Why The Movement Died?

[Not2Cool2Argue 648]

https://pando.com/2014/11/20/the-war-nerd-why-sherman-was-right-to-burn-atlanta/

Above is a link to an article about the american civil war. It has some correlations with khalistan movement. About how a rural, more religous part of a country is trying to secede/seperate from the secular, industrial country.

The background is that an american general burned down a city of the south.( the war was north vs south)

So anyway he talks about how guerilla war is horrible. I think indian govt committed attrocities on purpose just like sherman. To get ppl to give up n i think it worked.

Also that unless we ourselves are willing to live thru war, lets not start it in panjab...

[Guest Jacfsing2]

I'd say the movement was mostly over due to some people ready to betray each other. (Manochahal's Shaheedi), also a lot of government agents dressed-up like Sikhs and made the Khalsa look bad leading to average village folk to feel unsafe making the government more accessible to abusing the "bad" guys. There was also an unorganized movement, (the only thing uniting them was the acknowledgement of the Greatest Savior our Gurus).

[Jonny101 4,391]

In my opinion movement died because we had Sikhs killing Sikhs. It was punjab police who are overwhelmingly Sikh men that killed our freedom fighters. Historically we have never had Sikhs working for the enemy to kill Sikh nationalists. Look at the Mughal era and later the Afghan era our enemies could never expect support of Sikhs to fight against Sikhs. It is only in the modern era that we have had traitor like Brar and K.P.S Gill and the thousands of Sikhs in the Punjab Police and their network of traitors (police cats and touts) being used by Delhi Hakoomat against the Panth.

Such traitors did not betray the panth because they were patriotic Indians. They did it for selfish gains such as reward money for killing a militant or for some career promotion.

This is how degraded our moral conduct has become. There was a time when it would have been unthinkable for a Sikh to betray the Panthic cause but in the modern era our people have become so selfish that they would trip over each other to betray the Panth for some cheap worldly gain.

So it was our own traitors who killed the movement otherwise there was no one else in India who could beaten the Kharkoo Singhs.

[InderjitS 1,244]

In my opinion movement died because we had Sikhs killing Sikhs. It was punjab police who are overwhelmingly Sikh men that killed our freedom fighters. Historically we have never had Sikhs working for the enemy to kill Sikh nationalists. Look at the Mughal era and later the Afghan era our enemies could never expect support of Sikhs to fight against Sikhs. It is only in the modern era that we have had traitor like Brar and K.P.S Gill and the thousands of Sikhs in the Punjab Police and their network of traitors (police cats and touts) being used by Delhi Hakoomat against the Panth.

Such traitors did not betray the panth because they were patriotic Indians. They did it for selfish gains such as reward money for killing a militant or for some career promotion.

This is how degraded our moral conduct has become. There was a time when it would have been unthinkable for a Sikh to betray the Panthic cause but in the modern era our people have become so selfish that they would trip over each other to betray the Panth for some cheap worldly gain.

So it was our own traitors who killed the movement otherwise there was no one else in India who could beaten the Kharkoo Singhs.

It was not only the likes of Brar and Gill who killed their own. Many sold their souls to the devil for temporary positions of authority, for money or other short term gains and some are living comfortably in places like Canada and the UK.

Pinky's recent interviews are testament to this and if he is not himself killed in a fake encounter I'm sure he will reveal the names of more Sikhs who betrayed their own. This type of treachery on has made history as previous attempts to thwart Sikh uprisings normally came in the guise of cleverness by people from other faiths, mainly Hindus.

[chatanga 1,058]

Infighting.

Lack of vision.

Brutal oppression by state apparatus.

Indias' economic growth.

Lack of support from world bodies.

All contributed to movement ending.

[Not2Cool2Argue 648]

I think we had a lot of sikh fighting sikh because the movement was also alienating to some sikh groups. Sikhs working govt jobs, sikhs living in cities surrounded by hindus. Sikhs living outside panjab in other states, nonamritdhari sikhs, householder sikhs in the pinds. For a while all pinds all of panjab was behind sikhs, even cynthia mehmoud says kharkhoos had so much support from public. That we all voted as one for Maan. But t didnt last. The farmers pindvale got tired of abuse they continously suffered alone with no support from kharkhoos. They would only do vengeance missles not prevention. Like killing beanta after he done too much evil stuff. Also declaring khalistan put those sikhs not in panjab in danger. But those sikhs shouldve come to sarbat khalsa to put their concerns. Same with ppl in govt jobs like police. We should have won them to our cause or made them quit. Later on Darshan Sio Raagi did tell all govt working sikhs to quit their jobs as protest. But it was too late n didnt work, sikhs jobs instantly snapped up by hindus n sikhs were left poorer with source of income gone. N as a protest total failure....

In julio ribeiro autobiography, he writes that kps gill would try countless times to undermine him and say im a panjabi jatt so only i know how to deal with these jatts. Ur too soft on them.

Also i think media portrayal of kharkhoos also aleinated some sikhs. Even some good humane sikh police officers. But from pinkys story it seems there were more corrupt sadistic policevale...

[dallysingh101 3,077]

Lack of genuine statecraft abilities played a big part too in my opinion. Though, no one can doubt the bravery of the kharkoos, the lack of an overall vision and implementation of a working alternate government system took its toll. Cynthia Mahmood says as much in some of her works on the movement. After all of the excitement about fighting for your nation, there is the bigger, longer, less romantic issue of how to run it so all the people prosper and feel safe. Many Hindus obviously didn't feel safe like many Sikhs didn't. When you've been through a protracted hell, you'd probably welcome stability with a massive sigh of relief.

I think noot2cool2argue has hit on another key thing that too many people ignore - towards the end (and I was alive then), people began to feel that this was becoming a partisan issue with rural farmers fighting for their interests rather than a wider religious conflict. Rumours were rife that people were being overbearing back then. I remember hearing stories about monay, or people with trimmed beards being slapped in Harmandir Sahib - but there was so much misinformation about around then that it was (is) hard to tell what was true or not. I mean at the time, when Sant ji was shaheed for example, the Indian media put stories about there being prostitutes and condoms found in the debris of the Akal Takhat (which we know to be lies for certain now). But for all the negative stories there were positive ones too. I remember my grandma telling me how some families house was hijacked by on-the-run kharkoos for a little while and although they were intimidating and threatening, and made the homeowners cook for them, they didn't harm anyone and even left a wedge of cash for the 'captives' when they left after a few days.

Remember, the Muslim majority of Lahore actually invited (begged really) Maharajah Ranjit Singh to occupy the place having been fed up of predatory attacks from Persia and Afghanistan, as well as the abuses of the Bhangi sardars who were running the place before him.

People need to realise, in the end, the ahhm junta aren't really motivated by any noble aspirations - they just want security and prosperity. Rulers or wouldbe rulers that forget this won't secure their stronghold unless they do it sadistically and super rigidly like the Taliban. If apnay do this, what makes us any better than them?

People need to remember Maharajah Ranjit Singh's success was based on his openness and liberal governance in the land he directly administered. Sure, some of the outer, wilder, frontier regions of the Sikh kingdom were administered violently with an iron hand by their governors (Avitibile and Hari Singh Nalwa for example), but this was not the standard approach, which frankly was tolerance and inclusion whilst having a super strong military/physical culture to back it all up.

[dallysingh101 3,077]

Here is a link to a short paper by Cynthia Mahmood I posted a few years ago on this forum:

http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/65659-important-critical-article-on-khalistan-movement-by-cynthia-mahmood/?hl=%2Bcynthia+%2Bmahmood

[MAJHAIL_JATT 14]

Infiltrated by agents, criminals, and opportunists, masquerading as Sikhs.

for an example we have a guy in our city who was I believe was president of ISYF (or atleast a faction of it) and also the leader of the Gurudwara committee in my city, and all he did was raise money for "the cause" only to fill his pockets and work as a double agent for the indian government. my dad told me pretty much all the Gurudwaras in Canada in the 80's and early 90's were infiltrated with these rats at the highest levels... and probably even to this day in a lot of cases. these people are more or less well known by the community now, atleast the ones from the 80's and 90's. Indian government did EVERYTHING it could to stop the movement. we all know who was behind Air India blasts now I think.

[khalsaman1 126]

Until we are ready to accept Waheguru's will and escape the cycle of life and death, there will never be Khalistan.

Khalistan will come when everyone is ready to be Khalsa. 90% of "sikhs" are an absolute joke and I think I'm being generous with that number. There are very few genuine sikhs in this world. Until that changes, nothing will change.

[chatanga 1,058]

The killing of Shaheed Harminder Singh Sandhu killed the ideological framework towards a separate Sikh state.

[dallysingh101 3,077]

The killing of Shaheed Harminder Singh Sandhu killed the ideological framework towards a separate Sikh state.

If the framework was based on a single individual, it shows poor ideological motivation throughout the movement.

[dallysingh101 3,077]

Pertinent extract from Cynthia's piece linked to earlier:

[Guest Jacfsing2]

The killing of Shaheed Harminder Singh Sandhu killed the ideological framework towards a separate Sikh state.

I thought Manochahal was the last main member fighting for the Sikh state?

[chatanga 1,058]

If the framework was based on a single individual, it shows poor ideological motivation throughout the movement.

It wasn't based on an individual but a small group of people inc Shaheed Harminder Singh, Bhai Manjit Singh, Harminder Singh Gill (eventual traitor to the panth), Rajinder Singh Mehta, Amarjit Singh Chawla amongst others.

The men were members of AISSF, but fought more from an ideological perspective than the actual warfare which is where most Sikhs were concentrated.

Because these men were in jails for years in india, they didn't get the opportunity to advance their cause as much as they wanted to. The motivation was there, but circumstances were against them.