Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!ihlpg!nkg1
From: nkg1@ihlpg.UUCP (Neeraj K. Gupta)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: An Independent Sikh State
Message-ID: <2540@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 10:19:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.2540
Posted: Wed Oct  8 10:19:43 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 00:42:41 EDT
References: <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> <5924@ut-sally.UUCP> <1236@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Distribution: world
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 83

> In article <5924@ut-sally.UUCP> raghu@sally.utexas.edu.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) writes:
> >>India is an artificial creation and has really only been unified in
> >>the past under alien conquerers.
> 
> >>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.
> 
> >The considerable weight of your opinion to the contrary, many of us
> >believe that India has a distinct identity. 
> 
> I would say the weight of opinion is on my side.  The subcontinent has
> already been divided into 3 states, and the Sikhs are hardly the only
			~~~~~~~~~~~~
It was basically two states.  But that is besides the point.  The very fact
Pakistan was further divided into two parts, shows that religion itself is
not the glue that binds people.  And the mideast with all its factions and groups
belonging to the same religion and community are fighting amongst themselves
instead of THEIR common enemy.  So the point is the driving force is not proximity
to religion or any other common socio-religious aspect, but the motive of
controlling power.  The common man is merely used as a pawn by creating ideas of 
artificial identities within groups that can be exploited.

> secessionist movement in India itself.  Besides what is this Indian
							  ~~~~~~~~~~~

The identity of the subcontinent being a common identity has its roots
as far back as 3000 bc, the identity of BHARAT, the identity of ARYA_VRATA.
The diversity is that of any group of people evolving a unique entity as does each
individual.  The unity is in the commonality of many different cultural aspects,
religeous aspects, scattered throghout out BHARAT, though outwardly seen as different,
are in essence similar.

> identity besides the superficial Anglo-Indian culture created by the
> British?  

Even before British, India was united by one ruler many times-Ashoka, Chandragupta
Maurya, Akbar.  The fact is inspite of Britishers trying their best to destroy
that cultural identity, they failed.  It showas itself in our music, dances and
other forms of arts and culture.  We borrowed from British, what was considered
to be good, as has happened before during Muslims comming to India.  The fusion
of Muslim art and architecture with Hindu art and architecture created a unqiue
form not seen any where else in the World.  TajMahal being just one of the best
known examples. 
		My argument is, if their was antagonism amongst common Hindu
Muslim people, then one of the two things should have happened:

	1) Over the thousand years of stay of Muslims in India, "those
	antagonism or fights, should have either killed all the Muslims, who
	were very small in number.
	OR
	2) All the Hindus should have been converted to Muslims, as happened in
	Indonesia.

	None of the two happened.  The only wars were between kings trying
	to expand their personal territory.  These wars were fought amongst
	Muslims, Hindus and with each other ,but only by kings. At times
	it created Hindu and Muslims as allies against another Muslim king
	etc. etc.  Almost all Mughal Kings after Humayun killed their brothers
	to assume power.

> 
> >					     Opposition to a Sikh
> >nation is not based on fear alone (although that is a significant
> >factor in any geopolitical issue, and one which is ignored only
> >by the naive and the unscrupulous). It is seen by us in the
> >same light that Gandhi saw Partition, and that Lincoln saw secession.
> 
> I would tend to see the breakup of India as perhaps more similar to
			~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
			wishfull thinking.

> the breakup of the Holy Roman Empire where the superficial imperial
> culture was unable to hold together diverse peoples of different
> culture, religion and language.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

China had its share of smaller kingdoms in the past.  AND what about USA, so
many diverse groups with different culture religion and language?

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***