Punjab as a whole was never Sikh majority, it's only after partition that the Sikh population got concentrated in the Indian part of Punjab following mass migrations and became demographically majority in that part of Punjab.

Many Sikh's came here to Scotland and have been an integral part of our communities for decades now. Amazing people.

In college I had a professor who is a Jain originally from Mumbai. Even though he taught business courses he'd occasionally discuss the partition of India. I learned so much about India that I still wish to visit there some day.

Sir as a Sikh form Indian Punjab I would say that from what I have experienced growing up in Punjab is that Punjab is a state of Punjabis that means Hindu Muslim Sikh Christians of Punjab are culturally very connected to each other and I would say that taking out any part of this community would greatly affect the present Punjab. In Punjab many Sikhs believe in Muslim gurus as well as Hindu gurus and in turn some Sikh gurus also greatly affect religious knowledges of Muslims and Hindus of Punjab ; fundamentally Sikhism is religion which doesn't want conversion but the cooperation of other communities for peace and prosperity (ਸਰਬੱਤ ਦਾ ਭਲਾ Sarbat da bhala may everyone prosper , its one of the teachings we say in our prayers) that means Sikhs have no authority for forced conversion of people to believe in the ideas and thoughts that we believe are correct. The king Maharaja Ranjit Singh was known for his unbiased stance towards any religion in his judgement. And I think Guru Nanak dev ji our first guru's teaching is something everyone would agree on and it is like the fundamental correct according to all religions and his teachings is one of many factors which kept the Punjabi community together even today. here's some of his teachings : 1. Vaand Chhako - with the grace of the Lord, whatever you have received, share it with the needy and then consume. 2. Kirat Karo - One should not exploit others to enjoy self-happiness. Earning without fraud and working diligently is what he preached 3. Naam Japo: Chant the name of 'True God'. Sri Guru Nanak Dev emphasized meditating on God's name to gain control over five evils- kama, krodh, lobh, moh, ahankar means lust, anger, greed, attachment and ego 4. Sarbat daa bhalaa: Ask Lord for everyone's happiness. Sri Guru Nanak dev ji emphasized the concept of universal brotherhood. 5. Speak the truth without any fear. and one more thing Punjabis don't want things like Khalistan it is all the just the outcome of bad governance of our India's dark periods we are happy to be a small part of India's wheel of progress. The problem is that in our country religion is politicized a lot and unwanted factors of outer forces also influenced this dark period greatly. If people understand that our political parties exploiting us on the basis of religion then India would have progressed at a faster rate.

5:09 huge inaccuracy, Muslim league only got support of most Muslims during the 40s especially after 1942 when the British arrested the entire congress top leadership over the Quit India movement (incidentally the Congress president during that whole period was Maulana Azad, a muslim). Before that in the 1937 elections they struggled to even gain seats in muslim majority provinces with their support base being largely restricted to elite urdu speaking muslims in northern India, while the muslims in muslim majority provinces like Punjab, Bengal, and NWFP backed the local parties or the Congress (in the case of NWFP). Most muslim organisations supported the nationalist movement for most of the colonial period, with even the Muslim league being a Congress ally till their proposal for a coalition government in UP got denied, Jinnah himself was once a major nationalist leader.

Bengal and Punjab are the worst sufferers of partition till this date.

I never comment on videos, but as a Sikh, I want to thank you for making this video. Understandably, the partition focuses on the immense impact and upheavel that was inflicted on to the Hindu and Muslim communities. But, it is much appreciated that you have also mentioned the Sikh perspective, and how we were de facto stateless after the end of the British Raj.

As a Sikh who's heavily researched this topic for years, I don't fully agree with many of the points made in this video. However, I do appreciate you raising awareness on this subject matter.

They have their own country, it's called Canada

last time I was this early, the Sikhs had their own country

Really interesting! Thanks for making this video!

Better video idea: why wasnt sindh partitioned ? Karachi was hindu majority before partition, sindh was 25% hindu at least but now its 7

Really enjoyed this video, although I knew about the subject matter beforehand, most KZfaqrs don't really cover this--awesome that you did. I'd love to see more.

sikhs have always been a important part of indian society and it's case with every indian religion that we coexisted peacefully respecting and participating in each others culture and religious activities which is true to this day, this partition thing has no supporting base in the context of indian religions

Didnt cover much but appreciate the effort. Thankyou.

And now we see a fun exchange between the people of the subcontinent and the occasional British guy.

I wish Sihki was more widely known. Such an interesting faith tradition.

I’ve always wondered this is 🇬🇧British Partitioned off 🇲🇲Myanmar (then the Burma province) as well as 🇵🇰Pakistan & 🇧🇩Bangladesh as the World’s 3rd Largest ☸️Buddhist country alongside the World’s 2nd & 3rd Largest ☪️Islamic countries from the 🕉Hindu-majority India, so I thought it was logical to think why the Brits didn’t think to Partition a ☬Sikh country at the same time. (it’s fun the realise how the World’s ☪️2nd, 🕉3rd, ☸️4th & ☬ 5th Largest Religions coexist in this subcontinent!)

Very well researched video. Well done sir!

Very interesting. Thank you

The bigger question is why was there no Hindu country after partition when partition was done on basis of religion? If you get the answer of this question you will automatically get the answer of your next question that why there was no separate nation for Sikhs?

Very simple reason, they weren't in majority in the Punjab state. Only 14% Punjabis were Sikhs. How could a Sikh state can be formed in a state where Sikhs are in minority. They were possibilities of an independent united Punjab, which wasn't possible due to Hindu Muslim hatred. Jinnah, father of Pakistan had offered Sikhs to join Pakistan with united Punjab but it was unacceptable for Punjabi Hindus who were 34% of the state's population.. There were many other problems too, like how could it survive as a land-locked state but the above reason was the prime one.

Great video, I knew.very little of this.

Undivided punjab never had sikh majority

As a sikh i can say india is our country we don't want a separate country our relgion believes in service to humanity

I don’t mean to come off as insensitive or dismissive of peoples, but I’m becoming more and more convinced that the Partition was a mistake. Even if those who wanted it were well-intentioned.

Hello Hilbert. I grew up among children with parents from all over the old British India in Bradford. I also had been told that the family had Indian army ancestry and I could be part Indian myself. It is always interesting to see your videos on such topics. One of the most amusing experiences I had was to go on a stag night with a load of Sikh lads to Bernard Manning's club in Manchester. They loved it.

Fantastic video! Subbed. In my opinion, the move to religious division instead of splits along ethnic lines which was accelerated by the British was ultimately disastrous. In its post-partition aftermath, the problem is only getting worse as both India and Pakistan seek to destroy ethnonationalism and move towards religious nationalism to hold together artificial nation-states. Punjab was strongest as a unified Punjab, just as a unified Bengal was stronger before being split in twain. The fact that both Bengalis and Punjabis died in droves for the independence movement is certainly correlated with a major push to split their influence and power between "opposing" nations.

for viewers kind of Information, there is no country with national religion Hindu or Jain or sikh in the world so we can't say that India is a Hindu national country we are people who love to live in harmony and in root bases not even recognize each other as different religions

I ENJOINED IT VERY MUCH! PLS DO A EPISODE ABOUT THE KALISTAN SEPERATISM!

Excellent explanation

I heard the Northerner in him :-) sounds like Mark Wood, the fast bowler. Good video

Please visit Micahistory 2, it would mean a lot!

Very interesting. I was under the impression there was a much larger percentage of Sikhs in the area during that time. I thought they were more closely allies with the Hindus so didn't push for an independent state during the partition.

Conversely, many enter tribal and intergroup conflicts were put to rest during colonial periods. And flare up afterwards.

Sikhs are an integral part of India even before the British came in. They played a crucial role in the Independence and even today they make up a huge percentage of power throughout India. People should understand that when Gurunanak founded Sikhi to fight the oppressions against the Mughal Islamic rulers (these were the times of Bhakti Movement in the Hindu communities), the first people to join Sikhism were the people from the Hindu families. They treated it as a revolution within the Hindu communities in that region to join the Khalsa and fight against the Mughal rulers. Sikhs will always be a part of India, similar to other cultures and states.

Hindus always respect and hold a special place for Sikh gurus because they protected Hindus from the ruthless invaders of central Asia.

Thank you for this video and speaking on the matter, it is very interesting. There is a long history here and I think once people fully understand what the Sikhs have been through under hindustan rule, it will come as no surprise why autonomy is wanted however what is interesting is that India seems to label any Sikh who utters the word Khalistan/sovereign state as an extremist/separatist/terrorist, these are terms they use interchangeably. It should be noted that this entire movement of self determination was in response to state oppression and the Sikh genocide. People have an inherent need to control their own destiny, make their own choices and determine their own future. Any attempt to suppress this feeling will only lead to resistance and further discontent. The desire for Sikh sovereignty is not a crime, they want a safe, secure homeland because they have been targeted. The Indian state silencing, ‘disappearing’ or jailing under fabrication of those with different ideological views, is a crime. It’s also important to understand that the Anandpur resolution put forward in the 70s was asking for Punjab’s state rights, for more autonomy, all requests were rejected by the central government. The movement of Khalistan came about fully in 1986 a few years after the 1984 Sikh state sanctioned genocide and followed by operation woodrose. Sikhs took up arms to defend themselves against mass killings and the Indian state massacring them, klf and such organizations who took up arms were born. Anytime Sikhs to this day speak of rights or sovereignty or fight the discrimination and draconian measures they are maligned, thrown in jail under false charges or executed. Such disappearance of Sikhs are not uncommon in India, these were the same tactics used in the 80s and 90s as they are currently doing (current call for Sikh state, led by Amritpal singh, who has since been targeted/silenced). It seems a new generation of Sikh youth has flourished and the Indian state are out to destroy it, again. It is widely known that the Indian state is grossly corrupt and seems to be on a trajectory towards ethnic cleansing with the current government, as Hindu extremism grows in size and are given free reign with impunity. *The 1984 Sikh genocide, sometimes labelled incorrectly as ‘anti-Sikh riots’, not even 40 years ago, our generation. It's important to mention as there is much trauma associated with it. Riots denote an act of spontaneity, these killings were orchestrated state sponsored violence, organised and aided by the Indian state, targeting innocent Sikhs. The then prime minister’s two Sikh bodyguards shot her dead, for her role in killing innocent Sikhs and desecrating the golden temple and 30 other Sikh temples during operation bluestar. Many innocents people were killed in addition to countless temples burnt. There have been independent objective reports from people at the scene that the Indian army had instructed regular civilians at the temple to come out, reassured them that they would be safe and proceeded to shoot them dead. Then prime minister indira ghandi claimed they were after an ‘extremist’ who was gathering weapons in the golden temple, although this has been a point of contention from the Sikh community and the question arises was he in all 30 of the temples they attacked. It should also be noted that weapons have always been a part of the Akal takht since guru gobind singh’s time, as a means for Sikhs to protect themselves and others, this is what they believe in. There is an interesting interview (on youtube) of ex politician subramanian swamy, a Hindu nationalist who spent some time with Sant Jirnail singh bhindranwale. What then ensued by the country was a state sanctioned Sikh genocide, the hunting down of innocent Sikhs. Congress released voting lists and school lists so they could identify Sikh families/houses across cities, mobs in the hundreds (sometimes thousands) comprised of all types of Hindu men surrounded Sikhs houses, buses, businesses, temples etc. Weapons and kerosene were distributed. Genocidal mobs were paid for every Sikh they killed, more for prominent Sikhs, they were told they could keep the loot, jewellery and cash of the houses and businesses they robbed before they burnt families alive and burnt the houses, businesses and places of worship to dust. Police were instructed to ignore any calls and cries for help and have been quoted from survivors telling them ‘don’t worry, it won’t be long now, you too will be burnt alive soon’. Women and children were gang raped and burnt alive, men and children were tortured and set alight, placing flammable tyres around their necks, babies as young as 1 month old burnt alive. Tens of thousands butchered, mainly burnt alive, and hundreds of thousands displaced, left with nothing. Refugee camps were set up, women were also dragged from these camps and raped. All layers of society, including high ranking government officials, politicians, police and regular citizens committed and aided in barbaric horrors against innocent Sikhs just going about their lives. Justice has never been served, instead they were protected and promoted by the Indian state. Alongside an ongoing economic genocide - water rights, farming, electricity etc. Begs the questions, are they truly safe in India, how do you overcome your government genociding you. *The Anandpur resolution. After peaceful measures failed (Punjabi Suba Movement), Sikhs decided to make a draft of all demands in 1973 and was given the name 'Anandpur Sahib Resolution'. Which mainly requests more autonomy for Punjab, some of the points were - reminded of the Federal structure for Punjab, that Punjab should have an autonomy to make its own decisions, as promised before the Independence. Return of Chandigarh as a part of Punjab, as it was inside Punjab and still was made a shared capital between Punjab and Haryana. Remove casteism from Punjab, to help the farmers by restricting the tax strategy, make Punjabi 1st language in Punjab and should be given importance in the neighbouring states. To recognize Sikhism as a separate faith in the Indian Constitution, to help Kashmiri migrants, to protect the interests of minorities from other states, to abolish excise duty from tractors so that the small scale farmers could easily buy and live their earning. To setup a system of reasonable minimum wages to the labourers, during those times the rights of Labour class were exploited so to ensure their living minimum wages which would invoke respectable income for the labourers. To establish a audio broadcast system for Sachkhand Harmander sahib to world for which *Khalsa* would pay. Amendments in Hindu succession act which stated a girl after the death of her husband could not claim on the property of in-laws, this point was included to protect the rights of women. To exempt the agricultural land totally from tax, as small scale farmers did not have adequate machinery for farming, leading to minimal savings. There should be *no reservation* in government jobs and other areas on basis of the caste in any state. Water dispute - 75% of the Punjab's water is already given to the other states without any permission of state and the SYL (Satluj Yamuna Link) would divide the rest water also, leading to scarcity of water in Punjab even after having 3 rivers. To establish 6 sugar mills and 4 textile mills in Punjab so that the farmer doesn't have to go to other states to sell his products. The Central government denied all the demands.

The main plot is that India's partition was based on Muslims vs non-Muslims. Sardar Patel to nehru every indian leader tried their best to convince jinnah & some elite class to not ➗ us based on religion but failed. Many hindu+Punjabi/ Buddhists majority areas(lahor, Chittagong) still were given to pakistan by British, for so called buffer zone.

It seems as some kind of oddity, that partition brought immense suffering to sikhs but not a state. Like Kurds, sikhs have suffered at the hands of history.Some fault can be attributed to Maharaja Ranjit Singh. He could have made Punjab predominently Sikh. But he treated all his subjects fairly & equally. Here lies the paradox. When Sikhs are in power, they treat others with tolerance. But when out of power, sikhs have to face suppression & barbarity.

Sikhistan would’e been a state with an OP army.

The area of punjab was ruled by maharaja ranjit Singh. A Sikh ruler. So why wasn’t this made into the Sikh state? Otherwise an interesting video and you right about the lack of numbers for sikhs.

Its the same as asking "why there isn't any hindu country after partition". Only muslims wanted a different country, so they got it. Others just wanted independence.

So informative and well presented@

After losing the war from british Punjab or we can say sikh were brought in British empire after 100 year where as rest of the india was already under british raj for 100 years. And when leaving the british tied both horses and donkey with the sams rope. Sikhs are still struggling for there freedom.

As a matter of fact. independent Sikh country can never survive alone! it will either be annexed by Pakistan or India.

All the main TV channels in the UK carried documentaries about the partition on the lead up to the anniversary and beyond. The telling of firsthand accounts. I would have thought, that they are still available on catch-up services. .

India this is bharat continental heare tamil,telugu,malayalam,kannada,marathi,gujarati,bengali.all community partner's call us bharat continental of world peace nation's

Would be interesting to hear an Alt history about how such a nation would relate to politics in the region.

Greetings to the proud people of the indian subcontinent from Egypt

We want our own nation sikh 🙏

Religious fuelled partition was only a factor for Muslims. Sikhs never had that separatist tendency. Christians are also large in number on the Malabar Coast but never demanded a separate state either. Minorities such as Sikhs, Christians never felt threatened or bothered by living in a democracy that was majority Hindu unlike many Muslims who prior to British rule were used to ruling over Hindus. That being said there has been a recent Sikh separatist movement exasperated by atrocities against them during the 1980s however it remains a small minority. Most Sikhs are patriotic and disproportionately serve in the army. Have been amongst freedom fighters calling for an independent India (not just Sikh India). We have also had a Sikh PM and are very proud of their contributions.

Sikhs dosent belong to India, India belongs to Sikhs, it belongs to everyone who identifies with this ancient civilisation, Sikhs, Jains, Hindus, Buddhists, and many others, are different, but we all live together, respect each other and call ourselves one, Its only the Christians, the Muslims and the Communists (not nessecerily the population, but the institutions) who can't coexist with anyone who is different from them.

Pak/Bangladesh is not a muslim majority state. They are Islamic state. They are governed as per Shariah. India is a pluralistic society which has Hindus as majority. So Hindus/Sikhs/Buddists/Jains no one got an exclusive country of their own. Only muslims got that. As per the decree of Gandhi (India's father of the nation) - Muslims need to be appeased, even at the cost of Hindu religion, culture or motherland which the Dharmic people consider as holy.

Full support for khaliatan/Sikhistan in Canada But our gurus and sikh brothers and sisters will live in India 🇮🇳❤️✨

Let's hope they get their own state somewhere in Brampton in this century :)

As far as I know, the partition was that Pakistan was for Muslims only and everybody else were to live in India: it was the Muslim League who instigated this.

Just to clarify some things in this video: Before the British, the Sikh ruled Panjab under Maharaja Ranjit Singh where people of all faiths were treated equally and lived in peace. Under Ranjit Singh, the Sikhs were still a minority yet this is not an issue as Sikhs are warriors, they're lions (Singh's). Sheep always outnumber Lion's but 1 Lion can take care of a 1000 sheep. This shows that you don't have to be a majority to rule a state. The Sikh sided with the Congress whilst fighting for independence from the British under the impress they would be free and have political autonomy as a federal state just like the US system. This didn't not occur hence the fight for a separate Sikh state since the 50s. Key dates to prove this is the protests and subsequent raid of Harmandir Sahib in 1955, the Panjabi Suba movement resulting in a further partition of Panjab 1966 and of course the Dharam Yudh Morcha and Operation Bluestar in 1984 followed by the ongoing armed resistance til this day.

Thanks I wish you make more videos on Sikhs

well done

I really wanna know more about Sikhs, Buddhists or Jains, but it's hard to know where to look.

Typical 'western' hypocritical narrative. Video starts with saying 'Hindus got India" when in fact all Indian religions including Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Parsis, Sikhs, Jews, Budhists, Jains etc were part of India as a secular state. Surprisingly this channel may never describe their nation as Christian even though most western nations are over 90% Christian

“States”, borders, flags, democratic rule and nationalistic governance that we understand today are a completely different and foreign concept that we were never used to and very effective in division.

After Partition of India, there were two Islamic countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh but no Hindu, Sikh, Jain or Bhuddists country. Please note that.

There are many inaccuracies in this video! The facts should have been checked before publishing this.

this is the root of all the religious tension right now

Congratulations on a fine video as is shown by the huge numbers of comments. This being said I am doubtful mine will ever be read, nevertheless I can't help but add my 2 cents. I am too lazy to confirm this presently, but it was my understanding that there were several independent kingdoms within India at the time of the British Raj (hence there are still maharajas and princes around today). These all chose to be incorporated into greater India at independence, except Kashmir which wanted to be a separate state. Pakistan would not allow this claiming it entirely part of their country (the "K" in Pakistan). Kashmir chose to go with India as the ruler was a Sikh, resulting in its partition and subsequent border wars, complicated further by disputes with China.

Having been to India and Kashmir, I know more about it than the average KZfaqr.

Im not trying to start a flame war but its less that Pakistan was for Muslims and India for Hindus and more so Islamic separatism with Pakistan for Muslims and India for anyone and everyone. One is a secular multi religious state who is currently in 2020s succumbing to religious nationalism, while the other is a state that was literally founded on religious nationalism.

u have mistaken...Muslims got Pakistan but all other religions got India although hindus were in majority

Do you think Ukraine may represent a modern Sikh state attempt? Not sure In race or whatever but In the hill families etc? Great vid thank you

What's the music?

Only pakistan got divided from India on the basis of religion India was and still a secular states Only muslim wanted their seperate state and others So there was no point of creating Sikh state

No this is wrong, you see Panjab was its own country before the annexation of the British in 1849 but after independence the first Prime Minister of India promised Panjab its own country (Khalistan) , in fact the first Prime Minister of India fooled Panjabi's that Panjab is part of Hindustan ( India ) when it wasn't.

pretty sure the answer is that tiny religious minorities are generally not given their own states to run when much larger groups would like to use that land too.

Do Sikhs and Hindus share the same community when living abroad in the west or do they form their own separate communities?

buddhism, jainism, sikhism and hinduism arent exactly religons!! They r dharma.. They have their disagreements for sure but that doesnt stop them from celebrating each other's festivals, visiting each other's temples and taking part in each other's rituals. They arent like abrhamics " oh you disagree so u have choosen death", Indian philosphy is an open source software, gurus come and start their own traditions, if they are able to attract no crowd then they fade away, if they r able to attract a moderate portion then they become a sect within hinduism and if they recieve potranage and get a significant following then they become their own dharma, seperating themselves from sanatana dharma ( hinduism) No one stops them .... Thats what makes hinduism so uniique it never undermines its child philosophies( sikhism buddhism and jainism) cus it believes nothing is perfect or permanent, "Changes are bound to happen as time passes" that keeps hinduism fluid and open for discussionn

SHIVA BLESS 🇮🇳 ALLAH BLESS 🇵🇰 WAHEGURU BLESS SIKHSTAN

1:49 That flag makes me anxious.

I support a Sikh Country in Punjab Pakistani Punjab

As a sikh, I wish we had our own country.

1:20 "Hindus got the state of India". Then would you be ok with the muslims being deported/converted. First you say that India is just Hindu version of porxtan. Then you want independence of porxtan exclusively for muslims as well as let them have 'equality' in India. Then you also want our motherland to be divided between Hindu and sikh brothers who can never stay independent without each other.

The Shiromani Akali Dal and Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee passed a resolution in the early 1940s that they would fight for Khalistan. They did not wish to be placed in India. It was only when Master Tara Singh betrayed the Sikhs that Sikhs ended up in India

If you are a real truth-seeker please make video on why there was no Hindu state after partition of India, as pakistan was entirely made on the line of religions. And this video also discusses new state based on religion. Thanks!

You seem to have misunderstood the concept of Sikhism. Sikhism and Hinduism are much more intertwined. Khalsa is a concept that emerged 300 years ago against Islamic oppression, but Punjabis as ethnic and linguistic group have existed for long. Infact, there has been a long tradition in Punjabi Hindus to make their eldest son a Sikh (Khalsa Warrior). That's because the knowledge of warfare and self defense was pretty much restricted to the Kshatriya Caste(Rajputs back then). But by becoming the part of Khalsa community, you could learn the art of combat to protect your family and village, given the fact the Punajb was the gateway to the subcontinent and first line of defense against invaders and was constantly at threat.

All these historical stories are fine...But the real question is -- when and from where will we Sikhs get the courage to accept our true history? When will we remove the cloth over our eyes to see and accept the historic proof that our real home is Lahore in Pakistan, and not Indian Punjab? Our Lahore is the kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singhand his ROOH still is in Lahore. Our Nankana is the birthplace of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism. Can we forget Janam Asthan? This is Historic Proof that our real home is Lahore in Pakistan, and not Indian Punjab. This is whar Deep Sidhu was telling us in his song ( kzfaq.info/get/bejne/brRmlpOU39XLqKs.html) Sikhs own Lahore. Nobody can change that. Just as Jews own Israel, Sikhs own Lahore. For how long will we call India our homeland and ignore our real homeland that keeps on calling us? Come on brave brothers let us move back home to our Lahore. Forget India. Lets go OUR REAL, HISTORICAL, GURU-GRANTED HOME: LAHORE-PAKISTAN. Only in Lahore can we can say “RAJ KAREGA KHALSA”. I repeat, brave Sikh brothers, let us never forget that the real home of Sikhs granted by our Guru and is Lahore and not India. Indian Punjab belongs to Punjabi, Bihari, Madrasi, Bhaiyya, and all other Indians, but Lahore belongs to Sikhs alone. How did we forget it?

Why would Sikhs want to be in a land locked country when they have all of India for them. Plus they will have to defend their boundaries against Pakistan and still not have any of the old Sikh empire land that is now in Pakistan.

Interesting

Would like to see you make a video on the Indian invasion of Hyderabad its an important part of partition thats overlooked and forgotten.

There were so many religious communities in India- Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis. Did all of them demand for a separate country?

Saddening

The last part of the subcontinent that the British Raj annexed was The Khalsa Raj, it was diverse had equality and lots of volunteering work to the point there was no crime, no hunger or homelessness like in gurudwaras using the system of seva, now when we want the Khalsa Raj again or Khalistan it’s heavily propagandized as terroristic, even tho the Indian state constantly oppresses both the Sikh and Muslim population, People get arrested for protesting let alone gather in groups of 4 at time

A new Sikh state in India Khalistan should emerged.

The partition of India was a disaster. So many communities split in half, so many people forced to leave their homes. So much hate and conflict to this day is caused by this partition, and it was all completely avoidable. What a goddamn shame.

Let’s solve all these problems at once, by making huge numbers of people unhappy and just give Kashmir to the Sikhs?

A Sikh nation would have been a great buffer state between India and Pakistan.

"Hindus got the state of India" That's a bad take & not true at all (if you're comparing it to Pakistan - Muslim scenario)

We are a dharmic family and respect our mother, the oldest and remained the steadiest due to its philosophies of quaIity over quantity. I reject the regional aspects of that time that tainted it.

Many people refer to it as a partition of punjab not india

Damn it