Secession in the western world simply cannot be compared. Historically western countries (not all obviously) have been imperial powers and so when imperialism collapsed after WW2, secession and referendum have been the way to go for people seeking self determination where they feel they are not getting the deserved representation.
Jatt Sikh separatism was extremely violent and was engineered by the cynicism and short sightedness of the people running India at the time and the opportunism of Pakistan which wanted to "get" India after their own country was bifurcated in the 1971 war. And you might think this civil war was fought between Hindus and Sikhs. But you would be clueless. Both the parties were Sikh ie the Government forces in Punjab were overwhelmingly Sikh and they recognised the movement as a cover for organised crime and fought and defeated it.
A lot of people (1000s) ended up dead. This question was not settled over some maple syrup and a friendly, fair referendum. So now when the population has moved past this demand, re-raising the issue will not be taken kindly.
Again, I have to question whether the dominant HINDU population has moved past this demand, or if the discriminated-against Sikh population in Punjab has moved on.
Watching Americans map their ideas around rabid white nationalism onto Hindus says more about the naturally violent tendencies of the west than it does about Indians.
Typing hindu in all caps does not change the heterogeneity of the people and it doesn't change the millenia long welcoming nature of the native people of this land.
The HINDU only exists in the imagination of the western academic.
When the article moves from the the editorialized introduction to their stated goals, it doesn't sound as bad.
> Replace "pseudo-secularism" with "true secularism", the latter being the Western-style separation of religion and state. Decentralize and reform the Indian economy, end the socialist, centrally-planned, state-owned economic model. Address Christian and Islamic proselytization, religious conversion practices and the arithmetic of religious communities in India; insist that Muslims and Christians accept its doctrine of equality of religions.
Your framing is uninformed (if one were charitable, malicious if one weren't)
Hindus are a minority in Punjab, and Sikhs are dominant. At the time when the Jatt Sikh militancy broke out, Punjab was one of India's richest states with the politics and the economy being "dominated" by the Jat Sikhs. While Punjab's economy is a shadow of those times, it is still "dominated" by Jatt Sikhs.
I think I've already answered that India's Sikhs don't want anything to do with Khalistan. As to why, the answer is simple: without the rest of India and it's unified market and the rights available to citizens, Punjab will be an economic basket case, as would almost any other Indian state. Not to mention they will certainly be cut off from their temples and monuments established in other parts of the country. Communities established in the rest of the country will be likely forcibly expelled to the new state.
(Edit: I'm not wishing this would happen. But given India's history with partition on religious grounds, this kind of displacement on a more thorough scale is exactly what is going to happen. My argument is that Sikhs and every community knows this, and that is why I have pointed out that it was the Sikhs who fought the Khalistanis and either eliminated or drove them away)
It is only a small section of Commonwealth Sikhs who use this Khalistan thing as a cover for their criminal activities. One only needs to examine the circumstances in which these "activists" left India and the present company they keep to realise this. It is possible some of them are still rightfully pissed off about the raid on the Golden Temple in '84. But formation of Khalistan does not serve their interests.
> Your framing is uninformed (if one were charitable, malicious if one weren't)
I deserve this call-out. I acknowledge I'm uninformed, and I am attempting to get more informed through the various discussions on this thread.
But it's VERY hard to fact-check a lot of the things being said. Some are leading with obvious bias. You are not. I'm inclined to believe more of what you have to say.
I assure you I am not malicious. I have a great respect for India, Hindus, Sikhs, Punjabs, and Canadians. I have a great disrespect for Narendra Modi and his policies. I do not support terrorism, but I also fall short of saying that non-violent resistance is the only path to liberation. History has vindicated violence as a means to achieve freedom in many contexts.
My understanding of the history of tensions within India between Sikhs and the rest of the country is painted based on broad incidents, like the assassinations of leaders, Golden Temple, etc. I gather my instincts from that.
But for modern perspectives, it is incredibly hard for me from my western bubble to get accurate impartial information or statistics. What percentage of Punjab citizens want independence? What percentage of Punjabi Canadians in the diaspora? What percentage support violence to achieve Khalistan?
I would like to learn.
Many threads have drawn comparisons to Quebec. I moved to Canada as an immigrant in 1995. I was infatuated with the country. And I was immediately confronted with the country's 2nd largest subdivision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum coming inches within 0.6% of voting to leave. I was furious. I didn't understand. I spent the next decade of my youth joking to anyone who would hear that "Canada should've kicked Quebec out for the vote being so close. They would have died economically, and they would've crawled back begging."
Then I looked into the actual history of Quebec and Canada. And I understood just how much propaganda and misinformation exists in English-language Canada that mocks Quebecois uniqueness and interests.
And I decided I actually understand why so many Quebecers wanted to separate, but that I wanted them to stay because their uniqueness is vital to the Canadian spirit. I can't imagine what I would think if the history was as violent as it was with Sikhs within India.
Which is why I keep doubting the premise that these sentiments only exist in the diaspora outside of Punjab.
Reading this is so frustrating I don't even know where to begin. I was writing a long reply to you some time back.. and I just deleted it all. I thought there is no point.
I don't think you are insincere. I'm certain that you are a very good person. But there is a certain arrogance in trying to understand things you are not equipped to understand. Not being equipped to understand things is not always a bad thing. And it certainly does not mean that things are always out of your control.
I must admit that I'm not articulate or authoritative to present this myself. I would recommend listening to this conversation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpa597jg4uY with as much open mindedness as you can muster.
Pew is the most respected non-partisan global survey corp, and 95% Sikhs said they were proud to be Indian. There simply isn't a desire for it in India.
Read all your replies. I can only conclude that have no understanding of Hindus, Sikhs or even India. Forget understanding Modi. That is not your cup of tea. I see a lot of comments on HN mindlessly bash Modi based on the ridiculous, perverted view presented by Western Media. That is what is driving your conclusions. Indians know better as to what exactly is happening in India and why we voted Modi. The West will never understand either the political landscape of India or the dynamics of demographic politics. For starters, majority of the "oppression" BS in India (be it on religious, caste or gender lines) is manufactured by all parties (representing all strata of society) to garner sympathy and votes from gullible voters. The actual reality is quite the opposite. You cannot have a prosperous economy, in a Democratic setup, with continuous oppression. Just because few riots happened in some parts of the Country, does not mean the Government is authoritarian. Do not forget that India is a country of 1.4 Billion People. It would be ridiculous to generalize the Nation, its Elected Government or the People based on extreme issues (which are bound to happen considering how vast the Country is and how huge the population is).
Either ways, as sibling comments have rightfully noted, you are unable to grasp the true psyche of India and Indians. For you to truly understand India, you will have to stop referring to Western publications of India (which are so out of touch with ground reality it is hilarious) and move to India and live her for at least a decade. You will reach the same conclusions as Indians then.
Maybe not a civil war, but some of the Quebec separatist ideology got up to some shit in Canada:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_lib%C3%A9ration_du_...
> Even more so if the secession in question had been settled 30 years ago.
Canada still has successful federal and provincial political parties campaigning on exactly that!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum