.

[Varun]

Thats interesting. I am definitely up for autonomy in all states of India, seeing that we have such an amazing cultural differences shaher to shaher, region to region, all which must allow for municipal and local government. One thing I would have to disagree with the Anandpur Sahib Resolution is the idea of using the government to allow the Sikh Panth to flourish. As a secular state, the government should allow all religions to flourish, not just Sikhi, and also prevent from any hindrances to allowing people to practice their religions. Thus, it should be the duty of the Sikh leadership, the Akal Takht, and the SGPC to flourish their religion. Now, if there were extreme things in the way of allowing Sikhi's truthful expression, then the government should do its best to remove those barriers. If those barriers were things like Niranhankari and Radhia Soami, then I would have to disagree though, because those are also spiritual paths that free people can choose on their own to follow or not.

Also, when you looked at that time and saw how much of India was without basic power supplies and some places had regional tribal rule that municipal authorities were too scared to mess with, you would have to think of the importance of Central government to modernize and advance the country. Now that comes with its own pros and cons, but look at a country like China that has used the Central government to grow its economy and curb population problem and what not. At the same time there have also been suspension of human rights. So it definitely is a double edged sword.

So, what I am trying to question right now is whether it was good or bad for the Indira's administration to push forward for Central Government in Punjab. I know many bad things came out of her centralization (near dictatorial powers, Emergency, forced sterilizations) but those same bad things many people saw as necessary to handle India at the time when poor people were overpopulating for no damn reason, terrorism was spreading around parts of the country, and basic infrastructural modernization was not available to most of the rural populations of the country. What happened without central force and authority. My dad can tell you that. Having to be scared of lawless terrorists, curfews at 5 pm, not being able to depend on weak government agencies, overall a suspension of law and order by people who think they know better.

The sad thing is I see the pros and cons from both side. And it would be terrible for me to weigh one larger than the other. That is what I am against, finding fault in only side, when theres been terrible situations coming from both and great solution as well.

 

[Summy]

Ranjit, nice side step on the question btw. I like westernized youth who preach for khalistan, when trimming their dhari to look cool their conception of sikhi. Haha, Ranjit you would be ripped apart in "khalistan".

Before I say my peice, let me put it this way. It takes two dogs to fight. I hate those who stand up for the indian government and their actions, and I equally hate those who minimize the actions of certain militants in the 80's. Now, for the wikipedia nad youtube generation, I think things are different. They get this sense of faulty pride in issues that they cant leave their cozy Ac'd houses to deal with... So lets do it.


Some funny things about Ranjit's post: He said: If you are interested in the events of 1984, we should all look closely to the Anadpur Sahib resolution. Too bad that was proposed 1973. Now, Im not a mathematician, but hold on let me count... carry the 5, plus 1, divided by closest interger... WAIT A MINUTE, THAT WAS 11 YEARS PRIOR TO 1984. It's just an example of overreaching zealous kids trying to jumble up history.


Ranjit seems to have a very skewed understanding of history. The Anandpur Sahib resolution was well before the emergence of Bhindranwale or Khalistan. Where you got this idea of the people of punjab accepting this ang Bhindranwale being a voice is ridicolous.

Ranjit said that the need for "sikh autonomy" under the resoultion was not against blind hatred for Hindus:

As so goes the resolution....
the brute majority in India, in 1950, imposed a constitutional arrangement in India which denied the Sikhs of their political identity and cultural popularity, thus liquidating the Sikhs politically and exposing them to spiritual death and cultural decay leading inevitable to their submergence and dissolution into the saltish sea waters of incoherent Hinduism

The Anandpur Resolution was too liberal for militants. They wanted complete control from the Indian government not a proposed joint venture in which a government would consist within a government.


Ranjit would have you assume that someone in my position is for sikh complience. That I am not. In fact, I am voal for increased sikh rights in India, and gradually as we move forward with time, certain leaders within the Indian parliament are making these concerns aware. But for the tactics used by Bhindranwale, and his assoicates who terrorized punjab for over a decade, this is not the way to make it go about. If a resolution is passed in 1971, and rumbles of a violent underground separatist organization is gaining steam, of course, you look at the resolution as a separatist document and not a document based in equality.


The document was based in the POLITICAL FRUSTRATIONS (not the religious) of the Akali who was failing to get power. We can go into the Akali's plan to let indian government use punjab's feilds as something that would hinder the efforts of the US who in 1965, used food aid to browbeat India, just to gain popularity within the majoirty party seats, but we will leave that to the imagine of ranjit to spin around to some glorious religious pious fight against the evil do-ers.


The Akali a political organization came up with a resolution based in political finicial gains, and Ranjit swallows it as religious autonomy.

Read it a bit closer, before you get emerged in the saltish sea waters of incoherent hinduism. WOW. Varun how do you feel about that statement? Im not even hindu and it pisses me off.

 

[ranjit singh]

And it is also common knowlege that the Akali Dal was willing to cause schisms in Punjab to create a state with a Sikh majority that would enable the Akali party to enjoy a greater vote bank and chances of election. This is why Himachal Pradesh and Haryana were created out of the original, stronger Punjab of the 1960s. To acknowledge one side's politics and disregard another's gives a skewed representation.

The Akali-Dal had ALWAYS fought for a unified Punjabi-speaking state after independence. Upon independence, that's how state borders were forrmed----along linguistic lines. Punjab was not given similar treatment. As a matter of fact, the States Reorganization Commission specifically recommended against a Punjabi speaking state.
The initial demarcation of Punjab was based on the census of 1951, which had a clear anti-Sikh bias. During that time, powerful Hindu organizations with ties to the government were encouraging Punjabi speaking hindus to list Hindi as their mother tongue and to disown Punjabi. That way the demand for a punjabi speaking state was effectively quelled.
It was only after the Sikhs fought heroically in the war against Pakistan, that Indira Gandhi sought to readdress the issue and the inconsistency of the '56 reorganization. This is when the Punjab Reorginzation Act was passed creating Haryana and Himachal Pardesh.
Like I said, the Akali Dal, along with many other organizations, had always fought for a Punjabi speaking state. After all, that is how states were created after independence, in terms of language. The fact that it took the central government 20 years to finally create a punjabi speaking state is saddening. If the problem had been solved a lot earlier, another shrinkage of an already shrunken Punjab could have been prevented.

 

[ranjit singh]

Ranjit, nice side step on the question btw. I like westernized youth who preach for khalistan, when trimming their dhari to look cool their conception of sikhi. Haha, Ranjit you would be ripped apart in "khalistan".

Some funny things about Ranjit's post: He said: If you are interested in the events of 1984, we should all look closely to the Anadpur Sahib resolution. Too bad that was proposed 1973. Now, Im not a mathematician, but hold on let me count... carry the 5, plus 1, divided by closest interger... WAIT A MINUTE, THAT WAS 11 YEARS PRIOR TO 1984. It's just an example of overreaching zealous kids trying to jumble up history.

Internet gangster Summy, any scholar on this matter will tell you that the unmet demands of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution and the grievances it articulated were major reasons for the Khalistan movement---irrespective of the fact that it was written in 1973.

And I am not preaching for Khalistan. Like I said earlier, I do not support the idea of an independent Sikh country. I am just sharing the underlying economic, political, and religious reasons for the Khalistan movement. The cry for Khalistan didn't just come out of thin air.

Also Summy, judging from your previous post, you do a great job of engaging in respectful debate. Keep it up.

 

[Summy]

Hmm interesting internet dancer Ranjit, when I adressed with respect you went off on a tangent.

How about you asnwer a couple of these questions. Is it not true that the Anandpur Resolution was abondoned by the Akali only 2 years after it proposed, because the government said it would make an uneven balance of religious power to sikhs. Is it not true that 2 politicans said that modifications of the Anandpur Sahib to having less focus on religious power, and more on autonomy would get it passed?

If Bhindranwale was SO enamoured with the Akali Dal, then why after 2 years of the formal acceptance of the Anandpur Sahib resoultion (77) did Bhindrwanle set up his own candidates for the SGPC elections of 1979 where his people where defeated so easily?

Could it be that the Akali Dal, the same people proposing the resolution saw that a religious ran majority state could cause problems for any state within India and the country wouldnt accept it? Maybe a lesser focus on political power and more on the autonomy of a religious people would have been more beneficial? Could it be why Separatists in Southern india called for cultural autonomy from the central government but where denied as well?

The biggest victims of political Bhindranwale's emergence were the Akali's. Remember the dharamyudh morcha with Harchand Singh Longowal? Yeah remember when Bhindranwale hijacked that march and demanded the whole anandpur sahib to be recognized even though the akali dal didnt demand it until it was revised?

It seems you forget that Bindhranwale's biggest opponent where the Akali's. Wanna know why? Because he made political moves. Bhindranwale was semi-literate, and without his political motivations wouldnt have gone beyond village preacher. He wanted political power.

 

[ranjit singh]

Thats interesting. I am definitely up for autonomy in all states of India, seeing that we have such an amazing cultural differences shaher to shaher, region to region, all which must allow for municipal and local government. One thing I would have to disagree with the Anandpur Sahib Resolution is the idea of using the government to allow the Sikh Panth to flourish. As a secular state, the government should allow all religions to flourish, not just Sikhi, and also prevent from any hindrances to allowing people to practice their religions. Thus, it should be the duty of the Sikh leadership, the Akal Takht, and the SGPC to flourish their religion. Now, if there were extreme things in the way of allowing Sikhi's truthful expression, then the government should do its best to remove those barriers. If those barriers were things like Niranhankari and Radhia Soami, then I would have to disagree though, because those are also spiritual paths that free people can choose on their own to follow or not.

You made some very great points Varun. This is where the problem arises though.
In around 1945, the Akali Dal adopted a resolution calling for a Sikh state that would protect the status of the Sikhs and their economic, cultural, and religious rights. This resolution had immense support amongst the Sikhs at the time. The Akali Dal would then go on to abandon those demands after promises made by Congress leaders saying that Sikhs would be granted special status in independent India. Nehru is even quoted as saying, "The brave Sikhs of Punjab are entitled to consideration. I see nothing wrong in an area and a set up in the North wherein the Sikhs can also experience the glow of freedom." As years would pass, and the policies of the central government were in clear contrast to the promises that they had originally made to the Sikhs, the Akali Dal and many Sikhs around the world felt betrayed and cheated. Hence, it is understandable to me why the Anandpur Sahib Resolution included such stipulations, even in a secular India.

And Summy, I don't understand why you are bringing irrelevant and extraneous information to the debate. I am aware that people in power will do everything they possibly can to maintain that power, whether it be the Akali Dal, BJP, or Congress. Instead of commenting on so and so's political motives, why don't you address the grievances listed in the Anandpur Sahib Resolution.
The bottom line is that Sikhs have numerous legitimate claims of unjust treatment by the Indian government and this all fueled the Khalistan movement.

 

[Summy]

Ranjit, The point that flew over your head was the fact that the Akali Dal themselves abondoned the Anandpur Resolution. It was focused more on political power than religious freedom. That is the problem when you have a document based by a political group.

I agree with the majority of the things in the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. But do I think it as a whole should be passed? No. Because I dont think religious rule is possible or acceptable. I think the moment you bring religion into politics, it becomes impossible to separate the two, and the one that usually suffers is the one that you benefit less from immediately, religion. Look at Iran, Iraq, Saudi, Israerl, Palestine, ... Politics has lead those countries into wars that have been mixed with religion.

I am not for religious rule by anyone, not by sikhs, and not by any religion, and that is what the Anandpur Sahib resolution proposed. It was a political document that abused sikh suffarge to get their power into place. Would I love for sikhs to have increased rights yes. Do I think that it can work within a framework of Indian politics, you bet I do. Do I think we need an individual religious rule to obtain increased rights? No. To see what a land would be like that consisted mosdtly of equal religion that slowly converted to a religious rule, look no further than Darfur. There is no need in my opinion for any religious dominanted lands in India.


WE have defintely been mis-treated in India, in the past. Things are getting better because of the some actioons by the Akali that have given Punjab the prosperity that we deserve. Punjab is the economically richest state in India, and I can only imgaine what stories could be drumme dup if we were on the other spectrum.


The anandpur resolution should not be something that was based in religious freedoms. They had parts that were dedicated to sikh gaining rights, but the fact that the akalis where not willing to abondon their need for RELIGIOUS rule and political gains, shows to me that the resolution was based more in power for a few than rights for a lot.

 

[Ashveer]

Summy you completley danced around my post, and it was pretty off-beat.
When I talk about your adoration for the Indian state, I meant it in the nationalist perspective. You are in love with India, for better or worse.

 

[Summy]

Summy you completley danced around my post, and it was pretty off-beat.
When I talk about your adoration for the Indian state, I meant it in the nationalist perspective. You are in love with India, for better or worse.

Thats such an ambigous statement it makes my head hurt. I am in love with India? What aspect? This isnt high school, be real. Am I in loev with the dirt of India, I dont see it different than the dirt in Canada. Am I in love with the government. Nope. Am I in love with our history. Yes. Am I in love with some people in India, NOPE.

Who are talking to? haha. Where do you get these sentences from. "You are in love with India". HAHA. What does that even mean?

 

[Ashveer]

Just because you say something, doesn't make it correct, or profound. And surprise you still evaded my post. You are in love with India and the idea of it, a place that violently collapses ethnic, regional, and religious identity. I was clarifying something that you misunderstood.

 

[ranjit singh]

Summy, I am aware that the Anandpur Sahib Resolution was eventually abandoned. How could it not be abandoned after several years of fruitless negotiations with the Indian government? Like I said, the central government would never allow such a resolution to pass, as it was a direct threat to their centralized power and hegemony. Since politics is about compromise, the Akali Dal had to go back to the drawing board in hopes of maybe reaching a middle ground. Regardless, the points raised in the Anandpur Sahib Resolution are very real and legitimate, despite the fact that it was eventually abandoned.

Also, your implication that it's passage would amount to religious rule or the creation of a theocratic state is absurd. There is nothing radical or fanatic about the demands mentioned in the resolution. They were instead the consequence of the failure of successive Indian Governments to implement pre-independence promises and pledges. To Sikhs, many of the articles in the resolution pertaining to religion were not necessarily a list of demands, but rather a declaration of rights---certain inalienable rights that all Sikhs living in India should be granted.

You also seem to miss the point that most of the Sikh demands weren't "Sikh" demands at all but were regional demands. The essence of the conflict was not between Sikhs and Hindus but between Punjab and Delhi. The issues of redrawing the borders, settling river water and electricity disputes, and granting greater autonomy towards states is not a Sikh problem, but a Punjabi/Indian problem. Obviously the media and government propaganda would like you to believe otherwise.

 

[Summy]

Right the Anandpur resolution was accpeted in 1977. Bhindranwale's choosen leaders ran for election against the Akali Dal in 1979. In 1979, the argument was over the withdrawl of the anadpur sahib resolution. 2 years of fruitless negotiations? Doesnt seem that long to me, espeically considering the lonogwal agreement was on the table for 6 years before signed off officially.

You completely side stepped my assertion. You are claiming some religious, pious fight on behalf of the sikhs by the Akali Dal and the Anandpur resolution. You are insanely misled if you think that. IT was a political document. For you own research, look into the role of the Lok Sabha under the Anandpur resolution, and tell me that the Akali Dal's were trying to achieve complete political control.

It was COMPLETELY separate from sikhi that resoultion. Is the Anandpur Resolution not asking the Indian government to concede to SIKH CONTROL. That is religious dominance. That is religious rule. I am not sure if you have read the complete version and its implications, but the request was not for a PUNJABI government rule, it was for a SIKH rule, hence the proposition was made by the AKALI DAL.

You dont think it wasnt a sikh demand but a regional demand? At the date of the proposition there was a hindu majority in the expanded punjab. The proposed agreement which I am all for, did not adhere to those population districts.

I am all for giving rights to miniority sikhs outside of punjab. As ambigous as that is, I am grateful that they put it in there. I am grateful for many things in the resolution.



BUt you fail to realize that it is a political document. All resolutions where pointing to a Shiromani Akali Dal controlled punjab. Like I said, and I wont repeat it unless you adress it, the resolution came about a time that was frustrating for the Akali's. Propposing and pimping out sikh struggles to get their way was a avenue for them to gain control with the proposed legislation.

If you understand history, why did no other sikh political party back the Anandpur Sahib resolution? Because it was given all the power to the Akali Dal........




The politicalization of sikhi if what so many people forget. Sikhism was made into a set of values that was used a leverage for people to get what they want. Sikhism was used as a political platform. You want to claim that the Anandpur resolution was beneficial to sikhs, which parts of it, I would give my limbs for, were beneficial.

But the document is a political document that was based in the transferring of power from the central government to a religious sikh ran state. I must rather have todays setup than be living under sikh religious rule. Me, as a devout sikh is saying that, because the problems with religious run states, that are political in nature are numerous. How would 40% of the population that were hindus feel if the Akali Dal took over complete religious control? Well, I am sure mass baptism in local schools would be something their people would appreciate.



You give way too much credit to the politicans of Akali Dal and the bhindranwale's and realize you fall ill to their bullshit propaganda trying to mix sikhi into their political motivations.

 

[ranjit singh]

Summy, you are missing my point. I am as cognizant of corrupt Sikh politicians and the dirty nature of politics as you are. Whether or not the Akal Dal fought a genuine and pious struggle for the Sikhs is irrelevant to me. The fact of the matter is that the the Anandpur Sahib Resolution best articulated the grievances being faced by Sikhs and Punjabis at the time.
Furthermore, no one is arguing for a theocratic state in Punjab and the resolution does not amount to that. Instead it guarantees certain religious rights and protections for Sikhs, no different than what was promised to Sikhs pre-partition.
Also, you are again emphasizing the religious demands, while failing to address the important economic, constitutional, and cultural demands of the document. To me, those issues are far more reflective of the oppressive nature of the Indian governments' policies and the ensuing plight it created for Punjabis.
Again, like I said, one can not deny that Sikhs have numerous legitimate claims of unjust treatment by the Indian government (many of which were mentioned in the Anandpur Sahib resolution) which fueled the Khalistan movement.

 

[Summy]

Yes we do have numerous legtitimate claims of mis-treamtment from the govenrment. Does that mean (I know your not talking about this but) we deserve or are obliged to a separate nation? No. Does that mean that we are entitled to a separate government? No. Have things gotten a lot better, ie- hindu marriage act, and many things in the Anandpur Sahib Resolution slowly being granted without having a central religious power in a religious neutral state (theoritcally).

Now, since you did quite a number on me Ranjit in another post, it really makes me question your neurality when reading my posts or if I am just wasting my time. No matter how I feel about the person, or how they go about their arguments, I never EVER would let that affect the validity of their claims. You have done exactly that. You have let my personal style of debate, seep into what is fact, what is logic. But for the sake of conversation I will continue.


The Anandpur Resolution DID articulate many of the grievenes of the sikh people, you are 100% right. But for what means? Was it to achieve prosperity and equality for the sikhs? NO! The REASON why it was articulated was the fact that the Akali Dal had some weight to throw around with their own people and the central punjabi government. IF it was something that was beneficial for all sikhs as much as it was beneficial for the Akali Dal, I am sure it would have garned more support outside the Akali's.

The economic reforms since the Anandpur Resolution has been far greater that what the resolution was asking for. The uplifting of the poor? Punjab's poverty line compared to the rest of India. Some give credit to the provinvial government more than the central, but who cares.

Also the seeds for religious dominance in the Anandpur Resolution are evident:

The Shiromani Akali Dal (if you begin to question Ranjit, where the majority of the power shall lie) shall ever strive to achieve the following aims:
1. Propagation of Sikhism, its ethical values and code of conduct to combat atheism.

Thats not freedom of choice. That is not even in the Indian constitution. That is in many constitutions that dont provide freedom of views. Tell me that the resolution is not religiously fundamentalist.



Here is the bottom line Ranjit, and you have to begin to think more like if you had the resolution infront of you. Forget the assoication to sikhism and exchange the name sikh with another abrirtrary name.

The Resolution does state grievences, I am completely agreeing with you on that, some which have been accomplished, others which still remain to be. However, the grievences are stated with no type of solution. NO type of action plan. NO type of further movement. I agree that sikhs should be treated as equals in miniority states, but if the government where to sign off on that resolution, the thought would be there, but NO ACTION PLAN.

WHat the resolution DOES ENTAIL is the power being directly handed over to the Akali Dal. The Akali Dal are the proposers of the resolution. They used sikhism as a leverging point for their own political gains. They lobbied for it, not sikhs. They employed this faulty war for sikhism, when the balance of the power would remain with te Akali Dal. That was perfectly laid out. It is not a coincidence that the suffrage and the rights for sikhs were essential and had tobe pointed out, which was done, but came with no substantial action plans assoicated with the grievences. It could have been done without a want for COMPLETE POLITICAL POWER.


THUS, if people were upset that the resolution was not met, perhaps it was because the government was unwilling to hand over complete religious control to a set of people that comprised more of one type of people. Perhaps it is less about the negative stance that you have taken about the indian government having a vendetta against sikhs then not wanting to give religious control.

Having said that, the government are just as big as dog than were the people pimping out sikhi. They could have worked together to abandon the political aspect of the resolution and come up with real, valid ways to deal with some of the statements in resolution.


Also, how would it work today? HIndus, Christians and Jains are the miniorities in Punjab. Some of those religions are continously discriminated against. Would they be willing to amend the resolution if it was passed, so the Akali Dal could hand over power to another group?

 

[Summy]

Sorry I'd thought I'd point out some religious dominating ways that the Anandpur Resolution was trying to point out. As a sikh I am against this thing for political control, and because they were trying to create some sort of religious rule which has never been successful.

The Shiromani Akali Dal seeks ban on the sale of liquor and all other kinds of intoxicants, and shall press for a ban on the consumption of intoxicants and smoking in public places.

I dont drink or smoke, but common that is horrible. People should have a right what they feel. This is religious control.

ITS SO GENERAL: erdication of poverty, no shit. Adjustment of social order, not discriminating with castes. This is a document that would have worked in a model UN club.


Its so religiously dominating and so ridicolous. How are you going to ban the sale of alcohol and smoking to people who are not gursikh and might not feel bad about doing those things?

I cant believe Ranjit that YES it did state many concerns, but the same could have been done in a number of of manners. The document was for complete control, religious dominance, and would have made punjab into darfur if adopted.

 

[Jabar Jung]

sorry but...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5418436243130425952&hl=en

 

[Summy]

What does that say in the back, something Nirankar I cant make it out.

 

[ranjit singh]

i think it says Dhan Nirankar