California. During this same period, Sikhs had also migrated to the Malay
Straits to work in security positions.
Meanwhile back in the Panja ̄b, the Aka ̄li Dal (“army of the immortals”)
was formed in 1920–21 to oversee gurdwa ̄ra ̄s and maintain Sikh identity and
rights.^49 A year earlier, a second “gallu ̄gha ̄ra” had occurred, with the massacre
by British troops of non-violent Sikhs protesting near Amritsar. After inde-
pendence in 1947, when Panja ̄b was partitioned between India and Pakistan,
Sikhs continued to struggle for their rights in the Panja ̄b. Though against
the partition in 1947 and siding with Hindus at that time, they believed their
rights were diminished thereafter. Indian Panja ̄b was split into two regions,
in which Sikhs were the majority in the south but still believed themselves
to be without power because: the state government was supposed to be
secular, yet its Sikh administrators were perceived to be bending over back-
wards not to offend Hindus; and more and more Sikhs were learning Hindı ̄
and there was fear that increased “Hinduization” was occurring. Hindı ̄ and
Panja ̄bı ̄ were made the official languages in the state, yet in 1953 while no
Sikhs were in positions of leadership, the central government decided
there would be no Panja ̄bı ̄-speaking state, increasing Sikh frustration. By
1967 that decision was reversed, when the area was divided again, creating
two new states, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, leaving Panja ̄b to a majority
of Panja ̄bı ̄-speaking peoples. Even then there was some disarray amongst
the Sikh political leadership, leading by 1978 to the increased visibility of a
separatist movement led by those who wanted the creation of an autonomous
state, to be called “Khalistan,” evoking a suggestion thought to have once
been made by Guru ̄ Gobind Singh. Among those agitating for autonomy
was a Sikh fundamentalist named Bhidranwalla. Bhidranwalla was accused
of an assassination and asked by the central government to lay down his arms.
When he refused to do so he was labeled a terrorist and was sought by govern-
ment forces. The “crisis” came to a head in 1984, when, while Bhidranwalla
was “hiding” in Amritsar’s Golden Temple, the Indian army, led, ironically,
by a Sikh general, attacked the Golden Temple and the alleged terrorists
within. While the government’s view was that the raids were justified, the
Sikhs saw this event as an act of genocide and became increasingly galvan-
ized to action. At the least, “Operation Bluestar” managed to kill a number
of pilgrims during a festival, and review committees which were not
sympathetic with the Congress Party, studying the events post facto, agreed
primarily with the Sikh position. Among the results of the tragedy was
the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhiby two of her own Sikh
bodyguards. This was followed by Hindu–Sikh conflicts, riots, and reprisals
which led to communal tensions for years. While some of the issues troubling
the Sikhs were subsequently addressed, others are still pending. Nonetheless,
outright hostilities have been kept to a minimum in recent years and the
158 Developments in the Late Medieval Period