How would life and politics go in an independent Khalistan?

Let's say that Khalistan becomes independent, how would Khalistani politics be, and would someone living in Khalistan ITTL be better or worse off than someone living in OTL Indian Punjab?
 
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.
 
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.

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?
 
How much Khalistan are we talking? Parts of OTL India only? Also parts of Pakistan?

When did Khalistan become independent? During 1947? After the events of 1984?
 
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?
So after 1984, America gets involved to start a regime change war, and Hindustan/Khalistan/Pakistan becomes this horrible three-way clusterf***?

Ok. So assuming Pakistan is already friendly with the USA (because India is pro-Soviet), we'd definitely see some covert Pakistani assistance in the fight. And since you're looking for independent Khalistan, the Pakistanis don't try (or try and fail) to take over the Kahalistan part of the Punjab. Probably because of the nuclear weapons question.

Right?
 

PhilippeO

Banned
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.
 
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.
 
An unstable (lot of squabbling between the various Sikh militant factions), militarised, theocratic puppet state of Pakistan.
 
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.

An unstable (lot of squabbling between the various Sikh militant factions), militarised, theocratic puppet state of Pakistan.
Puppet state of Pakistan and whichever Great Power helped, maybe.
 
There would be a refugee influx of persecuted Sikhs from India too, which will make it more impoverished and unstable too.
 
Huh I always thought that at worst Khalistan would become Sikh Iran.
Why? The Islamic Republic of Iran is rather unique, and was only possible because theocrats and liberals worked together to overthrow a monarchical regime.

An independent Khalistan, whether it emerges in the 1940s or 1980s, would probably be a single-party state run by a Sikh nationalist-theocratic revolutionary party (albeit potentially tolerant of certain non-Sikh groups depending on the context of its independence). Determining the number of opposition is ... iffy, likely depending on how tolerant the revolutionary party is of dissenting political entities during / immediately after the revolution.

Following the 1980s scenario above, I'm anticipating that Khalistan would have mulitple Sikh nationalist parties, especially the Akali Dal and the various OTL insurgency /terrorist groups (the Babbar Khalsa, the KLF, etc), following the general political tone of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution.

(An earlier POD might see Khalistan look more like this post.)
 
Last edited:

longsword14

Banned
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.
 
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 didn't comment on the plausibility. I took it as a given that the OP meant a successful 1980s Khalistani insurgency (when the movement was at its height). Due to their geographical position alone, and being vociferously anti-Indian, they would be utterly dependent on Pakistani support to be viable.

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.
 
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.

Maybe with Israeli help? India was OTL not Israel's friend until at earliest the mid-nineties, I could see Israel supporting a new state like Khalistan, especially if both India and Pakistan are against it.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
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.

Its not just about political rally; political rally is only beginning of article. The article goes into Khalistan deeper ambition, that they would not be satisfied with Khalistan, they see themselves should be ruling India, so Khalistan would be engulfed in Revanchist ambition. It also show religio-political interaction in Sikhs community, especially in Khalistan radical group, Khalistan would be very theocratic, opposition would not be tolerated, its not just political opponent but also considered religious opponent of sacred state. difference between ruling party-religious leader-military officer would be non-existent in successful Khalistan. It also shows Sikhs view of 'honorable' occupation, Sikhs young man couldn't just accept become factory workers / office employees, they want honorable occupation as small landowners or soldiery. Granted all those view is minority in current Sikhs community, but it would become party tenet / religious dogma in successful Khalistan. 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.
 
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.

None of this makes Khalistan like North Korea, friend. North Korea is a radical Soviet-style dictatorship that's regressed into a pseudo-monarchical fascist dystopia.

Khlaistan looks a lot more like the other revolutionary / breakaway states and protostates in south & southwest Eurasia: Pakistan, Bangladesh, PKK-led Kurdistan, Israel, Palestine.

They all, to varying degrees, have the same revanchism; they all, to varying degrees, deeply intertwine religion with politics; they all had or have, to varying degrees, a massive number of unskilled young workers looking to farm or soldier.

There is very little reason to think that Khalistan would become a closed-off red-in-rhetoric-only fascistic nightmarescape. Khalistan, instead, would probably look a lot like its actual neighbors: dominated by a single national-religious party, initially poor and agrarian, and eventually (hopefully) able to transition towards a more democratic government and more advanced economy.
 
Top