Talk:Indira Gandhi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indira Gandhi article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Historical Tone

In the section about Operation Bluestar, what does it mean to be "bedeviled" by the "problems" in Punjab???? This is obviously terminology that does nothing to shed light on the historical accuracy of the events that transpired. In a similar context, for example, the Encylcopedia Brittanica mentions specifically that Indira Gandhi was "angered" by the call for independence by Bhindrawale's group. Isn't this a more accurate way of describing the event as it unfolded?

Also, there is no mention of how the policies of Indira Gandhi had lasting and pernicious consequences for "democracy" in India to the present day. There have been countless, ongoing human rights abuses, torture of citizens, and a methodical attempt to cover this up. Even former President Clinton wrote in the introduction to Madeline Albright's book, The Mighty and the Almighty, that "Militant Hindus Murdered 38 Sikhs In Cold Blood" during his visit to the "world's largest democracy." For further details on this, please visit the website:

http://www.khalistan.com/PressReleases/PR053006_ClintonSaysHinduMilitantsMurderedSikhs.htm

Overall, there needs to be more balance to the article, instead of trying to use words like "bedeviled" and "problems" when referring to people trying to establish real democracy. If Puerto Rico or Quebec can vote for statehood or nationhood, respectively, in their own democracies, certainly this is not referred to as being "bedeviled" by "problems." How does this represent a Neutral Point of View????

[edit] Education

Would somebody please enlighten us about her education qualifications? ~rAGU

[edit] Refrences and Citations

Im curious how a NPOV article can be written with such few sources, im not questioning the content as i simply don't know enough but there are some obvious examples of confusion, 20,000 sikhs are claimed to have been killed on this article, the one specifically for sikh pogroms says 3000, the bbc says up to a thousand http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/31/newsid_2464000/2464423.stm

Zaq12wsx 08:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening comments

The article tends to concentrate almost entirely on her actions against Sikhs. It would be nice to have information about other aspects of her life and time in office. - Kricxjo

Well she is responsibile for it and is the thing that led to her death. She doomed herself. Leading an Attacking on a holy site is like comitting sucide. Imagine what would happen to saudi royal family if they attacked mecca.

The way that Gandhi is referred to in this article is extremely disrespectful and sexist. Imagine a caption on a picture about a male head of state referring to "Mr. Bush" (as the one in this article refers to "Mrs. Gandhi") or to "George" as the main subject of sentences (as this article uses "Indira"). A head of state is referred to by his or her official title, by title + last name, or by last name---NEVER by first name, and NEVER by Mr./Mrs.! Karasuman 01:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute that referring to her as Mrs. Gandhi is disrespectful. Tony Blair, prime minister of England, is regularly referred to as Mr. Blair in the newspapers. Additionally, with Indira Gandhi, South Asianists have the usual problem that referring to her simply by her last name, ie, Gandhi, causes enormous confusion with those who are not familiar with Indian politics, because of the much more famous Gandhi. So with Indira Gandhi, I've often seen writers take great pains to find some way of referring to her other than simply 'Gandhi'. I'd suggest sticking with Indira Gandhi or Mrs. Gandhi or something along those lines.

I must agree. Hornplease 13:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do we care about Gandhi's sex life? How relevant is to to an encyclopedia article? The way it stands, this article is extremely biased against her. This is against the spirit of a factual article. User:hciautopoietic —Preceding comment was added at 09:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Karasuman. It's generally not considered appropriate to refer to an elected head of state by first name. You don't see a lot of "George this" and "George that" thrown around in the article on George W. Bush. Yet in this article the Prime Minister of India is referred to with undue familiarity as "Indira". I've fixed this stylistic error and also added a great many citation needed tag for some of the more subjective claims in the article. The appropriate way to refer to her would be Prime Minister Gandhi (or earlier in life, Minister Gandhi), or Indira Gandhi, or simply Gandhi. I've also replaced a lot of instances with "she" and "her" to avoid redundancy. I've been careful to only do this in places where it's easy to tell who "she" is referring to. Kasreyn 21:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. My name is Manveer and I am a Sikh. What Indira Gandhi did to Sikhs was very disrespectable. She ordered indian troops to attack one of our most holiest places in the world, right on our major holiday. On top of that, her troops were walking with there shoes on in our temple, which is very wrong. She saw Sikhs as cowards, and believed our society will be destroyed by this massacre. Fortunetly, she was wrong. I am not surprised her name is referred to "Indria Ghandi" instead of "Mrs. Ghandi". In my opinion, she derserves all the disrespect she has received. For more pictures of this massacre, go to google.com, then images, and search Operation Blue Star. You can also e-mail me at sidhu_manveer@yahoo.com.

"What is tragic is that a tense situation which could have been resolved without a shot being fired was allowed to deteriorate to the point where the sacred sanctity of the Golden Temple complex was violated and desecrated in the most brutal and unholy way. Thousands of innocent visiting pilgrims and temple workers lost their lives in a sacred place of worship.The Akal Takht, the seat of supreme Sikh temporal power was reduced to rubble. Harmandir Sahib was riddled with over 300 bullets. The Sikh library with precious manuscripts of the Gurus was burned to the ground. The Temple treasury Toshakhana with priceless historical artifacts of Maharaja Ranjit Singh was destroyed. The continuos reading of Sri Guru Granth Sahib in Harmandir Sahib was interrupted for the first time in hundreds of years. These events have forever left a permanent scar on the Sikh psyche." -Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Bindarawale

She was just jealous. she was one racist- she couldnt handle sikhs being smarter- she tought that hinduisim is supierior, which is not. i agree with Mr. manveer, she deseved the disrespest, she should be even more disrespected. she didnt have to bomb the Gurdwara, she couldnt handel the beautifulness of the Gurdwara, she could have just sent people to capture him, without any weapons. she just hated Sikhs for wrong reasons, i am happy she was assinated. tomadre

As obviously angry as you may be, biased points of view have no place in an encyclopedia. Even Adolf Hitler, as evil as he is, is still referred to by his last name and/or his title because this is an encyclopedia. Also, by stating that you are happy that she was assassinated you are showing that you are no better than Prime Minister Gandhi, because you look upon murder in a positive light. 75.189.132.215 (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Errors?

Nixon never explicitly threatened India with a nuclear strike.Instead he just sent his USS Enterprise as a message and not for a possible strike.Things never went that bad.

Anonymous

Nixon was indirectly supporting our ally (Pakistan) with this fleet movement in order to stave off a complete collapse of West Pakistan by a determined and implacable PM Ghandi. This show of force is further connected to an effort by the U.S. to prevent a Sino-Soviet conflict had the Chinese (who the U.S. was in secret negotiations with) deemed it necessary to send military aid to Pakistan. This would have possibly resulted in creating a direct clash between Washington (secretly seeking diplomatic relations with China)and Moscow, who were indirectly stoking the flames of war on the subcontinent. I disagree that "things never went that bad". Indeed the world was inching towards a global conflict.

T. Hunter

Indira Gandhi was born on 19 November but the article states Nov 22 1917 - Oct 31. I am not sure who put that in but I think it needs to be corrected and I am not confident enough to do it. I also do not think the airport was renamed because she died after entering the airport. She was shot near her nome/office by her own bodyguards. The airport was an ambitious project and was renamed in her owner after it was completed. Thank you Ravi

Correct re the date of birth. I've just changed it in the text (the summary table already had Nov 19). No idea about the airport; leaving that one for someone else. –User:Hajor 21:21, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The airport was not named because of the above reason. It's the standard ritual in the Congress rule to name most of the things after Indira, Rajiv, Nehru and the Mahatma. Even if the above line of reasoning had not happened, I have no doubt that the naming the airport after her was going to happen. Alren 22:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


also re: date of birth- the article states that indira ghandi was 17 when her mother died. this would appear incorrect if she was born in 1917 and her mother died in 1936?

I plan to make "Indira" a disambig page. Indira is also a 1996 Tamil film directed by Suhasini. Jay 12:13, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is it related/about Indira Gandhi? If yes, make it a "see also" and dont diambiguate. --Jiang
No its not related to Indira Gandhi. Also, Indira currently has only 2 pages that link to it, and one of them is related to the film. Jay 14:28, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please confirm the statement about Mother Teresa endorsing Emergency? A quick google search revealed naught. Just wanna make sure. Gaurav 08:44, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I think the whole Feroz Khan name change to Feroz Gandi is quite fascinating. It would be nice if someone knowledgable could fill in this aspect of Indira's story.

I have doubts about this Khan thing. Hindu newspaper a more credible source does not say anything. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/10/20/stories/2002102000110500.htm . But there are a couple of websites with this story http://www.sikhlionz.com/nehrufamily.htm and http://www.vepachedu.org/Nehrudynasty.html , how credible are they that's another issue. I think this issued should be resolved as I saw a couple of sites/forums making arguments based on what's there in wikipedia. Alren 22:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article is inconsistent in the name used to idenitfy Indira Gandhi. Would "Indira" or "Gandhi" be correct? It seems to me that her surname should be used consistently throughout the article. --L. Pistachio 05:47, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

I think, either Indira or Mrs. Gandhi should be used. "Gandhi" by itself would not be appropriate. Alren 22:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's a section at the beginning of the PM section where it states that she did everything to 'reduce' her power. Is that a typo?

Several sentences use the word alleviate. Should it be elevate instead? Alleviate means "to bring relief or to relieve." In the context of the sentences which use alleviate it seems the writes wants to indicate a rise to power or elevate.

Also, one of paragraphs refers to Rajiv as the younger son but it states earlier in the article he is the elder of the two.

[edit] Name

Does anyone know why she took the last name Gandhi instead of Nehru? Was it because of marriage or what? I don't know much about Indian history but I am interested to learn and I was surprised that at least a brief comment on this fact wasn't in the article. -Lommer | talk 20:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi was born Indira Priyadarshini. She changed her last name to Gandhi due to her marriage to Feroz Gandhi.Shahab 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

Members of the Hindu and Muslim ruling families sometimes fall in love with Parsis. The name of the most famous political dynasty in India, Gandhi, is derived not from Mahatma Gandhi, but from a Parsi named Feroze Gandhi, who married the daughter of India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Feroze Gandhi's wife, Indira, became Prime Minister.

I think that the fact that she was married to Feroze Gandhi should be mentioned in the article.


heres a weird thing i was just surfing thr the net whn i gave Indira Gandhi do u know wht came up. She actually got converted to Islam coz her husband is Feroze khan who changed his name 2 Gandhi. seems like a shock? Further its was Gandhiji who gave him his surname n caste. But is it actually spelt Ghandhi. U wont trust ne so just search-'Indira Gandhi and Feroze Khan' bye

Check your facts. Feroze was adopted by Mahatma Gandhi, hence the name Feroze Gandhi. Indira Gandhi herself never converted to Islam.--68.163.65.184 20:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] suggestions

one might wish to clarify this line: Kissinger and Nixon opposed an independent Bangladesh. although it is pretty obvious (to me) who kissinger is, the passage needs to mention his position in Nixon's cabinet, right?

also...i cant make sense of this sentence Her environmental protection policies were held up an exemplary given India's status as a poor developing country. maybe an should become as...?

[edit] Soviet Union influence

The influence the Soviet Union exerted on Indira should be incorporated from: Yahoo! News. This provides a more accurate view of corruption in 1970s-India. freestylefrappe 15:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Indirag.jpg

Image:Indirag.jpg

Image:Indirag.jpg (right) looks nice and may be useful to Wikipedia, but the pic's has no source info. Does anyone know what its copyright status is ? I hope it's in the public domain. Thanks. -- PFHLai 01:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not of good standard

The article does not seem to be of encyclopedia standards. example consider this paragraph

' Sanjay's reckless youth induced a need in his mother to take care of her son under all circumstances. The outcome was a political partnership that eventually resulted in abrogation of democracy, corruption and abuse of power on a previously unwitnessed scale. Rajiv Gandhi is believed to have said that he would never forgive his brother'

On what basis are the above statements made. Presently I have inserted a cleanup tag


--Nuttysocrates 00:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bias and POV

I will agree that this article seems to have been written either very quickly, or by someone who doesn't have the proper know-how of encylcopedic writing. Also the article seems to be very biased and reads as a kind of semi-soft propoganda that wishes to soften, if not all out redeem Indira Gandhi's image and controversial steps. The following text is both badly written and seems like a POV article.

"Pakistan saw it as a chance to create problems for India. Bhindranwale in the mean time used the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest shrine of Sikhism, as a camp hideout. He used the temple as a base for weapons and hid there, because it is considered a holy place which would mean the chance of India attacking him were very little."

Bhindranwale was in the Akal Takt and technically was considered by Sikhs as the leader of the Akhal Takt, which administers rules and guidelines of most sikh temples and especially the Temple in Amritsar. I do not think it would be possible for a man who is in charge of the Golden Temple to use it as his "hideout". Exatly what was he hiding from?

It gives the notion that this selected person was somehow a mobster or Mafia ganglord. Which seems the be the indication the person who wrote the article wishes to give. Also:

"However, months of negotiations failed to resolve the standoff, and Indira was backed into a corner to decide weather or not to invade the temple and flush out the separtists. If she decided not to, civil unrest would probably occur."

How exactly do you know that civil rest "would probably occur?" It seems as this is a slight attempt to justify the actions taken and not a proper objective way of telling the incident. Many simply think that Indira Gandhi did not want to seem "soft" in her approach to the militant movement, but that does not mean anyone has a right to state this in an objective encyclopedia such as this.

"There is also a view that she had foreseen her death just days before her assassination, as she had said: 'If I die a violent death as some fear and a few are plotting, I know the violence will be in the thought and the action of the assassin, not in my dying......and each drop of my blood will give birth to new India!'"

Exactly when did she say this? There should be some evidence provided and it seems to be another attempt to soften the image of the former prime minister into something of an idealistic patriot.

The last little bit about her "legacy" reads more as propoganda to excuse the former prime minister of many of her most prominent criticisms and reads like a "sure she did bad" but she was "forceful, full of conviction and did what was right for the 'integrity of the state'"

Also there is much misconception and propoganda-like falsehood in some sections such as:

"This organized mass-murder was carefully orchestrated by senior Congress party members and its scale never seen before or since, in modern India"

This is rather flimsy because the fact remains the riots and murders that went on in the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947 far outweigh anything that has subsequently happened. Also the 2002 Gujarat riots as well as those in Bombay from 1992 to 1993 may also have been just as large in terms of loss of life and dispertion of people, if not larger.

I removed this sentence until justification for it can be found. DJ Clayworth 19:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Birandwale was hiding from the government due to the fact that his organisation was responsible for numerous crimes. Such as bank robberies and most infamously murders of those who opposed him. To describe him as a ganglord although not a particularly useful description is apt. Birindwale was not considered the leader of the Akal Tahkt, Harchand Singh Longowal was and it was the weakness of the Akal Takht that allowed Birindwale to fortify the Golden Temple.


Indira gandhi predicted her own death in a speech in Bhubaneswar on 30th October 1984 in an elctioneering speech, that is a direct quote.

Listen, Saint Jarnail Singh Bhindrenwale gave up his life for Sikhs so we shud appreciate it, instead of havin people lik u criticising him. And plus he was not a criminal he was only labelled one by the goverment in order for them to hav an excuse to try to catch him, so all dat stuff about him bein a criminal is rubbish. Furthermore he was a saint, so these opnions being expressed of him being a criminal and a saint are very idiotic. Before u mak comments lik this u shud first do some research and think carefully about the views u express because some can be offensive.

As far as I am concerned, anyone who is willing to commit murder for any reason other than the victim poses an immediate and deadly threat to oneself is a criminal and deserves criticism. For that both Saint Jarnail Singh Bhindrenwale and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi are guilty. 75.189.132.215 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutraility

I reverted a whole change because it showed signs of seriously non-encyclopedic writing. We do not write things like "many people think...but the truth is..." because this clearly indicates that you are writing as fact things which most writers do not believe about the subject in question. We also do not pass judgement on our subjects. Finally, this is supposed to be about Indira Gandhi. Plese don't discuss other people at length. There are other articles for doing this. DJ Clayworth 03:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The one thing that really bothered me is the amount of heresay involved in this article...its rather ludicrous. How can anyone say, "Pakistan saw it as a chance to create problems for India. Bhindranwale in the mean time used the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest shrine of Sikhism, as a camp hideout." I've NEVER heard of any evidence that pakistan had any involvement with the sikh militant movment. This was just meaningless heresay and rumour and does not belong in such an encyclopedia. Not to mention that pakistan is a muslim republic and I doubt they would ever want to help militant sikhs form a country that borders their land--especially when one considers the carnage both sikhs and muslims inflicted on each other during 1947. I think it might be nice to not have anymore "pakistan bashing". Since this seems rather epidemic of indian history--anything goes wrong, it was a "foriegn country to blame" (which means either pakistan or china). Its not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Persianlor

Calling a man an ISI agent without providing credible references is also hearsay. If dialectic does not conform to your perceived "encyclopedic writing" why not re-write that particular line, instead of reverting the entire entry? What I have provided here is backed by references.Zafarnamah 00:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am disturbed by the neutrality of this article. First off, I can see certain bias towards the character of Indira Gandhi herself. I also see some gross exagerrations on a.) the number of Sikhs that were killed and b.) their total innocence. Neither Hindus nor Sikhs are greater than each other in this regard, they both have quite a few skeletons in the closet, I despise the Hindu hatred that is being displayed here.

[edit] No mention?

No mention of her forced sterilization campaign? savidan(talk) (e@) 22:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not enough about the 1971 war

Hardly anything has been said about her role in the 1971 war. Doesn't it deserve much more than just a few lines?

It deserves much more. But could you please sign off your comments? --Siva1979Talk to me 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental Policies

Her environmental policies were instrumental in bringing up the creation of national parks and tiger and lion reserves. Could someone look into it?

[edit] Removed Legacy section

Until this day, Indira's legacy as Prime Minister remains mixed. She was a strong, forceful personality and her reign was popular with some segments of India's population, especially the left. Her phrase "poverty is the greatest pollutor" in her remarkable speech at the first UN World Environmental Conference in Stockholm in 1972 set her (and India at the time) apart in attempting to harmonise environmental and developmental concerns in developing countries. In her early struggles to gain control of the Congress party, she transformed Indian politics by appealing directly to the people and subverting the established structure of Congress. The inadvertent result of this was fragmentation of the political hierarchy, resulting in the later rise of parties such as the BSP and the Samajwadi Party, allowing previously marginalised communities to gain political representation.

Some suggest that Indira, despite her heavy-handed tactics and mistakes, was vital for India's democracy and unity, citing the faith in democracy of hundreds of millions of people united only in poverty and ignorance depended upon iconic leaders and guardians. It is suggested that the only viable alternative for India was to trade democracy for a dictatorship in view of the national insecurity and economic deprivation that defined the 1960s for India. Unfortunately, Indira's hard-nosed, zero-tolerance approach left serious divisions in India.

I removed this section due to its complete lack of sourcing. As such it is original research. Editors, please reinsert any portion of it that you can find a reputable source for. Thanks. -Kasreyn 03:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Navdeep Singh

Indira Gandhi was a failure both professionally and personally. She demonstrated extremely poor leadership and stood for nothing more than subjugation and oppression of the weak and the poor. She used an infinite number of heavy handed actions to suppress any voices of dissent under the guise of democratic reform. She desecrated the holiest Sikh shrine- -the Golden temple- - by ordering military action when further dialogue or other military tactics(perhaps laying siege)could have resolved the issues at hand. She was single handedly responsibly for the genocide of thousands of Sikhs as well as anyone who opposed her policies and she will forever go down in history as an incompetent and inept self serving politician whos lack of vision and foresight ultimately cost her her own life!

                                                               Navdeep Singh Randhawa
                                                                navdesy@hotmail.com
The talk page isn't the appropriate place to push an agenda. Please note that all information in a Wikipedia article needs to present a neutral point of view. Keep this in mind while editing. Kasreyn 20:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

=> Kasreyn, though Navdeep's comments may sound harsh, they may not be far off the mark. The failure of leadership is shown by the splitting of the Congress in 1969. Her heavy handedness is shown by the appointment of leftist judges to the Supreme Court. Mr.Bhindranwale was not liked even in his own community. Many Sikh leaders and elders were weary of Bhindranwale - she caused a split in that community by openly backing him. In a sense, she got what she justly deserved. The tragedy is that on her death, many Sikhs died. THAT was pre-planned, because senior Congress members (e.g. Jadgish Tytler) were seen in the riot scenes.

There is another notorious case (the Nagarwala case) early on in her career, which rocked the nation. In all fairness, these should be included.

    • Neutrality should not mean filtering of unpleasant material.

HornStopPleaseHornStopPlease 20:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering where Navdeep Singh Randhawa got the authority to judge Indira Gandhi to have "stood for nothing more than subjugation and oppression of the weak and the poor". I have no problem with including factual information about Prime Minister Gandhi's actions, but comments like those above seem to result from a personal grudge against Gandhi rather than factual research. If you have sources and are willing to neutralize your language, then this is certainly worthy of being included. 75.189.132.215 (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Green Revolution and "White Revolution"

The material regarding a so-called "White Revolution" in the section on the Green Revolution is misplaced. The Green Revolution was a major structural transformation of Indian agriculture that allowed India to transform itself from a net food importer to a producer of food surpluses and that drastically altered the rural class structure in favor of large-scale producers. In contrast, the "White Revolution" was a gimmicky program to increase the milk intake of school children. While the latter may have produced substantial increases in the health of India's children, it is not of comparable social significance to the Green Revolution.

If it did produce health increases, then that should be cited and included. Though as of now, I certainly dont think it merits inclusion. I apologise for reverting the removal of the entire paragraph. It was laziness, I should have reverted the removal and then edited away the milk thing myself. Hornplease 01:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Life

The entire "personal life" section is susceptible to charges of bias and, indeed, outright falsehoods because it fails to cite any sources. I suggest that sources either be provided immediately or the entire section be removed.

Jkp1187 14:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with Jkp1187. Section contains very strong statements without ciations. It should be removed immediately or reliable citations should be provided.

pruthvi 16:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


I have removed the entire 'personal life' section, but copy it again here for reference. If anyone can provide good, supporting citations (i.e., not just someone's website somewhere,) please feel free to return part or all of this section:

==Personal life== Indira Gandhi was now more emotionally isolated than ever. The instability of her childhood had prevented her from developing her own independent personal interests and lifestyle. It had been her sense of duty and pride in her father and family legacy that had brought her into politics, but she had never been given the space to develop as a person. Through the 1950s and 1960s, she had corresponded with Dorothy Norman, a New York-based journalist, who became a very close friend via correspondence. But apart from political associates, she had no personal friends. Her sons were 'studying in England' (neither obtained any formal degrees from any university). She grew ever more close to her younger son, Sanjay, who is accused by many historians of misusing his mother's emotional dependence. Gandhi may have seen traits of Feroze in Sanjay and was ever-anxious to please him, as she perceived that Sanjay blamed her for his father's death. While Rajiv developed as an independent young man free from politics, Sanjay's reckless youth induced a need in his mother to take care of her son under all circumstances. The outcome was a political partnership that eventually resulted in abrogation of democracy, corruption and abuse of power on a previously unwitnessed scale. Rajiv Gandhi is believed to have said that he would never forgive his brother for what he had done to their mother at a time when she was isolated, depressed and humiliated after her defeat in the 1977 elections.

Jkp1187 13:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Indira Gandhi

I think more appropriate picture for infobox would be the picture of her taken during later age (could be seen in most government offices). Current infobox picture can be put into early life section. pruthvi 22:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union Alligience Under Ghandi

There isn't any section dealing with the Soviet/Indian nexus under Ghandi's tenure. A discussion of India as a Soviet-aligned State during this period should be created. - MSTCrow 05:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] without beards

"up to now most of the sikhs are living without beards." clarfication is needed. does this intend to say "even now," perhaps. or perhaps "until recently"? 219.110.247.233 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of Gandhi's name

Please don't change the spelling of Indira Gandhi's name - there is a well-known widely-accepted spelling of her name in English, and it does not include macrons or acute accents. Her name is Indira Priyadarshini Gandhi, and isn't up for us to decide if it should be respelled. --SameerKhan 06:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, even though some schools in both India and Pakistan also use "Indra." They say that this spelling does "true justice to the meaning (in Hindi) of her name." --bandishhh

[edit] Contradiction w/ Another Article

This article states that the Emergency lasted for 19 months. The Emergency article states that it lasted for 21 months. Anybody know which is the right time it lasted? Maybe I'm missing something in the articles, but if I am, it still is very confusing. Hadoren 18:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Extraordinary claims, no reference? POV?

The following paragraph is a POV, extraordinary claims have been made but no citation provided, neutrality is lacking: -
Gandhi's later years were bedevilled with problems in Punjab. In September 1981, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, the leader of a extremist separatist Sikh religious group and his well-armed followers took up positions within the precincts of the Golden Temple, Sikhism's holiest shrine and conducted numerous violent operations from the safety of the shrine.[13] Gandhi ordered the Army, whose task force notably consisted of a large[ number of Sikh officers and soldiers and was led by Kuldeep Singh Brar, a Sikh himself, to engage Operation Blue Star to remove Bhindranwale and his followers on June 3, 1984. In the operation, hundreds of innocent Sikhs taken hostage were killed in the resultant gunfire.

Please explain and justify the use of: -

  • "extremist" word.
  • the use of link separatist, please provide direct quotes from the person alleged that he demanded Khalistan.
  • "well-armed" ...what does the contributor of these words want to say? well armed with what weapons? What is the definition of well armed according to the author? Who did this research and found them well armed?
  • use of phrase "conducted numerous violent operations from the safety of the shrine" is totally POV.
  • The line "In the operation, hundreds of innocent Sikhs taken hostage were killed in the resultant gunfire" is not only factually incorrect but also is part of propaganda. The contributor of these lines is trying to confuse the reader that there were hostages inside the Golden Temple. Please justify your claim. Remember "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence"
    A. S. AulakhTalk 07:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative view

I'm moving these lines here to discuss:

An alternative theory of Prime Minister Gandhi's assassination suggests that the CIA provided support for Sikh extremists to weaken Mrs.Gandhi who had signed a friendship and cooperation treaty with the Soviet Union. She was known as being the most Pro-Soviet leader in East Asia.Mrs.Gandhi was interested in establishing a democratic socialist system in India which threatened the access of United States markets into India.Yajee, Sheel Bhadra. CIA Operations Against the Third World New Delhi: Criterion. Publications, 1985. Andrew and Mitrokhin, The World was going our way: The KGB and the Third World. Basic Books,2005.

The contributer is requested to provide the citations in wikipedia format (keeping in mind reliability of sources) and also provide clear indications to the pages in the above sources from which the above lines are being cited. Thanks! ---- A. S. AulakhTalk 19:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused about relationship to Mahatma Gandhi

I'm not clear if Indira Gandhi and Mahatma Gandhi were related. Did they come from the same family? Cousins? Uncle/Niece? Could somebody help me understand? --207.215.78.126 (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, she was not related to Mahatma Gandhi. Indira Gandhi was the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru. A man named "Feroze Khan" wanted to marry Indira, but Nehru objected, since it was a inter-caste marriage. Mahatma Gandhi then adopted Feroze Khan, and had his name changed to "Feroze Gandhi". Feroze Gandhi then married Indira, and she took on that last name. I hope that clarifies things. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. Relata refero (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain why its nonsense? --Darth Borehd (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Because that's a politically motivated rumour that people shouldn't be repeating as fact on talkpages. Relata refero (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

why this part is not mentioned in any of wiki pages about Indira Gandhi,Feroz Gandhi or Jawaharlal Nehru ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Busypeople (talk • contribs) 06:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Because its untrue. Relata refero (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the truth then? --Darth Borehd (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Read the article. Relata refero (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Feroze Gandhi was not born "Feroze Khan." That was his real name. Indira Gandhi is in no way related to Mahatma Gandhi other than the fact that her father (Jawaharlal Nehru) was one of Gandhi's closest allies. --Hnsampat (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Photo with Gandhi

The photo with Gandhi looks doctored, and poorly so.--152.83.44.93 (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)