6 ms·

Every "democracy" is not the same. I bet you would say something different if your country was fighting a civil war with secessionist insurgents in parts of you

by kaycey2022 3y ago

Every "democracy" is not the same. I bet you would say something different if your country was fighting a civil war with secessionist insurgents in parts of your country. Even more so if the secession in question had been settled 30 years ago. Most people don't realise that the world does not revolve around them and their situation, for some reason.

Scoundreller 3y ago
> I bet you would say something different if your country was fighting a civil war with secessionist insurgents in parts of your country. 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_Qu%C3%A9bec 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/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum
- kaycey2022 3y ago
  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.
  - deanCommie 3y ago
    > Jatt Sikh separatism was extremely violent and was engineered by the cynicism and short sightedness of the people running India at the time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star#Casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star#Casualties 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.
    - kaycey2022 3y ago
      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. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=iNBbBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT11&ots=VsZNGkJliQ&dq=punjab%20gdp%20before%20insurgency%20was%20highest&pg=PT10#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.co.in/books?id=iNBbBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT11&ot... 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.
      - 3y ago

Scoundreller 3y ago

> I bet you would say something different if your country was fighting a civil war with secessionist insurgents in parts of your country. 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_Qu%C3%A9bec 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/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum

kaycey2022 3y ago
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.
- deanCommie 3y ago
  > Jatt Sikh separatism was extremely violent and was engineered by the cynicism and short sightedness of the people running India at the time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star#Casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star#Casualties 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.
  - kaycey2022 3y ago
    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. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=iNBbBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT11&ots=VsZNGkJliQ&dq=punjab%20gdp%20before%20insurgency%20was%20highest&pg=PT10#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.co.in/books?id=iNBbBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT11&ot... 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.
    - 3y ago