Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!hp-sdd!sdcsvax!ucbvax!euler.Berkeley.EDU!ashutosh
From: ashutosh@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Ashutosh Rege)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: An Independent Sikh State
Message-ID: <16047@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 7-Oct-86 03:46:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.16047
Posted: Tue Oct  7 03:46:45 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 04:12:39 EDT
References: <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 78
Keywords: Long reply.

In article <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> martillo@trillian.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes:
>
>From my reading of this news group and from acquaintanceship with many
>Indians of various ethnic origins including my relatives, I have the
>impression most Hindus casually equate Indian with Hindu.  Further the
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  My impression is that they do not. Most "Hindus" do not tend to look
upon themselves as "Hindus" unless it is vis-a-vis some other religion.
Usually the concern is more with the state/region/caste/sub-caste/linguistic
etc. origins. If your assumption was indeed true and Hindus all over India
felt some kind of unity as one people viz. Indians, there would be much
more support for communal organisations which propagate the concept of a
Hindu state. By the way, India's constitution states explicitly the secular
nature of the state and the motto indicates reliance on truth ( Let truth
prevail ) rather than trust in a god (of some denomination or other). These
may be semantics but at least the formal system seems axiomatically sound.

>Government of India has at various times claimed the right to
>legislate Hindu religious law.  Consequently, Sikh discontent is quite
>understandable.  I have met many Sikhs who do reject terrorism, but I
>have not met any who actually rejects carving a Sikh state out of some
>portion of India in which Hindus might live, just as Sikhs could still
>live in the rest of India.

The state of Punjab has a population which is, I believe, 60-65% Sikh. Thus
from ** your ** point of view, it would comprise "a Sikh state .. in which
Hindus might live". However there are complications : as far as I know, not
only have Hindus & Sikhs lived in amity and peace, but additionally many
households have had inter-community marriages. In fact, in several Hindu
families , it is customary for one of the sons to adopt Sikhism 
as his religion. The point is that the current situation in Punjab, as far
as I perceive it, is not a black & white affair with Sikhs pitted against 
Hindus and vice-versa. It is the creation of several factors, not the least
of which is the political power struggle between all parties involved. 
To that end, I take great umbrage at the label of "Sikh terrorism" 
frequently used by the Western media and others, attached
to the acts of a handful of irrational people who happen to subscribe to
the outer manifestations of the Sikh religion.

>
>India is an artificial creation and has really only been unified in
>the past under alien conquerers.

  All nations, it seems, are artificial creations of the species known as
homo sapiens. 
  At least, one hopes that nations of diversity serve some kind of model
for global cooperation and reducing tensions. After all, wasn't it only
recently that a certain madman had managed to hold the world to ransom
with his quest for a "pure" race. I need not remind you of the number of
people killed in that venture. It is disheartening that inspite of that
bitter lesson, nations continue in their search for "homogeneity".

>
>The Sikhs have had their own states in the past on the Indian
>subcontinent.
>
  The first known appearance of man seems to have been in Africa. 
Following the above precedent, it might perhaps be ** "morally" **
only correct that we, as humans, trace out exactly who has descended 
directly from the first humans ( as opposed to being a descendant of
a later-evolved human ) and give the entire world to them. The rest of
us will have to pack our bags.

>The Muslims have already carved their own state out on the Indian
>subcontinent.
>
>Further, most Indians as far as I can tell, give knee-jerk support to
>carving a Muslim state out of the land of Israel without even the
>least show of good faith on the part of Muslims even though Muslims
>have a long history of attacking and oppressing Jews (as well as
>Hindus and other non-Muslim groups).  My knowledge of the history of
>the subcontinent may be faulty but I do not believe Hindus or any
>other ethnic group has historical reason to fear the creation of an
>independent Sikh state, and therefore no demonstration of good faith
>should really be required except for the cessation of terrorism.

Again by precedent, every human or collection of individuals should be
apportioned land on earth as far as they demonstrate "good faith"