How does Khalistan become independent? A Sikh homeland in the Punjab that became an independent successor state to the Raj along with India and Pakistan would fare differently from a Khalistan that broke off from either India or Pakistan, to say nothing of the possibility of (say) a Sikh-run state in the Punjab that was never annexed at all.
So after 1984, America gets involved to start a regime change war, and Hindustan/Khalistan/Pakistan becomes this horrible three-way clusterf***?Maybe India is more pro-Soviet and the US begins to support the Khalistani insurgency and the insurgency has more Sikh diaspora support and Pakistan supports it even more?
A single party religious state, sure, but where are you getting the rest of your claims from? Drawing parallels to Juche, for goodness' sake, seems radical.it would be single-party theocracy, and All Sikhs, inside and outside Khalistan, would have worse life. They would be untrusted minority outside and oppressed by NK-style theocracy inside.
A single party religious state, sure, but where are you getting the rest of your claims from? Drawing parallels to Juche, for goodness' sake, seems radical.
Yea, no one is contesting that Khalistan would be theocratic. I even accept that it'd be a one-party state, like most other postcolonial revolutionary states.
Puppet state of Pakistan and whichever Great Power helped, maybe.An unstable (lot of squabbling between the various Sikh militant factions), militarised, theocratic puppet state of Pakistan.
Why? The Islamic Republic of Iran is rather unique, and was only possible because theocrats and liberals worked together to overthrow a monarchical regime.Huh I always thought that at worst Khalistan would become Sikh Iran.
The OP has not even mentioned how Khalistan came to be. Pakistan won't put in the commitment for such a state, the popular movement on the ground was never enough to cause Punjab to break away, and there is always the army to squash who ever tries to resort to military means.An unstable (lot of squabbling between the various Sikh militant factions), militarised, theocratic puppet state of Pakistan.
The OP has not even mentioned how Khalistan came to be. Pakistan won't put in the commitment for such a state, the popular movement on the ground was never enough to cause Punjab to break away, and there is always the army to squash who ever tries to resort to military means.
Khalistan was Indira;s project gone mad, it was never going to succeed. Once India had got its feet set, separatists simply cannot use an insurgency to good effect.
I don't know whether Pakistan would actually prop them up, but the OP has an independent Khalistan as a given and I cannot see how such a state would survive without Pakistani backing.
Yea, no one is contesting that Khalistan would be theocratic. I even accept that it'd be a one-party state, like most other postcolonial revolutionary states.
But that fascinating article about a 1980s Khalistani Movement political rally doesn't justify your other claims about what Kahalistan would be.
it would be single-party theocracy, and All Sikhs, inside and outside Khalistan, would have worse life. They would be untrusted minority outside and oppressed by NK-style theocracy inside.
Its not just about political rally ... The recipe of 1) revanchism 2) confusion between religion and political 3) large unemployed young man who want 'honorable' occupation that Khalistan couldn't provide; is very bad combination; it would result in very heavily militarized states who use foreign wars and religious dogma to sustain themselves while economically collapsing.