Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

It says hundreds of thousands of people were killed during during operation blue star which is complete lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.60.235 (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Not militant

Fellow member of sant jarnail singh bhindrawale are not militants, they all are revolutionaries. They fought for the. Peoples of state and community whereas at that time rulling government was the real threat for everyone. 2402:8100:3959:3169:6D33:A4FB:2947:729D (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Sant Jarnail singh Bhindranwale was not an terriorist they just fought for thier people and their religion to get the rights in india as hindus get Taranmann0 (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Srijanx22 source [10],[11],[33],[34],[37] all state Bhindranwale was not for Khalistan in the opening description. He was militant in the sense that he was armed and did inspire the Khalistan movement, but claiming he is a Khalistani militant is rather misleading. Chomskywala (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC).

I used this source which said: "Bhindranwale was a militant religious leader and the leader of the Khalistani Movement, which demanded secession from the Indian State to form the Sikh state of Khalistan." Do you have a rebuttal instead of your own WP:OR? Srijanx22 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

"Do you have a rebuttal instead of your own WP:OR?"

I did note there are several sources already provided within the article, I am not providing my own perspective here, note:

- [9-11] are from the Hindustan Times published from 1982-1984

- [33]. The Tribune India: "Bhindranwale never raised the demand for Khalistan or went beyond the Akali Anandpur Sahib Resolution, while he himself was prepared for negotiations to the very end."

- [34] New York Times: "Mr. Bhindranwale himself said many times that he was not seeking an independent country for Sikhs, merely greater autonomy for Punjab within the Indian Union...There was and is a Khalistan movement whose leaders are in exile in Canada and Britain, but little or no evidence has existed that the idea was taken seriously by many Indian Sikhs... considerable Khalistan sentiment seems to have arisen since the raid on the temple, which many Sikhs, if not most, have taken as a deep offense to their religion and their sensibilities. To illustrate Sikh attitudes, Mr. Singh said a fellow Sikh told him, I don't feel Indian any more.:

- [35] Deol 2000 p. 170 "Bhindranwale was not an outspoken supporter of Khalistan, although he often emphasized the separate identity of the Sikhs."

- [37] Puri, Rajinder The Statesman. "The assumption that Bhindranwale was insisting on Khalistan and rigidly denied any compromise is the biggest lie"

I think the broader issue is that there are largely two opposing narratives. One states, that Bhindranwale wanted Khalistan. The other states, Bhindranwale, wanted the Anandpur Shaib Resolution and greater autonomy within the Indian state. Now, the former claim was the one used to rationalize Operation Blue Star. However, there is some debate on whether this was a true claim. For example, Christoper Andrews's work on the KGB archives notes the evidence for this claim was based on fabricated intelligence provided by the Soviet Union to Gandhi. The fabricated intelligence stated the CIA, Pakistan and Bhindranwale were going to launch a civil war for the formation of Khalistan [source] pg. 278. Chomskywala (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I think in the interests of preserving a neutral point of view; there should be a caveat on how Bhindranwales death and Blue Star precipitated the Khalistan movement; and the uncertainty around whether he was actively supporting Khalistan and the Anadpur Shaib resolution. But, I do believe stating he was a Khalistani militant implies he was actively fighting a guerrilla war for Khalistan - he was not actively involved in guerilla warfare, with the exception of Blue Star - he was a political actor, preaching in Punjab. Chomskywala (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

What seems obvious is that "By 1981, he had become the leading figure of an aggressive movement for a Sikh state" (Khalistan).[1] The lead for long said that he "was a militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal." We should instead change it to "was a militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal and the leading figure of Khalistan movement." Srijanx22 (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that is a fair description. I think the only potential problem with that description would be readers conflating the Damdami Taksal with the militancy. I think stating he "was a militant, and leader of the Damdami Taksal" may avoid that. After all the Damdami Taksal is a historic Sikh institution and not a Khalistani terrorist organization.

Also, from the sources I've read, his role in the Khalistan movement requires more nuance then that source has provided. Again, it's unclear weather he was advocating for Khalistan. I have not seen any statements from him which explicitly advocate for Khalistan and the literature that exists appears to be split with some authors claiming he was supporting Khalistan - with Indian intelligence stating this was occurring covertly - and others claiming he was only asking for the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. However, I agree he was a leading figure of the Khalistan movement - and continues to be. I think perhaps stating, "he was an advocate of the Anadpur Shaib Resolution and became a martyr for the Khalistan movement" or "he was an advocate of the Anadpur Sahib and a leading figure of the Khalistan movement..." and then introducing a bit of this debate about the lack of clarity on his personal stance on Khalistan may allow for the nuance to be explained. What do you think? Chomskywala (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Terrorist bhindrawala

Bhindrawala was a bloody terrorist, who killed many of punjabi hindus 92.96.225.90 (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)