 Okay, welcome. Good evening, everybody. My name is Edward Simpson, and I'm the director of the Sahas South Asia Institute. I'm here to welcome you to this event. The Sahas South Asia Institute hosts a series of book launches, lectures and other events on a regular basis. This evening it really gives me some pleasure to welcome Goharpal Singh back to Sahas. The launch of the book that he's authored with Giorgio Cianni on Sikh nationalism. Goharpal has been many things in his career, but he was kind and nurturing as a dean of faculty to me, so I'm personally indebted to him. And I've actually just said that on a recorded live web seminar, so it's there for posterity now. So thank you very much, Goharpal. Goharpal is also the emeritus professor of Sikh and Punjab studies at Sahas. And his previous major publications have included the Partition of India, Sikhs in Britain and Ethnic Conflict in India. Sikh nationalism, the book we're here to launch today was co-authored with Giorgio Cianni, who is professor and chair in the Department of Politics and International Studies at the International Christian University from Tokyo. And Giorgio is currently in Tokyo, so you can imagine the time difference, so I'm really grateful for you taking the time to be here with us. He's the author of Religion, Identity and Human Security, and Sikh nationalism and identity in the global age. We're joined also by two discussants this evening, Professor Ian Talbot and my colleague at Sahas, Professor Peter Flugel. And the way we're going to run it this evening is that Goharpal and Giorgio will introduce the book, and then we will have commentary from Ian and Peter, followed by a Q&A session. So welcome all, welcome to panelists, authors and to our online audience. I apologize that we had to move online rather than to hold this event in person, it would have been nice but such are circumstances. So Goharpal, the floor is yours. Okay, excuse me. I want to begin by thanking colleagues within the South Asia Institute for organizing this event, and also to Peter and Ian for their time and effort, and Giorgio for staying up so late. I would add that I tried very hard to get a gender equal panel of discussants but because of the previous commitments of the colleague's I approach. This was not possible. By way of introduction I want to say that I've been working around or on the subject for nearly four decades. In 2009 I began as a research student at the LSE in the early 80s. In 2009 I organized a conference on Sikh nationalism at the University of Birmingham, where most of the leading specialist on the subject in the world attended. I was presented at the conference were never published because soon afterwards I moved to so as, and the task was put on the back burner. Fortunately it was a revived again when the CUP approached me for a volume volume, but given my responsibilities, then at so as I approached Georgia to collaborate with me on this project. The publication is purely coincidental. It comes in the year which marks the 75th anniversaries of partition. India's and Pakistan's independence and the Hindu nationalist government in India, which is seeking to redefine the post 1947 order. There's this to say nothing of the chilling developments in the Ukraine over the last week. So the context is timely. It's timely enough to reflect on what the late Professor Anthony D Smith, the great student of nationalism at the LSE called the nationalism of small peoples. That is nationalism in South Asia nationalisms in South Asia that were marginalized in 1947 in the hastily transfer of power to Indian Pakistan. Our objective in writing this work were threefold to provide an accessible text for students scholars and the general reader. To take the Sikh case within the comparative literature on ethnicity, nations and nationalisms and to start a debate about the need to study Sikh nationalism seriously. The book addresses the following key questions. If so, what kind of nation and how does the politics of Sikh nationhood play out in the modern period in South Asia and the diaspora. Interestingly, such questions were central to those working on the Sikhs in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Since 1984, Singh, Joyce Pettigrew and Paul Brass and the latter seminal volume, language, religion and politics in North India are some of the leading examples. Since 1984, perhaps reflecting the decade of turmoil that followed the development of Sikh studies. And the development of Sikh studies as an essentially religious subject debates about Sikh identity have displaced concerns about nationhood. Sikh identity issues are extraordinarily complex. Not without their normative agendas, for example, who is a Sikh, who is doing the defining and how do Sikhs themselves articulate their subjectivities. These things are discussed in some detail in the book, but to keep things simple and clear, the volume uses the two main narratives of modern Sikh identity of religion and a nation. To these it adds a third, the narrative of Sikhs as a minority, both in the Punjab, in India and in the diaspora. We then explore how these narratives of as a religion as a nation as a minority coalesce and diverge and how they are shaped the politics of Sikh formations since the end of the 19th century. I should point out that, unlike the study of nationalisms of major traditions, minority nationalisms, especially of complex minorities like the Sikhs present special challenges. As a result, we have used and Georgia will highlight this and integrated approach to bring together for complimentary approaches. Our main debt, as I pointed out earlier is to Professor Anthony Smith and his ethno symbolic approach, which emphasizes the power of nationalism as being rooted in the myths and memories of a community, and the ability to interpret them. And this is to quote him the way in which a popular sense of a living past has been and can be rediscovered and reinterpreted by nationalists and nationalist intelligentsia. Again, I will not say much and save time because I know Georgia is going to do a presentation where he focuses mostly on these methodological issues. I would say that the Sikhs are a highly symbolic community. They have a myth of election as chosen people, as embodied in the idea of the culture, a history of persecution, and the legacy of statehood, indeed, an empire in the 19th century. In addition to these approaches, we had three other we drawn three other approaches. Firstly, the literature on minorities and minority nationalisms, and, and how minorities outlook is shaped by the world around them. Another concern is to outline the efforts of the Muslim League and the Congress in the Punjab before 1947 and the Congress after 1947. We also have a vision building and how this has shaped Sikh minority consciousness. We also add the consciousness of being a dense. We also add that the consciousness of being a distinct and vulnerable minority has been reinforced by the politics of the diaspora. Finally, we view the Sikh diaspora from its inception in the late 19th century as an integral part of the development of Sikh nationalism. The diaspora is not an independent actor. As much of the existing literature emphasizes, rather the diaspora and the Sikhs in the Punjab are mutually dependent, sometimes more, sometimes less, but never completely independent or autonomous. Third, the work draws on the literature on religious nationalism, and Georgie always say, as I said, a bit more on this, and we highlight the literature on religious nationalism since the late 90s, 911, and in particular, we draw on it to redraw, rethink the relationship between Congress's sacred nationalism and Hindu nationalism and how Sikh nationalism and religion are distinct from these two trends. So, I'm conscious of the time, I will move on to some of the main conclusions which I think are important for those interested in finding out more about the work. So the first one is that against the prevailing consensus in Sikh studies, the view that religion is a main narrative of Sikh identity. We argue with substantial evidence that the narrative of a nation and as a minority are also important in the modern period. The latter two are not contradictory but complementary, and they have been highly influential in shaping the politics of modern Sikh formations in the homeland and the diaspora. And it is possible to sketch a linear process of ethnogenesis among the Sikhs from a small community in the middle of the 15th century. From a small religious community I should add from the middle of the 15th century to a distinctive ethnic group, and the consciousness of a nation, albeit a nation without a state. This process also works in reverse, thus in the 18th century, despite the Sikhs acquiring state power, Sikhism reverted to the normative order Punjabi Hindu society. Since 1947, the recognition by the Indian constitution of Sikhs as only a religious community has greatly diminished Sikhs claims to nationhood. And Sikh nationalism is identity driven. It has a stronger territorial commitment to the Punjab, but can also accommodate the territorial imaginings of the nation. The religious ethic of openness to the other, to not to dominate or be dominated, enable Sikh nationalism to readily accommodate religious pluralism and multiculturalism. The political colonial ideal of Sikh leadership before 1947 was a religiously plural Punjab, in which neither the Hindus nor Muslims had a majority. A separate Sikh state was an option of last resort, the necessary logic of a subcontinent divided by religious nationalism. In the 1940s or in the 1980s and 90s mainstream Sikh leadership has been reluctant separatist. Fourth Sikh nationalism is best viewed as a continuum with multiculturalism at the one end and separate and a separate state at the other. In the book there is a table which highlights this. This space in between is occupied by the Congress and the other parties on the Akali Dal with its non-precipitation of 1973, which harks back to the cabinet mission plan of 1947 and seeks to limit the power of the center to defend currency communications and foreign affairs. The volume calls for a critical appraisal of the common distinction between Congress's secular nationalism and the BJP's ethnic Hindu nationalism. Today in India there is a lively debate between the two. Rahul Gandhi has recently spoken of India as a union of states, while his grandmother was adamant that India was a multicultural union, a construction not too dissimilar from the BJP's ethnic nationalism with diversity, but defined by an overarching identity of religion. With BJP's claim to the naturalness of its nationhood are being contested, we should not overlook the fact that secular and territorial nationalism of the Congress is in no small measure a retrospective reconstruction in which state power played a substantial role. The Sikh case and how it's been managed by the Indian state, as I pointed out in the early 1990s, suggests that India should be coded as an ethnic democracy. This is further reinforced by the common experience of India's peripheral regions in the northwest and northeast. So finally comparatively I just highlight that the work demonstrates that complex minorities like the Sikhs, often compared to the Jews can be read within the literature on ethnicity, nations and nationalism, that Sikhs as a minority in the Punjab in the diaspora have pioneered, valued and adapted to multiculturalism, that is power sharing and religiously plural polities, and that the Sikh case is an example of a nation without a state that might thrive in conditions of post sovereignty. Alternatively, as a result of nation breaking and overt religious assimilation, it might experience a rapid decline in nation thus. In short, in conclusion, I would say the volume draws attention to the challenges, dilemmas and problems of studying the nationalism of minorities, or indeed the nationalism of small peoples. The volume ends with a plea to take the study of Sikh nationalism more seriously. Thank you. Gohar, thank you very much. That was a fantastic introduction to the book and a great kickoff for an evening discussion. So next up we have Georgio Shani who is going to deliver a pre-recorded presentation, pre-recorded because it's now 20 past two in pad. So Sunil, if you could press play, that would be fantastic. Hello, it's a great honor to be able to present at SOAS. I did my on Sikh nationalism over two decades ago. And it's a great honor to be invited back to talk about the book with Gohar Pal on Sikh nationalism published by Cambridge University Press. Unfortunately, I cannot be with you today because I'm in Japan. However, I have some comments to make about the book and I would like to share in the, for the sake of brevity, some PowerPoint slides which I hope you can see. So I should point out first that this book is a mutual collaboration between Gohar Pal and myself. I was primarily responsible for the theoretical framework in chapter one and the chapter and the diaspora on chapter eight. So I'll speak specifically to those, to those chapters. The book begins by exploring different narratives of Sikh identity. And we isolate three narratives. The first narrative is Sikhism as a word religion or a pump. This is the dominant or hegemonic narrative within academia. The Sikhs are seen as followers of Guru Nanak with the sacred script, the Guru Granth Stab and institutions, the Kalsa and Arimandir Saab and the Akal Takht in the Golden Temple complex. The second narrative, which is the narrative we focus on, looks at Sikhs as a nation or a calm. It's also seen as a people who share a common language Punjabi, a territorial homeland of Punjab and a political system centered on the SGPC, Sri Ramani Akali Dal complex. Now, the important point to note is that both of these narratives emerged out of the colonial encounter. However, they cannot be seen mainly as derivative discourses of colonialism. This is the starting, our starting point. So our focus is very much on the second narrative Sikhs as a nation or a calm. And I think we should also point out that the work which has been done on both of these narratives within Sikh studies, where still Sikhism as a world religion is seen as the hegemonic narrative. Now to this within the book, we add a third narrative Sikhs as a minority or a diaspora. Sikhs are seen as a religious minority in India and an ethnic minority in the West where narratives of diaspora strong. The strength of the book is in its integrative approach, which looks at relations between homeland and a diaspora as mutually dependent, rather than looking at diaspora nationalism as an independent variable. Okay, now the following table, Table 1.1 in the book looks at the literature on Sikh ethnicity and nationalism. And we can distinguish between primordial instrumentalist, modernist, postcolonial diaspora and religious nationalist approaches. However, the main focus of our approach is ethno-ethno symbolism, which focuses on the ethnic dimensions of nationalism. Nations is based on what Anthony Smith termed an ethny. So this forms the starting point of the book, although I'm personally associated and influenced by postcolonialism and views of nationalism as a derivative discourse. However, part of the problems of postcolonialism is that it is unable to account for the cosmological tradition of Sikhi. It mainly focuses on the transformations of Sikh identity after colonialism. And our focus very much is on how this tradition and this narrative of Sikhs as a nation came about. So if we look at Sikh nationalism, the focus is very much on the indent dimension of Sikh subjectivity, following the work of Smith. And ethno-symbolist approach, which emphasizes the role of religious myths and historical memories in the nationalist imaginary. So this can be counterposed to modernist approaches to nationalism, which focus on elite manipulation or on roles of elites and the state in the construction of nationalist identities or the role of print capitalism if we look at the work of Benedict Anderson. Our starting point is to look at the nation as a sacred communion of people devoted to the unity and identity in historic homeland to quote Smith and by this criterion of nationalism. So this conception of nationalism can be applied to the Sikhs. The book examines the transformation of Sikh subjectivity in the colonial period and the legacy of partition. And as I mentioned earlier, integrates the study of Sikh nationalism in the Punjab with that of the diaspora. Finally, it offers new insights into religious and minority nationalisms in a globalizing world. And this will be the final slide, which I'll look at, looks at the possibilities which globalization has for understanding Sikh identity. So in the book, I look at the possibility of the, or ask a provocative question, whether Sikhism can be seen or whether we are the impact of globalization on Sikh identities may lead to the formation of a new form of imagined community of global Sikh calm. This is based on an understanding of signal nationhood has embodied in the external symbols of the culture, primarily, rather than as rooted in in territory so it's embodied nationalism, rather than territorial nationalism. Consequently, I argue that Sikhs are a sovereign people irrespective of statehood in India and the diaspora. Therefore, the Kal Sak Panth corresponds to a de-territorialized calm or community which may be suited to a global age. This is the main thesis I advanced in my formal work, Sikh nationalism and identity in a global age. Now, this book, the starting point in a way of this book is in a way to bring back in understandings of the territorial dimension of Sikh nationalism. So perhaps in retrospect, I overstated the impact on globalization on territorialized identities. And as a result of COVID and the slowing down of the world economy and travel restrictions, which prevent me from coming from Japan to attend this book launch in person, we may be looking at a world after globalization. And what will this world look like? Will there be a return to ethno-nationalism? Will there be a return to territorial nationalisms, the like of which we is being played out at the moment in the conflict in the Ukraine? And it's also important to note that as in the conflict of Ukraine, there is a religious dimension to this nationalism. So territorial nationalisms are infused with religious nationalism. So this book in a way seeks to bring back in the territorial dimensions to Sikh identity and to focus on this narrative of Sikhism as a nation. Because we argue that this understanding of Sikhism as a nation accords with the self-understanding of many Sikhs in the world today. Thank you very much. Georgia, thank you very much. That was really provocative and wonderful. So we've heard from our authors and between them they've clearly shown the value of academic collaboration as both of their interest and approaches are brought together in one volume. It also occurred to me while you were both speaking to comment very briefly on the fact that I hope this book is used for teaching, because such a clear exegesis of theories of nationalism and how they apply to one particular context in the way that you laid it out from that presentation is very valuable indeed. So now we're fortunate enough to have two discussants, so I'm just going to take the liberty to introduce rather more fully than I did before. The first is Professor Ian Talbot, who is Emeritus Professor in History of Modern South Asia at the University of Southampton. Ian has published a great deal over the course of his long and successful career, but most recently a book called Modern History of South Asia, which was published by Yale in 2016. So Ian, please. Thank you very much and thank you very much to the South Asia Institute for inviting me to make this presentation relating to the book. I think we've already heard from the authors that some of the themes and also I think people will have got a taste of both the empirical richness, but also the theoretical sophistication, which underpins this volume. The final point, which we've just heard, which I think is also a key element when you get to read it, if you haven't read it, is the accessibility of the volume. It's those three elements I think which are so impressive in dealing with the complexities of Sikh nationalism. I've known, of course, both authors over many years and have been privy to some of the thinking, some of the earlier research, the theorizing that's gone into making this study. And I think that it's something which, as we've heard, is really enhanced by the ability to bring different frameworks and integrate them into this study of Sikh nationalism. And the other introductory points I want to make is obviously yes, this is a very timely study in terms of both the coming 75th anniversary of partition and one of the themes of the volume is the legacy of partition for Sikh nationalism. So of course the rise of religious nationalism within South Asia and the questions which this may pose for Sikh national identity going forward and how it's expressed as well. What I want to do is to really reflect in three different literatures which I've been engaged with over my career and how the volume intersects with these literatures, literatures of partition studies of Pakistan studies and also a Punjab studies. Because I think this volume is an important intervention in some of these literatures. And it also, in a sense, perhaps interrogate some existing understandings and also reinforces some existing understandings. I'm going to start first with partition studies, because of the timely nature of the volume, and the fact that it actually reflects on a number of key issues relating to the wider partition and departure of the British from India. And then there are other things which comes out very clearly which we've already heard from the authors is the fact that the Sikhs were, to some extent, pushed to one side as a group by the need for an all India settlement between Congress, and between the British. Obviously also caught between the Muslim League's demand for a separate state of Pakistan. So this is the context in which the Sikh political leadership has to operate and much of the writing about the Sikh political leadership in partition studies is very much around perhaps personal failings or weaknesses of that leadership. And yet, what this volume does is it very much shows how the Sikh leadership was hemmed in by these external pressures that were coming to bear in 1947 and that's why perhaps different strategies were adopted which may give the impression of incoherence and had hawkism moving from more consociational approaches to the post British settlement to raising a demand for a Sikhistan or a Kallistan state that that was always very much the last resort in some senses for the Sikhs after they'd exhausted earlier in the years which were put to one side in this desire for an all India settlement. And of course they're similar, in some respects to other small people's nationalisms in this end game of empire, like the Pashtuns, for example, to the extent, obviously like the Tamils but also what was going to transpire in northeast India. So that the North India settlement is to the detriment of these sort of small national movements. And at the same time, the fact that the Sikhs do raise these variety of proposals indicates that there were alternative possibilities and one of the problems with partition studies is sometimes to see everything as predetermined and there were alternatives, regional arrangements that could have happened that might have been an alternative to the final settlement that was agreed between the leaders of the Muslim League, Congress, and the British, as though with varying degrees of reluctance, as far as that is concerned. And also the volume touches on the issue, which again is a feature in partition studies of violence and the circumstances of violence and the role of the Sikhs in this, and it draws on the literature, and also reinforces the existing literature in the sense that violence was not just spontaneous or temporary madness it was very much with the political purpose for the Sikhs just as violence was used by all communities for political purpose in 1947 and that in a sense, it's almost I think understandable that the Sikhs would perhaps use violence in East Punjab to drive out the Muslims, having failed to get a settlement that would safeguard their community interests. As you can see here that there are significant areas of partition studies that this volume adds to, and that it brings out the complexities, both of outcomes it brings out the overriding all India settlement pushing aside regional interest, it adds to understanding to what caused the violence. There's also I think the, the issue, moving on to the field of Pakistan studies that this volume adds to as well within Pakistan studies, as I've said, a view that the Sikhs were badly let down by their political leaders in 1947 and they could have jumped another way in which would have safeguarded their interests but the volume shows that this wasn't necessarily an easy thing for them to throw their lot in with Pakistan given their historical memories, going back to the Mogul period. And also, given the fact that contemporary violence as in the Ralph Pindi massacres in March 1947 created circumstances in which for many Sikhs they could not conceive of living in a Muslim dominated Punjab within a Muslim dominated Pakistan, whatever assurances they might have given to minorities. Also, I think as far as Pakistan studies is concerned, there's not just this issue of the failure of Sikh political leadership in 1947, but also, there is a very much a view of Sikh identity, that the Sikh nationalism is just religious nationalism. And this volume of course shows that this is one component perhaps of understanding Sikh nationalism. And that of course is not just there in academic studies of the Sikh community, but it's also there perhaps in the way the Pakistan state has treated the Sikh community since 1947 in India in lurching in a sense from support of religious nationalism up to a point in the color star movement through to the contemporary religious tourism elements of the Pakistan state's attitude to the Sikhs. And of course, the whole issue of the Kartapur corridor, which indeed is referred to at the end of the volume. So how Pakistan studies how the Pakistan state understands Sikhs is really very important, both for that community, and also more widely within the South Asian context and this volume, I think, begins to open up some of these issues relating to Pakistan and the Sikh community, which are very much a contemporary feature now in terms of the state reaching out in Rangkhand's government reaching out to the Sikh community. However, and this is a link with Punjab studies the last area I'm going to mention. The issue of the Kartapur corridor perhaps needs to be looked at in a longer term historical context. And this is the work which was published almost simultaneously with this volume. Ilias Chatter, again, by Cambridge University Press on the Punjab borderland is very interesting and indeed quite illuminating in that that area around sort of Darababa Nanak was always quite an open border. In the Punjab borderland, Ilias Chatter shows that there wasn't an iron curtain coming down in 1947 that the border was porous people were moving back and forth. He talks about but he also says that the roots of illicit trade were later used by the authorities in Pakistan to move weapons and to enable Sikh militancy in the 1980s. So, this is an area which is perhaps got a history to it, which may help to explain to an extent, some of the attitudes within Indian security thinking, as far as the Kartapur corridor was concerned, they were far less enthusiastic than perhaps an Iran Khan was, though Iran Khan himself was acting, not independently of the military establishment within Pakistan in terms of the whole Kartapur corridor sort of initiative. So then these three literatures intersect Punjab studies, partition studies, Pakistan studies, with some of the key themes of this volume, and they also open up perhaps areas that could be considered for future research agendas. And one area which which is, I think, an interesting one and it links into certainly the reluctance of the Sikhs to be in the Pakistan state is not just the experiences of violence in Punjab itself, but the issues within the Northwest Frontier province. And one of the things which I think is quite important in contemporary Pakistani writing on Sikhs is that usually Sikhs are always looked at from a Punjab prison. To reach out to India, to perhaps destabilize India, it's a Punjab-centric understanding. The reality is I think that there's probably more Sikhs in Pakistan who are Sindhi or Pashtun in ethnicity than Punjabi. And that element isn't actually there in the literature. And indeed, of course, that element is used sometimes within Pakistan understanding that the Sikhs are at home in Pakistan because they're at home in the Punjab cultural area. Actually, the experience of Sikhs in KP or in Sindh might be very different to the experience of Sikhs in Punjab. And that is, I think, an area for exploration as well. To finish on that point, though, that there are all kinds of avenues that one could go down in terms of how the work could be taken on further. Thank you. Fantastic. Thank you very much. To introduce the next discussant, I just encourage the audience to begin to think of questions, which I will moderate through the Q&A function on our webinar software. Right there. The final discussant for the evening is Professor Peter Flugel. Peter is professor in the study of religions and philosophies at SOAS. And he's also chair of the Centre for Jainist Studies, which is a very influential and important part of our institution. Peter, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. It's a great honour to be invited to say a few words about this new book, which I had a chance to read very quickly only. I'm a specialist obviously in Sikh studies. So you may ask, why am I, what can I contribute to this debate. However, Jainist studies has a lot in common with Sikh studies, not least as far as the position of the two communities in India is concerned as so-called minorities. I will say something about the comparison between the two communities and their situation in India and maybe globally at the end. First of all, I would like to praise the work for its erudition. I learned quite a lot. And also for its integral point of view, it is not a work that takes sides. It tries to present a unified perspective and summarise the various academic perceptions and views and arguments in a very objective way. And in that sense, it's truly a classical teaching resource. Anyone who has an interest in the history of modern Sikh community is advised to have a close look at this work. For those who are not familiar with the book, I think it may be useful to quickly summarise what it's all about. I think, can I share the screen, Ed, is that possible? So Neil, could you give Peter the screen sharing? Otherwise I talk too long and it's easier just to show our attendees a simple picture, either list of contents. I see most of the screen sharing. Okay, excellent. That saves me a lot of words and those of you who have not seen the book can get a clear idea of what it's all about. What I want to point out here is that most of the book is really dedicated to the post-47 period of the Sikh history. And where is it located in terms of scholarship? It says the two questions in particular pertubed the writers. One I noted here is the difficulty, the main difficulty there, which confronts researchers in addressing the subject from the perspective taken is how to define the Sikh sociologically. And there is a lot of sociological information in the text. However, it is not really a sociological study, it is, in my view, a study located in political science. And the core substantial chapters, they all deal with the intricacies of, as you can see, the emergence of modern Sikh nationalism, the revolution of India as we heard, Indian Union and the Sikhs before and after the blue star. And really it comes to its own in the period from the blue star crisis onwards and gives a very good idea where the Sikh community stands now in terms of its political identity. What I do in the book, as far as I can see, I'm not very well read in the field of Sikh studies. And I can say, I'm totally neutral. Of course, this is the beauty of having me here. It offers a historical dimension, in addition to Paul Brass study of Sikh nationalism. I mean, the notion of Sikh nationalism has been introduced before, and that is all well described in the volume which really essential teaching resource, as I said. And it adds a historical dimension, particularly in chapter two, as Sikhism and the Sikhs up to the 1890s. Without it, you can say it perfectly fits into the Paul Brass frame, but it adds a historical dimension to it. And in contrast to Brass, it advocates for the theory of nationalism of Anthony Smith, the ethno nationalism. Whereas Paul Brass has a modernist notion of nationalism basically founded on the European model of say the French revolutionary idea of what a nation looks like. Beyond that, there are a lot of ideas as far as I can see. For me, it was most instructive to see how the work highlighted on two topics, really. One is the relationship between the Sikhs and the Congress party. And the other is how to deal with the Tadkalsa movement. And the phrase that stuck into my mind is fairly at the end of the book by Guharapal Singh, where he talks about the strange death of ethno nationalism. And with that he indicates or he points to the Tadkalsa desire to establish a Sikh state. And this seems to have completely moved into the background. I also stumbled across an article by Mr. Kumar in the P.W. from 2004 already stated something like it. If I may cite another passage, fairly at the end, it says the central argument of this book is that militant Sikh nationalism has to be placed within the framework of how the Indian state managed ethnic conflict in the Punjab after 1947. Exogenous factors Pakistan and the diaspora accentuated the pre existing pre existing tensions over center state relationships. And then the political divisions are analyzed within the Sikh community, and it is pointed out that nowadays we are living in a post ethno nationalist period and ethno nationalism seems to be identified with the Tadkalsa movement and as adopted by militant Sikhs. Now, what about ethno nationalism. It seems like a contradiction in terms obviously, and both Smith and the authors of the volume, basically treat ethnicity and nationalism, almost identical as identical terms as synonymous synonymous terms. And I asked myself what, what these terms actually add to our sociological understanding analytically I mean, given that I mean there is this wonderful work here what does the label ethno nationalism actually add to it. And I looked at Max Weber again where Anthony Smith, more or less, got his definition from. He cut out the element of interbreeding which, which Weber also had in his definition of ethnicity, or FDS me, he had no definition of ethnicity as such. And there is a in just what Max Weber that's what I wanted to say is that the closer you look at it. The more evaporates vague becomes the concept the concept of ethnic group dissolves if we define our terms closely. Like the concept of the nation, it is very very vague. And maybe that's what actually the nature of nationalism is. It's just an ideological reference point that serves to unify people, whatever the ideology is, or combination of ideologies. It may be a legend. It may be some political idea. It may be nationalism Marxism, whatever it is, or, or and or territorial conception is very very vague. And if you look at the definition of Anthony Smith of an ethnic group. It has a name it has some historical myths or historical memories that are, you know, ritualized recited common some common culture, the territory. In the sense of solidarity. You can apply this to any group at all times. So it's a that is that is one point the other point is something which I was missing in looking at the bibliography and the text. This is a reference and discussion of Louis de Mons, the seminal article nationalism and communalism in 19 of 1964, where he addresses all these these issues and according to his work. He seeks, like other religious groups in groups that refer to religion as an identified identifier fall under the label of communalism. The study avoids that is very keen to avoid the term communalism because it has a critical analysis of the role of the Congress during the time after a partition and whatever the local politics were. Of course seeks always also members of the Congress maybe there was a non seek majority, but the many seeks of course non seeks of course living in the Punjab as well. So, the communalism the term was used by the Congress of the argument goes to deny the seeks its own nation. But to put them somehow incorporate them within the Indian state on a lower level, sort of a local second order nations if one wants to use that term. And if one looks at the more. He basically says. Communalism is the affirmation of the religious community as a political group. Exactly this the argument of this text. But he adds. It is therefore it has a hybrid character. It has both religious and the political dimension. And that is intrinsically contradictory and leads to all sorts of problems internal contradictions. He says religion is not taken as the essence and guide of life in all spheres, but only as a sign of distinction of one human at least virtually political group against others. And then he points out that a key feature of nationalism and communism is the focus on the individual, rather on on some some group. And my question to the, the authors would be. To what extent individualism is a factor that may have played a role in ideological role in the formation of all these new types of groupings or interpretations of, of religion as a as a social formation. The, the, the nation as an individual amongst other nations as a quasi as a political body. And of course the individual versus caste and other traditional identities, which have not vanished of course. Okay, that's this. And now coming to the James, I mean, I could say more about this but I don't want to linger on coming to the James, and maybe the Buddhist. I mean for millennia, it was talk about problems. How did people identify themselves within these religious traditions. The famous formula of the Buddhists is Buddha Dharma Sangha. So this is, you know, there is a founding figure than the teaching, and then there's the community. And I mean the, the term calm, one can say read as a, this synonym of Sangha, or of as much as well I leave out the old point, calm issue. And the question of ideology and, and, and political movement or social movement. But what is different, I mean, according to the as no symbolic approach applied here. There are basically five criteria, which have been used in the narratives of those who created this as no ethnic or nationalist interpretation and formation of the community, whatever it is, of course, it's not of these vague sociological or proto sociological terms. A text. I mean guru text, IE teaching pant, IE community, you know, Buddha Dharma Sangha. Same thing. What else is there. The history of martyrdom that is celebrated, of course, in the Golden Temple, for instance, I've seen that impressive exhibition, which no one has ever been there will never forget. And the focus on territory closely linked with memory of the Sikh, the kingdom, or the rule of the King, Ranjit Singh, who happened to be a Sikh. And principalities seek rulers. And so what's what. What to make of it the genes. They don't have any claim to territory that distinguishes them they share all the criteria they have a history of martyrdom but they don't have a history of political martyrdom. There have been targeted as a group. There was in the 19th century, Jane communal, a communal list if you may wish movement, which had no effect. The intellectuals who promoted it said, it is really not very useful that we have endogamy and people within the Sikh community, only marry within their own cast. We want to create a unified, at least on the lay level community also to strengthen our position vis-a-vis the various states in which we are located so in the UK. You have now some kind of Jane organization which presents Jane unity vis-a-vis the state as in India. It really worked. This is a project of a few intellectuals and as a political force, the genes did not really figure their legal position is the same as for the Sikhs. I don't think they have been however in the UK recognized as an ethnic group. So this is very peculiarity of the British so-called race relations act. For a German, it sounds very weird race relations act and if you look at the details, of course, the role of religion there, etc. is all very very peculiar and to refer to the British legal definition of an ethnic group. The place of all in this text is not sociological, it is legal. So, I think I close with this and just point to the fact that the Jane case is very similar. They, I think they're benefited from historically from their weak political weakness as a religious, basically religious community divided in so many sub sects up schools, casts, etc. That in something like Jane studies actually makes sense. And what they have maintained and I believe the Sikhs must have maintained as well. That is a clear distinction between religion and society. And therefore the ability to criticize social formations from an idealistic, if you like, religious point of view, the point of view of an ideal. And I wonder to what extent this study here missed an opportunity in emphasizing that important role of religion. Here, Sikh national, there's no role really for religion in this text. Religion as a critical perspective which contrasts the transcendence with any political formation be the Sikh formation be the Jane formation is a very important force and that is another question I have for the authors. I'm sure they have a lot to say. As I said quite ignorant about the whole matter. I think these are just some ideas. Thanks. Okay, Peter, thanks very much if you could stop sharing your screen that would be wonderful. Okay, so we've had two very different kinds of commentaries on the book. I think the couple only light and proper now to give you an opportunity to respond, both to the praise but also to the criticism. Okay. Thank you to both Peter and Ian. With reference to the points made by Ian, I think as we're mostly on the same wavelength. From a similar perspective. I think there is not perhaps perhaps not much that I need to address except a couple of points. Namely, the issue of to what extent, you know is the Sikh case similar to other national nationalisms of small peoples. That is referred to in the book we refer to the Kashmiris, the Pashtuns, the Baluchis, Nagas and the Tamils. And to the extent that perhaps something like this would have warranted in a comparative study. On violence, I think you're absolutely right. The points that you have made. I'm just reading the controversial book, The Last Days of the Raj, written on Mount Baton's vice royalty, a book which is very difficult to get hold of. There is a phrase, you know, where Sikhs are framed as a culprit of violence, but he comes out with a phrase which is very interesting and needs to be looked at for this year is that the Sikhs were the scapegoats of partitioned violence. You know that if you're looking at the ends and outcomes that they've, they were, you know, in the words of Paul Brass, had to, had to engage in retributive violence to achieve their goals on the ground, goals that could not be achieved through the partition plan. I find your analysis of Pakistan's Sikh policy, both pre and 19 for post 1947, very much in concurrence with my own thoughts, and the idea that, you know, Pakistan sees the Sikhs through the lens of religion, because to see them otherwise as an ethnic or a linguistic co community would problematize the two nation theory. And in that sense, the, the work has taken that on board and it's in some ways is quite, you know, if it's read carefully is quite critical of Pakistan's Sikh policy as it is both of India's Sikh policy post 47. And on your final point of the linkages with Punjab studies. I think, you know, again, I really don't have any differences between you and you. In so far as Ilias Jetta's work and the recent research shows how poor is the post 47 Radcliffe line has been, and that there are more continuities and discontinuities in the post 47 history of Punjab. And it's only perhaps with the creation of the electric border. In the late 80s, that the, the, the, the cross border flows have seized. And I think you're also right about highlighting the areas of potential areas of research. And the fact that there probably are more Sikhs in the Northwest frontier in sinned and in the Pashtun lands and there are in Punjab. And the reason for that is quite obvious because the partition ethnic cleansing was most systematic in Punjab. But from have stayed on or are of Sikh origins in contemporary Punjab Pakistan. And they are often, you know, they often converted to Islam. So that, you know, that the point you made is very well taken. And I'm, and I know that there, for example, there is research going on into Sikh sin sinned. Okay, I'm moving on to Peter's contribution, which is excellent and thank you Peter for taking so much time out and focusing on the work and, and, you know, taking us to task in such a pleasant way. I just respond in, you know, again to a couple of points and, and I can't do justice to everything that you've said. You say that we, you know, we don't really explore things well in terms of the sociology that we claim that we do. I beg to disagree a bit here. You know, as you can probably see from the work and what has been done. There's a substantial background in working on diasporas and multiculturalism and working with likes of John Rex and Robin Cohen and others in in in my own background at least. And previously the work on Sikhs in Britain. So, so that element is there. And it's reflected in emphasis on modernization and the social social change, you know, occurring in post 47 Punjab but more recently as as a result of the impact of globalization in the last 20 years doing to Punjabi and Sikh society. So that is taken on board. And also I think the point about ethno symbolism rather than ethno ethnic states. I think we need to separate here. I'm not sure what when you're going on about ethno nationalism in the same vein as when you were speaking about ethno symbolism. And I don't think they're too. They're not the same things. Ethno symbolism is an approach to understanding the ethnic origins. And it should not be completed, conflated with ethno nationalism. And as for your, your, your, your comment about the vagueness of ethnicity and nationalism. The slippage between the two terms. That's a point that's well taken on and you know it's often said that it's not easy to know where an ethnic group ends on a nation begins. But, you know, and of course in some situations that distinction is irrelevant because it, you know, ethnic groups are burning. But nonetheless, I think the primary distinction is one of the consciousness of being a nation and you can have plenty of ethnic groups which are objective definition of ethnic groups or could be identified as ethnic groups, but they do not have the subjective consciousness of being a nation. Moving on to your other really interesting two points. And I must say I'm not familiar with Louis de Mont's essay that you refer to. And the reference that we give to him in the volume is on cast and not to the essay. I think that you mentioned. It's an interesting point. It is to what extent. Nationalism has changed or defined the religion and and and to what extent that pursuit of individualism then reconstructs religion. If I can use an analogy one one could say that Hindu nationalism today is redefining what it is to be a Hindu. You know, in a political sense to be part of a political community. And that debate or juncture has not or was not reached with with with the rise of Sikh nationalism, partly because it's, it's incomplete. It's incomplete because there has not been an end point to state formation, or at least some kind of accommodation with a separate state or notion of a state. And that per se, as we we see in stateless national communities means a lot of things remains often nascent teaching a significant level of development, and you can contrast this with, for example, Pakistan, and the Muslim League success in creating a separate state. And the tensions between religion, state, and nationalism and nationalism as a almost as a non religious phenomena are very acute, and they're being played out in Pakistan and in Pakistan politics in 1947. So for a minority community like the Sikhs, and the, the problems that you allude to are much more acute because one day the Sikhs themselves are so divided among themselves that the emergence of some kind of civil society. And that is non religious or idealistically contra ritualized religion has not emerged or has not emerged in the same format. And so, you know, I think that that that is a very interesting point of departure and want to debate for the future. There are a few other points that I want to discuss and mention. Communalism and nationalism as a distinction in chapter three on the emergency connectionism, which I wrote I go into great detail about this. Communalism, you know, again is not a sort of lower level of medieval phenomenon, posited against secular nationalism. As a Congress and Nehru and others argue, not only against the Sikhs but also against the Muslim League. So the Pakistan movement right up until partition and the transfer of power was essentially communal communalist medievalist and against the secular vision. And the communal phenomenon. I think it, you know, this is, you know, this is a real problem for thinking about nationalism in India beyond the ideal of the Indian Congress how do you accommodate the aspirations and feelings of others who define their identities and political visions through the religious idea. And the answer that Indian academics and the Congress have come up with largely is to relegate it to the realm of communalism. And, and I think that doesn't help us at all in an in an age when we see religion and religious nationalism in a different light, especially since post 911 and the Iranian Revolution. So find your calm, the contrast between the James and the Sikhs. Interesting, but then the James have not, as you said, have not been territorialized or have a territory which they can call a homeland. And without a territory there's no nationalism. There's no context in the in the in the 20th century. And so that, so you might find, you know, the comparing the Sikhs in the diaspora to the James is not like for like is a different context, and, and it's also is a different historical experience. This also relates to, you know, what you conflate as a legal text and a sociological concept, I, you know, the reference in the work to the famous Mandela versus Lee judgment, which was the House of Lords in 1983, or which declared the Sikhs as a nation, and brought them in within the purview of the race relations act. My point was basically in writing that and in posing it in that way was to highlight the, the competing narratives of secret identity. It wasn't to Lord, the sorry to use upon the House of Lords to the skies, you know, the day that affirmation of Sikh identity it would just simply to illustrate how, you know, if you read the text it says it brought, you know that that court decision brought competing narratives of Sikh identity to a head. Perhaps if the James had organized like the Sikhs and and campaigned they themselves, you know, like the Jews and the Sikhs could have become within the purview of the race relations act. But overall, I must say, I found your comments very challenging and refreshing. And I agree entirely with you that, you know, ethnicity and nationalism are very difficult concepts. And I must confess of all the books that I've written. This was the hardest to do because nationalism was something that you used sense and felt, but you could never quantify. So in the end, you know, as in political science you really often want to put numbers to things and you really really struggled with this. So thanks you very much for that. That was a fantastic off the cuff response to complex and dense responses to your book. And I think along the way you managed to comment very well on Dumont's 1964 article. A beautiful smile now that would be fantastic as well. So I, there are a couple of questions in the chat but I would like to kick off as chair, asking you on directly. And if I could just take the conversation slightly outside the, the seat Punjab studies question, ask you about the broader political science context in which this book is written. George of Shawnee who I hope is still with us in the background has written about the global world, and you mentioned in your, your comments about post sovereign future. So I wanted to ask a bit more about that broader political science framework where you were imagining a future, and how you saw that political future play out, particularly in reference to see nationalism, which then becomes a post sovereign form of polity. Yeah, I, I'm here physically. I'm not sure mentally. Should I respond. Can I just respond first. Yes, and then you. Yeah. Edward, there is a political science dimension to this. And that is that my own work, different slightly different from Georgios has been within the context of ethnic conflict comparative ethnic conflict regulation. And in that work, the, the development of European Union has been quite important, or the emergence of European Union, which is sympathetic to nations without a state has been very, very important. So, in that broader context, drawing on the works of Michael Keating and others. I have argued that states like Catalonia, Scotland, the bus, the, sorry, the, the, the Welsh and others that they, they, they can perhaps they have claims to claims which can be satisfied within a broader context the post sovereign future. In which certain rights are recognized. And also in context where, for example, like Northern Ireland and Belgium and elsewhere, where they're competing claims to sovereignty. Now, potentially, comparatively, this kind of thing could emerge in South Asia, as you know, others have discussed and as Ian has written about in the past, and power sharing agreed agreements within provinces pre 1947 were the norm under colonialism. Post colonial, we have gone to a majoritarian, religiously hegemonic states. And now if the borders were more porous of the states were more enlightened power sharing agreements or sovereignty sharing agreements are not impossible to think through. In a highly conflict within regions. And, you know, so, so in the Sikh case. I have written elsewhere in an article on the Qatar for corridor that the opening of the Qatar for corridor to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the collapse of the Berlin wall. The point for reimagining a Punjab or a relationship for the Sikh community, other ways, if the politics of the Indian state and Pakistan were different. One of the most telling phrases that was used by. When the Qatar for car on the day the Qatar for corridor was open and you know I lectured that so as on it was when when they asked the head of the Sikh religious organization, the of the Sikh clergy to say what it meant for the and his first and his only main word key word was that we are glad that the gates. That have locked us in for the last 70 years or so have been opened. So I think there's a huge potential for reimagining. But that's also, you know, like the Soviet Union. And today's Russia sits with everyday reality. So Georgia. Thank you. I believe the question was about the relationship between this work and trends within political science or I think it reminds me of the question. Yes, of course, I'm sorry to keep you awake as well. The question was really about your, your previous work on the state of the globe. So half of it mentioned how see as the nationalism was sort of well suited for post sovereign world. So I wondered the future, wondering about the future framework that you'd imagine for the world in this book because you're clearly looking to a future in some of the conclusions I just wondered what that future world was. Well, I hope it still will be a future world if the world has a future. The point I was trying to make in my earlier work was about the embodied nature of seek sovereignty. And I think this is rooted in the external symbols of the calcifer and in the concept of the guru pump, the notion that the pump itself, the calcifer itself, the community of believers is a sovereign body. This does not necessarily have a territorial dimension. And certainly, if we look at transformations within the global economy, which before COVID. We live in a world in which the basic economic unit or actor is not the nation state. What was certainly was moving away from the nation state. Now, if the state no longer has an economic component to it and an economic function, then this radically alters the relationship between nation and state. So we can think not only within the context of the European Union of a disassociation between ideas of nations and the ideas of states. So the territorial dimension here is challenged. Now unfortunately what we've seen particularly after COVID 19 has been a formal globalization which can be termed disembodied globalization in which it's not people who are traveling. We are being localized would be more territorialized we are communicating via zoom and other tools in a way of global capitalism. So here, we have a reemphasizing of the importance of the territorial dimension of sovereignty I think states particularly in liberal democratic societies to have, I wouldn't say taken advantage of the crisis of COVID but have certainly implemented states of emergency and states of exception, which have placed restrictions on movements of people, you know, for, for good reasons. We will call this securitization. And I think the direction is going more towards a greater territorialization here of identity and that may be linked with changes within the wider global economy. But I think the key point which we also make within the book is about sick nationalism being a reactive phenomenon. So in this sense, the seeks adapt themselves to the world around them. And nationalism, particularly the idea of the centrality of the state was an anathema to as we we look at within the book to seek elites at the time of partition. In a way, the territorialization was forced upon them through partition. And also by the events of 1984 so it's a reactive phenomenon. In this sense, changes within international relations within global economy also impacts on seek identity. Thank you very much. That was a fantastic answer. So, we have two questions in in the chat. I'm sure you've seen them both. The first one from Roshi Kapoor is about Hindu Punjabi identity and how that fits within diaspora and nationalism narrative, living with a double ethnic identity as they put it. Particularly the people who migrated from Pakistan during partition, who are no longer residents of Punjab, but still label themselves as Punjabis. It's slightly outside the scope of the book, but I think the comparative reflection here is worthwhile exploring for a minute. Yeah, I think in a way, you know, the same kind of issues apply. I'm sorry, I'm having trouble having look at the question. Would you like me to read it to you? Yeah, no, I've got it now. Yeah, I think in the Punjabi Hindu context, the same one can assume, you know, the kind of things we talk about in the volume on the diaspora that same kind of issues apply of a distant homeland, of attachment to a land and an overseas identity. However, there is one difference, one substantial difference when compared to the Sikhs, because the nationalism of Punjabiness or Punjabiate is one that is not exceptionally or, you know, sense of regionalism is one that is not exceptionally strong amongst Punjabi Hindus in Punjab historically. It has been much more prevalent and Ian can correct me on this, but a much more vibrant and resilient amongst Muslims and Sikhs, unless so amongst perhaps amongst Punjabi Hindus, largely because of the nature of Punjab's agrarian rural structure during colonial rule. Now, you know, post 1947 that has shifted somewhat with the creation of India and Pakistan and the division of the partition. I'm not quite, you know, I don't really understand the question but I guess, you know, I'm just giving pointers but I think there are some similarities with the Sikh issue, but I would point the person asking the question to the literature on the Hindu diaspora, of which there's an extensive amount, especially in USA, and how the diaspora studies position people's identities vis-à-vis the homeland. Thanks very much. Yes. And the final question in the chat is from Alec Dalewa, which excuse me if I paraphrase it. And that's the role of gender in thinking through nationalism. And the question really, really, it's a really interesting one about how gender fits in to an ethno religious framework. I'll just leave the question at that for you to respond to. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, that's a very good question. And one that, you know, when we first sent out the draft, the reviewers pulled us up. And then if you read the book, and I'm sure Ian, Peter and yourself have had a quick look, we spend a great deal of time discussing gender. And how the, you know, how gender issues are dealt with in the construction of Sikh nationalism and how gender then undermines homogeneity and the construction of the Sikh national nation as an ideal. And how gender is central to identity formation in the late 19th century and themes of violence. So it's recognized as both a theme in the work and as a structural division. Importantly, and I think this this is, you know, where it then comes down to something that is operational. We do not acknowledge gender as a political division, political division that influenced decision making and the narrative of history. That we've written now that that is not to say that this dimension cannot be explored. The challenge I think going forward and this book is laying out the template is that we hope scholars will come along feminist scholars will come along and say look, you know, we, we want to write, we are going to write about this and here's the evidence. I think we've addressed the gender issue in the work in the best way I think we can with our limitations and outline the ways existing scholars have done it and as Peter said we've reviewed the existing literature. And now I think what we've done is we pose a challenge to future scholars to say go out and do it and demonstrate the importance of this dimension and move away from kind of a priori theorizing saying this is this is needs to be integrated. I think you cannot write on anything now without taking this dimension and many other dimensions, incorporating them into your work seriously. If I could just add on that point. I think if we go back to the narratives of sick identity, then compared to many other South Asian religions. Sickism is egalitarian. And indeed there has been feminist literature, particularly. Nikki gonna sing core work on the feminine principle it within sickism. And on the other hand, you have nationalism per se as a very patriarchal concept. So I think this is the contradiction, which, which we are working within. This is not when we when I speak in terms of nationalism being a patriarchal concept. I'm not confining it just to the six. We can talk about any forms of nationalism. So I think, you know, that this work has to negotiate or work within this this contradiction within the literature. Yeah, I just want to say that this is a work of synthesis, you know, it brings together competing perspectives. It has an underlying thesis in it has a strong argument, but at the same time, you know, as Peter said it's an attempt to say that we are not unconscious of other perspectives in fact to engage openly with other perspectives. And for a short, you know, 100,000 words. It's obviously a great limitation that one cannot write on a particular theme at length. I mean I could have written a whole book on the partition on the basis of what I'm doing. It's just keeping a sense of proportion. So, again, you know, my plea would be that the work signposts, you know, for those of you don't know areas for further research for further understanding and engaging more critically. And in fact, critically with, you know, coming back to us and say here's where you're wrong. And this is plainly wrong and mistaken. We would sense that's a wonderful achievement. What a fantastic sentiment and Ian did point to some of the areas for future research in his comments and maybe we could go back to Ian in a moment but before we do. There's the final question from Salman Rafi, which I thought will help you in part address before, but he's asked it again so I feel duty bound to acknowledge the question and put it to you. And that is about how Sikh nationalism relates to other minority nationalisms in South Asia, and the examples chosen in the question are for each nationalism in Pakistan and Tamil nationalism in Sri Lanka. There's a comparative question on which I'm sure you can talk for very long time, but I would ask you to be brief. Okay, I will only say that, you know, this is a, you know, this is the hot topic. I mean, I think this is the alternative way of looking at 1947. In an age, you know, if we're reflecting on the partition, 75 years on. We must reflect on, you know, on alternative futures of what could have been what might have been had the transfer of power being to not only being to India and Pakistan but to the princely states as well as well as India and Pakistan, or what what constituted India Pakistan at the time. In reading the literature on partition at the moment, I am struck by one fact, and that fact is how desperate, Nehru, Patel, Gandhi, on the one hand, Jinnah and his team on the other, were desperate how desperate they were to acquire state power. And that state power, I think was important in making the post 1947 nations, as well as nation state as sorry as well as states. So the Sikh nationalism relates to these other nationalisms as comparable sub regional or regional movements that had potential for an alternative future of the sub continent, but the requirements of British state policy and conditions on the ground. And that meant that the the only solution that was preferable to the actually government was one that held most of the south of the subcontinent together, and that was only by partition of India and Pakistan. The internationalisms have a lot in common, and they have, they, they can comparatively learn a lot from each other. And I would urge you to read the book and learn the lessons. The role of the point of the partition as you put it there is really important in, in developing a sophisticated answer to that question is laid out. Okay, so I am keen to let go haple and George you have the last word, but I'm also keen to hear again from Ian and Peter about their reflections as as held onto how the discussion is unfolded so Ian first and then Peter, if I may. I mean, what is interested me, obviously is the partition aspect and I know that this is going to form a separate publication that go up all is working on, but that last point about state power, you know, and the convergence the as far as possible for their strategic imperial interests, a strong subcontinent, they don't want vulcanization. That's certainly, if you go back to the episode where Manbatten on a hunch showed an early draft of the partition plan to narrow and there was a bald. When he saw this because of the threat of vulcanization, and in a way of course, it was to prevent vulcanization the transfer of power took the form it did, because it served the British interest. It served Congress interest because there was this sense of having a strong India in the world, but also, I think of using the power of the state to modernize India, if you had too many statements that was going to get in the way of the conversion program which really narrow was very much attached to. And there's this convergence then which squeezes out alternative possibilities and arrangements which would dilute the power of an all India state and would would get in the way perhaps of the division of what would replace British rule. So that narrow vision of what will replace British rule doesn't have a place for minor subnational groupings, just as the British vision is not of conceding power in India and carrying the towering with Empire generally, but it's still trying to maintain in an alternative architecture, some of the advantages of former direct rule in India and that is the necessity then for a strong state for some kind of use perhaps still of India for the British Empire, more generally and not being seen to be a waning power, but of rearranging things in order to have virtually the same kind of advantages, material advantages, following independence. So I think those are areas which you know this volume and subsequent work really to my mind can reflect on, you know, and this is where I think particularly with the 75th anniversary but also perhaps with rethinking more generally what Britain's role in the world was seen to be after the second world war that that I think is an important way forward. Thank you very much that is really thought provoking Peter could I ask you for a final brief reflection please. I learned a lot from Ian, I didn't know that Pashtuns were so had such a strong Sikh community. I mean there's the assumption well developed in the book which has useful tables about the social structure within the Sikh community that all Sikhs are Jats and all Jats are Sikhs in the particular region. And the story of the conversion of the Jats and generally of conversion I find very interesting, taking again the perspective of a scholar of religion, if you like. The argument made in the book about the diaspora was that the Sikhs are a world religion and in the index in brackets it says, I think only in the index British concept, British colonial concept. But otherwise it is positively formulated, Sikhs are world religion. What does it mean. And then it is said, well there are many non Jats or non people from non Indic families that have converted just to demonstrate that we have a kind of a potentially totalizing faith that is able to integrate all humanity in the very in terms of course world religion is a religion that has many many followers is quantitatively determined and therefore 26 million are not negligible but I think there's a little bit. I wonder what that is and the other thing which I forgot to mention is of course that the book this is for the people have not read it is take placing itself also vis a vis our former colleague of in Mandir. His critical theory is taking as a kind of a straw man. Some kind of a useful sparring partner that and he said, this position is not taking into account pre colonial developments and so on and I understand that Georgia is taking a more nuanced position that is quite clear. But it's interesting how the book positions itself. But again, I wasn't quite convinced by the answer. My last remark by to harpal about the communalist question. I mean is it's basically reduced in the passages in the book which extensively deal with this issue in the index the term communalism doesn't figure. As a as a political label used by the Congress for political, you know, anti seek purposes, at least as far as the Punjab is concerned, but it is also I mean, this is strange. Of course, ambiguity. And it's also used as analytical term by people such as do more at others. And I think more getting more clarity on this may help. Because if the question of a seek state is now put to rest for the time being, and the global dimension of the diaspora community or the global seek community is coming into view. The issue of communalism. Rather than nationalism in a narrow senses focus on building a state, maybe a more appropriate. Peter thank you very much for fantastic provocations now. I can leave the question of world religion straw men and communalism as open and begging until next time we meet. That would be fantastic and we give opportunity for the harpal and Georgia to spend 30 seconds explaining to us why we should read the book. Then I think we could bring this event to a close. Would you like to go first or Georgia? Georgia first then I'll sum up. It'll be better if you could go first since it's four a.m. Okay. Okay, I would say to everybody and to Peter, especially is reread the book if you haven't read it or if you read it only once. Especially reread chapter three because I do deal with communalism at length and read chapter Georgia's chapter one where we talk about religious nationalism relationship with communalism to some extent. Essentially the work is very readable and as others have said, it is difficult to plug your own work and I think I would leave it to the judgment of the reader and I thank everybody for, you know, being so actively engaged in the discussion. Thank you, Georgia. I just wanted to thank everybody. Edward Ian and Peter for their questions and their comments. This is a culmination of of our work. I've been working on this for four years. I've been working on it for only 25. Please read the book if you're interested in nationalism or if you're interested in in nationalisms within South Asia, or if you're interested in in Sikhs or Sikhism. I do think that we do touch on issues which are of contemporary relevance today. Unfortunately, we can't ignore nationalism, nor its relationship with religion. Thank you very much. Well, so that brings a very fulsome erudite and wide ranging conversation to a close. The clock does that rather than anything else. I would like to thank our discussants Peter and Ian for participating so fantastically with these debates but more importantly, I'd like to thank the couple and Georgia for bringing the book for bringing these issues into our broader consciousness, but also, I really appreciate the spirit of collaboration that goes into such an ambitious co-authored book. I'm sure it wasn't all smooth sailing. Those things never are, but the combined effect of your work and your different perspectives have really shone through in this discussion for me so you're both to be congratulated for that. And for those of you who are still in the audience, the book was published by Cambridge University Press, and it's called Sikh nationalism from a dominant minority to an ethno-religious diaspora published with a publication date of 2021. And finally, I'd just like to thank my colleague Sunil who has organized this event and is sat patiently and quietly in the background. So on behalf of us all in the South Asia Institute, Sunil, thank you very much. Right, and with that I will close the book launch. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Bye, Peter. Bye, everyone. Bye, Ian. Bye. Bye, Georgia. Bye.