1984 Attack on Golden Temple - Page 4

Moderator's Note: The topic has turned more into religious one now with one member making attacks on other religions. This is the main reason why such topics related to religion is not being allowed to be posted here. Because of few handful rationale debate on such subjects are impossible in here it seems. The topic is being closed as of now. Dev Team will later on decide what to do with it. But please it's a request. While debating DON"T indulge into personal attack on fellow members and also if you have anything to convey to the Dev Team use the PM service. Send us a PM and we'll be happy to explain everything to you. Debate Mansion Dev Team

**** VB's Update ****

Opening the topic, after cleaning few posts here. Hope to see no more personal attacks or inconsiderate POV's here. So much for tolerance and matured debate here, any more COC violation. Post will be closed, with strict action on offender.

Do not quote this post, questions / concerns PM DM Dev Team.

Thanks!

DM Dev

i think the best we can do is to look at a leader's actions and see whether those are consistent with the goals we want them to have, irrespective of whatever ulterior motives they might or might not have, which noone can ever know for sure. when IG befriended bhindranwala and aligned with him, he was someone who was doing a lot of good for Sikh youth. he was getting them to turn away from a life of vice to the good teachings. yes, he was also becoming very popular in the process, and perhaps that was her ulterior motive in supporting him, to piggy-back on a regional success. but i dont see how that was inconsistent with the greater national good. i certainly dont find any "saanp ko doodh pilana" story till this point.

later, when he/ his cronies allegedly engaged in killing others and in terrorist activities, that's when the two had a falling apart. again, where did she go wrong in terms of national purpose?

fwiw, leaders take risks, they make mistakes too, but whenever they do, let's not ascribe ulterior cynical motives to them. in her case, all i have to go by are her actions which, irrespective of whatever sinister designs she may or may not have had, were actually consistent with the national aim of stamping out the khalistan separatist movement and terrorism. cant fault her for that.

Originally posted by: chatbuster

i think the best we can do is to look at a leader's actions and see whether those are consistent with the goals we want them to have, irrespective of whatever ulterior motives they might or might not have, which noone can ever know for sure. when IG befriended bhindranwala and aligned with him, he was someone who was doing a lot of good for Sikh youth. he was getting them to turn away from a life of vice to the good teachings. yes, he was also becoming very popular in the process, and perhaps that was her ulterior motive in supporting him, to piggy-back on a regional success. but i dont see how that was inconsistent with the greater national good. i certainly dont find any "saanp ko doodh pilana" story till this point.

later, when he/ his cronies allegedly engaged in killing others and in terrorist activities, that's when the two had a falling apart. again, where did she go wrong in terms of national purpose?

fwiw, leaders take risks, they make mistakes too, but whenever they do, let's not ascribe ulterior cynical motives to them. in her case, all i have to go by are her actions which, irrespective of whatever sinister designs she may or may not have had, were actually consistent with the national aim of stamping out the khalistan separatist movement and terrorism. cant fault her for that.

okay, i see a disconnect between "personal political aspirations" and "national purpose" above. operation bluestar, no matter how unavoidable when it happened, was the result of ig's personal political aspirations and could have been avoided altogether if national purpose was put above the self interest.

contrary to your belief, bhinderwale was just an illiterate sant who was anti nirankari sikh community right from the beginning. he was a religious fanatic who was not doing any good for sikh youth. he was actually brainwashing them against nirankari sikhs.

in late 1970s, akali dal in punjab was gaining momentum and emerging as the major political force there. akali dal was known to be anti ig since beginning. sanjay gandhi - in connivance with ig - befriended bhinderwale to divide up the akali dal so that ig's opposition could be curbed. there was no "national purpose" to this alliance. it was purely for self serving political motives.

by early 1980s, bhinderwale was in a much stronger position...thanks to all the backing ig provided. he had started promoting the establishment of a separate state called khalistan within punjab. his militant sermons had resulted in considerable following in sikh diaspora. around same time, a bloody confrontation between bhinderwaley's men and hindus broke out in punjab. bhinderwale was arrested and put in prison but then instead of punishing him for his misdeeds and crimes, he was let go...scott free...in 1982!!! there was enuff evidence to nail him but she did not take him seriously. wonder what political khichdee was cooking b/w him and ig. the end result of letting an extermist go free was 1984's operation blue star.

all this could have been avoided if:

1)she did not befriend and promote him to divide up HER opponent akali dal.

2)she did not let him go scott free in 1982.

this is where she went wrong in terms of national purpose. there was no national purpose to begin with that could be attributed to her above two actions.

first one can still be justified by some as it could be contributed to her own political aspirations. i fail to see the "nationall good' angle, as claimed by you, but still i can discount the first action as human beings are known to be selfish...although one would expect the prime minister to think about the nation first...but who does that in a developing country anyways!!! one could still pretend that ig had no way of knowing how an illiterate religious fanatic might turn out to be later down the road😛

second one surely was pure recklessness. sheer lack of foresightedness on ig's part. these r the actions that make u wonder what the heck was she thinking!!! by that time, any avg person could have figured out what bhinderwale was all about and where exactly was he heading.

operation blue star, i feel, was unavoidable but letting things boil to such a point was definitely avoidable.

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

okay, i see a disconnect between "personal political aspirations" and "national purpose" above. operation bluestar, no matter how unavoidable when it happened, was the result of ig's personal political aspirations and could have been avoided altogether if national purpose was put above the self interest.

contrary to your belief, bhinderwale was just an illiterate sant who was anti nirankari sikh community right from the beginning. he was a religious fanatic who was not doing any good for sikh youth. he was actually brainwashing them against nirankari sikhs.

in late 1970s, akali dal in punjab was gaining momentum and emerging as the major political force there. akali dal was known to be anti ig since beginning. sanjay gandhi - in connivance with ig - befriended bhinderwale to divide up the akali dal so that ig's opposition could be curbed. there was no "national purpose" to this alliance. it was purely for self serving political motives.

by early 1980s, bhinderwale was in a much stronger position...thanks to all the backing ig provided. his militant sermons had resulted in considerable following in sikh diaspora. around same time, a bloody confrontation between bhinderwaley's men and hindus broke out in punjab. bhinderwale was arrested and put in prison but then instead of punishing him for his misdeeds and crimes, he was let go...scott free...in 1981!!! wonder what political khichdee was cooking b/w him and ig. the end result of letting an extermist go free was 1984's operation blue star.

all this could have been avoided if:

1)she did not befriend and promote him to divide up HER opponent akali dal.

2)she did not let him go scott free in 1981. there was enuff evidence to hang him but she did not take him seriously.

this is where she went wrong in terms of national purpose. there was no national purpose to begin with that could be attributed to her above two actions.

first one can still be justified as it could be contributed to her own political aspirations. i fail to see the "nationall good' angle, as claimed by you, but still i can discount the first action.

second one surely was pure recklessness. sheer lack of foresightedness on ig's part. these r the actions that make u wonder what the heck was she thinking!!!

operation blue star, i feel, was unavoidable but letting things boil to such a point was definitely avoidable.

Very Well Written Post Gauri, I must admit there are lot of details, I for one was unaware, tfs. Don't have say unless read some more with facts😊, but am with yaa on point no 2 still I mean why will someone walk off the jail without any reason or no one objecting, something fishy here.

Edit - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1133674.cms in 5 pages jsut says freed from jail..but why?? ...no details...

Originally posted by: raj5000

Very Well Written Post Gauri, I must admit there are lot of details, I for one was unaware, tfs. Don't have say unless read some more with facts😊, but am with yaa on point no 2 still I mean why will someone walk off the jail without any reason or no one objecting, something fishy here.

Edit - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1133674.cms in 5 pages jsut says freed from jail..but why?? ...no details...

thanks raj. the points presented above regarding bhinderwale and his rise to power are all facts. it reads like a story but that's only to make it reader friendly. anyone can google and validate each and every line i typed about bhinderwale above and the motives behind ig-bhinderwale nexus.

thanks for the link. it depicts the aftermath of lapse in sound judg by ig as pointed in #2. like you, bhinderwale's release from the jail in 1982 baffles me too. i just realized that i had typed 1981 instead of 1982. i corrected that in my previous post.

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

thanks raj. the points presented above regarding bhinderwale and his rise to power are all facts. it reads like a story but that's only to make it reader friendly. anyone can google and validate each and every line i typed about bhinderwale above and the motives behind ig-bhinderwale nexus.

thanks for the link. it depicts the aftermath of lapse in sound judg by ig as pointed in #2. like you, bhinderwale's release from the jail in 1982 baffles me too. i just realized that i had typed 1981 instead of 1982. i corrected that in my previous post.

there are laws in the country that prevent someone from being convicted on mere suspicion. there was no evidence found to associate him with the killings, your claims notwithstanding. if you have such evidence, let's have it.

second, your point about IG's motivation in terms of dividing up her opposition are irrelevant. what she did at that point in time was NOT inconsistent with national unity, and no more than what every politician at every level does without expecting things to turn out as predictably as you think they do. in fact, there had already been voices in support of khalistan before bhindranwala came on the scene. punjab had been fuming because of years of getting short-changed by the center, whether it was initially giving away chandigarh to haryana or other things. if anything, if you read up some more, even the NY Times and BBC say that bhindranwala was initially engaged in putting misguided youth on the path of righteousness. they didnt make him sant for no reason. so let's not demonize him as if he was some saanp as always. and in fact if u read his speeches, he was actually ambivalent on the question of khalistan, not openly for it as u claimed.

third, if we are going to fault politicians for ever associating with others on mere suspicions, then i think they'll stop interacting with everyone, from an advani and vajpayee, to a laloo yadav, sonia gandhi, jayalitha and mulayam singh yadav, since there are "stories" about all of them. and as it turns out, not all of them went on to engage in the kinds of activities you are saying are so easily forecastable.

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

there are laws in the country that prevent someone from being convicted on mere suspicion.

we all know in india, if one has political clout and people in power protecting them, they don't get convicted even when there's enuff evidence of their wrong doings....especially in the 80s.

there was no evidence found to associate him with the killings, your claims notwithstanding. if you have such evidence, let's have it.

u raised this point. why don't u prove that there was no such evidence. bring it on CB...let's have it.

arent u the one making assumptions here about his guilt in the face of his being exonerated? even the President of India said that no evidence was presented to tie him to the killings. so i think if u want to stick to your claims about his guilt, you shld be the one doing the proving. or shld we start convicting ppl just because someone else thinks they are guilty?😉

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

second, your point about IG's motivation in terms of dividing up her opposition are irrelevant. what she did at that point in time was NOT inconsistent with national unity,

this is just your opinion. i provided the facts. lets debate based on facts here..not opinions.

in fact, what you had were opinions. dont know how you are calling them facts. just quoting someone's editorials off the net makes it factual for you? by that token, there's lots of stuff on the other side too, which paint bhindranwala as a martyr!

yes, now let me know how on earth is aligning her party with someone who seemed to be doing some good for sikh youth and who was increasing in popularity was against national interest?

oh wow...I've learned a lot....

and I understand the bias some people would have if their families lost everything during the riots and attack...

my only issue is... as was mentioned by you guys...

WHat was Gandhi to doo?? Okay fine she let Bindrenwale rise to power...but she couldn't allow him to pollute the Golden Temple... I don't understand how she can be wrong and those terrorists can't be? Weren't they the ones who were wrong in trying to find a hiding place in their own holy shrine...weren't they wrong in performing their illicit activities from the Golden Temple....It's really sad....Taking a point religious perspective on all this...obviously the Gurujis all supported the attack on the Temple...had they not...the operation wouldn't have been successful...and the terrorists wouldn't have been stopped....obviously Bhindrenwale was wrong...just thinkin about it a little more religiously

But even then to blame Indira Gandhi wouldn't be COMPLETELY right... i mean to Gandhi Bhindrenwale would have been jus a man she felt she could easily manipulate....who knew he would pose such a problem...if everyone could read ppl's minds...or read into the future..then what ana amazing world that would be....

But yeahh just to kinda pose another question:

What comes first religion or the security of people?

In this case obviously security came first. But you know what is sad...had this been a Hindu temple, i'm sure the hindus would've reacted the same way and felt the same way the Sikhs feel rite now... but everyone else would have said that though the attack was horrible...it was necessary... What would you say is worse that only the one religion refuses to see the importance of the security of the ppl? Or that Everyone else refuses to respect that one religion?

Any more answers guys?