Khalistan???

[jbudwal]

I would like to address an important issue about state of punjab. Several sources indicate that the Sikh's want a seperate state from India which will be called Khalistan. I do not understand what these Sikhs are thinking of. There really is not much of a difference between hindu and sikh's. Is this some sort of Media propaganda or are the Sikh's actually thinking of sovereignty.

Our great Guru's kept India as a whole and what right does it give us ask for seperation. Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji travelled to many places in India and helped the suffering humanity and to show them the path of righteousness. Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji fought the mughal empire for the sake of religion for everyone in India not just for Sikh's but Hindus as well. Sri Guru Ram Singh Ji stood up against the British Empire and their sikhs sacrificed their lives for the freedom of India.

Anyone who thinks of Khalistan should think twice before making any wrongful decision that they might regret later on. I do not think the Sikh's as a whole would survive. The economy and the society would take a huge downfall. Will our Guru's be happy if we take these kinds of actions?

What is even sad is, our Sikhi panth is divided as well. We have various Sikhi sects like KALI's (ones who believe in the granth sahib as their guru), Radaswani's (believing in sants) and Namdhari's ( believe in a living guru). The question if the Sikh's cannot live together as a whole, then how can you live in a independent state together???? The Sikh's cannot even agree on what or who is a true Guru. Sikhs fight against each others point of view yet they achieve nothing.

The bottom line, Khalistan will not be achieved and if it was achieved, it would not even last that long. I do not think that our Guru's would allow such a thing. As a Namdhari Sikh, i am better off following the orders of my Guru where i can live in peace and in harmony.

Anyone who supports Khalistan, I wish them all the best!

Sat Sri Akal (Dhan Guru Gobind Singh Ji Sahai and Dhan Guru Ram Singh Ji Sahai)

[Sukhi]

jbudwal... this is so freaky. i was gonna put up the EXACT same topic... with the EXACT same message.

[palm_w1]

There really is not much of a difference between hindu and sikh's. Is this some sort of Media propaganda or are the Sikh's actually thinking of sovereignty.

only some sikhs want a khalistan (in the same way that even a few hindus do). when u talk of differences between sikhs and hindus there are many, even if we ignore the basic differences of different religions (in the conventional sense), history shows these divisions as were demonstrated by the attacks on darbar sahib and the massacre of sikhs in delhi (and elsewhere) by hindu mobs. were they showing there similarities by murdering sikhs in cold blood? and this is before we even take into account the genocide of sikhs which has been taking place since indian 'independance'

Our great Guru's kept India as a whole and what right does it give us ask for seperation.

their was no such thing as india at the time of the gurus, india is a very recent construct. also i don't see how the gurus kept 'india' as a whole, were they a political force in 'india' @ the time?

Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji travelled to many places in India and helped the suffering humanity and to show them the path of righteousness.

once again india never existed. also guru nanak dev ji went to many places, including mecca for example. should we claim that as part of the indian construct also. who is to judge the path of righteousness at the moment? it could be argued that those that take up arms against indias paramilitary forces are righteous.

Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji fought the mughal empire for the sake of religion for everyone in India not just for Sikh's but Hindus as well.

guru gobind singh ji fought the mughal empire because it was repressive, also the mughal empire was not in control of the whole of 'india'.

Sri Guru Ram Singh Ji stood up against the British Empire and their sikhs sacrificed their lives for the freedom of India.

good stuff but i wouldn't class him as a guru.

Anyone who thinks of Khalistan should think twice before making any wrongful decision that they might regret later on. I do not think the Sikh's as a whole would survive.

personally i don't think sikhi will survive in india as it is.

The economy and the society would take a huge downfall. Will our Guru's be happy if we take these kinds of actions?

personally i think punjab would become the next economic miracle if it went independant. instead of being economically shackled by india it could stand on its own feet and industry would be unhindered by the current IAS discrimination against economic development in punjab.

What is even sad is, our Sikhi panth is divided as well. We have various Sikhi sects like KALI's (ones who believe in the granth sahib as their guru), Radaswani's (believing in sants) and Namdhari's ( believe in a living guru). The question if the Sikh's cannot live together as a whole, then how can you live in a independent state together???? The Sikh's cannot even agree on what or who is a true Guru. Sikhs fight against each others point of view yet they achieve nothing.

if they can live together in india why not anywhere else?

The bottom line, Khalistan will not be achieved and if it was achieved, it would not even last that long.

agree with first point, not 2nd

I do not think that our Guru's would allow such a thing.

who knows?

As a Namdhari Sikh, i am better off following the orders of my Guru where i can live in peace and in harmony.

congratulations

Anyone who supports Khalistan, I wish them all the best!

i am sure many khalistanis will be glad to have your blessings.

btw, how come u guys were gonna put up the same message? is it sum sort of circular going round or something?

[Mehtab Singh]

When Guru Gobind Singh Jee gave darshan to Bhai Rama Singh Jee, He said that Khalsa Raj was inevitable, but only when the Khalsa stands upto its true meaning, and becomes a true Khalsa. A Shaheed Singh also appeared to Bhai Sahib and told him loads of details about Khalsa Raj. Check here for more : http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...opic.php?t=4460

Its not that Khalistan won't be able to stand on its own. Its just that once we are true Khalsa in the real sense, thats when we will be invincible and undefeated. If you wanna doubt something stated clearly by Gurujee Himself, and even a Shaheed Singh, both of whom told this to a great GurSikh, feel free.

[commander]

I would like to address an important issue about state of punjab. Several sources indicate that the Sikh's want a seperate state from India which will be called Khalistan. I do not understand what these Sikhs are thinking of.

Not all Sikhs agree on what exactly is "Khalistan". You need to study up on the history of Punjab since the partition to understand that there are many legitimate demands that Punjabi Sikhs have (and still do).

There really is not much of a difference between hindu and sikh's.

I am a Sikh, not a Hindu. You can call yourself whatever you want, just don't proclaim it for the rest of us.

Our great Guru's kept India as a whole and what right does it give us ask for seperation.

That's what I call thinking like an ant. Imagine the master of the universe, Guru Nanak Nirankaar giving a hoot about a man-made line separating a piece of infinitesimal land into a 'country'. Do you think scores of Sikhs who made the ultimate sacrifice of giving up their lives did it for 'India'?

Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji fought the mughal empire for the sake of religion for everyone in India not just for Sikh's but Hindus as well.

Guru Gobind Singh fought for freedom, period. It's insulting to imply he did it for 'India' - which didn't even exist back then

"Sri Guru" Ram Singh Ji stood up against the British Empire and their sikhs sacrificed their lives for the freedom of India.

I do not recognize "Ram Singh" as a Guru. However, do you think that they sacrificed so much for present-day thankless 'India' or did they have a different idea of what an independent Bharat would be like?

Anyone who thinks of Khalistan should think twice before making any wrongful decision that they might regret later on. I do not think the Sikh's as a whole would survive. The economy and the society would take a huge downfall. Will our Guru's be happy if we take these kinds of actions?

Again, ant-like thinking. Are you just worried about saving your own skin? As long as I can practise my faith freely, I have no desire to label a piece of land. When my freedom is threatened, I will fight for it, as is my right to do so.

What is even sad is, our Sikhi panth is divided as well. We have various Sikhi sects like KALI's (ones who believe in the granth sahib as their guru), Radaswani's (believing in sants) and Namdhari's ( believe in a living guru). The question if the Sikh's cannot live together as a whole, then how can you live in a independent state together???? The Sikh's cannot even agree on what or who is a true Guru. Sikhs fight against each others point of view yet they achieve nothing.

You've brought up many points there, but you will have to elaborate if you want more discussion on them.

The bottom line, Khalistan will not be achieved and if it was achieved, it would not even last that long. I do not think that our Guru's would allow such a thing. As a Namdhari Sikh, i am better off following the orders of my Guru where i can live in peace and in harmony.

That's contradictory, though it's interesting to think about what Guru ji would want the Panth to do today.

Anyone who supports Khalistan, I wish them all the best!

Yeah, whatever this "Khalistan" is

[commander]

jbudwal... this is so freaky. i was gonna put up the EXACT same topic... with the EXACT same message.

That's not exactly encouraging :shock:

[Sukhi]

lol... lemme explain my views...

i'm not a naamdhari or radhaswami, etc.

but... i don't believe that khalistan is necessary for sikhi. or even possible. and i'm talking in the sense of political borders.

sikhi first of all is a religion. not a political party. i've said this many times and i'll say it again... i don't believe religion should become the basis of political policies or even the basis of a country regardless of the fact that other religions are. (and yes, i'm aware of the fact that there are a bunch of political parties that claim to be based on sikhi...)

for purposes of this post, the khalistan i'm going to refer to is the political khalistan.

for sikhi to become the base for khalistan would mean that we're trying to define sikhi in concrete political terms. it would be creating limits on what sikhi means even though we all know that sikhi is limitless.

palm brought up the differences between hindu's and sikhs by bringing up the attack on sri darbar sahib. i know a lot of people believe that the existence of khalistan would probably protect sikhi from these kinds of attacks and possibly even help protect the integrity of our religion. i tend to oppose this kind of ideology because khalistan will probably not do any such thing.

if we make a khalistan, it's probably gonna make the sikhs sitting ducks for more attacks and easier for other groups to try to degrade our people and religion.

i agree that in the time of our Guru's there was no such thing as an India. but, i also think that the Guru's never really associated with political issues in the sense that they didn't try to invade other territories as far as i can tell for personal profit. i might be wrong. but apart from this, as far as i see, their vision of khalistan seemed to be associated with the people that devoted their lives to the Truth. once again, i might be (and probably am) wrong about this.

i believe that Sikhi's survival doesn't rely on a political khalistan. it relies on individuals such as you and i making efforts to keep things going.

as for Khalsa Raj... only God knows when that's gonna happen. but ppl seem to take this to mean that the khalsa's gonna rule over the world. from what i've seen in Gurbani so far, a lot of what has been said is metaphorical. it's possible that the Khalsa will rule the world in the sense of political power. but i think it's more important for the Khalsa to be able to rule themselves. what i mean is that a sikh should have complete control over himself and his mind. but tha's just my opinion. i might be (and probably am) wrong about this.

ok... that's about all i could think of so far... i know a lot of it is probably rambling, but i went through to look at the points made and i tried to clarify my own thoughts on each, because i've got different ideas than jbudwal's on why a political khalistan doesn't make sense to me than.

[commander]

...

Thank you for explaining your views. If I was present before the fall of the British empire and was asked if the Sikhs wanted a separate nation, I would have been hard-pressed to say no. What would you have said?

Currently, I do not endorse the idea of a separate nation for the Sikhs. However, there are numerous advantages to having a separate nation that identifies itself with Sikhi. For instance:

- France probably would never make the mistake it has

- People all over the world woudn't confuse us with Muslims

- All Sikhs of this World would have a place to call home

- We would protect minority rights

- No one would die of hunger; poverty would be almost eliminated

- Look at Israel as an example (Yes, they have their problems)

Ofcourse, given the nature of Human beings (and the state of affairs in Punjab now), there's a good chance if we had a separate nation we would be worse off than we are now, but I would have liked the chance. I sure would have.

[palm_w1]

it would be interesting to know how peoples perceptions of khalistan are shaped. to all the people that know anything about this imaginary state of khalistan how did u come to your views? what makes u think it would be a fundamentalist sikh state? if that is what u believe of course.

are your views shaped mainly by the media? lets face it most indian journalism is strongly biased in indias favour. even all the punjabi press with the exception of awaze quam is anti-khalistan with a venom.

or is it shaped by your views of what u imagine a supposed khalistan to be like? what ur parents, friends, jatha and peers tell u?

has ne1 actually read the constitution of khalistan here?

i percieve khalistan to be a state of freedom and liberalness, not a sikh state per se. just that sikhs would be able to live in freedom there unlike in india at the moment. it does not mean that there is no room for others.

[palm_w1]

sikhi first of all is a religion. not a political party. i've said this many times and i'll say it again

i was under the impression that politics and dharam were inseperable in sikhi. hence the locating of the akal takht within the darbar sahib complex.

for sikhi to become the base for khalistan would mean that we're trying to define sikhi in concrete political terms. it would be creating limits on what sikhi means even though we all know that sikhi is limitless.

its up to us, the sikhs of today to decide and define what khalistan is and wether sikhi should be the basis for it. also i don't see why having a political framework based upon sikhi would limit sikhi.

attack on sri darbar sahib. . . people believe that the existence of khalistan would probably protect sikhi from these kinds of attacks . . . . . i tend to oppose this kind of ideology because khalistan will probably not do any such thing.

again maybe your right. but one thing is for sure sikhi definately isn't protected from these kinds of attacks in india as has been amply demonstrated by history. so why not see if another political solution would be better as it can't be worse than what were under at the moment, where the indian govt finances people like bhindrawale then attacks sikhs on mass to kill their own creation. also even though i respect your view that u believe khalistan would not protect sikhi it would be interesting to know how u came to this conclusion.

if we make a khalistan, it's probably gonna make the sikhs sitting ducks for more attacks and easier for other groups to try to degrade our people and religion.

i disagree. why will sikhs become a target for attacks. undoubhtedly india and probably even pakistan would try and destablise any such country but once they see the benefits they themselves recieve in increased trade and security i don't see why they would carry on. also how would other groups degrade sikhi if there was a khalistan. for e.g. britain and iraq are currently at war. britian is a christian country in the sense that the official religion is christainty. iraq was secular but is overwhelmingly muslim. even though they are (were?) at war does this degrade either christianty or islam?

i also think that the Guru's never really associated with political issues in the sense that they didn't try to invade other territories as far as i can tell for personal profit. i might be wrong. but apart from this, as far as i see, their vision of khalistan seemed to be associated with the people that devoted their lives to the Truth. once again, i might be (and probably am) wrong about this.

in my eyes the gurus weren't interested in personal profit however they definately were interested in politics as it is political and military power that ensures survival. for e.g. in mughal politics the gurus supported khusru to become the succesor of the mughal empire. they also fought against certain mughal forces to reduce their political power over certain areas, and hence alleviate the tyranny they were causing.

i believe that Sikhi's survival doesn't rely on a political khalistan. it relies on individuals such as you and i making efforts to keep things going.

its a lot easier to keep things going when u have political backing. acces to funding, state protection, guarantees of security, a base, non-prejudicial media reporting etc etc. for e.g. look at the current issue in france. what can the sikhs there do? short of commiting terrorist acts, sweet F.A. if there was a soverign khalistan at least these people would have somewhere to go to if they felt their liberties were being infringed unduly. also it would lead to a lot more diplomatic pressure on the french and a bigger media spotlight on the plight of sikhs.

it's possible that the Khalsa will rule the world in the sense of political power. but i think it's more important for the Khalsa to be able to rule themselves. what i mean is that a sikh should have complete control over himself and his mind. but tha's just my opinion. i might be (and probably am) wrong about this.

from my understanding of punjabi and the context of the word khalsa it could simply refer to those who are 'pure'. does that necassarily mean sikhs? i think khalsa is derived from the word khalis which means pure. maybe i am wrong.

finally i hope no1 takes this personally, i post to challenge peoples conventional views on khalistan, those both in favour and against. this is beacuse i believe most ppls views are based on misconceptions about what khalistan and punjabi separatism is. neway be glad u can openly express those views, unless u live in punjab of course.

i had an article by Jasdev Singh Rai of the SHRG. it was quite interesting and was what made me really think about khalistan and india. if i can find it i will post it. what do others think of him as a speaker?

[Sukhi]

Thank you for explaining your views. If I was present before the fall of the British empire and was asked if the Sikhs wanted a separate nation, I would have been hard-pressed to say no. What would you have said?

i have no idea how i would have responded. but i can tell you that today, i'm not interested in seeing a separate nation for sikhs. personally speaking, i see sikhi as a really tolerant and peaceful religion. we're supposed to be able to get along with other people and races. why would we need to segregate ourselves from them to be able to do be peaceful people? it just doesn't make sense to me.

i was under the impression that politics and dharam were inseperable in sikhi. hence the locating of the akal takht within the darbar sahib complex.

i'm guessing ur talking about the idea of miri/piri. yeah, i agree on that too. just not when it comes to a separate sikh nation. and the reason for that is because most sikhs can't even agree on what the true version of sikhi is anymore. people argue about everything from eating meat and drinking to things like tattoos, cutting hair, piercings, etc. etc. etc. how would you resolve this issues to ensure that all sikhs feel welcome in their own nation?

i do believe that sikhi should guide us in both material and spiritual matters. but how does one determine what the right version is when there are so many different "visions"? and it's not even that these things have solutions. i'm sure they do and i'm pretty sure that it'd work as well if khalistan were to come into existence, but at what cost?

i can't quite see or agree with the idea of a political khalistan...

its up to us, the sikhs of today to decide and define what khalistan is and wether sikhi should be the basis for it. also i don't see why having a political framework based upon sikhi would limit sikhi.

it's easy for ppl to get lost in the details and forget about the bigger picture. that's one of my biggest issues with why i wouldn't want to associate sikhi with a political framework.

again maybe your right. but one thing is for sure sikhi definately isn't protected from these kinds of attacks in india as has been amply demonstrated by history. so why not see if another political solution would be better as it can't be worse than what were under at the moment, where the indian govt finances people like bhindrawale then attacks sikhs on mass to kill their own creation. also even though i respect your view that u believe khalistan would not protect sikhi it would be interesting to know how u came to this conclusion.

there's nothing wrong with making an attempt to try to protect sikhi. i'm not gonna pretend that sikh's are loved the world over. we're not. and at this moment it's harder for people to target sikhs or rather punjab because we're still associated with india. as a separate nation, i'd think it would become so much easier for people to target us. tha's just the way i think. call me odd...

i disagree. why will sikhs become a target for attacks. undoubhtedly india and probably even pakistan would try and destablise any such country but once they see the benefits they themselves recieve in increased trade and security i don't see why they would carry on. also how would other groups degrade sikhi if there was a khalistan. for e.g. britain and iraq are currently at war. britian is a christian country in the sense that the official religion is christainty. iraq was secular but is overwhelmingly muslim. even though they are (were?) at war does this degrade either christianty or islam?

i said something about this up above somewhere...

in my eyes the gurus weren't interested in personal profit however they definately were interested in politics as it is political and military power that ensures survival. for e.g. in mughal politics the gurus supported khusru to become the succesor of the mughal empire. they also fought against certain mughal forces to reduce their political power over certain areas, and hence alleviate the tyranny they were causing.

yup, they did. but the underlying idea was to oppose the tyranny, not create their own kingdom.

its a lot easier to keep things going when u have political backing. acces to funding, state protection, guarantees of security, a base, non-prejudicial media reporting etc etc. for e.g. look at the current issue in france. what can the sikhs there do? short of commiting terrorist acts, sweet F.A. if there was a soverign khalistan at least these people would have somewhere to go to if they felt their liberties were being infringed unduly. also it would lead to a lot more diplomatic pressure on the french and a bigger media spotlight on the plight of sikhs.

but why isn't it possible for them to get backing from the international sikh community? why isn't it possible for sikhs around the world to push for support? why does it have to be a sovereign khalistan? can other nations not lend a helping hand to sikhs in need?

from my understanding of punjabi and the context of the word khalsa it could simply refer to those who are 'pure'. does that necassarily mean sikhs? i think khalsa is derived from the word khalis which means pure. maybe i am wrong

u might be right.

finally i hope no1 takes this personally, i post to challenge peoples conventional views on khalistan, those both in favour and against. this is beacuse i believe most ppls views are based on misconceptions about what khalistan and punjabi separatism is. neway be glad u can openly express those views, unless u live in punjab of course.

it's not a personal thing until you start insulting others for what they believe in, which no one has done yet (thank god... just wait til jumka see's this thread... )...

i like ur posts. not necessarily cuz ur challenging my views, but ur probably helping me clarify them even more for myself.

BUT

i have pretty fuzzy ideas on khalistan neways, and i'm more interested in learning a bit more about "khalistan" and other ppl's opinions on it.

[Infernal Monk]

Um.. I have a question. About the first post: The person mentioned "sects" of sikhi, and one Kali? Kind of confused by that, I thought that those that took Guru Granth Sahib to be the guru were Sikhs, and the other groups were sects as they emerged much later. Also I ask this because in order to have a sect, you need something original for it to come out from.

Not trying to degrade anyone, just questioning because that is what I always believed.

[Sukhi]

i'm not even goin there cuz i have no idea what ur talking about. as far as i know we only have one Guru and that would be Guru Granth Sahib ji. so...

[Mehtab Singh]

This question of Khalsa Raj once popped up even in the court of Guru Gobind Singh. If anyone bothered to read http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...opic.php?t=4460 , you would come across a paragraph that reads something like this :

Giani Pritam Singh once mentioned that even during the time of Guru Gobind Singh, the question of Khalsa Raj came up. Gurujee carried out a test. Sweet rice, with many other expensive and delicious ingredients was prepared and was spread on a white sheet. About a dozen dogs were then brought in. The dogs barked and snarled at each other but none ate the rice. They just spread the rice around in dirt with their feet and kept snarling at each other. Similarly, Bhaisahib says, the Singhs are not understanding the value of Gurbani. They quarrel for leadership, but until the Khalsa begins to observe the Rehit, recite Gurbani and do Naam Simran, Khalsa will not get its own raj.

Khalsa Raj is inevitable as Gurujee Himself said to Bhai Rama Singh Jee. But only after we are Khalsa in the true sense!

[Gabbar]

Very Good points on Khalistan.... both by Mehtab and sukhi_v.

Khalsa does mean pure, yes you are right. So it doesnt necessarily mean sikhs... it means PURE for everyone in each religion... when peace and PURENES rule the world.

Agree with the point of sikhi is for the whole UNIVERSE, why limit it to one small section in Northern india..?

And just look at the pangey that happen in the Gurdwara's around the country, if sikhs cant even run their own gurdwaray and set up constructive programs for the youth, what chance as a WHOLE country got?

Would everyone get up go and live in 'Khalistan'... i doubt it somehow...

THink about it, all that effort and money spent on Khalistan, imagine if we focused that on feeding the world, all those people in Africa who do not have clean water... where HIV prevails..... where each day is survivial... makes you think hanna...

Anyway, Sikhi is for everyone so spread, share and LOVE!

[Mehtab Singh]

Very Good points on Khalistan.... both by Mehtab and sukhi_v.

Khalsa does mean pure, yes you are right. So it doesnt necessarily mean sikhs... it means PURE for everyone in each religion... when peace and PURENES rule the world.

Agree with the point of sikhi is for the whole UNIVERSE, why limit it to one small section in Northern india..?

And just look at the pangey that happen in the Gurdwara's around the country, if sikhs cant even run their own gurdwaray and set up constructive programs for the youth, what chance as a WHOLE country got?

Would everyone get up go and live in 'Khalistan'... i doubt it somehow...

THink about it, all that effort and money spent on Khalistan, imagine if we focused that on feeding the world, all those people in Africa who do not have clean water... where HIV prevails..... where each day is survivial... makes you think hanna...

Anyway, Sikhi is for everyone so spread, share and LOVE!

nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we do need to be true Sikhs and then Gurujee will Himself bless us with KHALISTAN !!!!!!

[Gabbar]

Not Khalistan.... cuz thats not important.

God will bless us with peace and mukhti!

[Sukhi]

nicely said Gabbar...

i just wanted to say something else... if khalsa means pure and khalistan is for the pure ones, then it's gonna be mighty tough to find people that can live up to that name. i highly doubt that there are many people pure enough to be called khalistanis in our time. so perhaps it'd be better to spend time becoming worthy of being called the khalsa before actually creating a place for ourselves.

and i'm done now... i think... possibly...

[Infernal Monk]

r u sure? lol

Well I agree with what has been said about bettering ourselves and not worrying about a physical place for us. Sikhi teaches universal brotherhood, we should embrace all others and live side by side. The Sikh nation is wherever there are Sikhs to uphold its values. That said, the future of sikhi does not depend as much on a piece of land as it does on the sangat.

[Sardu]

Oh GOD... how many times... we will discuss the same topic and for how long?? Sikhs should be known for better reasons than khalistan.

I invite everybody Chalo, Lets live in today! Lets be happy.

[Sukdev Singh Jhamka]

opps wrong post