I’ve heard, Bhindranwale was a Khalistani. And yet, he’s almost worshiped in certain parts of Punjab.
Which is fucked up when you think about it as an Indian. But, history rarely gives us heroes and villains.
It gives us people.
And then it gives us enough tragedy that everyone spends the next forty years arguing about who was which.
And one might argue, that’s the case with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale.
Depending on who you ask, he was either a saint who defended Sikh rights or the man who ignited one of India’s bloodiest insurgencies. The truth, like most things in history, refuses to fit neatly into either box.
And while all of this is kind of disheartening, it’s kind of fun to know about historical figures that you can’t decide your stance on.
A Preacher, Not a Revolutionary
It’s 1977.
Punjab is prosperous on paper, but restless underneath. Farmers have grievances. Politics is messy. Religion is becoming deeply intertwined with identity.
Bhindranwale, a young preacher from a village called Rode takes charge of the Damdami Taksal, a respected Sikh religious institution.
His beliefs aren’t about creating a new country.
They’re about creating better Sikhs.
Stop drinking.
Stop smoking.
Take Amrit.
Live according to the teachings of the Gurus.
And that makes sense. It’s a beautiful religion with beautiful beliefs — that unfortunately get misrepresented and forgotten by those meant to protect it.
And so thousands of young Sikhs began following him. His speeches were powerful, direct and uncompromising. He wasn’t polished like a politician. He was a preacher.
The Incident That Changed Everything
Then comes 1978.
Members of the Sant Nirankari Mission and orthodox Sikhs clash in Amritsar.
Thirteen Sikhs are killed.
For many Sikhs, this isn’t just another violent incident. It’s an attack on their faith.
Bhindranwale’s speeches begin changing.
They’re no longer just about religion.
They’re about defending religion.
And that changes everything.
His popularity explodes.
Supporters see courage.
Critics begin seeing something far more dangerous.
The Question That Followed Him Everywhere
As his influence grows, journalists keep asking him the same question.
“Do you want Khalistan?”
If you expect a simple yes or no, you’re going to be disappointed.
One of his most famous responses was:
“We do not demand Khalistan, nor do we oppose it. If the Government gives us Khalistan, we shall not refuse it.”
That’s… not exactly an answer.
Or maybe it’s the most political answer possible.
He never clearly declared, “Yes, I want Khalistan.”
He also never said, “No, I oppose Khalistan.”
Instead, he left the door open just enough for both supporters and critics to hear what they wanted to hear.
Another time, when asked again about Khalistan, he reportedly said:
“If the Government attacks Darbar Sahib, it will lay the foundation of Khalistan.”
Again, notice the wording.
He’s framing Khalistan not as his demand, but as the consequence of government action.
Whether that was genuine belief or strategic ambiguity is something historians still debate today.
Punjab Begins to Burn
By the early 1980s, Punjab is changing.
Murders become increasingly common.
Police officers.
Journalists.
Political opponents.
Moderate Sikh leaders.
Ordinary civilians.
Supporters argue that Bhindranwale is being blamed for violence he didn’t personally order.
Critics argue that whether or not he pulled the trigger himself, his speeches and his armed followers helped create the atmosphere in which violence flourished.
Either way, Punjab is becoming increasingly unstable.
The Golden Temple
Eventually, Bhindranwale moves into the Akal Takht inside the Golden Temple complex.
Supporters say he’s taking refuge from an assassination attempt.
Critics ask why armed men and weapons are now inside one of Sikhism’s holiest sites.
The complex becomes fortified.
Sandbags.
Bunkers.
Firing positions.
It is no longer simply a place of worship.
It has become the centre of a growing confrontation between the Indian government and Bhindranwale’s followers.
Both sides believe the other will strike first.
Operation Blue Star
June 1984.
Negotiations fail.
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi orders Operation Blue Star.
The Indian Army enters the Golden Temple.
The fighting lasts several days.
Bhindranwale is killed.
So are soldiers.
So are militants.
So are civilians caught in the middle.
The Akal Takht is heavily damaged.
For many Sikhs around the world, the image of tanks and soldiers inside their holiest shrine becomes impossible to forget.
And Then…
History doesn’t stop there.
A few months later, Indira Gandhi is assassinated by two of her Sikh bodyguards.
Then come the anti-Sikh riots.
Thousands of innocent Sikhs are murdered.
Punjab enters years of insurgency, terrorism, counter-insurgency and unimaginable loss.
By then, Bhindranwale is no longer just a man.
He has become a symbol.
To some, he is a martyr who stood for Sikh dignity.
To others, he is the face of a movement that pushed Punjab into years of bloodshed.
History remembers him as both.
So… Did He Support Khalistan?
This is the question everyone asks.
Ironically, it’s also the one with no universally accepted answer.
If you only read his public statements, you’ll notice he consistently avoided an explicit declaration demanding Khalistan.
Instead, he repeatedly said:
“We do not demand Khalistan, nor do we oppose it.”
And:
“If the Government gives us Khalistan, we shall not refuse it.”
Those statements are real.
They’re also why his legacy remains so fiercely debated.
Some believe he deliberately avoided openly demanding secession while quietly encouraging it.
Others believe he genuinely wanted greater rights for Sikhs within India and that the Khalistan label oversimplifies his position.
What isn’t debated is this:
His life, his movement and his death changed Punjab forever.
And four decades later, India is still debating what, exactly, he was fighting for.
And while the current left wing would argue the religious divide in India was brought about by the present government, I’d say… We’ve always been like this. 🥲
Leave a Reply