Talk:Khalistan movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Khalistan movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] POV or not POV

69.72.28.26 05:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Almost all of what is said in this section is Hindutva propaganda and not factual. Bhindranwale was NOT a terrorist and did not orfer terrorist acts. No Sikh leader would proclaim himself the 11th guru. Guru Gobind Singh gave Guruship to the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh holy scripture.

So this guy is a "Hindutvaadi"?From Bhindranwale to bin-Laden by Mark Juergensmeyer, University of California, Santa Barbara lol! How hilarious. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Bhindranwale did say, however, that if the Indian government attacked the Golden Temple, they would "lay the foundation stone of Khalistan." Former Jathedar of the Akal Takht Darshan Singh has said, "If a Sikh is not a Khalistani, he is not a Sikh." 69.72.28.26 05:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought I would stay away from the article. I mean it is an encyclopedia afterall, not the end of the world. But if you blame me for it, then I might as well do it.

It was quite interesting to note that the reference to K.P.S. Gill's book was conveniently removed. Well here is why. K.P.S. Gill preided over the deaths of over 50,000 Sikhs. While he was the head of the Punjab police, the government paid out over 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for killing Sikhs, according to that pro-Khalistani source, the U.S. State Department. One such bounty, according to published reports in India, was paid to a police officer who killed a three-year-old boy.

69.72.28.26 05:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)The fact is that when the Indian government invaded the Golden Temple and simultaneously attacked 37 other Sikh Gurdwaras around Punjab, they killed over 20,000 Sikhs in that operation. They shot bullet holes in an original copy of the Guru Granth Sahib and they took young Sikh boys ages 8 to 13 out in the courtyard of the Golden Temple complex and shot them to death. 69.72.28.26 05:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Bhindrawale, the self proclaimed 11th Guru of the Sikhs committed perhaps the greatest acts of sacrilege in the Golden Temple and holiest part within the complex: the Akal Takht, seat of the the temporal power of God. Soon, he and his death squads turned the holiest of Sikh shrines into a torture chamber and a place where kidnapped women would be brought and raped repeatedly before being brutally killed. I reproduce few extracts from the book (Chapter IV):

...The killings, the torture, and now, increasingly, rape once more defiled the sacred shrine. A large number of kidnapped women were kept captive in the Temple, to be ‘used’ when and how the ‘warriors of Khalistan’ pleased; and then to be killed in cold blood; almost without exception, these were Sikh women...

...A substantial amount of jewellery and expensive clothes belonging to Jawahar Kaur, were also recovered. If further evidence of the ‘holy warrior’s’ inclinations was needed, video copies of blue movies were also found in the house. Sukhdev Singh owned another bungalow, the Pink House at Rajpura, and a third one in the Model Town area...

...In early 1991, Madha Singh, a "Lt. General" of the Babbar Khalsa, and his associate Inderjit Singh Sakhira, raped Sarabjit Kaur and Paramjit Kaur, the daughters Harbhajan Singh Jat of Sirhali and subsequently abducted and forcibly married them. This was Madha Singh’s third ‘marriage’...

...Jaspal Singh Bhuri, a "Lt. General" of the KCF, abducted an 18 year old girl, Beant Kaur of Manochahal village in December 1990. She was kept in captivity for over four months, and was ‘used’ to satisfy the lust of various gang members. In April 1991 she was released. However, Bhuri followed her to her village and forced her to consume cyanide, because he felt she would damage his group’s reputation....

...Sukhdev Singh ‘Sukha Sipahi’, alias ‘General Labh Singh’, the then KCF Chief, had developed a relationship with a married woman, Surjit Kaur, the wife of Gurdip Singh Thekedar. In July 1988, suspecting her ‘fidelity’, he and his associates gave her a severe beating and set her house on fire. Sukhdev Singh was later killed in a police encounter. His nephew, Paramjit Singh Panjwar, and an associate, Jagjit Singh Billa, believing the woman had acted as a police informer, killed her in October 1989...

and finally...here is why the Blue Star took place:

...Bhindranwale ordered a brutal ‘execution’ within the Temple precincts itself. In April 1983, A.S. Atwal, a Deputy Inspector General of Police, came to pray at the Temple; after receiving prasad at the Harmandir Sahib, he walked out towards the marble steps near the main entrance of the Complex where he was shot dead in broad daylight, with scores of witnesses standing by...

...The killers danced the bhangra around the felled DIG, and then sauntered back into the Temple. Atwal’s body, "riddled with bullets, lay in the main entrance to the Sikhs most sacred shrine for more than two hours before the District Commissioner could persuade the Temple authorities to hand it over."...

Well there is plenty more. And the details of the sacrileges committed by the Sikh terrorists during the Operation Black Thunder are particularly interesting. There is plenty of stuff availabe on the Net.

So why do not we revert to the so called "Neutral version" by Zafarnama and include this stuff as well and plenty more on the gruesome horrors that these warriors of Sikh faith inflicted on the people of Punjab...a majority of whom were Sikhs. There is plenty of evidence. This book is one.

The end of these killers was brought by not the army, nor the police. It was brought by the brave Sikhs of Punjab themselves, who were by then sick and tired of the atrocities committed by the terrorists in the name of faith.

"The two communities have always lived in peace - in Punjab and elsewhere. They will continue to do so."

69.72.28.26 05:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)This is an utterly false statement. There has been strife ever since independence. 69.72.28.26 05:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT. Keep khali nonsense in khali websites, thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sikhs are the brave soldiers of this great nation and Punjab is its inseparable part. Some people however find it very difficult to digest this.

"The Khalistan movement is DEAD....thankfully for the people of Punjab, in particular the Sikhs. Khalistan is past tense."

69.72.28.26 05:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)False. In the past couple of years, there has been notable activism in support of Khalistan: seminars, marches, rallies, and other such events. The chameleon Simranjit Singh Mann, who flip-flops on this issue like a pancake, has flipped back in support of it. In June 2005 and January 2006, activists were arrested and charged simply for making speeches in support of Khalistan and raising the Khalistani flag, as reported in Indin newspapers.

Try to find some Reliable Sources that back this laughable nonsense. I double-dog dare you. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, just in November 2006, there was a singificant pro-Khalistan presence and pro-Khalistan chants at the observance of the anniversary of Guru Nanak's passing in Nankana Sahib. Those ar ethe facts, but I suppose that the Hindus' version of "neutral point of view" precludes putting facts such as these into the article. 69.72.28.26 05:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Riiight. Everything in life is a Hindu conspiracy. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts...any one ??? AnwarA 16:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I know Zafarnamah isn't gonna like me saying this, but I tend to agree. Khalistan is *dead*. Bhindranwale was not a martyr - he was overcome by ego and did evil things (or at the very least turned a blind eye to atrocious acts when he had the power to stop them). As I've said many many many times on this page, we're not here to decide what is real or not. If published sources contain details we should cover them - not make opinions about whether they're true or not. As such, both the views of KPS Gill and the views represented by the sources Zafarnamah has given need to be included here. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that! AnvarA is a bigoted Punjabi Hindu, who removed all references to Operation Blue star and has provides the Indian states (the sarkari) account. People like him would sell their mothers if they had to...that's how they denied Punjabi being their mother tongue. Let's see what's he's to up next. He has already removed much information from legitamite third-party sources.138.49.154.3 17:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What kind of a language is this person using. I strongly object. Please apologise to Anwar and concentrate on making the article better. -- 203.101.3.184 18:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, comments such as "AnvarA is a bigoted Punjabi Hindu" and "People like him would sell their mothers" are not acceptable here. Even though you're an anonymous IP, you can *STILL* be banned. Remain civil. Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear friends! Please pay no attention to 138.49.154.3's comments, (which I have no doubt is Zafarnama). I have not taken no offence as the comments are motivated by a sheer frustration and helplessness. My objective is to turn this article into a good article and I would require your support in doing that. I have enough knowlege of this subject simply by virtue of the three decades I have spent in Punjab. AnwarA 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

AnvarA, your assumption is incorrect! I disagree with you and Sukh about the nature of the movement, which is weak but NOT dead. Therefore, it must be stated in present-tense This is not a military movement; it is highly political. Dal Khalsa and SAD-Amrtitsar as political entities based in Punjab that support this movement, so how can it be dead? As long as a single person get up and demands Khalistan, the movement according to English grammer must be stated in the present-tense.

Sukh, you are misinformed about Bhindranwale. No need to engage in slander and libel if you have not listened to his speeches. Primary sources take precedence to the propoganda of the Indian state's media, of which you are a victim. If you want to discuss Bhindranwale, I would suggest we debate the content of his speeches, which have been translated in form of a book by Sandhu in case you don't have access to the audio files that are also freely available. Also see [1] for a refutation of your assumptions.

AnvarA presents his communal version of this article supported by criminals like K.P.S Gill (according to Human Rights Watch) [2] and Brar who killed tens of thousands of innocent Sikhs. Originally, we had a more scholarly version with a long list of references from mainstream scholars like Joyce Pettigrew and human rights activists like Ram Narayan Kumar. Why has AnvarA removed most of them? If he is impartial, he should agree that both sides of the story need to be told. We have two sides of the story in front of us--one in the original article represented in the version [06:09, 5 July 2006 Zafarnamah] and second represented by [15:24, 5 July 2006 AnwarA]. Why don't we add the second version to the first, so we have a balanced story? Otherwise, a revert war is inevitable. Zafarnamah 20:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't time to read that document just yet, so I will reserve further judgement until I have. However, for the record, KPS Gill's side of the story definately deserves MORE than just a mention on this page. And, Joyce Pettigrew may be a mainstream scholar (whatever that means), but her list of publications doesn't suggest that: [3].

But I agree with Zafarnamah that *both* sides of the story need to be told, and and such, both sources can (and should) be used. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I would not restrict myself to Pettigrew in any manner. There are dozens of non-Sikh scholars who have been cited in the version that I support. In my version, I even ended the Blue Star account with a quote from Brar, providing a sarkari version of the story. I think if we do NOT remove mainstream scholarly sources and, at the same time, add Indian govenment sources like Brar, the article would appear much more balanced. This is the best alternative if we are to more forward constructively.Zafarnamah 20:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Arvsingh AnvarA is quoting lies and exaggeration to prevent documentation of organized discrimination and genocide of Sikhs in Punjab.

69.72.28.26 05:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Over 250,000 killed by Indian forces since 1984, according to figures compiled by the Punjab State Magistracy, wich represents teh judiciary in Punjab, and human rihts groups, and quoted in The Policis of Genocide by Inderjit Singh Jaijee. 69.72.28.26 05:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly believe that his comments should be removed from here as they are insulting and offensive to the Sikh religious sentiments. He is reusing the old propoganda articles of the Indian Government and the bigot Hindu newspapers from Punjab. It is amazing how people like him have instigated and provoked Sikhs in Punjab and they continue to do so. Even after the massacre of Sikh pilgrims inside the Golden Temple, genocide of thousands of Sikh youths in rural Punjab, massacre of thousands of Sikhs in Delhi and other parts of India, bigots like him have the audacity to blame the Sikhs and quote lies to defame the Sikhs. Please remove his idiotic comments and allow the people to contribute to this section.

Anwar has not personally attacked anyone and as far as I am aware is only expressing his view. Wikipedia is not censored and his view has as much right to be here as yours. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

69.72.28.26 05:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)The way that the article is written now is very biased toward the Indian government's point of view nd against the Khalistani point of view. 69.72.28.26 05:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bhindranwale

(There was too much indentation so I decided to start a new thread)

Well, I guess when Zafarnama talks of Bhindrawale's "inspiring" speaches, I doubt if he is referring to one of those speaches when he encouraged every Sikh boy to keep 200 grenades with him, or when he directed each village to raise a team of three youth with one revolver each and a motorcycle. I also doubt whether he is referring to a speach delivered to his "devotees" in which he said "those who want to become extremists should raise their hands and others should hang their heads like goats. Perhaps he is referring to one of those speaches in which he said that a mere 35 Hindus fell to the portion of each Sikh and encouraged his followers to procure a motorcycle, a gun, and to set about their task (of eliminating Hindus and Nirankaris) in earnest.

Bhindrawale's speaches are no secret. These are extracts from Bhindrawale's speaches published by the Damdami Taksal and have been mocked by eminent writers such as Khushwant Singh. Khushwant Singh writes: "...Did the Sikhs deserve to be taught a lesson? I pondered over the matter for many days and many hours and reluctantly admitted that Hindus had some justification for their anger against Sikhs. The starting point was the emergence of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale as a leader.He (Bhindrawale) used vituperative language against the Hindus. He exhorted every Sikh to kill 32 Hindus to solve the Hindu-Sikh problem. Anyone who opposed him was put on his hit list and some eliminated. His hoodlums murdered Lala Jagat Narain, founder of the Hind Samachar group of papers. They killed hawkers who sold their papers.

The list of Bhindranwale's victims, which included both Hindus and Sikhs, was a long one. More depressing to me was that no one spoke out openly against him. He had a wily patron in Giani Zail Singh who had him released when he was charged as an accomplice in the murder of Jagat Narain. Akali leaders supported him..."

The Very same article critizes in the harshest words the anti-sikh riots and the subsequent government inaction in bringing the culprits to justice. I guess he is also a criminal, eh Zafar? ;-)

Yet, worst still was the fact that Bhindrawale had the audacity to carry at all times an arrow imitating the Tenth Guru, Shri Guru Gobind Singh.

To quote Khushwant Singh yet again: "The dark months of alienation are over; the new dawn promises blue skies and sunshine for the minorities with only one black cloud remaining to be blown away-a fair deal to families of victims of the anti-Sikh violence of 1984..."

The two communities are brothers again. The Sikh is once again the venerable "Sardar Ji" for the entire nation. AnwarA 05:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have extensive familiarity with Jarnail Singh's speeches. I have never heard of him advocating hate against "Hindus". His target was the government which openly favors the Hindus--Bhindranwale was intelligent enough to make this important distinction. Khushwant Singh is cooking up facts based on his reading of the Indian media and not Bhindranwale's speeches. I challenge you to find me a mention of "200 grenades" that you mention--if you can not, then you are also guilty of cooking up facts like Khushwanta. I am yet to find a speech in which Bhindranwale spread hate against any community; his target was the oppressive state which has one set of rules for Hindus and another set for Sikhs and Muslims. Tell me why are Sajjan Kumar, Jagdish Tytler, Kamal Nath roaming free and why did Satwant Singh and Beant Singh receive "justice" immediately? Why is Narendra Modi, a Hindu militant roaming free, when Muslims are punished with utmost swiftness? Anwar Lal, the issue of Khalistan is alive because Sikhs have not seen justice--not a single issue has been resolved. Sikhs have a very long memory if you have read your history books and await justice and this lack of justice is the main causes of the movement for Khalistan.Zafarnamah 20:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, K.P.S. Gill cannot be quoted because he is a criminal. Khushwant Singh cannot be quoted because he cooking facts. Interesting! So anyone who does not subsribe to your views is either a criminal or a liar or a bigoted Hindu ???? AnwarA 03:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My philosophy is that anyone too close to the situation has the potential to be biased, so let's judge the situation using non-Sikh and non-Hindu sources. Bigoted Hindus or Sikhs should be called to service only to present a communitarian perspective, so that ALL views are represented and nothing is left out. Comprende? That's why your insidious efforts to remove all references of Western scholars and provide only the govenment-endorsed accounts are inexcusable. KPS Gill has killed innocent Sikhs for the Indian state and Khushwant Singh is a Keshadhari Hindu in my book. Zafarnamah 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

AnvarA, this would be illuminating for you: [4] it concerns the myth of justice and peace returning to Punjab. Amarjit Singh is addressing Kuldip Nayar, a Panjabi Hindu who served as the Indian High Commissioner in the U.K. He came to the Chicago Palentine Gurdwara making claims of peace returning to Punjab. After this rejoinder by Amarjit Singh to his speech, he ran away with his face hanging in shame. Zafarnamah 03:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Arvsingh Another attempt by AnvarA to dispute the facts on discrimination and genocide of Sikhs in India. Please remove his comments as they are hurtful to many who suffered under the persecution by the Indian Government. People like him have only one agenda - to provoke others. Advice for AnvarA "Find something else to do and do not spread false lies about Sikhs. One day you have to answer to a supreme authority for your actions. How will you explain these lies?"

When did Jarnail Singh declare himself the 11th Guru of the Sikhs? - This statement is false and he never declared himself as such.

[edit] Protected

This page has been protected because there has been too much reverting without any discussion. What's more the reverts are identical which shows a complete lack of any attempt to debate or compromise.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.. It was really disturbing to see only reverts on this page... Now that its protected, I am willing to participate in the discussions on this page on what should be included and what not. Regards -- Lost 08:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lost, I look forward to working with you and others. It has been frustrating to see too much pro-India reverts by three individuals here without any desire to discuss the legitimacy of third-party sources that diverge significantly from the Indian account. 138.49.98.58 09:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we begin by deciding that we will use only neutral/third party sources and link to/cite pro India/ pro Khalistan sources only if the third party sources are absent? -- Lost 10:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with this view. Some tactical suggestions on how to proceed are below. Zafarnamah 19:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I completely disagree with this approach. Not only do I feel it is subjective to decide what is neutral, but it goes against Wikipedia policy. I think a better approach would be to strip out all citations from unpublished work. Essentially, that means anything that isn't in a book or newspaper. If any sources conflict, we should offer *all* sources and opinions in equal measure with equal footing. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no issues with Sukh's approach, as long as we also adhere to WP:NPOV. To borrow a line from Newton: Every action must have had a reaction (not necessarily equal and opposite though). It is important to document both the action and the reaction. But seriously speaking, I do view the current external links and citations as biased in both versions -- Lost 20:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, Sukh, I think it is not subjective to decide whats neutral. Otherwise how would we ever adhere to WP:NPOV. I also dont understand how we are violating WP:V if we are going to cite published sources -- Lost 20:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think generally the three of us are in agreement that we need to provide a balanced perspective. I like Lost's suggestion that we first use "neurtal" third-party sources that are established scholars on the Punjab conflict and human rights. This ought to be supplemented by additional perspectives available only when completely necessary. Zafarnamah 20:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I should probably clarify what I meant. I don't think it's suitable for us to discount sources (on either side) merely because they appear biased to us. For example, KPS Gill's accounts of events are evidentally going to be biased - but that's not for us to judge. As he was so deeply involved in crushing the separtist movement, his opinion deserves more than a mention here. In addition, we should find sources that may conteract what KPS Gill claims.

Either way, we're all in agreement as to what this page needs to become. I'll continue this conversation further down in the suggested sources section. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Compromise and Resolution Suggestions

Lost, thank you for your initiative to begin these discussions afresh! There are two popular versions that demand our scrutiny as a group:

1. An abridged version (see [5]) based largely on Western scholars and human rights groups as far as the post-1984 account is concerned. This version has been abridged from a much more comprehensive version that is reflective of the complete history but was deemed to be too long for an encyclopedia entry.

2. A highly pro-India version (that is current on the main article page [6]) removes most of the credible third-party sources by Western scholars and inserts the accounts of Indian govenment operatives such as ex-Major General K.S. Brar and the former Director General of Punjab Police and a convicted sex-criminal K.P.S. Gill (see recent news about him at [7] and [8]).

(((hahaha, just thought the convicted sex-criminal in bold was funny, hahaha))) 219.91.203.71 23:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

To satisfy all parties, I would like to propose that select pro-India sources from # 2 above be added to #1. A good example of this proposal is reflected in the Operation Bluestar section of #1, which ends the section by also quoting K.S. Brar who led the attack on behalf of the Indian state. Thus, both sides of the story are narrated. The scholarly sources (such as Joyce Pettigrew, Cynthia Mahmood, Ram Narayan Kumar, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty Internation, Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, etc.) that are cited in #1 are important to include since they provide the most credible evidence based on research and factual accounts by recognized authorities in the field. Furthermore, the comprehensive reading list at the end of #1 demands our attention.

69.72.28.26 05:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)There is too much from the pro-India side already. 69.72.28.26 05:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

69.72.28.26 05:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Where are links to sites like Khalistan: The New Global Reality and the Council of Khalstan? There are plenty of links to pro-India sources.69.72.28.26 05:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The suggestions of others are welcome so we may make progress on this article.Zafarnamah 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zafarnamah, I agree with you that the scholarly sources mentioned by you above must be cited as much as possible. Especially those sources that have done some good research on the subject.

In fact I think we should exclusively cite only the reliable neutral sources. But we really really need to make sure that we tell the truth from a neutral point of view. That is one of the core policies of Wikipedia.

Most of the current list of external links and citations in both versions of the current article seem biased one way or the other to me.

Quoting a journalist sometimes carries a risk as those remarks are made against a current backdrop and do not take the comprehensive situation into view.

I found the following two links quite neutral and comprehensive. Please feel free to add any neutral source to the below list. Then lets start modifying the article with the help of an admin till it reflects the accurate and neutral point of view. -- Lost 19:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer if we stuck to Human Rights groups and established scholars with specilization on Punjab. The Yale article is by someone who has zero expetise on any region of South Asia, let alone Punjab. Zafarnamah 20:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sources for a neutral article

SOURCES AVAILABLE ONLINE

Comprehensive list of independent Human Rights sources on Punjab -- Amensty International, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights. [9]
HRW detailing Punjab problem from both sides
Ram Narayan Kumar et al. Reduced to Ashes: The Insurgency and Human Rights in Punjab. South Asia Forum for Human Rights, 2003. [10] [11]
Jaskaran Kaur, Barbara Crossette. Twenty Years of Impunity: The November 1984 Pogroms of Sikhs in India. London: Nectar, 2004.[12]
Jaskaran Kaur. "A Judicial Blackout: Judicial Impunity for Disappearances in Punjab, India," Harvard Human Rights Journal / Vol. 15, Spring 2002 [13]
Amnesty International, “India: Break the cycle of impunity and torture in Punjab”, January 2003. [14]
Cynthia Keppley Mahmood, “Writing the Bones,” Human Rights Review, October-December, 1999. [15]
R.S. Sandhu. Struggle for Justice: Speeches and Conversations of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. Ohio: SERF, 1999. (Excerpts at [16])
Mark Tully. "After Blue Star", BBC Television Programme. Transcript available: [17] [18].
Gendercide.com -- Case study on gendercide in India in the context of Sikhs/Punjab [19]

Google Books [20]. Some of the books below are available to search here. Excellent resource.

SOURCES NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE

Cynthia Keppley Mahmood. Fighting for Faith and Nation: Dialogues With Sikh Militants. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Cynthia Keppley Mahmood. A Sea Of Orange: Writings on the Sikhs and India. Xlibris Corporation.
Cynthia Keppley Mahmood. “Dynamics of Terror in Punjab and Kashmir,” Jeffrey A. Sluka, ed., Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000.
Joyce Pettigrew. The Sikhs of the Punjab: Unheard Voices of State and Guerrilla Violence. Zed Books Ltd., 1995.
Joyce Pettigrew. “Parents and Their Children in Situations of Terror: Disappearances and Special Police Activity in Punjab.” Jeffrey A. Sluka, ed., Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000.
Harnik Deol. Religion and Nationalism in India: The Case of the Punjab. London: Routledge, 2000
Iqbal Singh. Punjab Under Siege: A Critical Analysis. New York: Allen, McMillan and Enderson, 1986.
Paul Brass. Language, Religion and Politics in North India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.
Mark Tully, Satish Jacob. "Amritsar - Mrs Gandhi's Last Battle". Jonathan Capte Ltd, 1985 (reprinted 1986).
Professor Gurtej Singh. Chakravyuh: Web of Indian Secularism.
Inderjit Singh Jaijee. The Politics of Genocide.

These are good for looking at other possible sources, but they're not good enough to be referenced directly for an article as controversial as this. Please see my post above and give your views. Thanks! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Zafarnamah, I do not have access to the offline books etc. so will not be able to comment on them. However, the external links that you added are all for Pro Khalistan websites. This is exactly what I am trying to caution against when I speak of WP:NPOV. Can we look at websites/ references that dont tell just one side of the story. Also please see the conversation with Sukh -- Lost 20:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lost, that' a huge generalization. Can you be specific on each source. Please don't look at the webpage but the actual source. For example, a PDF file by Amensty International on a so-called "Khalistani website" is still Amenesty's work. Would you not agree? If you find a particual source that is indeed Khalistani I would support its removal. Zafarnamah 20:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me put it this way. I would be much more comfortable if we linked to Amnesty's report on Amnesty's website instead of a third site. -- Lost 20:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no issues with that. We have the title and we should be able to find it directly on Amenesty's site as well. And the same goes for other sources. I am glad that we agree in philosophy that we need to look at the author/content and not the site on which the work is distributed. Zafarnamah 20:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely no issues. But as I said above, it will be our duty to view it from a neutral editor's perspective. So if Amnesty talks about an issue, we should put a perspective to the issue as seen from both sides using reliable sources. -- Lost 20:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, please see my clarification above. I think we can all agree to the following basic principles of what we can reference:

Published books and reports
Peer-reviewed papers/reports
Published newspapers and their online editions

In addition, we should refrain from quoting unless absolutely necessary. We're not writing a thesis here, merely a *short* yet concise encyclopedia article. The current article is poor in respect to the fact that it quotes a lot. We can use the notes section to expand on snippets from books, but they should not be in the body of the article.

I propose that we start a new article at /Temp and add only information that fulfils the above criteria. We can start by considering a layout and basic topics to be covered. We should also write the introduction last (for obvious reasons). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should begin with a set of issues that have divided us before and reach a consensus on them. Once we nail them down, we would make much better progress. Zafarnamah 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, lets list the controversial ones on this page and have a debate around them. The basic facts that are not controversial (are there any?) can be put on the temp article. I will not be able to be regular for the next few days, but now that we have a discussion on, I am sure we can carry it on. I will keep butting in and out as time permits. Also I hope more people join in, so that we can take everyone forward on this -- Lost 12:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

This article has been protected for almost a month, but I don't see much discussion. Has the dispute died down? If so, I will unprotect the page as it's been more than long enough and re-protect should the edit warring continue. Cowman109^Talk 03:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Zafarnama appears to be a Sikh terrorist and is therefore constantly adding his pro-khalistan nonsense to the page. This page should be unprotected immediately so that sane people can resume editing this page and remove Zafarnama's bullshit. 24.201.90.114 03:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I Agree !!! 66.38.180.253 20:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The bastard has been messing up the article on [Operation Blue Star] as well. 192.206.28.62 21:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request Page move

OK, last time I suggested this it didn't work out so well because of personal attacks. But in all truth, the page is about the Khalistan movement which occurred in the past. It does not talk about the people of Khalistan, it's history or anything else that one would see in an article named after a state or country (or proposed state) in this case. It just makes sense to move this to a Khalistan movement page. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I support such a move. I too think that the article as it stands is terrible and misleads the reader into thinking that Khalistan is some sort of real place.It should be moved and cleaned up.Hkelkar 05:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I object. Not so much because I don't believe that a separate page is required for the movement (I do), but I don't think that this should redirect to that page. This should be about the entity of Khalistan (whether it exists or not) - the movement page should discuss the movement for such a state.

I get the impression that people think I'm trying to legitimise the Khalistan concept by moving to keep this page. I'm really not - I just can see the distinction between the movement and the proposed state. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point.However, the article, as it stands,does not say anything at all about the so-called Khalistan (merely that it was meant to be "secular" and a "Sikh State"). The article should only describe what Khalistan was about, then link to the "Khalistan Movement", where the present article should be moved, as it s largely about the movement only.Hkelkar 21:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think for the sake of page histories. We should move "Khalistan" to "Khalistan movement" (as that is what this article is about) and then come back, get rid of the redirect on "Khalistan" and begin work on an article about the proposed nation-state and its proposed government, leaders, demographics as well as a bit on the religious turmoil. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me as long as the original page is recreated pretty much immediately. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 08:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot, but I'll do it now. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the second suggestion. I have been thinking this for a while, and am glad someone suggested it. Hornplease 22:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Confusion?

I think a para needs to be there for any justifications given for 25-2(b) to balance the section out.Hkelkar 06:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote out of context

I removed this quote:

"...the silence of graveyard that obtains in Punjab today is not a reflection of peace. The enquiry being conducted by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the disappearances and illegal cremations in Punjab, shows the deep social division that is endangering the prospects of justice and peace in the state...Although this matter or police abductions leading to illegal cremations was initiated six years ago before the NHRC, the commission unfortunately has failed to examine a single case of abuse. It has also not heard a single victim's testimony or deposition

for the reason that the quote does not allege any actual violence in Punjab, just to "social divisions" (Hello! What part of this planet doesn't have any??), "disappearences" and "illegal cremations" and vague allegations of "police abductions". None of this indicates endemic sectarian rebellions etc in the region.Hkelkar 06:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

69.72.28.26 05:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)The illegal, secret cremations are not an allegation. They are, in fact, proven by the report filed by the late Jaswant Singh Khalra just before he was picked up by the police in September 1995 while washing his car. He was killed in the middle of October that year, while still in police custody. His report on the graveyard at Tarn Taran, among others, showed the secret cremation policy. By this policy, young Sikhs (Khalra's work said 25,000, but subsequent investigations have placed the number over 50,000) were picked up, tortured, killed in custody, declerd "unidentified bodies", and cremated. This is not a mere allegation; it is a clearly-established fact.69.72.28.26 05:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Criminal Tribe" thingie

I think that phrase was coined for the Phoolan Devi's bandits, not Sikhs. But Syiem put Dubious there and so it should be discussed. Does anyone have a source to back it up?Hkelkar 13:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the phrase was used for Phoolan's Devi's bandits and not Sikhs, I suggest the line should be deleted. Syiem 12:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

69.72.28.26 05:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Not according to the Patel memo. It said that Sikhs should be considered a criminal tribe.69.72.28.26 05:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

n the way, they hacked off the arm of a Hindu sweetmeats seller. This was regarded as probably the first act of terrorist violence in Punjab. On arriving at the convention, Fauja Singh tried to behead the Nirankari leader with his sword but was shot by the leader's bodyguard. The brawl that ensued thereafter, left 13 of the raiding party dead, including two of Bhindranwale’s followers. Another eleven of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha were killed. Three Nirankaris were also killed. Bhindranwale himself was reported to have fled the scene just as the violence broke out which damaged relations between him and the Akhand Kirtani Jatha. Fauja Singh’s widow often blamed him for her husband’s death.

These statements dispute the neutrality of the article. All these have a Pro_nirankari bias .

The article needs to be cleaned up of these statements

And replaced with what? Anti-Nirankari bias? Please. I appreciate your efforts to (Finally) discuss this matter, but I'm afraid that your edits have been extremely tendentious. Your extending the olive branch here is, of course, appreciated and I thank you.However, your statements in the article were extremely inflammatory.

Now, having said that. Start by pointing out specific sentences that you object to in the article as it stands and make your case according to the wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. remember that I can help you check for sources if you want and would be very happy to do so. Sat-sri-akaal.Hkelkar 06:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, a "blog" does not count as a WP:Reliable Sources. Plus, that sikhgenocide.org website is dubious. I mean, if you can put that up then I can put up www.hinduholocaust.com on wikipedia as a ref too can't I, but that would be unfair.Hkelkar 06:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

69.72.28.26 05:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)There is an excellent article from Forbes Magazine a few years ago that discusses the impending breakup of India, and there is a Newsmax article that has been reprinted by several sources which discusses the Indian abuses in Punjab (Khalistan), as well as one from last year that was published by the London Institute of South Asia. I will find the links in the morning. 69.72.28.26

"The London institute of South Asia" is a bogus organization and a front for various terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Toiba. They publish anti-Semitic propaganda from the likes of V. T. Rajshekar that practice holocaust denial and glorify Hitler. Please keep Indophobic nonsense about "India breaking up" out of a neutral encyclopedia. Britishers have been saying "India will break up" since 1947 and nothing has happened. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nirankari

Who are the nirankaris?Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out Nirankaris. Syiem 14:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom of religion, but no freedom of language

Is that theocracy or democratic secularism ?

Clue. Its not democratic plural secularism

And why is the feature of Ronald Reagan's reaction to the assasination of the PM always deleted ?

Looks like some people have an issue with freedom of Speech ?

Welcome to my world man! Hkelkar 09:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Please don't engage in a blanket revert war. Wikipedia is not a forum for spam and/or expressing views on talkpages unrelated to article content. We aim to build a WP:NPOV encyclopaedia and deleting sourced content is against Wiki policy. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 21:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False claim

I have removed the following statement, "The Sikh Gurus themselves married under Hindu Ceremonial rites, thus it becomes an ironic question today when asked by separitist proponents, that there is no separate marriage act dealing specifically with Sikh marriages." This is nothing but a false claim, anybody thinking otherwise kindly provide a reliable reference. A. S. Aulakh^Talk 04:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not false

The SGGS was fully compiled after the death of the 10th Guru, so how could the Gurus have married around the SGGS when it was not a 'Living Guru' when they were alive at the time ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.192.59.238 (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/h/a/Talk%7EKhalistan_movement_3176.html"