Talk:Khalistan movement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

From August 2005 to January 2006

Concept of Khalistan ?

This article was extremely biased and ignores the side that the Sikh movement for khalistan was wrong and that the people who supported khalistan were militants. It is not a nuetral piece and should be rewritten to reflect a more non-biased view.

Hi Sukh you've done a grand job of managing what could of been a potential mess (see the kashmir page). I have to start from the outset that I am opposed to Khalistan but my sole concern is to ensure that this article is NPOV as far as possible.

A) I am of the opinion that Khalistan entry would be better suited to a description to the origins and developments of it as an ideology/concept rather then as a description of the conflict in the Punjab:

1) Khalistan and the armed conflict in Punjab are not identical. There is now a page for the punjab insurgency which though at the moment incomplete would be a better place for the events of the conflict.

2) Though the armed conflict has ceased the ideas of Khalistan and the issues underling are still present in India and among Sikhs overseas.

The concept of Khalistan is not necessarly synomous with terrorism there are major and respected political groups such as the Sikh Federation in the UK and others which have Khalistan as a objective but are completely opposed to violence.

3) The idea of Khalistan has enough "meat" so to speak to merit a complete article For example at the moment there is no mention of the borders of just a proposed state, origins of the idea, criticism of the concept etc.

There are some POVs and factual issues with article but I will post any proposed changes first and cite at least two respected sources in support Just to repeat Sukhs request that genunie issues only be posted here. Let me know what you think.

peace

--Narncruiser 17:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Before I begin, I can see from your contributions you're a new user - welcome to Wikipedia!

Hi Sukh you've done a grand job of managing what could of been a potential mess (see the kashmir page).

Thanks. Some of the points made by the editors (thetruth et al.) were valid in my opinion, but many were not. There was no ability to reach any sort of consensus. Had they (I say they, it could after all have just been one person) been willing to discuss the issues and cite sources then there would be no problem. The page was protected and if the same problem reoccurs it will be protected again. That's Wikipedia for you!

A) I am of the opinion that Khalistan entry would be better suited to a description to the origins and developments of it as an ideology/concept rather then as a description of the conflict in the Punjab:

Well at present I don't think there is enough information on the page to begin splitting it up. I think the sections should all be expanded and then when they hit a certain size (~32KB) we should split them into smaller sub-articles :D But this is definately a thought for the future.

2) Though the armed conflict has ceased the ideas of Khalistan and the issues underling are still present in India and among Sikhs overseas.

Indeed, although obviously to a lesser extent to what they were. I'm of the opinion that the cause is considerbly more alive outside of India and in the country itself. Of course there may be many reasons why that is - many Sikhs believe the Indian government has actively perscuted them for two decades.

The concept of Khalistan is not necessarly synomous with terrorism there are major and respected political groups such as the Sikh Federation in the UK and others which have Khalistan as a objective but are completely opposed to violence.

I agree. This needs to be highlighted more.

3) The idea of Khalistan has enough "meat" so to speak to merit a complete article For example at the moment there is no mention of the borders of just a proposed state, origins of the idea, criticism of the concept etc.

As I mentioned above, if we can get the "meat" I'd be more than happy to split it up into detailed sub-articles.

There are some POVs and factual issues with article but I will post any proposed changes first and cite at least two respected sources in support Just to repeat Sukhs request that genunie issues only be posted here. Let me know what you think.

That's definately the way to go! When I cleaned this article up, I didn't (for obvious time reasons) double check every single fact. I only checked the most controversial and even then if I wasn't sure I probably left it in. It definately needs reviewing by multiple people!

Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted the article to what it was during the time of protection. That version was marginally based off the original version, but tried to take a neutral look at the picture. The current version includes a lot of POV information and is the version that the rewritten version replaced. --Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്)

Why I removed some links

I removed them because they have nothing to do with Khalistan, or are blatantly POV:

• http://www.airindiabombing.com/main.html Analysis of Air India bombing - is blatantly POV.
• http://www.Khalistan.com Official Site of the Council of Khalistan - is redundant. You already have a khalistan.net.
• http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/27/85708.shtml Article on human-rights violations and anti-Americanism by India - This is an article about Khalistan, not about human-rights violations or anti-Americanism by India.
• http://www.ensaaf.org ENSAAF: Fighting Impunity in India - Has nothing to do with Khalistan
• http://www.sikhgenocide.org Sikh Genocide Project - POV.
• http://www.neverforget84.com Never Forget '84 - POV.
• http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1401028578/qid=1125663154/sr=8-10/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i10_xgl14/102-7507781-3334550?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Amazon.com 'A Sea Of Orange: Writings on the Sikhs and India' - Doesn't have much to do with Khalistan. You will notice that I left your other Amazon link there, because it was relevant.

--Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്) 23:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the Amazon links to be book references and added a "see also" section, I removed a dead site. I will check the links you mentioned when I get time, maybe they should go into a subsection for POV articles. They are not really references..in fact I doubt any of the links are good references.

--Nackie 12:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Article structure

Some comments, article is better but far from perfect.

• There's still a lot of duplication with repeated points.
• I've removed the really really long subheadings, they just looked wrong
• Overall doesn't read coherently, still a bit disjointed
• Bold headings..not actual headings, what gives? Should they even be headings?
• Spelling mistakes, easy to fix but I'd be personally embarrassed if I couldn't spell Khalistan in an article about Khalistan...you know who you are.
• Too much on the insurgency perhaps? As suggested above there is a seperate article for that

Now that the article is not being replaced wholesale it might be possible to work on these things...

--Nackie 13:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by 172.*

Vandalizing this article, and others written by me], will get you nowhere. Wikipedia thrives on mature, responsible co-operation, and not the mindless trolling and peurile, immature behaviour that you are displaying. Discuss your changes instead of blindly reverting. I have left your links (though very biased) about the "Sikh Genocide" and "Never Forget '84" after discussion with Sukh. It's important to show the range of beliefs, from the unbiased to the biased. However, I have removed your other links as they have nothing to do with this article. It is not a platform for you to bash India. Also, in future, please refrain from vandalizing other articles for spite. Thanks.

--Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്) 14:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What is someone who denies the events of 1984 doing editing a page on khalistan? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.188.120 (talk • contribs) .

I don't think Vivin once said he 'denied the events of 1984'. It's plain and simple that atrocities did occur, but their circumstances and the people involved are not exactly easy to determine. And this is a Wiki, which means anyone can edit it. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright material

Someone included material in the article. A no-no. Three weeks later someone else invoked the copyright violation procedure, blanking the article.

The instructions for how to deal with material believed to be a copyright violation say: Revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can — and you're done!

The copyright material seems to have been included on November 11th. -- Geo Swan 17:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I should have reverte the page but there seems to be little none copyrighted information also. why dnt u revert it back. thanks Wisesabre 13:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Once the copyright violation procedure is invoked no one is supposed to edit the page. This sucks because there is a backlog on processing copyright violations. There was someone who voted to delete a page I started, and when the {afd} failed they subsequently filed a bogus copyright violation against that page. Because of the backlog it was several weeks before an administrator was available to review that article.

My understanding of the procedure is that I would be violating policy if I reverted the article, since a formal review by an administrator is in the works. However, you, as the person who invoked the copyright review, are perfectly free to revert it. I recommend doing that, and leaving a note on the copyright violation log, saying, that, after consideration, you were merely going to revert the article to a version prior to the inclusion of material you suspect of copyright violation. -- Geo Swan 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Khalistanis wnating Punjab Pakistan?

How stupid and illogical is this? that would just make you a minority in your own country. What would be me appropriate would be taking back India Punjab, I mean after all the Hindus did promise the Sikhs this land. Wanting Punjab Pakistan is a futile conception. --Street Scholar 21:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well not all Sikhs who support Khalistan wish to incorporate Pakistani Punjab - although some do. Even the greater Punjab of India would have Sikh minority. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Right I see. --Street Scholar 19:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyrighted text lifted from "http://www.sikhgenocide.org/background.htm"

1. It is illegal and immoral to copy and paste text from a web-site It is a serious copyright violation. Action should be taken against those involved in this copying. (Comment: The article was posted by its author. It is not immoral to reproduce your own work!)

2. The web-site from where the text is taken is a specifically separationist web-site that seeks to establish a theocratic nation from parts of India and Pakistan. Hardly unbiased. (Comment: This is nonsense; can you prove this with evidence?)

3. The cut-and-paste text states that India is not a democracy. India is as much a democracy as UK, USA, Canada or Australia. Democracy is not an exclusive preserve of rich European or North American countries. (Comment: Please learn to read; the article nowhere states that India is not a democracy. India is in fact an illiberal democracy, which is the central thesis of this article.)

4. India is not a military dictatorship. India is not a theocratic state. India's president is a Muslim, and the Prime Minister is a Sikh. Federal and state Governments in India win and lose elections, as they elsewhere in democracies. State of Punjab has an elected government. --ISKapoor 22:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually tried quite hard to clean up and mediate this article, but the vandals kept vandalising and the exercise became futile. I've not got the time or the effort to go through the Wikipedia bureaucracy to get this page protected or watched for vandalism. You're more than welcome to clean it up because I gave up long ago ;) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"western nations"

"although Khalistan movement was supported by Pakistan and fundamentalist politicians in some western countries." -- Which? Mustaqbal 20:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

United States, UK, Canada to name a few. Rep. Burton from Illinois is a well known sympathiser of Khalistani movement. अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 17:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

meaning of Khalistan

Doesn't the word Khalis means pure or unadultrated? So isn't Khalistan "Pure Land" rather than Sovereign Land? deeptrivia (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the first half of the name derives from Khalsa which according to [1] commonly means 'pure'. 'Stan' is from the Persian meaning Land, so from that you get "Land of the Pure". So yes, you're correct. I don't know where the Sovereign bit came from - although ultimately, that's the least of our worries in terms of inaccurate facts in this article! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Response:

Khalsa was used for "a land owned and administered by the highest sovereign" during the Mughal times. The sixth Sikh Guru, Guru Hargobind, used this concept to name his army that fought against Shah Jahan. Later, Guru Gobind Singh used it for the entire Panth, his committed followers who were administed the nectar of the double-edged sword (khande-ki-pahul). Therefore, to call the Khalsa "pure" is too simplistic. The Khalsa is a sovereign that is answerable only to God and no human being. Khalistan then is best described as the land administered by the Khalsa, where no one is coerced by another human being and all are subject to God without any intermediaries.

Can we get citations for this? Calling a nation 'sovereign' applies to virtually every independent country on the earth [2]. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, you should take a look at Kapur Singh, Sikhism of the Modern Man (Amritsar, G.N.D.U) for the etymology of the word Khalsa. This is a wonderful book to read. Furthermore, since it's a Turko-Perisan word, a good dictionary such as Steingass' Persian-English dictionary should also have the connotation I have mentioned. Also, please remember that "sovereign" as you take it is a Western notion. Here are are discussing sovereignty as seen in the Sikh context as informed by tradition. What's implicit in the Sikh conception of the word is that the collectivity of the people are in power and not the state per se. This is well demonstrated by the Sikh concept of the Sarbat Khalsa. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.106.157 (talk • contribs) .

I've not got access to that book, but I'll take your word for it! I feel there definately needs to be a section on the etymology of the whole term 'Khalistan'. I've looked at the online version of the Steingrass dictionary [3] and can't seem to find and entry for 'Khalsa' or 'Sovereign' that is as you suggest. Mind taking a look? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that etymology is important because it tends to minimize and cancel out role of history (with it continuous modifications and shifts), while seeking to preserve an essential tie between the current, living acceptance of a word and its hypothetical first reception, raised to the status of original, founding datum. What's really important is how Sikhs have conducted themselves in the past when the created states and what were the characteristics of those states. Were these states ever discriminitory against minorities? Did the Sikhs as rulers share political power with Hindus and Muslims? Answers to such questions enable to hypothesize to some degree about what a Khalistan may look like and how it ought to be defined. The first Sikh Republic by Banda Singh Bahadur in 1710 was remarkable in this regard. Ranjit Singh's monarchy recruited Hindus and Muslims in its cabinet. His foreign minister Azizudin was a Muslim and the Dogras his principal advisors were Hindus. The most insidious claim occur when people say that Khalistan would be a theocracy. It simply can't be supported by the past and it finds no support in the absence of a priestly class in Sikhism that may rule in the name of an invisible God. This sort of theoretical reflection brings one closer to the meaning of a concept, rather than its etymology. 66.30.106.157 16:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The reasoning for the name 'Khalistan' is very important - a few simple lines is all that's needed. After all there is 15,000 words worth of information not related to the name!

I've changed it to "Land of the Pure" because that is its literal meaning. Sure, it can 'stand' for something else or something broader, but that would not be its literal meaning. The rest of your comments about what a Khalistan (if it ever occurs - not looking likely at the moment) would be like are trying to predict the future. Although if the organisations that support Khalistan have a unified view as to what the state will be like, then that obviously needs to be mentioned. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind etymological description as long as you add the word "literally" before it. Otherwise, it is misleading for the reasons I have already mentioned. Furthermore, I don't think Sikhs have any notion of being "pure" and others "impure". Do you see my point? 66.30.106.157 16:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly see your point - I know Sikhism views all as equals. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

khalistan...not a sikh homeland

This may or may not be a new view to many people. But my vision of khalistan was not a sikh homeland but a place (like the gurus invisiged) where the human race can live as one. Guru Nank said recognise all the human race as one. This would be a place where men and women, and any caste creed or colour would be treated exactly the same. This is the injustice many sikhs are fighting against in presnt day inida. Sikhs opted to stay with india becase they thought they could live with peace and dignity. But unfortunatley even today with a sikh prime minister we still suffer humiliating attacks (for example the present sikh situation in uttranchal). If we achieve khalistan we do not want all muslims, hindus, christains to move out but to live together as one.

Cleanup/NPOV tags

I've reinstated these tags. It still needs cleaning up because there are no wiki links and the references (footnotes) need to be properly wikified. I've also yet to check whether it is NPOV because I've not had the time to read it all (hopefully next week I will). Please don't remove the NPOV tag without discussing it first on the talk page. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for taking the time to perform the formatting. I wrote this article for an academic audience and had to ensure that every assertion was supported with a citation. If you find something that is unsupported, please let me know and I will make best attempts to provide it. Also, the word Khalistan used to be in Gurmukhi is no longer appearing in the title of the article. I don't want to revert your changes, so please take a look at it when you have a moment. I am new to Wiki tagging so it will take me some time to get up to speed. 66.30.106.157 16:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Gurmukhi transliteration appears fine here. Try looking for help here: Wikipedia:Enabling complex text support for Indic scripts. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I would also recommend you get yourself a Wikipedia account. You only need a username/password and its easier for people to contact you on your wiki talk page. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Recommended Cleanup

In think there is *way* too much information in this article. It probably needs to be at most and third of its current size. My personal suggestion is to have the Khalistan page present the main issue, and have separate pages that contain background information. New articles to incorporate the material, such as History of Sikhism, Sikhism in Punjab etc. probably need to be made. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I am busy with some other writing till the 20th, after which I will have considerable free time. I will try to reduce the length and cut out what can be removed. 66.30.106.157 17:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Khalistan Map

Is there an agreed on map of Khalistan? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The understanding has been that Khalistan's geography consists of the current state of Indian Punjab, including additional Punjabi speaking areas that were awarded to the state of Haryana and the Union Teritory of Chandigarh. This is based strictly on the demands of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. I will try to see if I can find a good map. 66.30.106.157 17:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs some NPOV'ing

Good information, but needs some NPOV'ing. It downplays the militancy and has some POV like this:

The events in 1984 further demonstrate the illiberal nature of the Indian democracy. For over a year, the Indian army had been preparing for an attack on the Darbar Sahib. To legitimize the attack, according to Subramaniam Swami—a member of the Indian Parliament—the central government had created a disinformation campaign. In his words, the state sought to “make out that the Golden Temple was the haven of criminals, a store of armory and a citadel of the nation’s dismemberment conspiracy.”[76] --Vivin Paliath (<span style="color:green" lang="ml">വിവിന് പാലിയത്</span>) 08:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we distinguish between a point of view and a fact? It's based on Subramaniam Swami's research and I have no other information to not accept it. 66.30.106.157 07:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

SikhGenocide?

66.30.106.157 says that he is the author of the article from SikhGenocide.net - are we going to have a cut-and-paste article directly from that site here? And SikhGenocide doesn't sound particularly NPOV to me. The article needs some major NPOV'ing. --Vivin Paliath (<span style="color:green" lang="ml">വിവിന് പാലിയത്</span>) 08:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the article itself seems well cited, but even just reading the introductory paragraph shows me it's POV. It's a massive job because of how big it is. And, yes, the use of the word 'genocide' is too strong for what happened after Blue Star. Maybe the word pogrom would be better? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - that word would be better. The article, like you said, is well-cited. It has lots of useful information. It just needs to be cleaned up and NPOV'ed, a lot. Unfortunately, I don't have too much time, since being in Iraq right now gives me very little time to do much of anything (other than Army stuff). But I will do my best to make minor changes here and there perhaps. Or maybe edit bits and pieces of the article. --Vivin Paliath

Mr. Paliath, I am the original author and I will be removing parts of the article and make it more encyclopedia like. I think what you had written initiatlly was a biased piece without citations (please correct me if I am wrong). At least here we have a start that is well-referenced. Now the objective is to structure it in a way so it conforms to the norms and the tone of an enclyclopedia entry. 66.30.106.157 07:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Indian army targeted innocent Sikhs because of their religious identity--this is well documented and citations are there for you to read. Keeping this in mind, please refer to the definition of "genocide" used in the instruments of the United Nations. I have provided you with the reference when I first used the word. Pogrom is not the right word in the light of the U.N. instruments. 66.30.106.157 07:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, to use the word Genocide in reference to the Government's actions, there has to be a credible evidence that the Government wished to exterminate either part-of or all Sikhs. Whether the consequences of Operation Blue Star resulted in a full-blown attempt at genocide is unclear. However, what we can reasonably say is that the few days of 'riots' in Northern India after Indira Gandhi's death were a pogrom. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The original article had numerous citations and references. The tone was non-biased and NPOV and efforts were constantly being made to maintain that tone in the article. Your website is called "SikhGenocide", and that is hardly NPOV. You make statements without any references, and simply based on one man's research. The original article may seem "biased" to you because it didn't perhaps implicate the Indian Government enough. The fact remains that the Khalistani sepratists were militants/terrorists. The article made it a point to state the problems Sikhs faced and how certain actions by the government were made for the sole purpose of gaining more votes or denying Sikhs power. Wikipedia is here for facts. It's not a portal to post your own views. That being said, your article has good information. We just need to fix the tone. --Vivin Paliath (<span style="color:green" lang="ml">വിവിന് പാലിയത്</span>) 17:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know why people associate the use of word "genocide" with "bias". Would you have made the same statement if you came across a site called "Jewish Genocide Project"? I am providing you with facts based on non-Sikh scholars' research about the Indian state's "genocide" (as defined by "U.N. Genocide Convention") of the Sikhs. You are not providing me with any references when making these counter-claims that you pulled out of thin air. Disagreements are welcome, but they must be supported by references. This is the only way we can make progress. I don't think that Joyce Pettigrew or Cynthia Mahmood have any ideological commitment in this. You, however, as a proud Indian may have some. Therefore, it is imperative that when you deny a genocide in which thousands of Sikhs were massacred by the Indian state, you back-up what you say. Zafarnamah 09:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Date of Declaration of Khalistan

The date cited for Khalistan's Declaration of independence in this article is incorrect. According to Joyce Pettigrew, the declaration of Khalistan by a Sarbat Khalsa took place at the Akal Takht in January 1986 and the document itself was released the five-member Panthik Committee from the Akal Takht on April 29, 1986 (see Joyce Pettigrew, "Parents and Their Children in Situation of Terror: Disappearances and Special Police Activity in Punjab," Death Squad: The Anthropology of Terror (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), p.205.)

I have the text introducing the "Declaration of Khalistan" in front of me and this document states: "This document declaration of Khalistan was issued on April, 29 1986 by the Five-Member Panthic Committee from Darbar Sahib Complex, Sri Amritsar Sahib." The main body of the document states: "...the Panthic Committee appointed by 'Sarbat Khalsa' on January 26, 1986, defines the Sikh congregations’ dream of Khalistan..."

Here we have two sources giving the same dates. 66.30.106.157 07:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Top headers expressing point of view

I have gone through the article and removed all personal opinions. What's there are facts, which are all supported by citations. I would recommend going through the article. If you find something that you feel is an opinion, I will remove it. I think we are making progress in presenting this properly. Thank you for your cooperation, without which it could not have happened. 66.30.106.157 11:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)