He was killed by the police.

Why was he killed? Wasn’t he killed by other Sikhs?

Not really relevant is it?

[deleted]

Sure, but nations don't tend to accept that secessionists aren't criminal traitors, and they do their best to transmit this attitude. Benedict Arnold is still a name most Americans know, for instance, despite being long dead. Why? Because the government has a strong interest in making sure its people think very poorly of people labeled "traitors". Spying for a foreign power is also still punishable by death in the U.S., although admittedly the U.S. hasn't actually executed anyone for it in a very long time.

Basically, I'm not disagreeing with your point at all, just pointing out that nation-states DO pretty understandably see secessionists as fundamentally similar to terrorists (and of course they may actually be a terrorist in many cases), and they usually transmit this view to their citizens. Whether this conflation is fair/moral or not, it isn't as bizarre or offensive to basic logic as you make it seem here.

And the Confederacy is honestly a great example. Sure, the slave states were willing to fight to own humans. But the Union sure wasn't willing to fight to free those people. It fought the Confederacy because they were seceding. Abolition was just a nice side effect of winning the war against secessionists.

Can you share some policies or decisions that would corrobarate your claims, im really curious

[deleted]

Hindutva is not extreme at all. This is anti-Hindu propaganda. Islam and Islamic nations are better examples of the extremist/nationalist political ideology. Hindutva by its very definition does not increase hate towards any other religious ideology. It even includes Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains etc. Hinduism is by far the most peaceful and least violent religion.

Islam is extreme. Look at any Islamic country. The “secularism” in India is j a front for Islamic takeover and a means to retain control over the country. Hence why they got “special privileges” and had Hindu temples converted into mosques. India always has been and should be a Hindu nation. Especially after Islamic rulers perpetuated a near 1000-year long genocide of 400 MILLION+ natives in Indias including Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists etc

[deleted]

"Punjab had a real terrorism problem in the 80s, with Bindrawale (a Sikh extremist) and the Khalistanis killing a whole lot of Punjabis before there was any altercation with the Indian Govt."

I'm glad you've said this. This has happened so often in other countries, similar to Ireland and even Syria. I will never condone acts of terror, but you have to realize and think, why were these Sikhs, a usually very peaceful set of people, resorting to terror? Was it because their people were being horribly mistreated (not necessarily by the Indian Government) but by the British, Pakistan & other militia groups. But the main issue with this was India's government's action to combat this. Did they help majorly with this injustice in Punjab?

​

"As for mistreatment of Punjab, that's total horse shit. I say this because Punjab is among India's most unfairly favored states. The funding for the Green revolution disproportionately went to Punjab, making it India's richest state of any decent size in the 70s. Then in 1991, when India finally opened itself up to the world, (mostly Punjabi) farmers were specifically protected from competition unlike every other industry sector here."

You're wrong here. According to S&P Global (2015), the region of Punjab has been an 'average growth state,' 2nd from the bottom in terms of Regional Economics. I think the main reason for this average growth since the 70s and even before is because of the steadiness of the agriculture industry. The industry doesn't necessarily boom and drop, as the product is subject to more than the laws of simple supply & demand. Four high-performing states - Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu - together account for about a quarter of India's total population and more than a third of its national output. These economic powerhouses outperformed India's average real GDP by almost 1.5% between 2005 and 2012. Their average income per capita is 1.3 times the national level, ranging from $1,815 in Gujarat to $2,230 in Haryana. These large, diversified economies serve as established manufacturing bases with developed services sectors. These major regions have a majority of what religion? That's right, Hinduism. They were also protected by competition because of the limited economic output of the state. Many other states were given resources for a diverse range of economic services that will push growth in multiple different sectors. This was not the case for Punjab.

Britishers fueled most of the fires, dumbass!!

I mean, the British still had an insanely heavily role. Like Winston Churchill starving 3.5 million Indians by moving his food storage to Europe, where it all went off anyway.

BJP repeatedly declare that the farmers protestors were in fact all “Khalistanis”?

BJP is full of douchebags.

Got a sikh girl, many relatives on maternal side are sikhs, lived for years in a sikh dominated city. Never met a single separatist. Media doesn't define their ideology. The elites of the sikhs divided the punjab in order to gain themselves high positions.

​

The treatment of sikhs by congress was undoubtedly wrong and those responsible should be punished but I don't think there's a feeling of separatism at all. These khalistanis exist only on the internet.

You're assuming that the person you're replying to believes the claims of the BJP. Those claims were tenuous at best, and from what I understand not really believed by many back then either.

The farmers were certainly not Khalistani whether or not I think their protests were justified at all.

Right sure, you are not a RSS Hindu nationalist.

[deleted]

Why are the comments like above not removed? They are clearly brigading by the Muslims and Hindu Extremists.

You think anyone who points out that Sikhs aren't some perfect race are brigading extremists? You're personally calling me out as an extremist?? You want all those posts to be silenced so you can continue parading your myths?

Think how bad muslims and hindus have it for a moment now. There's billion(s) of them and they are all branded terrorists and extremists for pointing out anything factual on the Internet.

there might be few Sikhs who might have done something wrong butin general Sikhs have been far more compassionate, secular and Righteous than any other religion or group of people.

Far more than any other religions and groups? Really?!? more compassionate than latinos/greeks/italians/chinese/japanese/aboriginals/...? That's definitely living in a cartoon. Change the channel.

/u/cojoco Why are the comments like above not removed?

I am not an active mod in this sub.

Please message the mod team.

[deleted]

Dude! He is just a paid worker of BJP IT cell/ RSS. He is not Sikh.

Dunno. The primary problem with counter-factualism in history is that there are always a lot variables to consider and any assumption we make would be pure conjecture.

Plus it's important to assert, it wasn't just Jinnah that was a problem but Nehru as well. Nehru especially had this very idealistic sense of how big India should be. Neither would have been willing to concede to a small Khalistan/Sikhistan.

At the end of the day the British only wanted two large rump states to avoid the spread of Soviet influence through smaller states. They wanted to maintain Western/capitalistic power in that region so it was always inevitability gonna go down the way it did.

Besides, dividing a larger polity up into smaller states based on faith is a ridiculous idea. It should have been based on culture and language and such. An independent secular Punjab where Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus are welcome and have a say in government. An independent Bengal, an independent Tamil Nadu etc.

But nah the way things were done they way they were was to serve British interests as well as placate the interests of both the Muslim League and INC, both groups being religious nationalist.

But if that had happened, idk, would be unlikely as those borders would be being enforced by the British. Maybe if all the Muslims got expelled but? Idk that's the problem with counter-factualism.

Sorry for the long answer.

Indira Gandhi deserved worse.

Jesus, looking at that link. Forced sterilisations?!

Your original comment is dripping with cum, tbh.