Why Are So Many Moderate Sikhs Against Khalistan

[Guest Jacfsing2]

I'm going based off of the fact the people in outside lands will likely not join Khalistan, nor will India/Pakistan give up those lands without a fight. If we were to say "well prior to the Anglo-Sikh wars, that was all our land" I don't think anyone would take us seriously.

Yeah, in that sense it has increased, but what about in the sense that perhaps 30 years ago there were 25 Sikhs, now we have dwindled down to 10 and in a few years down to 7 and so on. Is that signs of a flourishing faith?

What we need is true GurSikhs to fight for us,

"ਜਬ ਲਗ ਖ਼ਾਲਸਾ ਰਹੇ ਨਿਆਰਾ ॥ jab lag khhalasa rehae niara

While the Khalsa stays true,

ਤਬ ਲਗ ਤੇਜ ਕੀਉ ਮੈਂ ਸਾਰਾ ॥ thab lag thaej keeo main sara

I will offer my full support

ਜਬ ਇਹ ਗਹੈ ਬਿਪਰਨ ਕੀ ਰੀਤ ॥ jab eih gehai biparan kee reeth

When they follow the ways of others,

ਮੈਂ ਨ ਕਰੋਂ ਇਨ ਕੀ ਪ੝ਰਤੀਤ ॥ main n karon ein kee pratheeth

I will withdraw my assistance from them." (Khalsa Mehima) If Guru Sahib is for us, than who could ever stop us, the main reason I think you believe Sikhi=Punjabism is because you feel like Guru Sahib is weak, from all your words of nindak.

[JagsawSingh]

See alot of whats written in the last few pages is why I tend to avoid the religious debate about a 'Khalistan'. The Sikhs that have their heads in the clouds and go on about a border that extends deep into neighbouring countries pretty much kill the idea and hope stone dead.

Me ? like alot of Punjabi Sikhs, am motivated by the same reasons that Scots, Catalans and Basques are for example. That reality is that the nation that now occupies my land (for the first time ever in my thousands of years history) only does so because of the lies and false promises they made to my people in 1946. That makes their occupation of Punjab illegal as well as immoral.

In contrast to the premise that the OP of this thread insinuates, i.e. that 'extremists' back Khalistan and 'moderates' do not, in my experience the vast majority of supporters and campaigners for a free Punjab are not very religious monehs who are motivated with a great national pride in being Punjabi rather than Indian, in much the same way as the Scots and Catalans.

[DailyMail]

I second Jagsaw.

From what I see, it's mostly moneh who support Khalistan.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

I second Jagsaw.

From what I see, it's mostly moneh who support Khalistan.

I'm not mona, I just want somewhere where Guru Sahib could have people follow him, there are less Jews than Sikhs but they still get their own country based on Judaism.

[MisterrSingh]

I'm not mona, I just want somewhere where Guru Sahib could have people follow him, there are less Jews than Sikhs but they still get their own country based on Judaism.

Brother, when we have the Sikh equivalent of the Rothschild family, world leaders will be lining up to give us our own country, hehe.

[KhoonKaBadlaKhoon]

What we need is true GurSikhs to fight for us,

"ਜਬ ਲਗ ਖ਼ਾਲਸਾ ਰਹੇ ਨਿਆਰਾ ॥ jab lag khhalasa rehae niara

While the Khalsa stays true,

ਤਬ ਲਗ ਤੇਜ ਕੀਉ ਮੈਂ ਸਾਰਾ ॥ thab lag thaej keeo main sara

I will offer my full support

ਜਬ ਇਹ ਗਹੈ ਬਿਪਰਨ ਕੀ ਰੀਤ ॥ jab eih gehai biparan kee reeth

When they follow the ways of others,

ਮੈਂ ਨ ਕਰੋਂ ਇਨ ਕੀ ਪ੝ਰਤੀਤ ॥ main n karon ein kee pratheeth

I will withdraw my assistance from them." (Khalsa Mehima) If Guru Sahib is for us, than who could ever stop us, the main reason I think you believe Sikhi=Punjabism is because you feel like Guru Sahib is weak, from all your words of nindak.

Where did I even comment on Guru Sahib?... I am saying us Sikhs are weak. Stop and see whats goings on in the world for a second, Punjab especially, my brother. Situation looking really bleak.

I'm not mona, I just want somewhere where Guru Sahib could have people follow him, there are less Jews than Sikhs but they still get their own country based on Judaism.

The Jews had Israel handed to them, and then further get billions to support their defense industry. I think their situation is completely different from ours.

[proactive]

The Jews did not have their country handed to them, the creation of Israel was preceded by over a hundred years of Jews taking active steps to migrate to the land from countries like Russia and from Eastern Europe. The Zionist movement created agencies that helped Jews to migrate and buy land from the Arabs. They also created pressure groups which canvassed support from the governments of various countries. In the end it came down to this canvassing that produced a majority vote from the UN in favour of partition of Palestine. Had the Jews lost the vote then that would have been the end of that project and the would have been an oppressed minority in a Palestine dominated by Arabs.

In the case of Khalistan, the movement has a better prospect of success especially as things are now so bad in Punjab that only a diehard GOI chumcha would think that the Punjab is in a better position in India than as an independent state. In the 80s the issues were water right and Punjabi speaking areas. Apart from the farming community these issue would not have any resonnance with the non farming community. But the present situation, drugs, education and economy in stagnation, criminal dominated politics etc affects everyone in Punjab. What is required is a grass roots movement which unfortunately does not appear to be present in Punjab. The AAP election success in Punjab Lok Sabha elections shows that people want a change from the Akali/BJP and Congress mafia. It is for Panthic parties to unite and create the grass roots movement just as other parties in other countries such as the SNP in Scotland have done. The unfortunate thing is the alternative that the people of Punjab needed should have been provided by Panthic parties and not AAP. AAP just seized the chance that came up whilst the Panthic parties were too busy being divided and being made even more irrelevant than they were in the prior elections.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

The Jews did not have their country handed to them, the creation of Israel was preceded by over a hundred years of Jews taking active steps to migrate to the land from countries like Russia and from Eastern Europe. The Zionist movement created agencies that helped Jews to migrate and buy land from the Arabs. They also created pressure groups which canvassed support from the governments of various countries. In the end it came down to this canvassing that produced a majority vote from the UN in favour of partition of Palestine. Had the Jews lost the vote then that would have been the end of that project and the would have been an oppressed minority in a Palestine dominated by Arabs.

In the case of Khalistan, the movement has a better prospect of success especially as things are now so bad in Punjab that only a diehard GOI chumcha would think that the Punjab is in a better position in India than as an independent state. In the 80s the issues were water right and Punjabi speaking areas. Apart from the farming community these issue would not have any resonnance with the non farming community. But the present situation, drugs, education and economy in stagnation, criminal dominated politics etc affects everyone in Punjab. What is required is a grass roots movement which unfortunately does not appear to be present in Punjab. The AAP election success in Punjab Lok Sabha elections shows that people want a change from the Akali/BJP and Congress mafia. It is for Panthic parties to unite and create the grass roots movement just as other parties in other countries such as the SNP in Scotland have done. The unfortunate thing is the alternative that the people of Punjab needed should have been provided by Panthic parties and not AAP. AAP just seized the chance that came up whilst the Panthic parties were too busy being divided and being made even more irrelevant than they were in the prior elections.

I still never understood why they were called the "AKALI" party. Sort of an oxymoron.

[Xerxes]

'Why are there so many moderate Sikhs against Khalistan'?

Firstly there is no point talking about 'moderate' Sikhs or 'extremist' Sikhs or 'fundamentalist' Sikhs. The whole 'moderate - fundamentalist' dichotomy is a misleading attempt to use pejorative language to push the debate in one direction or the other. Some describe Khalistanis as fundamentalists or extremists in order to create a false equivalence between the movement and Islamic extremism*. Others (including many in this discussion) describe non-Khalistanis as 'moderate Sikhs' in order to cast aspersions against their religious discipline or orthodoxy.

One can be an extremist about any issue, from politics to religion and even to 'frivolous' things like football or music. An extremist Socialist is a person who takes Socialism to the extreme. An extremist Muslim takes Islam to the extreme. An 'extremist' metal fan appreciates heavy metal in an extreme way. In the same sense, an extremist Sikh is a Sikh who is extreme about Sikhi.

Now, what is or is not considered to be 'extreme' largely depends upon context and upon the opinion of the beholder. I'd consider a Christian who thought it was mandatory to pray five times a day and fast for a month each year to be pretty extreme, but that's perfectly normal for a Muslim. In the UK there is an NHS and a full ban on guns, but in the US someone who advocated either of those things might easily be called an extremist. An extremist Sikh, in my opinion, is someone who is in favour of unusual and radical stances like beating 'blasphemers' or imposing Sikh religious norms (not drinking alcohol, keeping kesh etc) upon unwilling people. And in the same sense, what is or is not 'moderate' is also highly subjective.

The fact remains though that being a Sikh and being a Khalistani are two different things. It's possible to be someone who practices the Sikh religion in an extreme manner who does not support Khalistan at all, whilst there are non-Sikhs do do advocate Khalistan. This was brought up earlier in the thread with the post pointing out that many fervent Khalistanis are in fact clean-shaven 'mona' Sikhs rather than religious fundamentalists (as is frequently asserted by critics of Khalistan).

This fact also has the implication (a very unwelcome implication to some) that just as it is possible to be either a moderate Sikh or an extremist Sikh, there are also moderate and extremist Khalistanis, ie those who hold extreme stances on Khalistan (for example that Haryana etc should be included, that it should be run as a theocracy directly by the Sikh religious institutions or that non-Hindus should be expelled) and those who hold more moderate views and are more amenable to compromise. This contradicts the Indian 'patriotic' narrative that being a Khalistani makes one an extremist by definition. And it also contradicts the usual Khalistani narrative as well, since it implies that Khalistan is not some unstoppably popular, monolithic, unified movement.

So, why are some Sikhs against Khalistan? Well, the first place to look is at this 'moderate - extremist' dichotomy that I've just examined. This little trick which conflates Khalistan with religious fanaticism has been so utterly successful that not only Indians but vast percentages of the western public have readily fallen for it. Nobody wants to challenge it.

Obviously it is very useful for the Indian establishment, clearly they have no interest in breaking down the most important factor they have in their favour. But, rather paradoxically, it also helps self-confessed 'Khalistanis' as well: what better way to get people onto your side and shore up your core support than to imply that if you are a good Sikh you should support Khalistan, and that if you do not support it you are a cowardly irreligious 'moderate' hypocrite?

This factor turns the little misleading sentence 'moderate Sikhs oppose Khalistan, only extremists support it' into a powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who don't want to be seen as extremists or extremist sympathisers are driven away from Khalistan. Those who don't want to see themselves as 'weak' moderates who are 'adulterating their Sikhi' in some way are driven towards Khalistan, which in turn makes the movement appear more and more like something for fanatical fundamentalists from the outside. It's this vicious circle of polarisation that has made the Khalistan movement a pariah at a time when Kurdish, Scottish and Catalan aspirations have made separatism trendy.

Of course there are many other reasons not to support Khalistan. Some are emotional and personal, nobody in their right mind would support Khalistan if one of their friends or relatives had been killed in a Khalistani attack for instance. Others stem from patriotism and a desire not to harm 'Mother India'. There are many rational and logical arguments against Khalistan as well regarding economic security or the lack of a real plan of how to achieve it. All of these though are small fry compared to what I've described above, in fact many of them are just secondary factors that play into the overarching popular perception that Khalistan and Sikh fundamentalism are the same thing.

How can this be fixed? It can't really. The very name 'Khalistan' implies a Sikh state, and the idea of a state devoted to representing the will of a specific religious community will always provoke subconscious fears of religious totalitarianism. Some people here seem to understand this fact and instead are latching on to more secular 'Punjabiyat' nationalism, but the decades of vicious polarisation ever since 1947 have made sure that any Punjabi nationalist movement will end up becoming Sikh-centric and seen as a front for a religious agenda. The idea of Punjab separating from India will only become tolerable to the Indian public and the wider world when 'Punjabi-ness' and 'Sikh-ness' are utterly and irrevocably separated. That means two things: either Sikhi stops existing in Punjab (which would clearly be an even less desirable outcome than the present situation) or Sikhi reforms itself and separates itself from the Punjabi identity (as was once the case).

The only future of Sikhi lies in becoming a universal world religion with many followers from different backgrounds (including but not limited to Punjabis) and a strong social agenda beyond petty communalism. The Jews are often used as a positive example and in some ways they are, but in reality in order to survive Sikhi must become just as widespread and adaptable as Christianity and Buddhism rather than becoming an insular minority like the Jews. This does not mean abandoning our religious beliefs or traditions or throwing away the Panj Kakkars or anything, in fact the opposite: we must follow Sikhi as our Guru Sahibs actually instructed rather than adopting backward mindsets and waiting to go extinct. It's almost as if Sikhs have gone into retirement these days, we sit back reminiscing about our glorious history and all the good we've accomplished, mouring what might have been, whilst not actually trying to create any more history. As long as we can wear our turbans and follow our religion peacefully we can just sit and quietly wait for oblivion.

People didn't follow the Guru Sahibs just because, they joined the Sikh movement because Guruji actually had interesting and relevant things to say. And Guruji still does today, but the trouble is we mostly aren't actually spreading the word because the active youth who should be going out and doing things are busy pontificating about the merits of a state which never existed.

* radical Islam has also been subjected to a similar word-trick. Westerners came up with the misleading phrase 'Islamic fundamentalism' to describe any and all radical strains of Islamic thought, in an attempt to liken it to hardline interpretations of Christianity. This has had a similar polarising effect, with Islamic radicals able to catagorise their opponents as lax irreligious heretics who don't follow the 'fundamentals' of their faith, and non-Muslims able to dismiss legitimate grievances as the ravings of madmen.

Just a bit of info about my position so that you can take bias into account: I'm a western Sikh who isn't of Punjabi origin. I am neither for nor against Khalistan. Self-determination is the right of every people whether or not it's in their best interests, and if Punjabis in Punjab want Khalistan then I support their legitimate desire wholeheartedly. If they don't then as a 'foreigner' in a distant country it isn't my right to dispute that. Khalistan itself is not personally very important to me. What is important is respect for the rule of law and the dignity of others.

[MAJHAIL_JATT]

because they are chumchay.... braishwashed by bahmanvaad tv 24/7. I have some in my own family and I can say they are of a corrupt mindset. not even gonna lie my pooaji family has a picture of indira gandhi on their wall among their photo collection... the sister of abdali is sitting on a chair with my babaji and other congress members standing in a line behind her. they are all congress chumchays my heart tells me to side with the Guru's fauj not because my babaji and family have history of being congress party. lol infact my pooaji husband got chased out of his orginial pind in majha region for being a bahmanvaad government chumcha. this is a person who took the Guru's amrit and still drinks heavily.... that's the type of people who are these "moderate anti-Khalistan Sikhs." I know them well because whether I like it or not I have them in my family...are they even Sikhs or just people who look like Sikhs? I will say a mona who has love in his heart for Sikhi is 100 times better than the one who has a full blown dari and pag and has the 5k's but their heart is black... A person who loves India can't be a Sikh. and the funny thing is these are the same ones who will sell their left testicle to get out of that corrupt hell hole of a country for a western country. and yet they love their India. hahaha chumchays. trust me I've gotten into arguments with family backhome for calling out their chumchay ghulami behaviour. seems they are happy kissing the feet of the bahmans who rule dehli.

One thing I can say is that for Khalistan to succeed we need to make it more secular and inviting.... Like Sikh Raj of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Maybe even coming with a different name instead of Khalistan as it envokes fear to the minorities living in panjab.

RAJ KAREGA KHALSA AAKI RAHEGA NA KOI KHALISTAN ZINDABAD.