1984 Anti-Sikh Riots
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the South Asian subcontinent
Forum Discription: The Indian sub-continent and South Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14016
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 14:52
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots
Posted By: Jay.
Subject: 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 12:02
|
As most of you SE Asia board regular users have noticed, the board has been going slow over the past couple of days, so I've decided to get it running again by writing about the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots.
THE ANTI-SIKH RIOTS
The 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots took place in India after the assasination of Indira Gandhi On October 31, 1984. Then, she was the Prime Minister of India, and was killed by two Sikhs who were avenging on the aftermath of Operation Bluestar (the destruction of the holiest temple in the Sikh religion) The next four days were horrific. It was said that nearly 3000 Sikhs were massacred in systematic pogroms planned and led by Congress. The most affected regions were neighborhoods in Delhi. The riots were a key antagonist in the subsequent Punjab insurgency.   On November 1, 1984, a huge mob from the suburbs of Delhi descended on various localities where the Sikh were mainly concentrated. They carried iron rods, knives, clubs, and combustible material, including kerosene. They had voters' lists of houses and business establishments belonging to the Sikhs. People began to swarm into Sikh homes, ripping the occupants to pieces, chopping off the heads of children, raping women, tying Sikh men to tyres set aflame with kerosene, burning down the houses and shops after ransacking them. They stopped buses and trains, in and out of Delhi, pulling out Sikh passengers to be lynched or doused with kerosene and burnt. (account is based on the report released in the House of Commons, Britian on May 25th 2004)
  Numerous commissions have been setup to investigate the riots, however, many of the primary accused were acquitted or never charge-sheeted. Ten commissions and committees have till now inquired into the riots.
Quotes related to Riots:
------------- Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava Only Unity Can Save the Serb |
Replies:
Posted By: Digvijay
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 14:20
|
Jay, This was definetely one of the darkest periods in the modern history of India. When I read about what happened to innocent Sikh families it still makes my blood boil. What is sad is that police were controlled by the political establishment i.e Cong (I) to remain mute spectators or in some cases to be the perpetrators themselves. -Digs |
Posted By: Jay.
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 23:37
|
I couldn't agree with you more, Digs. My condolences go to the Sikh people who were killed, raped, tortured, or were the victim's family. I have one thing I need to solve though: why did Indira Ganhdi order Operation Bluestar, military assault on the Harimandir, the holiest temple in the Sikh religion? ------------- Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava Only Unity Can Save the Serb |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 07:37
|
I've often wondered why the Gujerat riots happened myself.. But as it's the Sikh thread, I guess the answer must be Khalistan, which seems to be more ow profile now. ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Jay.
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 13:54
|
Yes, the Khalistan movement and the violence it entailed claimed the lives of a total of 11,694 civilians between 1981-1993, including 7,139 Sikhs, or so says Wikipedia. ------------- Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava Only Unity Can Save the Serb |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 19:40
|
So exactly who comitted these atrocities against the sikhs? The current primeminister is a sikh, so everything seems to be back on track. ------------- |
Posted By: Master_Blaster
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 22:24
| The anti-Sikh riots were a government pogram anchored by vigilantes of the Hindu right. These Hindu extremists were also responsible for the anti-Muslim rights in Gujurat in 2002 and the anti-untouchable and anti-Christian violence which occurs regularly there. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 23:03
Good thread Jay
I don't know, but I also would like to know the answer. ------------- |
Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 09:18
|
Operation bluestar was launched in response to Bhindrenwala and his group turning the Golden Temple complex into a garrisoned fort. His group was also blamed for a wave of violence in the region against local Hindus. The government called him a terrorist, his supporters called him a visionary who 'awakened' the Sikh psyche from Hindu imposed servitude. Either way, the govt. walked right into his plot by making him a martyr and strengthening his cause. Notably, the general in charge of leading the assault on the temple was also a Sikh.
------------- Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 09:46
|
Possible motives.
Indira Gandhi and the Motive for Army Action
Among the catalysts for Operation Blue Star, the newspaper cited a planned 'campaign of non-cooperation with the Government, starting Sunday [June 3].' The paper added, 'This, it is feared, could lead to the blockage of supplies of grain, water and electric power to the rest of India.' The paper also stated that the goals of the armed movement, led by Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, were 'unclear' and that 'Bhindranwale may settle only for amnesty for the many crimes committed by the extremists.' The Home Secretary, M.M.K. Wali, was quoted as prophesizing, '[Operation Blue Star] will break the back of the terrorist movement.' The paper also reported that Wali 'predicted that the country at large, including most Sikhs, would applaud the action.' Wali, and by extension New Delhi, couldn't have been more off target. Sikh reaction to New Delhi's attack on their holiest shrine was overwhelmingly negative. It took India more than a decade to snuff the resulting armed movement for Sikh autonomy. On June 8, after major action had ceased, Indira Gandhi was reported as saying, 'it might still be difficult to reach a negotiated settlement.' The paper noted, 'Mrs. Gandhi's statement suggested that she might be preparing to adopt a tough line in future talks with [the Sikhs].' The following paragraph, quoted from The New York Times, is a textbook illustration of Mrs. Gandhi's cunning: Months ago, she said, the smashing of the terrorist movement might have made it easier to reach a negotiated settlement. But now, she said, if the moderates 'were aware of what was happening and did nothing to stop it, the situation is completely changed.' Indira Gandhi was reported as saying of Bhindranwale, 'there had been nothing religious in his preachings.' However, as retired Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora aptly pointed out in a report by James M. Markham, 'only last month Mrs. Gandhi's son Rajiv had praised him [Bhindranwale] as a man of religion.' A piece by James Traub further lambasted Gandhi, 'The root of India's problem is that Mrs. Gandhi seems unable to accept the legitimacy of any opposition: Compromise is foreign to her nature.' An editorial referring to Gandhi's 'credibility problem' hammered the final nail into her integrity coffin: 'the Prime Minister appears to disdain conciliation.' http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_060204a.html - http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_060204a.html ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Digvijay
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 01:14
Nonsense! |
Posted By: Master_Blaster
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 16:46
|
Are you you denying that the government of India was complicit in the anti-Sikh riots in 1984, the anti-Muslim riots in 2002, and the numerous anti-Christian slayings which occur throughout India even today? Are you denying that Hindu extremist groups such as the Shiva Sena, RSS, and VHP, do not exist and propogate the establishment of a Hindu only nation in India? Are you also denying that the previous government of India, the BJP, was wholly comprised of anti-Muslim neoconservative Hindus who did not make an effort to stop the killings of Muslims in Gujurat 2002 by extremist Hindu groups? |
Posted By: Master_Blaster
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 16:49
|
The Sikhs were killed in 1984 and throughout the 1980s and early part of the 1990s for the same reason that the Muslims were butched in Bombay during 1992-1993, and again in Gujurat in 2002.
The Hindu nationalists (read: neoconservative Hindus or extremist Hindus) want the establishment of a Hindu-only state in India. They have an inferiority complex and cannot come to grips with the fact that for 1,000 years, largely Hindu India was ruled by foreigners - first the Muslim Turks and then the Christian British. Now, they have c
|
Posted By: Digvijay
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 17:04
No. Get your facts right. In 1984, Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi was assasinated by two of her Sikh body-guards. This led to the riots of 1984. BJP was a non entity in 1984. Bombay riots of 1992-93 happened because muslim extremists blasted multiple bombs in Bombay which resulted in the death of hundreds of innocent Hindus. Gujarat riots took place because muslim terrorists TORCHED 50 Hindu women and children in a train in Gujarat. There is not even a single riot in India that has EVER BEEN started by Hindus. Each and every riot is started by Muslims by killing Hindus.
Hindus do not worry about muslims and never have in the past either. It is only your madarsas which teach you that muslims ruled over India for 1000 years. This is utter bollocks. For some enlightenment read this: http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_and_Invasions_of_India - http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_and_Invasions_of_India |
Posted By: Jay.
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 21:31
|
Master Blaster, I don't know if you have noticed but you posted the same comment three times. Maybe a mod can delete two of them? ------------- Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava Only Unity Can Save the Serb |
Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 02:21
|
An engineering report has said that the train seelf-ignited or something simlar, and was not torched. I have seen another report that says some muslims were harrassing thetrain but never lit it. The Gujaratis back then rioted because they THOUGHT muslims killed innocents in the train. Although dispicable, this form of retaliation i would expect from any nation. Wouold there not be hate crimes in England if muslims torched a train (or so they thought)? |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 05:21
With all due respect, i dont want to seem to be splitting hairs. But I dont think the use of the term Gujratis is accurate in the given context. Since a large section of Gujratis are muslims themselves. The term used should be hindu extremists, rather than the Gujrati community.
------------- |
Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 05:39
|
But those that rioted weren't only hindu extremists. They were people who also had thouhgt that enough was enough. Perhaps even the families of those who died. And besides, its not as if muslims then didnt turn around and fight back. The fact of the matter is both muslims and hindus were involved in the fighting, it was only hindus that started it (themselves believing that muslims had first started it). |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 05:44
|
Ok, so was it hindus vs muslims or was it gujratis vs muslims? ------------- |
Posted By: Digvijay
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 05:55
What matters is who started the riot. In India no riot ever has been started by Hindus. Every time it is started by Muslims. Facts: a) 50 Hindu women and children were burnt in a train in Gujarat by Muslim terrorists. b) Retaliatory riots started. Now it is different issue wether govt could have controlled the situation better. I believe it could have. -Digs |
Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 07:05
Of course it was hindus versus muslims, thats my point. It was Gujaratis vs Gujaratis, and why? Because one group assumed the other group attacked them first and therefore attacked the muslims, who in turn, attacked back. The point i'm trying to make is, muslims fought too, not only hindus. In the end it was Gujaratis who killed Gujaratis, another dark moment in our history. Especially in Gujarat where before independance both communities lived in relative peace (communities not armies). |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2006 at 05:41
|
why is it hard for the world to digest the fact that a country of the hindus wants to become hindus(and of other indian-born relgions with due respect). Why do u wanna stop us. It would be a homeland and a father for the all the hindu races of the world. I m a pakistani hindu, and we dont have a father nation. Whom shall we depend on--''nepal''??!! We need a land for all hindus united and safe in their area. Th partition has happened, now we want our right. There have been more number of hindu-killings in india then in current pakistan. Are we hindus not safe in our own land??? I m a sindhi, by ancestaral 5000 yr old ancient hindu land is now under pakistan and mohajirs, i cant do anything. We feel scared to go to the temple. bUT WHEN WE CAME TO BOMBAY WE COULD see MUSLIMS ROAMING ABOUT FREELY AND EVEN SOMETIMES KILLING HINDUS!. If today after 1200 yrs of supression we want to speak out for our rights--the missionaries and islamic forces want to stop us!! to achieve a full hindu india it is but necessary to stop the terorist operations and the missionaries. If for that if i had to be fundamentalists--then yess i would be. I accept that i m an extremist! because i believe my cause is right. The missionaries brainwash average local hindus, who have no knowledge about sanatana dharma. This has to stopped. We are a poor nation to go around preaching vedas in every nook and conner, so it hink it would be best to shoot down every missionary and terrorist. I think islam is right in its terrorism. It believes in its fundamentals and is protecting its people and land, if u ponder over what has been done to them. We can place ourselves in that context, and if we analyse the situation--then i believ it is essential for every hindu to be fanatic, fundamentalist and freedom fighter or as others may call it terrorist. My uncles and all came to bombay many years back. The most stunning event we have witnessed is that, they were been injured in mumbai(india) during the riots of hindu-muslims, and we are safe here in karachi(paksitan). I feel like laughing at the situation of the hindus. I m not here to speak agaisnt any religion, but to ask for a land for our defense and not to offend others. We juss wanna defend ourselves in our land. Nagaland has become christian n demands a new state! tamil nadu has massive christian population--when will a second swami-vivekananda come?? when will there be a new dayanand saraswati!! its we hoo can make it possible!! fight o ye all the hindus, unto the last drop of your blood is yet fresh red!! har har mahadev! raaj karega khalsa aake rahe naa koi! jai jinendra! budham sharanam gachami! dhamam sharanam gacchhami! sangham sharanam gachhami! ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2006 at 19:13
|
I consider that to be an encouragement and incitement to violence against other people which is in breech of AE's code of conduct. This is an unoffical warning. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2006 at 21:43
|
i appologize for the comments--but its true! i sincerely do applogize but have no regrets for what i have writen i have just written what i feel is rite i spoke for a land which i believe should be mine and where i feel free if it has hurt any one then i do appologize sincerely. i have no hostility towards any other religion or race, but i spoke for the defense of me and my people. In any case if it has hurt any one, then i appologize genuinely. ------------- |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2006 at 21:47
Roaming round free eh? Perhaps they should be chained up  ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Jay.
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 18:44
|
The nationalism on this board is just growing and growing... ------------- Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava Only Unity Can Save the Serb |
Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 19:11
| meh, it has it's ups and downs. I've been here for just over 2 and a half years and it tends to follow a cycle for me, either that or i just learnt to blank it out. |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 01:57
Whoever this Master blaster is, he does'nt know about India. The riots were orchestrated by the Congress (indira gandhi,s party). Everybody who is in India or knows about India knows who is the nationalist party. A the time of the riots & ever since, the nationalist party has been the only one which has fought for the rights of the affected sikhs. And further the parties blamed for the gujarat & sikh riots are entirel different & opposite. So much for your similarity. Master blaster, you should at least use the google to do some homework before making posts. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 02:25
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 02:27
The killed fell into three categories : 1. Terrorists 2. Police forces 3. Innocents massacred by the terrorists ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 02:51
Please read the bold letters for the explanation dear
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 03:08
Malizai, your logic is right, but unfortunatley the practical situation in india is different. A hindu could call himself a gujrati or Punjabi or Malyalee or telgu or whatever depending upon the origin, but a muslim would call himself a muslim. That's the tragedy in india Their are numerous other examples for eg. it is common amongst Muslim communities to celebrate the victory of pakistani cricket team over Indian cricket team. Many of them refuse to sing vande mataram, which is the national song of india. Their are n number of fatwas to that effect. Their were many instances of sweets being distributed in Muslim neighbourhoods after the serial bomb blasts killed hundreds of hindus in Mumbai & after the hindu pilgrims were torched to death in Gujarat. What do you expect from a resurgent hindu community in such cases? ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 03:28
|
Why cant Indians reassert themselves or rediscover themselves ? Show me a single muslim nation which does'nt have a national religion. Pakistan is the most vocal supporter of muslim rights in India, forgetting the fact that it is a for most times a theocratic state under some sort of dictatorship & was founded on the premise of religious extremism & lost bangladesh because of its linguistic extremism. India has had number of Muslim heads of state, including the present one & muslims in ministry & government & private life. Can Pakistan demonstrate something equal or even nearly equal. Everybody cries foul about the nationalistic party BJP saying it is anti muslim. But it was this party which single handedly got the present Muslim president elected against all hindu candidates, inspite of severe opposition form all other parties which are said to be pro muslim. because it supports nationalists & The present muslim president is an perfect idol & role model of what the alleged indian nationalists want a person to be like. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 08:25
|
The present President of India is truly secular, a top Space Research Scientist, a very popular personality specially among children and was acceptable to all the parties. I am sure he did not win even a single vote on the basis that he is a Muslim candidate and he is equally popular among all the people of India. I am curious to know if BJP would have supported Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid as a Muslim candidate for the post of president to show that they are a nationalistic party? Certainly not. All the parties in India are nationalistic and no one can claim that others are not nationalistic but some are more secular.Pakistan is not a secular state and probably a person of even this high credibility would not have been elected ( or selected) to the highest post if he is a non muslim but then Pakistan does not claim that they are secular.
|
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 08:44
|
Agree with you. Further I wonder if there would be any country other than india where the present president would be the role model of the educated & young alike. He is possibly the most respected by his people (as opposed to rallied) president in the world today.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 08:45
|
And the most learned one possibly.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 21:56
I hope you don't mind Vivek but I deleted your double post.
You can't judge the actions of extremists by the actions of the community. Nobody said there weren't good Hindus. Why are you trying to say there aren't bad ones? ------------- |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 01:15
|
Thanks for deleting the double post. There would be bad people everywhere. Just that both Indian's & Pakistan's populations have mistaken the bad people for good & vice versa. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |