Khalistan Movement

[Kira]

2 paragraphs isn't enough for the man who managed to outsmart British Imperialism. However I'd bet they devoted considerably more words to that fool Gandhi, whose policy of do nothing accomplished exactly nothing, but is unjustly revered as one who defeated the Empire.

The Sikh raj in general is under-looked. The British tend to talk about the time after Maharaja Ranjit Singh ji's death and how the court fell apart. They usually gloss over the fact that many times the Sikhs did outsmart and outmanoeuvre them. In quite a few cases the battle against the British were pushed back by female leaders. Which not only shocked but surprised the British. It was a strange contrast with Queen Victoria at that time as well.

[ramghariasingh]

i think according to NCERT in indian freedom fight there was only gandhi nehru and some leaders of congress. they don't want to mention the sikh leaders.

[proactive]

If we can all come back to the thread before it was hijacked with casteist BS.

The best case scenario is that when Khalistan comes about there is a complete breakup of both India and Pakistan. Pakistan into a independent Punjab, Sindh, Khyber province going to Afghanistan, and an independent Baluchistan. For India, independent states of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra, Tami Nadu, Kerala, Orissa, Bengal, and the north eastern states. India if it remains will effectively be left as a rump consisting of UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh ie the so-called Cow belt. Therefore Khalistan does not need to face two large countries but a collection of different states with their interests. Therefore overflight, access to sea ports etc is only easy to negotiate. Each state will have its minorities, Khalistan will a Hindu minority, Sikh minorities in these states will be much less especially if Khalistan includes the Sikh areas of Sirsa-Ambala and Ganganagar. Effectively this puts over 85% of the Sikh population of former India in Khalistan. It is then up to Khalistan govt to look after the interests of the Sikh minorities in each of these countries. As for the takhts, Sikhs from Khalistan will need visas for the countries theses takhts will be located in.

[proactive]

i think according to NCERT in indian freedom fight there was only gandhi nehru and some leaders of congress. they don't want to mention the sikh leaders.

You are lucky in that you belong to a generation that can bypass the Indian govt propaganda and read the real history of Punjab online. Previous generations never had this resource and only had govt propaganda thrust down their throats. There is excuse now for your generation to know their true history and know that the persons the Hindustanis call their bapu and their chacha were the greatest enemies of the Sikhs.

[S4NGH]

Actually he is Indian, since his parents are. He can have the Sikh identity as well, as not all Indians follow 1 religion.

Youre deluded. I give up on you buddy.

[YOYO29]

Kira Ji, Pakistan's political elite would secretly be delighted if Khalistan came into being.

However, in real terms, they realise an individual Indian state becoming independent would make the independence movements for Baluchistan, Pakhtunwa and Sindh unstoppable (without the enemy of India to hold Pakistan together).

Well as far as I recall the creation of an Independent state in 1971 did not have any impact on West Bengal.Indians never bothered what would happen if a Bengali state is came into being.Pakistani leadership may think same about Khalistan. Creation of Khalistan won't affect West Punjab.

Every Pakistani govt supported Sikh separatist but it was only Benazir bhutto who gave info to Rajiv Gandhi in defiance to Pak army.She was no fan of army as his father was hanged by army . Unfortunately our leadership never cared about the interests of Pakistan.They always cared about their personal short term benefits.

[YOYO29]

Anyone who is 'desi' is Indian.

Well the myth that every one is Indian from Khyber pass to Dhaka was shattered in 1947.What is this INDIAN term ? Why Bengalis in Bangladesh are not Indian while Bengalis in West Bengal are called Indians ? What is the difference between West Punjabis and East Punjabis.West Punjabis would hate to call themselves Indians whereas East Punjabis are called Indians ???

Indianism is also an artificial term like Pakistan.The difference is that Pakistan is 70 years old whereas Indian is some thousand years old term.

When Khalistan will be created and after 60 or 70 years of creation it will too have a history of 60/70 years.

[proactive]

Well as far as I recall the creation of an Independent state in 1971 did not have any impact on West Bengal.Indians never bothered what would happen if a Bengali state is came into being.Pakistani leadership may think same about Khalistan. Creation of Khalistan won't affect West Punjab.

Every Pakistani govt supported Sikh separatist but it was only Benazir bhutto who gave info to Rajiv Gandhi in defiance to Pak army.She was no fan of army as his father was hanged by army . Unfortunately our leadership never cared about the interests of Pakistan.They always cared about their personal short term benefits.

The creation of Bangladesh was different in that it involved the defeat of one national army by another national army. The shock to the Pakistani psyche was so great that it created more national cohesion and thus no fracture. In West Bengal the fact that the Pakistani army had been defeated also created a jingoistic nationalism which obviously did not lead to a nationalist movement in West Bangal. The nature of any break up from India will be different. Independence for Kashmir say through a Kashmiri political party winning a state election and then declaring independence would have a much greater impact than a Kashmir breaking away through the use of armed force. Same for Khalistan, the Kharkoos came close to having a state government with their people in control between 1989-1991 and only the election boycott prevented a Sikh party with Khalistan as their agenda from coming to power. Also you need to understand that for the Indian psyche more so than the Pakistani, national unity is sacrosanct, once it is broken then India as a united country will cease to have any legitimacy. The perceptions of people can change in an instant as can be seen in the break up of the Soviet Union. The USSR was also considered as sacrosanct by the people but when it broke it created a domino effect that has led to 15 odd countries coming out from the union.

[YOYO29]

The creation of Bangladesh was different in that it involved the defeat of one national army by another national army. The shock to the Pakistani psyche was so great that it created more national cohesion and thus no fracture. In West Bengal the fact that the Pakistani army had been defeated also created a jingoistic nationalism which obviously did not lead to a nationalist movement in West Bangal. The nature of any break up from India will be different. Independence for Kashmir say through a Kashmiri political party winning a state election and then declaring independence would have a much greater impact than a Kashmir breaking away through the use of armed force. Same for Khalistan, the Kharkoos came close to having a state government with their people in control between 1989-1991 and only the election boycott prevented a Sikh party with Khalistan as their agenda from coming to power. Also you need to understand that for the Indian psyche more so than the Pakistani, national unity is sacrosanct, once it is broken then India as a united country will cease to have any legitimacy. The perceptions of people can change in an instant as can be seen in the break up of the Soviet Union. The USSR was also considered as sacrosanct by the people but when it broke it created a domino effect that has led to 15 odd countries coming out from the union.

I'm agreed with your statement but don't you think that India had already been partitioned (1947).The myth of Indian unity was broken by partition in 1947.