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
