typically indian..

[SUKHBIR]

Indian Express - 30 April 2004

Twenty years after

A declaration tabled in the European Parliament wants

a UN probe into the 1984 anti-Sikh 'genocide'.

Diplomatic trouble for India?

BHAVNA VIJ-AURORA

NEW DELHI: NEWS of a declaration recently tabled in

the European Parliament - asking for a UN

investigation into 1984 anti-Sikh riots and to regard

them as a genocide - is beginning to evoke varied

response in India.

While some in the Sikh community predictably welcomed

the move, government officials and foreign policy

specialists see it as ''motivated mischief to

embarrass India.''

The written declaration, tabled in the European

Parliament by four of its members on April 19, called

for setting up of a ''Commission of Truth and

Justice'' under the auspices of the UN. The aim of the

Commission, as stated in the declaration, would be to

''comprehensively investigate whether the slaughter to

which Indian Sikhs were subjected in 1984 constitutes

genocide as defined in the Genocide Convention and the

relevant international law.''

The four members of Green Party - Jean Lambert,

Caroline Lucas (both from the UK), Matti Wuori

(Finland) and Alima Boumediene-Thiery (France) - urged

the European Union to study reports of the events of

1984, and extend support to declare it a case of

genocide. The Members of European Parliament (MEPs)

specially asked the EU to study reports compiled by

American-based Human Rights Watch and British-based

Amnesty International which documented ''widespread

abuse of the human rights of Sikh activists and Sikh

civilians by the Indian authorities.''

It is believed that the MEPs were petitioned by

various Sikh groups based in Europe to take up their

cause.

Eminent Sikh author and intellectual Patwant Singh

strongly favoured an investigation by a Commission of

Truth and Justice. ''The state presided over the

killings of the Sikhs. The state encouraged it. If

that is not genocide, what is?'' he said.

Singh compared the 1984 killings to the genocide

committed by Hitler against the Jews. He said, even if

nothing came out of the inquiry, it will at least

generate the fear that in the future such things would

not be tolerated. ''If an international body takes up

the issue, the government will be more alert,'' he

added.

Former foreign secretary J.N. Dixit, now a Congress

politician, refused to agree that what happened in

1984 could be termed as genocide. ''A genocide is when

there is a prolonged programme to annihilate a

particular community. What happened here was only for

three days. I agree it was very bad but the violence

was provoked by some Sikhs who killed the then Prime

Minister,'' he said.

He said that India would never agree to such an

inquiry. ''They will first have to seek our permission

if the Commission wants to carry out any

investigations. We will never allow such a thing. It

is motivated mischief by some people and should be

nipped in the bud,'' Dixit said.

The declaration was moved in the European Parliament

under its Rule 51 of the Rules of Procedure. The

declaration noted with ''immense concern and alarm the

carnage of 1984, twenty years ago, in Panjab and

India, involving the deaths of tens of thousands of

Sikh civilians.''

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh,

A rather typically indian response, concerned about their reputation, not concerned about any attempt to get at the truth. Mr Dixit is entirely right when he states 'india would

never agree to such a thing' he is of course entirely wrong in his

comprehension of the word genocide. I have included a number of dictionary

definition's below, I would say the events of November 1984 fit quite snugly .

His assertion that it was provoked is really below comment, the fact that

this man was a former foreign secretary speaks volumes about the quality of

indian politicians. We certainly did not see a mass backlash against Brahmins

when Nathuram Godse shot the Mahatma a man more revered than the psychotic

indira ever was, however would the slaughter of brahmins, had it taken place be justified by

Nathu's provocation?

On the contrary Nathu is regarded as a hero by many

indians, a true soldier of hindutva even the RSS, the organisation from

whom he hailed is more popular than it has ever been .

"It is motivated mischief by some people and should be nipped in the bud,''

Hardly a novel reaction in indian political circles, after all we are faultless, it must be people

who are anti-indian 'out to get us' and besmirch our good name, only surprise

being that he is not blaming pakistan...yet.

Will india ever allow a organisation such as the UN to carry out a

independent enquiry?

In a word, no.

Will Sikhs or other minorities ever realise justice in the nation state of

india?

Frankly no, never.

Gur Fateh

Sukhbir Singh

GENOCIDE:

The intentional annihilation of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious

group.

august1.com/pubs/dict/g.htm

The systematic killing of people because of their race or ethnicity.

hrusa.org/hrh-and-n/Part-5/6_glossary.htm

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national or racial group.

www.earlham.edu/~pols/globalprobs/bosnia/glossary.html

the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic, religious, or

cultural group.

web.isp.cz/jcrane/Glossary.html

The deliberate, systematic killing of an people or nation.

Mass murder of a racial, national, or religious group.

www.banthebomb.org/educ/glossary.html

– the extermination of a cultural or racial group.

www.whitehall.k12.mi.us/curriculum/socialstudies/glossaryofterms.htm

systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

P.S.

Workload being what it is at the moment, I have only just read the thread 'Akal Takht as fortress' and was disappointed to see the thread closed, must admit to being somewhat bemused by the contrary nature of some posters views when compared to their posts from the 'Shaheedi immortality...' thread.

I believe the poster of this thread missed the point, that being, fortified or not the Harmandir Sahib complex was going to be attacked by the indian army, that is an absolute. Sant Bhindrawale was simply a pretext, his arrest could have been effected at many times prior to June, in fact there were no outstanding FIR's against him at the time of the attack, besides the simultaneous assault on at least 37(as many as 74) other Sikh Gurudwara at the same time somewhat negates the argument that this was about the apprehension or containment of one man, the other 37 gurudwara as well as those burned in the run up to June 84 or for that matter those attacked in Nov 84 were not fortified, did this prevent their sacrilege?

Clearly not.

The fact that some Sikhs decided to defend their holiest shrine is a act which should be admired, be under no illusions defended or not the army was going to storm the complex and kill Sikhs, the date chosen for the attack was not coincidence it was intentionally chosen to inflict maximum damage.

Below is an interesting quote which exposes the widely held belief that bluestar was a response to Sant Bhindranwale, as contemptuous.

On May the 5th 1984 Rajiv Gandhi visited Panjab; speaking in Chandigarh he described Sant Bhindranwale as "a saintly man without political ambitions." p.o.g./ I.S. Jaijee

This less than a month before the attack?

There will always be those whom seek to justify bluestar as being perpetrated in response to the actions of Sant Bhindranwale, this is a mistake not only for the reasons given above. It is impossible to look at the fortification of the Harmandir Sahib or the Sikh situation as a whole in isolation.

It must be understood in context of the prevailing political climate of the time, it was not paranoia which led the Sant to concentrate on the grave injustices suffered by Sikhs at the hands of indian authorities, indeed events since 1984 have left us in doubt of the veracity of his claim's, but even in the years and months preceding June 84 we can see a determined increase in the governments anti-Sikh agenda, as example.

February 20, 1984.

The Congress chief minister of Haryana provoked an anti-Sikh riot through his inflammatory speech "warning the akali leaders that hindu patience is running out and retaliation was near". Satish Jacob (BBC) saw police looking on as hindu mobs burnt down the gurudwara in Panipat. He also witnessed Sikhs pulled from buses and forcibly shaved, Sikh shops looted, eight Sikhs were clubbed to death that day.

Bear in mind that the Congress chief minister that incited these actions was not only a minister of the ruling government of india but a close personal friend of I gandhi.

So this was the situation that Sikhs found themselves trapped within, the ruling government of 'their' country had decided that seeing the desertion of the muslim vote from congress the Sikhs alienation followed by retribution against them was a certain vote winner amongst hindu chauvinists.

Bluestar was conceived and gestated on political ambition it was nurtured on vanity and executed in reckless hate, it was the last gasp of a woman who was no stranger to inciting communal and religious tensions to fuel her megalomania therefore fortification was no provocation as none were needed, the defiant protection of a Sikh shrine could do no worse than to allow history to record that the proud spirit of Sikh resistance to tyranny is still existent.

Gur Fateh

Sukhbir Singh

[Mission_Impossible]

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh,

A rather typically indian response, concerned about their reputation, not concerned about any attempt to get at the truth. Mr Dixit is entirely right when he states 'india would

never agree to such a thing' he is of course entirely wrong in his

comprehension of the word genocide. I have included a number of dictionary

definition's below, I would say the events of November 1984 fit quite snugly .

His assertion that it was provoked is really below comment, the fact that

this man was a former foreign secretary speaks volumes about the quality of

indian politicians. We certainly did not see a mass backlash against Brahmins

when Nathuram Godse shot the Mahatma a man more revered than the psychotic

indira ever was, however would the slaughter of brahmins, had it taken place be justified by

Nathu's provocation?

On the contrary Nathu is regarded as a hero by many

indians, a true soldier of hindutva even the RSS, the organisation from

whom he hailed is more popular than it has ever been .

Hardly a novel reaction in indian political circles, after all we are faultless, it must be people

who are anti-indian 'out to get us' and besmirch our good name, only surprise

being that he is not blaming pakistan...yet.

Will india ever allow a organisation such as the UN to carry out a

independent enquiry?

In a word, no.

Will Sikhs or other minorities ever realise justice in the nation state of

india?

Frankly no, never.

Gur Fateh

Sukhbir Singh

GENOCIDE:

The intentional annihilation of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious

group.

august1.com/pubs/dict/g.htm

The systematic killing of people because of their race or ethnicity.

hrusa.org/hrh-and-n/Part-5/6_glossary.htm

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national or racial group.

www.earlham.edu/~pols/globalprobs/bosnia/glossary.html

the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic, religious, or

cultural group.

web.isp.cz/jcrane/Glossary.html

The deliberate, systematic killing of an people or nation.

Mass murder of a racial, national, or religious group.

www.banthebomb.org/educ/glossary.html

– the extermination of a cultural or racial group.

www.whitehall.k12.mi.us/curriculum/socialstudies/glossaryofterms.htm

systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

P.S.

Workload being what it is at the moment, I have only just read the thread 'Akal Takht as fortress' and was disappointed to see the thread closed, must admit to being somewhat bemused by the contrary nature of some posters views when compared to their posts from the 'Shaheedi immortality...' thread.

I believe the poster of this thread missed the point, that being, fortified or not the Harmandir Sahib complex was going to be attacked by the indian army, that is an absolute. Sant Bhindrawale was simply a pretext, his arrest could have been effected at many times prior to June, in fact there were no outstanding FIR's against him at the time of the attack, besides the simultaneous assault on at least 37(as many as 74) other Sikh Gurudwara at the same time somewhat negates the argument that this was about the apprehension or containment of one man, the other 37 gurudwara as well as those burned in the run up to June 84 or for that matter those attacked in Nov 84 were not fortified, did this prevent their sacrilege?

Clearly not.

The fact that some Sikhs decided to defend their holiest shrine is a act which should be admired, be under no illusions defended or not the army was going to storm the complex and kill Sikhs, the date chosen for the attack was not coincidence it was intentionally chosen to inflict maximum damage.

Below is an interesting quote which exposes the widely held belief that bluestar was a response to Sant Bhindranwale, as contemptuous.

On May the 5th 1984 Rajiv Gandhi visited Panjab; speaking in Chandigarh he described Sant Bhindranwale as "a saintly man without political ambitions." p.o.g./ I.S. Jaijee

This less than a month before the attack?

There will always be those whom seek to justify bluestar as being perpetrated in response to the actions of Sant Bhindranwale, this is a mistake not only for the reasons given above. It is impossible to look at the fortification of the Harmandir Sahib or the Sikh situation as a whole in isolation.

It must be understood in context of the prevailing political climate of the time, it was not paranoia which led the Sant to concentrate on the grave injustices suffered by Sikhs at the hands of indian authorities, indeed events since 1984 have left us in doubt of the veracity of his claim's, but even in the years and months preceding June 84 we can see a determined increase in the governments anti-Sikh agenda, as example.

February 20, 1984.

The Congress chief minister of Haryana provoked an anti-Sikh riot through his inflammatory speech "warning the akali leaders that hindu patience is running out and retaliation was near". Satish Jacob (BBC) saw police looking on as hindu mobs burnt down the gurudwara in Panipat. He also witnessed Sikhs pulled from buses and forcibly shaved, Sikh shops looted, eight Sikhs were clubbed to death that day.

Bear in mind that the Congress chief minister that incited these actions was not only a minister of the ruling government of india but a close personal friend of I gandhi.

So this was the situation that Sikhs found themselves trapped within, the ruling government of 'their' country had decided that seeing the desertion of the muslim vote from congress the Sikhs alienation followed by retribution against them was a certain vote winner amongst hindu chauvinists.

Bluestar was conceived and gestated on political ambition it was nurtured on vanity and executed in reckless hate, it was the last gasp of a woman who was no stranger to inciting communal and religious tensions to fuel her megalomania therefore fortification was no provocation as none were needed, the defiant protection of a Sikh shrine could do no worse than to allow history to record that the proud spirit of Sikh resistance to tyranny is still existent.

Gur Fateh

Sukhbir Singh

Good post, this is why you guys should call yourself Punjabi, coz that's what your truly are, you are not "Indians", so please stop calling yourself that, why on Earth would you want to be associated with that despicable, fake and corrupt "country" which is doing it's best to destroy Sikhism and Punjab, or what little there is left of it!