The Khalistan Stigma

[CuriousGeorge]

Hello friends!

I am new to this forum and I joined largely because I have some curiosities regarding Khalistan. I look forward to having insightful conversations with all of you.

One of the primary things I have noticed is the emphasis put on the Saint/Solider ideal in Sikhism. A saint is surely a man who has attained a perfect balance in life, devoid of hatred, anger, pride, ego, etc.

A soldier is (usually) a noble individual devoted to protecting, and keeping the peace. He is a defender of humanity.

How does a Khalistani fit the mold of this ideal Sikh -- the Saint/Soldier? Allow me to elaborate. There seems to be a common stigma attached to "Khalistan" and the "Khalistanis" and in brief, I feel it can be summed up in the following arguments:

It would appear that a Khalistani cannot be a saint: he seems to be driven by an impulsive anger and sense of revenge. There seems to be this remarkable sense of hatred for members of the Hindu faith.

A soldier is a defender -- has there not been senseless killing in the name of Khalistan? Taking up arms in a religious institution seems to be at best, awkward.

It would appear that the stigma doesn't allow for a Khalistani to be seen in the noble Saint/Solider light. In fact, I've heard Khalistani's being called terrorists time and time again.

What are your thoughts on this?? Is this all an unjust stigma? Or is there some merit to what some people see?

Thanks for any insight you can offer and I look foward to friendly discourse!

[khalsaforce]

Do know guru hargobind singh jee maharaj who established Akal takht sahib for the sikh sangat to decide on political and religious issues. In 1986 it was decided by the SARBAT KHALSA to achieve khalistan no matter what and we have to take orders of sarbat khalsa.

Hello friends!

I am new to this forum and I joined largely because I have some curiosities regarding Khalistan. I look forward to having insightful conversations with all of you.

One of the primary things I have noticed is the emphasis put on the Saint/Solider ideal in Sikhism. A saint is surely a man who has attained a perfect balance in life, devoid of hatred, anger, pride, ego, etc.

A soldier is (usually) a noble individual devoted to protecting, and keeping the peace. He is a defender of humanity.

How does a Khalistani fit the mold of this ideal Sikh -- the Saint/Soldier? Allow me to elaborate. There seems to be a common stigma attached to "Khalistan" and the "Khalistanis" and in brief, I feel it can be summed up in the following arguments:

It would appear that a Khalistani cannot be a saint: he seems to be driven by an impulsive anger and sense of revenge. There seems to be this remarkable sense of hatred for members of the Hindu faith.

A soldier is a defender -- has there not been senseless killing in the name of Khalistan? Taking up arms in a religious institution seems to be at best, awkward.

It would appear that the stigma doesn't allow for a Khalistani to be seen in the noble Saint/Solider light. In fact, I've heard Khalistani's being called terrorists time and time again.

What are your thoughts on this?? Is this all an unjust stigma? Or is there some merit to what some people see?

Thanks for any insight you can offer and I look foward to friendly discourse!

[jai_ho]

........no disrespect

...cats are also infiltrating the net

[khalsaforce]

Pajji ihda ki matlab hounda.

...cats are also infiltrating the net

........no disrespect

...cats are also infiltrating the net

[jai_ho]

khalsaforce je main tuhano ne kuj kenda

[khalsaforce]

Pajji matlab ta daso so i can learn more english u know.

khalsaforce je main tuhano ne kuj kenda

[CuriousGeorge]

Hello khalsaforce,

Thank you for you insight, though I am not sure it has addressed my question as directly as I had anticipated. I'd like to comment nonetheless.

From your post, it would sound as though the Sarbat Khalsa is a body which instructs Sikhs on political/religious matters. From an unbiased position, this is perhaps more troubling than the stigma question I had discussed in my initial post.

It raises important questions regarding the authority of the Sarbat Khalsa. What is the decision making process and what checks and balances are in place? You indicate that the Sarbat Khalsa ruled that Khalistan must be pursued "no matter what" -- this is a very broad and potentially dangerous statement! What means are justifiable to this end? What if it comes to killing? Is it justified to do so to serve this purpose? And even more so, why -- why must Khalistan be secured? Is it merely because an authoritative body has commissioned it? Or is there another reason? Is there room for self-determination or application of intellect in Sikhism or is everything predefined by an authoratative body?

I'm curious what your views are on this matter.

In conclusion, I'd like to reiterate my initial question regarding the stigma on the Khalistanis who are commonly viewed as terrorists and compulsive individuals with strong hatred and anger against members of the Hindu faith. All in all, how does this fit the mold of the ideal Sikh -- a Saint Solider?

........no disrespect

...cats are also infiltrating the net

Forgive me -- I'm not sure what this reply means.

[Bad Girl]

CuriousGeorge ur totally right on Khalistan issue

[curious_man]

curiousgeorge ji...fateh frm curious man here

anywys... in purantan times... sikhs were so much hated by the mughals.. tht they were used to call "bhujangis"..meaning "snake's child"!!... in other words... for the mughals (the govt.).. sikhs were kinda terrorists.. becoz they raised arms against the govt. when the atrocities were unbearable!!

same thing applies in the present day... nothing else to say... when truth prevails..its the human nature..enemies arise and try to crush it!!

i guess for ure "why r khalistanis called terrorists?" question.. the above answer shld be fine!

again ..they r "terrorists" for the govt.... for the ppl aginst sikhi... for the ppl who have left the path of sikhi..for the ppl who admire sharaab and lust rather than the baani of guru..for the ppl who misuse their power!!

but they r like "tru real singhs" for the meek..for the downtrodden..for the sufferers..for the PANTH!!

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa..Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

[khalsaforce]

From your post, it would sound as though the Sarbat Khalsa is a body which instructs Sikhs on political/religious matters. From an unbiased position, this is perhaps more troubling than the stigma question I had discussed in my initial post.

The Sarbat Khalsa is a gathering of a representative portion of the Khalsa Panth and Akal Takht is the main body of the sikh panth.

CAUTION:Pajji I dont know very good english and so It would be very hard for me to explain in good english but i will try my best.

Pajji I ahve one thing to say we dont use violence for anything,we give others a chance and we give them many chances to give us what we need after many chances we are not goin to sit and eat we have to start a struggle. Like the united states people before 1776 they were living and england was putting high taxes and took their political rights away,so they started it peacefully and asked the british nicely to decrease the tx but they didn't listen so the AMERICAN startes a independence revolution for their people and freedom and rights of humans. Thats basicly same thing i am tryin to explain we have to pick up arms to achive khalistan becasue we have tried many peaceful methods before the attack on darbar sahib and they gave many attacks and in gift they gave us dead bodies of sikhs.

When your mom or ur whole family is killed when u are in the american army,ur family is killed by ur own government because ur people wanted more rights. Your family haven't done anything or u haven't and plus u were serving the same countries army but instead they killed ur family because ur people wanted more rights. What would u do?would u keep serving the government that killed ur family? If you would continue then u are nothing,then u are not a human, thats what happened to many sikhs in punjab after 84 young farmers were being killed to stop the revolution that was started but they think khalistanis are dead and one day will come when we all sikhs unite and stand at akal takht sahin for another sarbat khalsa.

Maybe I am confusing you because i am not good with explaining in english and Bijla singh pajji thoda explain karyo fgora nu or anyother khalistani singh explain to this gora in good english.

Hello khalsaforce,

Thank you for you insight, though I am not sure it has addressed my question as directly as I had anticipated. I'd like to comment nonetheless.

From your post, it would sound as though the Sarbat Khalsa is a body which instructs Sikhs on political/religious matters. From an unbiased position, this is perhaps more troubling than the stigma question I had discussed in my initial post.

It raises important questions regarding the authority of the Sarbat Khalsa. What is the decision making process and what checks and balances are in place? You indicate that the Sarbat Khalsa ruled that Khalistan must be pursued "no matter what" -- this is a very broad and potentially dangerous statement! What means are justifiable to this end? What if it comes to killing? Is it justified to do so to serve this purpose? And even more so, why -- why must Khalistan be secured? Is it merely because an authoritative body has commissioned it? Or is there another reason? Is there room for self-determination or application of intellect in Sikhism or is everything predefined by an authoratative body?

I'm curious what your views are on this matter.

In conclusion, I'd like to reiterate my initial question regarding the stigma on the Khalistanis who are commonly viewed as terrorists and compulsive individuals with strong hatred and anger against members of the Hindu faith. All in all, how does this fit the mold of the ideal Sikh -- a Saint Solider?

........no disrespect

...cats are also infiltrating the net

Forgive me -- I'm not sure what this reply means.