• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

ronki23

Well-Known Member
Quite a lot of Sikhs are against the Indian National Congress and support Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. They believe that Khalistan is the only way they will be safe.

Most Muslims support Palestine because they feel the land was stolen from them by Israel.
I do not know why some Muslims support ISIS or Taliban.

Why is it OK for Sikhs to openly support Khalistan and view Satwant and Beant as martyrs? Bhindranwale did not demand Khalistan, he said

"We like living in India. We do not want Khalistan but if it is offered to us we will take it... If the Harmandir Sahib is attacked the foundation for Khalistan will be laid"

If a non Muslim goes to a Mosque and see photos of Osama bin Laden the first thing they would do is contact MI5/NSA.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Only speculation on my part.
According the admittedly quick Google search I did, Miss Gandhi (there doesn’t seem to be a relation to Mahatma Gandhi, but I dunno) likely drew the ire of Sikhs through her separatist policies and giving more power to Indians rather than Punjabis. So in that light her tragic assassination might be seen as a political win for her assassins. Not saying I agree, I don’t know the ins and outs of Indian politics. Just an observation.
Compare a political assassination (which I do not support for the record) to the face of one of the biggest acts of terrorism to occur in the west in the 21st century. One which is still felt 20 years later and one which kicked off a (arguably) pointless international war which cost the lives of millions.
I mean it’s one thing to venerate a political assassin. But a terrorist?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Quite a lot of Sikhs are against the Indian National Congress and support Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. They believe that Khalistan is the only way they will be safe.

Most Muslims support Palestine because they feel the land was stolen from them by Israel.
I do not know why some Muslims support ISIS or Taliban.

Why is it OK for Sikhs to openly support Khalistan and view Satwant and Beant as martyrs? Bhindranwale did not demand Khalistan, he said

"We like living in India. We do not want Khalistan but if it is offered to us we will take it... If the Harmandir Sahib is attacked the foundation for Khalistan will be laid"

I hadn't heard of this before, so I looked it up: Khalistan movement - Wikipedia

It seems it has a rather long history. I found this of particular note:

United States
The New York Times reported in June 1984 that Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi conveyed to Helmut Schmidt and Willy Brandt, both of them being former Chancellors of West Germany, that United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in causing unrest in Punjab. It also reported that The Indian Express quoted anonymous officials from India's Intelligence establishment as saying that the CIA "masterminded" a plan to support the acolytes of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, who died a few days ago during Operation Blue Star, by smuggling weapons for them through Pakistan.[154] The United States embassy denied this report's findings.[154]

According to B. Raman, former Additional Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat of India and a senior official of the Research and Analysis Wing, the United States initiated a plan in complicity with Pakistan's General Yahya Khan in 1971 to support an insurgency for Khalistan in Punjab.[155][156]

If a non Muslim goes to a Mosque and see photos of Osama bin Laden the first thing they would do is contact MI5/NSA.

I'm a non Muslim, and if I saw a photo of Osama Bin Laden in a mosque, I don't think I'd call MI5 or NSA. I wouldn't call anyone, as having a photo is not a crime.
 

ronki23

Well-Known Member
Only speculation on my part.
According the admittedly quick Google search I did, Miss Gandhi (there doesn’t seem to be a relation to Mahatma Gandhi, but I dunno) likely drew the ire of Sikhs through her separatist policies and giving more power to Indians rather than Punjabis. So in that light her tragic assassination might be seen as a political win for her assassins. Not saying I agree, I don’t know the ins and outs of Indian politics. Just an observation.
Compare a political assassination (which I do not support for the record) to the face of one of the biggest acts of terrorism to occur in the west in the 21st century. One which is still felt 20 years later and one which kicked off a (arguably) pointless international war which cost the lives of millions.
I mean it’s one thing to venerate a political assassin. But a terrorist?

I hadn't heard of this before, so I looked it up: Khalistan movement - Wikipedia

It seems it has a rather long history. I found this of particular note:





I'm a non Muslim, and if I saw a photo of Osama Bin Laden in a mosque, I don't think I'd call MI5 or NSA. I wouldn't call anyone, as having a photo is not a crime.


Indira Gandhi was the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first PM of India. Indira was also Prime Minister. No relation to Mahatma Gandhi.
The Sikhs were concentrated in Punjab and felt that they were not treated well. Indira thought the opposition party, the Shiromani Akali Dal, would demand Khalistan. So Indira appointed Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale to win the Sikh votes.
Bhindranwale defected to the Akali Dal because Sikhs were beaten up and arrested during the Dharam Yudh Morcha (march of righteousness) demanding the Anandpur Sahib Resolution.
Bhindranwale took refuge in the Akal Takht (one of two Gurdwara in Amritsar and opposite the Golden Temple): in June 1984 the army was sent in to get Bhindranwale. The army was sent in on the day of Guru Arjan Dev's martyrdom when there would be thousands of pilgrims. The result was that thousands of Sikhs were killed.
I do not know why Bhindranwale had weapons nor do I know why he took refuge in the Akal Takht. However, a definite act of terrorism was when Babber Khalsa blew up Air India Flight 182 in 1985: it was a Canadian flight going to India that detonated over Ireland.

Most Muslims condemn Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi,etc. but most Sikhs support Bhindranwale. Remember Bhindranwale =/= Khalistan

Why would Sikhs want a separate homeland if ISIS and Taliban treat their minorities badly ?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Most Muslims condemn Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi,etc. but most Sikhs support Bhindranwale. Remember Bhindranwale =/= Khalistan

Why would Sikhs want a separate homeland if ISIS and Taliban treat their minorities badly ?

I'm not sure I understand the connection between Sikhs wanting a separate homeland and how it relates to treatment of minorities by ISIS or the Taliban. If the Sikhs were being persecuted in India, then that by itself might be a strong enough motivation to want a separate homeland so they can govern themselves. However, I don't see how ISIS or the Taliban would be ruling over such a territory, if it did come into being. If it's supposed to be a Sikh homeland, why would they bring in the Taliban or ISIS?

It's a similar story in numerous other countries where multiple nationalities live within the same territory. Of course, every situation is unique, so it's difficult to discern or judge who has a "right to secede" without a careful examination of all the relevant factors. There's also fears of Balkanization in those kinds of situations.

I can understand why some people might want to do it. Oftentimes it's due to a desire to preserve and protect their ethnic identity and culture, particularly if they're occupied or politically subordinate to those of another identity and culture. It is a very compelling motivation for some, although the trouble is that it often can turn into malignant nationalism which can lead to extremist political agendas.

However, as an American, I can see that there might be some advantages to living in a large and powerful country. There are disadvantages, too. Still, smaller and weaker countries don't seem to fare too well, unless they're under the protective shield of a larger power (and even then, there's no guarantee).
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Indira Gandhi was the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first PM of India. Indira was also Prime Minister. No relation to Mahatma Gandhi.
The Sikhs were concentrated in Punjab and felt that they were not treated well. Indira thought the opposition party, the Shiromani Akali Dal, would demand Khalistan. So Indira appointed Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale to win the Sikh votes.
Bhindranwale defected to the Akali Dal because Sikhs were beaten up and arrested during the Dharam Yudh Morcha (march of righteousness) demanding the Anandpur Sahib Resolution.
Bhindranwale took refuge in the Akal Takht (one of two Gurdwara in Amritsar and opposite the Golden Temple): in June 1984 the army was sent in to get Bhindranwale. The army was sent in on the day of Guru Arjan Dev's martyrdom when there would be thousands of pilgrims. The result was that thousands of Sikhs were killed.
I do not know why Bhindranwale had weapons nor do I know why he took refuge in the Akal Takht. However, a definite act of terrorism was when Babber Khalsa blew up Air India Flight 182 in 1985: it was a Canadian flight going to India that detonated over Ireland.

Most Muslims condemn Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi,etc. but most Sikhs support Bhindranwale. Remember Bhindranwale =/= Khalistan

Why would Sikhs want a separate homeland if ISIS and Taliban treat their minorities badly ?
Most religious minorities seem to want their own seperate homelands. If they feel persecuted where the live that is.
Of course I doubt they’d invite a group such as ISIS or the Taliban to join them
 

ronki23

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I understand the connection between Sikhs wanting a separate homeland and how it relates to treatment of minorities by ISIS or the Taliban. If the Sikhs were being persecuted in India, then that by itself might be a strong enough motivation to want a separate homeland so they can govern themselves. However, I don't see how ISIS or the Taliban would be ruling over such a territory, if it did come into being. If it's supposed to be a Sikh homeland, why would they bring in the Taliban or ISIS?

It's a similar story in numerous other countries where multiple nationalities live within the same territory. Of course, every situation is unique, so it's difficult to discern or judge who has a "right to secede" without a careful examination of all the relevant factors. There's also fears of Balkanization in those kinds of situations.

I can understand why some people might want to do it. Oftentimes it's due to a desire to preserve and protect their ethnic identity and culture, particularly if they're occupied or politically subordinate to those of another identity and culture. It is a very compelling motivation for some, although the trouble is that it often can turn into malignant nationalism which can lead to extremist political agendas.

However, as an American, I can see that there might be some advantages to living in a large and powerful country. There are disadvantages, too. Still, smaller and weaker countries don't seem to fare too well, unless they're under the protective shield of a larger power (and even then, there's no guarantee).

Most religious minorities seem to want their own seperate homelands. If they feel persecuted where the live that is.
Of course I doubt they’d invite a group such as ISIS or the Taliban to join them

What I'm trying to say is there'd be a huge red flag if you saw Muslims praising 9/11 or pledging allegiance to ISIS because of the violence involved but when it comes to Sikhs a large (but still minor) percentage of them support Khalistan despitethe violence involved. Look how easy it is for me to find videos like this on YouTube



 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
What I'm trying to say is there'd be a huge red flag if you saw Muslims praising 9/11 or pledging allegiance to ISIS because of the violence involved but when it comes to Sikhs a large (but still minor) percentage of them support Khalistan despitethe violence involved. Look how easy it is for me to find videos like this on YouTube



The difference in degree is likely the reason. At least from a Western perspective in particular. Supporting a hugely impactful terrorist event like 9/11 is going to look significantly worse than supporting an assassination. Which yes was impactful but not nearly to the extent as one of the biggest acts of terror of the 21st century
 

ronki23

Well-Known Member
The difference in degree is likely the reason. At least from a Western perspective in particular. Supporting a hugely impactful terrorist event like 9/11 is going to look significantly worse than supporting an assassination. Which yes was impactful but not nearly to the extent as one of the biggest acts of terror of the 21st century

If it makes any difference the Air India bombing was a year after the raid on the temple so it was a year after Bhindranwale was killed
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
If it makes any difference the Air India bombing was a year after the raid on the temple so it was a year after Bhindranwale was killed
Then perhaps it’s an issue of recognisability more than anything. Figures such as Bin Laden are internationally and immediately recognised due to 9/11. Whereas this conflict is more confined to specific regions.
It’s like how in the West the Swastika is not usually displayed prominently by temples. Because of how tainted the symbol became in Western eyes due to Nazis/Neo Nazis.

Humans tend to pass judgement rather quickly. So if they’re not familiar with the intricacies of supporting a certain figure, it will normally go unremarked.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
What I'm trying to say is there'd be a huge red flag if you saw Muslims praising 9/11 or pledging allegiance to ISIS because of the violence involved but when it comes to Sikhs a large (but still minor) percentage of them support Khalistan despitethe violence involved. Look how easy it is for me to find videos like this on YouTube

There were some Muslims who praised 9/11, although one key difference is that it wasn't about wanting to form a separate homeland for anyone. In fact, the only apparent reason for 9/11 was to give the US government a pretext for going to war. It certainly didn't turn out well for Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, or anyone else in the Muslim world. If the motive for 9/11 was to oppose U.S. imperialism in the Middle East, then they failed miserably in their objectives.

Just the same, opposing U.S. imperialism in the Middle East (or anywhere else) would not, in and of itself, constitute a call for violence.
 

ronki23

Well-Known Member
There were some Muslims who praised 9/11, although one key difference is that it wasn't about wanting to form a separate homeland for anyone. In fact, the only apparent reason for 9/11 was to give the US government a pretext for going to war. It certainly didn't turn out well for Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, or anyone else in the Muslim world. If the motive for 9/11 was to oppose U.S. imperialism in the Middle East, then they failed miserably in their objectives.

Just the same, opposing U.S. imperialism in the Middle East (or anywhere else) would not, in and of itself, constitute a call for violence.

Isn't ISIS considered separatism ?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Isn't ISIS considered separatism ?

Not sure. I think their goal was to take over all of Syria and Iraq and combine them into a singular Islamic State. That doesn't sound like separatism. It's more like revolution with a goal of taking over the entire country (or two countries, in this case).
 

ronki23

Well-Known Member
Then perhaps it’s an issue of recognisability more than anything. Figures such as Bin Laden are internationally and immediately recognised due to 9/11. Whereas this conflict is more confined to specific regions.
It’s like how in the West the Swastika is not usually displayed prominently by temples. Because of how tainted the symbol became in Western eyes due to Nazis/Neo Nazis.

Humans tend to pass judgement rather quickly. So if they’re not familiar with the intricacies of supporting a certain figure, it will normally go unremarked.

Not sure. I think their goal was to take over all of Syria and Iraq and combine them into a singular Islamic State. That doesn't sound like separatism. It's more like revolution with a goal of taking over the entire country (or two countries, in this case).

Apparently the number of Sikhs that support Khalistan is rather small but very vocal.

Most Khalistani Sikhs are from Canada or the UK but that leaves me with 2 questions:

i) Did they flee India because of persecution ?
ii) Are Sikhs in India too scared to speak up ?

While most Sikhs don't support Khalistan, most support Bhindranwale
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Apparently the number of Sikhs that support Khalistan is rather small but very vocal.

Most Khalistani Sikhs are from Canada or the UK but that leaves me with 2 questions:

i) Did they flee India because of persecution ?
ii) Are Sikhs in India too scared to speak up ?

While most Sikhs don't support Khalistan, most support Bhindranwale
You’d have to ask some Sikhs :shrug:
 
Top