A chilling recount of the 1984 riots

[Crookbond]

Many Many peopele class it as a genoicide, Just cos they dont agree with your version guru does that mean they also cant undertsand english? A massacre organised by the state machinery against one community is indeed a genocide to many. To you it is not. Semantics anyway.

Many many people disagree it was a genocide as well. In case you feel otherwise agree to disagree, pat yourself on the back, w@nk yourself for making a great point and move on. Do not repeatedly refer to a straw man. Also supposedly, you are more knowledgeable than the Indian and US legal system. Good for you.

[King Tendulkar]

You said both parties were responsible. No spin. You were putting sikhs in to one side and others in to another. You were certainly implying that as they were sikh and bhidriwale was sikh, in a way they were partly responsible for their deaths. You should be more careful before posting cold blooded nonsense

[King Tendulkar]

Many many people disagree it was a genocide as well. In case you feel otherwise agree to disagree, pat yourself on the back, w@nk yourself for making a great point and move on. Do not repeatedly refer to a straw man. Also supposedly, you are more knowledgeable than the Indian and US legal system. Good for you.

Indian legal system lol Like they have any credibilty. lol Wonder what indian legal systems agenda is on this lol

[Crookbond]

You said both parties were responsible. No spin. You were putting sikhs in to one side and others in to another. You were certainly implying that as they were sikh and bhidriwale was sikh, in a way they were partly responsible for their deaths. You should be more careful before posting cold blooded nonsense

:giggle: The both parties were - Indira Gandhi and Bhindranwale who were responsible for innocent Sikhs killed during Operation Blue Star. Try the straw man next time - Post #168 exposes your agenda. :two_thumbs_up:

[Muloghonto]

Shocking from scahinlara. Basically thousands killed and apparently no one is gulity as there is no evidence. Plus has faith in police, CBI and judiciary. Direct witnesses is not hearsay, they are not stories. They are evidence.

1. If you choose to build your position on lies, i shall have to put you on ignore. Be warned. How dare you slander me by saying 'i have faith in police, CBI and judiciary' when i cateogrically said i dont have faith in the police but do in the judiciary ? 2. Prove to me that they are 'direct witnesses'. Whether it is hearsay or evidence, is for courts to deciede.

[Muloghonto]

You speak as if its a done deal. Law *DECIEDES* what is a story and what is witness account. I am asking you on what basis you are differentiating the two. As usual, you have a whole boatload of bakwaas but no direct answer. I know why this is- its not because of 'canspiracyy' but because in India, even today, its bloody easy to go on a rampage as a crowd and less than 5% getting arrested, nevermind the ones with contacts, 20 years ago. Ie, lack of police ability to deal with criminal activity and a paralysis of the government to do something about it. Irrelevant and obfuscation.

[Muloghonto]

Well USA says that not genocide so its not a genoicide. USA says world is flat so world is flat

USA says its not genocide because the events do not meet the required criteria for genocide. Again, zero proof of government systematic collusion and planning, which is a de-facto requirement of genocide as a definition of the word. So far, you have allegations. Zero evidence or proof of govt. collusion. Leads to the conclusion that Indian govt. must be the most efficient ever, if it can pull off a collusion of multi-party states and departments of the government, involving thousands of personnel, with nary a proof left. :hysterical:

[Muloghonto]

There is zero evidence!!! You again on a wind up!! You can have a smuch evidence as you want or as little evidence as you want for a crime. It depends on wether the investigators want to investigate and gather evidence or want to do nothing and brush under carpet. In this case the state machinery has done the former to protect themselves.

Investigators wanting to or not wanting to investigate is irrelevant. If you think this is a case of lack of prosecution, find a detective to piece together the evidence and directly challenge the government in the supreme court. Given that this surefire route to legal superstardom has not been exploited by our aspiring lawyers in the last 20 years, leads to the conclusion that there is little or no evidence to push such a case through.

So basically you feel the state was not complicit in 84 massacres? What do you think happened baba? Interested in your version how thousands got killed in the capital over a number of days

Nope, not complicit. IMO, the 'kangress' went on a collective paralysis/shock due to the power vaccum created by IG's death. Took them a few days to stop going 'omg! om namo shivaye!' but by then, hinduvta goondas and those in the anti-khalistani activities took matters into their own hand, as Indians are prone to doing. Sort of the same how in Kolktata there was a mini riot when Dawood blew up something in Mumbai in the early 90s. Something as significant as the PM of India being offed by her own bodyguards, who 'happen to be' of the same religious leaning as the leaders of the religious-extrimism that was Khalistanism, is quite strong enough to send thousands of Indians into a 'monkey see, monkey doo' type of barbaric rampage. All a product of 'group mentality' that is the backward shytehole of Indian societerial mentality.

[Muloghonto]

Many Many people far more intelligent then you, class it as a genoicide, Just cos they dont agree with your version guru does that mean they also cant undertsand english? A massacre organised by the state machinery against one community is indeed a genocide to many. To you it is not. Semantics anyway.

Those intelligent people can further their reputations by getting any national government or international organization that it was a genocide. Yet, it isnt so.Maybe because these so-called intelligent people forgot to look up the dictionary definition of genocide. Your premise is a red herring: yes, a massacre organized by the state is the dictionary definition of genocide. Trouble is, ther is no evidence presented yet, by you or by anyone else so far, that proves the Indian government to be complicit. Interviewing a random bunch of civillians who say 'xyz came and butchered us' does not prove state complicity. Therefore, your premise is dishonest, as has been the bulk majority of your debate here.

[Crookbond]

Indian legal system lol Like they have any credibilty. lol Wonder what indian legal systems agenda is on this lol

Right - US system (we shouldn't listen to them), Indian system (who the F are they?) but well we should definitely listen to a "straw man" poster on an online message board. :two_thumbs_up:

[Muloghonto]

Indian legal system lol Like they have any credibilty. lol Wonder what indian legal systems agenda is on this lol

Maybe you would like to ask foreign diplomatic staffs and international experts on Indian justice system. Common perception is, it is slow, cumbersome, behemoth that is one of the very few institutions in India (along with Indan civil service) that has excellent track record and credibility in its field.

[Tiger80]

I think you are taking it the wrong way. IDK what Thackeray did - all that I'm trying to say that IF Thackeray helped the Sikhs (for whatever reasons - money' date= service etc.) he intentionally (or inadvertently) may have also helped shield the Sikh terrorists. Just in case, it's not just the Sikhs from Delhi but from other areas in the north who too had fled to Mumbai. For the highlighted part, A implies B does not mean B implies A. I never insinuated that w/o Thackeray's hand Khalistani terrorists wouldn't have come to Bombay - there's no way to know. I am merely commenting on the events which took place.

Thackeray did not allow killing of innocent sikhs of Mumbai in 1984 .If not allowing = helping sikh terrorists in your dicitionary then I have nothing to say more

[Crookbond]

Thackeray did not allow killing of innocent sikhs of Mumbai in 1984.If not allowing = helping sikh terrorists in your dicitionary then I have nothing to say more

Please do no insinuate anything! I am trying to form a informed opinion here. My hypothesis is that Thackeray may not have been the prudent enough to understand "innocence" of people on face value and that a few people amongst those may be rogue. I never said that allowing means helping terrorists. I meant there "may have been" a few black sheep amongst the good ones.

[Lurker]

Riots is not a good word too. It is mostly used when 2 communities madly kill each other. I think massacre is right word. as it was simple one sided killings.where ever state govt gave orders to police not to allow killings the damage was minimum and those were non congress govts.Surprisingly Bombay remained unaffected even though there was congress govt. Bal thackerey always use to take credit for it.Was he such an influential person that no mobs attacked sikhs?

You have essentially credited the man who organized mass riots to having stopped mass riots! Thats funny. Shiv Sena, and Thackeray, was a non-factor in Bombay till late 80s and early 90s. They were small players, often considered more of goons than anything. They were in no position to save/kill mass people as they did in 90s and 2000s. Bombay was not the only place which didnt see riot. Neither did Pune, Indore, Calcutta, Bhubaneshwar, Jaipur, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Guwahati etc etc. Put it this way, the riots was basically in a small area. In and around Delhi, little bit of Bihar and partial UP. I am sure there was some in Haryana-Punjab border area too. I think you are making a mistake in suggesting Bombay(and Thackeray) as some sort of beacon. In fact if it was Congress driven massacre more people, in more states, would have been killed. It was not.

[King Tendulkar]

In fact if it was Congress driven massacre more people' date=' in more states, would have been killed. It was not.[/quote'] Sad really. History being rewriiten in 2013. Congress well done, you were superb in 84. Not behind this at all, totally innocent players. Lets just move on. Clean chit to govt and police here. Tylter betchara should be left alone. Innocent nice man.

[Tiger80]

You have essentially credited the man who organized mass riots to having stopped mass riots! Thats funny. Shiv Sena, and Thackeray, was a non-factor in Bombay till late 80s and early 90s. They were small players, often considered more of goons than anything. They were in no position to save/kill mass people as they did in 90s and 2000s. Bombay was not the only place which didnt see riot. Neither did Pune, Indore, Calcutta, Bhubaneshwar, Jaipur, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Guwahati etc etc. Put it this way, the riots was basically in a small area. In and around Delhi, little bit of Bihar and partial UP. I am sure there was some in Haryana-Punjab border area too. I think you are making a mistake in suggesting Bombay(and Thackeray) as some sort of beacon. In fact if it was Congress driven massacre more people, in more states, would have been killed. It was not.

Please read the link in post 121 which I have posted. It is not from a sikh site but an anti shiv sena article. and it mentioned that Sikhs paid money to thackeray in 1984. Search this it in google too.If he was insignificant why sikhs paid him money. And sikhs are in very tiny minority in rest of India almost insignificant community.Stray incidents happened in several states.

[Lurker]

Please read the link in post 121 which I have posted. It is not from a sikh site but an anti shiv sena article. and it mentioned that Sikhs paid money to thackeray in 1984. Search this it in google too.If he was insignificant why sikhs paid him money.

You are asking me to refute an online article that neither of us knew existed a few hours back. Why not ask a fellow from Bombay and/Maharastra on the extent of Shiv Sena's popularity in 80s and if it was indeed he who single handedly saved Sikhs (which somehow that article seem to suggest) in 84.

And sikhs are in very tiny minority in rest of India almost insignificant community.Stray incidents happened in several states.

Right. There is a reason why it is called Delhi riots. The incidents were largely stray in the rest of the nation. This comes back to the question where it all started - Why did Congress win in 1984. Answer is just that: 1) It was the largest party back then. 2) The riots were in Delhi and some stray incidents across nation, no reason why the rest of the country would have chugged Congress out. Specially as there was no viable opposition.

[kabbirann]

Do I need to babyfeed ya....come out of denial phase... 1984 riots were due to assassination of Indra Gandhi which was in response to Operation Bluestar that happened due to Bhindranwala as he was the primary reason for Punjab militancy... 1984 Riots -> Indra Gandhi assassination -> Operation Bluestar -> Bhindranwala->Punjab militancy :mama:

I have full sympathies for the hindus in Punjab at that time. My father still talks about his classmate a hindu brahmin who was killed in our village .His only fault-a rather fiery speech at a function against killing of other punjabi hindus.His killing led to an exodus of hindus from our village and they still have not returned.I do think that there sufferings have been glossed over. Where I totally differ from you is where you justify the massacre of sikhs by correlating it with the punjab militancy.

[Crookbond]

There can be NO justification of the Sikhs massacre in 1984.

[Tiger80]

You are asking me to refute an online article that neither of us knew existed a few hours back. Why not ask a fellow from Bombay and/Maharastra on the extent of Shiv Sena's popularity in 80s and if it was indeed he who single handedly saved Sikhs (which somehow that article seem to suggest) in 84.

Like you I was too surprised when i read this on sikh discussion forum from Mumbai sikhs that Sikhs their went to Bal thackeray in 1984 and he assured them protection.Then I searched itgoogle and find out several articles mentioning it.

We thought Thackeray was a hater of Muslims, migrants from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and non-Hindus. Yet, as Delhi burned with the anti-Sikh riots in 1984, Rajiv Gandhi said "when a big tree falls, the earth shakes". No tree fell and the earth did not shake in Bombay in 1984, since Thackeray assured the Sikhs of Bombay that they will be protected. At Thackeray's funeral, Sikhs distributed water and food. "Thackeray saheb hamare bhi the," said one Sikh helper. http://m.indiatoday.in/story/reporters-diary-rahul-jayaram/1/240640.html

So in Mumbai sikhs went to thackeray, he assured them protection , Sikhs were not harmed. Now whether he actually had any influence or was just talking hot air is another discussion