Why the sikhs had no desire for a independent sikh state in the 1940s?

[ZenBird]

I don't know what is your definition of hard core but those militants are hard core enough to fight you and your army.

It means that their motivation is Maoism and not religion. They just happen to be Christians.

 

[Areesh]

It means that their motivation is Maoism and not religion. They just happen to be Christians.

Not really. They are far different from Maoists.

 

[ZenBird]

Not really. They are far different from Maoists.

Sorry, you're right. I was thinking North East as in Bihar/Jharkand etc, you are talking about the seven sister states.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Why did the sikhs not have any desire fir a independent sikh kingdom during the 1940s?

an independent sikh state would be independent, not part of Pakistan nor India but could choosh friendship with both

a independent sikh kingdom

Pakistani west Punjab was muslim majority as was Lahore and off limits but a east punjab with a sikh majority after Partition was a reality

Jinnah didnt offer annexation just support for a independent sikh Kingdom

so a independent sikh kingdom
their own government
their own state
their own laws
their own flag
their own identity
their own army with sikh symbols
their own airforce
ruled by sikhs for sikhs

at peace with both Pakistan and india


why choosh minority status with the risk of any flare-up resulting in the minority being pissed on like the sikhs were in the 1980s

the sikhs had a kingdom for a shortwhile in the 1700s this would have been the modern sikh manifestation of that Kingdom recognised by Pakistan, india and even the U.N

plenty of small states have flourished a sikh state could have too, why choosh minority status among 1.3 billion


the above was a reply in another thread but I thought the question deserved its own thread

They did... there were major protests and etc... Many Sikh leaders also hoped that the Indian state would give them independence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement.

 

[Imad.Khan]

This is my unbiased opinion

Why did the Sikhs not choose independence at the time of partition.......i don't know, but would an independent Sikh state be possible today...... i highly doubt it as it will lead to alot of bloodshed and the result would be the same as what happened in the 80s or what happened to Hyderabad.

But the real question should be, Does an Independent Sikh country provide any extra benefits that the Sikh community can't get as part of India.......I don't think so. It would be too small a country, being landlocked it will be highly dependent on Pakistan and India, the country would have very limited resources and the people that currently can go anywhere in India to get a job, otherwise they would have been very restricted.

Lets take an example of Afghanistan. Its a much larger country than what an Independent Sikh country would be. it has a lot of mineral wealth in its mountains but it is totally dependent on Pakistan and Iran for any sort of trade and food resources. The Afghans even though they might be the same people racially to North Pakistanis but are still looked at as foreigners, they don't have much rights or opportunities available to them that they would have had if they were part of Pakistan.

Alot of people will give the example of the smaller sized countries in Europe. But what they don't take into perspective is that even they decided to form the ( European Union ) to reap the benefits that otherwise was not available to them.

So in my opinion being part of a larger federation is better for the Sikhs. The best they should go for is an autonomous state with-in the Indian Federation but even with that i am not really sure what extra benefits they will achieve.

P.S. I understand that this is not what alot of people wanted to read, but these are my personal views.

@Nilgiri @MilSpec @Joe Shearer what do you guys think? I would also like to hear the views from the Sikh members

 

[ZenBird]

This is my unbiased opinion

Why did the Sikhs not choose independence at the time of partition.......i don't know, but would an independent Sikh state be possible today...... i highly doubt it as it will lead to alot of bloodshed and the result would be the same as what happened in the 80s or what happened to Hyderabad.

But the real question should be, Does an Independent Sikh country provide any extra benefits that the Sikh community can't get as part of India.......I don't think so. It would be too small a country, being landlocked it will be highly dependent on Pakistan and India, the country would have very limited resources and the people that currently can go anywhere in India to get a job, otherwise they would have been very restricted.

Lets take an example of Afghanistan. Its a much larger country than what an Independent Sikh country would be. it has a lot of mineral wealth in its mountains but it is totally dependent on Pakistan and Iran for any sort of trade and food resources. The Afghans even though they might be the same people racially to North Pakistanis but are still looked at as foreigners, they don't have much rights or opportunities available to them that they would have had if they were part of Pakistan.

Alot of people will give the example of the smaller sized countries in Europe. But what they don't take into perspective is that even they decided to form the ( European Union ) to reap the benefits that otherwise was not available to them.

So in my opinion being part of a larger federation is better for the Sikhs. The best they should go for is an autonomous state with-in the Indian Federation but even with that i am not really sure what extra benefits they will achieve.

P.S. I understand that this is not what alot of people wanted to read, but these are my personal views.

@Nilgiri @MilSpec @Joe Shearer what do you guys think?

I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

[Mo12]

This is my unbiased opinion

Why did the Sikhs not choose independence at the time of partition.......i don't know, but would an independent Sikh state be possible today...... i highly doubt it as it will lead to alot of bloodshed and the result would be the same as what happened in the 80s or what happened to Hyderabad.

But the real question should be, Does an Independent Sikh country provide any extra benefits that the Sikh community can't get as part of India.......I don't think so. It would be too small a country, being landlocked it will be highly dependent on Pakistan and India, the country would have very limited resources and the people that currently can go anywhere in India to get a job, otherwise they would have been very restricted.

Lets take an example of Afghanistan. Its a much larger country than what an Independent Sikh country would be. it has a lot of mineral wealth in its mountains but it is totally dependent on Pakistan and Iran for any sort of trade and food resources. The Afghans even though they might be the same people racially to North Pakistanis but are still looked at as foreigners, they don't have much rights or opportunities available to them that they would have had if they were part of Pakistan.

Alot of people will give the example of the smaller sized countries in Europe. But what they don't take into perspective is that even they decided to form the ( European Union ) to reap the benefits that otherwise was not available to them.

So in my opinion being part of a larger federation is better for the Sikhs. The best they should go for is an autonomous state with-in the Indian Federation but even with that i am not really sure what extra benefits they will achieve.

P.S. I understand that this is not what alot of people wanted to read, but these are my personal views.

@Nilgiri @MilSpec @Joe Shearer what do you guys think?

If Sikhs had the whole of India and Pakistan Punjab, i think it'd thrive.

Sikhs tend to be more hardworking and clever than people in Afghanistan.

The amount of food and crops it will be able to produce in its fertile land, would make it a great exporter to India/Pakistan and rest of the world.

 

[Imad.Khan]

If Sikhs had the whole of India and Pakistan Punjab, i think it'd thrive.

Sikhs tend to be more hardworking and clever than people in Afghanistan.

The amount of food and crops it will be able to produce in its fertile land, would make it a great exporter to India/Pakistan and rest of the world.

Agreed if that was the case, but it isn't. So what ever land is left to them, it won't be much successful if they were to walk out of the Indian federation.

 

[Nilgiri]

This is my unbiased opinion

Why did the Sikhs not choose independence at the time of partition.......i don't know, but would an independent Sikh state be possible today...... i highly doubt it as it will lead to alot of bloodshed and the result would be the same as what happened in the 80s or what happened to Hyderabad.

But the real question should be, Does an Independent Sikh country provide any extra benefits that the Sikh community can't get as part of India.......I don't think so. It would be too small a country, being landlocked it will be highly dependent on Pakistan and India, the country would have very limited resources and the people that currently can go anywhere in India to get a job, otherwise they would have been very restricted.

Lets take an example of Afghanistan. Its a much larger country than what an Independent Sikh country would be. it has a lot of mineral wealth in its mountains but it is totally dependent on Pakistan and Iran for any sort of trade and food resources. The Afghans even though they might be the same people racially to North Pakistanis but are still looked at as foreigners, they don't have much rights or opportunities available to them that they would have had if they were part of Pakistan.

Alot of people will give the example of the smaller sized countries in Europe. But what they don't take into perspective is that even they decided to form the ( European Union ) to reap the benefits that otherwise was not available to them.

So in my opinion being part of a larger federation is better for the Sikhs. The best they should go for is an autonomous state with-in the Indian Federation but even with that i am not really sure what extra benefits they will achieve.

P.S. I understand that this is not what alot of people wanted to read, but these are my personal views.

@Nilgiri @MilSpec @Joe Shearer what do you guys think? I would also like to hear the views from the Sikh members

Sorry didn't get your tag for some reason. But I came across the thread anyway.

Pretty spot on. Independent Sikh land would be just another massive flashpoint given its location and demographics and too many would suffer from that.

Everyone should respect the borders we have inherited now, seek to resolve the unfinished borders peacefully and focus on improving human development.

Everyone is simply too poor and ignorant on average to focus all time and effort on ethno-centric or religious centric political identities. It can be investigated in better depth when people are richer and better educated. They will have time and knowledge+analytical thinking to investigate pros and cons of that themselves and best methods to achieve it....compared to now when it will just end up as masses used by pawns of a few and communal violence.

Whole South Asia is very much politicians that have countries....rather than other way around.

 

[Rashid Mahmood]

Sikhs should be given a separate state of their own. Failing or not it's their right.

Muslims of the Sub-continent fought for their rights and got Pakistan, just to stay away from hindu hegemonic desires.

hindus only want to to keep other minorities suppressed under there knee, and Kashmiris and Sikhs are suffering.

 

[ZenBird]

Sikhs and Hindus both have animosity with Muslims.

A common enemy is enough to keep both united.

lol no we don't, we get along with everybody.

Here, Sikhs helping Muslims fight with Hindu RSS in Punjab:

 

[RISING SUN]

No its not there are loads of examples Switzerland, Austria, Slovakia, Luxembourg, Israel the list goes on

Kashmir is not the topic it was a muslim majority state that should be part of Pakistan hence the 70 years of emnity

South Asia has never kept the values which European countries learnt after hard fought wars. So no comparison can be made between both continental areas.

Well those guys from 80's or khalistanis are outliers or believe that they are too good and warrior enough to handle muslims on their own and don't need help from Hindus to counter Muslims.

A great majority of sikhs is not like that.

Sikh followers are the spearhead of Indian defence and part n parcel of Indian diversity.

 

[ZenBird]

It was Muslim brutality that mutated Hindus into Sikhs ....... you clearly lack an understanding of history.

Yep I clearly do, I need a Hindu bhaiyya to teach me my own people's history clearly

1) I didn't say we loved Muslims. We don't love or hate any other religion, we get along with everybody. I made a mistake and referred to RSS as Shiv Sena, whatever they are both Hindu extremist organisations for me. They were brutalizing Muslims and we sided with Muslims because they were right.

2) Not Muslim brutality, Mughal/Turk brutality. Sikh scriptures say "Musalman mom dil hove" meaning a true Muslim is supposed to be kind at heart. I don't consider Mughals true Muslims.

Get off your troll horse please

The average bhaiyya on these forums is so blinded by an inferiority complex, they didn't even read my post where I said "we get along with everybody". Every single thing is an us vs them scenario for them. Blehh I need to stop interacting with you guys, ain't nobody got time fo that.

BJP and Shiv Sena just fought on opposites sides in Maharashtra just a few days ago.

Whatevs, they were allies for a long time before that. All these RSS, Shiv Sena, BJP, Bajrang Dal people are different sides of the same coin.

 

[third eye]

Pakistani west Punjab was muslim majority as was Lahore and off limits but a east punjab with a sikh majority after Partition was a reality

See this , do you see a Sikh majority ?

 

[Côôl PôtâTô]

Not possible even after 2940..People are way past of violence & bs..
Even most Sikhs dream about settling in Canada US UK higher education rather than staying in Punjab..Also Hindus are almost majority in Punjab now.

Whatevs, they were allies for a long time before that. All these RSS, Shiv Sena, BJP, Bajrang Dal people are different sides of the same coin.

If that is the case then you have reached the apex of hypocrisy..You have elected Congress almost 5 times in Punjab which massacred Sikhs in 1984..