Happy Independance Day!

[Bijla Singh]

Mr. kid, all of your questions have been answered on this very forum and many like you came, got their answers, failed to provide any logic reasoning and left. I suggest you do a search on the topic first and study the history to understand what Sikhs demanded prior to 47 still have not been met. Every reality begins with a dream and with Guru Sahib on our side 100 countries like India could not defeat us.

[skepticSikh]

u guys didn't even read my post, did you...

Go on and stop discussing Khalistan. Don't discuss the practicality of it. I raised legitimate points where the practicality of such a standpoint could be discussed, but ignore it if you will. Keep on dreaming that my position is against Sikhi (which it is not), and that I don't know how many crimes have been commited, or that I don't consider the politics of India to be controversial.

Merely calling me ignorant does not answer the pragmatic questions. You haven't even taken a crack at how the movement of Khalistan could ever be mounted without resorting to terrorism and keeping, as you say, a democratic approach. That specific question has never been directly addressed, but swept under the optimistic outlook that the "future will work itself out precisely the way we want it".

Let me make it clear again: i'm not against wanting Khalistan, but come on, there are other ways to achieve the same goal.

And I think I am more than justified in continuing debate on this issue. You guys who want a separate country have a lot of practical questions to answer, be that from a minor or from a 60 year old. Besides, this is an internet forum, and is meant to facilitate discussion otherwise impossible. And when did discussion ever hurt anyone?

[skepticSikh]

i'll answer that question myself then. The main point is that terrorism/militancy/violence would be seen as justified in such a movement. That's the ONLY point of contention. I am against using those destructive tactics of terrorism (like the suicide-bombing tactics of Palestinians), and that is the ONLY thing I am against. I am skeptical of the whole Khalistan movement for the sole reason that it could get out of hand and turn the entire movement into a terrorist one.

Now the biggest counter-argument against this is that I cannot predict the future, and that I don't know what might happen. The point is, you don't either. War, politics are dynamic and extremely unpredictable, so you have to be cautious to reduce the possibility of causing a slow, violent, constant war.

Another counter-argument is that in some cases, armed rebellion is justified. But that is a slippery slope; keep in mind that that thinking can lead to a situation like in the French Revolution, when the bloodshed reaches astronomical heights. It can also be less violent, perhaps on the level of the American Revolution. This argument is the most troublesome, because you can use to justify anything, even the most morally despicable acts. Like suicide bombing. I'd much rather we could use another way.

The alternative I think is a democratic agitation. Economic boycotts, political power plays, establishing a global Congress, charity efforts, protests without arms. What these do is create support for the movement from others even outside the religion. Wouldn't that be a better way to do it?

In the end, i want you guys to at least read this and think about it. I've always seen the demands for representation as legitimate, but always been wary of the fickle nature of such movement. It won't take much to cause unbelievable acts of terrorism, but it'll take a lot to uphold a legitimate movement that uses the most peaceful means to achieve its goals.

[chatanga]

Dear Mr Kid

My cousin and who was 24 was arrested by Amritsar ravan sena , who wanted to know why he was in Amritsar when living in Jalandhar. They said he was about to commit a terrorist attack and tortured him in Maal Mandi centre. Being a kid you may not know what Maal MMandi is famous for. Then they told his father to come and get him when he was half dead. His father brought him home and for the next 2 days watched him writhe in agony from the electric shocks he had received.

I watched a father watch his son die, and i knew then that even with the questions that you pose about borders and democracy and what-not, that even one village that was free from ravan hakoomat would be better than to live like this. And this kind of stuff happened to thousands and thousands of people , not from 1984 but as early as 1966. I hope kid that you never have to watch anything like this. The questions that you pose are neither here noe there. The question you should ask is, is it better to live one day of freedom , or 100 days of slavery.

You need to visit neverforget84.com and such, to know why we are pressing for our own state. I hope you open your eyes.

chatanga

[ocelot]

My brother was picked from his home,

His legs were broken, put into stack and was drown in river.

His body was never returned.

is this is what you call freedom?

[skepticSikh]

this is an example of when logic never rules in an emotional mind. when people don't see the common ground. and when ad hominem attacks (like calling me mr. kid) give a person a false sense of supremacy.

why should i dignify this thread by posting when no one reads what i actually say? if you assume what my position is from the beginning, you debate that asumption in your own head; you don't debate me. And if you don't understand that, well then this is completely pointless...

[S1ngh]

oh baccheyyaa.. jaida gum gamereeya nah pah.. siddey gal kareya kar..

haan hun dass keh panga ya tera?

[ocelot]

Ok skeptic Sikh , I will say Plain logic.

Now here we Go

1)It is logical to believe that in our own country Riperian Law will be followed, which will safeguard all our interests for natural resources of water.

2)It is logiacal that in out country, as in israel all those responsible for sikh genocide will be brought to book, see case of Israel, after there own county they hunt for german war crime officers.

3)It is Logical that in out country sikh history will not be destroyed and there will be new breed of sikh scholars.

4)it is logical that in our country we will treat all sikhs equal as there is no caste system in sikhi we will not give any reservation on based on caste, and which will not further divide society.

5)It is logical that we will not have to share electricity freely with others (nangal dam).

6)It is logical that then we dont have to suffer Hindu marriage act, as we will get our own constitution.

7)it is logical that we get more representation inworld, in terms of our people in all world sports, it is logical.

8)it is logical we have enough Food Grains and we can export them.

9)it is logical that then sikh Politicians can discuss nankana issue more seriously.

10)it is logical that at that time sikhs will feel more safe.

11)It islogiacal that we will get our owm media.

12) It is logical that all our Shaheeds will get there required honour.

13)It is logical 99 percent sikh will be happy.Only some punjabis will be crying.

Now just type any disadv that will arise that is not present now.

I dare Anyone, just anyone???????????????????????

[chatanga]

the only serious disadvantage that i can see is that some Sikhs will still be too dumb, or full of bhoot mata to agree wiv you. good post.

chatanga

[skepticSikh]

You didn't read what I said, or try in the least to understand what I am actually asking. I didn't ask for the reasons why we deserve Khalistan, or why we should strive for an autonomous sikhs state in the least and Khalistan at the most. I asked which METHOD. That's the question I have, s1ngh, and that is what you and others missed, ocelot.

You're are all so wound up that you can't address policy or pragmatism or how you'll actually proceed to create Khalistan. Those are the questions I am asking. I would even support the creation of Khalistan if it adopted a peaceful, practical, non-violent and open method. I would support it if there was no religious hatred advocated.

And don't respond with another list of grievances. I agree with them (like I said for the past 3 posts). Separate the issue-at-large from my question, because my question is quite specific, and perhaps not even unlike your position.