Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!elbereth!rutgers!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!sanjay
From: sanjay@ut-ngp.UUCP (SSSSSSSS)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: An Independent Sikh State
Message-ID: <4090@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Oct-86 13:41:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.4090
Posted: Tue Oct  7 13:41:20 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Oct-86 04:04:47 EDT
References: <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Distribution: world
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 51
Summary: Know a foe.




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

As you admit below, your knowledge about India's past and its freedom
struggle is pitiable at best.  You must realize that in the presence
of alien power which stayed unwilling to identify with the land and
be assimilated into the evolving yet continuing Indian culture, the
variegated peoples of the Indian subcontinent *most naturally*
coalesced into a single unified political entity to drive the
foreign extorters out of their land.  This is also the proof of
the cultural identity and common heritage of the multitude of
ethnic groups that domicile in India.  Unity within diversity!

India does not claim to have been a single political entity from the
beginings of time, although at various times in history more or less
of the entire land was under one king (Emporer Ashok, for example).
And if you study Indian history, you will find that the struggles
between the people and the "outside" rule have lasted until the
rulers insisted on staying alienated in their identity and interest.
Most rulers before the British, got assimilated into the identity,
albeit often imparting their flavor to the local culture.

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

Sikhism was born in India (!) and is part of it.  Your approach is
so rediculous that if extrapolated, it would imply that every ruler
who once ruled any square inch of the land has a right and obligation
to claim a separate identity and sovereignty.

>The Muslims have already carved their own state out on the Indian
>subcontinent.

At the displeasure of majority of Indians at the time.  That was
the reason why, incidentally, Mahatma Gandhi was assasinated - a
somber testimony to the anti-partition sentiment.

>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.

Thank you for giving yourself away - you No-friend-of-India! :-)