Can we, as Sikhs, express our sovereignty under the jurisdiction of a state? Regardless of whether or not that state is under “our rule” I would argue no.

Here’s why:
(1/8)

When it comes to Khalsa Raj, i’m inclined to agree with the sentiment that Raj exists underneath a Khalsa’s feet and within their soul. The conquering of the mind and free expression of love is what constitutes Khalsa Raj. (2/8)

However, Sikhs are being oppressed in India, this is something we cannot ignore. I do, generally speaking, believe a protectionist state is a good first step in ensuring the longevity and safety of the Sikhs in Punjab.

However, this should not be the end goal. (3/8)

States present a couple of inherent problems for Sikhs.

1. Living under another’s jurisdiction is anti-thetical to the Guru’s Sovereignty.

How many times has there been an issue in Gurdware that the police have had to come in and solve? (4/8)

Can the Khalsa truly deal with their own issues as they will and reign over their own spaces while under the impetus of a state? We’ve seen that when push comes to shove, state rule has trumped that of the guru, which is a MASSIVE issue. (5/8)

2. No state is forever, all regimes have been toppled.

I don’t believe the Sikh struggle should be a constant push to be at the top of the food chain, rather a movement towards a full egalitarian society. If we’re at the top, do we participate in the subjugation of others? (6/8)

Also, if we get to the top, what happens when our state rule falls? Trying to build a society where we can freely express Khalsa Raj, without any subjugation or tyrannical heirarchy, should be our goal imo, and this is impossible through a state structure. (7/8)

It’s very important to note this is based on my knowledge of Gurbani and Sikh thought which is wildly limited. Please feel free to correct me and engage the conversation further. (8/8)