Operation Blue Star -Sikh Holocaust 1984

[afriend]

So do you think government couldn't cut of water, electricity, food and communication and negotiated? Did they have to attack on the holiest day on thei Sikh calander when thousands of devotees were there hence causing thousands of innocent deaths? Sir when Babri masjid was destroyed, where was the goverment and where was thier "national" integority?

As per my understanding,
1. Bhindernwala was headquartered in Golden temple way before the operation started. People easily forget his role in taking the war to golden temple. He was asked to surrender which obviously he didnt do, which mean that he didnt mind a war at the golden temple. And he was residing akal takth and nobody objects that. That is one of the most sacred places of sikhs is what i hear.
2. Cutting of water supply and food was not an option as i read, as golden temple was self suffient in water, and they had rations to last for over a month.
3. Indian government didn't have time at their hand, because had khalistan been declared, pakistan would have readily recogonised it and crossed over to punjab. And if the news spread that golden temple was at siege sikhs from villages would have taken up swords and rushed to golden temple in what would have been percieved as a Siege of golden temple, then it would have been difficult for the indian army to fire at their own innocent people.
So i think emotions apart, all should acknowledge what happend was unfortunate and condemn in strongest possible way the killings of sikhs in delhi. But understand the situation the country facing at that time.
And i got the reference for my arguments from the below article please read and post your thoughts.
Operation Bluestar, 20 Years On

 

[Gabbar]

1. Bhindernwala was headquartered in Golden temple way before the operation started. People easily forget his role in taking the war to golden temple. He was asked to surrender which obviously he didnt do, which mean that he didnt mind a war at the golden temple. And he was residing akal takth and nobody objects that. That is one of the most sacred places of sikhs is what i hear.

I guess we can argue on his decision to to be at Harmandir Sahib but there was no other place in Punjab where he knew army would not attack and he was never going to surrender and even GOI knew that.

2. Cutting of water supply and food was not an option as i read, as golden temple was self suffient in water, and they had rations to last for over a month.

Back than they did not had good water filteration system and the water in the nector was not drinkable, you would gotton sick easily and ration usually they have to bring in lot frequenty than months and also needs lots of fuel to cook them as well.

. Indian government didn't have time at their hand, because had khalistan been declared, pakistan would have readily recogonised it and crossed over to punjab. And if the news spread that golden temple was at siege sikhs from villages would have taken up swords and rushed to golden temple in what would have been percieved as a Siege of golden temple, then it would have been difficult for the indian army to fire at their own innocent people.

This is based on a one article that you posted link to and let me tell you that it's all BS that he has picked a date to declare Khalistan. After 1978 incident he personally said that he would congratulate and support congress government if just and just GOI punish who were responsible for that incient but as expected that did not happena and probably was final straw in his decision to declare khalistan.

1984 Attack on Golden Temple

 

[afriend]

I guess we can argue on his decision to to be at Harmandir Sahib but there was no other place in Punjab where he knew army would not attack and he was never going to surrender and even GOI knew that.



Back than they did not had good water filteration system and the water in the nector was not drinkable, you would gotton sick easily and ration usually they have to bring in lot frequenty than months and also needs lots of fuel to cook them as well.



This is based on a one article that you posted link to and let me tell you that it's all BS that he has picked a date to declare Khalistan. After 1978 incident he personally said that he would congratulate and support congress government if just and just GOI punish who were responsible for that incient but as expected that did not happena and probably was final straw in his decision to declare khalistan.

1984 Attack on Golden Temple

Well i had already read the article you posted, and i had got one perception, before i read Mr. Brar's interview. And i really thought the first one written of emotions and second one based upon facts and logic.

And more over i can never imagine indian army serving alchol and cigerates in the golden temple, and that busted and revealed that they are just writing BS.

And i suggest you read Brar interview in the rediff fully.

He himselves wouldnt want to do that again, and what he did was his duty and i respect him for that. And as the situation suggested the entire punjab was on turmoil during that times.. So according to me it all sums up.

 

[A1Kaid]

Interesting excerpt...

"Before India's independence in 1947 Panditt Nehru and other Congress leaders promised special constitutional rights to Sikhs but soon after the independence Nehru backed away from all those promises. Not only that whereas India accepted various states based on differant languages and those languages recognised as the main language in those states. But the moment Sikhs asked that Punjabi should be given similar status in Punjab, Jawaharlal Nehru dithered, simply because Punjabi was considered as the language of the Sikh community. As long as he was alive, he did not allow Punjabi to be recognised as the official language of Punjab."

Source: WSN-Opinion-Gandhi Family Traditions


The Sikhs were promised special constitutional rights but after Independence PM Nehru and Congress Leader declined on his promises to the Sikh community in India...


Can someone please elaborate further what these special constitutional rights were?

 

[A1Kaid]

"Despite all these discriminotry treatment Punjab continued to prosper and be the richest state in India. To make matters worse Mrs Gandhi factionalised the Sikh polity. So, why was Indira Gandhi so angry with the Sikhs?

As the saying goes, Indira Gandhi wanted to teach the Sikhs a lesson. Former Canadian High Commissioner to India in 1984 -William Warden testified before Justice Major at Air India inquiry that in 1975 Indira Gandhi imposed a state of emergency in India and the Sikh Akali party of Punjab launched one of the largest and most effective demonstrations against what she was doing. Finally the emergency was lifted in 1977 and she lost the next elections. When Indira Gandhi was re-elected as PM in 1980, she was particularly angry about the Sikh protests against her dictatorial rule during the two years of emergency rule and was determined to teach Sikhs a lesson. In Mr. Warden's words it was a 'pay back time'. The western media covering Air India trial didn't give much coverage to Mr. Warden's comments. But the points raised by Mr. Warden are confirmed by the comments by Indian army's Lt. General Sinha that Indian army had started preparing and practising for attack on Golden temple 16 months before the actual attack in 1984.

The Indian army had started preparations to teach the Sikhs a lesson at the express wish and will of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in keeping with the Gandhi Family Tradition. Then through a media blitzkrieg, the world was told that Sikhs are terrorists and in the garb of that innocent men, women and children were killed. All in the same Gandhi Family Tradition because Indira Gandhi wanted to teach Sikhs a lesson for opposing her emergency rule."

Source: WSN-Opinion-Gandhi Family Traditions


I guess there is another side to this story, another casus belli to why Pm Indira Gandhi wanted to punish the Sikh community on the Sikh most holiest day when many pilgrims would be in attendance at the Golden Temple...

And that is it appears she believes the Sikhs opposed her two year emergency rule, as the article indicates...So Sikh militants simply challenging National Indian supremacy is not the only reason.

It seem revenge and hatred are the big reasons.

 

[afriend]

Well A1kaid, i guess whole of india was angry and protested against indira gandhi during that time. By your logic indira gandhi should be paying back whole of india . I think nationalism and fear of another bangladesh in india was the major reason rather than such stupidity.

 

[A1Kaid]

History of Sikh Punjab


Punjab, Khalistan was independent from 1765 to 1849. It was the last part of the subcontinent to be conquered by the British. Sikhs are two-thirds of the population of Punjab and own 95 percent of the land there. In the recent elections, the Sikhs of Punjab overwhelmingly rejected Congress Party rule, which has brought about the murders of over 50,000 Sikhs in five years. This was a clear demand for an independent Khalistan.

When India was given its independence, the Sikhs were denied resumption of their independent status. The Sikhs were promised autonomy and they were given the Congress Party's solemn pledge that no law affecting Sikh rights would pass without the consent of the Sikh Nation. But as soon as the ink was dry, the Indian regime broke these promises. As a result, no Sikh has ever signed the Indian constitution, denying Sikh assent to Indian rule.

Vice President Gore wrote that "civil conflict in any nation, and the inevitable hardship and bloodshed that it inflicts on that nation's civilian population, offends our sense of human dignity and our humanitarian ideals." The Indian regime has murdered more than 200,000 Sikhs in Khalistan since 1984, according to the Punjab Civil Service (PCS), the group which represents state magistrates across Punjab, Khalistan.


Source: Khalistan.net - Sovereign Nation

 

[A1Kaid]

Well A1kaid, i guess whole of india was angry and protested against indira gandhi during that time. By your logic indira gandhi should be paying back whole of india . I think nationalism and fear of another bangladesh in india was the major reason rather than such stupidity.

This makes no sense, neither was the whole of India elected to become PM or implemented 2 years of emergency rule and lost an election because majority of Punjab did not support Indira Gandhi's election...

The article mentions when she was re-elected she wanted "pay-back" for losing the election because she believed the Sikhs were responsible for opposing her emergency rule in her previous rule as Prime Minister.

" I think nationalism and fear of another bangladesh in india was the major reason rather than such stupidity"-afriend

But according to history PM Nehru and Indian Congress leaders had promised the Sikh community special constitutional rights or autonomy. So what is this? Hypocrisy? Being disingenuous and perhaps unlawful of Indian Congress Leaders and state?

 

[afriend]

This makes no sense, neither was the whole of India elected to become PM or implemented 2 years of emergency rule and lost an election because majority of Punjab did not support Indira Gandhi's election...

The article mentions when she was re-elected she wanted "pay-back" for losing the election because she believed the Sikhs were responsible for opposing her emergency rule in her previous rule as Prime Minister.

" I think nationalism and fear of another bangladesh in india was the major reason rather than such stupidity"-afriend

But according to history PM Nehru and Indian Congress leaders had promised the Sikh community special constitutional rights or autonomy. So what is this? Hypocrisy? Being disingenuous and perhaps unlawful of Indian Congress Leaders and state?

Yes perhaps.So? My argument remains the same.

The benfiits or the strength they foresaw in the concept of united india might have prompted nehru and other congress national leaders on going back on their personal promise. Which have been proved right.

The state have become stronger and we have been well integrated.

And Bhinderwala started killing Hindus and other religious followers and his fight started when the sikh followers began to modernise and feared that sikhism would become irrelevant in future if it remained with india and has nothing to do with Nehru's stupid promise, and also there where some economic reasons which was exploited at that time. But these fears where proved wrong by the later generations of young sikhs.

 

[bandit]

@all the indian members slogging their a$$-off in trying to justify bluestar...
amigos...in a democracy like ours...one wrong move even if implied with good intentions...is labeled as "horribly bad"...and one of those "could have been avoided" types.
not many would support Godhra,babri,mumbai blasts '91,the khalistani air-india blasts,Samjhota...
the perpetrators of the above mentioned crimes also had good motives...but they killed many innocents...so while bluestar could have been avoided/was unavoidable....it was a big mistake...because the end-game went wrong.
"violence brings more violence and peace is through humility"...said Gandhi ji

Bro, you are trying to justify your stand by comapring an anti-terror operation with terrorist acts???....you think godhra, mumbai, air-india terrorists had good motives, I don't think so and i can't figure out the lie of logic by which you arrived at the conclusion. We can have differences over bluestar...that's perfectly fine...but the examples you gave are stretching it a bit too much.

 

[Gabbar]

Bro, you are trying to justify your stand by comapring an anti-terror operation with terrorist acts???....

According to people who has opposite views to your opinion, will say that Operation Blue star (O-BS) was a terror activity by GOI. Are they wrong? Depends on who you ask.

you think godhra, mumbai, air-india terrorists had good motives, I don't think so and i can't figure out the lie of logic by which you arrived at the conclusion. We can have differences over bluestar...that's perfectly fine...but the examples you gave are stretching it a bit too much.

Pritosh is not saying that they had good motives, he is saying that those people who did that thought that they had good motives. Same goes for people who did O-BS because they thaought they had good motives.

 

[Gabbar]

Well i had already read the article you posted, and i had got one perception, before i read Mr. Brar's interview. And i really thought the first one written of emotions and second one based upon facts and logic.

And more over i can never imagine indian army serving alchol and cigerates in the golden temple, and that busted and revealed that they are just writing BS.

And i suggest you read Brar interview in the rediff fully.

He himselves wouldnt want to do that again, and what he did was his duty and i respect him for that. And as the situation suggested the entire punjab was on turmoil during that times.. So according to me it all sums up.

You believe in someone's inverview who was there right. Well then you would not have problem someone else's interview who was also there?

FROM THE ARTICLE: The Darshani Deodhi (anteroom) was full of drunken soldiers who were smoking cigarettes. When these soldiers saw me, they started hurling derogatory verbal abuses at me, "who is this Sala?" Almost all the soldiers were abusive. They couldn't utter any words without using derogatory terms.

HEAD GRANTHI TO THEN PRESIDENT:
I summarized the events. Further I told him that the soldiers were moving around with naked heads, with boots, and continuously drinking and smoking within the premises. Their behavior was inappropriate and derogatory. Whenever they see a Sikh, they kill him without asking any question.

After the Attack - Interview with the Head Granthi of the Golden Temple​

 

[afriend]

You believe in someone's inverview who was there right. Well then you would not have problem someone else's interview who was also there?

After the Attack - Interview with the Head Granthi of the Golden Temple​

I can understand the difference between the opinions coming from the ideolgy of blind faith and commitment to duty and nationalism. They differ brother.

And more over i cant find any other evidence on the net other than those published from sikh websites.

However one thing we all can agree upon is on whatever happened at golden temple was unfortunate. Was it necessary or not?? is a question which can be debated for ever..!!!!

 

[Gabbar]

I can understand the difference between the opinions coming from the ideolgy of blind faith and commitment to duty and nationalism. They differ brother.

So can I but you are willing to believe a one person who was other but not the other? You are willing to take a one person's story, just because he was in the army? If it was his duty to carry out his mission, I am fine with it, but it also a duty to Khalsa to return his favour.

And more over i cant find any other evidence on the net other than those published from sikh websites.

There was total media blackout in Punjab, did you really expect a neutral news agency to go down there talk to a head granthi? All of them were kicked out of punjab, expect doordarshan.

However one thing we all can agree upon is on whatever happened at golden temple was unfortunate. Was it necessary or not?? is a question which can be debated for ever..!!!!

Agree........

PS: Sikhnet is a very neutal site, they do not promote violence and khalistani agenda by any shape or forum. There are othe sites, who does this and on purpose I avoided those sites so we can have neutral and mature discusion.

TY.

 

[bandit]

According to people who has opposite views to your opinion, will say that Operation Blue star (O-BS) was a terror activity by GOI. Are they wrong? Depends on who you ask.



Pritosh is not saying that they had good motives, he is saying that those people who did that thought that they had good motives. Same goes for people who did O-BS because they thaought they had good motives.

If you start making your own definitions as they suit you you can classify anything as such, but one criteria is attack on unarmed civilians...were Bhindranwala & co: unarmed...did they not fire back and kill soldiers as well, that was an armed group of people with a hostile intent and if the temple complex was desecrated by anyone it was them, the army operation was not intended against the temple itself but heavy casualties made it necessary.

As far as motives go what wrong motives do you think the GoI had, Indira Gandhi knew it was a political suicide to step inside the Temple yet she did it to prevent a division of punjab...whereas Bhindranwale was propogating his ideology and seccesionist agenda from the temple, he could have left when he knew the operation was coming.