1. Some links in the comments to:
indiafacts.co.in/introspecting-operation-bluestar/
2. The link above:
indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/the-khalistani-terrorism/
says a lot about US and TSP duplicity/sponsorship of terrorism in general, and shows how US indulgence of ISI's terrorism is deliberate. And Indian intelligence/govt's firm naivete regarding this last is surely the 8th wonder of the world, if not the 1st.
The article also does nothing to negate the suspicion, or rather personal conclusion, that spin-offs are invariably - sooner or later - a liability to the host/the kind they spun off from. The fact remains that all rebellion, be these either inherent in spin-off movements or fostered by vested interests (christowest, islam), becomes directed against the host. Curiously never directed against christoislam for long and not at the end, until they stand all by themselves. And so spin-offs end up taking more after christoislam than their host.
On this:
Personally, if I were a Sikh and had been Indira's bodyguard and similarly didn't have foreknowledge of her govt's violent reprisals against Sikhs upon her assassination, I'd have done the same.
Only Hindus - of the age of modern nationalism* - in the forces would never act for their religion over their govt's treachery to their religion. Secularism being heathenism's Achilles Heel.
* C.f. Hindu Nationalists vs the christo Brit tyrants.
If it had been a mosque/church that terrorists had holed themselves up in, blowing it sky high with all inside is fine by me (and bring on the consequences) - though the Indian govt would have been unlikely to do that, being dhimmis w.r.t. christoislam.
Indira underestimated the allegiance some have to their religion, imagining everyone follows her 'secularism'. Not dissimilar to Hindutva/nationalism blindsiding beliebers, and one day its miscalculation will come back to bite, though not in the same way as with the Khalistani movement, since Hindoos - like all ancestral heathens - are by nature reliable nationalists (being the native heathens hence the default nation). In their case, underestimation is more likely to result in the death of heathenism and the eventual playacting of mourning its loss - by the blind and deaf and dumb facilitators=modern 'nationalists' - afterward.
But good for Sikhs that some didn't roll over to the enforced secularism of the Indian forces. Sure, their allegiance is no longer to Hindoo heathenism and gradually won't be toward the Indian nation either, and is actually still misplaced, but at least they didn't cave for the oh-so-obvious secularism (that only once-were-Hindoos fall for, via Hindu nationalism as stopover). When I think about how many Gorkhas are now officially mercenaries hiring out their services to European royal houses, other Brits, and western pop/cine stars - contrasted with how Gorkhas originally used to be warriors for the express purpose of Hindoo heathenism - you can see why Hindu heathenism is eroding while at least Sikhs, despite the misplaced self-perceptions now, are not yet caving to total secularisation/dhimmitude to irrelevant dogma.
Good for Sikhs. But doesn't help heathenism. Doesn't help the Indian nation or "Hindu nationalism" (what's left of it/what's replaced it), but the contrast with the secularism expected from heathens (especially in Indian forces) is stark.
3. This line was disturbing:
Sounds like a previous record to me.
But turns out there are more dimensions to that too (personally know nothing of this history, so it all sounds equally plausible: wouldn't know who to give credence to short of actually verifying for myself, except the subject is unattractive) -
So basically it was infighting: Nirankaris are to be a Sikh sect who apparently thought other Sikhs were too much into polytheistic idolatry and thus turning into Hindoos (:gawd forbit
, and wanted a purer Sikhism, aka absolute worship of an invisible monodeity.
Spin-offs of spin-offs... Also turning against their host body/what they spun off from. With Nirankaris considering other Sikhs as heretics and defining themselves in distinction from what they split off from; defining themselves as original/the true version, and looking down on the other (pre-existing) Sikhs as inferior regarding their views on religion. Wonder what the other Sikhs think of it. Never fun to be on the receiving end, is it. Welcome to Bad End of the deal.
indiafacts.co.in/introspecting-operation-bluestar/
Quote:Abyss 18 hours ago
Here is another piece on the topic - http:// www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/the-khalistani-terrorism/ (although, this author has been extremely kind to Indira Gandhi).
Saturnsson Abyss 6 hours ago
Gotta read Veena Talwar Oldenburg's Dowry Murder: The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime
it will tell you how Sikhs were slowly but gradually dehinduised and how our society became a Patriarchal Society.
https:// books.google.co.in/books?id=d5Fm1XdS-6EC&pg=PA19&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
(Always did wonder whether Veena got her surname from a foreign dad or from a foreign husband. If I'd known that she was a "Talwar-Oldenburg" and not just Oldenburg by surname, may have managed to work it out. She refers to one Philip Oldenburg's work in her book, on one of the very details she discusses. So I therefore presume he is her husband, without checking whether I'm right.
Feels like the Indian American community - despite being 2 or 3 decades behind the trend - is nevertheless turning into the (E) Asian American community. Sigh.)
2. The link above:
indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/the-khalistani-terrorism/
says a lot about US and TSP duplicity/sponsorship of terrorism in general, and shows how US indulgence of ISI's terrorism is deliberate. And Indian intelligence/govt's firm naivete regarding this last is surely the 8th wonder of the world, if not the 1st.
The article also does nothing to negate the suspicion, or rather personal conclusion, that spin-offs are invariably - sooner or later - a liability to the host/the kind they spun off from. The fact remains that all rebellion, be these either inherent in spin-off movements or fostered by vested interests (christowest, islam), becomes directed against the host. Curiously never directed against christoislam for long and not at the end, until they stand all by themselves. And so spin-offs end up taking more after christoislam than their host.
On this:
Quote:Among these consequences was the assassination of Indira Gandhi by two of her Sikh bodyguards belonging to the Delhi Police on October 31, 1984.
Personally, if I were a Sikh and had been Indira's bodyguard and similarly didn't have foreknowledge of her govt's violent reprisals against Sikhs upon her assassination, I'd have done the same.
Only Hindus - of the age of modern nationalism* - in the forces would never act for their religion over their govt's treachery to their religion. Secularism being heathenism's Achilles Heel.
* C.f. Hindu Nationalists vs the christo Brit tyrants.
If it had been a mosque/church that terrorists had holed themselves up in, blowing it sky high with all inside is fine by me (and bring on the consequences) - though the Indian govt would have been unlikely to do that, being dhimmis w.r.t. christoislam.
Indira underestimated the allegiance some have to their religion, imagining everyone follows her 'secularism'. Not dissimilar to Hindutva/nationalism blindsiding beliebers, and one day its miscalculation will come back to bite, though not in the same way as with the Khalistani movement, since Hindoos - like all ancestral heathens - are by nature reliable nationalists (being the native heathens hence the default nation). In their case, underestimation is more likely to result in the death of heathenism and the eventual playacting of mourning its loss - by the blind and deaf and dumb facilitators=modern 'nationalists' - afterward.
But good for Sikhs that some didn't roll over to the enforced secularism of the Indian forces. Sure, their allegiance is no longer to Hindoo heathenism and gradually won't be toward the Indian nation either, and is actually still misplaced, but at least they didn't cave for the oh-so-obvious secularism (that only once-were-Hindoos fall for, via Hindu nationalism as stopover). When I think about how many Gorkhas are now officially mercenaries hiring out their services to European royal houses, other Brits, and western pop/cine stars - contrasted with how Gorkhas originally used to be warriors for the express purpose of Hindoo heathenism - you can see why Hindu heathenism is eroding while at least Sikhs, despite the misplaced self-perceptions now, are not yet caving to total secularisation/dhimmitude to irrelevant dogma.
Good for Sikhs. But doesn't help heathenism. Doesn't help the Indian nation or "Hindu nationalism" (what's left of it/what's replaced it), but the contrast with the secularism expected from heathens (especially in Indian forces) is stark.
3. This line was disturbing:
Quote:B.Raman: "My view was not accepted because till then the Sikh extremistsââ¬â-apart from carrying out a massacre of some members of a sect known as the Nirankarisââ¬â had not indulged in any act of terrorism."
Sounds like a previous record to me.
But turns out there are more dimensions to that too (personally know nothing of this history, so it all sounds equally plausible: wouldn't know who to give credence to short of actually verifying for myself, except the subject is unattractive) -
Quote:Harpal Singh on January 22, 2 ..
[...]
ââ¬Åapart from carrying out a massacre of some members of a sect known as the Nirankaris -had not indulged in any act of terrorismââ¬Â
Yes you did said that Sikhs killed nirankaris but you didnââ¬â¢t pointed out the details what led to this incident?
Nirankaris killed 13 Sikhs in Delhi who were peacefully protesting. Wasnââ¬â¢t this a act of Terrorism from their side? Sir I think your insight on the issue may help me understand if whether and why the 64 arrested nirankaris were set free by the court and all charges dropped off them? Not one single of them even went to serve punishment? Maybe the nirankaris links with Gandhi family may explain and bad of Sikhs as they didnââ¬â¢t had any of it.
So basically it was infighting: Nirankaris are to be a Sikh sect who apparently thought other Sikhs were too much into polytheistic idolatry and thus turning into Hindoos (:gawd forbit
, and wanted a purer Sikhism, aka absolute worship of an invisible monodeity.Spin-offs of spin-offs... Also turning against their host body/what they spun off from. With Nirankaris considering other Sikhs as heretics and defining themselves in distinction from what they split off from; defining themselves as original/the true version, and looking down on the other (pre-existing) Sikhs as inferior regarding their views on religion. Wonder what the other Sikhs think of it. Never fun to be on the receiving end, is it. Welcome to Bad End of the deal.