Talk:1983 Dhilwan bus massacre

Sources to Expand the article

1. indiatoday The Bhullar killings: Suspected Sikh terrorists kill Hindu bus passengers
2. indiatoday Brutal slaying of four Hindu bus travellers takes tension in Punjab to a new high --DBigXrayᗙ 22:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources

WorldWikiAuthorOriginal/HaughtonBrit: Here are the sources: [1] and [2].

On the other page- [3].

With that I will revert your changes and add the urls in the citations in a bit. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Bhindranwale

Hey CS1469, please review WP:OQ, in particular, Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. In addition, Bhindranwale must be accorded much less weight than the commentary of scholars and police and government reports, given that Bhindranwale was a religious preacher and lacks the capability, tools and resources to make astute claims as to who was behind the murders. On the other hand, Wikipedia ubiqitously accords police and official reports much more weight given that they have the tools and resources at their disposal to figure out who is behind a crime. Bhindranwale was also promoting a fringe theory alleging that the government was behind the murders, and as per WP:FRINGE, we don't include them in Wikipedia unless they are reiterated substantially in secondary academic sources. Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the previous terse language which stated Bhindranwale condemned the incident. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think summing up what Bhindranwale said with claimed is fair. He was head of a religious institution and essentially of Dharam Yudh Morcha which was quite political. He was also accused of the killings so adding his statement is important. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll look into some Wiki policies that may be in effect later today or tomorrow. Thanks Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

So did you find anything? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I added a SAGE source, a high quality academic secondary source, that states the massacre was committed by Sikh militants. Bhindranwale is a primary source, the bulk of our content should be sourced by secondary sources. Primary sources like Bhindranwale should not be given undue weight, especially pertaining to his quote spreading fringe theories. Per WP: UNDUE Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I have now added 3 reliable, academic sources that state Sikh militants were behind the attacks, clearly meaning that this narrative ought to be accorded the most weight, and rendering Bhindranwale's accusations as obscure and merely his own intuitions. We should not give minority views or fringe views as detailed of a description per Wiki policy. 12:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but Bhindranwale is the accused in the attack. He was dubbed the man responsible so it would be important to reflect his statement. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think adding his reaction gives undue weight. It isn’t being pushed as the status quo on the issue. Adding other’s reactions will also help. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

To the 3O provider, please choose which paragraph is more suitable for the Aftermath section: [4] or [5]. Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi folks, here to give a 3O. Sorry it took me a little while. Thanks to both of you for approaching this discussion respectfully so far. I think both of you have made good points.

Here's what I believe we can glean from the sources Southasianhistorian8 added:

• Roy tells a story where Bhindranwale is a major figure driving the unrest overall, with this attack being one manifestation of that unrest. He comes off there as an overarching figure beyond the massacre itself, holing up in the Golden Temple in an atmosphere of general escalation which this massacre is one aspect of. I think that supports a brief mention of Bhindranwale here, as a background figure.
• Hardgrave is even more hands-off than Roy, citing Bhindranwale as the "key figure" driving the unrest but leaving him entirely in the background when discussing the attack and the following President's rule. Since he's still present as a significant background figure there, though, this doesn't go far from Roy.
• Martin mentions that Bhindranwale "moved himself and his followers into the Golden Temple" after the attack and President's rule "to avoid arrest." I think this is compatible with Roy and Hardgrave, but goes even a little further to bring in Bhindranwale, giving a direct sequence of events where the attack prompts the President's rule which pushes Bhindranwale to the Golden Temple under pressure. I think that supports a brief sketch of the events involving Bhindranwale following the incident, as important context.

Something to note about Hardgrave is that it's actually from 1984—the 2019 date is for a reprint (I went ahead and changed it). So, I think we should give relatively more weight to Roy and Martin, and maybe especially Roy since Martin is arguably tertiary.

I think, all told, that this suggests we give a brief sketch of Bhindranwale amidst the tension, but not more than a sentence or two—something like, "Following the massacre and the imposition of President's rule, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale moved into the Golden Temple, fearing arrest. He made statements to the press condemning the attack, suggesting that it was a false flag operation by the government to secure Hindu votes."

I think the relevance of these events has been established strongly enough by the secondary sources we have to support the brief summary of his position from a primary source here, especially since these are only his comments about the incident itself. What do the two of you think about using this as a compromise? His views may be WP:FRINGE, but he was quoted saying this in the mainstream nationwide news (India Today magazine) so it's not like this is coming from a fringe source. Speaking personally, I feel it really helps the reader understand the larger context this incident happened within, whether or not he has any credibility in saying that—just the fact that he would say something like that.

I will say, also, that it would be great to have even more sources like the ones Southasianhistorian8 brought in here. It might change this whole calculus. In particular, I think it would be great to bring in some academic sources from Punjab if possible, since they might have access to local resources that other researchers can't access as easily. If either of you know of any, it's fine to cite them if they're not in English, as long as you can read them confidently in the original (see WP:RSUE if you're unsure of the details). The '80s-era newspaper articles should be regarded as primary sources here, I would say, and not used to gauge questions of topic weight—they're old enough now to be treated as historical documents. 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 23:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. There is one thing I want to say. You said, “Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale moved into the Golden Temple, fearing arrest” this isn’t true. He moved to Akal Takht and in December of 1983 over a dispute with rival Babbar Khalsa. It had nothing to do with arrest. From Mid 1982 to December 1983 he was in Guru Nanak Niwas a Hostel.[6] CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mesocarp What about including something referencing this, “Bhindranwale also condemned this killing, but questioned why the central government reacted so quickly to the killing of only 6 Hindus when nearly 200 Sikhs had died at the hands of the Punjab police during the Dharam Yudh morcha” [7] CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mesocarp, and I completely agree with your outstanding analysis. I am also in favor of adding Bhindranwale's comments, albeit, lmiting it to no more than two sentences. Something along the lines of what you have already said "He made statements to the press condemning the attack, suggesting that it was a false flag operation by the government to secure Hindu votes". I'm not sure if his comments on the perceived disproportionate government response is particularly relevant, given that the Dhilwan bus massacre was a terrorist attack, as opposed to the Dharam Yudh Morcha, which was a politcal agitation met with intransigence by the government. If he was commenting on Sikh deaths from militant activities or Hindu retaliation, I think that would be more suitable. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for my mistakes there, CanadianSingh1469. This is the first time I've looked at the whole set of events around this in detail. I was basing what I wrote before on Martin: "In October 1983, six Hindu bus passengers were slaughtered by Sikh militants, leading the Indian government to impose emergency rule in Punjab. To avoid arrest, Bhindranwale moved himself and his followers into the Golden Temple." I do see now from the source you found, Chima, that this could be fairly called vague to a fault, and I now have a better understanding of what happened—thank you for clarifying. You found a great source there in Chima I would say, since he devotes three paragraphs to this event, and actually discusses comments Bhindranwale made about it in the days shortly after. The other secondary sources we have are not quite so detailed so I'm glad we have that one; it could be used to expand other parts of the article as well, I think.

In fairness regarding the arrest risk aspect, Chima does say, "Bhindranwale began to suspect that elements within the Akali Dal were negotiating for his arrest as well," following the arrest of Ranjit Singh. Then, right after Bhindranwale moves into the rooms near the Akal Takht, Chima follows with, "This move [relocating to the Akal Takht] effectively pre-empted prospects of government security forces simply raiding the residential portion of the complex to arrest Bhindranwale. If Mrs Ghandi wanted to get Bhindranwale, she would now have to send security forces into the central portion of the Golden Temple complex..." So, I think he's working along rather similar lines as Martin there, just going into more useful levels of detail. He does make it clear as you say that Bhindranwale's conflict with the Babbar Khalsa was the central reason why he moved from the Guru Nanak Niwas, he just positions Bhindranwale's nervousness about a possible government raid as an additional factor in what happened.

On another note, I noticed, looking into everything a little closer, that Bhindranwale made the statements to the press we've been discussing while he was still at the Guru Nanak Niwas in mid-December, meaning he moved into the Akal Takht shortly afterwards. Also, I realize his statements were not only condemning this attack, but also the other similar attacks that happened in the same period, and that he implied they were all conducted by the government. That changes the narrative there a bit.

Also, Southasianhistorian8, I understand your reluctance to mention Bhindranwale's Dharam Yudh Morcha comments on account of the perhaps false equivalency he makes, but I think it is worth a mention nevertheless, just because it comes from a good secondary source that cites Bhindranwale's remarks on the massacre directly, and it's referring to comments he made soon after it. The other three secondary sources we have don't mention his comments, and the newspaper article quotes him two months later. So, I think if we're going to have Bhindranwale saying anything, I would be inclined to defer to what Chima has him saying, basically regardless of what it is. Of course, other sources could change this picture yet again. (Thank you for your kind words, by the way.)

Putting all that together, I came up with this as a possibility:

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale made a speech from the Guru Nanak Niwas on October 16 condemning the massacre, but accusing Indira Gandhi of double standards for dismissing Darbara Singh's government in response, questioning why she did not do so on account of the 150 sikhs whom he said "achieved martyrdom" at the hands of Punjab police during the Dharam Yudh Morcha. In mid-December, he made statements to the press decrying both this and other attacks on Hindus during the preceeding months, suggesting by then that these attacks were false flag operations by the government to secure Hindu votes. Shortly afterwards, responding to a dispute with Babbar Khalsa, he moved with his followers into rooms near the Akal Takht, heading off the possibility of a government raid in the midst of the increasing tensions.

I know this is 3 sentences as opposed to 2, but I feel the extra detail from Chima provides for that (I found the book of Bhindranwale's speeches that Chima quotes from there, too, which gives a little additional context). It might seem a little unbalanced in length compared to the rest of the article right now, but Chima provides details we can fill out other parts of the article with, balancing it out again. If it really seems too long, we could lose the last sentence and just keep Bhindranwale's comments, or even just keep the first sentence, but I think the whole passage helps connect this event with the larger story. All the sources we have do describe this as one part of a broader narrative that Bhindranwale plays a major role in.

Of course, there are other major figures too, which I think could be a nice place to start in adding more to the article beyond this. Longowal could use more coverage—for instance we could discuss him and the Akal Takht jathedar entertaining the idea of the hukamnama in the aftermath before refusing. Indira Gandhi too; Chima mentions her making 4000 arrests following the start of President's rule, and has a bit about her feeling pressure from Hindu-majority northern states to act decisively following the massacre, which seem like relevant pieces of information.

As a side note, I really appreciate how much both of you have been able to center the discussion around high-quality sources and reason well from them. I wish every 3O request went more like this! :P 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 09:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all the compliments and thank you for your amazing write up. I agree with what you said. The paragraph you suggested is prefect. Although it should say “nearly 200” as per Chima not 150. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mesocarp for the outstanding analysis and your patience. Your write up is perfect and I'll go ahead and add the paragraph into the article (assuming everyone's okay with it at this point). Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I will also go ahead and describe the incident with the hukamnama. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm very glad this was to everyone's liking and that we all came to an agreement—great work all round! I had 150 because that's how Bhindranwale put it, but I didn't quite feel sure of that approach and did consider using 200 instead or putting Bhindranwale's figure in quotes; 200 makes sense since it's Chima's figure and more the accepted count today, so I think if that's what both of you prefer I agree we should do that instead. Also, thanks for adding the passage about the hukamnama, Southasianhistorian8—I think it's already much easier now to understand the larger context for this event. I ended up getting Chima's book for my own reading so I may return to this article once I've read more. 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 22:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your work. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

References