Denouncing Indira Gandhi

[Khajur]

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.

Mr oceanx...for person of chinese origin ,u certainly surprise me with relatively good knowledge about, both india and the English language ,but i have to suggest that u do need some further refinements on both the same accounts .

This is what the Oxford dictionary says about meaning of the word "pogrom"

A n. 1. An organized massacre in Russia, orig. and esp. of Jews. E20.

2 .gen. An organized, officially tolerated, attack on any community or group. E20.
B v.t. Massacre or destroy in a pogrom. E20. pogromist n. an organizer of or participant in a pogrom E20.

Now let me restate ur own quote about chinese cultural revolution:

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

Obiviously u would agree that those CCP cadres were acting upon the explicit instructions from the ruling communist party of china under the dictatorship of chairman Mao.


So now dont just try fool us with the english name "Cultural Revolution" ...while u know it very well its nothing like to be classifed the with the "French revolution".

whatever reasons may lie behind its origin...in the end it turned out be a state
sponsored communist party massacre and can be aptly called a "pogrom" where by some accounts milions got persecuted and died as a result of it .

Also stop playing twisting words and its meaning to justify ur initial faulty assertions by calling a sikh riot ,the worst pogrom since WWII , while ur country china sits on the heap of tens of thousands of dead bodies in socalled massacred of chinese "Cultural Revolution".

 

[oceanx]

This is what the Oxford dictionary says about meaning of the word "pogrom"

Okay Khajur, what does your Oxford dictionary say about "pogrom" and "a community" again?

When every "community" was involved in one way or another and victimized to more or less the same extent, it became what I call wide-spread anarchy, civil war, and a quasi-revolution.

When a single community or a few "communities" were isolated and marked for destruction, well ...

Anyhow, far be it from me to wish to derail the thread with a dog-fight on semantics. Have it your way.

 

[oceanx]

First, if East Pakistan existed today, it would have also stretched Indian Army thin, having to defend, with almost equal gusto, three long borders.

...

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.

I maintain my "outsider's" view that Madam Gandhi exchanged a Joker for an Ace, along with some bragging rights when the 1971 dust settled into its current form.

But your point is taken.

BTW, we haven't even touched on the conflict's other outcome, the one that we are all still living to various degrees of seriousness - that Pakistan was then compelled to explore "strategic depth" into Afghanistan and Central Asia ...

Anyhow, I concede your swipe on my favourite "straw man". That's why I need the chart-carrying sister Sath more than she needs me.

It's alright if you have no idea who I am talking about ...

 

[Khajur]

Okay Khajur, what does your Oxford dictionary say about "pogrom" and "a community" again?

When every "community" was involved in one way or another and victimized to more or less the same extent, it became what I call wide-spread anarchy, civil war, and a quasi-revolution.

When a single community or a few "communities" were isolated and marked for destruction, well ...

Anyhow, far be it from me to wish to derail the thread with a dog-fight on semantics. Have it your way.

There were many pogroms like the ones happened in places like Cambodia,East pakistan,South Africa ,Cuba,Veitnam etc which were many times bigger than the Sikh riots, resulting in the massacre of milions of noncombatant innocent people by despotic regimes,all occured After WWII and before the sikh riots of 1984.

Even if we go by ur definition in a classical sense,didnt we see far worse ethinic pogroms or genocides in Cambodia,East pakistan or South Africa ??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Unfortunately AM wants us to denounce Ms Gandhi for one thing she did right.

That is not quite correct - I want Indians who claim to be want peace with Pakistan and accept its existence to condemn Indira Gandhi specifically for her views and philosophy presented in the opening post.

I don't care whether you think she was a great/flawed leader domestically or in terms of her foreign policy aside from Pakistan - my position is that Indians cannot talk of being sincere in wanting peace with and accepting the existence of Pakistan without denouncing her for her views presented in the first post.

You can pay her compliments/insults on the rest of her policies all you want.

It's really not that hard of an issue to wrap your head around, except for those who do secretly (or openly) agree with her.

 

[PostColonial]

Rather childish thread.

As I said earlier, I agree completely with the first quote.

The second quote, if correct, is rather absurd.

As for the third one, rest assured that India is completely reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, infact India is feverently hoping that Pakistan continues to exist given the current circumstances.

Sadly the Pakistani military has hijacked this country since its very inception, by using the Indian boogieman to justify its vice-like grip .

 

[PostColonial]

Pakistan was intended as a homeland for the muslims of India. However, the fact is that the Balochis and Afghans at that time were not part of the Indian cultural milieu. They were culturally very different from the people of the subcontinent. No wonder that the Pakistani state after 60+ years cannot extend its state apparatus into these regions.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Rather childish thread.

As I said earlier, I agree completely with the first quote.

The second quote, if correct, is rather absurd.

As for the third one, rest assured that India is completely reconciled with the existence of Pakistan, infact India is feverently hoping that Pakistan continues to exist given the current circumstances.

Sadly the Pakistani military has hijacked this country since its very inception, by using the Indian boogieman to justify its vice-like grip .

Hardly childish, given the distrust and hostility between India and Pakistan. It has in fact been an eye opener in terms of how many Indians have found excuses to not condemn the philosophy of IG as represented by her quotes.

As for your views on the validity of the first quote - a referendum was held in the NWFP that resulted in an overwhelming majority (98%) of the voters choosing Pakistan. Princely States such as Swat, Chitral etc. acceded to Pakistan, and the FATA joined Pakistan per the autonomous arrangement arrived at through Tribal Jirga's.

What is today Baluchistan was comprised of various Princely States, including Kalat (one princely state out of the others), whose Khan dithered, wavered and tempted the British in supporting its Independence, before acceding to Pakistan (claims of invasion by the PA notwithstanding). The remainder of what is today Baluchistan had Jirga's that chose Pakistan.

So I fail to see on what basis you consider IG's statement in any way to be valid, though I appreciate you rejecting the other two.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan was intended as a homeland for the muslims of India. However, the fact is that the Balochis and Afghans at that time were not part of the Indian cultural milieu. They were culturally very different from the people of the subcontinent. No wonder that the Pakistani state after 60+ years cannot extend its state apparatus into these regions.

The Pakistani state apparatus is extended into the majority of the NWFP and Baluchistan - it is largely the remote areas that suffer from insurgent violence.

The State itself is accepted by the majority of the residents of the Pashtun and Baluch areas, but one cannot underestimate the ability of an extremely small and violent minority to set off fireworks to try and impose its will on the majority. The referendum and jirga's of the NWFP and Baluchistan make clear where the loyalties of the people lied in 1947, and the continued rejection of that minority by the majority, except through coercion, makes clear that their loyalties still lie with the Pakistani State.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

i wont be diplomatic or mature about it.


indira ghandi, as former US President Richard Nixon once (rightly) put it, this indira is/was/will always be an "old witch" --even in her grave.


it's funny because in Turkish, pulling off an "indira gandi" is a slang way of saying "choree" (stealing)

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Pakistan was intended as a homeland for the muslims of India. However, the fact is that the Balochis and Afghans at that time were not part of the Indian cultural milieu. They were culturally very different from the people of the subcontinent. No wonder that the Pakistani state after 60+ years cannot extend its state apparatus into these regions.

ridiculous assertion.

NWFP and Baluchistan are integral parts of Pakistan. There are some social issues that need to be resolved, but that isn't exlusive just to Pakistan.

Pakistan is a federation consisting of many ethnically diverse groups and languages. Pakistan was intended as a Muslim country but also secular --as we also have minority non-Muslim groups as well.

There's a difference between lacking "state apparatus" and autonomy. FATA areas are autonomous regions. More will be done now to bring these areas into mainstream. Until then, they are run by maliks/political agents as has been done for many years now without problems

 

[bandit]

i wont be diplomatic or mature about it.


indira ghandi, as former US President Richard Nixon once (rightly) put it, this indira is/was/will always be an "old witch" --even in her grave.


it's funny because in Turkish, pulling off an "indira gandi" is a slang way of saying "choree" (stealing)

Somethings still burning, but then thats expected.

Calling names won't change the fact that she was a great stateswoman and changed history and geography as we see it today...even in her grave she makes you lose your maturity

 

[toxic_pus]

I maintain my "outsider's" view that Madam Gandhi exchanged a Joker for an Ace, along with some bragging rights when the 1971 dust settled into its current form.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. And yes, Ms Gandhi did give us a life long bragging right.

This thread stands testimony to how ’71 burns our Pak friends to core.

BTW, we haven't even touched on the conflict's other outcome, the one that we are all still living to various degrees of seriousness - that Pakistan was then compelled to explore "strategic depth" into Afghanistan and Central Asia ...

You do know, don’t you, that the CAR came into existence only after the break up of Soviet Union, in early 90s, and Afghanistan became a play ground only because, and when, the US started meddling in Afghanistan in mid 80s. Unless the members of Pakistani leadership were afflatus, the idea of ‘strategic depth’ couldn’t even have been possible circa late 70s or early 80s, with Soviets hopping around right next door. Even if Pakistan had their Eastern wing intact, they would have still gone on pursuing their ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan, because the political situation there provided them with that opportunity. They would have grabbed that opportunity, as would have any other country, regardless of ’71.

However, the manner in which you are moving your goal post all over the place, how long before you blame Ms Gandhi for 9/11?

’71 happened -> Pak starts looking for ‘strategic depth’ -> Finds strategic depth in Afghanistan via Taliban -> Taliban patronizes Al Qaida -> Al Qaida pulls a 9/11. Et voila. Ms Gandhi is responsible for 9/11.

Time to grab some popcorn.

Anyhow, I concede your swipe on my favourite "straw man". That's why I need the chart-carrying sister Sath more than she needs me.
It's alright if you have no idea who I am talking about ...

Is resorting to unnecessary, irrelevant, unrelated, pointless sarcasm, your attempt to get out of a sticky situation? Or is it your own way of feeding your ego?

 

[toxic_pus]

That is not quite correct - I want Indians who claim to be want peace with Pakistan and accept its existence to condemn Indira Gandhi specifically for her views and philosophy presented in the opening post.

I don't care whether you think she was a great/flawed leader domestically or in terms of her foreign policy aside from Pakistan - my position is that Indians cannot talk of being sincere in wanting peace with and accepting the existence of Pakistan without denouncing her for her views presented in the first post.

You can pay her compliments/insults on the rest of her policies all you want.

It's really not that hard of an issue to wrap your head around, except for those who do secretly (or openly) agree with her.

Even if one takes at face value, Dr Kissinger’s interpretation of what Ms Gandhi had implied – which, from the original record of the conversation, appears to be a stretch, there is absolutely nothing there to denounce.

Your ‘position’ that no Indian can ‘talk of being sincere in wanting peace with and accepting the existence of Pakistan’ without first denouncing Ms Gandhi’s personal views, as if somehow, these two are mutually exclusive, only serves to your personal demons. Beyond that, nothing.

PS: I see that you have referenced Ms Gandhi's speech on 30th Nov, 1970 from Mr Munshi's book. Well, I haven't read the book. But we all have the (mis)fortune of reading Mr Munshi on this forum. And judging from his musings, I am not sure how much credible that book is.

 

[toxic_pus]

:Mod Edit:

Post deleted. Infraction Issued.