Here’s a start — go and sit in a room with just a random sample of hardcore Babbar Khalsa type foaming at the mouth fanatics with Khalistan and Blood in their red eyes, and try to persuade them about secularism, the subordination of the Sikh religion to a liberal democratic constitution in a proposed Sikh state — and if you come out without nothing less than a verbal bruising by those fascist maniacs you’ll be very lucky.

That’s the real world — away from your bedroom living off your parents money.

Will try my best.

I’m making a serious point here. You’ll get a much more positive response from people (especially those here on PP) if you lay off the personal attacks.

However, you obviously have a very good sense of humour, so I have a feeling that in most cases you’re just exercising your writing skills and joking around in the spirit of “blokey banter” (the same way that I’ve been known to occasionally pull Jagdeep’s leg and insinuate that he’s actually an ex-PP commenter now masquerading under a different username). You’re just winding people up and are not actually trying to maliciously hurt anyone. Am I right ?

The written word can be a tricky thing, and things can frequently get garbled over the internet (context, intentions etc), so it would be good for you to clarify this for everyone else’s benefit. Just so people don’t get the wrong idea about you and unnecessarily give you hassle.

if the goal is statehood, then flexibility will be imperative.

There are still some basic principles regarding motives and goals, where certain “lines” should not be crossed. An honourable defeat is far better than a dishonourable victory, especially if it’s anything Sikh-related. Otherwise you may as well stop calling yourself a Sikh at all, because such idealism is at the very core of what Sikhi is all about, even if one has a very liberal interpretation of the day-to-day practice of the faith.

Yes, but how can we work for the betterment of humanity when we haven’t worked for the betterment of ourselves? Let us help ourselves for once, before helping others.

There is frequently more than one “correct” way to approach a situation, and frequently more than one correct solution to a particular problem. To each his own; some people will focus on their “brethren”, others will not differentiate between Sikhs & non-Sikhs. And bear in mind that it is entirely possible to help “ourselves” and “others” simultaneously.

Different strokes for different folks. Follow your own path and do the best that you can. Other people’s efforts & contribution (or lack of it) are their own responsibility.

Realpolitik is our main stumbling block: I realise the necessity of being a backstabbing duplicit bastard in politics to have aims realised and so do you, but you cannot seem to get away from some sort of imaginary idealism you have, out of nowhere, identified with my vision for a Sikh State.

It’s because one cannot — or perhaps, should not — separate this idealism from the concept of the proposed Sikh State. Sikhism itself is founded on extraordinary idealism and extraordinarily high standards for ethical human behaviour. If one desires a state predominantly for Sikhs, based on the principles you mentioned, then my basic point is that it is morally completely unacceptable to attempt to found a state embodying extremely high-minded ideals by contradicting those very ideals beforehand. Such actions will taint the proposed state in the eyes of the rest of the world, they will taint both its inhabitants and the Sikh diaspora, they will corrupt the very ethos and culture of the new nation, and I’m sure I also don’t need to remind you about Guru Gobind Singh’s injunction that one should not do anything to “stain” Sikhism if one is going to claim to represent the faith and act in its name.

If people behave in corrupt ways, do you think it would be easy (or even possible) for them to relinquish those corrupt mindsets when they achieve power ? You must know enough about human nature — and about world history as a whole — to be aware of how slippery a slope this is. When people start really “breaking the rules” to achieve success, and they taste the intoxication of power, it is REALLY, REALLY difficult for them to go back to a more straightforward, humane way of living, with the associated greater degree of integrity.

The internal corrosion of engaging in such actions, and attempting to rationalise/justify it to oneself, has a very nasty effect on people’s psyches. Hell, I work in the City (I have the day off today, hence my ability to write these long posts on PP here), and I see this every day. Talk to anyone who works in the Square Mile or in Canary Wharf and they’ll confirm this. Or read up on global history. Or watch “Rome” tonight on BBC2 *wink*

You care about your brothers and sisters, no?

Technically I regard the entire human race as my “brothers and sisters”, but I understand your point.

If you care, do something about their plight.

I have a suggestion; I’m saying this sincerely and am certainly not being facetious. Firstly, hectoring others and appearing to bully and/or blackmail them is not a good way to inspire them (I’m speaking about your manner on PP in general here, this isn’t in response just to the quote above). You will be far more effective if you state your case — thoroughly but politely — and then leave the ultimate decision up to them. Furthermore, they are far more likely to be moved to action if you act as a positive role model and “take the initiative” yourself; if they respect you and agree with your motivations, goals, and behaviour, they are far more likely to subsequently be spurred into action.

It’s all about effective leadership skills, buddy.

The people who run Sikhnet, the converts, in my opinion have set up mini Sikh States (with a bit of yoga chucked in) in their enclaves in the US (Espanyol etc). If they were to run a potential Sikh State, I would be extremely happy.

I agree 100% with that. Frankly, I find them to be far better Sikhs in the true sense of the word — embodying the real spirit of Sikhi, the true humanitarian message of the faith — than plenty of Indian Sikhs one meets, both practising & non-practising. I have a tremendous amount of respect for them. They seem to genuinely be really nice people too.

I have given you, on this thread and many others, the bare bones of what constitutes my notion of the Sikh State (social democracy with universal suffrage etc)

Sounds like Swindon County Council with Liberal Democrats in a majority and free milk and honey fountains on each street corner.

But what are you going to do about the murderous thugs with their gun in one hand and Little Red Book full of impure enemies of the Khalsa Taliban State in the other?

Awaiting petulant foot stomping and desperate wails of reply.

All you have to offer are half-witted camp gay-boy insults about someone’s age and their imagined dress sense? The despereate scratchings of a neutered rat. Hilarious.

In Khalistan you would be a great statesman — in the rest of the world, you are a dunce.

The Keyboard Tarzans making their blood curdling screams of Uncle Tommery and Blood and Fire Nationalism live on — sponging off their Mummy and Daddy.

Time to get with the programme Kuli, time to stop being so hippy-fied and idealistic and take a step into the real world – lines get drawn, people die and countries are born

Oh i see, this is the better future you’re advocating.

Now we have you who still thinks there should be a Khalistan but now built on the Zionist model.

In the 80′s Sikhs wanted to ally themselves with Pakistan. Here on PP you started with the concept of ethnic cleansing of muslims to create Khalistan, on the false pretext that muslims had butchered millions in the partition. I shall repeat again that is a lie. It was one of the biggest tragedies of the last century. Many people died on both sides of that hasty divide.

As I understand it, you are a fan of Zionism because you’ve seen how succesful Israel has been in getting its way. Remember though you would need a very powerful patron to sustain the first 50 years of existence. That will be a heavy price and you will end up as a militarised state.

I suspect if we are to play this game, then the only possible reason why your concept state would be of interest to a powerful foreign power would be to undermine an up and coming threat (I say threat, but what it means in global terms is an economic competitor). There are only two that would be of interest to anyone – one is India itself and the other is China.

Hmm, its therefore quite possible that you could attract a patron power.

Welcome to the real world.

Time to get with the programme Kuli, time to stop being so hippy-fied and idealistic and take a step into the real world – lines get drawn, people die and countries are born.

At this stage, I couldn’t possibly say. However, what I can say is that Pakistan has nuclear capability.

Although your sum total of 12 war heads aren’t really a match for anyone execpt Khazakstan, Zimbabwe and the like, I’m not stupid.

Your fair Pakistani maidens are safe.

I have given you, on this thread and many others, the bare bones of what constitutes my notion of the Sikh State (social democracy with universal suffrage etc).

Go by my definition.

Now draw the line.

Find out how many people agree with you and come to an agreement with india. Unless you supported Europeans drawing lines on maps of Africa and India why on earth would you accept me dividing land for others?!

But that is not good enough.

Within your definition, there may well be the seeds of further discontent. Will you have settlements reaching into Pakistan?

I have given you, on this thread and many others, the bare bones of what constitutes my notion of the Sikh State (social democracy with universal suffrage etc).

Go by my definition.

Now draw the line.

Let’s just put it like this: there is Israel and then there is greater Israel…

Today, on this message board, I am saying that the Sikh State should constitute Indian Punjab including Chandigargh.

Thanks.

If you were, hypothetically of course, asked to detail the perimeters of the Sikh State, where would you draw the lines?

I wouldn’t detail the perimeter. If the Khalistani movement wanted ‘some land’ id support some type of agreement with india.

This is all hypothetical ofc, since noone even knows what Khalistan is about.

“modern Punjab”

Is that a concession to Pakistan?

Well, this is part of my point. If the ideological foundations of the State are to be defined then the perimeters of that State must also be defined.

For now, I am saying modern Punjab inclusive of Chandigargh as the boundaries.

If you were, hypothetically of course, asked to detail the perimeters of the Sikh State, where would you draw the lines?

Tell me, oh oracle, what do you know?

That the borders of Khalistan aren’t defined and could well result in a non-sikh majority.

Where to begin with a man like you?

At least you admit that you are 30+ years of age and have a mentality that refuses to allow you to leave the 80s. I wonder what your dress sense is like. Never mind.

You’re talking about Human Rights in Punjab

No. Read the entire thread, like Jai. HRs is only a small part of a complex list of reasons for statehood.

Oh the plaintive appeal to blood loyalty

My appeal was to your association, however small, with the Sikh people. I don’t care what blood type/skin colour you may or may not have.

the limp and pathetic ‘Uncle Tom’ insinuations,

You have confessed to being an assimilationist. I never mentioned anyone’s uncle.

the tragic pinch at the conscience and supposed insult of ‘race betrayal’ and assimilation,

Once again, race just doesn’t come in to it.

all because our man is irked by people applying scrutiny to ideas he is not comfrotable with.

Eh? Again Jagdeep, read the thread. Scrutiny and dialogue on the topic is what I’m after.

‘afaik’

Tell me, oh oracle, what do you know?

I have never engaged in any discussions here on PP with neva4get84.

My bad.

Just chill out a bit

Will try my best.

Unless these “traditions” are rooted in Sikhi, they’re not “Sikh” at all.

You misunderstand me. When I spoke of the Sikh Tradition I meant the core Sikh philosophy (humanitarianism, egalitarianism etc) that got lost somewhere between the latter Misls and the Singh Sabha movement. But remember that the tradition is not fixed – it is pragmatic; hence, if the goal is statehood, then flexibility will be imperative.

Case in point is the fact that one core Sikh concept is working towards the betterment and benefit of the whole of mankind, not just for fellow Sikhs above and beyond everyone else.

Yes, but how can we work for the betterment of humanity when we haven’t worked for the betterment of ourselves? Let us help ourselves for once, before helping others.

Yes, but not purely for Sikhs, and certainly not one which is not founded upon and governed according to Sikh principles

Again, it will not be purely for Sikhs but it will be Sikh majority. As for Sikh principles, if these mean to you, as they do to me, egalitarianism, humanitarianism and democracy with universal suffrage I don’t see your problem.

Realpolitik is our main stumbling block: I realise the necessity of being a backstabbing duplicit bastard in politics to have aims realised and so do you, but you cannot seem to get away from some sort of imaginary idealism you have, out of nowhere, identified with my vision for a Sikh State.

being taken over by commenters who were far too conservative and tunnel-visioned for my liking

True. That’s what I meant by idiots.

I don’t think I really have the right to start analysing whether Sikhs there should initiate some kind of secessionist movement. That decision lies with them, as they actually live there.

Of course you do. You care about your brothers and sisters, no? If you care, do something about their plight.

A hypothetical Sikh homeland elswhere in the world is a different matter

The people who run Sikhnet, the converts, in my opinion have set up mini Sikh States (with a bit of yoga chucked in) in their enclaves in the US (Espanyol etc). If they were to run a potential Sikh State, I would be extremely happy.