# Bhindranwale - A Terrorist Or A Freedom Fighter?



## S|kH (Aug 2, 2004)

Please give your opinions on the Sikh who caused an uprising in the 1980's.


----------



## Rajs (Aug 6, 2004)

It is high time that the sikh community stopped glorifying 
Bhinderawalle, who left a violent legacy that to this day sikhs find hard to eradicate. To declare a terrorist "martyr" is a slap in the face of all those innocent people who lost their lives in the tragic saga. To call Bhinderawalle a "sant" or a "martyr" to gain political mileage by Sikh political parties and to 
some extent current sikh religious authorites is downright contemptible. Perhaps, apt words of KHUSHWANT SINGH (One of the best known Indian writers of all times, probably one of the most balanced and impartial, too.) are worth mentioning:

1. "Despite my strong disapproval of Operation Bluestar and the 
repressive methods adopted by our army and police, I regarded Bhindranwale as an evil genius who had misled a gullible section of the Sikh community along a separatist path and the demand for Khalistan as suicidal for the Khalsa Panth [Sikh community]."

2. THE man most responsible for widening the gulf between the Hindus 
and the Sikhs was Bhindranwale. Starting as a preacher, exhorting the Sikhs to return to the spartan traditions of Guru Gobind Singh, he chose that an easier way to stop Sikhs lapsing into Hindu fold was to create a gulf between them. 
He used abusive language for the Hindus describing them as dhotian topian wale” wearers of dhotis and caps. His goons threw heads of cows in the 
Durgiana Temple. Hindu goons retaliated by throwing cigarette butts in the 
Golden Temple, smashing up a portrait of Guru Ramdas, founder of the city, on Amritsar railway station. Then it came to killing Hindus. Buses were hijacked, Hindu passengers off-loaded and shot. 

Bhindranwale had to be silenced. This was no easy task since he was a
creation of the government as well as the Akali leaders. He was arrested on 
charges of involvement in the murder of Lala Jagat Narain of the Hind Samachar group. Giani Zail Singh, then Home Minister, who had a negative knee-jerk reaction to whatever Chief Minister Darbara Singh did had him let out on his own terms.

Sant Longowal described him as a danda (stave) to beat the government. 
G.S. Tohra, President of the SGPC, let him find sanctuary in the Golden 
Temple and convert Akal Takht into a fortress. Indira Gandhi, misled by her 
advisers, chose the crudest way of getting rid of him: she ordered the Army to storm the temple complex. What could have been handled by the police (as proved later by Operation Black Thunder) was a botched-up operation Blue Star. It was a horrendous blunder entailing a heavy loss of life and damage to sacred property. Though Bhindranwale was killed, he became a martyr in the eyes of the Sikh masses. Since the Hindus did not share the anguish caused to the Sikhs, most of them who had never supported Bindranwale, the gulf between the  two communities widened.

Regards
Rajs


----------



## Arvind (Aug 6, 2004)

Rajs ji,

How do you define 
1. Sant
2. Martyr
3. Terrorist

What are the criteria to judge if one falls in which category?

Best Regards.


----------



## S|kH (Aug 6, 2004)

So you believe Khushwant Singh's words?

Yet, when we begin to dissect Bhindranwale, why not refer to the source himself? Why not view the interviews of him? the numerous speeches he gave?

Because if he did say such slanderness to Hindus in general, he would have stated it publicily in the large lectures, right?

Bhindranwale never targeted Hindus as evil, or decievers. He targeted the governement. 

"Hindu pakha hindu banay, Muslim pakha muslim banay, Sikh pakha Sikh banay"

Obviously if you ever heard Bhindranwales speech in which he uses the term "Hindu" and if you look at the speech in context, he clearly uses it as targetting the government, that they are Hindu-dominated people, who do not respect the other miniorities. He never slandered Hindus in general. 

----
You also say, Bhindranwale left a violent legacy?
Please show me how Bhindranwale committed any violence? 
He openly told his people to that he praises the killing of cruel men who butcher and take power over people. He targetted the government as his enemy, not Hindus or general people. 

His men robbed banks, and shut down other government run facilities in Amritsar....is this not part of his message?

A terrorist is someone who kills, plans, or takes part in destroying innocent civilians as part of the message he tries to bring across.

Bin Laden openly admitted to planning 9-11 terrorist attacks, as his message to the American Government. 

Did Bhindranwale do such a thing? or did he just lecture inside the Golden Temple and openly only claim the Government as his sole enemy? 

Bhindranwale armed himself with guns, so? He was prepared in case of an Army or Police sniper attack or resistance. Did you ever see him shooting openly at hindus? or even telling his followers to do so? 

There is a clear difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter.
And there is a further difference between a freedom fighter and a Sant. 
A terrorist kills innocents in order to promote his message to a select few people that are in power. A Freedom fighter indentifies his sole enemy and targets only them, whether his original cause for his movement is considered justifiable or not does not matter. A Sant is one who has full justification from  a large majority of the people and fights for a cause and targets only a certain enemy that is causing him trouble. 

and let me bust your bubble on your highly regarded scholar, Khushwant Singh...although he is a very intelligent man, but do not forget that :
He thinks Sikhism is a sect of Hinduism and openly proclaims so,
and he is an active communist, and thinks communism is the way to go. 

----
Some people say Bhindranwale's cause was not just, so they label him as a terrorist. To be a freedom fighter ones cause does not need to be just in the eyes of many, it needs to be just in ones own eyes and only the enemy must be targeted. 

Also some say Bhindranwale was wrong for bringing guns into the Golden Temple, and they call this a terroristic move. So I ask them, should India be fully in control of the Sikh gurdwaras, so everytime the leader of the Nihangs enters a gurdwara, they claim he's a terrorist and attack it? Besides, the Nihangs armor themselves up to even grilled steel teeth. 

Bhindranwale DID attempt to separate the Sikhs and Hindus, this is VERY TRUE. His goal was to re-establish the Sikh power and identity. He wanted everyone and the government especially to REALIZE the difference between Sikhs and Hindus. If you disagree with this, read about what the Indian Gov't thought of the Sikhs, and the struggle that led up to Bhindranwales movement. 

I'm not saying Bhindranwale is "God" or "God-sent" or even a "Sant" but he as FAR from a terrorist. I've even read articles that depict him in relation to Bin Laden, its repulsive. 

Rajs, do not become blind by reading a persons views on Bhindranwale, go to the SOURCE itself, and see what and what didnt happen in 1984.
Claiming Bhindranwale as a terrorist in the method that you stated, is just as bad as worshipping him and claiming he was God-sent. 

Take the goods and bads of what he did, and see how you can change things and still accomplish a goal of self-determination for Sikhs in Punjab. 

Khushwant Singh will continually bash Bhindranwale because he attempted to create a distinction of identity between Sikhs and Hindus....and Khushwant Singh believes that sikhs are just "keshdhari hindus" and a sect of hinduism. 

Perhaps you should read up on him some more, before citing his quotes. 
He's a smart man, on certain subjects...but he has a clear bias against Bhindranwale because Bhindranwale went against his beliefs of who Sikhs are.

Stay objective on these issues, its the best method to go.


----------



## S|kH (Aug 6, 2004)

I agree, Bhindranwale wasnt the most intelligent man.

He is seen as a matyr in the eyes of the masses BECAUSE he promoted a message that said Sikhs are NOT protected by the Indian Gov't and the Gov't is out to screw the Sikhs.

At the time Bhindranwale was alive, the masses did not support him, because his message was not relevent to them.

It was AFTER Indira Gandhi was killed, and the anti-sikh massacre riots were unleashed in the capital and the Government decided to do NOTHING about it, did the masses go back and read Bhindranwale and realize his message was TRUE, and only then did it become apparent. And only after that, has he been regarded to as a "martyr" and so forth. 

Bhindranwale made SEVERAL mistakes, but your saying Longowal was a Sant and didnt commit any mistakes? You speak of "Bhindranwales men" taking hindus off buses and killing them? provide proof that bhindranwale openly told his men to do so.

India is a 3rd world country, the poor people saw this movement and took advantage of it. Even Hindus did. There were hindus who tied pughs, and went and took little children and held them for ransom and claimed they were Sikh. (Source is proven, my cousin was taken in this method). 

Bhindranwale in NO WAY supported those actions. 
Now, lets make the analogy ot Bin Laden,

Bin Laden OPENLY supports the action of ANY person to be against America, and supports AL-ZAQWARIS movement in Iraq OPENLY. 

You see the difference? 

Best regards, and read the above post again 
-S|kH


----------



## Arvind (Aug 6, 2004)

Sikh ji,

I understand the emotions. Let us not divert to start comparison with O Bin Laden.
Keeping the discussion limited to the actual topic, my previous question to Rajs ji adds one more role of freedom-fighter.

So Rajs ji, Please mention the criteria to put someone in the category of 1. Sant
2. Martyr, 3. Terrorist, 4. Freedom-fighter

Best Regards.


----------



## plamba (Aug 6, 2004)

Folks,

In this context please see the following:

Top Five Bhindranwale Myths
http://sikhtimes.com/bios_060604a.html

This essay answers many of the questions raised in this thread.

Puneet Singh Lamba
Boston, MA
http://sikhtimes.com


----------



## S|kH (Aug 6, 2004)

Haha, that was an interesting read plamba.



> "Harmit Singh Batra was in the Darbar Sahib complex on April 13, 1978 and quotes Bhindranwale, 'We will not allow this Nirankari convention to take place. We are going to march there and cut them to pieces!'49"



Yes, a witness! There are also "witnesses" that have seen Bhindranwale leave the Golden Temple and remain alive and well. In a court, the least seriously taken thing is the quotation from an eye-witness.



> "Following the clash with the Nirankaris on April 13, 1978, the 'Sant' and his cohorts were always armed. Bhindranwale often publicly recited his mantra, 'being armed, there is no sin greater than not seeking justice.'50 And they perceived plenty of injustice all around, which they rectified with the use of illegal force."



What does that have to do with him being a terrorist? So, can we call the Nihangs and their cohorts the same thing? As they walk around with guns and so forth, and MANY of them seek justice, and have rivaled the Indian Government.

Like I have explained before, the whole "Bhindranwale carries guns and brought them into the Golden Temple" holds no merit.




> On October 22, 1982, Bhindranwale made a public statement threatening the 'political and physical end' of anyone who didn't press for the full implementation of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution.52



Once again, this statement...who was he targetting? the people in control.
And who were those people? The Indian Government. He was not the smartest man, so he took to extremes relatively quickly, but still different than a terrorist 



> On August 17, 1983, Bhindranwale asked Sikh youth to buy a motorcycle and a revolver and threatened to kill 5,000 Hindus in an hour if the police delayed the mini bus he had sent to fetch Amrik Singh who had just been released from police custody.53



I'd beg to differ. If this was the case, he would have had to have the capture of 5,000 hindus, as theres no way he could jus find them in the street and kill 5,000 of them in an hour. If he had them captured, it would have been documented, in the newspaper, in the magazines.



> On November 17, 1983, Bhindranwale bluntly demanded 'that all Hindus should leave Punjab.'55



Like I've said before, if you actually read his speeches and his actions in context, you can easily declare that he targetted the Hindu-dominated government. Multiple times he has referenced the "hindus" and has only made direct remarks to the government. He did not declare this on the general people.

If this was the case, he stated many times how Hindus, Mulsims, and Sikhs should stay in Punjab.




> During a public speech delivered on May 24, 1984 at the Darbar Sahib complex, Bhindranwale openly admitted his complicity in the gruesome beheading of Surinder Singh Chinda for his role in the elimination of Bhindranwale's leading hit man, Surinder Singh Sodhi (Sandhu, p. 471.).



That is agreed. He targetted people who targetted him. 

Some of the stuff in that article is cited as terms to claim he's a terrorist, but when you look at it...it doesnt help support the argument that he was a terrorist.
Yes, he did kill people. Yes, he did multiple other things and make threats to the Indian Government. How does that make him a terrorist?
He continually fought against the government.


If hindus were his target, he would have never stayed inside the Golden Temple. He would have wondered and ran, and continually destroyed hindus. That was not the case.


----------



## plamba (Aug 8, 2004)

S|kH said:
			
		

> In a court, the least seriously taken thing is the quotation from an eye-witness.



Please elaborate. In my view, a credible eye-witness is the most valuable asset for either the prosecution or the defense.

Moreover, the quote you refer to is from a book by Mark Tully of the BBC, perhaps the international news organization with the most credibility among the Sikhs.



			
				S|kH said:
			
		

> What does that have to do with him being a terrorist? So, can we call the Nihangs and their cohorts the same thing? As they walk around with guns and so forth, and MANY of them seek justice, and have rivaled the Indian Government.



In my mind, the difference between a criminal and a terrorist is that although both commit criminal (illegal) acts, a criminal has only a *personal* agenda whereas a terrorist subscribes to a publicly declared *political* agenda.

I would reckon that Nihangs who carry unlicensed guns and/or use guns for purposes other than legitimate self-defense are criminals since they don't have a publicly declared political agenda other than a lifelong commitment to lawlessness and anarchy. In all likelihood, even if there were to be an independent Sikh state (Khalistan), Nihangs would choose to remain outside the confines of the law of the land.

As you have acknowledged, Bhindranwale committed criminal acts. So, he was at least a criminal. However, since he was committing criminal acts in support of a publicly declared political agenda (namely the full implementation of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution), he was also a terrorist.



			
				S|kH said:
			
		

> I'd beg to differ. If this was the case, he would have had to have the capture of 5,000 hindus, as theres no way he could jus find them in the street and kill 5,000 of them in an hour. If he had them captured, it would have been documented, in the newspaper, in the magazines.



I have quoted Bhindranwale's speech. He uttered the words I've quoted. How he intended to deliver isn't clear but it is generally accepted that he was a man of his word.



			
				S|kH said:
			
		

> That is agreed. He targetted people who targetted him. Some of the stuff in that article is cited as terms to claim he's a terrorist, but when you look at it...it doesnt help support the argument that he was a terrorist. Yes, he did kill people. Yes, he did multiple other things and make threats to the Indian Government. How does that make him a terrorist?
> He continually fought against the government.



As I noted above, you seem to be conceding that Bhindranwale was a criminal. I'm suggesting that criminal acts performed in support of a publicly declared political agenda (as was the case with Bhindranwale) qualifies as terrorism.



			
				S|kH said:
			
		

> If hindus were his target, he would have never stayed inside the Golden Temple. He would have wondered and ran, and continually destroyed hindus. That was not the case.



Correct. Bhindranwale's declared enemy wasn't all Hindus but the Hindu-dominated government in New Delhi. However, he apparently considered innocent Hindu lives expendable in the greater interest of his cause.

Puneet Singh Lamba
Boston, MA
http://sikhtimes.com


----------



## Rajs (Aug 8, 2004)

Dear Thinking one,



I am not a scholar in English language or any other for that matter, but please feel free to look into any dictionary for the meaning of the words that you wish to know. Furthermore, if your intention is to create an argument based on whose definition is correct - please accept my humble retreat. 



Moving on to Bhinderwale; lots of folks keep stating that he wasn’t against Hindus but against the Government. This reasoning is unwise and downright dim-witted. Since when did it become legitimate to instigate war against a democratic elected government and, to justify a lunatic with a grudge and personal vendetta to hold a nation ransom? Which government, in any country, would allow a section of community to do as they please without scant regard for the law? No one side can be blamed for the atrocities; Guns were blazing from both ends and it is the innocent in the middle who had to suffer most. Besides, what was achieved through Bhinderwale’s so called fight for justice for the Sikhs? Why was he hiding in the Harminder Sahib? Since when did Harminder Sahib become an “addha” for gun totting gangsters? Does Sikhism allow a person to preach and instigate bloodshed of the innocent at the same-time, in the name of Gurus? 



Finally, as for Khuswwant Singh’s views that - “sikhs are just "keshdhari hindus" and a sect of hinduism.” – what’s the problem? Weren’t Guru Nanak, and the first three Gurus, Hindus? If you say Guru Nanak had rejected Hinduism at childhood, then please point out when did Guru Nanak accept Sikhism or became a Sikh? 



Regards

Rajs


----------



## Mr §ingh (Aug 21, 2004)

*Pathetic!*

I was recommended this site by Some SIngh - I have already changed my opinion about the site after reading a few comments by some memebers-




> Correct. Bhindranwale's declared enemy wasn't all Hindus but the Hindu-dominated government in New Delhi. However, he apparently considered innocent Hindu lives expendable in the greater interest of his cause.


I beg you to differ and listen to his speaches!
In on speach eh goes as far and says 
'So Guru Sahib Kirpa Karan ate Hindu Paka Hindu Bane, Muslalman Paka Musalman bane Sikh paka Sikh Bane'

words of a terrorist?
let me quote a few more words of this so-called 'terrorist' of yours

'if we speak to someone with hatred and try to assert our superiotity, it will create hatred in the mind of everyone. So long a we gave the spirit of LOVE... is there any power on the earth that can subdue us?"

that certainly doens't seems liek the words of Osama.




> Finally, as for Khuswwant Singh’s views that - “sikhs are just "keshdhari hindus" and a sect of hinduism.” – what’s the problem? Weren’t Guru Nanak, and the first three Gurus, Hindus? If you say Guru Nanak had rejected Hinduism at childhood, then please point out when did Guru Nanak accept Sikhism or became a Sikh?


PATHETIC RSS CLAIM, which just shows that this site doesn't have anything but FACIST HINDUS claiming the Gurus to be hindus  

you said 'if you say Guru Nanak had Rejected Hinduism at childhood, then point out when did Guru Nanak Acccept Sikhs or Become a Sikh?'

so yeah, he DID reject Hindusism - do you now agree that he wasn't a hindu?
PATHETIC to STILL claim he was a hindu  
as for when did he declare he was a Sikh - he said tha Guru ANGAD DEV JI WAS HIS JYOT, and GURU ANGAD DEV JI DECLARED THAT GURU AMARDAS Ji was his JYOT - and so on - is the words of GURU GOBIND SINGH JI not the words of GUru Nanak  



> In my mind, the difference between a criminal and a terrorist is that although both commit criminal (illegal) acts, a criminal has only a *personal* agenda whereas a terrorist subscribes to a publicly declared *political* agenda.


What was Baba Jarnail Signh ji's agenda? tha Sikhs may have their BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS - is tha wrong?



> I would reckon that Nihangs who carry unlicensed guns and/or use guns for purposes other than legitimate self-defense are criminals since they don't have a publicly declared political agenda other than a lifelong commitment to lawlessness and anarchy. In all likelihood, even if there were to be an independent Sikh state (Khalistan), Nihangs would choose to remain outside the confines of the law of the land.


go on eclare Guru Gobind SIngh ji as a Terrorist as well, because he said tha my Singh shouldn't come to my darbar without Shastars!
Go on declare him!

Also I find the arguement ' Bhindrawale Shouldn't have brought in Weapons to Darbar Sahib'

1- Shastars have ALWAYS BEEN in GUrdwaras!
2- IF the weaposn were the issues - why were 38 other Gurdwaras nearby Simultaniously attacked?
3- why were innocent people targeted in the thousands oif the issue was to flush out 'terroists'
4- why were bullets shtoa gainst the Golden temple?
5- whhy was Akal Takht brought down to ASHES?
6- Some IDI*TS have begun claimign that he HID in Glden temple
- for ur info - if u know tha you fathers houe is goign to be looted tomorrow do you say 'kal di kal vekhi jao' or do u pick up the fone and call the cop? well what do you do if its the same people who're suppose to protect u who are RAPING UR SISTER LOOTING YOU - BURNING YOUR FATHER!
Pick up the weapon or sit there helpless on ur soffa saying 'what can i do'?
you fathers house is being looted by the people suppose to protect it - do you sit there and say'koina' or do u pick up the weapon and oppose them?!?
- he wasn't in DArbar 24/7 - infact most of the times he was OUTSIDE PREACHING - was it not possible to get him then - because tha wouldn't kill any innocents?
he was out and preaching majority of the time!!!!


Now my question is - 
the Vatican has an army in Italy COMPLETLY ARMED - do we see Italian government going in and destroying the whoel vacitan library as well as all the literature, and killing everyone in there during CHRISTMAS?, as well as all other INNOCENT Christians seen in the area?

or wait - how about the army of the mecca  
Again i juggust u go through ALL OF HIS SPEACHES BEFORE EVEN TRYING TO CHAT ABOUT HIm
Pabla the site u gave is saturated with propaganda...
I will refute every signel point when I've gotsome mroe time to waste - but I guess i've already responded to a few of them.... 

Regards


----------



## Neutral Singh (Aug 21, 2004)

Welcome Mr Singh  



> PATHETIC RSS CLAIM, which just shows that *this site doesn't have anything but FACIST HINDUS claiming the Gurus to be hindus *


*General Clarification :* Please be informed that this is an *open discussion forum* and personal views of a member or two do not represent the views of this forum. So, avoid baseless allegations on the intention of working of this forum. 

As a good member *you* are supposed to tackles views of each member with deligence. And I can see that you are quite good in tackling mischievous members...  Welcome to forum... Mr Singh.

Best Regards


----------



## Mr §ingh (Aug 21, 2004)

Neutral Singh said:
			
		

> Welcome Mr Singh
> 
> *General Clarification :* Please be informed that this is an *open discussion forum* and personal views of a member or two do not represent the views of this forum. So, avoid baseless allegations on the intention of working of this forum.
> 
> ...


Firstly - thank you for welcoming me firstly.

as for personal views, i'm sorry i put it in the wrong way it was actually suppose to say - 'this site doesn't *SEEM*' to have - sorry i guess it was just my first impression (but later when i foud out who was running it - i realise i was wrong  ), after reading a member posting some RSS propaganda - Wasn't meant to make a general allegation against the site - i guess it was just my krodh jumping out - when I saw that such a uchi avasta vale saint solder was being slandered... 

regards


----------



## lion (Aug 21, 2004)

every one should note...that, this"RAJA" guy is a hard core christian missinary worker...so please be carefull of this man...n his comments...


----------



## Neutral Singh (Aug 21, 2004)

lion said:
			
		

> every one should note...that, this"RAJA" guy is a hard core christian missinary worker...so please be carefull of this man...n his comments...


*Its apprent that he is not sympathetic with Sikhs and his intentions are also apprent. We have not removed his posts filled with hatred and mis-information so that fellow members and visitors are aware of such mischievous people demeaning gr8 Sikh saints and personalities. Once these persons realise that their 'mission' has failed miserably they {censored} off from the forums as happend in this case.. *

*[Sorry, I could not refrain from making angey personal comments against a fellow member , but we should avoid it  ]*


----------



## Rajs (Aug 22, 2004)

Dear Neutral Singh,


I have NOT "{censored}ed off" from the forum as you are hoping but very much here. In the light of current posts in which, except for plamba's comments, lack of any substance is glaringly obvious, mind you, including yours, there is no need to comment on my part.

Moving on to other matters that you raised in your post, what I would like to know is:

1. Is this forum to discuss issues or gain "sympathy" for Sikhs?
2. Please point out my post that is filled with hatred?

Kind regards
Rajs


----------



## Neutral Singh (Aug 22, 2004)

As, you can see I also apologised for me very personal views of mine in the same post...  

well, you intentionally or unintentionally hurt the feelings of everybody around here and that too with no remorse... so i was talking about that sort of sympathy... ofcourse Sikhs dont need anybodys 'sympathy'  ... i correct my statement !!

well, by hatred i meant, there are always two sides of a coin and you seem to justify on one side of the coin... i.e. negative... so one can easily judge by your intentions... anyways you are most welcome to present your views as this is an open forum and everybody has a equal right to present his views...

I am glad that you have not {censored}ed off and you still have some 'brave' qualities left being a 'ex-Sikh'...  

Best Regards


----------



## lion (Aug 23, 2004)

i am strongly requseting to ADMIN of this website, please BAN  this "RAJA" guy,because he is not came here to learn or discuss,but he is here to tell us how wrong we,and our religion really are....anyone has a doubt about it....just click on his name....and see yourself...what he is writing on this site.....


----------



## Arvind (Aug 23, 2004)

Lion ji,

Currently, in the shoes of a moderator, I am not in favor of banning Rajs. You will find all kinds of people around, and it is upto our individual logics (supported by facts) how to tackle a person or situation. Keeping all kinds of discussions intact will give idea to all who visit these forums, and wrong designs of people if they exist around us.

In this inter-faith forum, let us discuss things with an open mind. This is a request to all members visiting this site, and not as a propaganda site for any particular religion or person.

Best Regards.


----------



## Singhstah (Aug 28, 2004)

Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Bhindranwale,how dare anyone say anything against him. He was and is a great Sikh who woke us up and showed us the nightmare,that nightmare is the indian govenrment. Just because he stood up against them,just because he asked for basic human rights for sikhs,just because he wanted sikhs to have the same equality as everyine else he's a terrorist, how ridiculous is that.  Sant Jarnail SIngh Ji is a SANT MAHPURSH BHRAMGYANI.

Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale ZINDABAD!!!!


----------



## plamba (Aug 28, 2004)

Singhstah said:
			
		

> Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Bhindranwale,how dare anyone say anything against him. He was and is a great Sikh who woke us up and showed us the nightmare,that nightmare is the indian govenrment. Just because he stood up against them,just because he asked for basic human rights for sikhs,just because he wanted sikhs to have the same equality as everyine else he's a terrorist, how ridiculous is that.  Sant Jarnail SIngh Ji is a SANT MAHPURSH BHRAMGYANI.
> 
> Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale ZINDABAD!!!!



When the Anandpur Sahib Resolution (ASR) was drafted in 1973, Bhindranwale was a relative unknown. He had no hand whatsoever in the drafting of the ASR.

The ASR is a very comprehensive articulation of the Sikh agenda. Therefore, Sikhs were aware of the "nightmare" (that is "the indian government") well before Bhindranwale came into prominence (in 1978) and allegedly "woke us up."

Sikh leaders were in the process of negotiating with New Delhi; dialogue being the only feasible option given that as long as the battleground remains the plains of the Punjab, the Sikhs are no match for India's Armed Forces.

Perhaps, it might have been another matter if the Punjab had been a hilly region such as Kandahar in Afghanistan.

Under the prevailing circumstances, however, the diplomatic option is the only viable one. In inviting a military response from India while ensconced within the very finite dimensions of the Darbar Sahib, Bhindranwale demonstrated a catastrophic failure to correctly assess the situation at hand.

For a more detailed discussion on Bhindranwale, see the following:

Top Five Bhindranwale Myths
http://sikhtimes.com/bios_060604a.html

Puneet Singh Lamba
Boston, MA
http://sikhtimes.com


----------



## Mr §ingh (Aug 29, 2004)

Plamba - SO what if he wasn't there when the Anandpur Sahib resolution was being drafted?
he wanted those basic human rights to be fulfilled- and if they were - he didn't want Khalistan
I suggest you listen to his speaches!
especially the oen where he speaks about Khalistan and he says that  IF we are offered it - we wont thank no
BUT, we don't necessarily want a own country - it's for the indian government to decide whether they want us to be part of India or NOT - we want basic human rights tha we're not 2nd class citizens - and other huamn rights demands - if you call fufill those rights - then we don't need a Khalistan - it's for the government to decide whether they want us or not
take a peek at my earlier post!


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Sep 4, 2004)

Ek Oankar Wahiguru Ji Ki Fateh
Das wants to add a thing. Das's mother is still a hindu,when She visited chowk Mehta(The seat of Jatha Bhindran) Damadami Taksal Ji. She Said 'What all these good guys have done to defend shall has to be correct'.
AR Darshi is also not Sikh who wrote book on Sant Ji as Gallent defender. 

In Sant Ji letter to PM Indira Ji he said that He wants to enforce hindus to Have Tilak,Shikha and other marks. As more often hindus generally hate to have thier own symbol or any kind of descipline so they may have hated Sant ji for that.

Das mostly writes on gursikhijeevan.com site of Jatha Bhindran so all are invited to discuss this in thier 'home site' so that thier views could be taken.

But whenever Das has used any apperent  anti hindu remarks on that site often elder meber or admin has told das to shut up or Seek an appology. Unlike many jokers in west who demand seperate Sikh states and just act as a thug to generate money under the guys of Sikh cause who till now openly talk ill of hindus and Indians, These Taksali people not only study Vedanta but also encourge Sikhs to study the great works of Islam and Vedanta ,Vedas etc. And it is still forbiddan in them to talk anti Indian or Anti Hindu,thier fight is with pseudo secular or pseudo democratic state elements of India.

Das has recently seen any a Bajrang Dal members(As das is one of them) have also started to take note of thier idology. Das infact wants to let it replace the idealogy of Sangh Parivar's Hindutva by Thier Khalsa idealogy.

Das on behalf of Taksali brothers and sister intend to inform all. We are pro to Indians as well as hindus.(For other Sant Ji is no more but we still belive that he is still with us so any anti hindu statement attributed to him is false,If a fahter say a harsh word to son this does not means that son is hated by father.) Sant Ji never generalised all hindus as evil.After operation blue star about 250 bodies of Bihari or Purbiyas hindus were recovered from the complex. They were there to take shelter as many other hindus use to live in Gurudwaras which are open to all Sikhs and non Sikhs alike.

many hindus later on escaped. If Sant ji was a Human killer why did not he killed those Hindus ?

Das want you all to come put your view in thier official webiste of Gursikhijeevan.com as Das does not want discuss this topic more on this forum as more pure Taksali  expert is needed to provide word to word detail. Das just want to say how libral they are that inspite of thier knowing that Das is a supporter of Nihungs (Budhadal.org or Shastarvidiya.ord) with whom they differ. And in fact Das is beef and pork eater unlike them who are Strict vegitarians(as per thier code of conduct),they allowed thier forum to discuss the meat related issues inspite of stiff opposition from some members. 

Das was a Hindu before becoming Sikh.now he can think both a Sikh and as a Hindu and as of Anyother Faith(like Swami Ramkrishna Param Hansa).Das only beg you to put you in the place of Sant Ji('terrorist' Bhindrawale) and think what you could have done if you were at his place.
At last Das seeks forgivness of any hard or vulger language used. As from Paramilitary/military Backgroound Das has a tendency to become informal. Term 'you' here is not directed towards anyone but is rather more in General term. Forgivness of mistake may Wahguru bless Hindus,Sikhs and all other alike.


----------



## S|kH (Oct 5, 2004)

plamba said:
			
		

> Please elaborate. In my view, a credible eye-witness is the most valuable asset for either the prosecution or the defense.



Like I've stated...there are also "witnesses" that claim Bhindranwale is stil alive as they saw him leave the Golden Temple Complex unharmed.



> In my mind, the difference between a criminal and a terrorist is that although both commit criminal (illegal) acts, a criminal has only a *personal* agenda whereas a terrorist subscribes to a publicly declared *political* agenda.
> 
> I would reckon that Nihangs who carry unlicensed guns and/or use guns for purposes other than legitimate self-defense are criminals since they don't have a publicly declared political agenda other than a lifelong commitment to lawlessness and anarchy. In all likelihood, even if there were to be an independent Sikh state (Khalistan), Nihangs would choose to remain outside the confines of the law of the land.



What does that make the Indian Government? Who had a political agenda during 1984, and committed brutal *criminal* acts? Innocents were killed, if you believe otherwise, than thats just ridiculous. Every government can be considered terroristic under your broad definition.

There is a clear difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. A Terrorist targets innocents and does not target his actual enemy. A Freedom fighter targets only his actual enemy and goes for them. 



> As you have acknowledged, Bhindranwale committed criminal acts. So, he was at least a criminal. However, since he was committing criminal acts in support of a publicly declared political agenda (namely the full implementation of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution), he was also a terrorist.



The Indian Government committed no *criminal* while they supported a political cause? Their political cause was to end the Khalistan uprising...many innocents were taken away and killed during that time. So, under your definition the Indian Gov't should also be labelled terrorists.

I am just stating this to make the claim that BOTH sides of the battle were flawed. Bhindranwale was NOT the smartest man, and the Indian Government DID NOT AT ALL do things the right way. To consider either side a blatant terrorist is foolish, and in this case, specifically Bhindranwale.



> As I noted above, you seem to be conceding that Bhindranwale was a criminal. I'm suggesting that criminal acts performed in support of a publicly declared political agenda (as was the case with Bhindranwale) qualifies as terrorism.



Incorrect, like I've stated above, Bhindranwale was not the smartest man, and there was plenty of other methods to handle the same situation, BUT he was NOT a terrorist. 



> Correct. Bhindranwale's declared enemy wasn't all Hindus but the Hindu-dominated government in New Delhi. However, he apparently considered innocent Hindu lives expendable in the greater interest of his cause.
> 
> Puneet Singh Lamba
> Boston, MA
> http://sikhtimes.com



Please show me evidence of him considering killing innocent Hindu lives as an interest of his cause.

Please also take into consideration that India is a 3rd world country run by corruption...there were many sikhs, some of bhindranwales men, who did go about and kill innocents, but Bhindranwale never stated this act was good, nor did he claim it was in the greater interest of his cause.

Bin Laden...took pride in the killings of innocent americans, and publicily showed it, and claimed they helped his cause. 

There is a difference. Bhindranwale was not the smartest person, and had relatively stupid sikhs with him who committed such horrendous acts. 

This thread is pretty much done with.
No need for anyone to post their opinion anymore, just read through the topic and gain your knowledge and please form your own opinion. 
Doubt both sides and find which one you think is more accurate and relative. 

Nice discussion everyone.

-S|kH


----------



## sikhi suki (Oct 21, 2004)

bhindranwale? terroist? u cnt even use it in the same sentance its just wrong if you think thak bhindranwale is a terroist he fought for our freedom for our khalistan if that is what you call a terroist then what is that man on the telly preechin bout islam wiv da hook and 1 eye is he a freedom fighter???? i think not


----------

