1. 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!

Sikh vs Muslim separatism

Discussion in 'Political Debates' started by ronki23, Sep 28, 2021.

  1. ronki23

    ronki23 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +307
    Religion:
    Dharmic
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    10,740
    Ratings:
    +8,861
    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?
     
  3. Stevicus

    Stevicus Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    22,944
    Ratings:
    +14,727
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    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.
     
  4. ronki23

    ronki23 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +307
    Religion:
    Dharmic

    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 ?
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  5. Stevicus

    Stevicus Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    22,944
    Ratings:
    +14,727
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    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).
     
  6. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    10,740
    Ratings:
    +8,861
    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
     
  7. ronki23

    ronki23 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +307
    Religion:
    Dharmic
    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




     
  8. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    10,740
    Ratings:
    +8,861
    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
     
  9. ronki23

    ronki23 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +307
    Religion:
    Dharmic
    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
     
  10. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    10,740
    Ratings:
    +8,861
    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.
     
  11. Stevicus

    Stevicus Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    22,944
    Ratings:
    +14,727
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    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.
     
  12. ronki23

    ronki23 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +307
    Religion:
    Dharmic
    Isn't ISIS considered separatism ?
     
  13. Stevicus

    Stevicus Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    22,944
    Ratings:
    +14,727
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    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).
     
  14. ronki23

    ronki23 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,038
    Ratings:
    +307
    Religion:
    Dharmic
    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
     
  15. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    10,740
    Ratings:
    +8,861
    You’d have to ask some Sikhs :shrug:
     
Loading...