Denouncing Indira Gandhi

[PostColonial]

The subcontinent would have been far more stable if Pakistan had consisted only of Punjab and Sindh provinces.

 

[MastanKhan]

The subcontinent would have been far more stable if Pakistan had consisted only of Punjab and Sindh provinces.

Hi,

Most of the problems would have been resolved if india had elected to have a plebiscite in occupied kashmir under the un mandate---the sub-continet would have been much safer.

 

[Goodperson]

Hi,

Most of the problems would have been resolved if india had elected to have a plebiscite in occupied kashmir under the un mandate---the sub-continet would have been much safer.

But condition that time was Pakistan vacate Ajad Kashmir.

 

[HAIDER]

But condition that time was Pakistan vacate Ajad Kashmir.

Thats the problem with Indian, when the come under pressure they sign the pact, later they add more favorable statements in pact. That's what the reason Pakistan and India can't be friends. We have living example of Shimla agreement.

 

[Halaku Khan]

Regarding Indira Gandhi's comments about Balochistan and NWFP, and whether Indians can condemn them -

That is logically identical to asking Indians to condemn the independence of Bangladesh. I think that would be difficult for any fair-minded person in the world to do, let alone Indians.

Ultimately these issues depend on the people of the concerrned province, and the treatment they get from the other provinces.

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

So far only one Indian, InExile, has denounced the hatred of Indira Gandhi for Pakistan.

Surely the rest of you Indians that come running to protest that Pakistanis are paranoid for thinking India has not accepted Pakistan can see the need to denounce these statements and her ideology towards Pakistan.

Show us through actions, not merely words, that what you say is more than a canard and deceit.

Let me post the most offensive material, that I think Indians need to denounce, if they truly believe in peace with Pakistan and accepting it:

’’ Neither Baluchistan nor the Northwest Frontier properly belonged to Pakistan, she told Kissinger and President Nixon. They too wanted and deserved greater autonomy; they should never have been part of the original (partition) settlement and were among the “ congenital defects ’’of Pakistan


Kissinger:"I myself heard her say that the NWFP really belongs to India, and there is no way to get to them except through the Punjab."


"Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on Nov, 30, 1970 observed, “India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistan nation has no right exist”.

Why are Gandhi's descendants a bunch of ignorant, stupid war mongers? They are smearing the Gandhi name. In a few more decades, this household name will be known for bad things unless you guys rope these criminals in.....

 

[HAIDER]

I love the part where Indra said NWFP part of India...if she alive today, she must be saying something else about NWFP....lucky she is dead...

 

[oceanx]

I dont think that there is anything wrong with the Pakistanis hating the Iron lady of India. If she were too be Pakistani and would have done same to India we would have been hating her.


But if you look by the Indian perspective it was her rule that we got one of the biggest military and diplomatic victory in east Pakistan. And so she is considered as the iron lady of India

Your "iron lady" had Sinhalese/Tamil/Sikh blood galore on her hands. She was the spiritual Patroness/foster mother of the dreadful "black cats". And as "Karma" would have it - well let's not bring up Rajiv.

Even in death, she unleashed the worst pogrom against Sikhs and one of the worst Pogroms anywhere since WW II.

IMO, the only reason she didn't turn out to be a Mao was - I give credit to the Indian plutocracy - because there were some checks and balances against her.

Your "iron lady" may have had the pretensions of a socialist, but I suppose she embodied the agenda of those so-called "poorbia/purviah brahmins" - even though she was strictly speaking not from the east of the subcontinent - as I understand.

 

[PeacefulIndian]

I love the part where Indra said NWFP part of India...if she alive today, she must be saying something else about NWFP....lucky she is dead...

Had NWFP been India's part then, the world today would have been a much, much better place to live.

 

[Reddy]

Why should any of the indians denounce Indira Gandhi for her actions in 1971. She was serving her countries interest. She is denounced regularly for putting India through Emergency rule.

 

[oceanx]

Why should any of the indians denounce Indira Gandhi for her actions in 1971. She was serving her countries interest. She is denounced regularly for putting India through Emergency rule.

First of all, it is not at all clear to outsiders whether she did India any long-term favours - not from the point of view of wanting to "avert humanitarian disasters", but from the point of view of the consequence of her taking advantages of "disasters".

Purely "strategically" - if the then status quo of East and West Pakistans were maintained - you would have an enormous Westbank-Gaza analogue - except on a (sub)continental scale.

Imagine Pakistan's Armed Forces stretched paper thin meeting this essentially insurmountable geographical challenge. They would be forever subject to India's military, and more importantly, economical "blackmail". Not to mention - if a militarily "rickety" East Pakistan was still there, you think the Saffronists would be afraid of PRC potentially damming the Brahmaputra?

Forget I wrote the above - there is nothing to be afraid of and brave Saffronists are never afraid of anything anyways.

To me, Madam Gandhi did Pakistanis and Bangladeshis a favour they each would not otherwise have the "guts" to do themselves.

Once again, imagine the "core" of modern Pakistan, which to an extent does probably consist of Punjab and Sindh, being subject to the constant, impossible demands of managing distant Bengalis, restive Balochs, and the hardy folks of NWFP - day in, day out.

The Saffron "strategists" would have a field day - everyday!

Now they had a "field day" in 1971 - and headaches ever since, IMHO.

Secondly, as those "our chastity monument is bigger and shinnier than yours" members of this forum love to frequently remind their "karmically" challenged neighbours to the North East: what goes around comes around.

 

[bandit]

So far only one Indian, InExile, has denounced the hatred of Indira Gandhi for Pakistan.

Surely the rest of you Indians that come running to protest that Pakistanis are paranoid for thinking India has not accepted Pakistan can see the need to denounce these statements and her ideology towards Pakistan.

Show us through actions, not merely words, that what you say is more than a canard and deceit.

Let me post the most offensive material, that I think Indians need to denounce, if they truly believe in peace with Pakistan and accepting it:

’’ Neither Baluchistan nor the Northwest Frontier properly belonged to Pakistan, she told Kissinger and President Nixon. They too wanted and deserved greater autonomy; they should never have been part of the original (partition) settlement and were among the “ congenital defects ’’of Pakistan


Kissinger:"I myself heard her say that the NWFP really belongs to India, and there is no way to get to them except through the Punjab."

You quote Kissinger, do you know that he has apologised for what he said and says he admired Indira to the point he wanted a US leader like her, heck now he says he's converted to Indias cause.


We can understand you are pissed off with her, nevertheless what she did was in her country's favor which incidentally was detrimental to you. You really dont expect anybody to say nice things when you are at war do you.

"Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on Nov, 30, 1970 observed, “India has never reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have been created and that Pakistan nation has no right exist”.

Since you put up a nice logic about hearsay, why dont we go to the beginning of this all and start by denouncing Jinnah who sent in the invading tribals and Kashmiris are still suffering the consquences of his actions 60 years later, why not?

 

[InExile]

Lets remember that here we are considering what she said behind closed doors and not publicly; so we cant be sure those were her exact words or whether the statement was in context.

Whatever Indira said or did not say, she is now dead and whatever she might have thought about Pakistan is probably not the view of the Indian Government; and thats what really matters now.

Besides you can rarely expect people of a country to denounce their leaders, except in extreme cases where the evidence is incontrovertible like Hitler. Or they are victors in a war, for example Stalin's crimes are well known, but he commands a fair degree of popularity in Russia who revere him as a strong leader who won WWII.

After all how many Pakistanis would denounce Yahya Khan for the massacres in then East Pakistan or Zia ul Haq for nurturing the Islamists and destroying democracy?

My main point is, why are our views on Indira Gandhi this important after she has been dead more than 20 years? Consider the policy of the current Government of India instead.

 

[SSGPA1]

Here is one of the sources:

Indira Gandhi?s plans: Manekshaw?s secret- ?71 mystery - Henry Kissinger - Zimbio

 

[Insane]

I don't know what Indira said. I am also not very good in history ( As such i believe its presented in a distorted way by different sources).

With respect to the issues that are part of those statements -

There is no point changing world order now. When in history what existed is immaterial at this juncture. What is with Pakistan ( Baluchistan), let it be with them. Do not try to destabilize the region or snatch that. Your national integrity will be respected when you respect the national integrity of another nation.

Pakistan as a sovereign country has every right to exist and no one should challenge that. Some partitions in history of the world have resulted in further partitions and reverse mergers before but in this case both parties ( India and Pakistan ) surely want to be on their own.

Now off topic -

It is very much possible to solve all problems peacefully and move on to other things that are more important.

* No one wants to lose land and pride. But ignorance of reality and skirting from responsibilities is not a way out. You lose some thing and you gain something. It can not be you gain everything and lost nothing. You want to be in a win-win situation and expect the other to accept it is a stretch. Its true for both parties in a dis-agreement. The sooner you get rid of a plague the better for the health of the future.

* I think from viewpoint of India a smart, pragmatic and futuristic approach is more important that a passionate and jingoistic one. ( I wont speak for Pakistan). Lets say we lose some land so be it. we will gain a lot more with peace, stability and prosperity. Its better to lose some land in Kashmir and save the Kashmir population itself rather than lose part of Mumbai, Delhi or other important cities going to war with Pakistan over land. Not to mention the death of so many people on both sides of the border apart from severe destruction of property.

* Set a deadline to solve border issues. Make a commitment to it. Bring all parties to negotiations. be proactive, and think for everybody.

* Clearly the current line of control doesn't seem like a solution else both parties would have done that.

* I was reading another thread on Kashmir solutions in which there was an idea thrown about an Independent Kashmir with Kashmir valley as a unit ( Azad Kashmir plus part that is with India now). And some people also reached to a step of consensus that 10 yr let them live in peace ( under Indian control ), with no terrorism and violence with promise of giving them their choice at the end of the time period. Not a bad idea at all. A sustainable solution is important here and that can be obtained when local population is satisfied.

* I guess Both countries do not want to cede land to one another so an Independent country or Autonomous area ( wot ever u call it) is not a bad idea.

* I guess a way out to get ourselves out of the mess would be, Hard negotiation with option to let go some part of your land for peace to get a chance.

* Keep possibility of an independent nation open which could include part or all of - Northern areas, Azad Kashmir and Kashmir valley. Jammu and Ladakh do not seem to be the problem and India could keep it. It should be a binding on both India and Pakistan not to try to annex the newly formed nation. If everybody wants goodwill of Kashmir so desperately then be ready to make a sacrifice.

* Same with China border issues. Hard negotiations. Keep Arunachal and let go Aksai Chin. ( Again when in history how was Tibet should not be important here). In return promise china no interference with Tibet and not bother china with what it is doing elsewhere around the globe.

* Let the boundaries be drawn once and for all with Agreements that stops one nations interference to another nations part.

BTW details can be worked out when all parties are willing to compromise from a hard standing. Else stop saying you are serious about solutions.