Why some of the sikhs deny creation of khalistan?

Arvind · #19 (**permalink**) 17-Aug-2007, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akashdeep Singh

Moreover, you will be surprised to know that some countries actually give better treatment to people who come from other countries as compared to the treatment that one gets even by changing from one State to the other in India.

Veer ji,

Could you please provide names of those countries for our benefit!

Regards, Arvind.

Neet84 · #20 (**permalink**) 17-Aug-2007, 01:19 AM

I am against all forms of human rights violations whether it be carried out by the British or Indian Govt. Being an active member of Amnesty International for me is a key part of my role in putting Sikhi into practice. People forget that both miri and piri are important; fight against social injustice is paramount. I am by no means a baptised or even Keshadhari Sikh but that doesn't stop me from practising the ideals of Sikhi.

Khalistan the Sikh homeland is not a destiny, it is a necessity. Guru Gobind Singh Ji said: "Raj Bina Nahin Dharam Chale Hain, Dharam Bina Sab Dalle Malle Hain" which literally means that sovereignty is a MUST in order for a religion to survive; otherwise religion perishes.

Guru Ji taught us to fight for the truth and for justice. If the only purpose of Sikhi is to meditate and accept the will of God then what was the point of Guru Hargobind Ji building Akaal Takhat Sahib? The whole point is to fight for the truth while doing Naam Simran and following Sikhi.

Sikhs are fighting to keep their distinct identity, to save their religion and to keep Sikhi alive. If that means a separate country then why not? Guru Gobind Singh Ji said "Koi Kisi Ko Raaj Na Dehain, Jo Lehain Nij Bal Se Lehain" which means "no one gives one freedom and sovereignty, the only way to gain independence is through a show of power."

Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-talk/16614-why-some-sikhs-deny-creation-khalistan.html

Extending my premise forward to other contexts; I also believe that Scotland has a right to self-determination despite being born and bought up in England!

Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=16614

The Khalistan debate has often been hijacked by extremists, do not let them dictate the future of Khalistan. What if it wasn't viewed as a theocratic state but a pluralistic state that celebrated diversity and equality in the real sense? Lets progress the debate forward as opposed to avoiding what faces us.

Huck_Finn · #21 (**permalink**) 17-Aug-2007, 02:03 AM

thanks Akashdeep veerji

not to sound boastful but i have travelled quite far off, but have not come across any place or country where i feel more comfortable than in Mumbai, Madras or Calcutta

Huck_Finn · #22 (**permalink**) 17-Aug-2007, 05:06 AM

<<"Raj Bina Nahin Dharam Chale Hain, Dharam Bina Sab Dalle Malle Hain" which literally means that sovereignty is a MUST in order for a religion to survive; otherwise religion perishes.>>

Religion exists in minds, and not in theocracies.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=16614
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=16614

Ii rest my case as we have different perceptions of religion.

What Guru ji meant by those lines is totally different, still you are justified to take those literally.

harbansj24 · #23 (**permalink**) 17-Aug-2007, 11:17 AM

A large majority of Sikhs who propogate khalistan are based abroad. they want Khalistan to be formed in a place which at present constitutes the State of Punjab in India. Now is this not, to put it mildly impractical? If they are so passionate about about Khalistan, they should work from the place where they want Khalistan to be formed. Otherwise they should allow the Sikhs based in Punjab and rest of India to find their own solutions to the problems they may face in the interactions with other communities in India.
Sikhism during its formative period faced far greater dangers and threats than they do now but the great Gurus never preached hatred or seperation. And inspite of everything Sikhism still survives.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=16614

Sikhs based abroad can by example show the greatness of Sikhism to the people of the country of their adoption and so enligten the them about the great Sikh gurus.

Sikhism will survive and prosper and it does not need Khalistan for it. But Khalistan will spell the end of all that Sikhism stands for.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=16614

Harbans

Akashdeep Singh · #24 (**permalink**) 17-Aug-2007, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arvind

Veer ji,

Could you please provide names of those countries for our benefit!

Regards, Arvind.

Arvind,

Generally speaking, think about a person who moves from one state to other in India then compare with person who moves to any other country like US. It may not be exact comparison (as some personal experience may be bad in the US as well) but yes, things can be bad just by changing the states (where the difference in language and personal traits are different) in India.

While moving to other country the people, society and religion are different and there are greater chances of people not relating to you well. Whereas when you are moving within your country you expect people to respect and like you as they are your countrymen. Nevertheless, the reverse can happen. I think we as Indians are these days much less receptive of different views and cultures as compared to the countries like United States etc.

Chardi kala,
-Akashdeep Singh

Huck_Finn · #25 (**permalink**) 17-Aug-2007, 12:48 PM

<Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=16614
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=16614
>>

Akashdeep veerji

i agree we are talking of personal opinions..

so i am happy that you agree that indians being less receptive is a personal opinion based on specific experiences.

but in the last sentence you made another sweeping generalisation, to which i disagree.

Neet84 · #26 (**permalink**) 17-Aug-2007, 17:19 PM

With all due respect, is a need for Khalistan and promoting Sikhi in our country of resident mutually exclusive? I live in a town where Sikhs make up 7% of the population. Some personal examples of what the Sikh Diaspora do in my area;
Through raising funds independently we are one year away from building Europe's largest Gurdwara. We hold a national Sikh Convention annually, protest against the 1984 attack in June, formed an Interfaith Council to educate others of all religions and practices (which I personally played a key role in), created (and I personally attended for 7 years) a weekend Punjabi school so that the generation born in the UK never looses its mother tongue, creation of a Punjabi and Sikhism syllabus so that children get British qualifications (GCSE (like 10th grade)and A Levels (like +2)) in their religion and mother tongue, yearly Sikhi Camps are organised, at a University level we have Sikh Societies that invite distinguished speakers to enhance our understanding, Lobby our local MP's on Sikh human rights issues, hold kirtan, path and gatka classes for everyone.

In addition in the mainstream culture we have Sikh Councillors, Civil Servants, Professionals that are informing British Institutions of Sikhi (at the London Assembly, House of Commons, Borough Councils).

Yet these above activities are done inconjunction with our demand for Khalistan. When you look at the cases of Davinderpal Bhullar and Daljit Singh Bittu (innocent men who's only crime was to promote the formation of Khalistan); it is virtually impossible to promote Khalistan in Punjab without being arrested and tortured.

I often get frustrated with those who say Sikh's abroad do nothing to promote Sikhi, those who have been established in UK, US and elsewhere have worked hard to maintain the message of our Guru ji. The activities I listed above were achieved by everyday people who had families and jobs plus sent money home to Punjab-that is no small ask.

Of course there are egotistical selfish people abroad as there are in India. Our challenge as a nation is to overcomes this and think of the collective good.

Khalistan is not preaching hatred it is preaching freedom and social justice. It is about progressing the Sikh nation. Let me make myself clear; I do not believe in a seperate state for the sake of it, we need it because the Indian Govt does not care about Sikh's; they will not let us prosper. I agree that a theocractic state is not workable a pluralistic nation is needed.

We all have our own views biases (including me) which are based on a variety of factors (family, experiences, media, the message of extemists or nationalists). I am sure that if my vision of Khalistan were the same as yours I wouldn't want it either. Just as I am sure that if you shared my perception of the potential of Khalistan you would want it realised; but lets progress the debate, it is impossible to meaningfully discuss whether Khalistan should be formed or not because first we need to consider the following;
What should Khalistan look like? What should it advocate? How should it be realise?
What should it offer its people? What should the values be?

Only by considering the above can people make an informed decision.

Our current problem is that as a Sikh Quam we have no leader who is able to inspire us and to set a real vision. Does that mean the cause for Khalistan is wrong? No course not.

Thanks
Neet

Quote:

Originally Posted by harbansj24

A large majority of Sikhs who propogate khalistan are based abroad. they want Khalistan to be formed in a place which at present constitutes the State of Punjab in India. Now is this not, to put it mildly impractical? If they are so passionate about about Khalistan, they should work from the place where they want Khalistan to be formed. Otherwise they should allow the Sikhs based in Punjab and rest of India to find their own solutions to the problems they may face in the interactions with other communities in India.
Sikhism during its formative period faced far greater dangers and threats than they do now but the great Gurus never preached hatred or seperation. And inspite of everything Sikhism still survives.

Sikhs based abroad can by example show the greatness of Sikhism to the people of the country of their adoption and so enligten the them about the great Sikh gurus.

Sikhism will survive and prosper and it does not need Khalistan for it. But Khalistan will spell the end of all that Sikhism stands for.

Harbans

Neet84 · #27 (**permalink**) 17-Aug-2007, 18:01 PM

Clearly we do have a difference of perception. Religion exists everywhere not just the mind. Otherwise why did Guru ji request Naam japna, Kirpa karn, vand ki shakna. Two of these can only be realised in the physical world. Sikhi is more than meditating it is a way of life.

I have made this point numerous times; I don't think Khalistan should be realised as a theocratic nation but a pluralistic one (appreciate and celebrate diversity of all).

Quote:

Originally Posted by amarsanghera

<<"Raj Bina Nahin Dharam Chale Hain, Dharam Bina Sab Dalle Malle Hain" which literally means that sovereignty is a MUST in order for a religion to survive; otherwise religion perishes.>>

Religion exists in minds, and not in theocracies.

Ii rest my case as we have different perceptions of religion.

What Guru ji meant by those lines is totally different, still you are justified to take those literally.