Indira Gandhi Bunaam Bush!

#188 by jang
//...so, for idenitity insecurities of some, with no deliberate threat from others, we shall face the consequences....//

Exactly. And then - what if the other communities too start obessessing about purity in their identity. After all, isn`t that RSS`s raison-d-eter .... hindu identity/culture blah, blah...

Sikh identity geting ``diluted`` : with this kind of alarmist bullsh!t, problems are deliberately created where none exist, by people who should know better.

#180 DM

``These trends cannot but cause alarm among the sikh leadership who naturally do not wish their identity to disappear like those of jains before them. ``

so, for idenitity insecurities of some, with no deliberate threat from others, we shall face the consequences. boy, thankfully i have no faith in justice. BTW jains are doing just great. they rarely even marry among the hindus, and give themselves indian but non-hindu pantheon names like ``yogendra`` or ``Neeti``..(Laxmi being the only exception to the rule since its related to money) and run shops like Mahavir Gen. Stores. they have huge processions, their temple trusts are well cared for, and their dharmshalas are everywhere and very clean (if you can get in as a non-jain).

DM
//...These trends cannot but cause alarm among the sikh leadership who naturally do not wish their identity to disappear like those of jains before them. ...//

Are you part of that ``leadership`` who ``do not wish their identity to disappear like those of jains``?

How exactly has Jain identity dissapeared - after all, we are still talking about them. Did the Jain identity merge into hindu identity? And what exactly is a hindu identity?

This obsession with purity of identity - is that a good thing?? Sikh identity is getting ``diluted`` - is that a bad thing?? So what should we do now - start a revolution to restore the sikh identity?

#71 by aslam644 on August 14, 2004 11:15pm PT
Thousands killed tortured in punjab and kashmir, shouldn’t states be given the option of opt out if they don’t want to be part of India, as is the case in Britain

Dear Aslam
What about the Pakistani refuggess struggling in Bangladesh. Pakistan is not willing to accept them because there is no real estate involved unlike Kashmir. What about the Northern parts of Pakistan such as Chitral, Swat, Peshawar and many others which are legally speaking part of Afghanistan. U must read the article written by Aslam Effendi about the “History of Durrand Line”, a popular journalist who writes for Jang. for more infomation please refer to the following website http://afghanland.com/history/durrand.html

Have u forgotten the bloody revolution in Baluchistan. What about the freedom struggle, self-determination, plebiscite uprising, revolution going in Karachi for the last 20 years. What about PONM (Pakistan’s Oppressed Nations Movement). These are the thing, u should ponder .

Iqbal Singh - Amritsar

``The Centre wanted to break the back of the sikh; they were successful in many ways.``

Does that imply that government at the Centre irrespective of the ruling Parties or coalitions have acted against Sikh religion? You mean the Central Governments have been partisan and non-secular in their dealings with Sikh religious leaders? Are we viewing contemporary politics as a continuation of policies of Delhi darbars during the ancient Sikh history??

``Bhindrawala was worshiped especially by rural sikhs because he was the sole opponent to the grievences of sikhs and rural Punjabis. Punjab was and is screwed by the prejudiced centre. Water is one of the main issues. ``

This is an exaggeration as far as I understand Punjab politics. Bhindrawale only wanted to appear as another Sikh martyr who shouted shrill and rebelled against the Delhi darbars. He wanted to show that he had the guts to do and mixed his own ambition with a few political issue like water. I do not think he was anything more than an ambitious war lord who deserved his `martyrdom`.It is also an exagerration that Bhindrawale was the ONLY representative of Sikh Punjabis in the political front?

``Sikhs and weapons go together - Guru Gobind Singh told them to armed at all times. So, the weapons in Golden Temple were not against the tennets of sikhism. ``

Can`t we leave the weapons like AK-47 out of the purview of norms of the modern civil society. Tomorrow the Hindu Kshatriyas would consider arming themselves with AK-47 as being sanctified by their religion. That is exactly what Togadia and his goons want all of us to believe in this country. Bhindrawale used religion to arm himself and his goons with AK-47 in order to INTIMIDATE others and turn himself into a warlord- a legislator, a judge and the sole executor!!

``The Centre wanted to break the back of the sikh; they were successful in many ways.``

Does that imply that government at the Centre irrespective of the ruling Parties or coalitions have acted against Sikh religion? You mean the Central Governments have been partisan and non-secular in their dealings with Sikh religious leaders? Are we viewing contemporary politics as a continuation of policies of Delhi darbars during the ancient Sikh history??

``Bhindrawala was worshiped especially by rural sikhs because he was the sole opponent to the grievences of sikhs and rural Punjabis. Punjab was and is screwed by the prejudiced centre. Water is one of the main issues. ``

This is an exaggeration as far as I understand Punjab politics. Bhindrawale only wanted to appear as another Sikh martyr who shouted shrill and rebelled against the Delhi darbars. He wanted to show that he had the guts to do and mixed his own ambition with a few political issue like water. I do not think he was anything more than an ambitious war lord who deserved his `martyrdom`.It is also an exagerration that Bhindrawale was the ONLY representative of Sikh Punjabis in the political front?

``Sikhs and weapons go together - Guru Gobind Singh told them to armed at all times. So, the weapons in Golden Temple were not against the tennets of sikhism. ``

Can`t we leave the weapons like AK-47 out of the purview of norms of the modern civil society. Tomorrow the Hindu Kshatriyas would consider arming themselves with AK-47 as being sanctified by their religion. That is exactly what Togadia and his goons want all of us to believe in this country. Bhindrawale used religion to arm himself and his goons with AK-47 in order to INTIMIDATE others and turn himself into a warlord- a legislator, a judge and the sole executor!!

#153 Kaurasch

As an indian I remain deeply ashamed of the uncontrolled mob violence in Delhi in 1984 and the lack of justice to the innocent victims of the murders. At the same time, I would urge you not to minimize the extreme violence perpetrated by the khalistanis in Punjab, Haryana and Delhi. I remember well the daily reports of innocent people taken off buses in Punjab and murdered; in one single incident forty poor bihari workers were murdered in their sleep. ALL OF THIS WAS WELL BEFORE OPERATION BLUE STAR, indeed, it went for almost full five years (1978-83).

An honest approach would be to acknowlegde that a large part of the Sikh community allowed itself to be hijacked by extremist elements, and did not act forcefully against these elements even after mass murders were committed in their name. An honest approach would acknowledge that Indira Gandhi used this extremism for her own ends, supporting it when convenient, successfully selling the bogeyman of ``sikh extremism`` to other indians when convenient. And at the end of all of this came the horror of the mob violence against innocent sikhs in Delhi.

#175 by kaurasach
//...Golden Temple should not have been fortified, and should not have been attacked...//

Agree. But the temple WAS fortified. So it had to be cleared of the militants. What do you think - indian gov`t was just itching to humiliate sikhs??

The violence against the temple was of course a sacrilege - but under the circumstances it should have been understood.

If tomorrow RSS fantatics fortify themselves in Puri temple or Tirupathi temple or wherever ... with weapons and what not - what do you recommend the gov`t do? Sit there and twiddle thumbs??? Nope - the right actions would be to attack and clear out the place.

Didn`t some similar incident happened in one of the two big mosques in Saudi Arabia - where Saudis had to take armed action to flush out the militants?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

stuka #176

good arguments. kinda of reminds me of the iraq-wmd-intel ..

``Her real intention was to launch an attack on the Sikh faith and to give the message that she was all powerful. Hence I believe her death was essential. ``

if such courtesy (sp) is extended in iraq war case and is successful, god help us all.

rahulmal:
I have said earlier that no two situations are identical. Obviously, there is a difference between a domestic and an international situation. But the similarities cannot be ignored either.

ballukhan:
I`ll need to write a book to answer all your questions:-).
Yes, Tully`s book would be a good start.
To me, the whole sikh struggle, starting with the movement of the punjabi suba has been a struggle for identity. For a long time, the boundaries between hindus and sikhs were fluid. Before Bhindranwale, there was a large trend among sikh youth to give up their distint signs and assimilate with the majority community. The threat was real. In terms of religious philosophies, buddhism and jainism represented a bigger break from the vedic philosophy than gurbani. Still, over time, hinduism was able to swallow those religions` identities within its amorous embrace. If sikhs were/are to survive as a distinct identity, it was/is important to clearly demarcate boundaries. Until the early 20th century, a distinction was made between a sikh and a khalsa, the former being the one who merely believed in the teachings of the sikh gurus (the original meaning of sikh/shishya) and the latter who maintained five K`s. Slowly, the definition changed so that only khalsas were called sikhs but others could still be called sehjadharis; indeed, in my childhood, punjabi hindus frequently referred to themselves as ``monas`` (clean shaven) and not as hindus. However, all this changed in 1970s when a pronouncement from Akal Takht said that to be a sikh one not only had to believe in the teachings of the sikh gurus but had to renounce any other belief (e.g, in Ram or Krishna). It was at that time that the membership of some people in the Ottawa Sikh Society was cancelled since they did not conform to the new definition of sikh.
I believe that Bhindranwale was quite successful in consolidating the sikh identity. But lately, I hear reports that it is again getting diluted. Sikhs increasingly are cutting their hair and have even stopped using Singh prominently in their names. They seem to be more concerned about maintaining their panjabi than sikh identity. When I see panjabi videos these days, I am surprised at the men dressed in designer kurtas and women in cholis and bindis, presumably to increase their appeal outside panjab. These trends cannot but cause alarm among the sikh leadership who naturally do not wish their identity to disappear like those of jains before them.

``Unfortunately, that is the impression created by the separatists. But what you and others fail to see is that Bhindranwale and his followers had turned the Golden Temple into a near-impregnable fortress and it required massive force from the Indian Army to regain control of it. The large number of innocent casualties and damage to the temple were unfortunate, but I don’t think it could have been avoided at that moment. ``

That is the whole point. Why did Black Thunder succeed? Why did the siege on Hazratbal succeed?

No one is denying that action was needed. But was a full scale assault required? The whole argument of Blue Star hinges on immediacy. That immediacy can only be conjured up by bringing the Pakistan factor in because then the majority of Indians believe their government.

I cannot cooraborate a negative. I can only ask you to look up Pakistani mobilization through the 1980s. There were only rwo on Record. One was the reaction to Operation Brass Tacks where the two countries almost went to war and then Zia came to India to watch a cricket match. The other was a military excecize called Zarb e Momin. There were no other large scale deployments through the 1980s and none on June 30th 1984.


``Seriously, do you think the GoI could have ordered the attack just to spite the Sikhs (who form a significant component of the Armed Forces) without provoking a rebellion/backlash from them? ``

I am not saying there would not have been a reaction. Brar`s argument though is bogus. If the reaction is going to be there then why attack unless you do not care about the reaction. In case you do care about the reaction then why the immediacy? Don`t lose sight of this point...the issue is not the requirement of action. Tthe issue is immediacy. Why June 30th? Why Gurpurab? Would Iindian Army attack a temple on Diwali if the situation required it?

The fact remains the Army did anticipate a reaction and hence launched Op Woodrose. That is the perfect response to Brar`s argument. Op Woodrose could have been launched and a siege started on Golden Temple. But as a Hindu I believe that Indira Gandhi`s game plan was not just to cleanse the Golden Ttemple. Her real intention was to launch an attack on the Sikh faith and to give the message that she was all powerful. Hence I believe her death was essential.


Jang:

``you made it sound like the army storming was against poor jathas/pilgrims and was with no reason or rationale. ``

That is the point. At least Jallianwala Bagh was a politcal rally. June 30th, 1984 WAS JUST ANOTHER DAY for pilgrims. In fact it was Gurpurab. It was full of poor jathas and pilgrims that had come here for the day. There was NOTHING that made that day different from any other day in the recent past. Hence there was no rationale for army action on that day. As far as pilgrims were concerned, Bhindranwale and his followers had been there for the past two years and the government seemed to be fine with it.

``you further go into totally emotional tirades like comparing to jallianwalla baug where the victims were armed with fists (and were not even in an anti-govt rally).``

Exact same scenario. The number of terrorists as given in the Government white paper was listed as slightly north of 400. On any given day there are 3000-4000 visitors to the Temple. On that day there were more because of Gurpurab. What is emotional about this?


``i pointed you to the raionale for operation blue-star. i dont know what is right, but there it is, the rationale. an analysis of the rationale will be helpful based on some arguments. ``

Sir, your rationale is based on two assumptions.

1. Need for action

2. Immediacy of the need where a siege was out of question and a full scale assault had to be launched.

I am not even arguing the first point. The key issue is the second point. That immediacy is based on:

1. Pakistan Action: Untrue. No historical record shows mobilization of Pakistan Army.

2. Countryside Unrest: The situation as it existed had been going on for two years. No countryside mass unrest took place. The writ of the state has to be impleneted but no immediacy is apparent.

So why a full scale assault? Why on that day?

Jang:

I disagree. The Sikh diaspora was very patriotic right to the 80s. Outside of individuals like JS Chauhan (completely homegrown and went to the UK late in life) there was not a single Sikh separatist orgainzation abroad. That is a desi cop out to avoid introspection.

The diaspora only came into play after Operation Blue Star. Even during the clah of Nirankaris and Sikhs in 1978 and before during the Punjabi Suba movement the Diaspora remained uninloved. After Op Blue Star i was natural to get involved. But post fact involvement cannot be blamed as the basis for the problem.

ballukhan
``IS there a way a Sikh can be `converted` to become a Hindu. ``

you raise a very important point. why do purer religions fear hinduism, there is no proseltysation. its not the arya samajis they fear but sheer weight of osmosis. if you stop being pure, you automatically become a hindu. a hindu is someone who lives in india and does not claim (emphatically) to be not a hindu. this kind of natural pressure is immense and only way to fight it is via seeking extra purity. for muslims its less of a probelm, (their iman is somehow unequivocal ) but it is a big problem for sikhs who intermarry with hindus and to a lesser extent for born-again christians, who start/continue followign all the pagan customs like magal-sutra and bindi.


stuka:
you made it sound like the army storming was against poor jathas/pilgrims and was with no reason or rationale. you further go into totally emotional tirades like comparing to jallianwalla baug where the victims were armed with fists (and were not even in an anti-govt rally). i pointed you to the raionale for operation blue-star. i dont know what is right, but there it is, the rationale. an analysis of the rationale will be helpful based on some arguments.

also, a rich (comparitively) diaspora, yearning for purity, who did not have to live with indinans, had a lot to do with sikh separatism. wonders what a rich diaspora yearning for hindu purity will do.

#172
ballu, read Mark Tully & Satish Jacobs ``Amritsar: Mrs Gandhi`s last battle``

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0836428269/qid=1092838363/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6119470-7601638?v=glance&s=books