Why were the sikhs denied Khalistan?

Gandhi promised that he would give the northern most part of india to the sikhs as their own country, but never went through with his promise. Why did he lie? Why, even to this day is sikhism denied the status of official religion in india while islam, hinduism, jewish and Christianity is? Why is india still deny sikhs what they were promised in turn for their help?

Sorry for the amounts of questions.....im a student in history class and i need other peoples opinions, no one is sikh in my school.


Oxford, muslims weren't given their own country? wtf about pakistan? Pakistan was made for the muslims population. Hindus got india and sikhs deserve khalistan.

4 Answers

  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Because india hate sikhs and sikhs hate india. Sikhs have been prosecuted against and hunted down like animals solely based on their religion. Sooner or later Khalistan will be made and that will be a glorious day

  • Batlow
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    You'd be better off asking in a Yahoo Answers group like 'History':

    Home > All Categories > Arts & Humanities > History

    ...because the question really isn't anything to do with Anthropology.

    Whole books could be written about this question (and have been). No short answer here will be complete. By way of comment, though ... a few things are involved (note, I don't necessarily agree these were *good* factors, or desirable decisions, they're just a matter of historical record) -

    - the Sikhs were not a majority population in any Indian District, even Punjab either before or after Partition. The Muslim leaders argued they were majority population in the several Districts which now form Pakistan;

    - Muslims had gained a small measure of independence in the Minto-Morley Reforms of 1909, whereas the Sikhs had been bypassed in that Act; so the Muslims were somewhat further ahead in seeking a separate state at the time of Independence.

    - although Gandhi promised a separate state for Sikhs, he did not hold any political office in Independent India. It was Jawaharlal Nehru as PM who refused to allow a separate state for Sikhs;

    - the original Congress plan before Partition was for a federation of semi-autonomous states within a united Republic of India. However leaders like Jinnah insisted, against great resistance from the Indian Congress and the British, that Pakistan must be a totally separate nation-state, not a state within a federated India - thus torpedoing any chance for a separate Sikh state within India.

    - The militant campaign by Sikh extremists since the mid 1970s has been extremely detrimental to the Sikh cause; sympathy and support for a separate Khalistan is now non-existent outside the Sikh community. No other country would support it, or push India to allow it.

    In addition to which I would add ... the decision to partition British India into the Republics of India and Pakistan has been a monumental disaster for India, for Pakistan and, less directly, for the whole modern world. Tensions between India and Pakistan and the resulting support by Pakistan military & ISI for the Taliban in NW Pakistan and Afghanistan, have given the world the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (aided by the ignorant stupidity of the US Bush Administration); not to mention the wars after Partition in 1947, the Bangladesh War in 1971, the rise of two more unwanted nuclear states in the world; and enormous spending and focus on military defence instead of economic and social development. Do we really want to make that any worse by adding even further partitions of South Asia, based along religious lines? I don't think so.

    On a minor legal point, the Republic of India does not have any official religions - Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Jain or Buddhist. Under the Indian Constitution, the State is secular; this was upheld in several court cases. The only anomaly (which might be what you have in mind) is that Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are defined as "Hindu by law" for certain personal Laws.

    Sikhism is a fine and honourable religion. The quest for a separate Khalistan is a lost cause, and totally unnecessary for following and furthering the teachings of Guru Nanak.

    Hope it helps.

  • Im a history teacher and one thing that i nknow is that no way in hell are Sikhs these born legends lol india has had WOMEN that have thought the muslims and the mongols do you hear the woman stand up and say we want a part of india because they fought for india lol NO!!

    I mean even indian princess are famous for attacking and defending their familys kingdom and india

    so why should sikhs be treated any different, we also do not give any land to Christians, nore muslims nore buddhist in india.

    if you want your own land then take pakistan over you have indias blessing!

  • 4 years ago

    i'm against khalsitan circulate india has a Federal government equipment each and each state has its very own state legislature some persons are attempting to introduced on the placement to make it furious like 1982

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.