Formation Of Pakistan -1947 ...

[Guest SarabjeetSingh]

muslims got their country only possible because of strong leadership , which we lack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuqiCQLmHPI&feature=related

[dalsingh101]

The biggest thing I notice was that in the final analysis Muslims got their own nation/country not through the actions of a strict religious figure but someone whom we could describe as the Musalmaan equivalent of a 'sharabbi kebebi' type. In the end it wasn't his (Jinnah's) religious beliefs that got them the country but rather his political acumen and ability.

The Pakistan we see today with its religious problems is probably very far away from what Jinnah's imagined secular nation was to be like.

I don't Sikhs are ready for that sort of leadership myself, as least not yet.

[Mehtab Singh]

I don't Sikhs are ready for that sort of leadership myself, as least not yet.

Indians and Pakistanis never were ready, and still aren't, yet they have countries. Please lets not propose that as a reason why Sikhs are not ready for a country. You are right in a way, we have tons of internal issues to be resolved beforehand, but we need to shed this mindset "we are not ready". There is a term in Sikhi - "tiyaar-bar-tiyaar", this doesn't just mean that we always are armed and ready to fight, but that Khalsa is always ready and prepared to take on and tackle any situation thrown at him/her.

[dalsingh101]

I was talking specifically about having a non-religious person at the helm, like the Paks had. It paid off big time for them.

Truth is that towards the end of the empire, most people in India and Pak wanted independence one way or another. I imagine the people who didn't were, on the whole, the ones benefiting heavily from the British system.

That is a really interesting question to ask on the forum though, now I think about it!

Would Khalistanis consider supporting and giving the main political leadership position to a non practising Sikh in order to get a Sikh sovereign state? A bit like Pakistan did with Jinnah to get Pakistan?

[Guest SarabjeetSingh]

I was talking specifically about having a non-religious person at the helm, like the Paks had. It paid off big time for them.

Truth is that towards the end of the empire, most people in India and Pak wanted independence one way or another. I imagine the people who didn't were, on the whole, the ones benefiting heavily from the British system.

That is a really interesting question to ask on the forum though, now I think about it!

Would Khalistanis consider supporting and giving the main political leadership position to a non practising Sikh in order to get a Sikh sovereign state? A bit like Pakistan did with Jinnah to get Pakistan?

In my opinion and as far as I have seen within sikh kaum , the sharabi -kebabi or non practising sikhs have more money and power and wield more influence than religious , vegetarian , baabbe - type sikh men .

Baabe type sikhs are usually seen as just content with religious life and having no desire for more power .

[Bijla Singh]

Would Khalistanis consider supporting and giving the main political leadership position to a non practising Sikh in order to get a Sikh sovereign state? A bit like Pakistan did with Jinnah to get Pakistan?

Absolutely not. Then it wouldn't be a Sikh state. One who practices Gurmat is a Sikh. There is no such thing as "born as a Sikh" or "non-practicing Sikh". Badal, Tohra, Barnala, Kairon, Boota Raam, Talwandi, Zail Raam, and now Manmohan have proved what "non-practicing Sikhs" can do for their kaum. At least Jinnah was loyal to his community. He wasn't a sell-out. Leadership of the Panth can only be invested in Panj Pyare otherwise the current state of the Panth speaks for itself.

[guruvah]

The British saw it essential to make pakistan due to the huge number of Muslims in Hindustan. It normal for muslims to demand for a nation, whenever they are a majority in a specific geographical location. e.g. Kashmir, South Thailand, South Philippines.

The word Khalistan is derived from the word 'KHALSA'. It means , "The Land of the Pure Ones" . Now look at the panth. How many are truely Gurmukh Khalsa Bhagat ?

Khalistan will NOT happen anytime soon. Neither it should. It would be a perfect recipe for disaster if "punjabi minded" sikhs get a sikh homeland.

In my life, majority of those whom I have seen chanting 'khalistan' dont even wake up for amrit wela. What to talk about running a Khalsa Hukumat?

Khalsa Raaj will only happen with Guru Sahib's will, as Bhai Rama Singh ji has said.

Getting a sovereign homeland is one thing, maintaining it is another.

Look at pakistan, these shameless people ask for aid from America all the time, when at the back they call them kafirs. What honor do these people have ?

[dalsingh101]

Absolutely not. Then it wouldn't be a Sikh state. One who practices Gurmat is a Sikh.

Do you think the state carved out by M. Ranjit Singh was Sikh in some way? I mean I think most of us would agree that he brought much needed positivity to the region by forcefully uniting the Khalsa and making them serious political and military players in the region - at least in his lifetime. Despite his sharabi-kebabi and kaamic ways. This isn't to promote that sort of lifestyle by the way.

Anyway, I know this site doesn't like these types of nitty gritty discussions. Let me know if we should continue openly and frankly or not now. Instead of it leading to upset and bans and excessive moderation and stuff.

I guess an important question to ask about a theoretical K'stan is what would be the position of the (now) majority moneh Sikhs who still affiliate with the faith through going Gurdwara and the use of typically Sikh lifecyle ceremonies such as deaths and marriages. Also what about people from Sikh families who no longer want to practice the faith, what will be their position?

I know there is a bit of a chicken and egg situation in that it is harder to 'normalise' practice of faith within the wider community without a strong base like a homeland, whilst at the same time it is very hard to gain a homeland unless there is a strong will amongst lots of people for it.

How important are numbers in all this too? Numbers for votes, numbers for war etc.

[KhalistaniGunMan]

if you aint khalistani..you aint sikh..simplesssssssssssssssssssssssssss

[dalsingh101]

if you aint khalistani..you aint sikh..simplesssssssssssssssssssssssssss

It is that type of thinking that is used as evidence that K'stanis are narrow minded and incapable of ruling as they don't know how to deal with people with different viewpoints to their own. I'm not averse to K'stan myself but I would draw a line at saying people who don't share my view aren't Sikh.

I'll let God decide that.

Plus it brings home how poorly presented the idea of K'stan is amongst Sikhs these days.

When I look at it historically, it seems like the Khalsa have been at each others throats as much as others, not long after their inception?