I think all religions have resorted to violence or bloodshed at some point in time. All this argument abt Sikhism being this violent and Hinduism being the greatest and Islam being the worst... its all ball talk. Everyone has done it and just because one has killed 1000 v/s another having killed 10,000 does not make them better in any ways. The bottom line is everyone has killed in the name of religion. If someone says the call for Khalistan is dead please take a flight to British Columbia and see for yourself how Sikhs at a rally as recent 2-3 months ago had huge portraits of Bhindrawale, the Air India Bomber (Im forgetting his name) along side Guru Gobind Singhji;s pictures so its a load of BS man all u people talking abt how good ur religion is and how bad the other guy's religion is.
RE:RE: CIA, ISI encouraged Sikh terrorism: Ex-R&AW official
by V S on Jul 26, 2007 08:44 PM Permalink
What you are saying is true but the real reason sikhs are angry and worship bhindarwale is the crime of 1984 committed against them.
The basic problem in India that causes terrorism is the injustie of those who are in power.
I say you hang the 10 congress leaders who were involved in 1984 anti sikh riots andsikhs will forget and forgive.
RE:RE: CIA, ISI encouraged Sikh terrorism: Ex-R&AW official
by Drive A McLaren on Jul 26, 2007 09:45 PM Permalink
Id say hang anyone who is responsible for the riots of 84. Or 93. Or any form of communal riots.
The truth is Bhindrawale posed a threat to India's National Security and had to be taken out. The only way out was to attack him. He hid in the temple like any fanatic in his place would do because he knew he would be killed, and the temple would suffer damages. This would prompt the secular elements of the Sikh community to turn against the government. So he died and his mission was successful. What followed does not need to be repeated.
If Atalji was in Indira's place and he had ordered Blue Star, he would have been assassinated as well. And to think Hindus & BJP hardliners would have not resorted to riots to avenge his death is foolish. They would have killed as well and then you would be demanding that 10 BJP leaders be hanged.
Moral of the story: Dont blame ONLY the Congress for all that happened in 1984. You need to rise above political differences when it comes to National Security.
RE:RE: CIA, ISI encouraged Sikh terrorism: Ex-R&AW official
by V S on Jul 26, 2007 10:21 PM Permalink
Why not blame Congress ? They are in power and they misused it all the time.
now they are again trying to divide the nation on the basis of reservation.
Congress should be blamed for everything wrong with India.
Sikhs killed Indira Gandhi for the way operation bluestar was conducted and the mass killings of sikhs afterwards. Had blue star been conducted in a professional manner this would not have happened.
RE:RE: CIA, ISI encouraged Sikh terrorism: Ex-R&AW official
by Drive A McLaren on Jul 26, 2007 10:29 PM Permalink
I think Indira should have sent sweets and refreshments to Bhindrawale. Maybe pillows and beds, some people to massage his legs if they hurt. I guess that would have made him realize how wrong he was and maybe he would have surrendered himself.
B Raman sounds like he is in look out for some prize position from Congress Govt. CIA and ISI seems like token words for him. If RAW was that good why didn't it stop the gathering arms in golden temple complex. He is just spinning around past circumstances to sound like great events. Nirankari massacre was killings by nirankaris where as he is implying otherwise. At some point Rediff has to stop acting naive and stop behaving like a mouth piece for these vested interest and hindutava police.
Sikhs are one of real patriots for India.May be leaving few, they served and still serving this nation a lot unlike other minorities who keep enjoying/taking the facilities but never shown any gratitute to India.
Had Indira been not eliminated it could have been a disaster to India the way Gandhi has done for INdia in 1947.
For their selfishness these cong and socalled secular leaders can do anything , even to brake india or keeping quite when enemies are attacking us.
unnecessarly Hindhus got killed by sikhs but luckily they realised the mistake and finally harmony prevailed quickly.
The real need of the hour is burry the cong and their leaders in Bay of Bengal.These leaders are again raking up terrorism through Dara issue or support JIhadi fanatics or naxals or LTTE. But never take India forward.
RE:Greediness of Congress - India/Hindhus paid for it
by Sam on Jul 26, 2007 08:26 PM Permalink
Sikhs are our brothers. sometimes brothers have some disagrrements. so what?
RE:Greediness of Congress - India/Hindhus paid for it
by Kishore Babu on Jul 26, 2007 08:58 PM Permalink
they are not only our brothers but also real patriots of India thats y harmony could come back so easily.
RE:Bhindranwale
by Sameer Bhagwat on Jul 26, 2007 07:53 PM Permalink
Why weren't there any riots against marathis after Mahatama Gandhi was murdered by a Marathi hindu? Why were there no killings of Tamils after a tamil hindu killed Rajiv Gandhi? Were these not giant enough 'Trees' that after there fall the below earth didn't shake? Did Hindu gurus Rama and Krishna taught u to kill innocents ? NO
RE:Bhindranwale
by Sameer Bhagwat on Jul 26, 2007 08:35 PM Permalink
For your knowledge so far militancy in punjab has claimed about 1,00,000 Sikh lives but maybe no more than 1000 Hindu lives. The attacks against hindus can be counted on finger tips. The problem is that any time even if 1 single hindu was killed the media , state govrernment, central government and others would come rushing in and it would be blown out of proportion. But when the Sikhs would be killed no one would even notice. At that time all the media was state controlled and foreign media was banned from Punjab.After the 84 riots while the BBC gave the figure of 4-5 thousands dead the doordarshan was saying that ' kuch chit-put ghattan ke elava sab normal hai.' They only reported few dozen deaths.Recently they discovered that Punjab Police secretly cremated about 5000 Sikh youths during late 80sand early 90s. And this was in just 1 tehsil.And u can imagine the figure all over Punjab. They made true this statement of Balram JHakhar that" we will kill 10,000 sikhs and nobody in the world would ever know". The parents of these youth never came to know which police station took them or where they were at. Because the media wasn't reporting these things happening to Sikh youths they were very successfully able to paint the image of Sikhs as a terrorist community.
RE:Bhindranwale
by V S on Jul 26, 2007 08:33 PM Permalink
I think in punjab before 1984 hardly any killings of hindus happened..and if you are trying to justify 1984 riots ( a crime against humanity) because sikhs were "distributing sweets" then you are nothing but another fanatic who uses excuses to hide the truth.
I'm pretty sure that were she "Ruling" India today, we wouldn't have Internet in India. And even if we did we wouldn't be typing freely criticizing the government without expecting a knock at the door the police or other government agency. We wouldn't have good relationship with USA. Maybe we would have fought the Iraq war along with Iraq cos Saddam Hussein considered Indira his sister. Maybe Atalji would never have been the PM cos she convieniantly jailed her political rivals. And of course she was very quick in dismissing state governments of those states which were not ruled by Congress. President's rule was very promptly applied by her. India as a nation should be thankful to those 2 Sikhs for getting rid of our mess. Hindus shouldn't be angry at her death cos she wasn't even a Hindu!. She performed the 'Niqaah' in london with Feroze Ghandhy. Yes Ghandhy was his real surname which he changed to Ghandhi on Mahatama's advice. And her son Rajiv married a Christian . And their daughter Priyanka again married a Christian Robert Vadera. India would have never risen to such heights if she were in command today. please consider it.
RE:What would be the fate of India had indira been alive today?
by devesh talan on Jul 26, 2007 09:04 PM Permalink
Eat your words you looser. You are living in a united India just because of that nobel soul. If you do not have any knowledge of histroy then keep your stiking mouth shut. She gave her life so that we can live in this United India.
RE:RE:What would be the fate of India had indira been alive today?
by V S on Jul 26, 2007 10:24 PM Permalink
she didn't give her life..her life was taken away.. :)
RE:What would be the fate of India had indira been alive today?
by Ram Chauthariya on Jul 26, 2007 07:46 PM Permalink
How about the Sikhs? How come they have not changed their behavior since the murderous days of Khalistan? We still see the same terroristic behavior in the Dera issue.
RE:What would be the fate of India had indira been alive today?
by V S on Jul 26, 2007 08:35 PM Permalink
abe sardaron se panga mat le.. sale fuse ud gaya to fir dekh..
RE:What would be the fate of India had indira been alive today?
by Pradip Parekh on Jul 26, 2007 09:31 PM Permalink
after mohamadan terror, i think it is time to demystify saradaro-facists. they have one vote just like the rest. they need to knock it off on their intimidation of deras and others. india will not be intimidated by the religious thugs any more, no matter how rich they may be, how many guns they carry or which terrorist countries support them. live like decent people if you want to be taken seriously. the common sardars must speak out against the overbearing religious thugs amongst them.
RE:What would be the fate of India had indira been alive today?
by V S on Jul 26, 2007 10:23 PM Permalink
perhaps you should focus on your hindu fanatic brigade of bajrang dal and shiv sainiks.
you hindus try to label muslims ...sikhs as terrorists but in reality your own community is backward and living in the 16 th century.
RE:What would be the fate of India had indira been alive today?
by Drive A McLaren on Jul 26, 2007 08:31 PM Permalink
Indira Gandhi is the ONLY politician who had the courage to stand up to religious extremism and she paid the ultimate price for the. Your Atalji amassed troops on the border for 6 months at tax payers expense and did nothing abt the training camps on PoK. I think if it was Indira in his place she would have invaded. Its called courage. And that is missing in any RSS/BJP/VHP cadre. You people are only interested in who married who and was that person a Hindu and did they take your permission to do that... I think you guys need to remind yourself that its the 21st century you are living in. You think India and its culture is the greatest and the rest of the world and their values are nothing.
RE:RE:What would be the fate of India had indira been alive today?
by Sameer Bhagwat on Jul 26, 2007 08:55 PM Permalink
There is a difference between courage and insanity. She was insane because all that unchecked power went into her head. Yes she showed courage and like others in India this courage only appears when fighting the minorities, when u r 50 : 1, when u r against women and children. The reason i mentioned her marriage was because she was married to a non hindu she had to prove to hindus that she was still on their side . And what better opposition to choose than a 2% minority. And most of the time when a woman is chosen to a powerful position she tries extra hard to prove that she is not weak and that she has 'balls'. eg Margarat Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, Indira gandi, Madeleine K. Albright etc
RE:What would be the fate of India had indira been alive today?
by Mayank Jaiswal on Jul 26, 2007 08:58 PM Permalink
dude it would have initiated a nuclear wa rbetween india and pakistan.Atalji plan was to make pakistan believe that they can fight india but ultimatly they too spend a big amount moving their troops to the border.And also since india now is the backoffic eof the world cannot go on chutti(war holiday) for a week or soo amounting on billions of $$ of money....
Mr. Raman, You describe the Golden Temple was taken over by gun toting terrorists. Does the Sikh religion allow that? If the Indian army went in and cleaned up the place of murderers/terrorists (and took heavy losses of life), then what is the "con" (negative) in this action? Of course, the Sikhs thanked her by murdering Indira and the Army Chief for ridding their holiest shrine from criminals.
RE:''Cons''
by V S on Jul 26, 2007 08:37 PM Permalink
The sikhs murdered indira because of killing of 1000's of sikhs who were innocent during bluestar and also because she created bhindarwale.
Sikhs then killd hindus from the period 1984-1992 to extract revenge for 1984 pogrom.
Sikhs were never against India or hindus but 1984 riots caused a polarization in their hearts for which hindus are responsible.
RE:RE:''Cons''
by jet on Jul 26, 2007 08:40 PM Permalink
VS, try to understand the difference between congress supporters and hindus. Hindus did not kill sikhs in Delhi, It was congress leaders and activists. It was all politics played by Indira Congress not by any hindu organizations.
RE:RE:RE:''Cons''
by V S on Jul 26, 2007 08:47 PM Permalink
very well but I don't think in 1984 sikhs were killing sikhs..it was congress goondas but they were all hindus.
Therefore you cannot distance yourself from that fact.
RE:''Cons''
by Sameer Bhagwat on Jul 26, 2007 08:06 PM Permalink
Indira is the only dictator in India's history. She is the only one in history of Independent India to impose emergency which suspended all the rights of the citizens. She were gross violations of human rights under her command and not even a free media to report anything unfavourable. The only 1 channel of Doordarshan was in fact Indiradarshan. All that power went into her head. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I say that those 2 Sikhs did India a huge favour by getting rid of this evil woman. Of course , the Hindus thanked them by murdering 5000 more innocent Sikhs. Does Hindu religion allow that?
RE:RE:''Cons''
by jet on Jul 26, 2007 08:38 PM Permalink
Sameer, understand this , It was not hindus who killed sikhs in Delhi, It was congress leraders and activists. if hindus were aginst sikhs then there would have been lot of killings in all over India but that did not happen. So dont generalize the congie idiots with hindus. Sikhism came from hinduism and hindus dont have any hatred against sikhs , It is only some lunatic sikhs who talk about some bullshit called Khalistan.
RE:''Cons''
by V S on Jul 26, 2007 08:46 PM Permalink
I don't agree.. most hindus are jealous of sikhs prosperity and congress ativists involved in 1984 were all hindus.
and FYI sikhs have not come from hindus..they have come from all communities.
RE:''Cons''
by SSS on Jul 26, 2007 09:11 PM Permalink
I'm a Sikh and i agree with Jet that Hindu's in general were not involved in riots. yes, it was complete handywork of Congress under corrupt leaders like, Bhagat, Bhajan Lal, Lalit Maken, (Rajiv was ill-advised). but remarks in this blog of justifing the '84 killings show one's short sighted. remember, even today if there is a attack on INDIA, it's Sikhs in general and Punjab in totality that will resist & fight. i challenge that all these who write rubbish pro-84 riot remarks or justify the 'dera' will never come forward to save India. and these very same people who justify the 'dera' will react angrily when somebody shows a Hindu goddess/god in bad light. then there actions are justified. In Orissa, a mob (it is not important to mention the religion) burnt a christian missionary and his two small sons to death. now does anybody want to justify this? it is a behaviour of convenience - if somebody else is attacked then it is fine, and if u r attacked then it's a problem
I strongly urge the readers of rediff to watch this video about the various interference of CIA into foreign countries. Most of the people in this video are Ex-CIA themselves: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8085945499556832271
RE:''pros and cons'' of Blue Star
by Sameer Bhagwat on Jul 26, 2007 07:21 PM Permalink
And 2 Sikhs killed Indira Gandi who was the only dictator India has ever had. These Sikhs rid the country of this evil lady who was responsible for countless human rights violations of the Indian citizens. If she was alive then India would have never prospered as much as it did. And of course , the Hindus thanked the Sikhs by murdering 5000 more innocent Sikhs
RE:''pros and cons'' of Blue Star
by Ram Chauthariya on Jul 26, 2007 07:28 PM Permalink
Ok, she was a dictator but at least not a terrorist, who undertook a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Punjan by massacring and driving out hundred thousand innocents. The riots happened because the Sikhs killed the dictator (according to you)and there was no one else to protect them
