The Shillong Clashes - A History

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

The problem with the notion of India is that it currently is more of a Westphalian concept of a nation state. 

This does not really fit into what India actually is.

It has never been a country but more of an umbrella term.

You could perhaps see it as a civilisation state, but the current set up is an artificial one, it is not a natural fit. 

I have worked with many Indians from many states but even though I am a British Sikh of Punjabi heritage, I cannot feel any real affinity towards them.

I can only feel that with my fellow Sikhs from India or with Hindu Punjabis. 

 

 

So true bro ! spot on . People from east india or south have little facial/diet or cultural similarities with punjabis etc . Not that I am discriminating but yes our lifestyles, our cultures ,our heritage is vastly different. 

The thing is nehru forcibly got many princely states to surrender to "union of india" around and even after 1947 . There was actually such a thing as "privy purse" --paying regular fee to princely states  in india until indira gandhi removed it in the 80s i think . 

India today is held one nation on the basis of force. 

If you try to secede, then .... 

[Ranjeet01]

21 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

So true bro ! spot on . People from east india or south have little facial/diet or cultural similarities with punjabis etc . Not that I am discriminating but yes our lifestyles, our cultures ,our heritage is vastly different. 

The thing is nehru forcibly got many princely states to surrender to "union of india" around and even after 1947 . There was actually such a thing as "privy purse" --paying regular fee to princely states  in india until indira gandhi removed it in the 80s i think . 

India today is held one nation on the basis of force. 

If you try to secede, then .... 

There is definitely a North-South divide for starters.

I remember a guy from Bangalore I worked with and I asked whether he speaks Kannada. 

He was astounded and he tells me , "you guys think we are all madrasis!".

People from north side of the subcontinent definitely clump the south side as one.They are definitely more than dosas and lunghis. 

However if you talk to South Indians,  you realise that there are big differences between them. 

I once attended a Bengali wedding,  seeing Bengalis eating with their hands was an eye opener. 

[Guest jigsaw_puzzled_singh]

8 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Very interesting. .

Seems to be some extreme case of mate guarding by the khasi males.

Normally feminists would clamour that it is the "patriarchy" to this reason that the clashes over women but it is an interesting dynamic since this more of a matriarchal society.

It could very well be a possibility that since  Khasi women are in charge will mean that Khasi men are not particularly respected since they are seen as lower status and less masculine. 

Seeing a more masculine and dominant taller male like a Sikh male will automatically make them more attractive to the Khasi female and this would make Khasi male more insecure. 

However there is a phenomenon around all the different states of India where people from other states are seen as outsiders. Regionalism is definitely a stronger identifier than being an Indian. 

 

 

Good points Ranjeet and you're right...it is interesting. But you know what, there's something even more interesting that we should be focusing on. Although not intended to be as such, we have the results of a unique and accidental social experiment to digest, i.e. what would happen to ravidassias if you took them out of Punjab for 100 years or so and limited their contact with other Sikh groups (castes), deras, babas and political groups ?   The results are astounding.....with no 'caste' based discrimination to speak  and no caste based political leaders trying to sway them away from Sikhi their 100 years of isolation from their homeland of Punjab has made them far more 'Sikh' than their kith and kin in Punjab. Whilst of course holding the Bhagat Ravidass to the highest esteem they are keshdari Singhs and Kaurs to the core and the Punjab phenonemon of a 'vakhra panth' for ravidassias has not gained a foothold at all.  For me, this is THE most fascinating thing to take away from all of this.

[Ranjeet01]

20 hours ago, Guest jigsaw_puzzled_singh said:

Good points Ranjeet and you're right...it is interesting. But you know what, there's something even more interesting that we should be focusing on. Although not intended to be as such, we have the results of a unique and accidental social experiment to digest, i.e. what would happen to ravidassias if you took them out of Punjab for 100 years or so and limited their contact with other Sikh groups (castes), deras, babas and political groups ?   The results are astounding.....with no 'caste' based discrimination to speak  and no caste based political leaders trying to sway them away from Sikhi their 100 years of isolation from their homeland of Punjab has made them far more 'Sikh' than their kith and kin in Punjab. Whilst of course holding the Bhagat Ravidass to the highest esteem they are keshdari Singhs and Kaurs to the core and the Punjab phenonemon of a 'vakhra panth' for ravidassias has not gained a foothold at all.  For me, this is THE most fascinating thing to take away from all of this.

 

When you are small isolated group surrounded by a hostile external threat then Sikhi is the overriding factor.

You tend to prioritise certain things, especially if your survival is at stake.

[Guest jigsaw_puzzled_singh]

On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 6:46 PM, Ranjeet01 said:

When you are small isolated group surrounded by a hostile external threat then Sikhi is the overriding factor.

You tend to prioritise certain things, especially if your survival is at stake.

No I don't think that is the result to take away from this unique social experiment. The result, as I see it, is that a human being who was Sikh from time, stays a Sikh till the end when every other Sikh around him is just like him and there isn't the presence of other groups (castes) to mentally and physically discriminate against him. In other words, the non-presence of certain external factors has enabled Sikhi to flourish in that far and isolated place. This, I feel, should give the rest of us all pause for thought about the part we have played in Sikhi's problems elsewhere, especially Punjab, for we are that 'external factor'.

[jkvlondon]

8 hours ago, Guest jigsaw_puzzled_singh said:

No I don't think that is the result to take away from this unique social experiment. The result, as I see it, is that a human being who was Sikh from time, stays a Sikh till the end when every other Sikh around him is just like him and there isn't the presence of other groups (castes) to mentally and physically discriminate against him. In other words, the non-presence of certain external factors has enabled Sikhi to flourish in that far and isolated place. This, I feel, should give the rest of us all pause for thought about the part we have played in Sikhi's problems elsewhere, especially Punjab, for we are that 'external factor'.

problem in punjab is sikhs have swallowed the nau-mass Hindu sikh bhaichara BS whole and forgotten the history of treachery , the point that sikhi is polar opposite in outlook on humanity from 'hinduism' so there is very little willingness for the majority to let us influence the masses with sikhi's message.So they become Lax, start picking up the rubbish of other faiths which diminshes the glory of Sikhi's image.   When you are in hostile situation and aware of it, you keep your values intact and everyone is aware of those values you hold dear.

[Ranjeet01]

9 hours ago, Guest jigsaw_puzzled_singh said:

No I don't think that is the result to take away from this unique social experiment. The result, as I see it, is that a human being who was Sikh from time, stays a Sikh till the end when every other Sikh around him is just like him and there isn't the presence of other groups (castes) to mentally and physically discriminate against him. In other words, the non-presence of certain external factors has enabled Sikhi to flourish in that far and isolated place. This, I feel, should give the rest of us all pause for thought about the part we have played in Sikhi's problems elsewhere, especially Punjab, for we are that 'external factor'.

I see your point. 

However,  a Sikh group made up of one particular group could still fragment into factions potentially. 

The fact that they are quite isolated is probably one factor. 

But as far as I know there are Assamese Sikhs in the wider north eastern region .

How they differ to the Shillong Sikhs I do not know. 

Even if you have more than one caste of Sikh in an isolated area you may not get the intra-Sikh discrimination as there are bigger discrimination issues with non-Sikh communities. 

I also suspect that mainstream Sikh communities in Punjab see no value in spreading to be spreading any negative influences in the far north east.