Jump to content

What was Indira Gandhi's Personal Beef With Sikhs?


genie
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 5/11/2020 at 12:09 AM, MisterrSingh said:

It's easy to get drawn into the "Hollywoodisation" of real life. Everyone needs a reason or a compelling purpose for turning evil or becoming a tyrant, right? 

I'll grant that, bro.

But, also, on the road to power, it's just made so much easier if the people you have to crush are also people you have a personal, irrational hatred of.

I'll chime in and add one more "beef" she had with the Sikhs:

During the commemoration of the Shaheedi of Guru Tegh Bahadur ji, she was invited to Sees Ganji Sahib. Some of the weakling Sikhs involved in politics stood up when she came in, a violation of protocol because Guru Granth Sahib ji was already there.

The Damdami jatha (Sant Kartar Singh ji) was there and he spoke forcefully that in the Guru's Darbar you are not to stand up for any worldly ruler, no matter how powerful they might be.

She took that as a personal insult, and I do believe that she had it in the back of her mind to destroy the Damdami Taksal jatha at some point or another. 

Later on, many of her evil designs came to a head, and she thought she'd kill many birds with one stone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, puzzled said:

Just look at the difference between men in management and women in management. Women managers a horrible and feel the need to be horrible to be taken seriously. Honestly iv never had a male manager that was horrible  the only horrible male manager iv had was a gay man. 

We used to call the female managers dragons lol. Even females dont like women managers. 

Most male managers are chilled and layed back. 

It's because being a manager, leader is naturally a mans role/position    so when women step into this role they feel insecure and feel the need to be horrible to be taken seriously and be respected. 

Indira obviously had this insecurity aswell and felt the need to be tyrannical. 

It is said that power corrupts, but power also reveals a person's true character.

With most men, there is always a counterbalance to the power or showing any type of aggression. What I mean by that is that with any type of abuse a man does to another man can be followed by a punch in the face. There tends to be some physical altercation and therefore there is a balance. There is a consequence to the action therefore you have to be more mindful. Men have a natural buffer that is intuitively understood between men.

Women do not have that buffer as there is no consequence to their actions and they feel they can get away with a lot more. If there were effective punishment with abusive women then they would behave very differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BhForce said:

I'll grant that, bro.

But, also, on the road to power, it's just made so much easier if the people you have to crush are also people you have a personal, irrational hatred of.

I'll chime in and add one more "beef" she had with the Sikhs:

During the commemoration of the Shaheedi of Guru Tegh Bahadur ji, she was invited to Sees Ganji Sahib. Some of the weakling Sikhs involved in politics stood up when she came in, a violation of protocol because Guru Granth Sahib ji was already there.

The Damdami jatha (Sant Kartar Singh ji) was there and he spoke forcefully that in the Guru's Darbar you are not to stand up for any worldly ruler, no matter how powerful they might be.

She took that as a personal insult, and I do believe that she had it in the back of her mind to destroy the Damdami Taksal jatha at some point or another. 

Later on, many of her evil designs came to a head, and she thought she'd kill many birds with one stone. 

True, yet her concerted actions against Sikhs didn't stem exclusively from that one blow to her ego, or from a multi-generational grudge. There was a greater political purpose, which in itself had many smaller issues at play, that led to her wanting to give Sikhs a bloody nose.  The main one was keeping India intact. If India ceded ground to Sikhs on any political issue, it would've sent a message to other minority groups within India who also desired to live under their own religious, cultural or ethnic rule. Having just regained a steady stance after the Bangladesh debacle, it would've sent the entire country spiralling to certain Balkanisation if Sikhs hadn't been cut down to size, because by visibly knocking us around, it sent a greater message to others, "If you challenge us or have aspirations of breaking away from India, what we've done to the Sikhs will be visited upon you. You have been warned." It's solid rajneeti, and it worked.  We just happened to be in the wrong place at the right time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Women do not have that buffer as there is no consequence to their actions and they feel they can get away with a lot more. If there were effective punishment with abusive women then they would behave very differently

It's like when a man and woman are arguing women get really aggressive and go into the mans space and start shouting because they know the man wont lay a hand on them. They get even worse when arguing with lots of people around because they know the man wont say anything. 

But things are changing.  Saw video of this gori arguing with a young black man in the underground  front of lots of people. She was right in his space and screaming her head off  he wasnt even saying anything    he punched her fcking face and she fell flat on the floor and that shut her up. And not a single person sitting in the tube helped her up.   Women behave really badly in public when disputing or arguing with men. They are very disrespectful l. Older men may of held back but things are different with younger men. 

They expect us not to argue back. Around a yr back when I was shopping with my mum at Tesco, we were at the checkout and the woman serving us was this paki woman, she was one of those slaggy mouthy mirpuri ones. She scanned some vegetable my mum wanted and put it on the other side  so we thought she scanned it and put it into trolley, turned out it didnt scan and she needed to check the price and she turned around and said in a really bitchy rude tone "why did you put that in the trolley I havnt scanned it yet" she had her eyebrows raised all attitude and bitchy. I just lost my cool and flipped and started barking at her(not literally haha)  in front of everyone. I just went on for 5 mins    she then kept on apologising and started telling me to "calm down calm down" . All her colleges and customers were looking. Stupid b1tch.   If it didnt scan then why put it on the other side of the checkout where you put the scanned stuff   and if i did put it in the trolley then tell me in a normal tone  sorry it didnt scan.  Instead she gave me all that attitude.  She then kept on apologising and telling me to calm down,  properly worried I would tell a manager. 

Asian women are something else 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you didn't agree to get sterilized they cut your salary, suspended you and took away many rights including education. Her body language says a lot about her personality.  i hope the jamdoots have been mutating her private parts for the last 30 yrs 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1976 Bhinderwale started opposing her asking for Sikh rights. Roughly 8 year battle it was. 

However, Gandhi wasn't the only player. As a PM their were more people within the system brainwashing her against Bhinderwale (maybe Sikhs too). BUT YES! All decisions were at her behest. That is also the truth. There was no need for an army. She was clearly mislead "Bhinderwale is threatening innocents in Darbar sahib, now" (obviously none of it true)... her instigators hated the idea of Sikhs having equal rights along with Hindus. 

If Gandhi did her own homework maybe she could've made a few right choices. Like confront Bhinderawale herself and see if he makes reasonable demands. But no PM will ever do that. 

Anyways, Bhinderwale gave ideas, she never paid attention n other Govt got involved brainwashing her. She made wrong (and daen wale) decisions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Singh1989 said:

In 1976 Bhinderwale started opposing her asking for Sikh rights. Roughly 8 year battle it was. 

However, Gandhi wasn't the only player. As a PM their were more people within the system brainwashing her against Bhinderwale (maybe Sikhs too). BUT YES! All decisions were at her behest. That is also the truth. There was no need for an army. She was clearly mislead "Bhinderwale is threatening innocents in Darbar sahib, now" (obviously none of it true)... her instigators hated the idea of Sikhs having equal rights along with Hindus. 

If Gandhi did her own homework maybe she could've made a few right choices. Like confront Bhinderawale herself and see if he makes reasonable demands. But no PM will ever do that. 

Anyways, Bhinderwale gave ideas, she never paid attention n other Govt got involved brainwashing her. She made wrong (and daen wale) decisions. 

yup it was her orders in the end that counts and she was head of state.

In the released classified uk government documents in 2014 we can all see indira gandhi writes to Margret thatcher that those religious male Sikhs are the most dangerous basically painting baptised amritdhari Sikhs as extremists and terrorists. Yes indira you dumb sent to hell witch they became extremist after the massive terrorist attack beyond the likes of 9/11 on america you done on their holiest shrine what did you expect religious Sikhs to react?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • If relationship with Guru is strong, then kanga is done twice a day, and turban should never be taken off or put on like a hat, there is a lot wrong with that as it is against rehit! maryada is to take off every layer of turban/pagh/dumalla individually, and tie fresh turban each time!
    • the whole 'your husband/wife is chosen for you'/sanjog thing is real, it's just that a lot of people end up marrying the wrong person. they did not end up with the person that was meant for them. my friend, you should marry someone who you feel a connection with and love. there are millions of sikh girls, i'm sure you can find someone who aligns with your sensibilities and who you can truthfully say that you love. sikhi does not say anything against love marriages. you can also be in a loveless arranged marriage which is a safe option b/c both families are more inclined to keep the union intact. i was one of those people who was like meh, i guess i'll just get arranged to some sikh. well i finally started dating for the first time this year and i'm getting married to someone that i love and cannot even imagine leaving. i think it's better to have lost & lost than never loved at all. unfortunately, a lot of people confuse love w/ looks & lust. a lot of men go for the fittest girl they can find and think they won the jackpot or something. in reality, your partner should be like an extremely loved best friend. there's a reason why it's a fact that the most stable and long-lasting relationships started as friendships.  i also think a lot of women are petty and divorce over small reasons, but there's other terrible things like high cheating rates as well. that's why the divorce rate in the west is high. be careful out there.
    • andrew tate praises sikhi too & likes sikhs. his brother also donated to sikh families iirc. they just like any "alpha" religion and tbh islam is the most "alpha" in their eyes. islam is very good at promoting that image. but imo a real alpha man doesn't command respect by beating up his wive(s) or forcing them to wear a burqa. a real man will have his woman listen to him w/o raising a hand or his voice, and command respect by being respectful. he leads by example and integrity. that's true masculinity. you get the idea. + yes, it's definitely true that islam is growing rapidly and making massive inroads. strength in numbers + belief will do that. but rlly it's just because of the birth rate. a lot of them are muslim b/c it's their "identity" just like how a lot of young sikhs will say they're "culturally sikh" or whatever. there just aren't billions of sikhs who lambast their identity everywhere and have strict and linear rules like in islam. besides, the reality is that islam and its followers are some of the most morally bankrupt. you can see all the weird trans rules in iran, bacche baazi in afghanistan, visiting brothels, watching p*rn, p*dophilia what goes on behind the scenes in countries like uae & qatar, etc, and come to your conclusions. you can google all the stats yourself and see which countries do the most of these ^.   
    • stop associating with hinduism, that's the absolutely worst thing you can do as a sikh. not sure if you noticed but the entire world looks down upon and spits at india & hindus, literally no one respects them and considers them weak and cowardly. literally 1+ billion of them but not perceived as a strong religion commandeering respect. 
    • you wrote a whole lot but told us nothing. what exactly did you do wrong to make you feel this way?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use