Denouncing Indira Gandhi

[Aslan]

Pakistan is made up of various ethnicities and sects.

The question is, whether Pakistan, as presently constituted, best serves the interests of its people.

There are many Pakistanis who think it doesn't.

As far as I am concerned, I would be happy to support any fair and amicable arrangement which the people of Pakistan come to amongst themselves. Subject, of course, to the condition that there be no support to terrorism in India, in particular, no support to non-state actors on the Indian side of the LoC. Also, there needs to be the recognition that Afghanistan is a sovereign independent nation, which has the right to have friendly relations with any other nation, and whose people have a right to democratically elect their own government.

Then your saintly india will have to play by the same rules as of no terrorism in Pak and no support of non state actors in Pak. And stop worrying about the interest of Pakistani people, non of your business. Comprenday wato.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM: Even before starting to read the thread, the title itself is inappropriate. The question is whether you want the reader to denounce the idea of a broken Pakistan and seeking validation for existence of Pakistan, I am with you. I accept Pakistan as a nation has an existence and NWFP etc are part of Pakistan.
I fail to understand whether you want us do denounce Indira Gandhi or these ideas??
But there is something further to it, the hidden motive of Using Indira Gandhi's name and associating some shady comments to her, credibility and truthfulness of which are under question. This makes me doubt if this thread is meant to establish whether or not Indians believe in peace with Pakistan or exactly the opposite. Deterring them from accepting the fact (which they otherwise easily would) by associating Ms. Gandhi's name to it.

I am sorry to say but the effort on you part is not to determine the truth but to ignite the nationalist feelings by involving a former PM.

Just ask plainly if they accept NWFP and Baluchistan as Pakistan and if they accept Pakistan as a nation, answer would be an emphatic YES. If you want to malign a national figure by hearsay and some extremely shady sources (Mr. Munshi will certainly be towards the bottom in my credibility list) then its a firm NO.

If ever it boils down to denouncing there are to far too many sinister things to denounce than some unverified comments.

I would like Indian readers to denounce IG for the expression of those ideas. We denounce Hitler for his policies and views even today, many Pakistanis denounce Zia and Bhutto for some of the policies they pursued, so I do not see why IG should not be denounced for the repugnant views she expressed in those quotes, by those Indians that truly see those views as repugnant.

And a former US SoS Kissinger is a credible source, he claims to have heard IG express those views first hand. I have corresponded with MBI Munshi to determine his original source for the last quote. So to merely call them 'unverifiable' because they fly in the face of traditional Indian propaganda of being a 'peaceful nation' is really not enough to discredit them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan is made up of various ethnicities and sects.

The question is, whether Pakistan, as presently constituted, best serves the interests of its people.

There are many Pakistanis who think it doesn't.

As far as I am concerned, I would be happy to support any fair and amicable arrangement which the people of Pakistan come to amongst themselves. Subject, of course, to the condition that there be no support to terrorism in India, in particular, no support to non-state actors on the Indian side of the LoC. Also, there needs to be the recognition that Afghanistan is a sovereign independent nation, which has the right to have friendly relations with any other nation, and whose people have a right to democratically elect their own government.

Well someone was bound to crawl out of the woodwork, some of the others adhere to IG's philosophy still, and would like no better than to see it fulfilled, and so continue to find excuses to not condemn her views.

But as for your point, "There are many Pakistanis who think it doesn't" - who are these 'many Pakistanis'? Are they a significant minority? A majority? Fringe groups whose influence is exacerbated by the fireworks they put on? Any empirical data to support your assertions or just blind hate like Indira Gandhi?

And while pontificating about Pakistan, don't forget India's own Nagas, Khalistani's and what have you. The rest of your 'points' are nothing but a strawman, disguising support for IG's views as expressed in those quotes. But then your own adherence to such views has in any case been barely disguised given the tenor of your posts on this forum, so I can't say it's been a surprise.

 

[Spring Onion]

I would like Indian readers to denounce IG for the expression of those ideas. We denounce Hitler for his policies and views even today, many Pakistanis denounce Zia and Bhutto for some of the policies they pursued, so I do not see why IG should not be denounced for the repugnant views she expressed in those quotes, by those Indians that truly see those views as repugnant.

And a former US SoS Kissinger is a credible source, he claims to have heard IG express those views first hand. I have corresponded with MBI Munshi to determine his original source for the last quote. So to merely call them 'unverifiable' because they fly in the face of traditional Indian propaganda of being a 'peaceful nation' is really not enough to discredit them.

well Agno do you think they will denounce IG when almost all of them host the same against Pakistan.

It doesnt make any difference almost every leader of India had the same ideas against Pakistan.

 

[Skeptic]

I would like Indian readers to denounce IG for the expression of those ideas. We denounce Hitler for his policies and views even today, many Pakistanis denounce Zia and Bhutto for some of the policies they pursued, so I do not see why IG should not be denounced for the repugnant views she expressed in those quotes, by those Indians that truly see those views as repugnant.

And a former US SoS Kissinger is a credible source, he claims to have heard IG express those views first hand. I have corresponded with MBI Munshi to determine his original source for the last quote. So to merely call them 'unverifiable' because they fly in the face of traditional Indian propaganda of being a 'peaceful nation' is really not enough to discredit them.

Henry Kissinger and his relationship with Indira Gandhi were not exactly rosy and him making up stuff about Indira Gandhi while talking to her staunchest enemy in prime of the cold war is not beyond the scope, infact very likely. I stand by my view that ideas can be denounced by most Indians but unless proven, I will reserve my comments for Indira Gandhi.

If the policies you want to discuss, they are much more part of public domain - pick up a document and we can discuss from there, based on hearsay and random comments by someone not averse to lying(I can quote of other instances) and taking back statements with an apology(specifically with Indira Gandhi).

Ms. Gandhi is denounced for the domestic policies - most for emergency among other things, but those were proven policies and shows that she is not above criticism, but to denounce her for some comments, which are themselves on shaky ground - is for asking too much. yes if you want to stress, if Manmohan Singh was to make this statement on TV today, I'd denounce him, but unless proven - its a no go.

PS: do let me know once Mr. Munshi reveals his source.

I would like Indian readers to denounce IG for the expression of those ideas.
Were those her ideas, that is the question to be answered first.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

well Agno do you think they will denounce IG when almost all of them host the same against Pakistan.

Well that's the point, the more excuses they come up with to not denounce those views of IG, the more their insincerity is exposed.

It doesnt make any difference almost every leader of India had the same ideas against Pakistan.

I agree that in the past yes, and perhaps even today some within the Congress, and especially the BJP, may subscribe to those views. But it is hard to tell with MMS.

Of course aides and assistants would refrain the leadership from openly expressing those views given the media glare and how they would in fact validate Pakistani concerns and paint India as an aggressor, so even if MMS does not openly express views such as those by IG, that does not mean he does not believe in them.

In fact, what we have seen under his government is a badmouthing of Pakistan and an unsubstantiated blame game after Mumbai. Hardly the sign of a leadership not engaged in duplicity and dissemblance.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Were those her ideas, that is the question to be answered first.

At this point, given the source, yes, those were her ideas.

I believe Kissinger apologized for abusive language in describing her. If he can apologize for that, then he can surely retract these quotes he attributed to her if they are indeed incorrect.

Her intervention in East Pakistan is BTW a tangible manifestation of those ideas.

 

[Halaku Khan]

But as for your point, "There are many Pakistanis who think it doesn't" - who are these 'many Pakistanis'? Are they a significant minority? A majority? Fringe groups whose influence is exacerbated by the fireworks they put on? Any empirical data to support your assertions or just blind hate like Indira Gandhi?

Articles in Pakistani media suggest that a significant number of Balochis are dissatisfied. Those articles can be dug out if need be. For example, Baloch children refusing to sing the Pakistan national anthem in schools. Anyway, precise quantification of how many are dissatisfied is irrelevant for my main point which was:

I would be happy to support any fair and amicable arrangement which the people of Pakistan come to amongst themselves. Subject, of course, to the condition that there be no support to terrorism in India, in particular, no support to non-state actors on the Indian side of the LoC. Also, there needs to be the recognition that Afghanistan is a sovereign independent nation, which has the right to have friendly relations with any other nation, and whose people have a right to democratically elect their own government.

Do you have any problems with that?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Articles in Pakistani media suggest that a significant number of Balochis are dissatisfied. Those articles can be dug out if need be. For example, Baloch children refusing to sing the Pakistan national anthem in schools.

Yes, articles, many by Baloch dissidents and their apologists.

There are others suggesting that the singing ban was enforce by militants, who were on a spree of killing civilian Principals of schools etc.

Anyway, precise quantification of how many are dissatisfied is irrelevant for the main point which was:

See the proportion of Baluch out of all of Baluchistan, and then try and see how many might be disaffected, and then try and see what proportion of the total Pakistani population they are.

There is a reason why this particular Baluch insurgency has not really gone anywhere.

Do you have any problems with that?

Yes - acceptance of Pakistan and its territorial integrity should be unconditional.

I can reverse all those arguments and apply them to India - when will India stop supporting terrorism in Pakistan (Baluchistan) and seeking to break Pakistan apart?

Ciao for now.

 

[Halaku Khan]

Yes - acceptance of Pakistan and its territorial integrity should be unconditional.

I can reverse all those arguments and apply them to India - when will India stop supporting terrorism in Pakistan (Baluchistan) and seeking to break Pakistan apart?

Ciao for now.

Wow, "acceptance of Pakistan and its territorial integrity should be unconditional" irrespective of Pakistani support of non-state actors in Afghanistan and India.

That's rich!

And give one proof of "India supporting terrorism in Balochistan". Or is it another fairly tale like "India blocking water"?

 

[Spring Onion]

it another fairly tale like "India blocking water"?

AND This is the end of your argument and also sums it up your "logics"

 

[humblehobbes]

What is the point of this thread? Denounce IG because she felt that the need for Pakistan was not understood? although it may irk you gentle souls, just think logically. Quaid's vision was that of a state where it doesnt matter which religion it belongs to. Now , I know that a lot of you would bring in such topics, dalits, sikh pogrom and Babur masjid. But when you compare India and Pakistan, over the past 60 years, India is excellent when it comes to minority rights..

And what if i am Gonna denounce IG.. Its not gonna help in anyways right? Heck.. I have been denouncing Casteism too every time, one of you guys decide to bring it. But it helps not even to scratch my back..

 

[PostColonial]

Alright, this has gone far enough. Lets get this thing straight. Most patriotic Indians have no love lost for the Pakistani state. They have seen that state use extremist violence with no forethought or responsibility, or any kind - not a bit - not a shred - of thought as to what the results of these policies might be.

What patriotic Indians are interested in, is the betterment of their own country. Now, the stability of the Pakistani government in the face of violent Islamic extremism is essential in order to prevent the spread and strengthening of this obscurantist, backward and dangerous ideology. The Indian government knows this.

So please, don't ask Indians on this forum to display unconditional love and good wishes for a regime that has caused so much death, destruction, and backwarndness.

 

[Atheist]

Ok denounced - what purpose does it serve??? Just to satisfy your alter ego ... Or to make fool of yourself reminding people about 1971.... It just shows how urt you are for the decision she took to save her country....Do Indians give a damn about NWPF , FATA whateva - I dont think anyone does except the few who have nothing to do but ave an internet connection and lots of free time

 

[deathfromabove]

25 years later: Sikhs have neither forgotten nor forgiven Indira Gandhi
October 25, 2009

In June 1984, when then prime minister Indira Gandhi ordered the Indian Army to storm the Golden Temple complex, home to the holiest Sikh shrine Harmandar Sahib, she could not have realised that the action would engrave her name in the inglorious part of Punjab’s history. Even 25 years after her death on Oct 31, 1984 – she was assassinated by her two Sikh bodyguards at the prime minister’s residence in New Delhi – not many Sikhs in Punjab are ready to forgive her, though the chapter is no longer part of everyday discussion in India’s only Sikh-majority state.

The Congress party has had popular governments in Punjab for over 10 years since the 1984 Operation Bluestar to flush out heavily armed Sikh separatists led by radical ideologue Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. Congress leaders have over the years expressed near regret for the events. But the wounds are unlikely to be healed for a long time.

“The attack on Darbar Sahib (as Harmandar Sahib is also known) in 1984 was totally illegitimate and beyond any justification. Its immediate repercussion was the assassination of Indira Gandhi,” Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) secretary Dalmegh Singh told IANS in an interview. SGPC is effectively the religious parliament of Sikhs. He added: “Following this there were widespread anti-Sikh riots in Delhi, Kanpur and other places that crossed all limits of human rights and value. Nobody can forget those horrifying days. Those violent attacks had targeted the Sikh community and alienated it from other sections of society.

“Now when our new generation and we look back at what happened in 1984, then all our memories and wounds get fresh. No compensation or development can erase that history and it will always remain there.” The families of Indira Gandhi’s assassins Beant Singh and Satwant Singh were honoured by religious leaders after her killing and both were declared martyrs. Now they do not find much of a mention in any circle.

The Sikh community, one of the most progressive in the world, has moved on. When the political scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family and Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi surprised everyone by quietly arriving early morning in September last year to pay obeisance at Harmandar Sahib as a commoner, the Sikh religious leadership did not term it a stunt. In fact, Rahul sat inside the sanctum sanctorum for a long time in an enclosure meant for hymn singers. Younger Sikhs too say that the community has moved on but the scars remain. “Those responsible for the killing of Sikhs after her (Indira Gandhi’s) death have not been brought to justice by the agencies concerned. There is always a looming fear that such things could happen again.

The community otherwise has moved on,” said author and agriculturist Khushwant Singh, who authored a book “Sikhs Unlimited”. Radical Sikh elements have now called for a Punjab bandh (strike) Nov 3 to observe the 25th anniversary of the killing of Sikhs in Delhi and other places.

“The 1984 holocaust left a deep scar on the psyche and social life of all Sikhs. We have not forgotten or forgiven the perpetrators behind those attacks. It is really sad that instead of punishing the culprits, the Congress had glorified them by giving them plum posts,” Kanwarpal Singh, spokesman of radical Sikh group Dal Khalsa, which has given the strike call, told IANS. He added: “The verbal assurances given by the governments hold no water and they were all politically motivated. They did not even spare our holiest shrine Golden Temple and no true Sikh can forgive them for that inhuman act.”

(Jaideep Sarin can be contacted at jaideep.s@ians.in)