Roundtable
Being Civilized
The Roundtable Open Forum XXVIII - May 12-18
EDITOR
The Rules of the forum are posted here on the right, and need to be followed strictly by all participants.
The following is this week's (May 12 - 18) topic for discussion, which should focus on the questions posed therein:
BEING CIVILIZED
1 During the past week, we have had a lengthy exchange on this forum on the pros and cons of the very idea of a Khalistan. The discussion has been an open one, with intelligent and passionate positions presented by readers who hold views on the subject from a whole range of perspectives.
2 Most heartening to us was the demonstration that such an open and free dialogue can take place with civility, and without the need for anyone anywhere to think, Chicken-Little-like, that the sky is falling as a result!
3 We have not invented this wheel. Civilized nations around the world allow their citizens to openly, publicly, proudly and passionately propagate, inter alia, their separatist causes - as long as they stay within democratic and civilized norms.
4 Canada is an excellent example where the Quebec separatist cause has festered for generations. Self-declared separatists - proclaiming loudly that their primary mission in life is to engineer Quebec's separation from Canada - actually sit in Canada's federal and provincial parliaments today and help make Canada's laws. They know that they are free to espouse their cause, as long as they work within the laws of the land. As a result, we would suggest, Canada remains a united country to date!
5 Canada is not the only example. In the United Kingdom, the Scots have kept their campaign for independence alive - and they do so openly and within the democratic framework.
6 In the United States, we recently read about Sarah Palin's reported frolics with an Alaskan group campaigning for separation from the United States. That fact did not prove much of a hurdle for her to become the Republican candidate for the job of the Vice-President of the nation, and certainly hasn't come in her way vis-à-vis her current aspirations to run for President of the U.S. in the next election!
7 These are but three examples ... there are many more. As well, there is no dearth of examples where nations have turned oppressive and tyrannical against their own citizens who express their desire for greater freedom through separation. The result in these cases is always an endless civil war scenario.
QUESTIONS TO PONDER
- Do you think it is possible in today's India - a self-proclaimed democracy and secular republic - to have such a free and open dialogue on Khalistan as we have had on this forum with readers around the world?
- Do you think that such a dialogue has ever taken place or been allowed in India in the last several decades?
- What will the result be, in your opinion, if such a dialogue is allowed and does take place in India and Punjab?
Conversation about this article
1: Ujagar Singh (Birmingham, United Kingdom), May 12, 2010, 7:12 PM.
I think you've hit the nail on the head: If you mistreat your people, and then try to silence them - especially the Sikhs - all you are doing is creating a revolution. Sadly, the Indians do not understand this because they are still stuck in their age-old slave mentality and cannot think beyond how they were treated for thousands of years. I believe if an open and free dialogue is permitted, it will serve two purposes: first, it will work as an escape valve for the people's emotions; and secondly, not only will there be an all-around education but the oppressors too will learn something about themselves and about those they are victimizing brainlessly. However, I doubt that good sense will prevail in the minds of the desis. But, you know, hope springs eternal!
2: Harsimran Singh (Union City, California, U.S.A.), May 13, 2010, 12:18 AM.
I think such a dialogue is possible today. After all, if separatist political parties in Jammu and Kashmir were able to form the All Parties Hurriyat Conference to voice their collective views, I don't see why Sikh separatist elements would not be allowed to voice their views in today's India. In fact, Sikh leaders like Simranjeet Singh Mann do publicly express separatist views on Indian soil. I can't speak for what has happened in the past, but I believe that today's India is much more committed to at least basic human rights such as free speech.
3: Jasbir Singh Sethi (Houston, Texas, U.S.A.), May 13, 2010, 12:48 PM.
The urgent question, I believe, is: Will India survive the onslaught of terrorism it has unleashed for itself? Extreme regionalism? The growing sense of alienation within the states, and intra-state? The big disparity in the so-called economic gains? The rise of the Nazalite movement? The growth of fascism in the Hindus, which is on a collision course with their Islamic and Christian counterparts? These are the same extremists who believe that Sikhs should be recognized as a separate religion, and that any Sikh who thinks otherwise is a "traitor" to the country! What if there is an implosion in India? Where will the Sikhs be? The best solution for the whole sub-continent, not just India, is the "Anandpur Resolution". However, its name needs to be changed to make it more palatable - and refer to "minorities" instead of just Sikhs.
4: Ajit Singh (New Delhi, India), May 15, 2010, 9:11 AM.
Not only is there no such public dialogue in India but it is prohibited, if not in law, then certainly in actual practice. People are afraid to mention the word, unless they want to please an audience by bad-mouthing it by simply regurgitating govt. propaganda. I am afraid democracy is not alive and well in India when it comes to the crunch! Which means that the only dialogue that can happen - and it will - is underground. That is not healthy for anyone - especially for India!
5: Jasbir Kaur (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada ), May 16, 2010, 6:00 PM.
It's no different in the diaspora. I don't understand it - but the Indian diplomatic offices abroad have somehow managed to scare Sikhs into silence as well. Many think - erroneously - that if they express an opinion on Khalistan, some 'dharam raj'-like character in a desi embassy or consulate somewhere will take note and then deny them a visa the next time they want to visit India. If I may borrow a metaphor from the Christians - I think it is time for a second coming of Guru Gobind Singh, so that He can turn rabbits into lions again. If good people are scared off like this, guess what - India will be left dealing with whoever's left. And when that happens, it is never very nice ...
6: Balbir Kaur (Chandigarh, Punjab), May 17, 2010, 5:06 PM.
I am not a supporter of Khalistan. Yet. But I can say one thing for sure: no nation has the right to brutalize its people, refuse to deliver justice ... and then demand that the victims not dream of being free! What India has done to its Sikh elite is unforgivable. The writing is on the wall - bring all the criminals to justice, or poetic justice will extract its full ahare, and more, before long!
7: Tarlochan Singh Kular (London, U.K.), July 06, 2010, 5:25 AM.
The Indian government will not allow this dialogue to take place because it is seen as a separatist movement and India is not educated enough to withstand the pointed questioning of its stand regarding the Sikhs. The Kashmir problem is totally different from the Khalastani movement. First of all, what can be achieved by getting a separate country? Look at the situation in the middle- east where, for the past 62 years, the Jews and Arabs are killing each other in the name of religion and land. Can we really afford to go to war with our neighbors just to have a piece of land we can call Khalistan? If for argument sake this dialogue does take place, in India there is such a negative picture of the Sikhs that has been painted by the government, it will not only be a political but a religious suicide as well.
8: English Rose (United Kingdom), July 11, 2010, 10:44 AM.
Re Harsimiran Singh's comment - Every time Simranjeet Singh Maan makes a comment in favour of Khalistan, he is imprisoned or a case slapped on him. Nothing has changed. Re Jasbir Kaur's comment - if a visa is denied to a Sikh for discussing Khalistan or for any reason (i.e. in essence, a Sikh is kept from paying her respects at the Darbar Sahib), then there is no Punjab but an Indian-Occupied Punjab.