Khalistan & India

[JasSinghKhalsa]

All,

My opinion is even if there is a new member - Even though a Sikh/non-Sikh/Sehajdhari with some new/old questions - we have to put our points in a democratic and a convincing way. The same is applicable to discussions we have in our day-day life with our friends. We can't fight away and say "Go to Hell, as you don't agree with me". We have to convince the other party with facts/TRUTH/Evidences and why the solution we seek is the only Alternative left as all other alternatives have been explored and exhuasted. If we don't go this way - the support we will have even from our own people will be too less.

Thanks,

Bhul Chuk Maaf.

[Pyara]

Map of Khalistan based on pre-partioned India. Taken form www.sikhiwiki.org

[VanHelsingh]

I remember reading briefly that "Khalis" was a Persian word for 'pure'. Is that right?

[dalsingh101]

I remember reading briefly that "Khalis" was a Persian word for 'pure'. Is that right?

It does but there is also another interpretation some people espouse too:

In Moghul (Persian?) terminology Khalis also referred to land directly associated with/administered by the emperor, as opposed to through some intermediate governor or similar. So this 'Khalis' land would have a direct relationship with the king.

Some people posit that the Khalsa, by doing away with masand intermediates had this direct relationship with Guru sahibaan, setting the context for the use of the word. The theory also makes sense in context of pre 1699 references to sangat as 'My Khalsa' by some earlier Gurus.

Interesting theory my eyes. Please don't anyone start to throw bricks my way if you've never heard of it or disagree with it!

[Kitaure]

So what are you saying, that there should be a Khalistan or not?

Skype me; Kitaure.

msn: h-singh@live.co.uk

Please note that Khalistan won't be achieved till we have these type of Sikhs (the one you mentioned). It will be when there are Sikhs with uchey-suchey jeevan and high thinking. Then these matters won't be important.

India didn't have a constitution up till 1952, while it was independant from 1947 onwards.

On a side note, Panj Pyare could be given power, but that is another discussion.

Punjab, Haryana, Himachal, Jammu and parts of Uttarakhand/Rajasthan/Gujrat.

We were offered our lands by the British, but corrupt politicians sided with India. So our opponent shifted from the British to the current corrupt state of India.

We don't paint all Indians with the same brush, we just want to be seperated after all what happened to us 1947 onwards.

Maybe you don't know, but Amritsar Sahib was not only attacked in 1984, but also in 1955 (where one praying Sikh was killed), 1986 (Operation Black Thunder) and 1988 (Operation Black Thunder II).

There is a huge difference between a few racist attacks and massacres of 250,000 people, burning of hundreds of Gurdwaras, rapes of our sisters/mothers. You can't compare both situations.

I. Guru Gobind Singh sent Banda Singh Bahadur to Punjab along with 5 Singhs and 5 Arrows to punish Wazir Khan, other Dushts and establish Khalsa Raj.

II. Guru Gobind Singh said 'Raj Karega Khalsa' and 'Raj Bina Na Dharam Chaley Hain, Dharam Bina Sab Dalley Malley Hain'.

III. Satguru can't be limited to any piece of land, 'ghat ghat main har ju basey, santan kaho pukaar' (Salok Mahalla 9)