Indira Gandhi's assassins honoured by Akal Takht

[livingdead]

What the hell is our forces?Are you in your mind?Blind Gandhi supporter.
I am talking about the Delhi massacre,that you fking congress goons did,no less than terrorists,Sajjan Kumar roams free,Jagdish Tytler played a good role in CWG Committee,that's what you do to the mass killers?
National stability was also important when announced emergency just to save her government.
How will you justify the Delhi riots?

Delhi riots happened after her death, how does it justify killing a PM who has appointed you as body guard?

 

[KS]

if thats the case then you should ask this question. why they think like that. now in independent indian you can dispise us but where were your bravery when afghans attack som nath mandir and pick up hindu women as slaves. it was us sikhs who saved them. the gate of somanath mandir is still in harmandir sahib which we took back from afghans after defeating them. if RSS/shi sena is so powerfull and RSS sainiks guys are so brave then send them to border and lets see. its easy to bark in front of gullible people but it needs balls to act.

Two points:

The Sikhs saved Punjabi women who were took by Afghans. The Sikhs themselves being mostly Punjabi it was expected out of them.

The RSS/Shiv Sena had nothing to do with Punjab crisis.

From Chandra gupta maurya to Shivaji to Maharana Pratap, everyone was fighting with the invaders. Sikhs were Hindus too and Guru Govind was also Hindu not muslim or catholic. Maratha regiment, Gorkha regiment or Rajputana rifles are as brave as Sikh regiment or Punjab regiment.

No he was not. He helped Hindus and fought for Dharma, does not mean he was a Hindu in the modern sense of the word.

 

[trident2010]

No he was not. He helped Hindus and fought for Dharma, does not mean he was a Hindu in the modern sense of the word.

I meant to say he was Hindu by birth and all the Sikhs have Hindu ancestry.

 

[livingdead]

if thats the case then you should ask this question. why they think like that. now in independent indian you can dispise us but where were your bravery when afghans attack som nath mandir and pick up hindu women as slaves. it was us sikhs who saved them. the gate of somanath mandir is still in harmandir sahib which we took back from afghans after defeating them. if RSS/shi sena is so powerfull and RSS sainiks guys are so brave then send them to border and lets see. its easy to bark in front of gullible people but it needs balls to act.

I agree with everything you said, all sikhs are brave.. all hindus are cowards... 1 sikh=1000 hindu. etc. Dont dispute any of that.
How does it justify killing of a PM who has appointed you as body guard. These people are not even militants, they are traitors.
Same goes to the people who call them shaheed.

I meant to say he was Hindu by birth and all the Sikhs have Hindu ancestry.

does not matter. All muslims were some other religion (arabic pagan, hindu, buddist etc), but muslims are braver. It is not genetic, but comes from something in the religion (at least thats the claim).

 

[KS]

I meant to say he was Hindu by birth and all the Sikhs have Hindu ancestry.

No he was not afaik.

Sikhism is one of the four faiths native to India and its also true that there was a great deal of brotherhood at the common people level between Sikhs and Hindus..but does not mean they are Hindus, in the modern sense of religion.

 

[jatt+gutts]

Two points:

The Sikhs saved Punjabi women who were took by Afghans. The Sikhs themselves being mostly Punjabi it was expected out of them.

The RSS/Shiv Sena had nothing to do with Punjab crisis.



No he was not. He helped Hindus and fought for Dharma, does not mean he was a Hindu in the modern sense of the word.

nopes those were the women he picked from delhi and surrounding areas. it was when his caravan was passing through punjab sikhs saved tham and somnath temple is not in punjab.

 

[jatt+gutts]

I agree with everything you said, all sikhs are brave.. all hindus are cowards... 1 sikh=1000 hindu. etc. Dont dispute any of that.
How does it justify killing of a PM who has appointed you as body guard. These people are not even militants, they are traitors.
Same goes to the people who call them shaheed.



does not matter. All muslims were some other religion (arabic pagan, hindu, buddist etc), but muslims are braver. It is not genetic, but comes from something in the religion (at least thats the claim).

they should not have killed her being her bodyguards.. but did she would have ever let indian army to invade haridwar or some other dhams of hindus. and if she did then how much hatred would average hindus have for her. hatred make people do stupid things. there are sikhs who feel betrayed when there was no industries being established in punjba and we were being robed of our share of water.

No he was not afaik.

Sikhism is one of the four faiths native to India and its also true that there was a great deal of brotherhood at the common people level between Sikhs and Hindus..but does not mean they are Hindus, in the modern sense of religion.

sikhs came from hindus. guru nanaks parents were hindus. but that was long time ago. now a days i dont think average hindu think of sikhs as same as them. we are very friendly but usually hindus favour hindus on every issue.

 

[LiberalAtheist]

The akalis will sell anything to garner more votes, they also want to pardon bhullar. that the problem with politics in India.

says the guy with General Sunderji as his avatar.

 

[KS]

they should not have killed her being her bodyguards.. but did she would have ever let indian army to invade haridwar or some other dhams of hindus. and if she did then how much hatred would average hindus have for her. hatred make people do stupid things. there are sikhs who feel betrayed when there was no industries being established in punjba and we were being robed of our share of water.

The question you shuld ask is whether the Hindus would have allowed Haridwar or Kashi to have been used as a base against India or would have given shelter to there to militants fighting against the state.

I for one would be outraged if any of my holy sites are being used against the state of India, weapons being stored there etc.

sikhs came from hindus. guru nanaks parents were hindus. but that was long time ago. now a days i dont think average hindu think of sikhs as same as them. we are very friendly but usually hindus favour hindus on every issue.

Hindus favor Hindus, SIkhs favor Sikhs, Xtians favor xtians, Muslims favor muslims. true. But outside their faith the first faith the Hindus might favor would be Sikhs/Jains/Buddhists depending on the context.

 

[Jaggu]

Sure Satwant Singh and Beant Singh had taken an oath to defend the PM of India, but what about the oath that Indira Gandhi took as the PM of India to protect it's citizens? when she broke her oath and unleashed a reign of terror on it's citizens and murdering thousands of Sikhs, Satwant Singh and Beant Singh also broke their oath to protect her because her actions were causing harm to the nation.

All the people saying how Satwant Singh and Beant Singh were wrong for killing Indira Gandhi, how would you feel if the situation was reversed? If you had your most sacred shrine desecrated and literally destroyed, thousands of civilians murdered in cold blood, had your women raped in this most holy shrine by the invading army, yet you would remain loyal to the leader who ordered all of this on your people?

If this assassination is wrong then all assassinations in history are wrong in which a tyrant has been killed for their crimes. I'm surprised how people who have(presumably) read the Sri Bhagawad Gita and know the story of the Mahabharat which is full of such assassinations can say this assassination by Satwant Singh and Beant Singh is wrong. If they were wrong then Lord Sri Krishna was wrong for ordering Arjun to break all rules of war and kill the unarmed Bhisham, Karan and Drona. Then you must declare Lord Sri Krishna and Arjun wrong as well. You cannot have it both ways.

The Nehru dynasty has been a cancer to India. Indians should be grateful to the Sikhs and Tamils for doing the nation a huge favour.

 

[jandk]

they should not have killed her being her bodyguards.. but did she would have ever let indian army to invade haridwar or some other dhams of hindus. and if she did then how much hatred would average hindus have for her. hatred make people do stupid things. there are sikhs who feel betrayed when there was no industries being established in punjba and we were being robed of our share of water.



sikhs came from hindus. guru nanaks parents were hindus. but that was long time ago. now a days i dont think average hindu think of sikhs as same as them. we are very friendly but usually hindus favour hindus on every issue.

they used golden temple as a base for carrying out terrorist activities. if a temple is ever used in the same way. i would still support a similar operation

 

[KS]

If you had your most sacred shrine desecrated and literally destroyed, thousands of civilians murdered in cold blood, had your women raped in this most holy shrine by the invading army, yet you would remain loyal to the leader who ordered all of this on your people?.

If some terrorists took hold of Kashi Viswanath temple (which can be argues as one of the holiest spots of Hindus) and were using it to launch attacks on India and were refusing to come out of it, then I would not mind in the Army entering the temple to clear them out.

That those militants found refuge in the holiest spot of Sikhs and were unleashing terror from there should not be forgotten.

That being said, the Govt could also have treaded with caution on the Operation Bluestar and exercised sensitivity on how the whole operation went through. For instance they could have chosen another day to launch the attack, sealed every entry and exit from the temple thus depriving the militants of food and water, cut electricity to the temple etc.

Both sides did some mistakes on the Operation. The nation regrets that incident.

As for the rest of the post, I cannot argue.

 

[Abingdonboy]

sikhs came from hindus. guru nanaks parents were hindus. but that was long time ago. now a days i dont think average hindu think of sikhs as same as them. we are very friendly but usually hindus favour hindus on every issue.

If some terrorists took hold of Kashi Viswanath temple (which can be argues as one of the holiest spots of Hindus) and were using it to launch attacks on India and were refusing to come out of it, then I would not mind in the Army entering the temple to clear them out.

That those militants found refuge in the holiest spot of Sikhs and were unleashing terror from there should not be forgotten.

That being said, the Govt could also have treaded with caution on the Operation Bluestar and exercised sensitivity on how the whole operation went through. For instance they could have chosen another day to launch the attack, sealed every entry and exit from the temple thus depriving the militants of food and water, cut electricity to the temple etc.

Both sides did some mistakes on the Operation. The nation regrets that incident.

As for the rest of the post, I cannot argue.

I wouldn't agree with this sir. In my experience Sikhs very much see Hindus as their brothers and of course Muslims by virtue of being Indian but naturally historically there is great feeling between Sikhs and Hindus.


I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the 9th Sikh Guru died whilst trying to help Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus). This is not an isolated incident- there are many such examples. I know that many of my Hindu friends revere Sikh Gurus for such actions.


@ks I'm sure you'd agree that today there is little issues between the Sikh and Hindu communities, in fact quite the opposite.




What happened happened, I won't pass judgement either way but all we can say the two men did what they thought was best and justified.


But no one can deny that Sikhs are a loyal and patriotic community who have done great things for India.

 

[Jaggu]

If some terrorists took hold of Kashi Viswanath temple (which can be argues as one of the holiest spots of Hindus) and were using it to launch attacks on India and were refusing to come out of it, then I would not mind in the Army entering the temple to clear them out.

That those militants found refuge in the holiest spot of Sikhs and were unleashing terror from there should not be forgotten.

That being said, the Govt could also have treaded with caution on the Operation Bluestar and exercised sensitivity on how the whole operation went through. For instance they could have chosen another day to launch the attack, sealed every entry and exit from the temple thus depriving the militants of food and water, cut electricity to the temple etc.

Both sides did some mistakes on the Operation. The nation regrets that incident.

As for the rest of the post, I cannot argue.

Most Indians have been brain washed to think Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was automatically evil. They do not even do independent study of these matters with a neutral mindset. Sadly so many myths surround this man. For the Sikhs he was just following the Sikh concept of Sant Sipahi where Bhagti is intertwined with Shakti. I suggest you read this:

www . bhindranwale.net/sikhismbooks/the-gallant-defender.html

If you think attacking the Harimandir Sahib was justified, fine. But what justification is there for attacking during a holiday when maximum number of civilians would be present? why didn't she attack a day before or after the holiday? why did she choose on purpose the day when it would be the most crowded by civilians? It's like attacking the Kabah during Hajj or attacking Allahahbad during the Kumb Mela.

Once the militants were killed and the Darbar sahib complex was occupied by the Indian military, why did they begun to gather and execute Sikh males? why were Sikh women raped by the soldiers? even babies who were a few months old were not spared and were killed without mercy. Why was the Sikh reference library which contained priceless historical Sikh artifacts burnt by the Indian army?What justification is there for all of these crimes? if a Sikh will not feel anger at these crimes when what will he feel.

 

[KS]

@ks I'm sure you'd agree that today there is little issues between the Sikh and Hindu communities, in fact quite the opposite.

What happened happened, I won't pass judgement either way but all we can say the two men did what they thought was best and justified.
.

I'll take your word as to what Sikhs consider Hindus as brothers (even though there is a minority amongst Sikhs who have an antipathy for what happened in Punjab), but no Hindu considers Sikh as any different from him. I'm yet to meet a Hindu who harbors any kind of anti-pathy towards Sikhs in general.

A single problem in 84 wont erase the centuries of spirit of brotherhood.

But no one can deny that Sikhs are a loyal and patriotic community who have done great things for India

That was/will not questioned in the first place.

But ofcourse you must exclude MMS from that list..