Formation Of Pakistan -1947 ...

[Singhstah]

Looking at the state of that nation right now, is it Pakistan that we want to look at for an example of how to build a nation?

[guruvah]

Looking at the state of that nation right now, is it Pakistan that we want to look at for an example of how to build a nation?

its a veryyyyy good example of FAILURE that the Sikhs need to learn from as a matter of fact

[Bijla Singh]

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.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh was raised as a Sikh and he practiced Gurmat most of his life. His grandfather and father never admitted anyone in their misal until the person was an Amritdhari. Sada Kaur and Sahib Singh Bedi were great gursikhs who greatly influenced Ranjit Singh. But when he started falling for brahmins he brought downfall of not only the kingdom but to the panth as well. He stopped practicing Gurmat, started drinking wine, taking opium and practicing polygamy. He encouraged other Sardars working for him to do the same. Most of them started staying away from the Granthis, Akalis and Gurmat principles. So the question “was Ranjit Singh a Sikh” is very vague because he wasn’t always a Sikh and wasn’t always a non-Sikh. This also proves that as soon as he fell under the trap of dogras and went away from Gurmat he lost his kingdom and this also lead to degradation of gurmat among most of the Sikhs. Had he been a shraabi kabaabi no Sikh misal or Sikh Sardar would’ve helped him in any manner nor would have any Sikh accepted him as a Maharaja.

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?

Define position. Any person who is not a practicing amritdhari cannot have the privilege to be in Panj Pyare nor can he/she be head of any Sikh society, Gurdwara etc. My assumption is that lower positions of the government would be open to all. It depends on type of government. Any person whether Hindu, Christian, Muslim or an atheist can live in Khalistan but higher positions such as Panj Pyare and jathedar will only be for Sikhs (qualified ones). One doesn’t become a Sikh by simply going to gurdwara and performing Sikh ceremonies. Sehajdharis (not monay) like Sindhis have been performing Sikh ceremonies for centuries but they very well know that they cannot have any leadership in the Panth since the leadership can only go to those who strictly adhere to the faith. We have seen how majority of the Hindus adopted Sikh appearance just to share the fruit of rulership but when the British took over they all left. Monay became Sikhs when Banda Singh ruled Punjab but they all left as soon as he was martyred. I have no doubt that many monay will start keeping Sikh appearance when Panth starts rising again but most will remain kachay pillay. It also happened in the 80s when many looked like jujharoos to share the booty of bank loots but they were the ones to cause most damage to the movement. This is exactly how Babbar Akali movement was destroyed. So I will never agree to give the leadership of the Panth in the hands of anyone but a Sikh because Panj Pyare as leader of the Panth means Guru Sahib himself is the leader. Guruship was given to Khalsa Panth so that dictatorship doesn’t take hold of the panth and Sikhs don’t become “slave” of one person like Mullah in Islam, Pope in Christianity and Lama in Buddhism. As long as Sikhs don’t learn this important lesson they will continue to suffer.

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.

Being a non-Sikh doesn’t mean being inferior to Sikhs. One who isn’t a Sikh isn’t inferior or low life. It is very simply: he is not a Sikh. Gurbani, Vaars and Rehatnamas tell us clearly who a Sikh is. Monay for some reason get offended and make false assumptions. It is not narrow minded thinking to tell someone who doesn’t practice Gurmat that they are not a Sikh. It is neither insulting nor offensive. They are equal human being and God still loves them. One who doesn’t live by Quran isn’t a Muslim, one who doesn’t follow Bible isn’t a Christian and one who doesn’t live by teachings of the Gurus isn’t a Sikh. This is a separate topic so I suggest we keep it out.

I am not a moderator so don’t worry about me banning you (not that I have ever done that).

[dalsingh101]

Looking at the state of that nation right now, is it Pakistan that we want to look at for an example of how to build a nation?

Getting a nation is one thing. What you do with it once you get it is another.

The point wasn't modeling ourselves on Pakistan - rather reflecting on the fact that a nonreligious/secular 'Muslim' secured the nation for sullay. That they are messing it all up with internal fundamentalism and a freeloading, begging mentality towards the west is another matter.

One thing that really surprises me is that no strong 'citizens charter' type of document has been produced which explicitly outlines how K'stan would be run and the place of citizens in the state.

This should have been an on going debate I think. Theoretical K'stan is missing concrete laws by which it will govern itself. When you speak to most K'stanis they are heavy on rhetoric, light on detail. This doesn't help at all.

Plus now people have a whole new argument about the rising economic star of India and how K'stan would exclude itself from that. This is a new one that never existed before. We also have the issue of a nuclear neighbour. I doubt paks have any real friendly intentions towards Sikhs plus instability there would have serious implications on a relatively small, new state.

How would K'stan deal with alcohol use. Minority rights. Lax behaviour in general? Law and order. Defense. Economy. Foreign policy towards Pak and India and the west. China. Africa. Immigration from other nations. Immigration to other nations. Medical services. Education. etc. etc.

I say this it is easy for corruption to set in and leadership becoming self serving haraamkours. We have that happening now in Panjab in my opinion.

If people are serious about it, they need to start contemplating such things. The fact that no one really has in all these years isn't good.

[Singhstah]

I think one important thing is to differentiate between the two conceptions of Sikh rule that we have among Sikhs. On the one hand you have a political state of Khalistan, on the other a new spiritual order, 'Khalsa Raj'. Having previously been a supporter of the former, I have to say now that personally my faith is only in a spiritual Khalsa Raj. That is, a 'nation' brought about by a great spiritual advancement in the panth, a literal Sachkhand on earth(as recorded by Bhai Rama Singh Ji), obviously if we are talking about this, political acumen or any worldly considerations given to normal politics are null, and it would go without saying the leadership of such a state would be Guru Granth +Panth (guru granth sahib ji and panj pyare). But, there is little discussion to be had on that subject.

If we are to think about the bringing about of a political state for sikhs, I would say no there is no special reason as such as to why leadership should only go to a 'practicing' sikh however we define it. The panth certainly does not presently function with such an attitude in mind, just see Gurdwara committees and Sikh political parties, however is it possible to find a sehajdhari who may not practice in the same way as a 'religious' sikh yet shares the same goals? Just as a slightly detached example, I sometimes get irritated at the lack of Sikh spokespeople or even journalists with what I would call the 'right' sikh views, they tend to be what the media would call 'moderates' but maybe by the rest of the panth as having non gurmat views. On the other hand other faiths don't seem to have a shortage of fundamentalists able to speak well as well. Theoretically it would be all fine if the person did not practice everything themselves, but what is important is that they do strive for the same ideals as a practicing Sikh, there should be no problem otherwise. Mind this is all just about if we were going for a political state. As to why I'm not in support of a political movement, just look at Pakistan (also the land of the pure!) now.

[dalsingh101]

Define position. Any person who is not a practicing amritdhari cannot have the privilege to be in Panj Pyare nor can he/she be head of any Sikh society, Gurdwara etc.

I'm talking big national positions like Foreign Diplomats, Education Ministers, Government Economic heads. Higher ranked positions in the state force etc. Ones that effect the whole nature of thE country.

The types of positions where natural ability/experience may be preferable over religiosity?

Like M. Ranjit Singh's best minsters were sullay (the fakir brothers), who remained loyal to the Sikh state when even other 'Sikhs' were engaged in all sorts of kartootan.

I understand your point about religious institutes needing to be in the hands of the practising, but even this has no guarantee of eliminating or reducing corruption as our people are frequently taken in by overt shows of faith and plenty of people 'get religious' for ulterior motives and are very difficult to dislodge after they become rooted. Look at SGPC.

[Bijla Singh]

I'm talking big national positions like Foreign Diplomats, Education Ministers, Government Economic heads. Higher ranked positions in the state force etc. Ones that effect the whole nature of thE country.

The types of positions where natural ability/experience may be preferable over religiosity?

It depends on the type of government we setup. As long as the position and the decisions made are purely political and in the benefit of the country, there is no reason to not appoint a non-Sikh as long a he is better qualified than others.

One thing that really surprises me is that no strong 'citizens charter' type of document has been produced which explicitly outlines how K'stan would be run and the place of citizens in the state.

Please think about it logically. Did USA have any such document prior to independence or India prior to 1950? Sikhs have Gurmat principles and past history which clearly describe how citizens should be treated. As far as how the country is run depends on time and place. Each situation and crisis demands different action which cannot be written down. If we write something today it may not be valid in next 10 years. Policies change over time. How we deal with other countries depend on their policies and attitude towards us.

I doubt paks have any real friendly intentions towards Sikhs plus instability there would have serious implications on a relatively small, new state.

It depends on viewpoint. If we start thinking negatively then the conclusion would be that neighboring countries will attack us and drop nuclear bombs on us. But this is highly unlikely. Countries don’t grow economically by attacking others and taking over. This is the age of business. We will need access to sea port and we will open our hand in business to both sides. Whichever gives us better deal will get out business. They will make money in return. Pakistan and India being sworn enemies of each other will try to compete against each other to win our business. I hardly doubt they will join together against us. Both sides will feel safe knowing that a Sikh country stands between them. Smaller states are easier to run and maintain.

How would K'stan deal with alcohol use. Minority rights.

There are many ways to deal with alcohol problem. Do you want a list of them? Cutting the supply would be the first step. Then banning it in certain cities like Amritsar, Kartarpur etc. Preaching, educating, imposing heavy taxes on alcohol, restricting employment to alcohol users etc. There is no limit to possibilities. All will have equal rights. No reservation system or jaziya.

Defense. Economy. Foreign policy towards Pak and India and the west. China. Africa. Immigration from other nations. Immigration to other nations. Medical services. Education. etc. etc.

Pick one country and explain all of the above in details. I bet you cannot do that. Then why expect us to explain about a country that doesn’t even exist yet? We can certainly come up with policies after independence. Again, policies change over time. Assuming Pakistan is friend with us and we write down our policies but in 10 years it becomes our enemy we will change our policy. Not a single country had all of the requirements done that you are asking Khalistanis to fulfill. Country comes first then its policies.

We can certainly think about it and come up with ideas but expecting a definite position and official documents is irrational.

[dalsingh101]

Did USA have any such document prior to independence or India prior to 1950?

As far as I am aware, the US produced their declaration of independence whilst at war with the British.

We can certainly think about it and come up with ideas but expecting a definite position and official documents is irrational.

Having seen things for many years now, I have to say the total lack of intellectualism that characterised/charactises the movement hurts it big time. Why is there no serious, deeper debate about independence/autonomy after all these years? What passes for discussion is extremely 'dumbed down'.

You would've expected some intellectualised debates involving principles of statecraft and law, as well as international politics in the wider debate about K'stan by now, but it is seriously telling that nothing of the sort exists. I'm not talking about producing definitive modeling and documentation by the way, but the expectation of a more mature and evolved debate on the topic by now. One for instance that focuses on requirements for the future, an analysis of existing successes and failures, discussions of other people in similar situations etc. etc. Instead, most of the K'stani 'youth' I have spoken to seem...well...a bit on the simple side...

Have you read Che Guevera's work for example. Look at how he outlined his ideas concretely.

Let me know if you are in the UK, there is something you should watch if so.

[Bijla Singh]

Declaring independence and outlining every policy of the nation are two different things. Looking at the movement of 80s, it was made clear by the leader (Sant Ji) that he did not want a separate state but more autonomy. I fully agree that Sikhs need to get serious and before they start discussing their future, they need to learn and reflect on their past. Movement of 80s suffered from same causes as others. We suffered the same way in countless other movements and Babbar Akali movement is like a mirror image of the 80s from birth to death. Sikhs do not practice gurmat, do not educate themselves about their history and put little to no effort in unity and thinking about solutions. Hence, no serious discussion on Khalistan, Sikhs in general don’t even discuss propagation of gurmat but I am still optimistic. Once Sikhs realize what needs to be done and get serious there will be no stopping them. I believe Sikhs have more examples to assist them to form and run Khalistan than any other community ever had in the history of the world.

I am from USA. What is there to see in UK?

[dalsingh101]

It was just a documentary shown here of the head Rabbi of the UK openly debating his faith with a bunch of people i.e. a scientist, an atheist, a secularist and a non practising /non orthodox Jew.

Was interesting in that it gave a really good example of how a religious man engages with and graciously accepts different views from his own and actually turns them into positive experiences without compromising his faith. I think K'stanis seriously suffer from the lack of this ability, which strongly suggests immaturity and more passion than measured thought.

Anyway, I think your analysis above doesn't factor in the truth that most people will not be overly religious in a theoretical state and all sorts of things that are probably an anathema to the orthodox mind are likely to take place. Panjabis are hardly known for their passive disposition and it is easy to imagine civil war like what we are now seeing in Pakland taking place over theological/religious issues. Better to air them out now and make people understand that getting a nation will be a big battle in itself and then ensuring that it doesn't become a hell hole for many of its inhabitants is another constant battle afterwards. We have the Pak example to illustrate this clearly.

The discussion of K'stan needs to encompass the nature of man (and women), flaws and all (charitrio Pakyaan style). Not the unbelievable naive notion of a nation of morally upright, Gursikhs marching into a perfect world of harmony and kirtan. I mean the place already has junkies galore, plus if a war took place, how many Sikhs do you think will die?

Singhstah neatly outlined two perspectives above and I think that some people (especially youth) have a totally unrealistic notion of some sort of utopian nation in K'stan. This is intellectually lazy in one respect as it totally absolves supporters of any thinking about forming strategies for avoiding the nitty gritty problems involved in nation building although I understand the appeal of such an attractive visualisation.

Anyway, going back to the OP and the last point I made, I think limiting the K'stan debate to matters religious is the worst thing that can be done and the debate needs to be widened and involve infinitely more self-criticism/examination than it has thus far.

How will an integrated, respectful society made up of people with very different natures, behaviours and beliefs be sustained? Is their anything in your American experience that could help frame this debate. How do you feel the US manages with these issues? Do you believe in the truth of the American dream? Will K'stan have anything similar or will it fall back to the barely concealed nepotism and casteism that Panjabi Sikhs are well known for?