Bhindranwale - A Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter?

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

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

__________________
Music is the air I breathe
The prayer I leave
Rippin' in the atmosphere
Up there in the breeze

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.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-talk/436-bhindranwale-a-terrorist-or-freedom-fighter.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=436

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

Rajs ji,

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

What are the criteria to judge if one falls in which category?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=436

Best Regards.

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.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=436

----
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.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=436
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.

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.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=436

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,
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=436

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

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.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=436

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.

Folks,
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=436

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

Haha, that was an interesting read plamba.

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.

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.


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

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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