Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!seismo!rochester!ur-tut!ur-valhalla!badri
From: badri@ur-valhalla.UUCP (Badri Lokanathan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: An Independent Sikh State
Message-ID: <821@ur-valhalla.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 16:13:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: ur-valha.821
Posted: Thu Oct  9 16:13:01 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 05:32:26 EDT
References: <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> <3735@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: badri@valhalla.UUCP (Badri Lokanathan)
Distribution: world
Organization: EE VLSI Graduate Research Facility, UR, Rochester NY
Lines: 43

In article <3735@umcp-cs.UUCP> raj@umcp-cs.UUCP (Raj Bhatnagar) writes:
>The cultural entity called India has survived longer than any other known
>group of individuals on this planet!!

This statement is logically incorrect. How can a culture survive longer
than a group of individuals? After all, isn't a culture formed
by a group of individuals?

>The purpose of Sikh King was to protect Hinduism from Islam.  The purpose
>of Sikh state was to throw Mugal invaders out of India. They had joined to
>form the Indian state as had 500 or so other states!!
>
Incorrect. Are you trying to say that the Sikh King was either elected
or asked to protect hinduism? Wrong. Rulers like Ranjit Singh were
initially rulers of small territories which they expanded by means of
capturing territory from the other rulers of that time, the mughals
(as did several other princes, Shivaji for instance.)
This talk of Sikh rulers protecting hinduism is poppycock.
>
>The main problem is that, historically religion has been prime consideration
>for an individual and not the state. Where as most leaders and reasoning
>people saw the great advantages of having one state for all the people of
>Indian heritage, some are still clinging to the notion of superiority for
>religion. 
>
Are you talking about India or the world in general? Surely
historical evidence does not support your claim.
In India, during the Independence movement, the call for independence
centered around the creation of "Hindustan" (though eventually
"Bharat" was chosen.)
Religion, to this day, has been invoked by leaders whenever unification of
forces is required. It always strikes the right chord in people, who
then are willing to "die for the cause" - Jihad, for instance.
This is exactly what different leaders of the middle east are trying
- e.g. the Islamic bomb. Why, even President Reagan frequently invokes
christianity in his messages. Why should the minorities of the US have
to tolerate cliches like
christian faith/charity/blah? christianity => good?
-- 
"We will fight for the right to be free | ARPA: ur-valhalla!badri@rochester.arpa
 We will build our own society          | UUCP: {cmcl2,columbia,cornell,harvard,
 We will - we will sing                 |        ll-xn,nike,seismo,topaz}
 We will sing our own song."      -UB40 |       !rochester!ur-valhalla!badri