# Sikh Sovergnity !



## dalsingh (Oct 26, 2007)

Amar veer ji

Shall we continue our discussion?



> yes
> 
> you are entitled to yearn fr sikh soverignity.
> 
> But if it undermines sovereignity of India, every indian is entitled to consider the person an enemy of the nation, and the act, an act of sedation.


----------



## Astroboy (Oct 26, 2007)

*Re: Amar Sanghera*

Dal Singh Ji,

Please remove this thread at it is in direct violation with SPN rules.


----------



## drkhalsa (Oct 26, 2007)

*Re: Amar Sanghera*



> Please remove this thread at it is in direct violation with SPN rules.



well I m not sure that this is the case . In past we have disscused in many thread about such topics and many exclusive topics are also there on this Topic


BUT MAY BE THERE IS  SOME CHANGE IN RULES BY ADMINISTRATOR SO I LEAVE IT TO AMAR TO RESPOND

In muy opinion healthy discusion is better than buiding up differences 


JAtinder Singh


----------



## Astroboy (Oct 26, 2007)

*Re: Amar Sanghera*

Can we have a thread named under each member like an exclusive club ?
There's a members blog for that.


----------



## kds1980 (Oct 26, 2007)

*Re: Amar Sanghera*



drkhalsa said:


> well I m not sure that this is the case . In past we have disscused in many thread about such topics and many exclusive topics are also there on this Topic
> 
> 
> BUT MAY BE THERE IS  SOME CHANGE IN RULES BY ADMINISTRATOR SO I LEAVE IT TO AMAR TO RESPOND
> ...



I agree with you .The speciality of SPN is  quality discussion.in no way it should be stopped.i THink the name of thread should be changed to sikh sovergnity


----------



## Sikh80 (Oct 26, 2007)

*Re: Amar Sanghera*

To whomsoever It may concern
The advice by a person of the stature of Begum ji should always be weighed before saying yes or no. There are chances that we may not have the prerogative of the valuable presence of Begum ji in case we continue like this. Kindly take into account the kind contribution of Begum ji.

I am very new here but I second that has been stated by Begum ji.


----------



## Astroboy (Oct 26, 2007)

*Re: Amar Sanghera*

Thank you Seeker07 for favouring me. Afterall, this is the Hard Talk section and everyone has the right to voice out their opinion. I'm not saying I'm right. 
It is easier to see another's fault than our own. I'm also human. So forgive me.

begum


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Oct 26, 2007)

*Re: Amar Sanghera*

finally i have minutes of fame ... a thread by my name !!!


i thought only players had it... 

Dal veerji

what do you want to discuss?


----------



## dalsingh (Oct 26, 2007)

> yes
> 
> you are entitled to yearn fr sikh soverignity.
> 
> But if it undermines sovereignity of India, every indian is entitled to consider the person an enemy of the nation, and the act, an act of sedation.



This is what i wanted to discuss. The statement seems to  overlook the fact that people in  India may wish to rule themselves? Given that people have suffered at the hands of Indian "security" forces this is not surprising.

What of Sikh sovereignity - do you deny it existed under Maharajah Ranjit Singh who was supported by the majority Sikh (and nonSikh) population. Can you not see how historically the state of India never existed in its current form until the British invasion.

Also are the people from Quebec who are in favour of separation considered enemies of the Canadian state?  Also consider the moves by the Scottish people in  the UK to devolve authority from the English. Are they too enemies of the state?

The view stated by yourself  seems a  bit mad  to me. It is this kind of nonsense that is used to violate human rights by anyone. Are you suggesting that all people who consider autonomy an option are "enemies of the state"?


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Oct 27, 2007)

<<<Maharajah Ranjit Singh who was supported by the majority Sikh (and nonSikh) population. >>

Was there a referendum to estimate the support? Was it a democracy?

was Ranjit Singh the elected ruler?

i agree that a Sikh ruler had his kingdom.

<<Can you not see how historically the state of India never existed in its current form until the British invasion.>>

the current state of india came into existence in 1947. those who wanted to opt out had opted out.

<<The view stated by yourself seems a bit mad to me. It is this kind of nonsense that is used to violate human rights by anyone. Are you suggesting that all people who consider autonomy an option are "enemies of the state"?>>>

 yes every coin has two sides and history judges actions in posterity.

 slogans of "Dhoti topi jamuna paar" donot ask for autonomy but talk of hegemony based on religion, which is unacceptable.

On the question of people in Q and canada, i donot think it has religious undertones. It has cultural basis and it is being handled in a completely different democratic way.

 do you know that maharaj ranjit singh's rule did not exist much beyond sutluj?

so in this case the indian side of punjab was pretty much never under your logic of "sikh" rule.

even by population logic, lets see a hypothetical case, tomorrow if sikhs migrate to bihar enmass, breed like rabbits and achieve majority....should they start demanding their own country there?

 the buck has to stop somewhere!!!

and it stopped in 1947

 so anyone having further problem still living in india can get a passport and migrate to any country they may like.

yes i am overruling the assumption that people want to rule themselves, this is because india is a democracy and people elect representatives to rule over themselves.


----------



## dalsingh (Oct 27, 2007)

amarsanghera said:


> yes i am overruling the assumption that people want to rule themselves, this is because india is a democracy and people elect representatives to rule over themselves.



India is very trigger happy. You talk of democracy but what kind of democracy eliminates 
masses of its own population, usually based on religious differences? 

Media portrayal of Sikhs in Bollywood is ridiculous and Punjab doesn't have any investment like other states. Are you surprised that Sikhs are unhappy with the situation? Sikhs abroad have proved themselves to be hardworking and prosperous (not that money means everything). Why does India not take advantage of these characteristics?

Where were the common Indians when Indira Gandhi declared an emergency on losing an election? What happened to democracy then? Importantly why try to push Sikhism into assimilation into Hinduism? India seems to know nothing of secularism as caste and religion still play a big part in its running. Sikhs need to protect themsleves too.


----------



## Sinister (Oct 30, 2007)

Hello mind if I weigh in on the issue?

Media portrayal of Sikhs in Bollywood is ridiculous and Punjab doesn't have any investment like other states. Are you surprised that Sikhs are unhappy with the situation? Sikhs abroad have proved themselves to be hardworking and prosperous (not that money means everything). Why does India not take advantage of these characteristics?

I was never too fond of bollywood anyways. I think bollywood insults all of the indian sub-continent.... rather than 'just the sikhs' (especially woman)... have you ever seen a heroin act in a bollywood movie? her lines are pathetic and she is portrayed as nothing more than a dumb, large chested, dance crazy bimbo?


investment: 

Foreign investment and Federal investment trickles in. But the problem in punjab is corruption; the state and local governments love their "ice-cream".:ice: 

Punjab has the highest per Capita power generation in the country (2.5 times the national average). All villages have been electrified since 1974! Punjab is a leader state when it comes to infrastructure (be it rail, highway, power). Go to New Delhi (the CAPITAL!) and you will experience 12 hour power cuts!

A person must also consider that India has a population of more than 1 BILLION people!
feeding that number is crazy especially when half your country's land is dry all year round or flooded with water.

punjab has literally been reserved as the "greenbelt" region of India. Kind of like the state of Iowa for the US. The Government wants to purposely limit INDUSTRIAL development in the region so that it remains the greenbelt (which is the reason why punjab is home to significant diesel and electrical subsdies for farmers).

Note: The government wants to limit Industrial development not agricultural development.

so when you say "punjab doesnt have investment like other states" you are correct but it has nothing to do with faith or discrimination. You break my heart because your not looking at the larger picture. 

*and separation is not that great for Punjab. The south of India is expanding rapidly and states like Punjab will get even richer with an ever hungry, rising middle class in the south. Punjab can feed off this growth and the last thing it needs is another border hindering this trade. NOTE: a border will just add another layer of corruption and bearucracy for the common farmer trying to trade his produce, grains and livestock to the larger market of south india.*

do you have any idea what the price of wheat in the market is this year?
-- MIND BLOWING (grain shortages across the world...no better time for being a farmer) :}{}{}:

and the small state of punjab accounts for 60% of india's wheat production! 
I was studying the chicago mercantile exchange a couple of days ago and wheat was trading at $7 a bushell!:{;o: balle balle indeed!


all stats were from the punjab gov site.
or 
Punjab (India) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Official Web site of Punjab, India


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Oct 30, 2007)

Dal singh ji

being an indian and a sikh are two different aspects

one is a personal spiritual duty and other is a national, collective interest duty.

trust me, india is notas bad as the propaganda machine projects it to be.

Punjab has a unique opportunity as pointed out by Sinister.

but it is upto the people to stand up and grab it.


----------



## Sinister (Oct 30, 2007)

And grabbing it they are!

ive never seen punjab in such a boom time mood

real estate is on FIRE!


----------



## TGill (Oct 30, 2007)

Hi Sinister ji

Great oppportunity lies ahead for Punjab as you rightly pointed out.
- We are not really there to grab that opportunity as yet.
- I think the punjab govt. need to get on the toes now to get the middle and low class of Punjab involved in this opportunity as well. So it all depends on our own people now not on the some distant relatives to grab the great fruits at this high time.
- We have missed the IT train, can't really afford to miss this one.


----------



## Sikh80 (Oct 30, 2007)

The policies of the state government are almost dependent upon the government that heads at the centre. Unless the govt. at centre is pro-sikh or neutral the situation is likely to be explioted further.
We need to have clean politicians and not opputunists who are basking in their own glory.Punjab is a beautiful place.What has Central government done for the development of the Industries which is vehicle of the economic development.

I am very sorry to state that the sikhs who have shown interest in Punjab are on finger tips. How can then we expect the growth of the Punjab as a state?
We can discuss at a forum.It is ok. Ground realities are the one that matters. Besides drug addiction isanother problem which has shown its head in Punjab.


----------



## Sinister (Oct 30, 2007)

in terms of infrastructure punjab is well developed. go to states like Bihar, Assam and Orissa (go ahead and  travel east to calcutta if you have to) 

these are the places that need major infrastructure development (many of the villages are without power and adequate food supply)

its not easy distributing federal funds from the treasury. 

Why hasnt punjab jumped on the IT train?

-its part of the greenbelt (as explained earlier)
-its population lacks languistic and communication skills (most of punjabi's do not speek english as fluently than in the south) thus making south india the more lucrative place to open a call center or software development firm. 
-punjab also lacks quality higer educational institutions (which if I recall is the fault of state, not federal government).


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Oct 30, 2007)

thanks sinister ji


i have seen other parts of india. punjab has much more egalitarian spread of wealth.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Oct 30, 2007)

amarsanghera said:


> the current state of india came into existence in 1947. those who wanted to opt out had opted out.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


 
can you please explain this "opt out" option?  i was not aware that Sikhs had such an oppurtunity.  i'd like to learn more about this.


regarding migration...  that's not exactly true.  only people who are considerably more wealthy than the average indian, AND who have found a country that will take them may leave for a country that treats them better.  certainly the vast majority of indian people do not have this option.

regarding the rule of people...   i was under the assumption that a democracy means people do want to rule themselves, in fact ARE ruling themselves.  in america we call this a government "by the people, of the people, and for the people".  i'm pretty sure it's the essence of democracy.


----------



## dalsingh (Oct 30, 2007)

I still see Sikhs as a sovereign people who lost their kingdom. One day they may get it back, even if it isn't in my lifetime.


----------



## TGill (Oct 30, 2007)

and it will be called "Kingdom of heaven" but it won't be one. 

Just kidding Dal ji..


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Oct 30, 2007)

i tend to agree with dalsingh... khalistan can easily be considered a nation without a state... much like assam, tamil elan, palestine, east turkmenistan, catalonia... there are too many to list.

some people call such landless nations as "fourth world".


an interesting article:

https://www.ihro.in/?q=node/102


----------



## dalsingh (Oct 30, 2007)

TGill said:


> and it will be called "Kingdom of heaven" but it won't be one.
> 
> Just kidding Dal ji..



Don't get me wrong. It isn't like I think Sikhs haven't a long way to go before they can handle running a country of their own without discrimination and backwardness.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Oct 30, 2007)

<<regarding the rule of people... i was under the assumption that a democracy means people do want to rule themselves, in fact ARE ruling themselves. in america we call this a government "by the people, of the people, and for the people". i'm pretty sure it's the essence of democracy>>

this is same in india kelly ji

in fact we have multiple party system instead of just two parties which allows minority voice to be spoken in the parliament.

you cannot compare USA with India , simple because USA is all immigrants with culture a mish mash of multiple cultures, all growing up in 1700's till now. the cultural disparities in india have deeper roots.

<<can you please explain this "opt out" option? i was not aware that Sikhs had such an oppurtunity. i'd like to learn more about this.
>>

Master Tara Singh and others represented Akali dal during the partition discussions,

king of Kapurthala and erstwhile PEPSU all unanimously decided to join Indian Union.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Oct 30, 2007)

<<i tend to agree with dalsingh... khalistan can easily be considered a nation without a state... much like assam, tamil elan, palestine, east turkmenistan, catalonia... there are too many to list.>>

let's see how each of them is stacked

Tamil Eelam - Language based division(Religion happens to be a factor Hindu/Buddhist)
Palestine - Genuinely displaced people(more cultural but given religious overtones)
east turkmenistan - Uihghur Muslims rebelling against Chinese Han majority(Cultural)
Catalonia - Cultural - you really donot want to go into 1200 years of spanish history. spain is more like UK in its political structure.


now where does Khalistan stand?

 it is purely religious division. india had it once and has suffered badly because of this due to mischiveousness of the British.

 How do you justify khalistan?

what is the locus standi?

why should sikhs have a seperate country?

When there was a "contiinuous" sikh kingdom?

the rule of Ranjit Singh was as big a blip as blink of eye when considering atleast 2000 years of recent Indian history. And even that was majorly in the regions which are now in pakistan. 

 nations based on religion never succeed. There are many examples, we have an example in our neighbourhood itself.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Oct 30, 2007)

amarsanghera said:


> <<can you please explain this "opt out" option? i was not aware that Sikhs had such an oppurtunity. i'd like to learn more about this.
> >>
> 
> Master Tara Singh and others represented Akali dal during the partition discussions,
> ...


 

i'm ignoring your first comment since it's totally unrelated to your statement or my response. 

regarding partition...  isn't it true that Master Tara Singh and Akali Dal were given some promises to encourage them to join, which were promptly broken by Mr. Nehru?   this is the basis for the current autonomy movement, i believe. 

i don't think it's really fair to say sikhs were given the oppurtunity to "opt out", since the information they recieved about the future semi-autonomy of punjab and treatment of sikhs was based on lies and false promises.  i would say instead that they were decieved into "opting in".


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Oct 30, 2007)

amarsanghera said:


> <<i tend to agree with dalsingh... khalistan can easily be considered a nation without a state... much like assam, tamil elan, palestine, east turkmenistan, catalonia... there are too many to list.>>
> 
> let's see how each of them is stacked
> 
> ...


 
please don't misunderstand me.  i do not believe a physical nation-state called khalistan is currently a viable option. that's not what i'm saying at all.   i do believe, however, that khalistan as an ideal exists in the hearts of sikhs world wide, and that it transcends man-made national boundries.  no one is trying to create a new nation in your neighborhood. 

oh, and read up on tamil eelam, your assumptions that it's a purely linguistic division, or that religion has anything to do with it, are a bit off base.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Oct 30, 2007)

<<regarding partition... isn't it true that Master Tara Singh and Akali Dal were given some promises to encourage them to join, which were promptly broken by Mr. Nehru? this is the basis for the current autonomy movement, i believe. >>

do you have any documentary proofs of the promises?

<i don't think it's really fair to say sikhs were given the oppurtunity to "opt out", since the information they recieved about the future semi-autonomy of punjab and treatment of sikhs was based on lies and false promises. i would say instead that they were decieved into "opting in".>>

same question again...what is documentary proof?

 this is output of the propoganda machine....there is no evidence.

all maharajas knew that if they donot join indian republic, they would starve economically else will be attacked by Pakistan. India was the best option available and hence was chosen.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Oct 30, 2007)

amarsanghera said:


> same question again...what is documentary proof?
> 
> this is output of the propoganda machine....there is no evidence.


 
i'm going to assume that whatever links i give to support this stance will be deemed "propaganda" and therefore worthless, so i guess i won't bother to dig them up. 

you believe your version of history and i will believe mine.  i doubt we'll be able to reconcile them. 

thanks for the conversation.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Oct 30, 2007)

same here 

history as a matter of fact is never objective.

How is Khalistan as an idea different from Ummah?

abt Tamil eelam, its conflict between Tamil speaking population which traces its roots to india and local sinhalese speaking population which is predominantly buddhist/muslim.

it is similar in nature to serbo-croat wars in balkans.

I would highly recommend a 3 book series by world bank - "Understand Civil War"

it is a good analysis that how local war mongers manipulate socio economic grudges and mould them to fan unrest and civil wars

this book also explains how wars are fast becoming business.

i will not be surprised if we discover that many people actually run Khalistan propaganda machines for profit.


----------



## dalsingh (Oct 30, 2007)

amarsanghera said:


> i will not be surprised if we discover that many people actually run Khalistan propaganda machines for profit.



Amar veer. I don't doubt that some people may do this but also their are also some who actually wish for some space for Sikhs to carve out their own destiny and have some breathing space of their own. No need to get panicked about this.


----------



## Sikh80 (Nov 1, 2007)

Indian sikhs have seen bad days during 1984 riots. It was the worst that could have happend.The recent Bomb blast in a Cinema House of Punjab is also pointing fingers toward the sikhs orgnisation. It is after 2 and half a decade that sikhs have got a chance to be in mainstream .But it seems a dream now.

One can think of many things to contribute to sikhi.Why not get sikhs declared as a separate entity as per constitution Of india. As per constitution sikhs are still Hindus. Huh, we r talking of Sovergnity. WE can never be an independent satate _de facto_ nor _de juro_ .

Bad luck guys/pals


----------



## dalsingh (Nov 1, 2007)

The future will present chances if we are worthy and prepared.


----------



## Sikh80 (Nov 1, 2007)

Yes, Dal ji you are right but it is possible if we do simething positive at individual level instead of thinking that some extraneous agency will approach us and guide us.
You may think of someting better.This discussion is not going to lead us anywhere.

Food for thought


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Nov 1, 2007)

the only positive thing i can think of is that people focus on their own local problems and stop worrying about nirvana for the whole world.

sikhs in punjab are not as stupid as people assume them to be. If they deem that they donot want khalistan, people outside should keep their "enthusiasm" and "good wishes" to themselves.


----------



## Sikh80 (Nov 2, 2007)

Dear Veer ji,
Khalistan is a distant dream.All that i suggest is that there should not be some set up to guide us.There is no need of getting black outs for nothing dear.The problem is known. Why cannot we get our constitutional right in India. Mr Baranal is governor of some state in South India. Mr. M Singh is puppet of Sonia gandhi. Do you thoink that this kind of leadership in INdia would be helpful or the SGPC will take care of the interets. It had messed up the Deras. Why has it permitted such a growth.?
We lack a sincere guide at political level. There is no one who would take interest in this matter. How do you propose? Let us see your point of view as well if you are from Punjab.


Regards


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Nov 2, 2007)

simple

stop voting for candidates whom you know are corrupt and are not good leaders

a hugely low turn out would make the world sit up and notice


participation in constitutional process by youth - how many educated youth are willing to take up politics the clean way?

to NRIs - stop pumping in money - its only fueling wastage and lethargy in the youth. let them work it out if they want good life. 

its easier to write a cheque for khalistan than actually reducing your ego of building palatial homes and spoiling today's youth with easy money.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Nov 2, 2007)

and veerji

my thinking is that we should think abt impactying our near environment.

make sure you guide a youngster - how to start a small business and sustain it

make sure you stand up and speak against any high handedness of SGPC  or officials. use the constitutionally provided facilities like RTI, Anti corruption act for your help

participate and not criticize


----------

