ENVISIONING THE KHALSA STATE MODELED AFTER THE VATICAN STATE: SEEKING THE GOODWILL OF THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper intends to present a practical solution to the aspirations of the Sikh community of believers.The three facets of this study are: (1) The Sikhs' aspiration for a Khalsa state, where they can define, defend, and practice Sikhism.(2) The Sikhs' yearning that the Harmandir Sahib (Akal Takht-the throne of the timeless one) and the Golden Temple complex be the supreme centre and seat of authority of Sikhism.(3) The Sikhs' wish to work and worship with fellow Indians who live within the Punjab state and the rest of India, their country.Sikhs can achieve these aspirations by seeking the 'goodwill' of the Indian Government.To this end, it is proposed: (1) to create the Khalsa State modeled after the Vatican state, where the Chief Guru, like the Pope, can be both the temporal head of the Khalsa state and the spiritual leader of the Sikhs in India and around the world.The Khalsa state is created from the area around the Harmandir Sahib Temple of Amritsar, modeled like the Vatican state around St Peter's Cathedral.(2) The Punjab state government continue and maintain the current relationship with the federal or central Government of India.(3) The Khalsa State accept India's sovereignty and consign foreign policy to the Indian Government.This would create a religious haven for the Sikh people, similar to the Vatican state for Catholics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".