# So We Sikhs Want A Homeland?



## badshah (Nov 11, 2010)

Lets looks at history...... we actually had a home land, during the Sikh Empire, we then had our first Anglo Sikh war and then followed by our second Sikh War when Maharaja Ranjit Singh died leaving the Empire in a power struggle.

Now lets rewind again a bit earlier, the Hindu's were being converted byu the Moghuls until Sikhism started becoming a martial religion

Now lets forward again back to the second Anglo SIkh war, so then these same Hindus that were butchered by the Moghuls revolted against the SIkhs especially the Dogras, also the Muslims and the British

We then lost our homeland and still being a martial religion we were put into use in WW1 and WW2

Now comming to 2010, we are no longer are a martial religion even though we speak like we still are.  We are not tauaght to fight, and all the 5K have now just been turned into symbols.

How do you feel about wearing symbols?  They were never supposed to be symbols they were suppose to be real tools!

Since now we only wear symbols this weakens what SIkhism really stand for and now we get to a stage of non-martial Sikhism which means for most of us we just do paat!

So it looks like we had our Sikh homeland but it was unfortunately dissolved although we still have our roots in Punjab today and that is a good enough homeland without it being an offical Sikh state

Now to the points of getting our homeland back.....  we are no longer a martial force and many of us have integrated into society, getting educated, families etc etc and in my point of view it would take the entire Sikh population to take up arms but we are no longer martial so its not possible.

Infact we have a PM that is Sikh but yet he cannot just hand the SIkhs our own state.

So to conclude, how can we expect a homeland if we are no longer those kind of Sikhs that were last seen in the Sikh Empire, sure we may be good at praying but now the second arm of Sikhism (martial) is just symbolic?

84 showed us what would happen if we try and fight in modern times because as I said we are no longer one (caste prevailes), we are out numbered by the Indian army and any other attempt from us would go along the lines of terrorism.

So to me it looks like, we should just do our best in our own capacity to achieve good jobs and get on with life.  What do you think?


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 11, 2010)

*Re: So we want a homeland?*

Dear Badshah ji

Just curious...



> sure we may be good at praying but now the second arm of Sikhism (martial) is just symbolic?



So what would you say is more important in Sikhism and to you?
Spiritual progress or military progress?


----------



## badshah (Nov 11, 2010)

*Re: So we want a homeland?*



Seeker9 said:


> Dear Badshah ji
> 
> Just curious...
> 
> ...


 
You dont see the point..... up-to the end of the Sikh Empire being a baptized Sikh meant something and everything made sense.

Now in 2010, if you have everthing symbolic then naturally people will question, oh so what the point of this or that because now these things make no sense.

Let me give you an example......  Sikh Empire sikh gets baptized and trained to use 5Ks and be spiritual so that means you are Saint Soldier

Today, what is the meaning of taking Amrit if the K's are only symbolic, who wants to be a sybolic SIkh?  So thats why sybols gets challenged by todays Sikhs as they cannot understand them.  You cannot use stories from almost 100 years ago of brave warrior sikhs to convince someone to wear "symbols" in 2010


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 11, 2010)

*Re: So we want a homeland?*



badshah said:


> You dont see the point..... up-to the end of the Sikh Empire being a baptized Sikh meant something and everything made sense.
> 
> Now in 2010, if you have everthing symbolic then naturally people will question, oh so what the point of this or that because now these things make no sense.
> 
> ...




Dear Badshah Ji

You are correct...I don't see the point


----------



## badshah (Nov 11, 2010)

*Re: So we want a homeland?*



Seeker9 said:


> Dear Badshah Ji
> 
> You are correct...I don't see the point


 
Sikh Empire Sikh = Saint Soldier

2010 Sikh = 50% Saint, 50% Symbolic (unless you join the army and they let you wear 5K's)


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 11, 2010)

*Re: So we want a homeland?*

Dear Badshah Ji

I'm a bit of a pragmatist at times and would humbly suggest that if the Gurus said something is important then it is important and that is the only reason, in Sikhism, that it should be important

Historical profile, whilst interesting, should not be as important

Good point re role models and I think they are role models today, especially in the Military forces in USA for example, where you have the "full 5K Sikh" in active duty


----------



## badshah (Nov 11, 2010)

*Re: So we want a homeland?*



Seeker9 said:


> Dear Badshah Ji
> 
> I'm a bit of a pragmatist at times and would humbly suggest that if the Gurus said something is important then it is important and that is the only reason, in Sikhism, that it should be important
> 
> ...


 
I agree with you but look, you put missles on a F15 fighter plane so that it can use them

So now if we put a kirpan on a sikh its simply symbolic, does that mean its of no use?


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 11, 2010)

*Re: So we want a homeland?*

Dear Badshah Ji

There is undoubtedly a proud military heritage that should continue to be remembered with pride

The Kirpan is a more subtle, skilful and elegant weapon from a different time ...whereas today we have missiles and guns.....we also have laws in most countries around carrying such things on our person...

I have some sympathy with what you are saying....but we are where we are...


----------



## badshah (Nov 11, 2010)

*Re: So we want a homeland?*



Seeker9 said:


> Dear Badshah Ji
> 
> There is undoubtedly a proud military heritage that should continue to be remembered with pride
> 
> ...


 
I think there should be two tiers of Sikhs in this day and age

1. Spirtual sikhs (do naam jap all day and seva to community)
2. Saint soldiers (pray but enrol into the army)

Now that makes sense to me..... with the kirpan replaced with a gun in point 2, obviously kachera modified for all weather conditions and movement


----------



## hparmar (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

Dear badshah ji and all,

I understand what you are saying but I feel that you need to separate religion from religious culture. Religious culture changes with time but the fundamental thought or idea of a religion does not or should not change with time if it is the undeniable truth. The example of this is the teachings in the guru granth saib. 
100 years from now Sikhs might or might not have turbans but people seeking a way to enlightenment will still read the holy scriptures to better them selves. 
I feel that all religions have a bit of militant religious culture in them. This is fit for the times in which a the practice a persons religion is oppressed but i would argue that it can be easily be manipulated to harm others in the name of god. examples of this can be found in any history book.
I don't think people should forget there roots but they should also have a clear understanding of the reality they live in. 
A sikh homeland would be a great feeling but at what cost? What is the benefit of having a home land besides for a warm feeling? I ask this question not to **** people off but to genuinely find out the advantages as i do not understand and would like to learn. 
btw these are just my views if they offended anyone i apologize but please do respond.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

My comments are intended only for reflection. And I am not certain that I am understanding everyone's replies to this thread as I should.

But consider the case of Israel  (minus the ongoing conflicts with Palestinians for the moment). Let's just consider the internal religious conflicts that occur there.

Israel is considered a democracy. It was devised as a homeland for ALL Jews. The definition of who is a Jew is typically taken to be anyone whose mother was Jewish.

However there are some issues. 

Orthodox Jews command heavy influence in the day to day workings of the country. For example, if an archeological site is dug, and the country is filled with still hidden and ancient settlements, orthodox Jews must be appeased whenever they feel that a religious tenet has or will be violated by further excavation. Another example, a convert to Judaism is not considered a Jew in Israel unless converted by an orthodox rabbi, and has papers to prove it. These are only 2 examples of how in spite of being a country for all Jews, orthodox communities can put glue in the engine. 

So many will say there will be no problems because there is only "one Sikhee." Nobel words that have yet to take form.

For a Sikh homeland, often the argument is given that it would be worked out by the UN and governed democratically. But by whom?  and how?  and would this happen without armed internal conflict to see who would rise to the top as the dominant political influences - without respect for sectarian adherence?

Today UK Akaali Kirtan Jatha and Damdami Takt continue a bitter battle over a number of issues which began as arguments over rehat and scriptural questions regarding DG and also Raagmala. Numerous splinter groups in India claim they are rightfully the caretakers of the legacy of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and resort to civil disobedience and even at times thuggery to make a point. In Canada, and now in the US, there are bitter gurdwara battles over Dasam Granth. There are many rehats that sub-groups of Sikhs adhere to while at the same time others consider the Sikh Rehat Maryada either outdated or not the true rehat (again for uncounted reasons). Various organized members of the diaspora call for violence against SinghSabha institutions and media. There are "beadbi watches" to monitor and organize against members of Sikh groups (e.g., Ramgarhia gurdwaras are under beadbi watch) because they do not walk the chalk line as their critics would like. Slkh media is often used to promote the idea that this or that group is anti-panthic using stories that are pure concoctions. The Sikh Rehat Maryada could be a blueprint for how to resolve such religious matters  without resorting to armed conflict. That has not happened. Or conflicts could be resolved without looking for court intervention and political resolutions. Yet ultimately politics seems never to be kept out of religious disputes. 

For the moment assume that a Sikh homeland takes the path of Israel. Would "orthodox Sikhs" have great influence?" What is an orthodox Sikh? The answer might be the amritdhari are orthodox Sikhs. But we all know that, for some, any one particular amritdhari is not armitdahri enough. And for others, some amritdharis are too amritdhari for one's taste. SRM, AKJ rehat and Damdami takht rehat are not the same reaht. 


How then does the panth keep religion out of political disputes when a proposed homeland is defined by a religion? That is not an easy question to answer imho. Even if a homeland were carved out under the best possible political conditions, will these internal conflicts be imported to this new place. And how will they be sorted out?


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

Someone recently said when politics is governed by religion it works really well and you get miri-piri. When religion is governed by politics, problems arise. For the last 100 years + the latter situation reigns supreme


----------



## hparmar (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

I couldn't agree with everything you said more. If you take isreal as an example and put aside that the majaority of the jews living there are coverts from Russia. Which is not there ancestors homeland. Just think of the 100s of years of disputes and how many lives lost over what? the right to call a piece of land yours?
 is that higher then the price of life of a fellow human? our religion was made to abolish ideas such as caste and other inequalities but We Sikhs as a community have not followed that principle cause if we did i feel that we wouldn't have a need to separate ourselves and would see all humans as Sikhs. 
We cant even get along in the current state all we need is a homeland so we can have a ever lasting civil war. So we can kill each other even faster.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

Some sikhs want homeland for very simple reason and that is there is hardly any place on Earth to whom sikhs can call it their own.Even in Punjab Sikhs are losing numbers and with that there political strength is also declining.If Sikhs were in trouble anywhere Like we have seen Pakistan then which country is going to help them? Sikhs can become victim any type of ethnic voilence anywhere in world and in that case Sikhs are at total mercy of
UN or some other country


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

findinmyway ji 

I would like to agree with you, but I cannot. Religion needs to stay out of politics when its members do not understand the difference between "rule" and "governance." The situation in Israel is that religion will not stay out of politics. That is one of the reasons why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be easily solved. Orthodox Jews routinely put hard-liners into office. The country is defined by religious adherence, even though birth, and thus genes define ethnic identity as a Jew. 

Certainly politics should stay out of religion. Religion ideally should bring great truths and values to the practice of politics. When in history has that ever happened? 

Sikhism has not seen that. Ranjit Singh managed a system of religious harmony in Punjab, but to do it he crafted a form of governance that blended religions. He himself is criticized however in some quarters for creating an atmosphere that tainted Sikhism with Hindu beliefs and practices. Our Gurus managed to blend miri and piri, however, this model amounts to theocracy. A Sikh homeland could be _de facto _ a theocracy. If we go to the argument that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is now the Guru and can temper politics with its wisdom, then we are faced with another problem. The problem of those who would give parkash to other scriptures. Now I am back to where I began. How does one govern an country under the flag of "one Sikhee" or "miri piri" when the facts on the ground tell a different story.


----------



## hparmar (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

that is understandable. I live in the US growing up in ny with a turban was also tough not to compare with the hardships people have faced in counties like packistan. I dont know if having a homeland would help me or any other sikh more then unifying as a communtiy to change the environment where you live. The Jews didn't get a homeland out of good faith they got a home land because they were a united community that knows how to use the existing political system to there advantage. So maybe We should focus more on unity where ever we live so that Sikhs never see issues that you speak off.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Some sikhs want homeland for very simple reason and that is there is hardly any place on Earth to whom sikhs can call it their own.Even in Punjab Sikhs are losing numbers and with that there political strength is also declining.If Sikhs were in trouble anywhere Like we have seen Pakistan then which country is going to help them? Sikhs can become victim any type of ethnic voilence anywhere in world and in that case Sikhs are at total mercy of
> UN or some other country



YES This is a bitter and tragic truth. How many times can one say that? Not often enough. Say it 1000 times. I agree so much with you.

And that is also why the inability to find a way to stand above these panthic divisions make the lack of a homeland an even greater tragedy and even more painful.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



hparmar said:


> that is understandable. I live in the US growing up in ny with a turban was also tough not to compare with the hardships people have faced in counties like packistan. I dont know if having a homeland would help me or any other sikh more then unifying as a communtiy to change the environment where you live. The Jews didn't get a homeland out of good faith they got a home land because they were a united community that knows how to use the existing political system to there advantage. So maybe We should focus more on unity where ever we live so that Sikhs never see issues that you speak off.



Jews mainly got their homeland because after second world war there was mass world wide sympathy with them.They were community that lost 3/4 th of its european population and 1/4 th overall population in second world war
Sikhs on the other hand never had any sympathy factor


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



spnadmin said:


> YES This is a bitter and tragic truth. How many times can one say that? Not often enough. Say it 1000 times. I agree so much with you.
> 
> And that is also why the inability to find a way to stand above these panthic divisions make the lack of a homeland an even greater tragedy and even more painful.



Divisions are almost in very Religion ,even much greater than Sikhism,The only problem is that almost every sikh have started believing that his/her version is genuine while the other's one is false and in that He/she start bad mouthing attacking his own co religionist .


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

Just curious...

Countries like China and Thailand have high Buddhist populations, but neither could be called a Buddhist homeland. Tibet perhaps???


Just wondering what a Buddhist would consider to be their homeland???

And whether Buddhists lament the lack of a clear place to call their own?

Or maybe they think there are more important things in their lives??

Don't know the answers......


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



Seeker9 said:


> Just curious...
> 
> Countries like China and Thailand have high Buddhist populations, but neither could be called a Buddhist homeland. Tibet perhaps???
> 
> ...



May I ask you how Thailand is not a budhist?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thailand set to make Buddhism the state religion

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/world/asia/24iht-thai.1.5852389.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sri Lanka is also Budhist ,so Budhists have there countries.If I am not wrong when Talibans were blowing bamiyan budha then many bushist countries including sri lanka offered them that they will relocate the statue but Talibans did not accept that offer.Imagine if tommorrow some fanatics will take over Pakistan and say they are pulling down sikh Gurdwara's then will their be any country which will offer Gurdwara's to be relocated?


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



Kanwardeep Singh said:


> May I ask you how Thailand is not a budhist?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thailand set to make Buddhism the state religion
> 
> ...




Dear Kanwardeep Ji

I said:



> Countries like China and Thailand have high Buddhist populations, but neither could be called a Buddhist homeland.



If you think Buddhists would regard Thailand and Sri Lanka as their homeland than that is fine. I would disagree though

Agree that declaring a state religion is significant:redturban:


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

Just to develop my thinking further...if there was one place on Earth that would spring to mind as a logical location for a Buddhist homeland, I would go for the one place most closely associated with the birth of Buddha....i.e Nepal....yet clearly that is not a Buddhist homeland...in fact there are more Hindus in Nepal than there are Buddhists


----------



## badshah (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

The last known SIkhs were those surviving WW2

After that the people of the religion went under assimulation and the weakening of the religion since the martial side become symbolic

If a kirpan has no use in 2010 then it could be a requirement of taking amrit that you are qualified in a martial art then

This way the use of a kirpan evolves into the use of your fist and therefore Sikhism remains martial and spirtual

You cannot defend the weak or let alone defend yourself if you do not undertake any martial training?  

If you are a police officer that wears a gun and then tomorrow guns are banned, how would you feel if you were then asked to wear a toy water pistol?

So I am not saying that the kirpan should be removed but even a symbolic one around your neck or the one in your kanga is good enough as long as you take some sort of martial training, boxing, karate mma etc etc in its replacement

About the Sikh homeland point - well we had a Sikh homeland and then after the British we lost it

Another poster in this thread said, maybe in 100 years no one wears a turban then that is greater eveidence that we do not need a Sikh homeland becuase if we diverge from Sikh principles then you are no longer fighting for a Sikh homeland.  A sikh homeland is a place to be a sikh not open up pubs and clubs, whisky partying etc etc

TBH having the Harmindr Sahib denotes out homeland without offically having one and this is more than enough


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



Seeker9 said:


> Just to develop my thinking further...if there was one place on Earth that would spring to mind as a logical location for a Buddhist homeland, I would go for the one place most closely associated with the birth of Buddha....i.e Nepal....yet clearly that is not a Buddhist homeland...in fact there are more Hindus in Nepal than there are Buddhists



Nepal is today for all intents and purposes a Communist country. Formerly a theocracy with the king serving as head of religion and head of state, this is no longer the case. 

Not any longer a Hindu nor  a Buddhist nation. http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=8244&size=A


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

Some unanswered questions for me on the subject of a Sikh homeland are related to the role of religion in government. Theocracy, state religion,  not the same thing, pose some concerns in my humble opinion

1. Would you want it to be a theocracy, which is a state governed by a theocracy?

Definition of THEOCRACY: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. An example would be Saudi Arabia.

2. Would you want Sikhism to be the state religion?

A state religion (also called an official religion, established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. (Practically, a state without a state religion is called a secular state.)

3. Would you want this homeland to be secular, but where government is dominated by the religious principles of the cultural group that founded it, or that had been the historical majority? An example would be Israel or Ireland?

For examples of the difficulties now experienced in Israel you can read this blog. Very informative http://religionandstateinisrael.blogspot.com/


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

SPNAdmin Ji has asked some good meaty questions

I will think about those carefully but in the meantime I will add some mundane administrative questions to do with how the new homeland would be run ..simple things like currency, justice, imports, exports, funding, healthcare, defence, taxation, international profile, UN Recognition, currency recognition and exchange etc etc etc

I noticed another thread which I haven't had the chance to read yet, but it was called "Poverty in Punjab"

If a homeland was established within Punjab, would it make that sad situation any better? If so, how?

So to summarise in brief:

1) Why is the homeland absolutely necessary?
2) Will it be economically viable and sustainable and will the quality of life for everybody improve compared to what they have now?
3)* Will it be of any spiritual benefit and make existing Sikhs into better Sikhs otherwise what is the point?*


It is one thing to want a homeland and a place to call your own

It is another matter entirely to establish one on the world scene and keep it going.....


----------



## hparmar (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

"A sikh homeland is a place to be a sikh not open up pubs and clubs,  whisky partying etc etc"

Badshah ji - How would you enforce such a rule? Where do you draw a line bettween what a person can do and not do? If a person can not party or express joy in public then who would want to live in place like that? it will slowly become a country of one..lol j/khttp://www.sikhphilosophy.net/members/badshah.html<!-- google_ad_section_end -->


----------



## badshah (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Independence_and_first_years

A Jewish homeland was formed because the British could not conclude to a suitable solition for both Muslims and Jews

However in our case during the partition it appears that we were happy to live side by side with Hindus therefore you get no homeland

Even today we live side by side with Hindus and therefore no need for homeland

If Sikhs were thrown in on Pakistans side then for sure there would be to much conflict and would would have to fight for a homeland

If we collectively are not fighting for a homeland then how can you have one?

However if our populations explodes and we all are thirtsy to be SIkhs then the idea if requiring a homeland cannot be ignored.....

If we explode in populaton but we are not that Sikh orientated then you cannot fight for a homeland


----------



## badshah (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



hparmar said:


> "A sikh homeland is a place to be a sikh not open up pubs and clubs, whisky partying etc etc"
> 
> Badshah ji - How would you enforce such a rule? Where do you draw a line bettween what a person can do and not do? If a person can not party or express joy in public then who would want to live in place like that? it will slowly become a country of one..lol j/k<!-- google_ad_section_end -->


 
Look at Saudi Arabia

BTW - would you spill your blood knowing that you were fighting for people who would just go and open up pubs and clubs?


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



hparmar said:


> "A sikh homeland is a place to be a sikh not open up pubs and clubs,  whisky partying etc etc"
> 
> Badshah ji - How would you enforce such a rule? Where do you draw a line bettween what a person can do and not do? If a person can not party or express joy in public then who would want to live in place like that? it will slowly become a country of one..lol j/khttp://www.sikhphilosophy.net/members/badshah.html<!-- google_ad_section_end -->



hparmar ji

Your comments are exactly why I asked the questions about religion and government. In the 3 examples I give of theocracy, state religion, and dominant state religion, there would be questions that go far beyond  pubs and partying that would be going on. Many things we take for granted today, like a civil marriage, become major constitutional issues taking years to resolve if at all. Please look at that link I posted about problems of religion and state in Israel.

BTW In Saudi Arabia there are no pubs and partying going on involving alcohol in theory. But it does go on in private and on the sneak. Nothing happens to you if you have friends in high places or have not stepped on anyone's toes.

badshah ji

Would this be an important issue to debate when setting up a constitution for a Sikh homeland, in your opinion? 





> BTW - would you spill your blood knowing that you were fighting for people who would just go and open up pubs and clubs?


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



badshah said:


> Look at Saudi Arabia
> 
> BTW - would you spill your blood knowing that you were fighting for people who would just go and open up pubs and clubs?



Dear Badshah JI

I trust your blood spilling and fighting references are 21st century metaphors for a political process....(he typed nervously.......)
swordfight


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



Seeker9 said:


> Dear Badshah JI
> 
> I trust your blood spilling and fighting references are 21st century metaphors for a political process....(he typed nervously.......)
> swordfight



Thanks because that is the part of the thread that I am honestly not getting at all. So that makes 2 of us. 

seeker9 ji

My decision to ask questions about the relationship between religion and state rather than the nitty gritty questions of government functions and viability was deliberate. 

Your questions are asked frequently and are answered with a fair amount of passion. The end of the conversation kicks in with the reply "this can be worked out later."

I asked the questions about religion because they are rarely asked and even less often answered. There is a blithe assumption that "there is one Sikhi" and so the questions about religion and state will answer themselves. But that is a long-shot imho. I explained a few posts back why there is more than one Sikhi.  Even agreement on the basics of Sikhi will not answer my questions. 

When a homeland is defined by the word "Sikh" then religion does become important to knowing what the "homeland' is supposed to be. It may even be an obstacle. There is more to consider than cultural and historical identity.


----------



## badshah (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



Seeker9 said:


> Dear Badshah JI
> 
> I trust your blood spilling and fighting references are 21st century metaphors for a political process....(he typed nervously.......)
> swordfight


 
Depends on which oath you take..... if you go through political process then why would anyone give up their land (Hindustan) for Sikhs?

If you go the fighting route then you will have to take on the Indian army..... you would have to revive every SIkh to martial levels like a 100,000 strong proper army.  84 Bhindranwale tried it with waht 100 - 300 people..... maybe he should have tried Guerilla fighting as that would have been more suitable for such a small number aginst a large Indian army - but more to the point people were not all united and martial in status thats why it did not result in a Sikh homeland

There is one thing that is clear, we are not united or we collectively do not have it as our number 1 interest to have a homeland.

its not as if we are being persecuted, or have to take up arms to fight for our faith

Maybe we should channel our efforts on Sikh recognition where there are hardly any SIkhs like USA for example - they think we are Arabs.  Achieving this would be much better since then the World would become our homeland rather than just Punjab


----------



## hparmar (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

Someone earlier said how the jews got a homeland after ww1 and ww2 cause of sympathy. 
Please tell me of any race or religion in history except the jews ever getting anything out of sympathy. 
You seriously think having influence and money in countries like the US and UK weren't the factor? a race that was getting eraticated all of a suddden gets a homeland. Call me cynical but i dont think the world is so white and black. 
either way i just think haveing a homeland without resolving current interanl issues is just asking for more trouble. Its easy to be cheerleaders and say yes we want our own homeland... its another thing to rationaly think of the complexaty of such a task.. I am truly injoying this conversation.


----------



## badshah (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



spnadmin said:


> There is more to consider than cultural and historical identity.


 
Like?


----------



## badshah (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



spnadmin said:


> Thanks because that is the part of the thread that I am honestly not getting at all. So that makes 2 of us.
> 
> seeker9 ji
> 
> ...


 

Here, this is what Sikh homeland looks like - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Empire


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

Dear SPNAdmin Ji

You are right as usual!

Your meaty questions fall into the "opening a can of worms" category which I will think about before composing a reply

I am glad you asked because they are pretty fundamental and crucial if we are looking at a scenario where a group associated with a particular religion wants to establish an independent homeland using the religion as a basis for constitution

We have seen some unpleasant examples of what can happen when a group of people go down this route and force their system on anyone who has the misfortune to be within their borders. 

Thankfully, Sikhism is not steeped in any archaic dogma that would give rise to such a thing but the separation of religion and state is a key issue. What would the legal system be based on? 

Returning to the earlier comment about pubs and clubs, if we were to follow the scriptures to the letter and the law was the same, then consumption of alcohol would be banned wouldn't it and be a punishable offence???

It's very messy.......but glad you asked!!!

winkingmunda


----------



## hparmar (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



badshah said:


> Look at Saudi Arabia
> 
> BTW - would you spill your blood knowing that you were fighting for people who would just go and open up pubs and clubs?




I would not spill my blood for a homeland or any sort. I would spill my blood to protect my people from aggregation and nothing more.


----------



## badshah (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



Seeker9 said:


> Dear SPNAdmin Ji
> 
> You are right as usual!
> 
> ...


 
Was booze banned in the Sikh Empire or were all the Sikhs knocking back glasseys and then going moghul bashing?


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



badshah said:


> Was booze banned in the Sikh Empire or were all the Sikhs knocking back glasseys and then going moghul bashing?



Was it? You tell me....because I don't know the answer to that question

Let's park it for now and consider some of the issues SPNAdmin Ji raised in a recent post about the relationship between religion and state and the nature of the governance of the homeland and it's approach to law and justice


----------



## badshah (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



Seeker9 said:


> Was it? You tell me....because I don't know the answer to that question
> 
> Let's park it for now and consider some of the issues SPNAdmin Ji raised in a recent post about the relationship between religion and state and the nature of the governance of the homeland and it's approach to law and justice


 

Why do we need to look at things as if we never had a homeland..... we had a homeland, so how did Ranjit SIngh do it?


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

I am now truly ROFLMAO Seekero ji. Am I right as usual? ;( Who can say?

My concern is that constitutional questions have to be taken very seriously because in the end they help us understand whether we can live in a particular place as dissenters without fear of imprisonment or even death. All the democracies of the world continually revisit the questions of religious freedom and religious dissent. The pendulum continually swings back and forth. An important question would be: Is there aconstitutional framework for making decisions that can be fair to everyone, not just the majority? For deciding on both civil marriages, partying that is going on, and more without turning to "divine principles" and turning the "divine" into the "ultimate decider" according to divine henchmen.

The Sikh Rehat Maryada has a pretty good understanding of how diverse groups can make decisions collectively. Unfortunately, as I see it, the Sikh Rehat Maryada is not universally valued, and could be turned into a framework for oppression, unless those questions about religion and state are seriously addressed.


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



hparmar said:


> I would not spill my blood for a homeland or any sort. I would spill my blood to protect my people from aggregation and nothing more.



Ok folks..may I respectfully suggest we park the bloodspilling stuff for now and see if we can develop a discussion around the basis of governance.....

As SPNAdmin Ji noted, desires and wishes are often stated but some of the harder issues are not given a good airing....


----------



## badshah (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

SIkh homeland would be branded through currency, just like UK has the Queen on all the notes

Guru Nanak Dev Ji said, if you are a Hindu then be a good Hindu, if you are a Muslim then be a good Muslim..... therefore you owuld obviously have to allow people of ther faiths to be allowed to continue to to worship their scriptures

About the Law, well it would be like the UK, it would not discriminate omn your religion - one law for all. It would have to be seperate from religion to do that

Homeland would simply mean your own currency, you own governemnt, your own army and thats about it really


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



badshah said:


> Was booze banned in the Sikh Empire or were all the Sikhs knocking back glasseys and then going moghul bashing?



This statement seems to be taking something that is historically amazing, complex, and full of insights into the mind of a military and political genius to the level of a neighborhood rumble organized by some drunk hoodlums who don't like the guys 4 streets away. You may think it is humorous. But it isn't. 

There are many threads here about Sher e Punjab and how he created the "Sikh Empire."  Read them and stop being foolish. And stop coming back to the issue of pubs, clubs, glasseys and parties that are going on. You are being sarcastic - yes we get it.


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



badshah said:


> Why do we need to look at things as if we never had a homeland..... we had a homeland, so how did Ranjit SIngh do it?



How did he? tell us please

Referring to a past state in a very different world scene is interesting. So what can we learn from that and use now to address the current desire for establishing a homeland?

Some sort of system is required...or are you just assuming that some political / intellectual person will come up with a viable option?


----------



## badshah (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



Seeker9 said:


> How did he? tell us please
> 
> Referring to a past state in a very different world scene is interesting. So what can we learn from that and use now to address the current desire for establishing a homeland?
> 
> Some sort of system is required...or are you just assuming that some political / intellectual person will come up with a viable option?


 
I had a think about it, here is my answer re-pasted:

SIkh homeland would be branded through currency, just like UK has the Queen on all the notes

Guru Nanak Dev Ji said, if you are a Hindu then be a good Hindu, if you are a Muslim then be a good Muslim..... therefore you owuld obviously have to allow people of ther faiths to be allowed to continue to to worship their scriptures

About the Law, well it would be like the UK, it would not discriminate omn your religion - one law for all. It would have to be seperate from religion to do that

Homeland would simply mean your own currency, you own governemnt, your own army and thats about it really


Addition: your own trade routes and economy - basically an enterprise to grow and nourish your people<!-- google_ad_section_end -->


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



Seeker9 said:


> How did he? tell us please
> 
> Referring to a past state in a very different world scene is interesting. So what can we learn from that and use now to address the current desire for establishing a homeland?
> 
> Some sort of system is required...or are you just assuming that some political / intellectual person will come up with a viable option?



Actually I am not surprised. Most Internet discussions of a Sikh homeland always come down, really down, to personal myths and theories about what it would be like. The myths and theories seem to come from more individual myths and theories that are born in sorrow, from generations of sadness, betrayal and feelings of powerlessness. The discussions end up where we are right now. That is also why I rarely participate in them. Today,  I deviated from my personal policy to avoid such discussions. I hope I did share some things to consider in more serious moments.


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



badshah said:


> SIkh homeland would be branded through currency, just like UK has the Queen on all the notes
> 
> Guru Nanak Dev Ji said, if you are a Hindu then be a good Hindu, if you are a Muslim then be a good Muslim..... therefore you owuld obviously have to allow people of ther faiths to be allowed to continue to to worship their scriptures
> 
> ...



What currency?
How would it be traded on the market?
How would it compare to the Rupee? Better? Worse?
Would occupants of the new homeland find themselves worse off as the new currency carries a lower value than the Rupee? This happened to some EU states when they joined the Euro. And that debate started several years ago and is still going strong.
Please understand there is more to this than just printing bits of paper.......currency markets are known to be volatile and ruthless.

Re law, you are suggesting then that it would not be based on Sikhism....so why do it at all? Why not just live in an existing democracy that already has such laws and just continue to practice Sikhism?

Where does the army come from? Would there be sufficient numbers to form a credible national defence....please note I am not querying ability or intent to join but just numbers of people
Where does it get it's kit, vehicles, arms etc
Where does the money come from?


----------



## badshah (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



Seeker9 said:


> the current desire for establishing a homeland?


 
We do not knwo what the current desire to have a homeland is... or do you know?


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



spnadmin said:


> Actually I am not surprised. Most Internet discussions of a Sikh homeland always come down, really down, to personal myths and theories about what it would be like. The myths and theories seem to come from more individual myths and theories that are born in sorrow, from generations of sadness, betrayal and feelings of powerlessness. The discussions end up where we are right now. That is also why I rarely participate in them. Today,  I deviated from my personal policy to avoid such discussions. I hope I did share some things to consider in more serious moments.



Yes I can see very similar discussions to the last one I participated in. To date I have never understood the necessity of such a place nor have I ever seen a credible explanation of how such a place would be established and then run and recognised on the world scene

It's been an interesting diversion from my studies ...no more, no less


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



badshah said:


> We do not knwo what the current desire to have a homeland is... or do you know?



I'm not aware of any statistical analysis but this sort of thread has been discussed in the past so I guess we can infer some level of interest and desire


----------



## badshah (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



Seeker9 said:


> What currency?
> How would it be traded on the market?
> How would it compare to the Rupee? Better? Worse?
> Would occupants of the new homeland find themselves worse off as the new currency carries a lower value than the Rupee? This happened to some EU states when they joined the Euro. And that debate started several years ago and is still going strong.
> ...


 
Exactly!!!  You hit all the points on the head!

Just like the UK was enriched through the British Empire in their window of opportunity, we cannot do the same.  They basically looted other countries, traded on their commodities like opium, tea, spices, gold, diamonds and sent that money back to the UK

Its not like Punjab is a oil rich place..... so it it quite possible that we would become a poverty stricken country

Your points which are very good which lean towards not needing a homeland becuase its too late - this is a valid point!

As I said earlier maybe we should think about increasing our awarness in places like the USA where no one knows what we are


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

Dear Badshah Ji

Good point at the end...awareness raising is always a worthwhile activity

There's another good recent thread about whether there is a need for a renaissance in Sikhism which you may like to read


----------



## hparmar (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



Seeker9 said:


> Dear Badshah Ji
> 
> Good point at the end...awareness raising is always a worthwhile activity
> 
> There's another good recent thread about whether there is a need for a renaissance in Sikhism which you may like to read




i agree with both of you this is what i stated earlier that if we the Sikhs that like in countries outside India just take the time to impress our identity to others it would go a long way in helping us not be victims of abuse in the future.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 12, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*



hparmar said:


> i agree with both of you this is what i stated earlier that if we the Sikhs that like in countries outside India just take the time to impress our identity to others it would go a long way in helping us not be victims of abuse in the future.



This is the hardest thing I have ever had to do in my life, and I pray to do it right.


----------



## davinderdhanjal (Nov 17, 2010)

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:WordDocument>   <w:View>Normal</w:View>   <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>   <w:Compatibility>    <w:BreakWrappedTables/>    <w:SnapToGridInCell/>    <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>    <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>   </w:Compatibility>   <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object  classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable 	{mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; 	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; 	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; 	mso-style-noshow:yes; 	mso-style-parent:""; 	mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; 	mso-para-margin:0cm; 	mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; 	mso-pagination:widow-orphan; 	font-size:10.0pt; 	font-family:"Times New Roman"; 	mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;} </style> <![endif]-->  All Contributors

I have enjoyed the discussion and marked thanks to the comments I think have direction required but all have contributed to liven the story. We are discussing the subject 'Homeland for Sikhs' however we are basing our comments on present day inference of the state of Punjab under Indian administration.
I beieve we have lost direction completely of what is required for a functioning state. I am not an expert in this field but have experience of designing and building machines. I will if I may liken this to a machine. And simpler the machine easier it is to repair if it misfunctions for any reason.
If the machine is designed and built on sound sceintific and engineering principles it will function and survive the rigours of operation and deliver the necessary output for a span of time.
Similarly a state would have to be based on equally sound principles. Guru Gobind Singh, Banda Bahadur, Ranjit Singh all knew that and they were the people whe were *true to a faith* uncovered by the Nanaks and associates. 
One of these principles was being _true to yourself and to god_. 
I believe this is a profound statement for a Sikh and if he/she believes in this it does not leave much else wanting to build a family or a state. 

Let us see what we require for a 'self sustaining state'
1. Resources a) Manpower, b)Material, c) Management, d) trade
2. Alegiance/Loyalty - to a) State, b) Leader, c) Government, d) faith
3. Security - a) Law, b) Police, c) Army

If the leader is not true to himself/lord there is no hope in hell of him trying to instil loyalty in his people. This I believe what disintegrated the Sikh Empire? after Ranjit Singh when the followers preferred greed and sacrificed their allegiance to the leader - may the leader was not true to the cause anyway!
Today we cannot even manage a government because people involved like to have their pictures posted all over than deeds and consequences of their deeds.
The police for some reason believe that they only need to count money than uphold law.
The law courts work on basis of British Law may be with some modifications but lack morality - which I think should come from basic Sikh beliefs.

Now we have Resources (Punjab) is a net contributor to Indian economy and second only to Delhi so even with its wings clipped to not fly it can be considered to be viable a state.
It may need to import material - which country does not. Management at personal level and 'farm' type industry level must be good enough to be #2 in the country. Management after that goes to 'greed ridden' humans with elephant heads as someone put it elswhere - who have no consideration for people outside their 'family panth'

So why we need a sikh state (there are many types of Sikhs but values shared with Nanaks) is because at least these people Hindu, Muslim, Sikh who I hope know who huddled them into sikh fold and what he taught them. It is easier to establish a law that has some common moral value for the 'community' than with people who do not have that belief! Ranjit Singh achieved it so why cant we?
BECAUSE we are not '*true to a faith'* a faith that brings us together - that faith that the British took us away from by offering greed (like rishwat that we are experts at now -  at all levels), 'humans with elephant heads' are taking it away from us now by exploiting a minority who can be likend to ones who betrayed Ranjt Singh and his followers*,* by fabricating doubts in what was established by Guru Gobind Singh and other smaller issuesI hope all will recall the story about a mother who takes her son to a wise man for help to stop the child eating too many sweets. The wise man sends them back and asks them to come back in two week's time - when they return the wise man pronunces 'son too many sweets are not good for you' ! Mother puzzled and asked him sir you could have said that two weeks ago - no said the wise man I also ate sweets at that time!

Can we find that wise man/woman for our leader? 

Some one who advocates very few rules, emphasis on truth and morality based on Nanaks' teachings - so we do not tangle ourselves in net of laws.


----------



## davinderdhanjal (Nov 22, 2010)

*Re: So We, Sikhs Want a Homeland?*

Dear SPNADMIN,

                       I think we have talent and knowledge in Punjab. We do not have leadership but we do have a strong 'greed driven mentality'
We have a very powerful tool by which we can get every voice  a vote (Worldwideweb). By this means it is possible to reduce the poisioning of minds, by political activists, of the general public.

We have people who, from what I see, are true to our Gurus, and achieving far more than the 'government of Punjab' with funds as 'hands of people' and their donations.

This sort of work is real commitment - people who help are worthy people - they will defend the work and what they have produced and if we publicise it - it will attract more worthy people into the fold and hopefully shame the leaders/government and make people aware of the inadequacy of their abilities and resolve to help the nation.

See the video below and much more on the net - let us find and publicise more of these types of people to unseat the 'corroupt and unhealthy leadership' both from the government and the gurdwara leadership to bring the Guru's teachings back into forefront. This can only be done by doers like Baba Balbir Singh.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKYdlhswVac&feature=related


----------



## max314 (Nov 30, 2010)

Erase the borders that separate men.  Do not erect new ones.


----------



## davinderdhanjal (Dec 8, 2010)

Before we start looking for homeland and squander it like we already have done, lost about 4/5 of it - there is need to look for qualities of leadership required and likely candidates.

If we look at Dr. Subramanum Swamy Ji, what an excellent investigator, orator, economist and lawyer. He, was wanted by Indian government, came into the country fron USA during emergency (Mrs. Gandhi's) - walked into the lok sabah delivered a speech and went out of the country with no one with direction or control to hold him.

We have Dr. Phoolka Ji, who has done a lot of messy work for Sikhs, but cant deliver the KO punch or pull the draggers along.

We have Baba Balbir Singh above who is setting an example for the Sikhs but with very little impact on the masses.

I do not know how much leadership is available from Akal Takhat that might unite sikhs of all denominations and persuasions?

I seriously believe the work ethic of Sikhs is good to be able to contribute to a state of their own. Statistics of 2006-2007 from wikipedia places Punjab at 12th place and contributing 2.7% of Nation's GDP - per capita we are below average.
This standing needs to be improved before we can support a state as a viable proposition otherwise there are at least 12 other states who can demand the same.

If we are hardworking, I believe that, we like to improve our standing, possibly that is why there are so many of us abroad and doing well, we have teachings and guidance of our Gurus and Faith that second to none, our contribution to the armed forces were and possibly are still better than any other state, we are the bread basket of the country what is LACKING?


----------



## wth (Jan 9, 2011)

*Who wants a seperate country???*

Okay, this is my question to all you members who call yourselves Sikhs. Who actually here would like a seperate country ruled solely by Sikhs, like that of the Maharaja Ranjit empire?? who approves of such a country? or who does not??

 i want to know your opinions, but without the slandering of other religions like for e.g Hindus or other historical individuals like Sant Jarnail Singh Bhinderanwale. Some of you members might call this land 'khalistan' or khalsa land, whatever WORD floats your boat, but it is a country run by Sikhs and Sikh rehat maryada as the law (like muslims have the sharia law). 

Do you think something like this would work? or is it ridiculous to even think about?? Is the current state of india the kind of country you would like to live in and call your homeland or not?? 

No slandering or insults please, i just want to know your opnion on this idea, and if you like this idea of having a country run by Sikhs, how would it work?? laws? police? economy? :redturban::happysingh::blueturban:rangesingh:


----------



## Seeker9 (Jan 9, 2011)

*Re: Who wants a seperate country???*

Dear WTH Ji
Similar themed threads have been posted on this fine forum over the last few months and the same views are regurgitated and we end up going in the same circles
Perhaps you could search for some of those threads?
To get you started look for:
"So we Sikhs want a homeland" which I would suggest is fairly identical to this one
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-talk/33201-so-we-sikhs-want-a-homeland.html
You can also look at "A country I have envisioned"
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/punjab/32353-a-country-that-i-have-envisioned.html
I hope you will find this helpful
:redturban:


----------



## wth (Jan 9, 2011)

*Re: Who wants a seperate country???*

ill check them out. thanks.


----------



## wth (Jan 9, 2011)

davinderdhanjal said:


> Before we start looking for homeland and squander it like we already have done, lost about 4/5 of it - there is need to look for qualities of leadership required and likely candidates.
> 
> If we look at Dr. Subramanum Swamy Ji, what an excellent investigator, orator, economist and lawyer. He, was wanted by Indian government, came into the country fron USA during emergency (Mrs. Gandhi's) - walked into the lok sabah delivered a speech and went out of the country with no one with direction or control to hold him.
> 
> ...



This is all good and golly, and there are mnay Sikhs out there who are leaders. But personally i see way too many leaders and not enough followers. If the majority of Sikhs truely wanted there homeland, they would have one. The fact however remains that Sikhs are not willing to follow or listen to whats going around them. They are happy living in there nice house with there wife making them roti on time after they come back from work. But what about the poverty, corruption and abuse other people endure (not just Sikhs) in countrys like India, the 'country of God'. 

my question to any other Sikhs reading this post. If i said to you, that tomorow we would go and get a homeland for Sikhs, who would follow me and come with me?? answer truthfully. animatedkhanda1


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 9, 2011)

The thread, Who Wants a Separate Country? has been merged with this thread because of duplicate subject matter.


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jan 9, 2011)

Conceptually separate or not does not matter if the following can be made available equally,


Freedom and Independence of religion from majority influence
Exercising
Growth
Support
 
No threats to your,
History
Your institutions
Language
 
Transparent accoutabilities
Protection from Genocidal attempts
Physical
Cultural
 
Incidents of other violence
Physical
Verbal
Spiritual
 
 
Freedom rights
To speak, write/publish and express in any media
To associate without majority controls
Extended even for the peaceful search to secede or to grow Punjab beyond its current nothingness brought about by decades of mis-deeds and conspiracies of the majority
 
To own property anywhere in the country
To conduct business in Punjabi if so chosen in your area
To express openly without fear of retribution
Checks on media control against Sikhism and sikhs
 
To work, study, marry, raise families according to sikhism
 
Does it imply a separate country, I don't know!  If we had a separate country of greater Punjab way back (pre 1947) would it have been possible to achieve the above, very likely.

List probably of first thoughts that come to mind.

Sat Sri Akal.peacesign

PS:  Prognosis:  Very very dire future for East Punjab (Punjab in India) and West Punjab (Punjab in Pakistan).  In a nuclear war between India and Pakistan both Punjabs will be destroyed (sufis in West Punjab are a pain in the but for Islam) and Sikhs in Indian Punjab in similar state for India.


----------

