Khalistan Here On Sa

[amardeep]

Waheguru ji ka Khalsa waheguru ji ki fateh

When one browses through sikhnet or discoversikhi one quickly realises that there is a great emphasis on remembering the events of june and november 1984 as well as the creation of the Khalistan state.

What is the reason that these issues are never remembered and discussed in the same way here on sikhawareness? Dont we all agree that there have been (and probably still are) massive problems with human rights in Punjab.

Is it because people here are anti-khalistan or just that they have other concerns and the issue of 1984 is not first priority.

[SURYADEV]

Not knowing the age group of the forum members. But looking at the Khalistan supporters at gurdwaras one sees that most of the 'never forget 84' t-shirt wearers are young kids who were not even born during that period.Speaking to them they dont know much about sikh history before 1984.

By looking at the kind of threads that are written up on the other sites I think that most of the hot-headed kids end up going there and the more mature people end up here.

I think that most SA members realise that 1/ politics is a v.small part of Sikhi, which is what the members are really into and 2/ Khalistan will not solve our problems. in fact it probs make things worse.

1984 was a major happening for the Sikhs but its not the first time such things have happened and I don't think it will be the last!

Cant speak for others, but yes I am anti-khalistan and 1984 is not a priority!

[chatanga1]

Not knowing the age group of the forum members.

Khalistan will not solve our problems. in fact it probs make things worse.

In fact? Can you please elaborate on how Khalistan will prob make things worse?

And you don't have to be hot-headed to support Khalistan, or young either. Maybe you will be so kind as to give us detals of history before 1984. so those like me will have more understanding of why the Khalistan issue came about in the 1st place.

Edited August 22, 2010 by chatanga1

[Mr Sardar]

[REMOVED]

Edited December 10, 2015 by sarbatdapala

[amardeep]

What about others here on SA ? Shaheediyan, Maha Singh, jvala singh, kam etc?

[Guest]

My personal opinion, definitely not the voice of sikhawareness.com website as there is not one voice of sikhawareness but diversity of sikh sangat views.

We should discuss human rights violations affecting all people of this universe not just human rights affecting sikhs only. What i find disturbing is two things within sikh activism of today- 1. Sikhs have became self absorbed of their own struggle that they don't voice their opinion against human rights violations affecting other communities...thats against ideal of khalsa. 2. Sikh Activism have over emphasized on events of 1984 to the point, there is hardly parchar of pre 1984 to sikh masses- i.e- sikh struggle in mughal era, british era, 1947 killing of sikhs to the youths. One gets an distrubing notion when talking to the youths that real shaheediyan of our panth started from 1984. I am in no way suggesting that there shouldn't be parchar of events of 1984..but what i am suggesting there should be parchar of events of 1984 side by side with pre 1984 sikh struggles in mugal era, british era, 1947 killing of sikhs.

[tonyhp32]

Sarbatdapala,

I think your post reflects the cop out that many Sikhs take when confronted with the issue of Khalistan. Sikh nationalism can be compared with Zionism in the sense that it's objective is to create a state where the Sikhs or Jews can live in peace without fearing for their lives. Israel was not created because there had been a massive religious awakening amongst Jews but because the Jews faced a genocide many times greater that the Ghallughara of 1984. It was this event more than all the congresses and all the debates that led to the creation of Israel. Had there been no holocaust then I doubt that there would have been an Israel today. Quite contary to your assertion that a renewed religiosity amongst Jews led to Israel, it was infact the socialist and in many cases atheist Zionists who were on the forefront of the struggle for Isreal. Thw religious Jews in many cases were opposed to Israel as their belief was that the Messiah would lead all the Jews to Jerusalem and he would be the one to create Israel.

In a sense many religious Sikhs do not support Khalistan even though the Raj Karega Khalsa injunction is probably the most striking example of the impetus toward a theocratic state amongst any religion. The cop out I refer to is that by stating that Sikhs must become 'worthy' of Khalistan is as nonsensical as stating that Raj Karega Khalsa mean rule of the Pure, which rather than just Khalsa it could mean pure Hindus, Pure Muslims and Pure Jews etc.

No one is saying that if you support Khalistan that you have to pick up an AK 47 and face the oppressive forces of India, far from it, to be in support of Khalistan one just needs to become a believer in the fact that Sikhs need to free to decide their own destiny. Open to the idea that one day the situation will develop whereby Sikhs will wrest back their independence. If you do not beleive this then you should be ok with a non-Sikh government such as the UK government nominating it's own people to manage the Gurdwaras. If you do not believe in the sovereignity of a people then you cannot also believe in the sovereignity of your own self or of your household.

If you support Khalistan, then if non-Sikhs ask you whether you are Indian, then you reply 'No, I am a Sikh from Punjab but we are presently ruled by India' There is nothing more likely to give an oppressive government like India nightmares then to have the majority of Sikhs subscribe to the notion of Khalistan.

[Mithar]

Tony Jee, as usual has written a very good post. Agree with him on this 100%

[amardeep]

Neo:

Thats interesting because I would say its the other way around; The shaheeds of 84 are not given enough credit. Look at how the events for instance are not mentioned in the current ardaas prayer

[Xylitol]

seems to me activists of '84 are only overemphasized to youth, not to aum sangat.

personally, i think the various mechanisms sikhs are using to get our state are legit. but the main thing that's missing is that we need more bhagti. the ability to work together too, but that comes from nimrata, which comes from bhagti. we'll get our state. nishaan sahib will fly over lal killa.

[dalsingh101]

but the main thing that's missing is that we need more bhagti. the ability to work together too, but that comes from nimrata, which comes from bhagti.

Bhagti is beautiful and a central core of our faith but I don't believe it is an absolute requirement for developing the ability to work together or humility, or statehood.

Look at Pakistan, they got their own 'Muslim' nation from the political maneuvering of a wine drinking, pork eating Jinnah, no bhagti there. Even the descendants of former slaves have ended up with their own countries.

In all things related to statehood, one thing too many of us keep ignoring is the massive white elephant in the room. We do have serious cohesion issues in the panth. Fact is, if we ever (theoretically) got a nation without resolving these, it is in serious danger of being a grotesque place at its core. What we need to confront is the reason why we continually try and sweep the internal problems under the mat. One big part is that certain sections of the panth define themselves through supremacism and materialism to a massive extent, which informs their attitudes towards others.

It is plain coping out, not to deal with and address these issues NOW and it gives a good indication of what we could expect in terms of progress and structure in a Khalistan with such mindsets being prevalent - no a norm amongst our people.

What happened to all of the hardcore practical idealists? From what I have consistently seen of Jatt behaviour, I wouldn't want to live in any nation where they are a majority. Their own culture turns them into lowly base people. Unrestrained they will undoubtedly go even lower. They could save themselves through adopting a Sikh worldview but it seems apparent that in practical terms, most aren't interested in this.

America, despite its problems, was founded on ideals that all men are equal and this plays a big part in its history and development till this very day and no doubt will continue to do so in future, at least whilst supremacists (the closet kind) can be kept at bay. Our own nationalistic movement (whatever remains of it anyway) today seems more aligned to economic considerations, and that in relation to a section of the Sikh community mainly.

I'm not opposed to the idea of K'stan but I can't really see it being a pleasant place with existing mindsets in the panth. This is what needs to change. The underlying principle of a K'stan needs to be egalitarianism and a meritocracy. Ironically these very principles are ones that the majority of the panth eschews.

Truth is, we can't really trust each other because we are never open like brothers should be. We have too much unspoken of 5hite lurking around amongst us. This has a massive impact on unity and patriotic feelings. Once we nail these cohesion issues, through logic, commonsense and...here it comes.....humanity...we'll be in a much better position to overcome obstacles. Other than that, lets just continue to act like we don't have serious issues that need serious attention, not all of which can be blamed on outsiders. I'm not asking for some perfect utopia, but our society can do a hell of a lot better than it does now.

Edited August 24, 2010 by dalsingh101

[Mr Sardar]

[REMOVED]

Edited December 10, 2015 by sarbatdapala

[Maha Singh]

What has changed since 1699 that has made a separt Sikh state a neccessity?

[dalsingh101]

I would say not true, you need to meet more amritdhari Sikhs majority in UK, Canada, America support it, it is more those who feel they are Indian and Sikh somewhat by culture (drinking etc.) who do not support it.

That isn't the impression I get. Many people who are monay and drink i.e. those who may be described as 'everyday Panjabis' also seem to support the notion of Khalistan. You have to realise that the idea is not just a religion based but also one with an economics basis. So people could be motivated by either argument. Often the two are conflated. I think of late people have been under the impression that the likelihood of achieving K'stan is increasingly remote under current circs and are thus not vocal about it.

Truth is that India is the darling of the west right now - so you'd be hard pressed to find much enthusiasm for a Sikh homeland from that quarter and these people's domination on world affairs means that matters. The only people I notice mentioning it really are far right groups such as the BNP. They obviously have their own agenda to do so and are more likely to be playing the divide and conquer tactic than really giving two hoots about Sikhs. Plus they imagine it will help them realise their goals of shipping darkies back home en masse and making 'Great' Britain white again. Bringing back the good old glory days...yada yadda yadda. The fact that the only outside people really speaking of it are those generally despised and on the fringes of western society is telling.

If you think about it, given the disparity in numbers, you may actually find that numerically speaking, more people who could be considered lapse may be supporting the notion of a Sikh homeland than those we would deem as religious?

[Mr Sardar]

[REMOVED]

Edited December 10, 2015 by sarbatdapala

[dalsingh101]

Ok please define religious then. Have you seen a khalistan (1984) rally, it is mostly keshdhari check out flickr.com

Well maybe you should define religious? If it means wearing a turban then I have met a bundle of guys who wear turbans who aren't religious at all. Even some of these aren't anti-Khalistan.

I mentioned before how Jinnah, who was a pig eating, drinking musla who helped bring about the creation of the Muslim homeland of Pakistan was not exactly religious, so it isn't like this is some new phenomena. Again, my point is that K'stan is not a notion limited to the religious domain.

and youtube for rallys they do one every year in trafalaguar square its all "religious" people. I have been to one to see the masses who are pro-khalistan.

I've been to one too. I also speak to masses of those who would be considered nonreligious by many, and many do support the idea of K'stan. I'm just saying, be careful not to think that only those who conspicuously attend rallies or look a certain way are sympathetic to the idea. The truth is not as simple as that.

Edited August 25, 2010 by dalsingh101

[Mr Sardar]

[REMOVED]

Edited December 10, 2015 by sarbatdapala

[dalsingh101]

im asking you what you mean by religious. your still using these words without laying down your basic assumptions.

I guess I mean wearing the external roop, regularly praying and abstaining from certain things i.e. booze and possibly meat. Is that clear?

Do you suggest people who believe in khalistan are not religious i.e. kaffir and people who dont are true believers of Sikhism

It is a bit weird of you to use Musla terminology like kaffir but no, what I am saying is that not everyone who has sympathy for or supports the notion of Khalistan are the religious type as described above. I think people from a more diverse range of backgrounds actually fall into this category - that is just speaking from what I have encountered over the years. For the record I have also met many Amritdharis and keshdharis that are what we could describe as vehemently against the idea of K'stan. And I seriously mean vehemently here - they get very upset when discussing the topic.

I may be wrong, but the impression I get is that there is no linear relationship between being supportive towards the notion of a Sikh homeland and being religious. In any case, if what you seem to be suggesting is true (it could be, I may be under a misapprehension), the religious K'stanis need to factor in that the majority of the population of a theoretical Sikh country will be non-practicing, especially in terms of the external roop aspect of the faith and keeping nitnem. The reality is that these people will make up the majority in any new state, at least in the beginning - if things remain as they are right now.

Edited August 25, 2010 by dalsingh101

[chatanga1]

What has changed since 1699 that has made a separt Sikh state a neccessity?

Nothing has changed, that's why we should use the example of the Sikhs who set up the 1st Sikh Raj, 10 years after 1699, and create another Sikh Raj, Khalistan.

[DTF]

More than the actual achievement of a state, its the free and irrepressible spirit that the movement represents that is much more important in the long run. You have to understand that this movement was not started by the whim of a man, it was a duty assigned to Sant Jarnail Singh ji by Guru Gobind Singh Sahib to re-awaken the kaum. It showed that we will not let even one zulm be perpetuated on us, that we are capable of answering any attack on our Guru, the khalsa saroop, our brothers and sisters.

This blessed warrior spirit is what enabled us to withstand and rout the most ruthless enemies. Its this spirit that Sikhs, unfortunately, were lacking prior to emergence of the movement, and are again lacking in this day and age.

Its disheartening when our own brothers dont even support the idea of of having our own nation state, it's self-hating and weakness in my opinion.

I dont really care when we get it[kstan], but the idea behind it that keeps the blood of Singhs warm, and anakh intact, is what I hold dear.

Edited August 25, 2010 by DTF

[dalsingh101]

I don’t really care when we get it[k’stan], but the idea behind it that keeps the blood of Singhs warm, and anakh intact, is what I hold dear.

Thing is, our [societies] progression is not solely or entirely dependent on achieving K'stan. There are still a thousand and one things we could be doing to strengthen and improve our society with or without it. Sometimes I think our people just make excuses not to face up to things we have going on between us that are shameful and no ones fault but our own. We can deal with these with or without a state and if you think about it, logically speaking, the very act of resolving these issues would put us in a much stronger position for K'stan in any case. We had moral high ground in our past. Now we are more money, caste obsessed than the next man and we like to kill our daughters too. That's a good look in the world, yes?

We need world class leadership. Frankly in this day and age that means someone who can interface with other nations in a sophisticated way without becoming their chumcha. So those pendu types in the Akali Dal wont do. Plus, to be honest, most K'stani brothers are pretty simple minded. All these years have passed by and they just seem really useless and totally lacking in every department needed for statehood.

How about this? Whilst we are out here scattered to the winds courtesy of the past actions of the 'honourable' East India Company in Panjab, we should be keeping our eyes open to how the world works outside of the pinds that form our homeland. One thing I am pretty certain of, the type of leadership required for Sikh statehood in an imagined future, wont emerge from an unsophisticated village background. Things are way too globalised for that now.

Edited August 25, 2010 by dalsingh101

[kdsingh80]

I may be wrong, but the impression I get is that there is no linear relationship between being supportive towards the notion of a Sikh homeland and being religious. In any case, if what you seem to be suggesting is true (it could be, I may be under a misapprehension), the religious K'stanis need to factor in that the majority of the population of a theoretical Sikh country will be non-practicing, especially in terms of the external roop aspect of the faith and keeping nitnem.

The big question of if the Present Demography of Punjab will remain the same then how that place will become khalistan If the system of Democracy is followed?In Punjab hindu's are 40% which are very strong numbers if Elections will be held then a Badal like akali dal or congress like Party will rule that place and That place will more be Punjabistan than khalistan.

The other option is ask hindu's to leave Punjab and in Retaliation they will ask sikhs all over India to leave that places.Now this type option is not within Gurmat ideals.

So there is no way that Khalistan is going to be democratic place.Dictatorship is the only option .

[DTF]

What you say is very true dalsingh. We need a balanced and well-rounded approach to all Panthic issues. Many of the kstanis today are miles from the ideals from when it started, probably the reason why many of our own brothers feel disillusioned by the whole concept of statehood. Their narrowed approach leaves us wondering what about this, what about that?

A good example of what we should be doing is taking place in British Columbia, Canada. The youth started a very positive and non-political movement to win control of public Gurdwaras through elections. Each Gurdwara was managed so effectively after the election victory that the local sangat and even their committee-uncle opponents they had dislodged congratulated them on their success. The youth used the Gurdwara funds to pay off debt, make renovations, bring in wonderful programs like top parchariks, exciting childrens programs, hot meals for the homeless, greater involvement with the local goray etc. Future projects include marriage counselling, womens shelter, and more. Along with regular seminars and workshops, they have made a huge grass-roots level impact, without even touching the political stuff.

When they show such great leadership and bring so much positive change, naturally the Panths situation will improve.

To me, khalistan is all about caring for our kaums welfare and future. Of course we should ideally have a much more virtous kaum. With so many vices afflicting us, it seems we need to worry more of the immediate dangers in our house. I believe it was Baba Attar Singh Ji who stated that when all Sikhs start getting up at Amritvela and doing bhagti, then raaj-bhag will follow.

Edited August 25, 2010 by DTF

[dalsingh101]

The other option is ask hindu's to leave Punjab and in Retaliation they will ask sikhs all over India to leave that places.Now this type option is not within Gurmat ideals.

We already lost a lot of important places to Paks. Lets not have the same thing happen again with Patna Sahib, Hazoor Sahib etc. Personally I think the plan should be to dePanjabise Sikhi a bit more and open it up to receive mass converts and try and turn large swathes of India into Sikh country. Panjab should be the model state of India, not the junkie infested place people are fleeing from.

I always thought Sikhi should be the message of progression and egalitarianism in an Indian context. It should be appealing to many like this. But I guess there is a fat chance of thinking along these lines when many of our own lot can outdo any Bahman in terms of caste narrow mindedness and insularity. Sikhism should now spread from its rural base and go back to its sophisticated, urbane original nature.

Sikhi was influential outside of the Panjab in the past - it was spreading like wildfire - that needs to happen again in India. We should be preoccupied with upping numbers and molding people in our quom to be productive and advantageous to us as a society, without having to resort to oppression like zulmi dogs.

Edited August 25, 2010 by dalsingh101

[laalsingh]

We already lost a lot of important places to Paks. Lets not have the same thing happen again with Patna Sahib, Hazoor Sahib etc. Personally I think the plan should be to dePanjabise Sikhi a bit more and open it up to receive mass converts and try and turn large swathes of India into Sikh country. Panjab should be the model state of India, not the junkie infested place people are fleeing from.

I always thought Sikhi should be the message of progression and egalitarianism in an Indian context. It should be appealing to many like this. But I guess there is a fat chance of thinking along these lines when many of our own lot can outdo any Bahman in terms of caste narrow mindedness and insularity. Sikhism should now spread from its rural base and go back to its sophisticated, urbane original nature.

Sikhi was influential outside of the Panjab in the past - it was spreading like wildfire - that needs to happen again in India. We should be preoccupied with upping numbers and molding people in our quom to be productive and advantageous to us as a society, without having to resort to oppression like zulmi dogs.

I don't understand why we should limit beautiful Sikhi to a small geographical boundary, when whole world is open to us. DePanjabising it, is a start.