jamwal wrote:Ask your older family members who lived through that era for proof. There are quite a few members ere who experienced the terror firsthand. People in my circles still tell stories of being afraid of answering the door. Letting crops dry because of fear, not going out to buy household essentials because of threats and worse.
I lived through that era. IIRC I am older than you are. I understand that era was horrible, especially for Hindu's who were selectively targeted by murderous Khalistanis. That was not my point of contention.
I was asking for specific proof regarding hundreds of soldiers deserting en masse and
there being pitched battles as a result - both together. That, to put it mildly, was wrong.
Hundreds of sikh soldiers deserted army after Blue Star. I have ex-servicemen in extended family who took part in operations meant to arrest or put them down. A very large number of these were intercepted while on their way to civilian areas with weapons or on way to ransack armouries in parts of Punjab, Haryana and J&K. Most were not taken back. A significant number crossed border to Pakistan. There were incidents of firing reported in many border areas where acquaintances lived. No idea about NYT or other foreign reporting.
Your information in bold, is wrong and repeats lurid rumors common at the time. Let me state the real facts below as IA noted:https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/spec ... 1990-05-15
Baljit was one of about 2,800 Sikh troops involved in incidents of collective insubordination and desertion after Operation Bluestar. The units involved were Sikh Regimental Centre, 3 Sikh, 8 Sikh, 9 Sikh, 18 Sikh, 14 Punjab, 166 Mountain Regiment, 171 Field Regiment, and 196 Field Regiment.
The initial reaction of the authorities was one of alarm. But later, recognising that the desertions were mainly a heat-of-the-moment decision, the Government toned down the harsh measures planned, and even announced rehabilitation measures.
The most far-reaching rehabilitation measure was taken by Army Headquarters itself when it decided to retain about 2,300 of the deserters in the army, after a spell in military prisons.
I studied in a sikh majority college. They had bhindrawale posters inside college premises, long after 80s-90s. I was not aware of this issue back then and didn't care much at the time because most of my closest friends at that time were sikhs and they seemed OK. If you go to sikh majority areas in places like Poonch, you'll see posters of khalistanis even on houses.
And how much of that is that due to the fact that incidents like the 1984 anti-Sikh riots occurred? Point is Bhindranwale was given legitimacy by the anti Sikh riots in 1984.
Terrorism in any community can not take roots unless there is a silent support base. only about 1-2% is brave/brainwashed enough to take up a gun. They are influenced by 20-25% of vocal radicals who again are tolerated by the rest for something like khalistani or islamic terrorism to fester. In this case, number of silent supporters was not as much and there were enough sikhs who hated khalistanis, so this movement petered out.
Precisely. So why do you keep bringing in the antics of a few Khalistanis into every topic about Sikhs?
I absolutely hate the riots after Indira's killing. But these wannabe SJWs who cry copious tears for sikhs killed then but ignore the atrocities committed on Hindus just make me
If you have to criticise Congress, why not criticise them for propping up bhindrawale in first place ? You are just playing in to victim complex of sikhs who lie about all the atrocities which they mostly ignored and playing in to one sided propaganda in which only one side is angelic victim.
Who exactly has done that *here* and why are you bringing up this issue of wannabe SJWs etc on *this forum*? Who ignored the Congress's dubious antics in propping up Bhindranwale? AFAIK, nobody has behaved like that here.
Yes, innocent sikhs died . It absolutely didn't have to happen and guilty should be punished severely. But don't drink too much of this sikh victimhood koolaid. Since then, they have been voting for congress and actually blaming RSS, Hindus for riots. One Khushwant acknowledges how RSS and other Hindu groups helped Sikhs and he is declared a sell out by these haters. By putting too much emphasis on the 1984 riots and not the events leading up to it, you are just playing for the gallery not a good actual cause.
You are contradicting yourself here and coming across as somebody who is actually pushing the case that the riots were justified.
What exactly does putting too much emphasis on the 1984 riots mean? They were manufactured riots, period. If they represented Hindu rage, they should have happened much earlier. And much later as well, repeatedly. 1990-1991 were bloody years.
If Sikhs were merely voting for Congress and blaming RSS/ Hindus for riots then there would be no SAD or BJP alliance in Punjab, let alone winning votes there. In 1990-1991, which "unambiguously belonged to the terrorists" in SATPs words, 5058 civilians were killed (same as 1978-1989). 70% of these were Sikhs themselves.
First, go back and check your posts. They are beginning to come across as completely biased. Moment somebody mentions something about Sikhs, you jump in and start only mentioning Khalistanis and their hatred for Hindus. We get it. But the impression one gets from your posts, is ALL Sikhs = Khalistanis which as you yourselves admit somewhere in the middle of your post, is not the case.
Second, most of us have seen various forms of riots, terrors, and experienced the usual "Indian experience" in one form or the other. We also look at data. The data at satp.org clearly brings out the fear and despair seen by Hindus apart, and the executions of Hindu bus passengers etc, the majority of casualties swung to the Sikh side, especially those who stood up against the terror. It is then wrong
to put it mildly to state the insurgency was only anti-Hindu when it was anti-Sikh as well, implying many Sikh moderates stood up with Hindus, against Sikh supremacists and that was made them targets.
Third, your repeated posting on Khalistani propaganda and posts dwelling only on that, and then making provocative replies about "koolaid" and "playing to the gallery" are neither required nor appreciated. And stay off the personal insinuations "dont drink too much koolaid" "you are playing to the gallery and not an actual good cause". You have been a long time poster, and we expect better
Anyone else who posted the above would have received a warning. I am not doing so assuming the "you" and "koolaid" and "playing to the gallery" comments were directed at those whom you meet online and not me or others on the forum.
Also, with Ramana's note below
- no more posts on this issue. Consider what I have said, and temper your posts going forward.