Denouncing Indira Gandhi

[InExile]

This isn't the thread to talk about Kashmir, but I will just say, India cannot just give up Kashmir like that with nothing in return. Yes, losing land is a loss of pride and national prestige, especially in this case it will be interpreted as a victory for the jihadists; damage our secular fabric and strengthen separatists and enemies of the state like the Maoists.

 

[Insane]

This isn't the thread to talk about Kashmir, but I will just say, India cannot just give up Kashmir like that with nothing in return. Yes, losing land is a loss of pride and national prestige, especially in this case it will be interpreted as a victory for the jihadists; damage our secular fabric and strengthen separatists and enemies of the state like the Maoists.

Yes i know its not a Kashmir thread. But things are related. I already accepted it as off topic any way. If anyone has objections i will delete that part of the post or mods can do it.

Please read the Kashmir solutions thread and you will get some idea from where i am quoting. From where i see it what is being interpreted as what is not important. Important is a solution and a permanent one.

Voluntarily agreeing to give up land is not an act of cowardice as people might conceive it. Maoists are a different problem and are completely internal. If proper action is taken it can be dealt with in one year time. Majority could be appeased and the others be silenced. I do not think solving Kashmir issue once and for all will cause any threat to our national integrity. off course you are not going to give up land for nothing. There will be clauses in which each party makes concessions and it would come with commitment on both parties to stick to resolutions.

And off course people suggesting India could act as a big boss and grab whatever it wants wont happen in a real world. India cant just attack and capture anything. You know what even if you mange to win war after great losses and retain entire Kashmir. what do you gain in reality. Can you keep the people of the region happy who don't want to be with you ? Terrorism and other issues will continue to pill up. In fact there is every chance of escalation of hostilities bringing in new challenge of law and order. Not to undermine dealing with the losses of war, after effects on economy etc etc etc... More ever people who think India is strong and powerful and can solve the issues without losing a lot need a rethink.

Similarly from Pakistan side people thinking India is timid and will never attack are a little bit indulged in fantasy. If pushed to the brink it may attack and that day would be a disaster for the region. Refraining from hostilities from both sides is necessary.

Mods - sorry, i don't want to derail the thread and my posts could be deleted. I will refrain from further off topic discussion in this thread.

 

[vkurian]

There is no question of denouncing Indira Gandhi based on the comments of Henry Kissinger....world knows his credentials. Indira Gandhi will be always regarded as one of the greatest leaders India has ever had. How I wish she was around for another twenty years.

Even if the comment was true one has to see when it was made and what the geo political situation then was. Such comments are not made by world leaders in isolation so the whole perspective has to be seen. We can't go back in time and criticize a comment today after three decades.

Yes I agree in today one should refrain from such comments and should not question sovereignty of any country. It is not in good taste.

Can also use this opportunity to ask the member what are his views on Zia ul Haq as a leader.......I ask this cause he is supposed to be the father of the jihadi culture for which innocent Pakistanis are paying a heavy price today.

 

[dvk1982]

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”.

well what one thinks is right at one point mayn't necessarily hold on to the same thoughts forever... at the same time u can't just quote old quotes as a "Proof that Indians still hold on to this notion".. best comparision that comes to my mind is life is a chess.... ur strategy changes with situations and consequences...
May be some Indians still believe this, may be not.
What Indra gandhi believed may hold some justification for then indian leaders and masses at large.

I for one, believe now that India sud first worry and develop eevrything that it has now north to south and west to east to their true potential and then may be worry abt these non-existent and un-important concerns,...

 

[toxic_pus]

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.

I largely agree with this comment of yours. The irony is that the attitude, that resulted in successful foreign policies – we do consider her handling of US, USSR and China was reasonably in the right direction – was also the reason for her atrocious domestic policies. Her nationalization of all banks, her introduction of License Raj – which was nothing but a lame tool of favoritism, her unilateral liquidation of state government, her imposition of emergency – the only black spot in India’s continuity of democracy, her turning Congress into a personal fiefdom and later her family's, her propping up of Bhindranwale which led to Blue Star fiasco and finally her death, are just some reasons why many in India would gladly denounce her. Unfortunately AM wants us to denounce Ms Gandhi for one thing she did right.

You are correct that it was the checks and balances of a democratic set up that prevented a long term dictatorial regime under her. She indeed had all the makings of Mao – the same charisma, in spite of their lousy policies, the same one-upmanship, the same obstinacy, the same ability to lead, the same ability to be ruthless when needed.

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.

And what is the ‘agenda of those so-called “poorbia/purviah brahmins”’?

 

[toxic_pus]

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?

First, if East Pakistan existed today, it would have also stretched Indian Army thin, having to defend, with almost equal gusto, three long borders. The impact on economy would have been severe. Today, because of Bangladesh, there is only two borders for Indian Army to guard. The entire Bangladesh border has been relegated to para-military forces. That translates into huge savings, both in terms of better trained personnel and money.

Second you have overestimated Pakistan. Pakistan is mostly about Punjab and Sindh. East was not something they cared too much for. Even at the height of ’65 war, Pakistan chose to leave East, practically unguarded and it was only the anticipation of a Chinese intervention that kept the Indian military away from the Eastern Pakistan. In other words, in the event of contingency Pakistan was more than willing to ditch Eastern wing and concentrate all its energy in the west. In ’71, before the crack down happened, there were approximately 20,000 army men and about 20 fighter jets in East Pakistan. That, continued existence of East Pakistan would have resulted in stretching PA thin, is a myth. Not for no reason did the Bengalis rise in revolt.

Then there is the issue of infiltration.

Anyway, I must admit that I love the way you paint your strawman with saffron. Not my favorite colour, but it certainly looks good on your strawman.

Btw, ‘saffronites’ were practically non-existent during 1971. Whatever little existed, couldn’t have influenced a panchayat, let alone the state.

 

[Ruag]

Forget Indira Gandhi, ask the local people of Baluchistan, FATA and NWFP whether their homeland is a part of Pakistan or not.

And if you want us to denounce Indira Gandhi's remarks, then you should also show your willingness to denounce all the appalling anti-India remarks that have been made by Pakistani leaders over the years.

And lastly, we know that you guys claim the whole of Kashmir. We know that you guys transferred a huge piece of Kashmir illegally to China (Trans-Karakoram Tract). We know that you guys explicitly support China ridiculous claims over Aksai Chin and Arunachal. We know that Pakistan continues to support several anti-India militants. Even if Pakistan is less paranoid of India, Indians can never ever trust Pakistan knowing the history of the country's deeds. Any reconciliation between India and Pakistan is not possible unless both sides make an honest attempt.

 

[Nemesis]

If these statements are taken from Henry Kissingers autobiography, they should be treated with a grain of salt. Kissinger was not exactly on good terms with Indira Gandhi.

However if these statements are true, they need to be condemned, especially the last one. There is no question of not accepting Pakistani nationhood. Yes, it is true that Indians do not accept the two nation theory, however as Pakistanis do, we have no right to infringe on their sovereignty.

However AM, if you expect us to denounce our actions in East Pakistan, then you are sadly mistaken. We were morally right in our actions, and we are proud to have helped Bangladesh gain their independence. Please feel free to look at the arguments provided by toxic_pus on this subject, on another thread.


SIF -

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....

Indira Gandhi is not a descendant of Mahatma Gandhi you moron. Stop opening your mouth when you have no idea what you're talking about.

oceanx -

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.

What nonsense. They was no genocide against the sikh population even when Punjab was under the terror threat. Yes, they were human rights violations, a lot of them, but don't exaggerate claims.

In case of the riots of 84, that was another black mark on Indian nationhood - along with Gujarat. Time and time again, Indian leaders have apologized for that, Sikh leaders have accepted it. The fact that the Sikh population in India is one of the richest is testament to the fact that they are proud Indians.

Obviously, as you live in Canada, you've been influenced by the last vestiges of the Khalistan movement. My advice to you would be to expand your horizons and not listen to crap spouted by a bunch of hate mongers.


And what the hell do you mean by sinhalese and tamil blood? The IPKF was sent to Sri Lanka under Rajiv Gandhi, on the invitation of the Sri Lankan government.

 

[Khajur]

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.

what worst Pogoms anywhere since wwII??

Yes, there was an anti sikhs riots limited only to city of Delhi after her death in 84 ...and couple of thousand sikhs lost their lives which was very unfortunate and never repeated again inspite of sikh insurgency that went on for some more years.

And u want to know about pogoms after wwII??

One such real pogom happend in ur own country China that killed milions of people during the cultural revolution under the chiarmanship of Mao in the 60s .

"

Estimates of the death toll, civilians and Red Guards, from various Western and Eastern sources are about 500,000 in the true years of chaos of 1966—1969. Some people were not able to stand the cruel tortures, they lost hope for the future, and simply committed suicide. One of the most famous cases was communist leader Deng Xiaoping's son Deng Pufang who jumped/was thrown from a four-story building during that time. Instead of dying, he became a paraplegic. In the trial of the so-called Gang of Four, a Chinese court stated that 729,511 people had been persecuted of which 34,800 were said to have died.[30] However, the true figure may never be known since many deaths went unreported or were actively covered up by the police or local authorities. Other reasons are the state of Chinese demographics at the time, as well as the reluctance of the PRC to allow serious research into the period. One recent scholarly account asserts that in rural China alone some 36 million people were persecuted, of whom between 750,000 and 1.5 million were killed, with roughly the same number permanently injured. In Mao: The Unknown Story, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday claim that as many as 3 million people died in the violence of the Cultural Revolution.

'

Cultural Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When it comes to killing ur own people in pogoms ,we indians are nowhere near the accomplishments of the Chinese.Thank u.

 

[Halaku Khan]

However if these statements are true, they need to be condemned, especially the last one. There is no question of not accepting Pakistani nationhood. Yes, it is true that Indians do not accept the two nation theory, however as Pakistanis do, we have no right to infringe on their sovereignty.

Pakistani nationhood depends on the will of the people of Pakistan, and how they manage their inter-provincial affairs.

As far as India is concerned, India has to deal with whatever situation exists on the ground, with whoever is in power. In the present scenario, India should deal with not only the Zardari regime, but also with various other stakeholders.

I would not condone anybody deliberately stirring up trouble anywhere.

But then there are some grey areas - for example, in the Yugoslav Federation, some (Muslim) Croats were badly treated by some (Christian) Serbs. Should the Croats have been asked to continue under Serb domination? Was it OK to support the Croats? If yes, then should this have been only moral support? What about material support?

Also, what if country A is stirring up trouble in country B? How should the latter respond, short of overt hostilities? Is it OK for country B to pay country A back in the same coin?

There is no simple rule that tells you what the morally correct policy is.

Basically, India is not an expansionist power. Pakistan's problems with India vis-a-vis Afghanistan and Jammu-Kashmir stem from Pakistan's expansionist tendencies. Pakistan believes it needs to expand because of the perceived need to match India - that is what is causing the instability.

 

[oceanx]

...
And what is the ‘agenda of those so-called “poorbia/purviah brahmins”’?

A hegemonic version of Hindutva - anything more specific is "above my pay grade".

Now I realize Madam Gandhi was more of a practitioner of Joseph Stalin brand of "socialism" with teeth than a coat-tail rider of some rich, pompous Gujarati Vaishal. But still, I take the "big picture"- know what I mean?

If you don't - that's alright - because neither do I in any clear sense.

After all, I don't read Star Charts. But we do take the "long view" ...

 

[bandit]

Just an observation, has the thread starter unconsciously been drawn into flaming because of his hatred for Indira. No doubt Pakistanis revile Indira Gandhi as one who dealt the severest blow to the core of their nations ideology. Dismemberment of Pakistan was the biggest proof that the ideology on which the nation is based is flawed. Muslim brotherhood was superceded by cultural and regional feelings that resulted in the split. We can discuss it this way too whether Indira was at fault or her statements specifically "jerry built " structure indeed carries weight as it was proven in '71.
Maybe Indiras view wasnt hatred, just facts she observed.

 

[oceanx]

what worst Pogoms anywhere since wwII??

Yes, there was an anti sikhs riots limited only to city of Delhi after her death in 84 ...and couple of thousand sikhs lost their lives which was very unfortunate and never repeated again inspite of sikh insurgency that went on for some more years.

And u want to know about pogoms after wwII??

One such real pogom happend in ur own country China that killed milions of people during the cultural revolution under the chiarmanship of Mao in the 60s .

"'

Khajur, buddy - since you are such a Wiki-expert - what does your favourite Wikipedia say about "Pogroms" in its commonly understood, narrowly and rather specifically defined context of the word?

Riots against the Huguenot might have been classified as "pogroms", but do people commonly classify the French Revolution as a pogrom?

The Cultural Revolution was a quasi-civil war, wide-spread social unrest, class war gone haywire ... I can tell you, even in Tibet, the turmoil that resulted in wide-spread destruction of cultural/religious institutions was carried out overwhelmingly by lower-class Tibetans at the explicit instigation of CCP cadres.

Without minimizing their own inherent evil, none of the above fits the accepted definition of "pogroms".

You'd be on firmer grounds if you were to argue that had there been multiple ethnicities residing in Eastern China, then Mao would, in all probabilities, not have been above instigating a "pogrom" or two to achieve whatever he deemed necessary to achieve.

Therefore, the lack of pogroms in contemporary China was more due to circumstances than to "moral superiority" per se. We'll see about Xinjiang's development in the next few decades ...

Having said that, we judge people on their responsibilities in actual crimes - and not on what "they might have done" if given the "opportunity".

On that note, what do you call the hunting down of ethnic Sikhs by voting lists in the capital of the Union for killing, burning, and rape?

All the while the dictatorial power of the state did nothing, if not passively/actively participated?

Let me repeat what I said: in death, Madam Gandhi "managed" to unleash one of the worst pogroms since WW II - to date.

Peace.

 

[oceanx]

oceanx -

What nonsense. They was no genocide against the sikh population even when Punjab was under the terror threat. Yes, they were human rights violations, a lot of them, but don't exaggerate claims.

Obviously, as you live in Canada, you've been influenced by the last vestiges of the Khalistan movement. My advice to you would be to expand your horizons and not listen to crap spouted by a bunch of hate mongers.


And what the hell do you mean by sinhalese and tamil blood? The IPKF was sent to Sri Lanka under Rajiv Gandhi, on the invitation of the Sri Lankan government.

Did I use the word "genocide" anywhere in my post? Some terms I choose very carefully, while others (e.g. "Saffronists" - I sprinkle liberally to add "colour" )

I called it a "pogrom" and a pogrom was what it was. Full Stop.

You astutely observed that my current residence indeed played a role in piquing my interest on Kalistan/Lankan issues.

Kalistan types have been "transcended" - for the time being. But we also had "CanHindu" types who did not hesitate to remind us that hatred and irrationality flow both ways.

Finally, regarding Madam Gandhi's role in the LTTE life cycle, let the words of M K Bhadrakumar answer on my behalf:

Our children and grandchildren will surely inherit the great curse. Oh, God, what a bitter legacy!

A long time ago, we created Prabhakaran. We picked him up as an urchin from nowhere. What we found charming about him was that he was so thoroughly apolitical - almost innocent about politics. He was a simpleton in many ways, who had a passion for weapons and the military regimen. He suited our needs perfectly.

Which was to humiliate the J R Jayewardene government in Sri Lanka and teach it a hard lesson about the dangers of being disrespectful to India`s status as the pre-eminent power in the Indian Ocean. Jayewardene was too Western-oriented and behaved as if he never read about the Munroe Doctrine when he read history in Oxford. We didn`t like at all his dalliance with the Israelis and the Americans in our very backyard.

So, we fostered Prabhakaran and built him up as a pinprick on Jayewardene`s vanities - as a Bhindranwale of the Deccan.

Then, as time passed, we decided that he had outlived his utility as we had come to develop an entirely different outlook towards the pro-Western orientation of the Colombo government by that time. Our egotistic leader in New Delhi [Images] who detested Jayewardene was no more in power and the new soft-spoken leader didn`t share his predecessor`s strong political antipathies.

So, we arm-twisted Prabhakaran to tone down and fall in line with our changed priorities. But we didn`t realise that by then he had become a fully-grown adult.

He resisted our blackmail and pressure tactic. When we pressured him even more and tried to collar him, he struck back. He dispatched assassins to India and killed our beloved leader. And he became our eternal enemy. ​

 

[adrenalin]

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”.

Did you just say that? Wow!!!