Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!elbereth!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!pyramid!ctnews!reddy
From: reddy@ctnews.UUCP (T.S.Reddy)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: An Independent Sikh State
Message-ID: <173@ctnews.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 02:17:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: ctnews.173
Posted: Wed Oct  8 02:17:45 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 05:12:49 EDT
References: <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Distribution: world
Organization: Convergent Technologies, San Jose, CA
Lines: 57

In article <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>, martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (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.

    By the same token, wouldn't you casually equate the U.S. as white
anglo-saxon?. The majority of Americans are, after all, from that
denomination.  Does this make you throw your hands up in the air
in despondency?

> Further the Government of India has at various times claimed the right to
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> legislate Hindu religious law.

     This point is so vague that I will not even try and refute it.

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

     Independence was obtained by people from all over India (Gandhi,
Nehru, Tilak, Bose, Bhagat Singh, Azad to name a few) who believed 
in the concept of a secular united country. The country came together
not under the power of the gun as in so many instances, but under a set
of ideals. History has shown that the only people who have benefited
from a divided India have been aliens.

> 
> The Sikhs have had their own states in the past on the Indian
> subcontinent.

    So have the Scots in Great Britain, Tibetans in China, Palestinians
in Israel .....

> 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

   Let's get this straight. The state of Israel was carved out from
what was originally known as Palestine. It is not a Muslim state, but
a home for the Palestinians that India supports.

> 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.

     No State, least of all a modern one, has sustained or will sustain
itself by maintaining any sort of status quo. Only those which allow
freedom for it's citizens, free speech and in which there is a constant
self-appraisal will survive. Pick up any Indian newspaper and you will
notice just  this sort of dynamism. Things may not be perfect but
nothing is being swept under the rug.

    I have used some of the examples above just to point out the
fallacy inherent in Yakim's argument and if I have offended anybody,
I apologize sincerely.