|
Post by Pendoo on Jan 7, 2010 16:45:30 GMT
Just over 25 years ago, the storming of The Golden Temple, the most sacred of Sikh shrines, by the Indian Army led to protests around the world. Sonia Deol embarks on a personal journey to unravel the events of 1984, an iconic year for Sikhs. It culminated in thousands of deaths including the assassination of the Prime Minister, Mrs Indira Gandhi. The bloody aftermath that followed so shocks Sonia that she is forced to reappraise the depth of her commitment to her faith. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pzc69
|
|
|
Post by Munda UK Da on Jan 8, 2010 0:08:03 GMT
i got a text about this today, I just hope that they expose the corrupt dog that is the indian govt for what it is.
good to see Ms Deol may have opened her eyes a little as well - just hope the Beeb don't try and water down the events of Operation Blue Star
|
|
|
Post by gigteam on Jan 8, 2010 17:27:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Kamlee on Jan 10, 2010 6:37:05 GMT
Looking forward to this.
Sonia Deol is a good choice for this documentry.
Here's hoping it does justice to the Sikhs
|
|
|
Post by Pendoo on Jan 10, 2010 9:11:41 GMT
There was a program on Sikh channel last night where Sonia Deol and Tommy Sandhu were interviewed. Tommy Sandhu basically had the idea and got the program commissioned.
A warning to people...this documentary does not cover any of the controversial aspects of 84. It provides a brief introduction to the events leading up to it and on Sant Bindranwala but then is more of a follow up on the impacts on peoples lives afterwards. They said this straight, which i guess is what you'd expect given the BBC. They're not going to go around pointing fingers at the Indian Government. But its great the topic is getting prime time attention which should help encourage debate etc.
|
|
|
Post by daboss on Jan 10, 2010 14:12:02 GMT
Well it's better then nothing. Hopefully from here other channels might go in & dig deeper.
Then hopefully justice might come in the end.
|
|
|
Post by dulay2006 on Jan 10, 2010 21:54:34 GMT
the good thing is that this programme has been shown before the release of the bollywood film based on Indira Gandhi played by Madhuri Dixit which will obviously be pro indian government
|
|
|
Post by AJ on Jan 11, 2010 0:04:59 GMT
Big up Sir Mark Tully... legend
|
|
|
Post by gSINGHg on Jan 11, 2010 0:10:49 GMT
hmmm, so do u guys consider Jarnail Singh Bindranwale as a Saint....or Terrorist??
|
|
|
Post by bedroomdj on Jan 11, 2010 0:18:47 GMT
1. Why was alot of this censored?
2. Why did the gov ban journalists from Amritsar? where they hiding something? course they were
3. General Brar was indra's shadow. He claims that weapons anit right, it dont make you a sanit.... So Guru Gobind Singh Ji who has arrows, who had swards, what does that make him? Our Gurdwara's have swards, spears, etc The Khanda etc... brar will be finished soon. He scared.
3. Respect for sonia deol doing what she did, but this is the last quesiton i wanna ask.... Where was she when adil ray made those remarks, and her employers defedned adil ray and took the recording down. WHy didnt she speak up?
|
|
|
Post by AJ on Jan 11, 2010 0:19:44 GMT
hmmm, so do u guys consider Jarnail Singh Bindranwale as a Saint....or Terrorist?? Based upon that docu and personal research, a little of both.
|
|
|
Post by gSINGHg on Jan 11, 2010 0:34:23 GMT
hmmm, so do u guys consider Jarnail Singh Bindranwale as a Saint....or Terrorist?? Based upon that docu and personal research, a little of both. hmmm i always considered him a saint, but thinking about it, knowing that the goverment was after him alone, why involve so many Sikhis into a violent war of such altitude?? why choose such a spiritual location as a battle ground??
|
|
|
Post by Munda Jattan Da on Jan 11, 2010 0:54:40 GMT
Based upon that docu and personal research, a little of both. hmmm i always considered him a saint, but thinking about it, knowing that the goverment is after him alone, why involve so many Sikhis into a violent war of such altitude?? why choose such a spiritual location as a battle ground?? I have seen some videos of Jarnail Singh Bindranwale and I can tell you he is not a terrorist. He might be an orthodox sikh but that does not make him a terrorist. He has strong views and in the programme, it said that he did not like if someone talked bad about his religion, now I think thats just a normal typical orthodox religious persons view and I don't really see how he was bringing terror activity into this. Yes it can be argued that he shouldn't have made his base in Sri Harimandar Sahib but what "terrorist" activity was he doing?. The indian government and General Brar decided to enter the Golden Temple with guns, soldiers and tanks so the issue which needs to be looked at is this, why are you bringing military, weaponry and tanks into the most sacred religious sikh temple? Regardless of having a "terrorist" suspect trapped, he is not exactly going to destroy his own place of worship, is he?. Theres other ways around trying to bring him out, now from the evidence I have seen, there is nothing that suggests that Bindrawale initiated the firing. I have no sympathy for General Brar, after watching the interview, It clearly shows he has abandoned his religion as he does not know, being a sikh, that you should NEVER enter a religious place of worship with any tanks, guns or w/e. Bindrawale might have some faults but what the general did and the indian government cannot be forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by Munda Jattan Da on Jan 11, 2010 1:09:38 GMT
General Brar said The army had to go in because Bindrawales men had also surrounded him but if the indian army had tanks, soldiers, grenades and etc, they obviously shown they had more than enough to take down Bindrawale and they shown that by the damage of the Akal Takht. Just compare the loss of the indian army with the innocent civillians and "terrorists". You will see the indian army could have solved any attack if it occured to them outside of the Golden Temple.
Another point the General made was they could not see who was civilian or who was a "terrorist" because it was night. A simple answer to this is, they should have never gone at night (I am not saying that they should have gone in at all).
Indira Gandhi decided to keep her sikh bodygaurds, I know this is a deliberate cover up to get some sympathy from anyone neutral and from the media. The fact is she knew she was going to die for her mistakes and she didn't care. She even said it, "It doesn't matter how I die, if I die standing or asleep". That shows the evil bit*h in her true colours.
|
|
|
Post by Pendoo on Jan 11, 2010 8:17:32 GMT
hmmm i always considered him a saint, but thinking about it, knowing that the goverment is after him alone, why involve so many Sikhis into a violent war of such altitude?? why choose such a spiritual location as a battle ground?? I have no sympathy for General Brar, after watching the interview, It clearly shows he has abandoned his religion as he does not know, being a sikh, that you should NEVER enter a religious place of worship with any tanks, guns or w/e. Bindrawale might have some faults but what the general did and the indian government cannot be forgotten. Come on dude you're being a bit blind aren't you? So General Brar should know that you should never enter a place of worship with guns etc but Bindranwale shoudn't?!? Not supporting brar here just pointing out the hypocrisy in your points. I don't know enough about the events leading upto the events of 84 but at the end of the day I don't think he needed to take refuge in the golden temple. Undoubtedly there was a lot missing from the documentary, but what did you expect? This is the BBC and it will have been produced with the authority of the Indian government who must have had some say into its contents. Plus it was only an hour long. For example they didn't mention anything about Bindranwale campaigning for sikh rights.
|
|
|
Post by Munda Jattan Da on Jan 11, 2010 9:21:06 GMT
Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale said himself: "It is ordained that a Sikh carries a weapon, but having weapons does not make him a killer. I have never praised anyone for killing a human being but as for the killing of a cruel man"
This means even though he had weapons in the Akal Takht, that does not mean he is a terrorist as ONLY WHEN you use the weapon to carry out violence and any terror activity, does it make you a terrorist. Holding a weapon does not. If that is the case then anyone holding a firearm is a terrorist.
I believe that if Giani Puran Singh who was a sikh priest at Sri Harimandar Sahib says personally that he never thought Bhindrawale was a terrorist and in his own words "When the battle was going on he was the one loading the guns pilling them up, with no sign of regret on his face although he realised this was happening because of him. He was a man of truth, he never did anything immoral, he wasn't a bandit. That he knew this death and destruction was happening because of him, had no effect on him, not even the slightest and he was laughing."
I therefore believe what Bhindrawale did was nothing but merely defend himself as the Indian Government made him into a threat. All Bhindrawale said to the Indian Government when Rajiv Ghandhi wanted Bhindrawale out of the Golden Temple was "Tell him to come and try".
Now I don't see from that how Bhindrawale has become a terrorist. He did not plan any terror activity or even make a threat to anyone so why the Indian Government were making this a bigger story than what it already was, is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by Munda Jattan Da on Jan 11, 2010 11:55:56 GMT
Come on dude you're being a bit blind aren't you? So General Brar should know that you should never enter a place of worship with guns etc but Bindranwale shoudn't?!? Not supporting brar here just pointing out the hypocrisy in your points. Bhindrawale did not damage or destroy any part of the Sri Harimandar Sahib complex by bringing in his weapons, General Brar did by bringing in his tanks, in the programme the giani said the stairway was flattened when the tank came in. Now do you not know the significance of this whole event? Bhindrawale was a baptised Sikh so the fact that he devoted himself towards Sikhi, he would have had the best interests at heart- Khalistan as our sikh country which we desperatly need because when we have tried to defend our country which we thought was India, but instead we had people like Ghandi taking the piss out of us, saying Shaheed Udham Singh was insane - "the outrage has caused me deep pain. I regard it as an act of insanity...I hope this will not be allowed to affect political judgement" He did not defend our people, the likes of Shaheed Udham Singh, Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev did what Gandhi did not want us to do and why not? because he was the British Empire's spoon. Funny how a hindu murdered Ghandi and nothing was done but when 2 Sikhs took out revenge on the bit*h Indira Ghandi, they all stabbed us in the back. If now is not a time for fighting for Khalistan then let the f**king Indian Government corrupt and control us. They have destroyed our religious buildings and we let them continue.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jan 11, 2010 12:09:40 GMT
It was truely emotional to watch I saw / heard all off that on TV / Radio / Print back when it happened but never truely understood it back then. Only later on in life did i truely understand it all.
I don't think I was the only watching last night with tears rolling down my cheeks.
Hats of to Sonai Deol, Tommy Nagra & everybody else involved in the making of the documentry.
The only down side is it was a hour long.
It would have been good if they could have done a 2/3 part documentry.
Then maybe we could have seen more. But as it is, it was still a good job & hopefully other's will carry on with the story.
|
|
|
Post by panjab1 on Jan 11, 2010 12:11:33 GMT
This is what struck me. Why only an hour long programme? Surely to tell the full story you need more time
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jan 11, 2010 12:51:38 GMT
The other thing I forgot to mention is that it's the "BBC" They have to offer the right to reply.
If they mentioned something about the Congress politicians, they would need to give someone from the Congress party a chance to reply.
And if the Congress party knew what the documentry was about, what do you think the chances of getting work permits to film in India & the documentry getting made were going to be??
Hence why from what I heard on the BBC grapevine is that the programme also had to cover Sonia's Punjabi Roots so they can cover there own back, which is expected (who would'nt).
So to be fair they did the best they could, and I would not be surprised if the Indian goverment have put a complaint in with the BBC already.
|
|
|
Post by thereturnofbugs on Jan 11, 2010 13:03:48 GMT
good points Tony, We can only expect so much from the BBC. India is a major ally against the war against terror and frankly, britain can not afford to piss them off. I thought the programe was ok, but really made Bhindrenwale look in a negative light, which in my opinion is very wrong. He stood for the right fight, and now people are slandering his name? Bugs
|
|
|
Post by panjab1 on Jan 11, 2010 13:12:01 GMT
Spot on Bugs. A lot of negative comments coming out about him now and that sadly really should not be the case. Been reading up myself on this as well. There was a lot of provocation before this terrible event, people getting killed and no one being bought to justice etc.
There is only so much a person can take to be honest. They had no need to go and destroy a Holy Place like they did. It was all pre-meditated and quite frankly out of order
|
|
|
Post by panjab1 on Jan 11, 2010 13:29:39 GMT
But that said I always thought Sonia Deol was a bit of a coconut so shouldn't have fronted a programme such as this
|
|
|
Post by Sarpanch on Jan 11, 2010 14:08:20 GMT
When they were interviewing Satnam (the 18 year old store owner), i felt it was a major disadvantage the interview wasn't conducted in punjabi, as I felt that Sonia totally misunderstood what he was saying and vice versa. She went on to say that Satnam couldn't find any evidence of hatred towards Sikhs in Punjab, I think anyone whos gone to India can see the state of punjab at the moment and not only is the indian governmenet a cause of this, but it also does not prevent this deteroation one bit.
|
|
|
Post by Pendoo on Jan 11, 2010 17:48:09 GMT
Come on dude you're being a bit blind aren't you? So General Brar should know that you should never enter a place of worship with guns etc but Bindranwale shoudn't?!? Not supporting brar here just pointing out the hypocrisy in your points. Bhindrawale did not damage or destroy any part of the Sri Harimandar Sahib complex by bringing in his weapons, General Brar did by bringing in his tanks, in the programme the giani said the stairway was flattened when the tank came in. Now do you not know the significance of this whole event? Bhindrawale was a baptised Sikh so the fact that he devoted himself towards Sikhi, he would have had the best interests at heart- Khalistan as our sikh country which we desperatly need because when we have tried to defend our country which we thought was India, but instead we had people like Ghandi taking the piss out of us, saying Shaheed Udham Singh was insane - "the outrage has caused me deep pain. I regard it as an act of insanity...I hope this will not be allowed to affect political judgement" He did not defend our people, the likes of Shaheed Udham Singh, Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev did what Gandhi did not want us to do and why not? because he was the British Empire's spoon. Funny how a hindu murdered Ghandi and nothing was done but when 2 Sikhs took out revenge on the bit*h Indira Ghandi, they all stabbed us in the back. If now is not a time for fighting for Khalistan then let the f**king Indian Government corrupt and control us. They have destroyed our religious buildings and we let them continue. You're totally neglecting the original point you made. Happen to agree with you on your other points. One thing nobody seems able to articulate coherently is why was Bindranwala using the Golden Temple as his HQ? If he knew the Government was coming for him surely he knew of the likely consequences (hence the stocking up of weapons). I'm not slandering him, let me get this straight, i'm simply asking questions I don't have answers for which satisfy my question. I fully appreciate what happened prior to 84 which was conveniently glossed over by the BBC instead painting Bindranwala in a negative light which was wrong. The other thing is at the beginning Sonia mentioned something along the lines of Hindus being pulled off buses by Sikhs (pre the attack) and beaten. I've never heard of this and am not sure of the validity of her statement. Did anybody else pick up on this or did I get the wrong end of the stick?
|
|