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

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use