Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!elbereth!rutgers!husc6!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!martillo
From: martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: An Independent Sikh State
Message-ID: <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 6-Oct-86 08:56:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-tril.1232
Posted: Mon Oct  6 08:56:35 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Oct-86 23:34:07 EDT
Reply-To: martillo@trillian.UUCP (Yakim Martillo)
Distribution: world
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Lines: 29


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
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.

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

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

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.