“If jarnail singh wasn’t in Akaal takhat, then it would not have been destroyed”

[jashb]

On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

Indira gandhi was a power-hungry woman, no doubt.

Completely inconsequential. Every politician is power hungry.

 

On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

Akali Sikhs were the most rebellious to central govt of India in 1977 emergency. 

No they were not. This premise is entirely incorrect. Indra gundhi abused the electoral process to gain her seat in the lok sabha. It was the janata dal in 1975, the forerunner of the BJP, not the "Akali Sikhs", that took the case of her fraudulent election to court and won. The high court ruled her election to lok sabha void due to electoral malpractice. The judgment disallowed her holding the office of prime minister. She was ordered to make way and step down in a matter of days. In response to the prospect of being unseated, she imposed the "emergency" and conveniently handed herself draconian powers as a result. Following her imposition of "emergency", it was again the janata dal, not the "Akali Sikhs", that was foremost in opposing it across india, amidst a wider background of resentment against her rule. The "Akali Sikhs" were by no means "the most rebellious to central govt in 1977 emergency", though that may well be their own present line of propaganda.

 

 

On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

And I think she just had grudge against Akalis, perhaps not Sikhs in particular. 

On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

It is possible that she attacked akal takht as a vengeance against akalis in their role in 1977 ,

It seems you are trying to downplay or brush aside the widespread desire for the congress party led Sikh Genocide by attributing it to some sort of minor political dispute between political factions that subscribe to the same overall anti-Sikh policy. However that is not the case.

The "Akalis" were in fact wholly accommodative of the Sikh Genocide and were in league with the congress party at this point and they have been ever since.

 

On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

I think we tend to exaggerate the anti-sikh attitude of the then prevailing govts.

If anything, it is clear that we tend to carelessly (or deliberately) undermine it.

 

On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

but I think to assert that she wanted total annihilation of sikhs like aurangzeb did , is a bit far too stretched.

Either wishful thinking, or ignorance is bliss. Perhaps the proximity of indra gundhi's ancestry to the same "aurangzeb" is underestimated. Perhaps one should investigate the lineage of this litter. Besides being the product of a b*****d jawahar lal nehru that shares its birth in a muslim (mughal) brothel of Allahabad with the other b*****d zulfiqar ali bhutto, the so-called "gundhi" clan traces directly via its paternal line through moti lal nehru and further raj kaul-nehru to gangu bahman.

 

On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

She wouldn't have appointed Zail Singh as president then

So if Hitler appointed self-hating Jews as nazi army generals, which incidentally he did, then I suppose his actions couldn't remotely be determined as anti-Jewish could they? Lol

This is equivalent to the kind of simple logic that the quoted statement represents.

One can only make that juvenile assertion if one chooses to close their eyes to the fact that he (and she) might have intended to provide their regimes with the convenient camouflage of a veneer of secularism in so doing, whilst charging those very self-hating cretins appointed with the act of rounding up and indiscriminately slaughtering members of their own race and faith.

 

On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

also would have provided nothing to sikhs. 

Other than the Sikh Genocide, what exactly did she provide to the Sikhs?

 

On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

To sum it up, I think she was a power-hungry totalitarian politician who wanted to clear anyone off her way. She hated sikhs for this I think, not because of some brahmanical agenda as is always said . 

I could be wrong though 

 

This sense of "nostalgia" that is felt by some waylaid Sikhs for the inherently anti-Sikh congress party that executed the 1984 pogroms and the 1980s Panjab genocide that eliminated 250,000 youths, turned Panjab into a government sponsored slaughter house, and forced over 1 million Sikh males off the register of india within a decade between 1981 and 1991, which leads them to retrospectively rewrite contemporary events in the congress party's favour, is due to anti-incumbency sentiments against the BJP.

It is mostly because a hindutva government led by another dictator is in power and is clearly the result of aggression by the RSS and BJP.

However no Sikh should ever try to downplay the anti-Sikh actions of the kaul-nehru litter and the congress party in particular. The two opposing political factions are both thoroughly brahmanical and biparvadi. They differ in approach only, not in degree.