The rise of Khalistans voice

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Duleep Singh - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

To the Hindu historians here:,
There had once been a Khalistan
which survived for only 50 years.
No one converted to Sikhism under Khalistan. Not even the so called "forcibly converted "
Punjabi Muslims supposedly former Hindus re-converted to Sikhism. So whatever "atrocities" the " Muslims " might have inflicted on the population remained unresolved and the region of Pakistan which is mostly the empire of Khalistan is 96.1 % Muslim today. Whatever remnants of Sikhism remained in Afghanistan has diminished reducing the Sikhs there to a few thousand. The total population of Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan today is over 240 million.
Not much of a success in fighting "forced conversions".
The global population of Muslims is 1.7 billion; the global population of Sikhs is 25 million so once again for whatever reason Sikhism has failed to attract converts . Haven't seen an Indonesian Bhasa speaking Sikh yet.

The future Khalistan (if ever there is one) will be mostly in the municipality of Amritsar and Punjab in India today.
There are only 20.8 million Sikhs in India today, about 1.72 % of the population.
There is a bare majority of 56% in Indian Punjab today. Don't see how there can be a Khalistan?

Sikhism in India - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Khalistan? The Sikhs had a Khalistan and lost it .
@PAKISTANFOREVER
Like your post below.


As of now most Sikhs wish Pakistan well.
Unfortunately they are likely to be caught up in a nuclear war between India and Pakistan which is not their fault at all.

An Indo-Pak nuclear war will kill off 86% of the global Sikh population and all their holiest gurudwaras and their entire 600 year heritage. The war will also take out 90% of their economic assets.

It is unlikely that Sikhism will survive as a functional religion in the rest of the world, Sikh populations in Canada, and UK notwithstanding.

It is a sobering realization for Sikhs which is why they have such a vital interest in promoting friendship between India and Pakistan. They wouldn't want to go into the history books just because Hindutva hysteria is raging in India.

Agree somewhat but the sikh holocaust against 1 million innocent Pakistanis in August 1947 can NEVER be forgiven or forgotton.

 

[Baibars_1260]

Agree somewhat but the sikh holocaust against 1 million innocent Pakistanis in August 1947 can NEVER be forgiven or forgotton.

Of course ! I did touch on that in my earlier post.
See my post below.

The last display of "martial prowess" and "victory" the Sikhs displayed was in 1947 when they cleansed entire East Punjab of its tiny minority of Muslims. They made a pretty thorough job of it "on behalf of the Hindus ". What they got for their efforts is unclear, because they lost access to some their most important sacred temples in Pakistan, apart from suffering a vigorous retaliation on their own population there. The most unfortunate aspect of this Sikh victory on "behalf of the Hindus" is that the Hindus in Pakistan ( who were nowhere connected with the East Punjab massacres) paid the price. Shortly afterwards in 1948 the Sikhs started their demand for a Punjabi Suba to expel Hindi speaking Hindus from East Punjab, a large number of which were themselves refugees from then West Pakistan.

Unlike most Pakistanis, I am pretty neutral on the Sikhs. They are neither natural enemies or natural allies of Pakistan or Muslims.

The Sikhs know they have a severe population and geographic disadvantage. So they have been struggling through various means to ensure a geographic region where they can be in a majority.
In Pre-Partition Punjab till 1947 they
had no hope. They were too dispersed and weak to ever dream of a Khalistan.

Partition was a Godsend to them to slaughter Muslims in East Punjab and remove one community so that they could inch to a majority. Immediately after in 1948 the Sikhs realized they were still a minority in the rump Punjab they were left with so they started a Punjabi Suba movement to partition Punjab once again to keep the Jats and Hindus out. The tiny chunk of Punjab they were left with gave a bare majority of 56% which included non-conformist sahajdhari or mona Sikhs who did not wear turbans, and beards. They now were struggling with factions within their ranks from Mazhabi Sikhs, Mona Sikhs, Nirankaris. Their movement degenerated into gross terrorism. The Sikh Dal Khalsa tried to expel Hindus from Punjab by attacking Hindus but the success was limited.
So Sikhs are looking out for themselves.

Will they ever get a Khalistan?
Unlikely..,There are too many vested interests in East Punjab to make that happen.
The closest parallel to the Sikh restiveness would be the case of the Basques in Spain or Kurd in Iraq, Iran and Turkey. All are people with a strong sense of nationhood but no nation. The Sikhs are even worse off than the Kurds and the Basques who enjoy a clear and overwhelming majority status in their regions.
Formation of nations ( geographic and ethnic factors being sustainable) is a once in a generation event, like the collapse of the Soviet Union.

For Khalistan to be formed (in whichever form it is conceptualized ) there must be a war or revolution that will collapse or destroy either India alone, or both Pakistan and India. So it will have to be assumed that the destruction of Pakistan and India will leave the Sikhs unscathed.

What is more likely is a war between India and Pakistan which will vaporize 19-20 million Sikhs, leaving just 5 million of the diaspora scattered abroad alive.

 

[M. Sarmad]

The last display of "martial prowess" and "victory" the Sikhs displayed was in 1947 when they cleansed entire East Punjab of its tiny minority of Muslims. They made a pretty thorough job of it "on behalf of the Hindus ". What they got for their efforts is unclear, because they lost access to some their most important sacred temples in Pakistan, apart from suffering a vigorous retaliation on their own population there. The most unfortunate aspect of this Sikh victory on "behalf of the Hindus" is that the Hindus in Pakistan ( who were nowhere connected with the East Punjab massacres) paid the price. Shortly afterwards in 1948 the Sikhs started their demand for a Punjabi Suba to expel Hindi speaking Hindus from East Punjab, a large number of which were themselves refugees from then West Pakistan.

There was no "victory" for Sikhs in 1947. Although Muslims (53%) were a majority in united Punjab, Sikhs (14.6%) and Hindus (30%), besides owning most of the agricultural land, together owned roughly 75-80 % of commerce, manufacturing and even real estate, but they ended up getting East Punjab only i.e. 38% of the Total Land area of Punjab. Around 5.5 million Muslims migrated to West Punjab, and around 4.5 Hindus and Sikhs moved to east Punjab.

The genocide (rather fratricide) was mutual. Although riots first broke out in (a few) Muslim majority areas of North Punjab, and Sikhs/Hindus later retaliated, but on a much grander scale. The attacks, financed by Hindu tycoons and Sikh Maharajas, were so well planned/organized that many in Pakistan (and even in India) declared them "The Sikh Plan" and claimed that great Sikh conspiracy laid behind the attacks. Quite suspiciously, Sikh leaders had ordered their followers to evacuate en masse the canal lands of West Punjab (Faisalabad and Sahiwal especially) even though there were no attacks on them by Muslim mobs.

Even Nehru declared that the Sikhs were the aggressors. He said he believed that some Sikh leaders were hoping to provoke a war between India and Pakistan, so they could launch an invasion to recapture the western half of the Punjab. Whatever the real intentions of the Sikh leaders were, they failed to achieve their goal. They were only successful in (either killing or) driving almost each and every Muslim out of East Punjab. But that didn't come without a cost. All Hindus and Sikhs were also either killed or expelled from West Punjab.

 

[Baibars_1260]

There was no "victory" for Sikhs in 1947. Although Muslims (53%) were a majority in united Punjab, Sikhs (14.6%) and Hindus (30%), besides owning most of the agricultural land, together owned roughly 75-80 % of commerce, manufacturing and even real estate, but they ended up getting East Punjab only i.e. 38% of the Total Land area of Punjab. Around 5.5 million Muslims migrated to West Punjab, and around 4.5 Hindus and Sikhs moved to east Punjab.

The genocide (rather fratricide) was mutual. Although riots first broke out in (a few) Muslim majority areas of North Punjab, and Sikhs/Hindus later retaliated, but on a much grander scale. The attacks, financed by Hindu tycoons and Sikh Maharajas, were so well planned/organized that many in Pakistan (and even in India) declared them "The Sikh Plan" and claimed that great Sikh conspiracy laid behind the attacks. Quite suspiciously, Sikh leaders had ordered their followers to evacuate en masse the canal lands of West Punjab (Faisalabad and Sahiwal especially) even though there were no attacks on them by Muslim mobs.

Even Nehru declared that the Sikhs were the aggressors. He said he believed that some Sikh leaders were hoping to provoke a war between India and Pakistan, so they could launch an invasion to recapture the western half of the Punjab. Whatever the real intentions of the Sikh leaders were, they failed to achieve their goal. They were only successful in (either killing or) driving almost each and every Muslim out of East Punjab. But that didn't come without a cost. All Hindus and Sikhs were also either killed or expelled from West Punjab.

Great Insights!

Could we have your comments on what happened after 1947 ?
There was a Punjabi Suba movement. So even the 38% of East Punjab left over in India was further divided into Haryana, and Himachal. Even Punjab in India was not large enough to absorb all the Sikh refugees from Pakistan so some were relocated in UP terai region.

From Wiki

"the demand for a Punjabi Suba as a policy position was first presented in April 1948 by Master Tara Singh of the Shiromani Akali Dal,a Sikh political party active mainly in Punjab. The Sikh population, after the partition of Punjab, had become a majority population in a contiguous, strategic land area for the first time in its history, with a new socio-political position, This enabled the Akali Dal to focus on expressing unencumbered Sikh political needs, free from the politics of the former Muslim majority that had needed to be accommodated on its political platform prior to it, and provided the opportunity for Sikhs themselves to express a degree of autonomy from the sway of the Congress party and the central government, through the Akali Dal."

The last time the Sikhs dreamt of returning to Lahore was in the 1965
war, and the IA strategically had predominantly Sikh regiments involved in the offensive.
Much water has flowed down the Ravi since.

 

[Bossman]

leading upto 1947 the Sikhs were manipulated by the Hindus. Their leader Master Tara Sing was a secret Hindu convert and aligned the Sikhs with the Hindus.

 

[ayodhyapati]

One of their supposed gurus was Muslim. So what do you have to say about that my little bharti fraaand?

why you killed sikh guru even if some guru was muslim

leading upto 1947 the Sikhs were manipulated by the Hindus. Their leader Master Tara Sing was a secret Hindu convert and aligned the Sikhs with the Hindus.

who killed 5 million sikhs and expelled them from pakistan ?

 

[Jackdaws]

There was no "victory" for Sikhs in 1947. Although Muslims (53%) were a majority in united Punjab, Sikhs (14.6%) and Hindus (30%), besides owning most of the agricultural land, together owned roughly 75-80 % of commerce, manufacturing and even real estate, but they ended up getting East Punjab only i.e. 38% of the Total Land area of Punjab. Around 5.5 million Muslims migrated to West Punjab, and around 4.5 Hindus and Sikhs moved to east Punjab.

The genocide (rather fratricide) was mutual. Although riots first broke out in (a few) Muslim majority areas of North Punjab, and Sikhs/Hindus later retaliated, but on a much grander scale. The attacks, financed by Hindu tycoons and Sikh Maharajas, were so well planned/organized that many in Pakistan (and even in India) declared them "The Sikh Plan" and claimed that great Sikh conspiracy laid behind the attacks. Quite suspiciously, Sikh leaders had ordered their followers to evacuate en masse the canal lands of West Punjab (Faisalabad and Sahiwal especially) even though there were no attacks on them by Muslim mobs.

Even Nehru declared that the Sikhs were the aggressors. He said he believed that some Sikh leaders were hoping to provoke a war between India and Pakistan, so they could launch an invasion to recapture the western half of the Punjab. Whatever the real intentions of the Sikh leaders were, they failed to achieve their goal. They were only successful in (either killing or) driving almost each and every Muslim out of East Punjab. But that didn't come without a cost. All Hindus and Sikhs were also either killed or expelled from West Punjab.

Nehru called Sikhs the aggressors? When?
Each and every Muslim wasn't driven out of East Punjab.

Malerkotla - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[M. Sarmad]

Great Insights!

Could we have your comments on what happened after 1947 ?
There was a Punjabi Suba movement. So even the 38% of East Punjab left over in India was further divided into Haryana, and Himachal. Even Punjab in India was not large enough to absorb all the Sikh refugees from Pakistan so some were relocated in UP terai region.

From Wiki

"the demand for a Punjabi Suba as a policy position was first presented in April 1948 by Master Tara Singh of the Shiromani Akali Dal,a Sikh political party active mainly in Punjab. The Sikh population, after the partition of Punjab, had become a majority population in a contiguous, strategic land area for the first time in its history, with a new socio-political position, This enabled the Akali Dal to focus on expressing unencumbered Sikh political needs, free from the politics of the former Muslim majority that had needed to be accommodated on its political platform prior to it, and provided the opportunity for Sikhs themselves to express a degree of autonomy from the sway of the Congress party and the central government, through the Akali Dal."

The last time the Sikhs dreamt of returning to Lahore was in the 1965
war, and the IA strategically had predominantly Sikh regiments involved in the offensive.
Much water has flowed down the Ravi since.

The land area of just three districts of Bahawalpur Division (;one of the 9 divisions of Pakistani Punjab) is almost equal to the land area of the entire state of Indian Punjab. Sikhs lost the most in 1947, followed by Muslims. 47 was a Hindu victory.

Master Tara Singh, a Sikh convert from Hinduism, failed Sikhs. Jinnah wanted entire Punjab included in Pakistan. He offered Sikh leaders everything under the sun, from a fixed one-third quota to an independent Sikh state within Pakistan with it's own parliament and army, a defacto Khalistan. Tara Singh refused and insisted on partition of Punjab and joining India instead, resulting in the deaths of millions of Muslims and Sikhs.

As for Punjab Suba movement, It was only after the Sikhs 'proved' that they were patriotic Indians in 1962 (and later 65) war that Nehru and Congress reluctantly agreed to create a new Punjabi-speaking state with Sikh majority. But only after giving away many Punjabi majority areas to other states and after taking complete control of Punjab irrigation system. Even their capital city has been made a union territory directly under the control of central government ever since. Nehru refused to recognise Punjabi as a distinct language and the Constitution of India refuses to accept Sikhism as a distinct religion. Hindus in general, and Nehru(s) in specific have never trusted Sikhs. They are just useful idiots for them, to be used against Pakistan.

Nehru called Sikhs the aggressors? When?
Each and every Muslim wasn't driven out of East Punjab.

Malerkotla - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

We have discussed this before, mate. Maler Kotla was a princely state. Kapurthala was another Muslim majority princely State in Punjab that went to India. They were not Districts/Tehsils of British Punjab.

Kashmiris must be allowed to decide their future: Imran Khan

Nil? Maybe in Punjab. Wasn't Pakistan given the Chittagong Hill Tracts? And districts in Sindh? And a part of Assam? I think Malerkotla in Indian Punjab is still Muslim majority so you skipped that. Maler Kotla was a princely state. Kapurthala was another Muslim majority princely State in...

defence.pk

Nehru called Sikhs the aggressors? When?

For details, read "Midnight's Furies: The Deadly Legacy of India's Partition" by Nisid Hajari.

“The Sikhs were the aggressors,” Nehru declared without hesitation in an August 22 letter to Mahatma Gandhi, estimating that twice as many Muslims had been killed in East Punjab to that point as Hindus and Sikhs in the West. When he wrote to Gandhi again three days later, Nehru said he believed that some Sikh leaders were hoping to provoke a war between India and Pakistan, so they could launch an invasion to recapture the western half of the Punjab."

 

[Adonis]

Don't read Wikipedia. Ask some local Sikhs if they are a derivative/subgroup/sect (or any variation of this theme) of Hinduism. Can't be any fairer than that.

As I've said before elsewhere, Sikhs and Muslims of the subcontinent have a complex history, which arose because Sikhs chose to be contracted by Hindus to do their dirty work. That's their choice and if they threw their lot in with these caste supremacists, events like 1984 and now 2021 are inevitable as Sikhs will need to be reminded of their relative hierarchical position in the brahminist league of dharmic superheroes. Did they not see how buddhists were treated by their dharmic friends? Or how dalits are still treated?

Supremacy based on caste can never ever function alongside any merit-based culture. The only real crime of the mughals and the British was their failure to eradicate brahminism when they had a chance.

Is Islam merit based? Why we have Shia-Sunni? Why we treat Ahmadis as Dalits (equivalent)?..... Throwing big words in air is easy Mate....

Now on Pakistan...Why we let Bangladesh go ... as Yahya Khan said on the eve of fall of Dhaka...we can't endanger west Pakistan for (Short, smelly dark Bengalis...... isn't that discrimination...
We have thousand faults within our society, mentality...but instead of acknowledging and correcting them....we love to pick on others....Typical Hypocrisy and Shamelessness.. isn't it?

 

[Baibars_1260]

Is Islam merit based? Why we have Shia-Sunni? Why we treat Ahmadis as Dalits (equivalent)?..... Throwing big words in air is easy Mate....

Now on Pakistan...Why we let Bangladesh go ... as Yahya Khan said on the eve of fall of Dhaka...we can't endanger west Pakistan for (Short, smelly dark Bengalis...... isn't that discrimination...
We have thousand faults within our society, mentality...but instead of acknowledging and correcting them....we love to pick on others....Typical Hypocrisy and Shamelessness.. isn't it?

Stick to the topic please
We are discussing Sikh Nationalism here. Your knowledge on the subject is limited to Wikipedia and that too selectively.
We can discuss your hypocrisy and shamelessness in your feigned sympathy of "atrocities by Muslims on Sikhs", if we point out the mass lynching of Sikhs in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi's assassination.
Not that we really care if Sikhs and Hindus slaughter each other.

Mate?
Like the way you begin and end your sentence with "Mate".
Did they teach you that at grammar school? Or did you never go to one?
Now that's a question for "Merit Based" admissions .

 

[Adonis]

Stick to the topic please
We are discussing Sikh Nationalism here. Your knowledge on the subject is limited to Wikipedia and that too selectively.
We can discuss your hypocrisy and shamelessness in your feigned sympathy of "atrocities by Muslims on Sikhs", if we point out the mass lynching of Sikhs in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi's assassination.
Not that we really care if Sikhs and Hindus slaughter each other.

Mate?
Like the way you begin and end your sentence with "Mate".
Did they teach you that at grammar school? Or did you never go to one?
Now that's a question for "Merit Based" admissions .

 

[Adonis]

Stick to the topic please
We are discussing Sikh Nationalism here. Your knowledge on the subject is limited to Wikipedia and that too selectively.
We can discuss your hypocrisy and shamelessness in your feigned sympathy of "atrocities by Muslims on Sikhs", if we point out the mass lynching of Sikhs in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi's assassination.
Not that we really care if Sikhs and Hindus slaughter each other.

Mate?
Like the way you begin and end your sentence with "Mate".
Did they teach you that at grammar school? Or did you never go to one?
Now that's a question for "Merit Based" admissions .

Off Topic?? Since it weakens your argument?...and regarding limit of my knowledge..do you have question on it's accuracy?
My point and objective is just to highlight that how people like you and others in the forum loves to pick on others and harp upon their deficiencies..conveniently turning a blind eye towards their own. So my point on Atrocities by Muslims on Sikhs is just to draw a parallel to your harping on Hindus, Caste, they are evil etc....I want to say, no one is angel..not even Muslims.

On my going to Grammar school....That's none of your business.....Do people need Grammar school background to be in this forum?..but Good that you'd gone to one and managed to make your way to US..good on you

 

[Baibars_1260]

It will be really fun if the Shikhs demand their Historic Capital to be part of Khalistan.

Wake up ! The Sikhs had their Khalistan and their Capital for 50 years. They started to
lose Khalistan as soon as the Afghans beheaded Hari Singh Nalwa. They lost it forever when the last king Duleep Singh son of Ranjeet Singh converted to Christianity. Don't know if he got a rice bag or not.

And all the Pakistanis cheering Khalistan, it is a dead cause since 1980s, unless you have some magic to bring it back to life.

Khalistan is a dead cause.
It's been dead since 1949. We Pakistanis know it because we wrested whatever dreams of Khalistan there were in 1947.
Those who fear Khalistan and fear Khalistan's revival are the 48% Hindus of Indian Punjab who fear the ghost of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale will arise with a sten gun to slaughter them again.
We Pakistanis like to cheer because it gives the Hindus of Indian Punjab the shivers.

Your grandpa/grandma will tell you their horror stories of facing Khalsha swords during partition.

Even though we wrested control of 15 of the most sacred Sikh holy Gurudwaras after breaking and blunting the sharpest Khalsa swords unfortunately it was Hindus that faced the rest of our wrath. Your grandfathers and grandmas have been telling you horror stories of facing the Ghazi and Mujahid scimitars during partition.
It will be long remembered.

Shikh farmers may have some grievances with current laws. But for Pakistanis to believe them to be your friend is like deer trying to befriend a tiger..

Sikh farmers can have all the grievances, and we don't care a flying eff. They are not our friends.
But to see Sikh farmers make your rears hurt pleases us and we will cheer for them. We are just eating our popcorn.

Would you like some ?

 

[Baibars_1260]

Off Topic?? Since it weakens your argument?...and regarding limit of my knowledge..do you have question on it's accuracy?

Your trashy arguments are weak thats why you have gone off topic.
Quite understandable since you couldn't support a single point you made.
I trashed your argument that Sikhs revere the Vedas and Hinduism with references and quotes from research scholars and you conveniently skipped the topic.

My point and objective is just to highlight that how people like you and others in the forum loves to pick on others and harp upon their deficiencies..conveniently turning a blind eye towards their own

What deficiencies exactly? If you make up for limited knowledge by repeatedly lying, insulting others, and criticizing the faith and religion of others you will be held to account and exposed.

So my point on Atrocities by Muslims on Sikhs is just to draw a parallel to your harping on Hindus, Caste, they are evil etc....I want to say, no one is no one is angel..not even Muslims.

Sorry but you are lying again. You criticized, and insulted only Islam
and Muslims and no other religion.
No, you made a statement that ONLY Islam converts by forve.,
In the post below I replied to your assertion that the only religion that converted by force is Islam.
I trashed your Islamophobic statement in my post below to which you have not responded.

Your ignorance on the spread of Islam is profound. Can't help your lack of education, and ADD as you don't have the intellectual stamina to read my posts let me adopt your tactics and cut and paste references.
Read about Charlemagne and the way most of Europe converted to Christianity. He "converted" the Muslim Moors too.

Charlemagne: Facts, Empire & Holy Roman Emperor ‑ HISTORY

Charlemagne, or Charles the Great, was a medieval king who established a vast Carolingian empire and was eventually crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the pope.

www.history.com

"Charlemagne waged a bloody, three-decades-long series of battles against the Saxons, a Germanic tribe of pagan worshippers, and earned a reputation for ruthlessness. In 782 at the Massacre of Verden, Charlemagne reportedly ordered the slaughter of some 4,500 Saxons. He eventually forced the Saxons to convert to Christianity, and declared that anyone who didn’t get baptized or follow other Christian traditions be put to death."

If you read a little with an open mind instead of ingrained Islamophobic hysteria it helps.
I could tell you what the Portuguese did in Goa as well.
If you would listen...
"Mate ? "

On my going to Grammar school....That's none of your business.....Do people need Grammar school background to be in this forum?..but Good that you'd gone to one and managed to make your way to US..good on you

No, it becomes our business when you start and end each sentence with the word "Mate". We are not your "Mates" . The usage of this word shows a particular educational and social background. If you say "Core Blimey Dinkum" we know just where you have been educated and it is unlikely to be a grammar school.

 

[ayodhyapati]

Of course ! I did touch on that in my earlier post.
See my post below.



Unlike most Pakistanis, I am pretty neutral on the Sikhs. They are neither natural enemies or natural allies of Pakistan or Muslims.

The Sikhs know they have a severe population and geographic disadvantage. So they have been struggling through various means to ensure a geographic region where they can be in a majority.
In Pre-Partition Punjab till 1947 they
had no hope. They were too dispersed and weak to ever dream of a Khalistan.

Partition was a Godsend to them to slaughter Muslims in East Punjab and remove one community so that they could inch to a majority. Immediately after in 1948 the Sikhs realized they were still a minority in the rump Punjab they were left with so they started a Punjabi Suba movement to partition Punjab once again to keep the Jats and Hindus out. The tiny chunk of Punjab they were left with gave a bare majority of 56% which included non-conformist sahajdhari or mona Sikhs who did not wear turbans, and beards. They now were struggling with factions within their ranks from Mazhabi Sikhs, Mona Sikhs, Nirankaris. Their movement degenerated into gross terrorism. The Sikh Dal Khalsa tried to expel Hindus from Punjab by attacking Hindus but the success was limited.
So Sikhs are looking out for themselves.

Will they ever get a Khalistan?
Unlikely..,There are too many vested interests in East Punjab to make that happen.
The closest parallel to the Sikh restiveness would be the case of the Basques in Spain or Kurd in Iraq, Iran and Turkey. All are people with a strong sense of nationhood but no nation. The Sikhs are even worse off than the Kurds and the Basques who enjoy a clear and overwhelming majority status in their regions.
Formation of nations ( geographic and ethnic factors being sustainable) is a once in a generation event, like the collapse of the Soviet Union.

For Khalistan to be formed (in whichever form it is conceptualized ) there must be a war or revolution that will collapse or destroy either India alone, or both Pakistan and India. So it will have to be assumed that the destruction of Pakistan and India will leave the Sikhs unscathed.

What is more likely is a war between India and Pakistan which will vaporize 19-20 million Sikhs, leaving just 5 million of the diaspora scattered abroad alive.

sikhs will never forget holocaust of sikhs by muslims in wada and chhota ghallughara, nor they will forget genocide of 5 million sikhs in 1947 . they will take revenge .