Talk:Khalistan movement/Archive 3

From January 2006 to March 2006

Further Reading Section

I am deleting this section in its entirety since the References section is more comprehensive. If anyone disagrees, please revert the change I am about to make. Zafarnamah 09:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Area of Khalistan

The addition of a map makes a useful representation of a proposed Khalistan. But I was under the impression that Khalistan would comprise all the Punjabi speaking areas around Punjab? Including bits of HP and Rajasthan? I've also seen reports that suggest even bits of Pakistan could be envisioned as part of Khalistan! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I can see people including Punjabi area from other states, but no real proposal exists. We can either 1) remove this map and do some research on this issue, or 2) keep the map as it exists until someone comes along and provides a better alternative. It's your call. Zafarnamah 06:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be removed until a consensus forms within the Khalistan cause as to what the boundaries of the country would be. Once we get confirmation of this, we can put a map up. My understanding has always been that there is no consensus as to the geographial boundaries of Khalistan. All that is certain is that Indian Punjab is always an integral part. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The area of Khalistan that is widely accepted is the current area of Punjab, the adjoining districts of Panchkula and Ambala in Haryana in their entirety along with the Kaithal tehsil of Karnal district and some tehsils in both Sirsa and Fatehabad districts, the northern third of Ganganagar district in Rajasthan, focussed around the city of Ganganagar itself and finally the districts of Kangra, Una, Bilaspur, Hamirpur and Solan in Himachal Pradesh. These districts, according to the official government websites themselves, all have significant Sikh populations with Punjabi being at least on par with Hindi, if not more widely spoken. The current area of Punjab is around 50,000sq km with the adjoining districts having an area of 20,000sq km, making a proposed Khalistan state (of 70,000sq km) the equivalent of the Irish Republic, for comparison sake. I myself have drawn a map of the proposed Khalistan state and it is pretty accurate, far more so than the rather amateurish map that was displayed on this page. If the moderator/observer wants to have a look at the map and ok it first, then please leave a comment and i shall do my best to send it to you.

Introduction

I think the introduction is too long and the direct quotes are inappropriate. I feel a general introduction, outlining what Khalistan is and why the movement was formed is all that's needed here. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the propoganda that has dominated the issue of Khalistan in the Indian press, is the only reason to provide direct quotes. But let me try to rewrite the introduction and shorten it. Zafarnamah 06:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The Council of Khalsitan has said that it is willing to negotiate teh boundaries of an independent Khalistan, so long as that is the only subject of the negotiation. it says the demand for independence is non-negotiable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.225.126.64 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC).

NPOV Tag

The article is at a stage where we can remove the NPOV tag. If anyone sees an opinion that requires removal or revision, please feel free to make that change or make a request and I will make the change. Zafarnamah 15:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Volatileacid's edits

I've reverted one of Volatileacid's changes because it completely removed the bit about the language controversy. Several sources back this up, especially [1].

I've left the other edits because I am a bit anxious to see how Pettigrew came to the conclusion that "...timed for an important anniversary in the Sikh calendar, sought to maximize Sikh casualties." I haven't got the book in question, so if anyone could clarify what she wrote about this and what evidence she has for saying such things, then it is appreciated. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the controversial phrase "to maximize Sikh casualties" and I have reinserted what is almost a direct quote from Pettirgrew, shortening it a bit. It's an indisputable fact, however, that the attack was planned and rehearsed beforehand. Ram Narayan Kumar also has shown that the date picked by the army was deliberate (see his Reduced to Ashes for useful references). There is no other explanation except the army’s objective to maximize the number of Sikhs killed. Ahmed Shah Abdali had also attacked the Harmandar on an important day in the Sikh calendar for similar reasons. Zafarnamah 01:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly understand that the attack was planned and rehearsed beforehand, but it is something different to say that one of the objectives was to maximise the number of Sikh casualites. The date of the attack and its significance in the Sikh calendar could be put down to coincidence. I'm not arguing either way, it's just a comment that people will have issues with. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 01:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Finally managed to look at the entire article and I've tried to clean it up where I can. Some outstanding points (commented in the article itself):

• Khalistan is envisaged by its proponents as a secular state, rejecting theocracy and espousing a liberal form of nationalism in which all communities may live as equals." I don't have an issue with this statement itself, but I'm not sure what "a liberal form of nationalism" is?

• "The Indian state and the Indian media misrepresented the Anandpur Sahib Resolution as a secessionist document in an attempt to malign the Sikhs." - Needs citation.

• Maybe this is a bit of a pedantic point, but even though the consitution classifies Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains all under the banner of Hinduism, it doesn't specifically prohibit some from "manifest[ing] his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." and therefore the UDHR isn't really broken.

• Operation Woodrose: Eliminate may be too strong a word. "Their identity and whereabouts must always be disclosed" does not indicate elimination.

• "All initiated Sikhs were “terrorists” in the eyes of the Indian state and were to be killed extra-judicially." - This is by no means a fact and needs an appropriate citation.

I'll try and solicit other Wikipedia editors to give this article the once-over. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 01:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Current State of Khalistan

I think this needs more information about Khalistan nowadays and not just the past. Needs to talk about support from outside India and the fact that it is (now at least) a bit of a dead duck in India. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well this article almost makes it seem like Khalistan is a active movement in India. Frankly it has more support from Southall rather than Indian Punjab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.1.71.89 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to answer this question without empirical data. The Indian state has not allowed a referandum to be conducted on this issue. The end of the article does provide information on the recent activity that is related to this issue and all of the new activity seems to be coming from Punjab rather than South Hall. Zafarnamah 05:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes by 66.225.126.64

Here are the issues I have with recent changes by this IP:

• (lit. "pure-land") -> (lit. "land of the Khalsa (the Sikh Nation)")

The literal name of Khalistan is 'pure-land' and can be taken to mean 'Khalsa-land', but Khalsa means pure anyway.

• and coincided with an important anniversary in the Sikh calendar -> was planned to coincide with an important anniversary in the Sikh calendar when thousands of pilgrims were present.

Can someone please write exactly what Joyce Pettigrew said about this and how it was substantiated? I'm a bit cynical about this point (i.e. it was planned well in advance for this particular day); surely the Indian government couldn't have been *that* stupid?

• by a memo from Home Ministr Patel shortly after India achieved independence.

Patel is already mentioned in the quote

• "Many Sikhs today criticise this move because they think that it gave the state an excuse to attack the temple."

No reason to remove this statement.

• "Unfortunately, Sikh leaders like Dr. Jagjit Singh Chohan, Harchand Singh Longowal, Didar Bains, Ganga Singh Dhillon, much of the Akali Dal leadership, and others were complicit in the attack on the Golden Temple. The evidence against them is clear in their letters published in Chakravyuh: Web of Indian"

Very POV - the first word is all that needed to be read.

• "Youn gSikh boys, ages 8 to 13, were taken out ini the courtyard of the Golden Temple complex and asekd if they supported Khalistan,. When they answered with the Sikh religious incantation "Bole So Nihal" they were shot to death. The Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh holy scriptures, handwritten in the time of the ten Sikh Gurus, was hot full of bullet holes by the invading Indian forces."

Please cite this directly

• Removal of comment: "NOTE Eliminate may be too strong a word. "Their identity and whereabouts must always be disclosed" does not indicate elimination."

Absolutely no reason to remove this comment

• Meanwhile, Sikh police officers were locked in their barracks.

Citation please

• Many organizations have said that the massacres were pre-planned by the Indian regime.

Adds nothing to the article. Please state the organisations in question.

• That saem year, the Indian newspaper Hitavada reported that the Indian government paid about $1.5 billion to the late governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, to foment and support terrorist activity in Punjab and in Kashmir.

From [2]. 1.5 billion sounds a bit much don't you think?

As a general note, some of the text seems to have been lifted word-by-word from other sources. Please don't do that otherwise it's only going to have to be deleted, even if true! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Waning Khalistan support

Zafarnama, you removed the following:

"The Khalistan movement has little support within India itself, even amongst the Sikh community. However, it is still supported by some expatriate Sikhs in countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States."

Reason:

"Bruce LaBrack has zero research on Khalistan to his credit. Please see http://www.sikhpioneers.org/BrueLaBrack.html. Why provide controversial claims?"

This topic is completely controversial, so controversial claims are to be expected. LaBrack is not the only person who holds this view. I will provide more sources soon if you have a particular issue with this.

Also, the article in general does not mention much criticism of Sikhs themselves and doesn't reference works that are generally anti-Khalistan. We're not here to decide which side is true, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Here's a snippet:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Some useful links:

[3] [4] [5] [6]

Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sukh, thanks for taking the time to explain the policy. It makes sense. My only problem with these sources is that they are not by experts on the Khalistan movement. When Cynthia Mahmood writes in her Fighting for Faith and Nation that you have not seen the end of this movement, I see that as an expert voice since she has considerable research under her belt. Since majority of the grievances that led to the Khalistan movement have been left unaddressed, it is the viewpoint of several experts (I am glad to provide you with references) that like all movements, this movements will go through its ups and downs. The bottom line is that state-influenced and Hindu-dominated Indian media has continually played down all movements for sovereignty, and the Khalistan movement is no exception. We are told by Indian news sources and U.S. sources that feed off of them that normalcy has returned to Punjab, but Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Ensaaf paint a very disturbing picture of present-day Punjab. Please look at www.ensaaf.org for recent reports. Also see this blog (http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/jaskaran) at Harvard Law School. Until a referendum is conducted or someone conducts serious research on this issue, making any kind of statement concerning the strength of the Khalistan movement is unwarranted. I hope you can appreciate my point of view. Zafarnamah 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your opinion that it might be cyclical and if Mahmood writes about this movement not ending anytime soon, that also needs to be mentioned. However, it is also true that support in Punjab for Khalistan (or at least Militant support) has virtually evaporated. Although this is probably more down to the GOI's actions than anything else.

Also, sources do not need to be experts on a particular issue. Our job is to cover a wide range of prevailing opinions on the matter, and this is one. Incidentally, LaBrack might not have a background with Khalistan specifically, but he does have a background in learning and teaching about Sikhism.

We can certainly write about the fact that no definitive figure of how many people support Khalistan is available and then write about the two views (i.e. the movement is dead OR the movement has not ended), either way, I think most people agree that it has at least waned in India.

Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sukh, if both perspectives exist and neither one can be verified, then why is it so critical to include conjectures?

The claim about the strength or the vitality of the movement is not central to the dicussion on Khalistan. I find it more useful to list actual events (not conjectures), as done by someone at the end of the article (Punjab Rights Forum, etc). The article should have recent news concerning release of militants like Daljeet Singh Bittu; present initiatives of Dal Khalsa, Babar Khalsa and Akali-Dal (Amritsar); the river water issue currently being debated in the Punjab assembly in sharp opposition to the so-caled "national interests."

By the way, I agree with you that the militancy has died down, but who said that the movement for Khalistan is only a militant movement? I think the current agitation in Punjab assembly to question 1966 Punjab Reorganization Act with the aim to seek complete control over the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas/Ravi water projects is directly revelant to the demands of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution and other demands for autonomy of Punjab.

Zafarnamah 22:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"Sukh, if both perspectives exist and neither one can be verified, then why is it so critical to include conjectures?"

Personally - I think that it's an important point in terms of where the movement stands now. Essentially I think that it's the view of ordinary Punjabis as to how the Khalistan movement stands at the moment. I'm really interested into what strength the movement has in Punjab *now*.

I think you might agree with me when I say that there may be many Khalistani supporters in the UK, Canada and the US, but how many of them would ever return to a Khalistan if it existed? Most are more than happy in their new, richer countries :D

"...who said that the movement for Khalistan is only a militant movement?"

Apologises if you took my comment that way. I'm certainly aware that it isn't a militant-only movement.

In regards to the other points in your comment, I welcome any additions to the article.Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 01:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sukh, articlulating the current state of the movement, epsecially from the point of view of the Punjabi Sikhs is very challenging. Your ideas are welcome on how this may be acheived. I will try to add something at the end of the article on latest developments over the next few weeks. Zafarnamah 20:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Biased

I think this entire piece is biased and does not even mention any terrorist activities of the Sikh terrorists. This page is largly maintained by hardcore Khalistan supporters, who see it fit to only include the crimes of the Indian state and have failed to even mention the terrorist activities of the Sikh zealots. It is saddening to see such hatered to live on even when most if not all the "khalistanis" have come to terms with reality and have accepted the fact that Punjab is a part of India, and that too the heart of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.195.231 (talk • contribs)

I agree with you that there isn't much criticsm of the Sikh militants and their activities. But remember, we're not here to judge or criticse, we're here to show the fact and the opinion of established sources. If you've got anything to add that is relevant AND can be directly cited then please add it.

And no, this page is not largly maintained by hardcore Khalistan supporters - it's just a difficult task to work your way through all the lies and figure out what's true and what's propoganda. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, you are not here to "judge or criticise", yet the page quotes a horrible amount of propoganda utilizing specious logic and selected references from supporters ofthe Khalistan movement- and this is not to be wondered at? If you know nothing of the issue- when you say "work your way through all the lies"- what are you referring to? That the Khalistan movement used terror as a means of control? Even when the United States recognises several proponents of Khalistan as terrorists. Basically, while India and Indian punjabis have moved on, Khalistan idealogues continue to stoke the fire of seccessionist hatred and that has to be admired merely because it is a point of view? This is moral relativism at its worst.

-Akash

You're excused. From the tone of your message, you seem to think I'm a Khalistani zealot - I definately am not! I'm against the idea of Khalistan by both peaceful and militant ways. However, you seem to misunderstand what is being said. I'm not here to decide whether some of the comments supported by citations are true or not. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Here's a snippet:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

The onus is on you to add your own sources that give a different opinion to the one in this article. It's not anyone elses duty to decide which sources are worthy and which are not. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Request For Removal Of this Article

As a wikipedian of Indian origin i would like to request the removal of this article, im a Hindu still i know that there in absolutely no support from Sikh community 'in' india for a separate state of so called khalistan, Sikh community don't even want to think about khalistan & what happened yeas back because it was the Sikh community who suffered the most. INDIA's Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Sing is a Sikh(im very very happy and proud about that). all im trying to say is that what is the point of having this article when Khalistan is not supported by the Sikh people living in india. Khalistan is a very big scam to get donations from Sikhs and Punjabi's living outside India in the name of khalistan.

220.227.152.109 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You cannot request the removal of an article because you perceive it having no support in India. If you think this article misrepresents the facts, please edit it but ensure you cite your sources. We could all do with a balanced look at the events surrounding the Khalistan movement. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This commentator's ideological commitment is clear. What does Manhoman Singh's religious identity have to do with what happened in Punjab in the last 20 years? The article is based on dozens of non-Sikh sources. The article reflects a historical view on a movement, as all good scholarship is supposed to do. Zafarnamah 01:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As there is a dispute as to the neutrality of this article, I've readded the POV tag and I request the anonymous user(s) to highlight the specific biased points so that we can come to some sort of agreement. Alternatively, the anonymous user(s) can add their own information to the article provided it's relevant to the Khalistan discussion and it is backed up by appropriate sources. If there has been no dialogue in the coming few days, I will remove the POV check box. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 01:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should welcome the highlighting of specific bias by users. It only helps us improve the quality of the article. However, I did not see any contructive critique in the last comments by the anonymous user. Therefore, I would like to suggest that we limit the placement of the POV tag to a week. If the user is unable to provide concerte facts to prove bias, the tag should be removed. Zafarnamah 16:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What if i request for an individual state of "HINDU STATE OF AMERICA / Canada", is there going to be an article in wikipedia about that ?. request for khalistan is not from any Sikh living in india but from bunch of NRI's. People can make lots of claims outside their borders, it is wrong to make article on those claims. that is why it is wrong to have this article in the first place, if you think im wrong just explain to me who is asking for khalistan ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.152.109 (talk • contribs)

If there is a credible movement for or any history about a "Hindu State of America" then yes, there would be justification for such an article. Whether Sikhs in Punjab support Khalistan is irrelevant to whether the Khalistan article deserves to be made. Sure, it's relevant to the content of the article (i.e. saying Punjabi Sikhs do not support Khalistan), but it does not remove the justification for such an article.

Obviously, you believe (and I'm with you on this) that there isn't much support for Khalistan in Punjab by the Sikhs themselves. If you wish to write about this, please do but ensure you add citations. Simply adding unreferenced claims, you will do nothing to better this article.

I appreciate that this article does not show the full side of the story, and it definately has a pro-Khalistan slant. You are welcome to add to it. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

well i am happy about the fact that things in wikipedia happen in democratic manner, so i would like to request that at least there should be cleanup of this article, i find this article just too big. Only countries deserve article of this size. At the same time claims for Khalistan have been made by "individuals" and Khalistan is not an ongoing Movement. There are thousands of Sikh people who will disagree with them , but it is easier to give reference of four or five people than thousands of Sikh's in india, for example i saw this story on Zee news about a 80 year old doctor who openly claims for an independent nation for Sikh people, there were few more people who are living in india and asking for khalistan,but one thing we all should know that every one of them have recognised India as their country by taking oath under India's constitution(few have been MP's and other have been in Punjab police).Well all im trying to say is that if 4-5 people are going to ask for khalistan we cannot call it a "Movement", yes there were many many people who were asking for khalistan decades back but now things have changed a lot, if a news channel finds two three people making such claims they make it into an exclusive news story. There "used to be" a movement this article is about that is why there should be a cleanup of this article.

220.227.152.109 09:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

We have already witnessed this idea of "clean-up." It has entailed removing sections on Operation Blue Star and state-sponsored attrocities that are most relevant to this movement. There needs to be a real reason to remove a section. We should add additional information, provided it is credible and backed by citations like the rest of the article. Lastly, you are uninformed about the current situation in Punjab. Miltancy is certainly dead, no doubt. However, there is plenty of political resistance, in spite of state censorship and repression against those that speak out against the state:

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=173367

http://www.greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=10_3_2006&ItemID=36&cat=21

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=89232

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060309/asp/nation/story_5944699.asp

http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=280019&sid=NAT

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=63183

http://www.khalistan-affairs.org/home/khalistancalling/2006/february15.aspx

Perhaps, you can shed light on these related incidents that occured in the last two to three weeks. Also, take a look at IHRO, an organization based out of Ludhiana, Punjab. It's Yahoogroup, IHRO@yahoogroups.com, will give you a good idea about political opinion coming out of present-day Punjab. Zafarnamah 05:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you have posted articles related to the same person i was talking about(news story about him got me interested in this article), but he is ONE person in the country of billions there are nuts all over the world who are making stupid claims but we cannot mention them in wikipedia, and Jagjit Singh Chohan has recognised India as his country by taking oath under India's constitution (he has been MP). Zafarnamahi don't know about you but i live in india and i have interacted with many Sikh people here and they have very different opinion on this issue, you have written that there is political resistance (i don't agree with you on that) please provide fact that can back that up. Khalistan is business for people outside india who want to make money on religious sentiments. Articles like these are degrading wikipedia and something should be done on that, on every topic lot can be written but there should be limit to that,in my opinion mentioning people like Jagjit Singh Chohan in this article is not going to right.

220.227.152.109 17:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have had trouble accessing these links because the articles are NOT about one person. The first one is about Dhami's arrest; the second one about Simaranjit Singh Mann's views; the third and fourth one about arrest of Chouhan; the fifth one about a story run by Zee TV about Chouhan's views; the sixth one about Barkat Singh; and the seventh one about the debate in the Punjab Assembly on Punjab river waters. I wonder how carefully you have read the article on Wikipedia. So far we have not gotten a single credible claim from you that is supported by textual evidence. Zafarnamah 18:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, quote Khalistani seccessionists and then equate them to a mass movement within the state- if so, where are all the bandhs and mass strikes and marches? Face it- Khalistan is dead and long gone, and merely by using wikipedia as a wagon for hateful pro-Khalistan propoganda you are neither doing the Sikh community or India any favours. If Wikipedia is to serve as a platform for terror of all kinds- including the Khalistani variety - then it would be a travesty. Rest assured many folks can dig up many links to the contrary about how Mann, Bhindranwale and other saintly figures acted in reality. But most of India & Punjab are willing to let bygones be bygones and let wounds heal- but this hateful propoganda continues, all in the name of a dead, brutally violent movement.

- Akash

You seem to know the "truth" in regards to what happened. Please write about it in the article but ensure you cite your claims. And Wikipedia is here to state the facts, not "let bygones be bygones". Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You see, comments like "with many Sikh people here and they have very different opinion on this issue" are certainly valid, but they shouldn't be put in the article unless you can cite reliable sources (newspapers, books, articles etc.). I'll basically get the crux of the matter: You can 'balance' this article by writing anything you want if you have reference to *reliable* sources. If you haven't got any sources to back up your particular point, then it has no place in this article. If you search online, you'll find several articles that follow your point of view. Just ensure you cite them properly and you've got a solution! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Restart Indentation

I have read this article and i don't think if there is need to write more because in my opinion this article is already too big for something that does not exist(if u think that the 'movement' exists then i think the name of the article should be changes to "Movement For Khalistan" something like that), big parts of this article are biased and anybody who will read this article will think that rape torture and mass killings continue to happen even today in india. I don't think if it is right to write anything without knowing the ground reality,i think users like Zafarnamah who have contributed to this article are living outside india.

no matter how many articles or sources they are going to cite they cannot deny that social environment in india and Punjab is totally different(that is possible if the user is living in india), anybody who is living in india Sikh or Hindu will disagree with the part of this article about present situation (things like that may have happened in past but in present things like that don't happen anymore), and also there are lots of sources which have been cited in this article don't have neutral point of view, people who have been demanding khalistan cannot be considered neutral. I will make some changes in this article but this will possible for me after around 1 month later (right now im having my final exams).

220.227.152.109 08:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to your contributions. And yes you are correct, this page is nearly twice the size of a recommmended Wikipedia article. Zafarnamah, what do you feel about separating this into "Khalistan" and "Movement for Khalistan"? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If Khalistan were a nation-state or a recognized region, then this recommendation would have made sense. Currently, it is being presented as a historical movement with antecedents, which would be of interest to those performing research on this issue. The anonymous user again is incorrect to state that the article makes it appear that "rape torture and mass killings continue to happen even today." While the mass murders may have stopped, torture is a serious problem in Punjab today according to human rights groups (see ensaaf.org). The user has been making dishonest statements without understanding the context of the material on which s/he comments. S/he is the one who is biased and wants to place image of India over truth. Anyone can see that the article is divided chronologically with visible headings describing each historical period. It is only the last part of the article that describes the current situation. We have been very patient in hearing the concerns of this person, but frankly he is making little sense and nothing he has said is based on any kind of sources--credible or not. Zafarnamah 15:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is written from a point of view of an extremist demanding khalistan , for example in the first few lines " A movement for Khalistan was precipitated when the Indian Army attacked the Harmandir Sahib complex, along with 37 other gurduārās" it mentions that Indian army attacked the gurduara, but it does not mentions why they attacked. Indian army is not stupid and those who fought for Indian army were mostly Sikh, they attacked because many extremists were hiding in the building and they were keeping stocks of weapons in the gurduara, this is clearly a threat for a nation and that is why they attacked and i think we should mention that why Indian army attacked in the article, and also Zafarnamah i don't care what you think about me and i have had an account in wikipedia for quite some time my user id is anmol.2k4.

220.227.152.109 12:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments further prove that you have not read the whole article. This point of view is refuted with innumerable references within the body of the article. Not a single FIR existed against Bhindrawale and there are plenty of sources showing why the army attacked. You are calling someone an extremist or terrorist without any evidence. I would suggest reading the whole article. Zafarnamah 13:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, Bhindranwale is accepted as a terrorist by many people in India- would you like us to quote it- the article will become longer than it already is.t It is clear that you are a pro- Khalistan activist with a clear sympathy for the movement. Quoting a few websites or Groups on the movement is hardly any proof. Why are you using Wikipedia as a tool for propoganda and hate? [Akash]

Please don't worry about the size of the article. That can be sorted out later. And yes, I would like you to quote it. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently reading Mark Tully's "Amritsar - Mrs Gandhi's Last Battle" and it makes some good points that aren't mentioned in this article. When I'm done reading it, I'll be sure to add them to hopefully balance out some of the points that the anonymous user may have issue with. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. Just for your background, content for much of Tully's book was extracted out of the White Paper issued by the Indian Govenment in July 1984. A lot of this information is unrealiable and you should certainly look out for sources being used by Tully to substantiate his claims. A more reliable non-Sikh perspective is Ram Narayan Kumar, Reduced to Ashes. Your perspective and additions are welcome. Zafarnamah 21:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? So you basically typecast one source as reliable and another as unreliable thanks to your pro-Khalistan bias? Ram Narayan Kumar apart- there are many Non Sikhs and Sikhs including KPS Gill- whom the page apparently loaths- to depict the truth about the Khalistan movement- would you promptly dub them as unreliable as well? [Akash]

I have to partially agree with Akash here. We're not about to decide whether Tully's book is worthy or not. Especially with the article already quoting several sources that are considered biased and unreliable by "some". Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent Activity on Khalistan by Organizations in Punjab

SAD-Amritsar is a major political party with grass-roots membership in Punjab. Here is a recent resolution by the party. It shows how disconnected most scholars are from the grass-roots politcs in Punjab. 66.30.106.157 15:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the full press release from this talk page. If you wish to view the release, it is available here: [7]. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, see related item ("Move for Sikh state") in the March 20 edition of the Calcutta-based Telegraph here: [8]. Zafarnamah 00:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Current Situation

Dudes

No point in flogging a dead horse. THe Khalistan movement was crushed because it didn't have mass support in Punjab. Like it or not India is stronger than ever and is not going to split. THere are more Sikhs outside Punjab than in the Punjab and they are doing very well. And it was Sikh policemen who finished off the Khalistani terrorists. Any Pakistanis or others hoping for the same can continue to dream. IT's not going to be reality. There is a much greater chance of Baluchistan and Sind leaving Pakistan. Also please don't make a Goon like Bhindranwale a hero

Any potential Khalistani could look at Lahore and Pakistani Punjab. But not in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.12.4 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

My Lord, the person who wrote this has no idea about Sikh demographics nor Sikh history. First and foremost, of Punjab's estimated population of 25,000,000, officially according to Government of India statistics, the government I expect you love so dearly, the break up is 65% Sikh, 33% Hindu and 2% Muslim, which means that 16,250,000 are Sikh with 8,250,000 Hindu. The entire global Sikh population is around 21 million. Please explain how in your warped mind, this demonstrates that there are more Sikhs outside of Punjab than in it. Complete idiotic remark.

Secondly, Sikh policemen were not the ones who "finished off" the Khalistan Movement. If you have any idea of Sikh history you should know that prior to 1984 holocaust, Punjab Police was HEAVILY infilitrated with Sikh militants and Khalistan symphatisers, hence witness the comparative height of the Sikh militancy from 1984-1988 and that throughout the entire movement, the CPRF, the BSF and the conventional Indian Army were all deployed en masse in Punjab. Thirdly, the restructuring of the Punjab Police was started by JS Ribeiro, a Hindu, not KPS Gill as many would believe.

Either you are incredibly stupid or incredibly naive because both historical fact and maths took a hit in your self styled "comment". —Preceding unsigned comment added by VikSingh (talk • contribs) 02:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. We can hold a credible dicussion without calling someone stupid. See WP:NPA. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As can be seen the webpage has been hijacked by pro-Khalistanis. Are we to keep modifying it with counter opinions to show the reality - Bhindranwale was a bigot, a criminal and a terrorist- yet this webpage shows him as a saint!

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jun/10spec1.htm

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/oct/11guest.htm

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/sair/Archives/3_48.htm

Of course, we will have the pro- Khalistani activists on this webpage disputing the above and claiming that the above are all biased, whereas Bhindranwale and his followers were justified in whatever they did. So I ask wikipedia- is wikipedia going to serve as a fountain of terrorist ideology and hate? Or are we all permitted to speak our mind and depict alternative points of view- which will surely render this already flawed article, even lengthier and an absolute mess. [Akash]

Yes, you are "permitted" to speak your mind. And I encourage you to add to the article. Do not worry about what 'mess' it will get into. We can fix that later. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Article

This article is pretty much unreadable. No maps, no pictures. Horribly POV. Completely off topic in places. This is pretty much everything Wiki should not be. 70.230.68.66 20:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Obtaining maps and pictures is difficult because there are very few maps or even agreed boundaries to "Khalistan". In regards to POV, please feel free to change anything you have issue with. Just ensure any significant changes are cited. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for removal Khalistan article

I'm nominating this page for deletion because it is written with a point of view , excessive use of unreliable sources.and the title "Khalistan" is wrong for the topic because "Khalistan" does not exist,lack of support from resident Punjabi's and Sikhs in India, but there was a "Movement for Khalistan" and that is the right title for the topic, and i think this whole article "a new name" should be rewritten with the help of people from sikh community "in" India and other Indians, because this topic is related to politics/people of India.We all should understand Khalistan is not a political entity and having a article is not justified, Microsoft Encarta and Britannic encyclopedia don't have an article known as "Khalistan" but they do have articles on the movement that took place decades back, and i think there are also copyright issues involved with this article because big parts of this article are written on other peoples research. Many reliable sources are used to show "one side" of their view on the topic, there are also indications that organisations banned by US and EU are involved in providing their research on the movement.I am a strong supporter to have a stub on this topic , but im afraid that such articles on wikipedia have become mouthpieces for organisation which are known for disrupting peace (assassination of one of india's prime minister, twin bomb blast in New Delhi on the eve of Diwali) in Indian sub continent.

Anmol.2k4 18:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please substantiate your claims with references, so that you are not accused of bias. Which sources are unreliable? What the names of organizations of which this article is serving as a mouthpeice? Regarding the relevance of this article, you are not the first person to challenge it. However, since there are people out there who do see it as highly relevant, I am afraid it will have to stay. The Wikipedia community, however, is very open to hearing about bias as long as it is based on citations and facts, which you have failed to provide. Zafarnamah 05:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Zafarnamah is "Khalistan" a existing political entity ?, then why have a proposed flag, and exactly why do you think this topic should have title "Khalistan" when there is very little information on that and too much info on sikh politics, attacks on either side, i have added "being proposed by separatist organisation, you know very well how little support it has from public but mostly from organisation and many of these organisation are considered "terrorist organisation" by US and EU and India, so before trying remove "being proposed by separatist organisation" discuss why do you think these organisation are not separatist and cite sources for that, what do you think about renaming this article to "Movement for Khalistan",(other encyclopedias have articles on same topic but diff. name) and explain reasons for not renaming it, and sources are mostly stolen from website known as "sikhtimes", and the organisations are sikh separatist organisations, and please explain it to me as you have done most of the work on this article, why it does not have any info on October,2005 bomb blasts in delhi(and there are enough sources that these blasts were carried out by sikh terrorists) and tell me why should we not consider most of the sikh organisations mentioned in this article as terrorist organisation when not just indian gov but US and Eu also consider then as that ??????.

<paragraph ahead is simply MY opinion , try to understand what im saying if not then do not take it on your heart and do not save it in your memory ,please>

anybody(frm india) will consider him/herself rapist , mass murderer and feel disgust after reading this article, Zafarnamah you have done a very very very good job. but if you are a true Sikh then tell me if im wrong that guru ji respected hindu people and gods(ram ji), then why this hatred do you like hating people without any reason and remember that while people like YOU start hate wars it is innocent hindu and sikh who have to pay the price.

i have visited lots of gurdwaras and have as much respect to guruji as i respect other gods but your work have done a long-lasting job on me, and i will continue to respect and have faith in guruji(nobody can change that), but i will look at sikh's differently and i will hate those who believe in hatred, im stupid i know but in real life most genius are not able to decide their choice.

220.227.152.109 08:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)