Talk:Khalistan movement/Archive 1

From December 2002 to August 2005

Unsigned comment 1
Religious fascism or Terrorism is a result of group which wants to replace Democratic frameworks with medieval Theocratic ideologies.

Witness 9/11, the cause was for a greater Calliphate and the destruction of United States.

Witness 7/7 London bomb attacks, those preachers of hate are members of proscribed Terrorist organisations.

Similarly, these Islamofascists are using religion, terrorism, 'humane' rights to acheive the same goal.

Bin Ladenised 'sikhs' are a quite different schism from the principles brought forward in medieval India, in fact one can argue that they have become the exact opposite of that original philosophy.

Militants dont usually embrace the principles of Peace.

We have seen death threats or fatwas from such groups against Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, a playwright and Kim Bolan, a Canadian journalist

Tara Singh Hayer was one such journalist who was killed by khalistani militant/ propagandists not to mention an elected Indian Prime Minsister Indira Gandhi in 1984.

India has been a refuge for the religious persecuted whether Zoroastrians from Iran, Buddhists from Tibet such as the Dalai Lama, Punjabis & Sikhs from Pakistan and Hindus & Buddhists from Kashmir.

Unsigned comment 2
Whoever made the above statements forgot a few facts. What about the Hindu terrorists who massacred thousands of innocent Sikh men, women, and children in Delhi in 1984? What about the terrorism committed by the India when combatting terrorism. That doesn't qualify as terrorism. And regard to the statement about India being refuge for the persecuted relgions, you don't have the facts right either. Sikhs never came as refuges from Pakistan. Pakistan was a part of India before 1947 so Sikhs weren't coming as refugees from a foreign country. And to the statement about refugees from Kashmir. Kashmir is still a part of India so how are refugees coming from Kashmir to India. August 17, 2005.

VOO KAP's additions to article
I attempted to make this article as non-biased as possible. I forgot to log into my accout before making the changes listed by IP 70.27.97.188 on May 21, 2005. In regards to the neutrality of the article, its hard to state everything with 100%fact since people look for fact in different places. To look to the government of India as a source of information would result in extremely biased info on this matter, and their biased can be seen via their actions in the Khalistan/Blue Star conflicts in the 1980's-1990's. I did not omit the Sikh Militant actions on purpose, such as the # of police men murdered. But getting the exact # of law enforcement/ military forces killed would be difficult to obtain, but I assumed that it would be covered in the figures for the total # killed by the militancy in the article. Editor bias is apparent by previous versions of this page, by stating disputed things as fact, including only GOI information, under reporting or just word play. It is commonly held that the GOI report on most things pertaining to the conflict were highly skewed, non-reported, or made up. It is well known that militants themselves committed crimes as well, but listing individual acts by various militant groups would be tedious and that raises the issue of whether it was the act of militants or GOI forces in their efforts to quash the insurgency. I provided real/factual reasons as to why the punjab conflict arose, instead of just pointing the blame soley on one thing. The reasons from the late 70's, 1980's, have somewhat been attended to, but new ones have risen in their place in the punjab.

On previous verions of this page, Bhindranwale is shown as directly advocating for the creation of Khalistan, or at the forefront of the movement, which sadely is taken as fact. What all western and Indian media outlets cling to is the interview he made with a CNN or BBC reporter, where they asked if he was fighting for a Khalistan, and he replied that he was not, but if the Indian governement where to give it to the SIkh's, they would not refuse it". (He was clearly ambivalent!!)The movement for Khalistan did not begin until Operation Bluestar occured.

VOO KAP 04:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Too much POV
Without straying too far from the actual topic of Khalistan, I beleive this entry's following paragraphs need to addressed specifically for NPOV. Also i think someone should come up with a way of organizing the entry. Perhaps separate sections for history, the khalistani movement, blue star etc. ??

"Beginning in 1982, Sikhs activists began a series of peaceful civil disobedience campaigns during which time perhaps over 100,000 Sikhs were imprisoned. These campaigns embarrassed the Indian government (led at the time by Indira Gandhi) and stressed India's prison system.

Things came to a head when in 1984 the India government replaced regular police and other law enforcement agencies in Amritsar with Indian Army troops for the attack on the Golden Temple. On the 3rd of June 1984, Operation Blue Star was begun. Official records state that 493 militants were killed, 86 were wounded, and 1,592 were apprehended. The Indian Army lost 83 men, and another 249 were wounded."

These paragraphs make no mention of the increasing violence in the Punjab, the 22 murdered police officers in 1983, the deployment of army troops before Operation Blue Star, the occupation of the Golden temple by Bhindranwale, and the assasination of Indira Ghandi. By leaving out factual information regarding terrorist acts by Khalistani supporters and only including violent acts by the Indian government this article cannont be considered NPOV.

Also if a statement is not a fact, it can be considered not NPOV. Thus "perhaps 100,000" should be removed.

"In April 1986, a group of Sikh intellectuals produced a declaration of independence for Khalistan, which they sought to form as a separate Sikh nation and created a political structure and an army. They sought help from western governments (USA, UK, Canada, Europe) and the UN of recognistion of this new entity, but those cries for freedom fell on deaf ears after Air India jetliner was blown up, in the world's largest attack on a civilian aircraft."

Factual error #1: UK is part of Europe, and why does the entry single out only these countries? Factual error #2: Air India Flight 182 was destroyed June 23rd 1985. By placing it in the entry after the declaration of independence and not specifying the date of the disaster, the entry misconstrues the reason for the lack of support of the formation of Khalistan.

Also it is significant that the entry improperly links the attack to Air India, NOT Air India Flight 182.

"Fingers point to the culprits being either RAW Indian agents based in Canada, wanting to destroy all support for the Khalistan movement, or Sikh separatists who may have wanted to avenge the bloody massacre of Sikhs and destruction of Sikhdom's holiest shrines by the Indian army.

I'm not even sure what part of the paragraph can be considered remotely NPOV. bloddy massacare? I'm pretty sure noone can defend that as NPOV.

March 15th, 2005.

I dispute the claim made in  this  edit that


 * However, the most obvious motivation for the separate nation-state is a result of state-sponsored terrorism in India against minorities (since 1984, 250,000 Sikhs and 200,000 Christians as well as thousands of other religious minorities have been killed).

There were actually over 2,000 deaths in Delhi in anti-Sikh riots after Indira Gandhi's assasination, about about 80,000 deaths in the Punjab militancy, half of them by Sikh militants against fellow Sikhs and also Hindus. 200,000 Christians killed by Indian "state-sponsored terrorism" is completely false.I've seen no source that doesn't have a strong anti-India bias claim that the Indian government has been systematically been persecuting Christians.

The following definitely should be NPOV'd


 * According to the Hindu religion, people are born into different castes, ranging from priests to slaves.

Also,for this article to be fair and accurate, it should probably be written to talk about the history of the Khalistan movement include: the Punjabi Saba movement (to create a Sikh majority state with India); the rise of the Akali Dal; the rise of radical Sikh leaders like Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale,and the tacit support to them given by Indira Gandhi; the takeover of the Golden Temple by Bhindranwale's forces; the Indian Army's Operation Bluestar which flushed out Bhindranwale's forces, at the cost of damaging structures with the Golden Temple but which was considered by Sikhs to be a desecratory act; the assasination of Indira Gandhi by a Sikh bodyguard; the retaliatory anti-Sikh riots in Delhi which caused 2,000 deaths; and finally the Punjab insurgency, which led to nearly 80,000 deaths half caused by radical Sikhs against their co-religionists; and finally K.P.S. Gill's reign as head of the Punjab Police in quashing the insurrection.

Or maybe this could go under a new article, Khalistan Movement. I could do a writeup on the history later when I have the time, but if anyone else wants to do it before then, the above could be an outline for anyone interested.

User::Arun April 9, 2004

Needs to be NPOV'd


 * A fictional region encompassing most of the areas of Punjab in India, which was demanded by Sikh separatists as a homeland for the Sikhs. Since Khalistan had no basis in history, and because of the violent means used by some of the separatists, public opinion soon turned against it and the movement died a natural death by around 1990

I suggest the following


 * A proposed nation-state encompassing much of the area of Punjabi-speaking India. It is supported by Sikh separatists as a homeland for the Sikhs. Since there is no historical claim to the land as a Sikh homeland, and on account of the radical and violent actions of some members of the separatist movement, public opinion in India is against the proposal. The idea of a nation-state for Sikhs is no longer prominent in India, but is supported by some Sikhs in other countries, notably the United States.

what does

''The literal meaning of Khalistan is "The Sovereign Land," which would be comprised of an egalitarian social system (probably based on anti-racist marxist-feminist ideologies). ''

mean? is someone having a laugh?

The last paragraph is not a NPOV.

Extremely Biased Article
This article continues to be biased from one extreme to the other. I find the following statements to be unprovable:

>This proposal is a dream of a very small and fast shrinking minority of Sikhs extremists who put their personal ambitions above the holy scripture of Sri Guru Granth Sahib.


 * I think this sentence greatly underestimates the true nature of the insurgency. For example, similar types of statements are being made today about Iraq, but simply because the occupying power has massively overwhelming military force does not mean that the majority of the population does not support independence, even if they are not actively involved.  The desire for freedom of Punjab from India is not an extremist view, even though it is mainly extremists who actually engage in violent action to achieve it.
 * For the second part of the sentence I find it highly unlikely that the Sikh extremists are putting their lives on the line (virtually suicide) to commit terrorism for personal reasons. It seems far more likely that they are doing it for religious reasons, distorted as they may be.  An exception to this is politicians who do not actually engage in violence, but try to stir it up.

>It should be noted that in the nearly 239 years when the Ten Gurus of Sikhism were preaching their message of compassion, selfless service, tolerance and meditation, they never once stated the need for a separate state.


 * This statement is correct, and is an excellent observation. However, the writer goes on to give several Gurbani quotes emphasizing the pursuit of peace.  He/she fails to include the other very significant and major aspect of Sikh religion, the fight against injustice.  The Gurus never state the need for a separate state, but they invariably say that when injustice presents itself, it is every human's duty to oppose it.  That is perhaps one reason why wearing a Kirpan (ceremonial sword) is a requirement for every Sikh.  To construe Sikhism as passive to tyrannical regimes is to contradict its entire history.  Even in the time before the fifth Guru's murder when Sikhism was less militant, the Gurus were still very vocal about their objections to unjust rule, beginning with Guru Nanak.  This is an unquestionable aspect of Sikh religion by any scholar with even the most basic information.  A more appropriate question would be not whether Sikhs have historically used arms to defend themselves, but whether the BJP-dominated government of India is tyrannical enough to minorities to justify the need to oppose it violently.  It should be noted that many would say yes.  View the Amnesty International Report on India to gain extremely good insight on Indian-goverment (as well as insurgent) abuses.

>It should also be noted that the promoters of this ideology have never presented a properly reasoned arguments of why a separate state would have any economical or other benefits for the peoples of that region. It is therefore surprising that this idea is being promoted without proper support from history by way of quotes from the holy texts or historical precedence; or any economical analysis; or a social plan or any other interpretation apart from ‘separation for separation’ sake.


 * This paragraph is totally untrue and should be deleted entirely. What the writer asks for in this paragraph has been done, but is far too lengthy to include in this already too-long post.  I would refer the writer to four different books to supplement his/her incomplete knowledge:  (The Book They Banned, Report to the Nation: Oppression in Punjab, by George Fernandes, Justice V. M. Tarkunde and others) (Sikhism Under Brahmanical Siege, by Gurbakhsh Singh) (Punjab Under Siege: A Critical Analysis, by Iqbal Singh) (Khalistan, the Only Solution, by Lt. Colonel Partap Singh).  To state it briefly, their main arguments are that the extremist Hindu-dominated BJP is attempting to systematically destroy the Sikh religion in order to create an integrated Hindu state.  The river water and electrical resources for Punjab are being diverted to Hindu states unjustly, and would be restored through independence.  The government of India has set up extra-judicial death squads to undermine freedom of speech.  The economic and diplomatic viability of Khalistan could be compared to that of Israel, an in-depth analysis of which can be found in the above books.  In other words, a free Punjab is necessary because all the democratic and human right norms have been violated by the Indian government.  The reason many Punjabis (including many Hindus) want an independent Punjab is because it is in their economic interests to do so.  Several thousand pages of research can be referred to in support of this.  The writer's last sentence, about a social plan, is already answered in the very next paragraph of the article regarding an egalitarian social system.

>The idea of a nation-state called Khalistan is no longer prominent in India, but is supported by some Sikhs in other countries, notably the United States. No independent poll has being commissioned to show the level of support for this proposal.


 * I would revise this to: The idea of a nation-state called Khalistan is no longer prominent in India, but is supported by some Sikhs in other countries, notably Canada (Note: Canada has always been the heart of the overseas Khalistani movement. How the writer thinks the U.S. is the heart of this movement is beyond me.  Of course there is support from the U.S. Congress for Khalistan, as there is in many other countries, but that doesn't make it the heart of the movement.).  The Indian government has refused to allow human rights agencies or the media to commission an independent poll within Punjab on the subject.


 * In conclusion, this article is shallow and biased. The above revisions would go a long way to improving it.  Additionally, it entirely fails to mention the tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children murdered by the Indian government, which is the actual root impetus for the movement.  My above comments are not meant as an attack on any one person, as several different writers may have contributed to the article in its current but inadequate form.

--- The simple point is it is the state that continues to deny the Sikhs their right to exist as a seperate religion from Hinduism as per the constitution. Denying the Sikhs basic human rights and freedoms led to various peaceful resurgence movements. It was Indira Gandhi who brought Bhindranwale into Punjabi politics and is responsible for all that ensued as a result. International human rights organisations like Amnesty International have repeatedly criticised India for not only denying Sikhs basic human rights but also for creating laws such as POTO and TADA under which the Police, Armed services, and state-sponsored anti-Sikh terrorist groups were given free reign to kill Sikhs on whim and then hold mass cremations. This ethnic cleansing runs into hundreds of thousands. The very notion that India is secular is ridiculous in the extreme since India as a country has always enjoyed massive support for extreme right wing parties like the BJP that are encouraged to adopt both pro-Hindu and nationalist policies as one and the same.

Urgent need for wording correction in the article
At least every one can agree that the last sentence of the un-editable article needs to be edited for a grammar (wording) mistake. Currently as I write this, the last sentence of the article states:

"No independent poll has being commissioned to show the level of support for this proposal."

It should read:

"No independent poll has been commissioned to show the level of support for this proposal."

This way the incorrect use of the word "being" in the sentence can be corrected by it's replacement with the word "been".

Extremely POV
I find this article to be extremely POV, with a lot of allegations and no supporting facts. For example:

Punjab and surrounding areas was ment to be the "glow of freedom" PM Nehru had promised to the Sikhs pre-independance but in reality all promises were broken and Sikhs were beginning to feel isolated and discriminated in mainstream Indian society and politics.

''In April 1986, a group of Sikh intellectuals produced a declaration of independence for Khalistan, which they sought to form as a separate Sikh nation and created a political structure and an army. They sought help from western governments (USA, UK, Canada, Europe) and the UN of recognistion of this new entity, but those cries for freedom fell on deaf ears after Air India jetliner was blown up, in the world's largest attack on a civilian aircraft. Fingers point to the culprits being either RAW Indian agents based in Canada, wanting to destroy all support for the Khalistan movement, or Sikh separatists who may have wanted to avenge the bloody massacre of Sikhs and destruction of Sikhdom's holiest shrines by the Indian Army''

There seems to be a very large pro-Khalistan slant in this article. Compare Golden_Temple_Massacre to this one - the former provides a very neutral picture and all the facts. It doesn't have any propaganda from either side.

I suggest putting a "Disputed Neutrality" message on top of this article. Vivin Paliath ( &#3381;&#3391;&#3381;&#3391;&#3368;&#3405; &#3370;&#3390;&#3378;&#3391;&#3375;&#3364;&#3405; ) 16:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added an NPOV message to the top. This article describes the action of the Indian government (most of which aren't in dispute) against the Sikh population, but barely mentions any of the militant act carried out by Sikh Sepratists. --Vivin Paliath ( &#3381;&#3391;&#3381;&#3391;&#3368;&#3405; &#3370;&#3390;&#3378;&#3391;&#3375;&#3364;&#3405; )

--- I don't know how this article so easily defines Khalistan. Khalistan had different meaning for different people and many people had no idea for the area that they would like to become as Khalistan. Many people wanted the present Indian Punjab to become Khalistan. Others wanted the historic Punjab, which includes Pakistan Punjab, as well as Haryana and Himachal Pradesh in India. Others called the former empire of Maharaja Ranjit Singh as Khalistan. I think it accurately describes the alienation that many Sikhs felt after the anti-Sikh riots and the operation blue star. I also don't think that the reason for lack of international support of Khalistan is correct. There was little support of Khalistan cause because most people in the West did not know(and still do not know) anything about the problem in Punjab. Punjab was not a strategic location for the U.S. or Britain.(as in the case of Palestine). Punjab was regarded as a regional problem and not as an international problem. I don't think that Khalistan was just supported by a tiny minority of Sikhs. While it is true that the idea of Khalistan was initially supported only by a few extremists, the idea of Khalistan eventually gained the support of many Sikhs after the Operation Blue Star and the anti-Sikh riots. This was one of main reasons that militancy survived a long time after Operation Blue Star.

Editor bias is rampant and some people seem to be tampering with the links on this page, as well as slowly altering/ omitting factual information every few days so that no one will notice. I notice!! VOO KAP 23:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rsdhaliw's edits
User:Rsdhaliw, while you have added some more information to the article, your contributions generally have a very pro-Khalistani slant. In fact, this entire article presents the Khalistan activists as an oppressed and beleaguered party. There is barely any mention of terrorist attacks against the government.

I also had to remove the following sections of text from the article. Please provide some sort of link or source justifying them, if you want them to be added. Otherwise, it's merely opinion:


 * It has been established by the Punjab Human Rights Commission that mass cremations immediately followed the Operation, with no death certificates being issued, with the practice being mirrored in following years by the Punjab police and Para-military units in their war against the insurgents (Exposed by human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, who's death is linked with his exposé on police encounters and torture by the Punjab police). The Human Rights Wing (SAD) reported that over 50,000 Sikhs have been victims of this secret cremation.

Source?


 * After exposing the secret cremation policy, Khalra was arrested by police on September 5, 1995, while washing his car. Six weeks later, in late October, he was killed while still in police custody (see Police Encounter).

Source?


 * While the RCMP spent 15 years and $130 million investigating the Sikh Separatist connection to both bombings, they concurrently investigated the GOA (Government of India) theory, which to date has not officially been ruled out.

Source?


 * In 1994, the U.S. State Department reported that the Indian government had paid out over 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for killing Sikhs. 

Source?


 * India claims that the idea of a nation-state called Khalistan has little support these days in Punjab, yet India refuses to hold a plebiscite on the issue.

Source? AFAIK there has been no request for one. Your addition of that last sentence is clearly POV.


 * Although the exiled Khalistani leadership has publicly declared that it will liberate Khalistan by peaceful, democratic, nonviolent means, the Indian government labels all advocates of Khalistan as terrorists.

Source? Where is the "exiled Khalistani leadership" based? --Vivin Paliath ( &#3381;&#3391;&#3381;&#3391;&#3368;&#3405; &#3370;&#3390;&#3378;&#3391;&#3375;&#3364;&#3405; ) 17:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edits by User:Thetruth
I've removed your clearly POV additions to the article. You have provided no factual basis for any of your additions. The contested excerpts are:


 * The chief suspects along with Indian intelligence agencies, were

When were Indian Intelligence Agencies implicated? Can you provide any proof?


 * Families of the vitcims of flight 182 and Sikhs worldwide have called for and have demanded a public enquiry to find out who was really behind the bombings but The Canadian Govt has refused, further fuelling widely held theories of the handywork of RAW (Research and Analysis Wing)of Indian Intelligence Dept in the bombing.

Any source for this? The theory of RAW being behind the bombings isn't "widely held" but it's probably "widely held" amongst conspiracy theorists and people such as yourself.


 * Attacks by militants and Indian forces have dropped markedly since 1992, as Indian security forces began a policy of widescale torture, rape and shoot first ask questions later. Resulting in deaths of thousands of innocent civilians along with suspected militants reported widely by human rights organisations.

This has already been addressed in the article, and your addition does not add any new information. Furthermore, it is clearly POV.


 * Julio Riberio, the former Director General of Police of Punjab, is commonly known as the "butcher of Punjab" by Sikhs. He admitted for the first time about how he and his political masters used tactics which in any case in the world would fall in the category of state sponsership of terrorism. Julio ribeiro writes with extraordinary candor in his book "bullet for bullet". In Punjab there were some persons with criminal propensities, who were known to police officers at various levels. They were approached and a few of them agreed to form groups which would move in the guise of terrorists and confront the real militants in their dens. The police did give them financial and logistical support, but their demands grew to an extent where it was impossible to satisfy them within our resources. Besides, they were very greedy people, with a criminal tendency, who began to prey on law-abiding, rich citizens on the assumption that the police were indebted to them and so would do nothing to stop them.


 * One such man, recommended to Ribeiro by Gur Iqbal Singh Bhullar, a senior police officer, was a smuggler who had once been a police constable. He was reinstated and located in Patiala to search out and neutralize dreaded militants, with the permission to use force. Once he drove into Ribeiro's official residence in Chandigarh to escape a police chase after he shot down two supposed terrorists whom he had located at a bus stand on a main road in the city. Ribeiro later found out that this operative, along with the policemen who constituted his squad, had been committing robberies, not only in Punjab but also in the neighboring States. Rebeiro wanted to weed him out of the counter-insurgency setup. But before he could do anything, the operative was reportedly killed after he shot down Patiala's Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) and his subordinate in their own office.


 * In his book, Ribeiro mentions several other undercover terror operations, planned by Amritsar's SSP Izhar Alam and other senior officers of the Punjab police. The book also narrates how KPS Gill, then Inspector General of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), thwarted Ribeiro's attempts to discipline the policemen who committed atrocities, by persuading the Union Home Ministry not to sanction their prosecution.

Source for all this?


 * Until the Indian govt addresses these issues, along with justice for the victims of anti-sikh genocide, their is little sign of the movement for Khalistan dying out.

POV.

--Vivin Paliath ( &#3381;&#3391;&#3381;&#3391;&#3368;&#3405; &#3370;&#3390;&#3378;&#3391;&#3375;&#3364;&#3405; ) 05:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Editing by Vivin Paliath,
Vivin, You are giving the Indian point of view I am making it more from a Sikh point of view. You stick to editing Tamil and leave Khalistan to non-Indians, non-hindus. Because Indians, like yourself, are bound to use words like "Sikh terrorism" which is extermely offensive to All Sikhs labelling a whole group of people as terrorists is disgusting to say the least.

You have not given sources to your information either so until you do I wont either.

Regards,

thetruth


 * I'm not providing any specific POV. Your edits are clearly biased and not neutral. They add no new information to the article, and they are inflammatory in nature. In addition, you haven't provided anything to substantiate any of your additions. "Sikh Terrorism" doesn't label all Sikhs as terrorists anymore than the term "male chauvinism" labels all men as chauvinists. The information I have provided, is not "mine". This information is the general consensus of almost everyone regarding the Khalistan issue (and was present in this article before I even started editing it). The burden of proof is on YOU to provide information for your additions. In addition, your infantile statement about me sticking to editing Tamil (and you got that wrong too, I'm Malayalee) clearly shows that you have no interest in having a diplomatic discussion.--Vivin Paliath ( &#3381;&#3391;&#3381;&#3391;&#3368;&#3405; &#3370;&#3390;&#3378;&#3391;&#3375;&#3364;&#3405; ) 03:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I found it very presumptuous of you Vivin to assume and to state that I was taking a Khalistan slant on this issue. Your biased is apparent, most notably by the fact that you seem to pounce on every edit made to this page that does not reflect your view of the Khalistan situation. I honestly don't have the time to come back and fix or redo all the biased information you seem to place on this site. All it takes is the changing of a few words with any article on Wikipedia to slant it in some direction or another. You definetly do not have a neutral point of view as seen from your previous contributions to other articles on this website. AND FYI, using the label "Sikh Terrorists" or "Sikh Terrorism" is in fact racist and suggestive! You label the whole religion as terrorists. You don't see people using the label of "Muslim Terrorists" in reference to the Palestinian militants. Or how about the fact that no one refers to the Oklahoma CIty bombers as "Christian Terrorists". Please own up to your biased slant and leave the page to a new group of editors. I am removing the NPOV tag and leaving a simple 3 line explanation to this topic VOO KAP 04:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't added any new information to this article. I have only kept it from having a very pro-Khalistani slant. This is an article about Khalistan - what it is, and how the movement came into being. It is not an article to bash India/Indians. Using the label "Sikh Terrorists" does not in any way insult ALL Sikhs. To assume so to be deliberately immature and obtuse. Palestinian Terrorists do not act in the name of Islam, they act for the Palestinian Cause. Other Muslim terrorists are called as such because they do act in the name of Islam. Timothy McVeigh cannot be called a Christian Terrorist because he never acted in the name of Christianity. The militants/terrorists behind Khalistan were acting in the name of Sikhism, with the aim to establish a Sikh state - therefore, they are Sikh terrorists. Like I said before, the term "Male Chauvinism" doesn't mean that all Males are chauvinists. Please not that after your initial edits, all I did was take out a few POV stuff. I left out your other additions of information in there. Another user, Thetruth has been adding his own unsubstantiated rhetoric. I am not biased - if that was the case, this article wouldn't be there in the first place. I still think this article has neutrality issues. The NPOV template is going to stay, and I WILL be keeping an eye on this article. --Vivin Paliath ( &#3381;&#3391;&#3381;&#3391;&#3368;&#3405; &#3370;&#3390;&#3378;&#3391;&#3375;&#3364;&#3405; ) 14:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Vivin, I can only say that I agree with you on all counts. Please see my message on User_talk:Sukh. Sukh 15:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sukh, I'm glad that you agree with me, and I support the issue. Biased people are blind to their own bias, and will often hurl accusations of bias at the other side. I'm trying to portray a neutral version of the events. It is true that there were many human rights abuses during the Khalistan issue - by both sides. It is also true that Sikh discontent was based on some real issues. However, there are some elements who merely want to use this article as a springboard for some India-bashing. --Vivin Paliath ( &#3381;&#3391;&#3381;&#3391;&#3368;&#3405; &#3370;&#3390;&#3378;&#3391;&#3375;&#3364;&#3405; ) 16:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vivin and Sukh's Pro-Indian Bias
Sukh and vivin stop editing the article. Your both evidently showing your pro-Indian bias. Sukh less so...

But Vivin has posted too much pro-indian propaganda. Do you use the term "Hindu terrorist" when Mahatma Gandhi was murdered by a Hindu Militant? What about the tamil tigers who are Hindu and use the symbol of Hindu God Ganesh as part of their logo and are using terrorism against buddhist's of Sri Lanaka?

You see your anti-sikh racist slant is obvious DO NOT use the term "Sikh terrorists" or "Sikh terrorism" unless you want your religion or people deviled in such manor

Regards,

Thetruth Thetruth 17:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * My pro-Indian bias is non-existant. From the fact that I've said you should back up your claims with references you have deduced that I have a pro-Indian bias.  As a Punjabi Sikh myself, I'm well aware of the different sides of this argument and I know the facts aren't clear cut.


 * I can't see this sorting itself out soon, so after this weekend I will be editing the Khalistan article myself (I haven't contributed to it much in the past, merely had it on a watch list to look out for potential abuse). Is a compromise of "Khalistani terrorism" acceptable to you?


 * If revert wars continue then this page might need to be locked - please don't make it go that far. I think everyone should list what *they* think is wrong with the article on Talk and then we can come to some sort of agreement and update the main page. And Vivin and I are just as entitled to contribute as you are.


 * Sukh 17:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How can I show pro-Indian bais if I never added anything to the disputed article? You keep talking about these "additions". What are they? WHERE are they? I have only been removing your unsubstantiated, POV additions. I have asked you repeatedly to substantiate them, and you refuse to do so. Until you can provide references to your statements, they WILL stay removed. I have completely rewritten the article. This is Wikipedia and you cannot tell us to "stop editing the article". We have every right to go through and edit your changes. Please go through the article and identify the parts that you think are "pro-Indian" --Vivin Paliath ( &#3381;&#3391;&#3381;&#3391;&#3368;&#3405; &#3370;&#3390;&#3378;&#3391;&#3375;&#3364;&#3405; ) 19:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the current article
Let's see if we can resolve the disputed items in this article. Without editing the article itself, what do you think is wrong with it at the moment? Please quote the sections you are talking about and state why you think it is incorrect or written with bias.


 * I have posted my concerns earlier. Please take a look at them. Also, please sign your posts. --Vivin Paliath ( &#3381;&#3391;&#3381;&#3391;&#3368;&#3405; &#3370;&#3390;&#3378;&#3391;&#3375;&#3364;&#3405; ) 18:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry I forgot - it was a continuation of the comment above. I'll view the new article later on - but I fear that this article might turn into a series of revert wars. Sukh 19:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my tone, I thought you were thetruth, who reverted the article to the disputed version. Yeah, I have completely rewritten it. And it does seem it is turning into a revert war. How can we get a mod involved in this? I'm not too well versed with that aspect.


 * I'd prefer no action as such to be taken at the moment. If thetruth can note the comments he feels are biased they can be reviewed and in turn I will look at the whole article and note the bits I think are biased.  If thetruth is still not satsified then we might have to take more drastic action. Sukh 20:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Complete Rewrite
I have completely rewritten the article, into what I hope, is a more accurate picture of the situation. --Vivin Paliath ( &#3381;&#3391;&#3381;&#3391;&#3368;&#3405; &#3370;&#3390;&#3378;&#3391;&#3375;&#3364;&#3405; ) 18:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some removals
I'm removing ''Sikhs in India have had a glorious history. The Sikh power in Punjab in the 19th century was unique.'', come on "glorious history", "unique power". - FrancisTyers 12:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thetruth's new edits
All you have done is merged the new version with the old (POV) version. You have left in some parts of the new rewrite, but a majority of the parts are from the original version. Please stop removing parts that don't support your view and adding in parts that are conducive to your view.

Reviewing Khalistan Article
I've taken it upon myself to review the current article. I don't claim to be an expert in regards to Khalistan (far from it), but I hope I can go some way to NPOV the article. Here are my major edits and reasons for editing:

''The idea of an independent Sikh state &mdash; Khalistan, to its current proponents &mdash; is not new. The last Sikh Guru, Gobind Singh (1666-1708 AD), effectively started a Sikh state in 1699 when he created the Khalsa Panth - the Sikh Commonwealth - which Sikhs entered through a religious ceremony known as the Amrit.''

How does taking Amrit equate to being a Sikh state? It is a baptism ceremony and I cannot see how it equates to statehood.

This explosive mix of unprincipled politics and manipulation of religious identities and communities succeeded in bringing the lunatic fringe of the Sikh far right into the forefront of State politics.

Changed to:

This explosive mix of politics and manipulation of religious identities and communities succeeded in bringing the fringe of the Sikh far right into the forefront of State politics.

Removed 'unprincipled' and 'lunatic'.

Between 1 January, 1984 and 3 June, 1984, terrorists killed 298 persons based on commands that were issued from the headquarters set up in the Golden Temple.

Such a claim needs a reference.

Official government sources admit that more than 20,000 people were killed between 1984 and 1985 as a result of the insurgency.

Needs a direct reference.

Hope this goes some way into clearing this article up. Sukh 18:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good edits, Sukh. --Vivin Paliath ( &#3381;&#3391;&#3381;&#3391;&#3368;&#3405; &#3370;&#3390;&#3378;&#3391;&#3375;&#3364;&#3405; )

Page protected
This page is now protected due to constant vandalism. It isn't going anywhere until everyone's grievances are resolved. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Oye dhotee brigade...
You tell me why te following paragraphs are being removed - ''"Current organizations and political groups in the Punjab that continue to advocate an independent Punjab include the Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar), the Dal Khalsa (International), the Shiromani Khalsa Dal, the Sikh Students Federation (Bittu), the Khalsa Panchayat and the Shiromani Akali Dal (International). These groups shun armed struggle and attempt to establish an independent Punjab by peaceful and democratic means.

''Active militant groups that desire an independent Sikh state of Khalistan include the Babbar Khalsa (International) and the Khalistan Zindabad Force. Since May 2005, the Babbar Khalsa (International) has become quite active in the Punjab, carrying out two bombings of cinemas in Delhi."

Possibly because you wants to deny that the movement for Khalistan started in Punjab and that is where the struggle continues to this very day?

Obviously you havent been following events in Punjab. Check all news sources from June 5th onwards when the demand for Khalistan was raised at the Akal Takth infront of a cheering crowd of 30,000 by such politial figures as Sardar Simranjit Singh Mann of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar) along with leaders of the Dal Khalsa and others. - http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050607/asp/nation/story_4836313.asp

Mann and scores of other Sikh political activist have since been arressted charged with false and laughable accusation of "sedition".

Some hope you will have of trying to silence our voices in Punjab or over the net.

Pakistan is green


 * When you grow up and learn to be an adult, maybe some people will consider your points. You're childish and your editing will simply not be accepted on Wikipedia if you're so immature.  Using phrases like "smelly Hindu dung eating ass" just goes to show how little you are in touch with Sikhism and shows your stupidity in the fact that I myself am a Sikh.


 * If you want your input to be respected and if you want to create a dialogue to incorporate your changes there are three steps you can take:


 * Grow up
 * Get a user account
 * Involve yourself in a discussion


 * If you cannot discuss your changes and cannot resist making blanket changes to a controversial article, your opinions and views will be ignored. And ultimately, the current article will remain. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Religious fascism or Terrorism is a result of group which wants to replace Democratic frameworks with medieval Theocratic ideologies.

Witness 9/11, the cause was for a greater Calliphate and the destruction of United States.

Witness 7/7 London bomb attacks, those preachers of hate are members of proscribed Terrorist organisations.

Similarly, these Islamofascists are using religion, terrorism, 'humane' rights to acheive the same goal.

Bin Ladenised 'sikhs' are a quite different schism from the principles brought forward in medieval India, in fact one can argue that they have become the exact opposite.

We have seen death threats or fatwas from such groups against Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, a playwright and Kim Bolan, a Canadian journalist

Tara Singh Hayer was one such journalist who was killed by Sikh militants.