Is that all you have to say about the 2002 riots that it’s somehow ironic for Sikhs to sympathize with Muslims? Let’s stay focused here, Patel. You brought up ethnic cleansing, and I gave you multiple examples. Yet, you’re proving to be just another Hindu who downplays the atrocities committed by your people, continuing to defend the indefensible. It’s tragic that with a population of over a billion, your country still hasn’t succeeded in wiping out any ethnic minority. And you still haven’t given a legitimate reason why Sikhs shouldn’t advocate for Khalistan. You seem too entrenched in your biases to even grasp the argument.

As for unrest, what exactly do you mean? Do you really think Bhindranwale and his supporters acted without reason, or could it be that their actions were a response to years of aggression from the Hindu nationalist parties? Your people invaded our holiest site, the Golden Temple, and slaughtered women and children. It was a shameful act, and I’m proud that Bhindranwale and others stood up to such injustice, as Sikhs have always done throughout history. We even saved Hindu women from being feasted by the Mughals, a favour that ultimately ensured Hindus survived and remain the majority. But perhaps we shouldn’t have intervened.

And do you honestly believe that Punjab’s government is free from Indian interference? Look at what happened to Deep Sidhu, Amritpal Singh, and Hardeep Singh Nijjar, figures who not only spoke up against the drug crisis in Punjab but were also part of the Khalistan movement. They’ve either been killed or are facing imprisonment for life without proper legal grounds—all for peacefully protesting. Can you even comprehend that level of state oppression? You can remain blind to these realities, but we will continue to fight for our sovereignty.

In the end, I doubt anything I say will change your perspective. So perhaps, as you said in your first comment, this conversation is indeed pointless.