Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!seismo!umcp-cs!raj
From: raj@umcp-cs.UUCP (Raj Bhatnagar)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: An Independent Sikh State
Message-ID: <3797@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Oct-86 13:34:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3797
Posted: Fri Oct 10 13:34:03 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Oct-86 04:27:13 EDT
References: <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> <3735@umcp-cs.UUCP> <821@ur-valhalla.UUCP>
Reply-To: raj@umcp-cs.UUCP (Raj Bhatnagar)
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci.
Lines: 56

In article <821@ur-valhalla.UUCP> badri@valhalla.UUCP (Badri Lokanathan) writes:
>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?

You seem to believe in hair splitting and stretching statements to their
extremes for their possible meanings without caring for context etc.
Anyways, I said 'cultural entity' and not culture. Cultural entities have to
include 'individuals'!! Also, what is culture minus individuals? I don't
know.
>
>>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.

What about Guru Teg Bahadur and Guru Gobind Singh?
>>
>>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?
>-- 

You got the point right but I don't know what you are objecting to!!  All I
am saying is that in case there is a clash between the interests of  ones 
religion and those of India, it is in the interest of the country that the
latter prevail. But if the religion takes superiority, we'll have another
middle-east on Indian subcontinent. Should one forget about religion? NO.
Its a personal matter and everybody should have freedom to find his God, the
way he thinks appropriate, without imposing his views on others.