Talk:Khalistan movement/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Khalistan movement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

From March 2006 to April 2006

Introduction

Khālistān (Punjabi: ਖਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ) (lit. "pure-land") is the name given to the proposed nation-state encompassing the present Indian state of Punjab and all Punjabi-speaking areas contiguous to its borders being proposed by separatist organisations. A movement for Khalistan was precipitated when the Indian Army attacked the Harmandir Sahib complex, along with 37 other gurduārās simultaneously, in June 1984. The attack had been planned several months beforehand and coincided with an important anniversary in the Sikh calendar when thousands of pilgrims were present. The army operation was followed by wholesale killings of Sikh males between the ages of 15 and 35 in Punjab’s villages. These violent events, together with pogroms against Sikhs in India’s major cities in November 1984, and daily terror families subsequently experienced in Punjab’s villages, gave rise to resistance.

The introduction itself looks twisted.

A movement for Khalistan was precipitated when the Indian Army attacked the Harmandir Sahib complex. Wasn't it the other way around? Didn't the Indian army storm the complex AFTER the movement started and some militants took over the Gurudwara?
The army operation was followed by wholesale killings of Sikh males between the ages of 15 and 35 in Punjab’s villages. This is also incorrect. Yes, anti-Sikh riots were there but they were AFTER IG was assassinated and perhaps were politically instigated.

The above statements show as if anti-Sikh sentiments are/were endemic or generally prevelant in India. I have only read the introduction and by the look of it, the article does look rather biased and POV. It will easily lead the uninformed reader into thinking that Sikhs are hated in India, which is definitely not the case. Deleting it would be an extreme step IMHO. It would be best to tone it down a bit. Views from Sikh wikipedians would help a great deal, I feel. Rohitbd 08:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right - the movement for Khalistan reached its climax around the time the Harmandir Sahib was stormed. I've edited the article to reflect this. I'll also update the article to fix the second point which is also incorrect. I appreciate you looking at this article. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, just checking up on the second point. It's based on Khalistan#Operation_Woodrose. I think this point needs more discussion, hopefully Zafarnamah can clear this up. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts. There is zero evidence to show that Indian army attacked the Darbar Sahib in June 1984 because of a demand for Khalistan. Bhindrawale did not demand Khalistan; he was demanding the fullfillment of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, instead. It is state-controlled media's disinformation that he demanded Khalistan. Joyce Pettigrew, Cynthia Mahmood, Ram Narayan Kumar, who are the top scholars would support the view that the Khalistan movement precipitated because of the attack. Secondly, this article is not debating whether a group is loved or hated in India. We are here to narrate facts. The Operation Woodrose was reported by two important sources: 1. Christian Science Monitor's Mary Anne Weaver, who reported that young Sikh men in Punjab's villages were eliminated; 2. Justice Tarakunder's report that is based on extensive fieldwork. I am therefore going to revert these changes. Zafarnamah 04:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Page structure

May I ask what is the entire point of the structure of the page? Alternative versions are presented and citations given all pander to an extremist section. The United States itself recognises several of these Khalistani Organizations as terrorists. If we follow the same standards, then Al Qaeda should have its own webpage, with propoganda written by Zarqawi et backed up as a reference. Akash s 20 18:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you propose a better or different structure to the page? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan's support

Pakistan supported the formation of khalistan,although i dont have any source as of now to support that.it also looked to do something like what india did for bangladesh. there is no doubt whatsoever that khalistani seperatists got arms and ammunitons from their nearest neighbour pakistan.--Jayanthv86 11:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

please use the space below to list all the statement with POV,factually incorrect and those without proper / reliable citation. this article is also unreadable as pointed out by various users above. neutrality is also disputed, user Zafarnamah's contribution to this article and other article(he contributes to similar topic mostly) are also very very similar and looks like he has copied other people's research because of similarity, all his contribution have pov problem too,to me he looks like sympathiser to pro -Khalistan people.

whoever is concerned please check ip add of User :Thetruth and Zafarnamah, i can see sockpuppet.

Anmol.2k4 10:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be ridiculous. How have you determined that The Truth and Zafarnamah are sockpuppets? You would need to be an administrator to check IP addresses that the users logged in as. I had several problems with The Truth a few months back, and the style and ability of Zafarnamah is far better than "The Truth". Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it a sin to suspect that this Thetruth and Zafarnamah might sock puppets, that banner is used so that admins can check their ip.

Anmol.2k4 14:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidentally you don't believe me, so I'll message an admin and see if they can clear it up. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

while posting my message on ur talk page i read badani's message, and that has changed my mind. looking at both user's contribution made me too suspicious. If you want to you can remove the tags at both the user's page and i will not revert that, unless you too are little suspicious

Anmol.2k4 17:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The user Anmol.2k4 seems to have a real problem. He can't find facts so these stupid allegations. Zafarnamah 04:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and rebuttal of Amnesty International

Amnesty_International#Criticism_and_rebuttal

AI is known to be biased,pro right wing, Selection Biased,Ideological biased,manipulative etc etc. and wikipedia is source for that.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former Senator (D-NY) and United Nations Ambassador under Gerald Ford, said regarding allegations of human rights abuses: "The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country."

In other words, those countries in which human rights are the most severely violated are also those where no freedom of speech nor press is permitted.

Examples

One example is the allegation of NGO Monitor, a publication of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which noted that between September 2000 until the beginning of 2003, when AI became active in the crisis in Darfur, AI issued 52 reports on the human rights abuses against Christians and animists in southern Sudan, which has claimed tens of thousands of lives through starvation and ethnic violence, as well as creating 1.2 million refugees (according to the World Health Organization), while AI concurrently issued 192 reports on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[11] (These numbers refer in fact to the total number of documents including press releases, not to reports alone.) As the NGO Monitor report points out, after the start of the Darfur crisis, AI became much more involved in Sudan. The total number of documents from the beginning of 1996 to March 2005 is 315 for Sudan and 398 for Israel. AI defenders respond by asserting that all nations should aspire to absolute respect for human rights, and that the difficulties associated with monitoring 'closed' countries should not mean that 'open' countries should receive less scrutiny.

Manipulation of AI

Critics have also claimed that AI had a role propagating "disinformation" in a press release before the 1991 Gulf War, in which it charged that Iraqi soldiers were responsible for the deaths of "scores of civilians, including newborn babies, who died as a direct result of their forced removal from life-support machines." It later transpired that this claim was a propaganda hoax, and AI's press release was used in the opening salvo of this propaganda campaign – U.S. President George H. W. Bush showed AI's press release on a prime time interview. Prof. Francis Boyle, an AI director at the time, gives a detailed insider account of the way the AI press release was handled[14]. The normal process of double-checking and consultation was short-circuited in a rush to issue the press release. In an April 1991 statement, AI said that although its team was shown alleged mass graves of babies, it was not established how they had died and the team found no reliable evidence that Iraqi forces had caused the deaths of babies by removing them or ordering their removal from incubators.[15] Supporters of AI point out that such mistakes by AI are rare; and that in any case such propaganda claims are common in war, and AI was merely an unfortunate conduit for them in this instance.

because of that im removing paragraph with AI as a source , if any other reliable, neutral source is available then we can include that paragraph.

with neutral and reliable i don't mean any pro-khalistan writer and his opinion or indian gov of indra gandhi's time or some opposition parties. some source like NY-times or The Hindu Newspaper or some neutral writer.

Because of how controversial this article is, please discuss *before* you begin removing content. This could easily turn into a revert war. The criticisms of AI are obviously relevant so you should write how the AI report may be biased. I've reinserted the portion that you removed.Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"you should write how the AI report may be biased"i have already done that. suk what is your opinion on the AI issue.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.152.109 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean write about it in the article (not in such depth though). I don't have an opinion on the AI issue. A sentence or two describing what AI has said and then a sentence or two showing why it may not be reliable is all that is necessary. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

im trying to say that AI is KNOWN for being biased toward left wing(india is kind of socialist),being manipulative and they are KNOWN for reporting more Human Rights Violations in those country which have good law and order.

""The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country."

In other words, those countries in which human rights are the most severely violated are also those where no freedom of speech nor press is permitted."

Anmol.2k4 16:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not acceptable. You need to do a better job in showing specific allegations to be false. How about Human Rights Watch and Ensaaf? Zafarnamah 04:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not you prove that ai is not all that mentioned above ( and it is all from a reliable source "wikipedia").

Violence and Terrorism Attributed to Sikh Militants section

Sukh, I am adding a new section entitled "Violence and Terrorism Attributed to Sikh Militants." What I have added should be treated as a placeholder. I believe there is a lot more we can add to this and we should reference it properly so give it credibility. Your help is needed in expanding this section and rewriting what's little I have placed there.Zafarnamah 05:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Points Currently Up For Debate

This may well escalate into a full blown revert war if we're not careful. As such, I recommend that nobody edits the page until each individual point has been addressed. You may not like the current state of the page, but discussion can fix that soon. This is the only way to stop this descending into mayhem!

Also, can I please make sure everyone properly indents their messages and signs them.

I'll highlight the points that Anmol.2k4 and other users have talked about:

(Points 1-3 by Sukh, Points 4 onwards by Anmol.2k4)

Page structure is inappropriate.
Information on why Amnesty International is not (or may not be) an appropriate source.
Khalistan movement reached a climax at the point of Operation Blue Star.
Pakistan's Support to pro-khalistan organisation.
Indira Gandhi's Assassination.
Pro Khalistan organisation involved in terrorism and their terrorist acts (eg oct. Delhi bomb blast).
Use of neutral sources (eg newspapers in India, in us/UK/EU).
Support to pro khalistan organisation from people outside India.
Notable People Involved in proposal for khalistan, and their past where they have recognised Indian constitution.
Sikh people in Indian Gov/ Police who have tried to curb terrorism in Punjab.
Sikh's/Congress MP's/workers involved is violence against Sikh people after IG's assassination, their resignation from important posts they had(this happened recently).
This article being too big to read , and its POV against Indian's(Hindus,Muslims and modern Sikh's).
Views of Modern & Conservative Sikhs.
Modern Sikh's assassinated by conservative Sikh's.
Controversial "Recent developments" section.
Use of sources having POV (eg. people from opposition party in India)
Use of "Citation Needed"/"((fact))"

There are other points, so please add them to the above list. But this appears to be the only things discussed on the talk page. Please create separate headings for each point so that they can be tackled individually. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. i have added point 4-17 anmol.2k4 14:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Zafarnamah please don't start revert war, please follow what sukh is saying.If you are going to keep reverting this article then i will have to report it to an admin, and we will also need a mediator.

Anmol.2k4 17:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Anmol Ram, if you want to be civil, then leave the version to the original until the above points are discussed and consesus is acheived. Your new version is unacceptable. Zafarnamah 19:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

im rv to SUKHS version not mine(how many times i will have to say that ???, see the history. and in your version why did you removed all the tags, and added all that without discussing even after what sukh has said.???. Zafarnamah adding RAM(im nothing compared to him) to my name is not right, i can add some thing and you wont like it.220.227.152.109 19:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Operation Blue Star - Climax point of Khalistan or just beginning?

There is zero evidence to show that Indian army attacked the Darbar Sahib in June 1984 because of a demand for Khalistan. Bhindrawale did not demand Khalistan; he was demanding the fullfillment of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, instead. The Khalistan movement reached its climax in the 1990s when majority of the Punjabis boycotted the Lok Sabha elections in 1992, bringing Congress back to power. See Ethnic Conflict in India by Gurharpaul Singh, a political scientist based in UK for a break-down of the election results. Zafarnamah 16:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert War

Zafarnamh ,please please please discuss before reverts. you started reverting even after sukh asked all of us not to do so. i admit im also involved in this war, but at least i have reverted that back to sukh's version. you have removed tags without anyones consent, in controversial article like khalistan. i have posted you numerous time in this page and in your talk page , but i have had no reply. let us keep this article to sukh's version, not mine not yours not of aksh. i hope you are going to reply.

you can go ahead to revert back from sukh version to yours and im not going to perform anymore research, we have already crossed the 3 revert line.

this article will require mediation and i will request you to report this situation to admins. 220.227.152.109 20:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have shown in the section immediately above that new changes are inaccurate and false. Therefore, we need to go back to the original version that is based on last consensus. I am willing to suggest one compromise--we keep the last version that I have reverted to and add the "POV-check" tag until this issue is settled on the talk page. Is this compromise fair? If so, do not revert to the new version again and simply add the POV-check tag. Zafarnamah 20:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the reason why there were so many weapons in the temple ?

It is disrespectful to guru ji that he (bhindrawale) used the temple to protect himself. This caused so much damage to this holy place, you are not able to see that.

It is widely known fact that india attacked the militants because of number of people they were killing on a daily basis (i can get u a link from a sikh guy), their demand for khalistan. I can guess you live in new jersey/new york tell me if there is a gurudwara and American gov will find as many weapons are being collect in that gurudwara , explain to me how are they going to react ?. Weapons like that were found in many other gurudwara all over india. No constitution can allow the demands like that of khalistan. Not once i have disputed the fact that what congress party did after IG's assassination, in fact we should have a big section on that, but u want to make this whole article look like that indians hate sikh people and they attacked the temple just like that.

220.227.152.109 14:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

that is unacceptable, i am going to accept only and only sukh's version.i am not asking you to accept mine version am i???. i am going to accept only a neutral person's version. Zafarnamah you have already shown how far you can go in revert war. going through wiki's guidelines i have found that more than 3 revert are wrong and that is why i am not going to do so anymore, please find the meaning of discussion in a dictionary. just saying there is no proof does not mean your version is right .

We have to go through wikipedia's guide lines.

220.227.152.109 20:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, it is not my version. It is the last consenus version before you arrived on the scene. Secondly, any changes made to it after the consensus was broken cannot be considered neutral. You want to continue reverting instead of discussing, that's silly. You haven't posted a single peice of FACTUAL INFORMATION on this talk page since Sukh posted his long list; I challenge you to provide credibel facts and not simply revert. Zafarnamah 21:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Zafarnamah, you have not read discussion above at all, sukh has contributed only first three point, REST WERE MINEfrm 4-17.Read this talk page and you will find out what has happened and why.Those tags were there after the consensus, yet you removed them. Zafarnamh you have reverted many peoples work back to yours, and now you want to make it look like u did nothing. Again i will ask you read discussion above that will explain to why changes were made. Wikipedia policy says that in articles like these we should not have "citation needed", ai matter is not yet resolved,"The Sikh remembrance of the attack as a holocaust" this not appropriate title.

all you have done shows you don't want to do anything here democratically.

my job is not to explain to you which user made which changes and why, u have to do some hard work read above.

when sukh said that we should not revert the article from that point of time, still who reverted, why is that you don't want to follow wikipedia's guidelines.

220.227.152.109 06:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Zafarnamah wants facts

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1970s/Bluestar.html

http://www.sikh.com.au/blue/index.html?ops.html~bottom

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1230043,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3754489.stm

http://www.yale.edu/ycias/globalization/punjab.pdf

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jun/03inter.htm

http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/full_story.php?content_id=47563

there you go. now what ????????????? 220.227.152.109 06:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

were these for peacful purpose ????.

that is why your version is wrong. Have any complaints ??? Anmol.2k4 06:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Bhaiya Anmol Ram: Where is the logic? Who is disputing that violence was used by Sikh militants? The article states that violence was employed and there is no denying it. Sikhs have a tradition going back to 400 years in which they have used weapons in warfare; this is how they uprooted the Mughal rule and it took British 150 years to annex Punjab with the help of poorbias. What you need to show is that the points you are diputing in the article are backed up alternative facts provided by credible scholars. There are at least five dozen books in my personal library on contemporary Punjab and the Khalistan movement. I am sure you can do a lot better in reading a bit more widely and coming up with real facts to support what you are saying. Right now you have not addressed even a single point being disputed.Zafarnamah 14:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Behena Zafarnamah(aka santa banta singh) i disagree with you , if washington post , rediff.com, guardian,yale.edu,bbc are not reliable sources for you, then i don't think we can solve anything here. What you call "credible scholars" to me are highly opinionated, one-sided narrow minded blokes.

220.227.152.109 19:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Need I remind both of you of WP:NPA? We all have our points, but let's not resort to name calling. It's childish and achieves nothing. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page because it looks like we have a pretty nasty edit war going on. I would suggest that people here use dispute resolution, which involves getting outside input to end the dispute. Just a caution. I see lots of use of the word "vandalism" in this discussion. I don't see vandalism here. I see 2 sides in a content dispute. Vandalism would be more like if someone replaced this page with a swear word or was randomly removing sections of the article. I don't see that here. I see 2 sides with legitimate wants. So. Work it out. And I'm not a mediator. Just protecting the page. When you guys have a consensus and are ready to have the page unprotected, put a request up at requests for page protection. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent Events

Okay, I think this discussion is getting a bit too hot headed. Thankfully the page has been protected now. Let's not get sidetracked on the discussion here.

Anmol, please ensure you are logged in. It's confusing when you go from IP address to user name. Try using the remember me check box on the login screen. Also, please ensure you indent your entire message using ':'. You only need to add one more than the message above.

In regards to which version of the page it should have been left on, I have to say that I agree with Zafarnamah that it should have been left at the original page it was on before all this stuff started to happen. However, now it has been protected, we should leave it on this version EVEN IF IT IS UNPROTECTED. I hope both of you will heed my advice.

I'll firstly address the non-trivial problems that Anmol seems to have with this version and what I think should be done about each point.

Please add specific links or references for *each* point even if you've already provided them.

Amnesty International

All we need is, a simple sentence suming up the criticsms as indicated in the article. The existing quote should be left as-is. I think it's fairly plain to see that the authorities were given a free hand to stamp out terror.

"authorities were given a free hand to stamp out terror" i agree with both of you on that, but i was talking about Ai's saying that human rights are STILL being violated in india.

source:wikipedia

Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You cannot reference Wikipedia within Wikipedia itself. I presume you mean that AI is lying about human rights violations in India? Or at least exaggerating them? As I said, you either need a source that says that AI in general is biased OR it's biased specifically in this instance. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan's Support

Need sources for this. It must be noted, that I've finally read Mark Tully's book, and in it he writes:

"But Zia adopted a very cautious attitude to the Punjab crisis. His advisers told him that Mrs Gandhi was spoiling for a fight because she saw a war with Pakistan as a way of diverting her people's attention from Punjab and other difficulties they were facing. War was the last thing Zia wanted. He knew there was no guarantee that he would be the first Pakistani ruler to defeat the Indian army and remembered the fate of Field Marshal Ayub Khan and General Yahya Khan, who had both tried and failed. So although he would dearly have liked to avenge the Pakistan army's surrender at Dacca in 1971, he did nothing which could give Mrs Gandhi an excuse for going to war. He did not openly support the Sikhs and we have no found evidence he gave them covert help. In fact, he did the very reverse; he set out on what he called a 'peace offensive'. winning almost every diplomatic trick, General Zia convinced the United States and the Western world that he genuinely wanted good relations with India. Whether Mrs Gandhi ever seriously comtpelated war or not, General Zia's peace offensive blocked that option."

Then who provided weapons, and why. you know about that article in rediff in which an expert said that Pakistan would have supported their existence.

source: http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/oct/08spec.htm http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jun/03inter.htm

Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It definately needs to be mentioned that the Indian government says that Pakistan supported the movement. However, other sources such as the above also need to be mentioned. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi's Assassination

This is mentioned, but only in passing and not in enough depth. Needs expansion

And a big one (that was one of the reason that started most of the violence), and it should also be included that how much harm both the assassins did to the sikh people, i agree Hindus and Muslims did. Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It needs expansion, but we need to distinguish between the pogroms and Khalistan. The pogroms were not anti-Khalistan, they were anti-Sikh 'revenge' for the death of Indira Gandhi. A lot of info can be put into 1984 Anti-Sikh riots. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Khalistan Terrorist Organisations

Needs to mention organisations that support the formation of Khalistan and are classified as terrorists by India and/or other governments.

Zafarnamah is going to be interested in providing the sources. Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Babbar Khalsa is definately one, and there are others. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This category must present the rejoinders made by the organizations and other Sikh organizations to the "terrorist" label to be fair to those who are being characterized in this manner. That would be true neutrality. Furthermore, reasons for why they are considered terrorist must be given before any org. is classified as a terrorist organization. Zafarnamah 03:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sure, sure. Lest we hurt the feelings of all the aforesaid terrorist organizations. I am starting a page on Al Qaeda, wherein OBL can personally write a response. Your pro-Khalistani tendencies and apologia for terrorists is ridiculous. --Akash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.180.77 (talk • contribs)

Use of neutral sources

All reputable sources are fine. We shouldn't decide what we think is neutral or not.

Sukh please explain to me the meaning of reputable sources, im definitely not happy with the kind of sources being included in this article. newspapers are what i call reputable resources. Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A suitable source would be published work. That is, newspapers, news websites, books but not blogs and personal sites. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Support from outside India

Yes there is support from outside India. What do you wish to be said about it?

Comparison with the support from Sikh in india (in words). Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

We need sources that discuss this. We have personally not conducted a survey so can't be sure of the true opinion. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some useful sources indicating opinion: [1] [2] Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Notable people involved in proposal for Khalistan

..and their past where they have recognised Indian constitution. This should probably be in their respective person articles.

Why ?, as you said this article is too big for a reason then why not include them ? Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can include it here now, but when we have to reduce the size of the article, they'll have to be moved. Up to you. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sikh people in Indian Gov/ Police who have tried to curb terrorism in Punjab.

We're falling into the trap of equating terrorism with Khalistan. They are not the same thing. Several Sikhs support the idea of Khalistan through peaceful means. But yes, we need to mention prominent Sikhs who are against the idea of Khalistan and have indeed actively worked against it.

Name those people please(those who wanted khalistan with peace), and if possible opposite of that. Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, as ever - sources. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

People in positions of power involved is violence against Sikh

Definately needs mentioning.

"here you have used the word definitely", what about those Hindus and Muslims who lost their life, pride & homes in punjab.

Shouldn't there be a section about that , and if yes i think it should be the first section , because indian army took actions after those killings/ massacre of Hindus & Muslims. Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This article being too big to read and its POV against Indians

POV should be sorted with this discussion (eventually). It is too big, but lets not worry about size yet. Let it get as big as possible and then we can split it into several articles that are easier to digest.

size has been like this for quiet some time. can anybody explain to me why ? Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you've followed the history, you will find that the page is actually half the size it once was!! We're here working as volunteers and page size is the last item on our list. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Modern Sikhs assassinated by conservative Sikhs

Yes, should be mentioned - only if directly connected with Khalistan of course.

THEIR DEATHS WERE CONNECTED WITH BHINDRAWALE AND KHALISTAN. Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, provide sources. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of "Citation Needed"/"((fact))"

I added much of these tags. Any such text without references can and should be removed.

Thanks for that. But why did you added them in the first place. Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a useful mechanism for allowing people to add sources. I did actually as Zafarnamah to give sources for those points, but he hasn't got them yet. We can remove them until we have sources. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent developments section

What are the issues with this?

Other Points

I look forward to both your comments on this issue. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sukh these are just 11/12, of 17 we have mentioned, i need you opinion on rest of those points.Why did you forgot all those ? and i think there should be equal number of Hindus/Muslims:Sikh editing this article. What do you think about that ? And when Zafarnamah started making up names for the first time i replied with this "im rv to SUKHS version not mine(how many times i will have to say that ???, see the history. and in your version why did you removed all the tags, and added all that without discussing even after what sukh has said.???. Zafarnamah adding RAM(im nothing compared to him) to my name is not right, i can add some thing and you wont like it.220.227.152.109 19:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)". He should have stopped then, but did he ?

I want every single one of those point discussed. Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not have anything to say about your other points. However, if you're adamant:

Page structure - we can discuss this at the end and is not related to any POV issues atm.
Operation blue star climax point? - already talked about this above and I agree with Zafarnamah.
Recent development section - I must have missed this point out. I'll add it to the top.

In regards to having equal numbers of Hindus/Muslims/Sikhs. This is a wiki - anyone can edit it. We don't do a religous role call before editing articles. You're welcome to invite whoever you wish to discuss this.

In terms of the name calling. It's completely unprofessional and I totally disagree with it. However, I'm sure Zafarnamah feels that you have suddenly turned up and are demanding all sorts of changes really quickly. Wikipedia doesn't work like that - it may take us months to come to a consensus. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia doesn't work like that - it may take us months to come to a consensus" Forget months im fine with years, in fact im going to spend time reading books & articles on this subject, will drill for sources becoz nobody else here want to do that with NPOV and will talk to lots of sikh people here in my locality. This is going to take time but i would like to explain to you both that it is up to you how you want to show sikh people's history/opinion/mood etc etc, im only going to find stuff to balance this article and that means that i will research about topic's where rest of the Indians are shown in bad light. Im not a sikh please don't expect me act like one. Sikh people have gone through a lot i know but still we need to understand that lying to ourself is not going to change the truth. Parts where rest of the indians were BAD , i never disagreed to those but those point where you guys exaggerated stuff is where i get high strung , and you guys know very well what im talking about. And also i would like to tell you that reverts can really distract me from what im about to do , so please relax few days. And also i have lost hope in expecting you NRI sikh's guys to act like more than people of your religion. there was something like india if you can remember. Anmol.2k4 12:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have formed the opinion that I'm anti-Indian and pro-Khalistani. Far from it - I don't believe Sikhs have a future in the idea of Khalistan. You seem to think of my objective look at the issues (i.e. not agreeing with all your points) as negative. If you take a look at what I've written, you will see that there are several issues I've agreed with you on, and several issues I haven't. The same applies to things that Zafarnamah has written (he will more than corroborate that I have had many issues with things he may have written).

I'm willing to wait for you to add sources and new information. I look forward to your contributions. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism and Support for Khalistan

These are two issues that require caution.

Terrorism

M.K. Gandhi, George Washington, Subhash Chander Bose and other freedom fighters were all "terrorists" for the British colonizers. Therefore, we need to be cautious when labelling Sikhs as "terrorists" even if they are adopting violent means. It is only when someone resorts to indiscriminate killings of civilians can they be labelled as terrorists. We cannot take seriously the Indian state's labelling of Sikhs as terrorists because it fails to make this distinction.

The tradition of use of violent force goes back to Guru Hargobind, who was first to raise an armed militia within the precincts of the Darbar Sahib. The Darbar Sahib has housed weapons since the early 1600s and armed guards have protected its perimeter (Iqbal Singh, Punjab Under Seige). Bhindrawale was following Sikh tradition that was started by Guru Hargobind, for which Sikhs need not apologize. Our discussion of use of violence has to be nuanced so that we are able to seperate violence from terrorism and so that we are able to appreciate the continunity of military tradition among the Sikhs from very early times.

I would, thefore, prefer the label "militant" over "terrorist" when there is no independent proof of indisciminate killings by these men. Zafarnamah 15:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bhindranwale was not directly implicated in any terrorist actions, but according to many sources, his cronies were (and associated groups definately were). All these groups come under the banner of the Khalistan movement. Many innocent Hindus and moderate Sikhs were killed in acts of terror. This is undisputed.

I hear some Sikhs defending Bhindranwale, but I still can't understand why of all the places he chose to stay at the Golden Temple complex, in the Akhal Takht above the Granth Sahib. I can only think of two possible reasons: Either he thought the Indian army wouldn't attack it, or he knew that *when* the army attacked, Sikhs (moderates included) would rise up against the Indian state. I'm guessing it's the second one. This is all conjecture of course ;) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a third possibily, which is more reasonable. He was informed of an impending attack on the Darbar Sahib by reliable sources such as General Shahbeg Singh. There is no dispute that this attack was planned at least a year in advance. I have read General S.K. Sinha's testimony in his memoir, A Soldier Recalls, where he states that as the head of the Western Command, he was requested to attack the Darbar Sahib in 1983. He refused and informed the Centre that this was the business of the police and not of the army (he was denied a promotion for this reason). Any Sikh seeped in Sikh lore (and especially Bhindrawele) would have immediately compared such a premonition with Abadli's attack on the Darbar Sahib. This needed to be defended, much like Gurbachan Singh during last expedition of Abdali. And this defence required taking residence in the complex. This is the only explanation that does not contradict other facts.

If you have even the slightest doubt that the attack on the Darbar Sahib would have occured if Bhindrawale were not living there, you have not assessed the situation with care. Why were 37-gurdwaras across Punjab attacked simultaneously? Did all of them have militants? And why pick an imporant historical occasion when the largest number of pilgrims would be present? And why torch the Sikh Reference Library (I don't have the time but there is a way to show that this act was performed deliberately after removing important manuscripts and artifacts, the latter was admitted by the Indian army and Indian Express has been publishing on this issue as recently as two years ago)? Zafarnamah 18:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first point being "undisputed" please read the role of the Third Agency (others posing as "Sikhs") in these acts of terror as reported by Surya Magazine and also Ram Narayan Kumar's Reduced to Ashes. Even in contemporary press in the last four weeks, you can go through the discussion about "cats" hired by the Punjab police to committ acts of terror and to infliltrate Sikh organizations to criminalize them. Justice Ajit Singh Bains has also written on this issue. I am glad to provide you with detailed references with page numbers if you can access these works. But this does not mean that Sikhs did not commit acts of terror. This is not what I was saying; instead I am advocating these these labels be used with caution. The introduction as it currently stands makes it appear as if this is a movement led by a few terrorist organizations proscribed by the West. As you know this is far from truth. Many Sikh organizations are disputing these labels that are simply the result of diplomatic pressure and no real investigation. Zafarnamah 19:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no way that the Indian army would have attacked the temple unless they were *sure* that there were militants held up inside. Even if they did still attack, the immense damage to the structure, and the loss of valuable documents would never have occurred if Bhindranwale wasn't there. That is why I find it hard to consider Bhindranwale anything more than an egotistical trouble maker. My opinion, of course!Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Egotistical trouble maker – hardly, the man, despite his shortocmings, died defending the sanctum sanctorium of the Sikh religion; he laid his life down defending the beliefs and values that his ancestors and their ancestors before them had held. You may not agree with his actions, but his courage is undisputable. Furthermore, your overt anti-Khalistan opinion for a person whose job it is to manage the Khalistan page is not healthy: your job, with all due respect, is to remain impartial or objective is it not? Not to influence people yourself?

Moreover, if what Zafarnamah is saying is not true, and I have no inlincation to believe it is not, why would the Indian Army, and indeed Indira Gandhi, still order the complete desecration of Shri Akal Takhat Sahib and Shri Darbar Sahib on one of the most holiest days on the Sikh calendar? Why had she stalled on the transfer of Chandigarh and the river waters, when she knew that even as late as Autumn 1983 the Akalis were crying out fro some kind of concession from the Centre to take back to their electorate in the countryside? She did so because she knew it would forment further trouble in Punjab and make it easier to accomplish her goals. It must also be shown that it was Indian Army protocol to arrest any Amritdhari Sikh, who would be viewed as a threat and a possible terrorist. This indeed is included in an Indian Army manual: I shall try to find it but if someone has it on hand please be kind enough to show it to everyone here who is still delusional about Indian democracy.

There is also a fourth possible reason as to why Shaheed Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bhindranwale stayed at Shri Akal Takhat Sahib, although this is my own opinion. Following his arrest and eventual release in 1983, it was apparent that the Indian Govt was after him in a big way, determined to convict him, at least in the media, of being a seccesionist, a murderer, a threat to Indian unity. Had SSJSKB stayed at Chowk Mehta, the chances are he would have been arrested, tortured and killed, as was witnessed thousands of times from 84-93. In an attempt to evade capture and death, and in an effort to defend Sikhism, which was under threat (witness attacks against Sikhs and role of Haryana State Govt towards Sikhs in Asian Games 1983), in order to defend Sikhi against what was to be an inevitable attack, he defended Shri Darbar Sahib complex, the personification of Sikhi and Sikh beliefs. It may very well have been his intention to defend Sikhism against the Indian Govt onsalught at its most cherished and holiest place, to act as a rallying cry for the Sikh masses to take up arms and fight for their freedom (but within a free and democractic India). Hence he gave his life so that his fellow Sikhs could be awaken to the danger they faced.

Sukh, you also said that Sikhs had no future in Khalistan, why is this so? There are many landlocked countries that prosper with populations, economies and agricultural production far less than that of Greater Punjab? Moreover, do you assume that the current situation of the Sikhs in India is a good one, where Sikhism is still under threat from Hindu right wing organisations (please do not contest this from a political correct POV – the rise of Hindu fundamentalism has been well documented by Mark Tully nonetheless), such as the RSS and the BJP itself, with its stated aim of proclaiming Hindutva? Why is it that Hindu orgnaisations can be lauded as national heroes when crying out for Hindutva, but Sikh militant organisations are branded terrorists or seccessionists for adhering to their fiath and staying true to the slogan of “All Modes Readdressing a Wrong Having Failed, Raising of Sword is Pious and Just”??

Moreover Sukh, do u deem the current situation to be acceptable? Do you find it acceptbale that Punjab is not receiving its fair revenue from the centre government? That Punjab is witnessing stunted industrial, tertiary and quaternary development? That Punjab is witnessing a Govt sponsored program of Hindu non-Punjabi migration so as to reduce the Sikh majority? That Punjab’s river waters are being diverted to Rajasthan a desert state? That the Punjabi language is under threat? tTat Sikhism is still recognised as a branch of Hinduism in the Indian constitution? That Sikh marriages still have to be registered as a Hindu marriage in order to be legalised? That Chandigarh, a city built as a capital for Punjab is still a union territory? That there are still vast swathes (20,000sq km) of Punjabi speaking and by virtue Sikh populated lands contiguous to Punjab in Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Rajsathan? That Sikh scriptures and manuscripts are still locked up in Indian Army barracks in Bihar having been taken from Shri Darbar complex in 1984?? If there were a realistic plausibility that such sins would be corrected, I myself may have leaned towards greater autonomy within an Indian union, but are you so naïve as to believe this is actually the case?

Please Sukh tell me if any of these current problems and greviances are acceptable to you as a Sikh and acceptable to you in the light of what has been taught to us Sikhs from our father Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji downwards? You claim that Sikhs could not have a future in Khalistan: well I say that if these current situations persist, and I assume they shall, that Sikhi has no future in an ever increasingly Hindu radicalised India. This is not a premediated attack on your opinions or mindset, but rather a curious question as to why you believe what you believe so adamantly in light of all the facts in front of you.

Please enlighten me.

PS: ur point "Even if they did still attack, the immense damage to the structure, and the loss of valuable documents would never have occurred if Bhindranwale wasn't there" means nothing. What do you prefer, that there were no Sikhs there to guard our holiest shrine against aggression? That the bravery or Baba Banda Singh Bahadur and Baba Deep Singh Ji not be replicated? The Sikhs would have preferred damage to Shri Akal Takhat Sahib and Shri Darbar Sahib as opposed to a complete and utter humiliating abandoning of their martial history and tradition and a meek surrender with their tails between their legs (witness Operation Black Thunder 1988). I —Preceding unsigned comment added by VikSingh (talk • contribs) 02:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a wiki and nobody officially manages this page. I may be against the idea of Khalistan, but I do not allow my biases to enter into the article. Just have a look at my discussion with people on this talk page. I've tried to discuss things objectively with both pro and anti-Khalistan people.

I'm not here to defend the Indian government. Indeed, I found many of their actions inexcusable. I did not support their attack on the Golden Temple (although I believe Indira and her buddy Zail got into such a tight corner they had little choice). And their timing was most inappropriate. Just because I don't support Bhindranwale or Khalistan, does not mean I support Indira either ;) And yes, the army manual you speak of would be useful.

Well I don't support Khalistan because I'm strictly against religous states. I know there is all the spiel about Khalistan being secular, but please... will it be? If so, why not stay within India and try and fix the problems there? Indian Punjab is full of nearly 40% Hindus, do they want to be part of a Sikh homeland? I know there is an attempt by right-wing Hindus to bring Sikhism into the fold of Hinduism, but it is up to the Sikh community to educate their own people so they don't get sucked in by all the propoganda. If some Sikhs want to revert to Hinduism, that's entirely up to them. Hindutva groups can say what they wish in a democracy - that's no reason to seek independence.

To be honest, I have not been following the financial situation of Punjab, so I won't comment on that issue. I agree that Punjab should be in full control of its waters. However, the Punjabi language is not dying, at least not in Indian Punjab. In fact, since state patronage it has markedly flourished. The increasing polarisation of Hindu/Sikh groups led to Punjabi Hindus declaring Hindi as their mother tongue. As much as you might dislike this, if they want to do it, they are entitled to do it. It's a shame they did so, but it's their right. And I agree with you, any scriptures taken during 1984 should be returned.

In terms of being classified as Hindus in the constitution: This applies to Buddhists and Jains too, as you probably know. Maybe I am being naive, but this is merely a matter of principle? It doesn't appear to have much of an affect on the ability of Sikhs to practice their faith. Nor does the fact that Sikhs have to marry as 'Hindus' change the way Sikhs get married. They still get married in a gurdwara, with standard Sikh practices. It's merely that Sikhs follow Hindu civil law (which is arguably more suitable for Sikhs than Muslim civil law). If the constitution defined a big group as 'dharmic religions' and then said Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism all fell under this banner, would that be okay to you? But I agree, there does need to be a distinction between the various Dharmic groups in the constitution. However, I disagree with Sikhs having their own marriage law - I'd much prefer a single civil code for all religous groups.

The fact of the matter is, that if the Golden Temple wasn't fortified and full of militants, it would never have been attacked. Bhindranwale could have lodged himself anywhere but the Golden Temple. But no, he chose the Akhal Tahkt, above the Guru Granth Sahib no less... Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sukh, you are not being completely honest with yourself. If you can deliberate on why 37-Gurdwaras were attacked simultaneously on the same day, you will come to a more cogent and rational explication for the attack. Elderly men and women were not allowed to exit the complex by the army (I have photographs with Sikh elderly men with their hands tied behind their back with their own turbans). Women and children were shot dead by the same army (I two Associated Press news reports from June 13 and June 18, 1984 to prove it. The June 13 report quotes: "It was a virtual massacre...A large number of women, children and pilgrims were gunned down.") Based on the 400-years of solid Sikh tradition that preceded Bhindrawale, if you could show me a single instance in Sikh history when Sikhs abandoned the Darbar Sahib complex knowing that an attack was imminent or even possible, I would accept your interpretation that is squarely against Sikh ethics. Contrary to the fact, Sikhs stayed, defended their home and perished. Physical death for a Sikh is of no consequence. On the contrary, ਮਰਣੁ ਮੁਣਸਾ ਸੂਰਿਆ ਹਕੁ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਹੋਇ ਮਰਨਿ ਪਰਵਾਣੋ॥ (Vadhans M1, SGGS, p. 579). Jarnail Singh and his approximately 50 companions died a death that is worthy of being called a Sikh. They did not come out with their hands-up like Badal and Tohra, a fact that invalidates your hypothesis that they were hiding to protect themeselves. Knowing that the Indian Army was preparing an attack for a year, if they had not defended the Darbar Sahib, they would have been deemed as cowards. I invite you to read the "Lamentations" of Guru Nanak, popularly called the "Babar Bani" (located in the Guru Granth Sahib), in which the Guru criticizes the people of Saidpur (today's Eminabad) for not preparing for Babur's invasion of their city. You should definately read Kapur Singh's interpretation of it in his work, Some Insights into Sikhism. What you are proposing may be the way of a Western mind conditioned by Kant's Enlightenment, but it is certainly not the Sikh way. Sikhs put ethics before destruction of their lives, and certainly before destruction of their buildings. Zafarnamah 19:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not actually concerned about why 37 gurdwaré were attacked on the same day. The GOI claims they were used as militant bases and I have no reason not to agree with that. 37 of the thousands of gurdwaré in India is not a lot. According to KS Brar, the reason that they went in at such a sensitive time was because they feared Khalistan would be declared independent at any moment [3] and that Pakistan might cross-over. I'm in no position to argue whether this is true or not, and I doubt we'll ever know for certain, but that is the GOI's reason.

And your argument doesn't neccessarily hold water. If militants weren't lodged in the Golden Temple, there would never have been an attack by the Indian government. If the GOI wasn't going to attack (because there would be no militants) then there would be no need for the militants to defend it! Do you really think the GOI would just massacre hundreds of people for the heck of it?!

Maybe my view has been poisoned by my Westernised secular upbringing, but what are you to do? :D Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can find me single reference that the 37 gurdwaras were military bases, I may look at your argument with some seriousness. I have never seen such a fact mentioned and I read anything I can get my hands on. You are not poisioned, but you are certainly talking like the quintessential "House Negro" of Malcolm X when you say that attacking "37 of the thousands of gurdwaré in India is not a lot." I hope you don't justify every act of state terror in this manner. And, yes, based on the way this operation was conducted by sealing pilgrims inside and use of chemical gas and tanks, I do think the army would have attacked regardless of the circumstances. You need to understand the phenomenon of nationalism, which creates coherence among the majority community at the expense of minorities and I recommend that you read something theortical: Anthony Marx, Faith in Nation: Exclusionary Origins of Nationalism (Oxford University Press, 2003)? It will allow you to see why massacre of Sikhs and labelling of them as terrorists was so important for Indira Gandhi to expand her votebank and to create a greater nationalistic feeling among the majority community. This book, although not about India, helps explains what implications such an attack had on India. Zafarnamah 22:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The Indian government claims that these gurdwaré were being used as bases for militants and neither you or I can prove/disprove that. Your reference to the "House Negro" may be apt if it were not for the fact that I have no natural affinity to the Indian government, nor was I born there; India is certainly not my master! Sikhs were, and still are an integral part of India's nationalism phenomenon - there is no doubt about that. I can understand that Indira had lots to gain by showing a hard hand and not letting "minorities get their way" - but by the time of Operation Bluestar, I dare say it had escalated far further than she ever thought it would.

Either way, I think we've moved way off the track of sorting this article out. My fault of course - "Egotistical trouble maker"!! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sukh, i give u credit for being a man who knows his stuff, but sometimes you appear supremely naive. You question whether it is important or not for Sikhs (and Buddhists and Jains) to be included under the aegis of Hinduism. The mere fact you speak such words reaffirms Zafarnamah's depiction of you being a "House Negro": wateva ur affiliation with India is, to back up such controversial actions shows a lack of solidarity with the grass roots Sikh movement and the grievances of the Sikhs.

The constitutional problems were one of the bedrock problems in the 1970s which ultimately led to the trials of the 1980s. For Sikhism to be included under the banner of Hinduism is offensive, not because it is Hinduism per se, but because it insinuates that Sikhism is not a coherently different religion, which it is. Moreover, an added reason as to why Sikhism should be recognised differently is the vast sacrifice that Sikh youth made for the independence of India, which manifested itself in Nehru's now infamous "I see now reason why they cant have a setup in the north where they can experience the glow of freedom".

Why is it that if Nehru could utter such words, he couldn’t see to it that the Indian Constitution, which by the way he declared would never be rubber stamped if not approved by the Sikhs, why is it he couldn’t see to it that the Indian constitution protected Sikhs as a homologous and distinct nation, apart from Hinduism.

Your Western secular values are a tribute to you, but they do cloud ur judgement when talking about Sikh matters. You state that having one civil code for marriage would make life easier: yes, it would, in the West, where the vast majority of people are Christian. You should remind yourself that India contains more distinct nationalities and cultures than Europe combined, and these cultures are the birthplace of 3 out of the 6 major faiths. Buddhists i am sure would also be offended to find out that under the Indian constitution their religion is merely regarded as a branch of Hinduism. By having this wrongful affiliation, it forces Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists to be viewed as Hindus in the eyes of the law, which is blatantly and overtly wrong. Having a Sikh marriage law would be and is the only option. We are not talking about a few million people; we are talking about one of the world's major faiths, a faith that made a hugely disproportionate sacrifice for Indian independence. How hypocritical it would be (although it would not surprise me) if the Indian Govt couldn’t even do the Sikhs one favour in return by implementing a separate Sikh marriage code, after all, Sikh marriages are vastly different to both Hindu and Islamic marriages in terms of the meaning and cultural significant behind traditions. How you, as a fellow Sikh, cannot see this flabbergasts me!

You talk about not letting your own prejudices get in the way of constructive arguments, yet you dismiss the idea out of hand that Khalistan could be a secular state. Why could it not be so? Sikhism holds the distinction of being the only major faith whose leader died for the protection of another, Shri Guru Tegh Bahadur Dev Ji for the protection of Kashmiri Hinduism, the same Hindus who Indira Gandhi was later a part of. Why is it that you can dismiss out of hand so flagrantly the notion that Khalistan would be a secular state given the extremely tolerant views in Sikhism? My only assumption is that you continue to correlate the demand for Khalistan with the actions of a few Sikh militants and most likely the "cats" of Punjab Police.

Sikhism, unlike Islam and Christianity, does not state that Sikhism and Sikhism alone is the only way forward, but like Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji said, is only one of many paths. So is it not entirely plausible that a Sikh Republic of Khalistan, whilst being a state FOR Sikhs, would not necessarily be a state OF the Sikhs??

My mention of Hindutva was not a pre-emptive excuse or justification for demanding Sikh independence but rather an attempt to show you the two faces of Indian democracy. On one hand, Hindu nationalists can call for the Hindu-isation of India, yet when Sikh nationalists call for the protection of Sikhism in Greater Punjab, they are labelled "terrorists, separatists or murderers" by the Indian Govt without any coherent or attempted understanding of the roots of the problem.

The death of the Punjabi language that I am referring to is the defection of Punjabi Hindus in 1961 (betraying their ma-boli) and moreover the influx of non-Punjabi Hindus into Punjab thru a Govt sponsored policy. This influx of Hindus who do not speak Punjabi has led to a greater rise in the publication of Hindi in Punjab, thereby sidelining Punjabi on the state and district levels. Whilst no evidence per se can be given to highlight this, any true Punjabi, regardless of religion, can witness this upon going to Punjab.

The way you dismiss the situation of Punjabi Hindus in 1961 so candidly is also disheartening. It is widely accepted in many circles that the Census of 1961 disenfranchised many Sikhs, and thus many areas outside of Punjab, most notably in Haryana and Himachal Pradesh were left out of Punjab, thereby purposefully making it smaller. The disenfranchisement in the Census of 1961 led to 2 million Sikhs being left outside the borders of Punjab (1 million in Haryana, 800,000 in HP and 200,000 in Ganganagar - state websites for sources), thus restricting the Sikh majority to 62% within Punjab. Had a full and more representative vote taken place in 1961, the Sikh majority would most likely have been nearer to 70%.

The polarisation of Hindu and Sikh groups you speak of has nothing to do with it, since the polarisation of Sikhs and Hindus occurred to a far more tangible effect later on in the 1970s with the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, the enforcement of which was coincidently the demand of Shaheed Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bhindranwale, not outright independence. Please show me even one iota of evidence whereby SSJSKB spoke of his intention to declare a sovereign Sikh state.

You say that the reason the Indian Army wanted to invade Shri Darbar Sahib complex was because they thought Khalistan would be declared. What a load of rubbish, and i am amazed you take this at face value. If they were so concerned, why for God's sake didn’t they go in before, around April time, or even May time!! They did what they did to maximise Sikh casualties. SSJSKB had taken up residence in Shri Akal Takhat Sahib in March-April 1983, so the Indian Army had plenty of time to speed their plans up, which were already in motion judged by the way the Govt was manoeuvring.

You also talk about why Punjab shouldn’t stay in the Indian Union and fix its problems there...I would be perfectly happy for it to do so if there was any realistic chance that its problems would be sorted out. But as I highlighted before, there are numerous problems in Punjab that the Centre is not willing to discuss let alone solve. The problem of non-Punjabi Hindu influx and the problem of Hindu nationalists trying to infiltrate Sikhism are the most worrying and damning. Why would the Indian Govt, the same Govt that petitioned the Israeli govt to stop conversion in the tribal North East despite proclamations of secularity, want to stop its policies of reducing Sikh power in Punjab? You are incredibly naive my friend if you believe the Indian Govt is sincere in solving any of Punjab's problems.

Lastly, I stand resolutely with Zafarnamah: the Indian Army regardless of whether militants were holed up or not, would have attacked under another fabricated excuse. It is in the Sikh psyche, evidently to which you are unaware, to laid down one's life for Sikhi. Hundreds of thousands of our ancestors have done the same against Mughal and Afghan tyranny and later against Hindu extremism: SSJSKB was merely laying his life down in accordance with true Sikh beliefs. Although it is seemingly quite evident that you yourself may have surrendered, a true Sikh would have fought to the death in the preservation of his religion, beliefs and honour, no matter how bad the odds, I know had I been there i would have. Sikhism, along with a select few cultures, has martial history coursing thru its veins. The defence of our religion has been intertwined with Sikh spirituality ever since Miri Piri by Guru HarGobind Ji. Shaheed Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bhindranwale laid down his life for the defence of the Sikh realm, and wateva Sikhs think of him, the vast majority applaud his actions in defending Shri Darbar Sahib. It would have been far more in keeping with Sikhi for the Sikh warriors to defend Shri Darbar Sahib, even if it meant its complete and utter destruction, than to lay down their arms and surrender meekly with their tails between the legs. Where is the honour in that? Our eternal prince Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji devised the Khalsa Panth and Sikhi to defend our beliefs and principles with our lives: Shaheed Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bhindranwale kept that tradition alive. Vik Singh

It may be a "grass roots" movement in Sikh orthodoxy (mostly abroad!), but it isn't amongst your bog standard Punjabi Sikh. Yes, Sikhs are not Hindus and deserve to be mentioned separately in the constitution. My argument was that this particular problem is mentioned so often and it's a trivial point. Being classified as Hindus has not forced Sikhs to perform anything that is Hindu. This point is often made far bigger than it actually is.

Britain has a uniform civil code, and it doesn't seem to stop Sikhs from getting married happily. What happens in a Gurdwara is entirely the business of Sikhs - the government merely requires a signed piece of paper.

Yes, my judgement may be clouded by the militant attacks. I find it difficult to believe that all of the terrorists (those are people who killed innocent Hindus and Sikhs) were Police 'cats'.

I appreciate your point about it being a Sikh state for Sikhs, not of them. However, although we can't be a hundred percent certain because no referendum has been held, I find it incredibly unlikely that more than half of Punjabis want Khalistan. For starters, nearly 40% are Hindu, and many Sikhs are against the idea too. Khalistan has no right to exist, unless the people of the region want it to (and whether they do or not is a contentious issue). If the people of Punjab freely vote to leave the Indian Union, then I support their wish.

In regards to language, I can't see for one reason why Punjabi would become more powerful if Khalistan was born. I doubt much of Punjabi-speaking (but Hindu) dominated Haryana/UP would join, and so the situation would be pretty much the same as it is now.

The demand for a Punjabi Suba was a ploy by Sikh groups to make a Sikh majority state - and I dare say they were pleased that Hindus chose Hindi, because this ensured a majority of Sikhs would be left in Punjab. People can't turn around and say now, we want a Sikh state in India and we were masking it with the issue of language. Indian states are ordered on linguistic and not religous grounds (and rightly so in my opinion).

I'm not here to defend the Indian army's entrance into the Golden Temple and I was strictly against it. However, I do believe that the situation got so out of hand that it needed to be done (although not in the way or time it was done). Ideally, it would never have got that far. And, I do not take Brar's statement at face value - that's merely the opinion of the Indian government. I personally don't know the truth behind why they attacked when they did and I certainly believe it was a bad, bad, decision. There were great injustices afterwards in terms of investigating exactly what happened (in Blue Star and the pogroms after), but that won't get fixed with the formation of Khalistan. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sukh, firstly, you have still not provided me with the reference and you have repeated this assertion above: "The Indian government claims that these gurdwaré were being used as bases for militants and neither you or I can prove/disprove that." Where, in which document? You need not be born in India to have affinity to the land or its regime. A person's skin-color and friends from a particular region often complicate his or her perception of his or her identity. Not knowing you, I don't want to get into a Freudian reading of your identity because that would be futile and unwise. I, however, will certainly be willing to perform a literary analysis of what you have written because it sure sounds like that you privelege information coming from your oppressor over the impusles that have shaped 500 years Sikh history. You rather disregard Guru Nanak's exhortation to defend yourself (see above) and the past when Sikhs died defending the Harmandar. Instead, you want to apologize for living a way of life (which includes a military tradition--that's why we are sant-sipahi). Someone attacks your home and you want to find a excuse in yourself instead of comdemning the crime of the attacker. Perhaps, Shah Jahan was also right to attack Guru Hargobind (4 times I should add) for bearing arms like Bhindrawale? You answer this question after deep reflection. Zafarnamah 02:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have little time for deep reflection. However, I've been away for a little while, so maybe that counts.

I haven't a specific reference for *why* the government attacked the other gurdwara - I presumed it was an attempt to attack terrorists who supposedly caused terror in the villages/cities of Punjab. I can't see what other reason the government would have for the attacks - I mean, there are probably thousands of gurdwaré in India, why would they just attack 37 (38 inc. GT)?

I don't privelege information coming from the GOI any higher than that of Sikh groups. Your assertion that I seem to disregard "impusles that have shaped 500 years Sikh history" is completely off the mark. Because I don't agree with what some Sikh groups have done in the last few decades, certainly does not imply that I forget about Sikh history in general. And more to the point, there seems to be this angle that because I don't always support "the Sikh point of view" (if such a thing exists) then I'm less of a Sikh. Because of course, certain Sikhs would never have their own agendas now would they? This applies just as much to the GOI.

There is a difference between defending ones faith and actually going out to attack innocent people. Groups like Babbar Khalsa completely undermine any credibility that they were "defending". There were grave injustices done against Sikhs, but I don't kid myself that Sikh groups themselves weren't also involved in a lot of the "sh*t-stirring".

Your comparison with Guru Hargobind is invalid. The situation and circumstances in 1984 were entirely different.Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Support for Khalistan

While the support for Khalistan has waned in India, it is incorrect to state that there is more support outside Punjab than in Punjab itself. As recently as two days ago, Prince Charles on his visit to Punjab was presented a memo from Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar), a major political party, to recognize the self-determination of the Sikhs. Not a single day goes by one does not hear of an arrest of a Sikh militant or some news related to Khalistan in Punjab. This is real grassroots activity on Khalistan that is absent in the West. I am able to produce as many new reports as you like--at least a dozen have been provided in the older remarks above on this page--to show that Khalistan movement has shifted from a violent movement to a more peaceful one and that there is, both, activity and support for it in Punjab. Those who make the claim that there is more support in the West for this movement, as the introduction presently states, need to prove it with evidence. Zafarnamah 15:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

To me it sounds like you are trying your best to gloss over the fact that support for the movement is SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than at its prime. --Blacksun 22:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that's what the would be implied by the word "waned". Furthermore, the central argument of the paragraph is that there is more support in Punjab than outside Punjab, something that needs to be addressed by the introduction's contrafactual account. There is no way to measure the strength of the movement and it would be a futile exercise to say anything more. Zafarnamah 23:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. One can measure the strength of the movement by quantifying it in terms of deaths associated to it. Sure you can point out that part of the reason for the massive drops in such numbers is due to the movement becoming peaceful (hopefully with a valid source) but that is definitely a good way to QUANTIFY it. --Blacksun 10:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Movements are not linear algebra that can be quanitifed by looking at the death rates. A sentiment for self-determination (Scotland and Qubec are good examples) can exist without a single person being killed. You are looking to ignore the complexity of the phenomeon by coming up with variables that suit you or make it easier for you to prove the conclusion that you would like to reach. Such teleology is disingenous. Look at the news reports in the U.S. and in India and tell me from which region the demand for Khalistan is emanating in the news reports. The majority of the sentiment and actual grass-roots work on this movement is occuring in Punjab and NOT in the West. Simple searches on Lexis Nexis and Google News will give you some idea.

Cynthia Keppley Mahmood has said it many times: You have not seen the end of this movement because none of the grivences faced by the people of Punjab have been addressed. Even simple issues like bringing political bosses who led pogroms against Sikhs in November 1984 have not taken place. Not a single leader indicted in 22 years! Most Sikhs are a people with strong memory of their history and they don't forget it easily. All of these efforts to quantify this sentiment of being wronged by Indian political and legal apparatus, and the movement resulting from this perceived reality, is a fulile exercise. Zafarnamah 15:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Cynthia Keppley is regarded as a loony even in American politics. A google on her and her antics will quite succintly show what causes she espouses and her rants against other communities, including anti semitic comments. How long will Khalistanis like you keep disseminating half truths, and propoganda merely because you want another sectarian state? Sikhs in India are least bothered with all this rubbish and have moved on. Unfortunately, expatriates like you keep pushing for it and causing havoc in India. - Akash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.180.77 (talk • contribs)

It is not the job of wikipedia to make sure that sentiments of every person are represented here. This movement can be and must be quantified in terms of deaths and other incidents associated to it. Their is no other important metric that I can think of and hence, emphasis must be on it. Everything else is POV. --Blacksun 17:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is our responsibility to ensure that any prominent opinions and sentiments are represented even if we think they're wrong. That would be NPOV. I agree, the movement can be quantified by deaths and 'incidents' associated with it. However, other quantifiers can be used in terms of political parties supporting it, general public support in Punjab and general public support within the Sikh community. Deaths and 'incident's are certainly not the only thing that should be mentioned or measured. Many of the people involved in the Khalistan movement are (or, were) terrorists - but by no means all. And, as Zafarnamah has pointed out, there are people working for Khalistan peacefully. Unfortunately for them, terrorism has overshadowed the movement. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My responsibility (suddenly discovered) is to push for Zarqawis POV. After all, by no means all those who support Al Qaeda were/ are terrorists. Why the heck are you people pushing for such sectarian apologia for a discredited, violent, irrendist movement? Does it not even bother you that the amount of terrorism committed involved many Sikhs, not merely the state, and was fought against by other Sikhs and it is a period of history that is best left, so that the wounds heal? But no. Rabble rousers like Zafarnamah are using the Wikipedia as a means of personal agitpropoganda, and everyone has to stand by idly and see it as a POV? I reiterate- this is not at all productive, but utterly shameful and irresponsible. - Akash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.180.77 (talk • contribs)

Well you have a problem with Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you can't handle it, go through the appropriate channels to change it. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

General public support? How were you planning on measuring that? Also, yes by all means do mention the political parties that support the idea. However, at the same time also mention the number of seats or votes they get. --Blacksun 06:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets all indulge in propogating facts vs counterfacts on this webpage- the entire mess shall all be POV after all, because we have to indulge the Z's on their Khalistani binge.- Akash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.180.77 (talk • contribs)