Question about Khalistan

I have a few questions about the Khalistan movement:

1. Before the British there used to be a Sikh Empire in India so Sikhs were historically in charge of their own country

2. Sikhs say Mahatma Gandhi promised them an independent country just like the Muslims were given Pakistan but Nehru backtracked on the agreement

3. Jinnah promised Sikhs many rights in Pakistan but Master Tara Singh rejected the offer in favour of India. Why?

4. The argument is that Sikhs were a minority in Punjab. But if there were more Muslims than Hindus in Punjab doesn't that mean Hindus were too a minority? Like we saw with India and Pakistan, the populations would be exchanged whether it be 2 countries or 3 anyway

5. Khalistan would be landlocked. But Switzerland and Lichtenstein are lanlocked too and their people are among the richest in the world.

6. Is this true?:

The British leaders had asked Sardar Baldev Singh to stay behind because the wanted to propose to him that if Sikhs were not ready to enter into the agreement with Muslims, then the Sikhs could be given an independent state which extended from Panipat to Nanakana Sahib with extended excess up-to the seashore. The Britishers were ready to station 25,000 British troops and war equipment for ten years and provide help in the administration provided the Sikhs agreed to provide 50,000 soldiers be stationed at Singapore and other colonies to help the Britishers for the next ten years. After ten years the agreement could be reconsidered. Through this agreement the administration and defense of independent Sikhland would have been ensured and there would have been no need to enter into an agreement with either India or Pakistan for the purposes of their administration and defense. Even Muslim League had agreed this proposal because it would give then strong buffer state between Pakistan and India. It was also in the interest British empire as they would still have their feet in this sub-continent. But was unfortunate that there was no leader among the Sikhs with political vision foresight who could see the benefits such an arrangement and demand independent Homeland for the Sikhs.

Click to expand...

7. The argument is that Khalistan could become like Islamic State or Afghanistan under the Taliban. But unlike with those particular examples, Sikhs preach equality for ALL. So how would it run?

@sayak83 @Vinayaka @Spirit_Warrior @SomeRandom @GURSIKH @Satnaam

I'm not well versed in Indias politics. Sorry.

@Kirran @ajay0

I'm tagging you in this as you answered questions on Israel-Palestine so must know more about this? @Kirran

Can't see it happening.

ronki23 said:

1. Before the British there used to be a Sikh Empire in India so Sikhs were historically in charge of their own country

Click to expand...

The Sikh Empire was forged by king Ranjit Singh on the foundations of the Khalsa from a collection of autonomous Sikh misls, creating a unified political state.After Ranjit Singh's death in 1839, the empire was severely weakened by internal divisions and political mismanagement. This opportunity was used by the British to launch the Anglo Sikh War. A series of betrayals of the Sikhs by some prominent leaders in the army led to its downfall and was annexed by British.

In 1947 the Punjab Province of British India was partitioned along religious lines into West and East Punjab Huge numbers of people were displaced, and there was much intercommunal violence. Following independence, several small Punjabi princely states, including Patiala, acceded to the Union of India and were united into the pepsu. In 1956 this was integrated with the state of East Punjab to create a new, enlarged Indian state called simply "Punjab".

ronki23 said:

Sikhs say Mahatma Gandhi promised them an independent country just like the Muslims were given Pakistan but Nehru backtracked on the agreement

Click to expand...

No . When the Muslim League demanded a separate country for Muslims via the Lahore of 1940, a section of Sikh leaders grew concerned that their community would be left without any homeland following the partion of India between the Hindus and the Muslims. They put forward the idea of Khalistan, envisaging it as a theorcratic state covering a small part of the greater Punjab region.

ronki23 said:

. Jinnah promised Sikhs many rights in Pakistan but Master Tara Singh rejected the offer in favour of India. Why?

Click to expand...

Because the Sikh religion has a long history of armed rebellion against the Mughal rulers of Delhi and later armed opposition of the various Muslim invaders like Ahmad Shah Abdali and Nader Shah, followed by the gradual establishment of Sikh rule in the Punjab, which was under constant threat by the majority of its subjects (who were Muslim and resented a Kafir ruling over them).

ronki23 said:

The argument is that Sikhs were a minority in Punjab. But if there were more Muslims than Hindus in Punjab doesn't that mean Hindus were too a minority? Like we saw with India and Pakistan, the populations would be exchanged whether it be 2 countries or 3 anyway

Click to expand...

It was already partitioned West Punjab for Pakis and East for Indian republic.

ronki23 said:

Khalistan would be landlocked. But Switzerland and Lichtenstein are lanlocked too and their people are among the richest in the world.

Click to expand...

> Scandinavian/Nordic countries climbed the ladder with very different paths. The only thing that is common is the small population & universal education. Your comparison is topkek dude.

ronki23 said:

Is this true?:

Click to expand...

Was but everything changed when WW2 ended.

ronki23 said:

The argument is that Khalistan could become like Islamic State or Afghanistan under the Taliban. But unlike with those particular examples, Sikhs preach equality for ALL. So how would it run?

Click to expand...

Khalistanis are extremists who have involved in many militant operations including flight hijacks.