinder wrote:I will begin by saying that I am not an advocate for either side of the issue of Khalistan. However, I would like to answer some of your assertions and sometimes play the devil’s advocate.

Firstly, you are asking any respondents to be open to the other side. I hope that sentiment applies to you also. Sarbat da bhalla and having Khalistan are not divergent issues. One can have both.

It is always difficult to make a separate country. Usually, this occurs by force. Rarely is a country ever split off without violence. I also make an objection to you comparing Sikhi to ISIS because there is no theological basis for gaining territory or maintaining a country based on Sikh principles. One also does not need UN’s permission to form a country.

Demographically, there was a larger Punjab that had been cut into three pieces by a Hindu majority government. You can read all about why that happened. As for the Takths being outside Punjab, why should that be a problem? Not all muslims live in Arabia nor do all catholics live near the Vatican. Since I don’t live in India, can you enlighten us as to who maintains the Takths outside Punjab? Is it Sikh organizations or the Indian government? If Sikhs are maintaining them, why should those buildings fall out of a good state?

Coming to the economic situation, who is responsible for not bringing technology or manufacturing jobs to Punjab? Who has the responsibility to make Punjab less dependent on agriculture? To your point of being landlocked, please look around the world and you will see countries like Switzerland, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, etc, etc, which don’t have a coastline. So, this no-coastline argument is pretty weak.

As for historical or legal arguments, we all know the history of the Sikh kingdom and the fall to the British. Please study as to why the Khalistan idea was propagated. Maybe it had to do with the injustices and broken promises that Sikhs felt they were subjected to by a Hindu majority India. If the issues had been handled more appropriately at the time, this idea of Khalistan would not even have taken hold and tens of thousands would not have needed to have died.
Well said Ranjit Singh Binder Ji

Its good to see breath of fresh air on Sikhnet , There is a dearth of individualistic thinking on Sikhnet forum nowadays , so much so that i dread coming here on Sikhnet.

Totally agree with your statement on Punjab, For most Indians or RSS bhakts (as they are now known in India), Punjab is the divided Punjab state, They would happily consider Pakistan Punjab as part of Punjab in Khalistan discussion but the portions taken away from Punjab to please the Hindu population is not to be considered Punjab.

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.

One of the strategic outcome for Hindus (political party doesn't really matter, Congress was Hindu pleaser before and now its BJP) with Anti-Sikh riots was making some Sikhs become highly appreciative of Hindus as someone who has accommodated Sikhs for all their fallacies and letting them live in India.

For e.g. nowadays Muslims are pounded with the idea that they are anti nationalist or Pakistani unless they agree blindly with majority Hindus, thereby establishing the majority Hindu's as masters and Muslim faith and something they have accommodated so Muslims should be thankful of this.

Last point is that looking at the enormous growth of regional powers in politics i am sure one day or other India will get divided as it was before the British created Union of India. Thereby making Khalistan a reality even if via a different process.

- Nihal
Locked