Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 26 Mar 2013 19:42

eklavya wrote:A significant proportion of funds collected in Indian and UK gurudwaras are channelled to funding Sikh separatism and possibly terrorism. If the Indian government has found a way to stop this, they should educate the UK government about it.

The UK govt does not know how to stop it? How about arresting them (as Al-Qaeda fundraisers were arrested)? Is this "education" sufficient?

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 26 Mar 2013 19:51

abhishek_sharma wrote: Right. I don't understand British legal process. Only hypocrites, dishonest and/or stupid people are able to understand the British legal "standards."

I can see that it hurts you badly to have your ignorance of the Mhatre case to be exposed.

abhishek_sharma wrote: It is clear that any criticism of UK causes takleef to you. I am sorry but this is going to continue. Get used to it.

Actually, I couldn't care less about criticism of the UK. It would help you on the other hand to do your homework a bit better.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 26 Mar 2013 19:55

abhishek_sharma wrote:
eklavya wrote:You are free to research the case and kindly explain it to yourself. If you can prove that there was a miscarriage of justice, please highlight it. Your one-liners prove nothing.
Why? You had the time to post the punishment given to two other people, right? It appears that this third case caused cognitive dissonance.

Please do your own homework

I expect the judgement is available online, so please dig it out, read it, and criticise it. You are claiming a miscarriage of justice: so you need to do the work to make your point.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 26 Mar 2013 20:22

>> I can see that it hurts you badly to have your ignorance of the Mhatre case to be exposed.

Right.

In any case, it is clear from last few posts that this discussion has converged.

Both sides have presented their arguments. The sincerity of British govt in combating terrorism against India can be assessed by any intelligent reader.

Let us end this discussion here.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 26 Mar 2013 21:50

http://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documen ... artnership

Joint Statement on the India-United Kingdom Summit 2013 - India and The UK: A stronger, wider, deeper partnership
February 19, 2013

3. The two Prime Ministers and their colleagues reviewed the progress made since the previous Summit in 2010 on building a stronger, wider and deeper relationship across the range of India-UK interests, based on shared culture, values and strategic interests. They agreed that, while substantial progress had been made on the ambitious targets set in 2010, there was considerable potential for expanding the relationship further, in particular in the area of trade and investment, and they agreed on the importance of an approach which supported business.

20. The UK and India stand together in the fight against terrorism. The two leaders welcomed the strong cooperation they have developed in this field since 2010, and which recently contributed to ensuring a safe and successful London Olympic Games. Condemning terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, the two leaders agreed that all terrorist networks, wherever they exist, must be defeated. They called upon Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks. The two leaders committed to work closely together to prevent terror attacks, strengthen the international counter-terrorism architecture, and exchange best practice in areas such as transport security, security of vital civil infrastructure installations, responding to terror attacks, and countering extremism. They also agreed to cooperate on joint training of their counter-terrorism forces.

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 27 Mar 2013 00:15

I would not wish mass murder on anyone or any nation, however this could be what it takes to change the attitude of the UK government to the various islamist organisations in the UK.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/ar ... 49913.html

Note the following sentence:

"Checks on proposed new “free schools” are also being carried out to ensure that they are not used to propagate extremist teaching, while other schools are also being encouraged to “challenge” radical ideologies."

Maybe India needs to tell the UK govt that trade contracts are dependent on cracking down on these outfits.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/co ... 49938.html

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 27 Mar 2013 02:18

^^^^
Haresh, the British courts make the fight against terrorism a very difficult process:

1) Despite their best efforts, the Government failed to get Abu Qatada extradited to Jordan:
Abu Qatada wins appeal against deportation

2) It took 8 years to get Abu Hamza extradited to the US:
Abu Hamza extradition to US goes ahead after court defeat

3) Police attempts to monitor muslim neighbourhoods in Birmingham got thwarted
Police surveillance of Muslims set up with 'no regard for law'

Even so, MI5 appears to spend a lot of time on fighting Al Qaida:

DOES MI5 SPY ON OR HARASS MUSLIMS?
We do not investigate any group or individual on the grounds of their ethnicity or religious beliefs. The Security Service is committed to protecting the security of all of the UK's citizens, of every faith and ethnic group. We only carry out investigations if there is a clear national security reason for doing so.

Some international terrorist groups such as Al Qaida support an extreme interpretation of Islam that is widely rejected by ordinary Muslims and Islamic scholars. They have been responsible for many terrorist attacks around the world. The Security Service's largest single areas of work is the effort to counter such extremist terrorist groups.

Al Qaida and similar groups are often indiscriminate when carrying out attacks. Muslims are often themselves the victims of violence carried out by terrorists who claim to be acting in the name of Islam.

We employ staff of all religions, including Muslims. We are committed to recruiting a diverse range of staff from all backgrounds. This enables us to benefit from their different perspectives and experience. Our our careers provide more information about employment opportunities for British citizens who speak other languages. (See also our pages in Arabic, Farsi and Urdu.)

1600 young British Muslims under MI5 surveillance for plotting terror
She added: "My officers and the police are working to contend with some 200 groupings or networks, totalling over 1600 identified individuals (and there will be many we don't know) who are actively engaged in plotting or facilitating terrorist acts here and overseas."
Some of the networks were directly linked to al-Qa'eda in Pakistan, which used the Pakistani community in Britain to recruit and promote terrorists.
Since the 7 July bombings, five further major conspiracies in the UK had been thwarted, the director general added.
Out of the 200 or so groups being watched by MI5, a smaller subset are of the highest priority because its feared that they are plotting actual attacks.
"We are aware of numerous plots to kill people and to damage our economy. What do I mean by numerous? Five? Ten? "No, nearer 30 that we currently know of," she said.
MI5 has increased in size by nearly 50% since 9/11 and now stands at roughly 2,800 staff. "I wish life were like Spooks (the TV series) where everything is, a, knowable, and, b, soluble by six people," she explained.
"We cannot focus on everything so we have to decide on a daily basis with the police and others where to focus our energies, whom to follow, whose telephone lines need listening to, which seized media needs to go to the top of the analytic pile.
"Because of the sheer scale of what we face - my service has seen an 80% increase in casework since January - the task is daunting.
"We shan't always make the right choices. And we recognise we shall have scarce sympathy if we are unable to prevent one of our targets committing an atrocity."

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 27 Mar 2013 02:35

Interview with Lt Gen KS Brar:

Govt must stop Khalistan movement from raising its ugly head, says Brar

Published: Friday, Oct 12, 2012, 9:30 IST | Updated: Thursday, Oct 11, 2012, 23:28 IST
By Dilnaz Boga | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA

The lone surviving frontline commander of Operation Bluestar expresses surprise at how a hate campaign is being handed down generations to keep the Khalistan sentiment alive under the noses of liberal democracies like India, the UK and the USA. Excerpts of the interview:

Charges against two persons who attacked you were downgraded today, while nine others who were picked up in connection with the incident were let out on bail. Why has that been done?

They arrested 13 suspects, of which nine are out on bail. Charges against two people have been downgraded from 'attempt to murder' to 'intent to cause grievous bodily harm'. In order to prove the murder charge, you require a lot of witnesses. That could be one of the reasons. The second reason is that the knife didn't pierce my arteries. If the knife had gone right down to the arteries, attempt to murder would hold. I was told that this process will be speedy.

Your attackers were in their early 30s. During Operation Bluestar, they must've been four years old.

Yes, they don't know anything about the operation. They have been told about it. A lot of doctored footage of the operation has been circulated around Europe, UK and Canada. The youth have been indoctrinated and told about the operation was an attack on the Sikhs, on the holy Darbar sahib and how revenge needs to be taken. This rips up your sentiments, your emotions. It is an ideology of the hardcore passed on to the innocent youths. If you go to the gurudwaras abroad in places like the Uk and Canada, open you will find 'Khalisatan zindabad' boards there. The British government can't do anything about it because of their liberal policies, nor can the American government but look at the damage it is doing to the youth.

India's policies are just as liberal because now a memorial is going to be erected for the martyrs of the operation without any opposition from the state. Union home minister Sushilkumar Shinde hasn't opposed the move. What is your reaction?

That's true, we are not doing anything about it. There has to be some limit to these liberal policies. I'm very sad. It makes everyone in uniform feel terrible, whether you are retired or whether you are serving. You have that anger, that my chief of army staff, a brave, highly decorated officer was carrying out the task in the line of duty has been murdered when he has retired and gone home.

And now the assassins are being honoured. They're being called martyrs. Are they martyrs for murdering someone? Firstly, they were criminals who belong to a militant group. A martyr is someone who has done something for a cause. What is the cause? To kill an innocent general. This is disgraceful.

Why has the government not taken a strong stand, especially with talks of the Khalistan movement gaining momentum here and abroad?

I don't know, they must have their reasons. They have their own political problems in Delhi. Maybe they've been cowed down by the Akali threat that we will do what we want. The government should assert itself and say this is a matter of national security and we should stop this because it will create the mayhem like the violence that we saw in the 1980s. We don't want a repetition of that.

After all these years, we would like the wounds to be healed and not reopened. This will have an overall effect on the Indian security. People across the border in Pakistan are also supporting the radicals. Abroad, they are collecting money from the rich Sikhs and sending it to Punjab as well as to the ISI.
ISI has a cell in Pakistan which trains Babbar Khalsa and other militant groups. The money is slowly being pumped into India to regroup those who want to join this movement. Slowly and steadily, the whole thing is snowballing into the situation we witnessed in the 1980s.

So we must nip it in the bud. We must not allow it to happen and then try and act against it. We allowed the Golden Temple to be fortified. We allowed Bhindranwale to take complete control of Punjab. Punjab police had no authority left, the administration had collapsed, murders were taking place everyday, there was no law and order whatsoever. We allowed the situation to reach that stage. The DIG was murdered and thrown outside the Golden Temple. Politics allowed it to reach that stage and then we acted.

Once Bhindranwale became a prophet, we decided to take him down. Why wait for that time? I know my views are angering the Sikh population but I'm airing my views as a soldier and as a human being who wants to see this country strong and not broken up. It's unfortunate in doing so, I'm also putting my life in danger.

Despite the threat to your life, you refuse to move to Delhi?

Why should I move? You think Delhi is any safer? It's closer to Punjab. It's easier to get me there. Here, I'm in a military cantonment and I've spent 20 years here. I have my friends and relatives here. There'll be no attack on me here. This plan to attack me was hatched in Germany on June 6t and it was to be carried out in India. But it happened in London.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 27 Mar 2013 02:36

Eklavya/ Abhishek Ji, learnt a lot from your posts regarding this issue. The part that many issues regarding jurisdiction are not clear is evident from the exchange. So please don't let it degenerate. The counter arguments are just as important. There are many that would like only their view point dominant, ignore that. Important thing is to get your POV across. On this i appreciate your dialogue.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 27 Mar 2013 12:10

David Miliband to step down as MP

Good riddance ...

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Mar 2013 13:42

eklavya wrote:David Miliband to step down as MP

Good riddance ...

International Rescue Committee, where he is shifting to also has programs in India and elsewhere. This guy is no good news where ever he moves to. These international organizations should have as few Brits as possible.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 27 Mar 2013 14:33

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hous ... s-21616579

The backbench business debate on 28 February 2013 focused on a petition launched by the Kesri Lehar campaign, calling on the Indian government to sign and ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The debate on 28 February 2013 was led by Labour's John McDonnell, who argued there was a "greater sense of urgency" following India's recent resumption of executions.

The hanging of Mohammad Afzal Guru in New Delhi on 9 February was the second in India in three months after an eight-year hiatus, according to Amnesty International.

Mr McDonnell said the eight-year moratorium had "led us into a false sense of security" and "many more executions are likely to follow unless action are taken".

He paid tribute to the efforts of the Sikh and Punjabi communities in particular, who, he said, "have an abiding sense of injustice to which there's been no proper redress".

Conservative MP Mark Pritchard emphasised that "India is a close friend of the UK and friends can be candid" before asking the Indian government to start the process of abolishing the death penalty.

Lib Dem Simon Hughes said he understood that India might see removing the death penalty as a "sign of weakness" but pointed out that it had been in force since independence and had failed to prevent atrocities and acts of terrorism.

He described capital punishment as "undermining democratic principles and values and undermining international credibility".

Labour MP Seema Malhotra spoke of her own family's experience of violence and unrest in the Punjab and of the need for India "to stop human rights abuses facing all its minorities".

Foreign Office Minister Hugo Swire confirmed he had "reiterated" the UK's opposition to the death penalty when he accompanied David Cameron on a recent visit to India.

Mr Swire stressed that "the death penalty undermines human dignity and there is no conclusive evidence of its deterrent value" and branded the end of the eight-year moratorium "disappointing".

Shadow Foreign Office minister John Spellar acknowledged that "India has suffered grievously from terrorism" and went on to say "execution would not end terrorism but would damage the reputation of India".

To echo the glee in some posts on this thread - noting that "if UK has been so baaad...why doesn't India respond in kind", implying that Indian non-response in kind is proof of British moral and political superiority on everything under the sun : no Indian parliamentarian will probably dare to bring something in parallel that criticizes UK practices.

That in itself surely shows Indian independence from UK. But whoever claimed that the Indian rashtrya functionaries or the state as a system would be critical of UK in any form whatsoever? No one expects it to - with a solid foundational tie-up and wish for "friendship" right from the beginning of the Indian political force to which power was transferred!

We should note with great joy the statement that "friends can be candid". Knowing that one of the pair of friends will never be candid in a way that hurts the other's sentiments and transgresses the political/administrative/legal views and establishment within the state structure of the other. Indian parliamentarians do not feel the need to criticize or demand that UK treats anti-Indian terrorists or murderers outside of its prevalent law. So there is justification with which pro-British Indians gloat about Indian non-response in kind to the British.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 27 Mar 2013 14:41

It is heartening for me to see - that Indian parliamentarians did not take umbrage at this discussion in the UK parliament - on something that should be an internal legal matter for India. It does indicate that the Raj mentality continues in a mutually consensual acceptance by the core of the Indian establishment with its UK counterpart - even if formally India is independent. Must be a proof of sense of British propriety and non-arrogance.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 27 Mar 2013 15:10

Just a timely reminder of the foundational sentiment of the side that was handed over power: note that all the voices mentioned are the sole representatives of Indian feeling about the British and its legacy or its continued role : that is 4 voices in all. Two of them alone brought independence to India, and these four also are the sole conscience keepers of the nation where UK is concerned.

In acceptance of an Honorary Degree from Oxford University on 8 July, 2005.- by Honbl PM Mnamohan Singh.

Mr Chancellor, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I must, at the outset, express my deep sense of shock and anger at the terrorist attacks in London yesterday. On behalf of the people of India, and on my own behalf, I convey sincere condolences to the families and friends of the deceased and the injured. I also extend the sympathy and solidarity of the people of India to the people of the United Kingdom, in particular the citizens of London.

I arrived here in the U.K. after dealing with the aftermath of yet another terrorist attack in India. It is clear once again that terrorism is a global threat. Terrorism anywhere is a threat to peace, freedom, human dignity and civilisation everywhere. Terrorism is cowardice aimed at the innocent. It is fed on hatred and cynicism. Every time terrorists strike anywhere, all of us who believe in democracy and the rule of law must stand together and affirm our commitment to fight this scourge resolutely and unitedly.

I sincerely hope that all those who cherish and value open and free societies will join hands in the war against terrorism, wherever it is fought. I wish the people of London well. I pray that their lives will soon return to normalcy and they can resume their celebrations for having been chosen as the venue for the 2012 Olympics.

Mr Chancellor, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is an emotional moment for me. Oxford brings back many fond memories that I cherish. For this reason, as much as for the intrinsic value of the honour you bestow upon me, I am truly overwhelmed. I am grateful to you, Mr Chancellor, and to your colleagues, for this honour. I have had the good fortune of receiving several honorary degrees. However, there can be nothing more valuable than receiving an honorary degree from one's own alma mater. To be so honoured by a university where one has burnt the proverbial midnight oil to earn a regular degree, is a most fulfilling experience. I thank you for it. This is a day I will truly cherish.

The world has changed beyond recognition since I was a student here. Yet, some age-old problems endure. Developing countries have found a new voice, a new status and have acquired a new sense of confidence over the last few decades. As an Indian, I see a new sense of hope and purpose. This new optimism gives us Indians a new sense of self-confidence and it shapes our world view today. It would be no exaggeration to suggest that the success of hundreds of young Indian students and professionals in Universities like Oxford, and elsewhere across the world, has contributed to this renewed self-confidence of a new India.

The economics we learnt at Oxford in the 1950s was also marked by optimism about the economic prospects for the post-War and post-colonial world. But in the 1960s and 1970s, much of the focus of development economics shifted to concerns about the limits to growth. There was considerable doubt about the benefits of international trade for developing countries. I must confess that when I returned home to India, I was struck by the deep distrust of the world displayed by many of my countrymen. We were overwhelmed by the legacy of our immediate past. Not just by the perceived negative consequences of British imperial rule, but also by the sense that we were left out in the cold by the Cold War.

There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis for. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income. However, what is significant about the Indo-British relationship is the fact that despite the economic impact of colonial rule, the relationship between individual Indians and Britons, even at the time of our Independence, was relaxed and, I may even say, benign. [yes - sure the countless maimed, killed, tortured, executed, deprived of land and means of livelihood all had excellent individual relationships like between JLN and Dickie Birdie]

This was best exemplified by the exchange that Mahatma Gandhi had here at Oxford in 1931 when he met members of the Raleigh Club and the Indian Majlis. The Mahatma was in England then for the Round Table Conference and during its recess, he spent two weekends at the home of A.D. Lindsay, the Master of Balliol. At this meeting, the Mahatma was asked: "How far would you cut India off from the Empire?" His reply was precise - "From the Empire, entirely; from the British nation not at all, if I want India to gain and not to grieve." He added, "The British Empire is an Empire only because of India. The Emperorship must go and I should love to be an equal partner with Britain, sharing her joys and sorrows. But it must be a partnership on equal terms." This remarkable statement by the Mahatma has defined the basis of our relationship with Britain.

Jawaharlal Nehru echoed this sentiment when he urged the Indian Constituent Assembly in 1949 to vote in favour of India's membership of the Commonwealth. Nehru set the tone for independent India's relations with its former master when he intervened in the Constituent Assembly's debate on India joining the Commonwealth and said:

"I wanted the world to see that India did not lack faith in herself, and that India was prepared to co-operate even with those with whom she had been fighting in the past provided the basis of the co-operation today was honourable, that it was a free basis, a basis which would lead to the good not only of ourselves, but of the world also. That is to say, we would not deny that co-operation simply because in the past we had fought and thus carry on the trail of our past karma along with us. We have to wash out the past with all its evil." [Yes and he also agreed to other things like on Union Jack hoisting but which were not generally publicized]

India and Britain set an example to the rest of the world in the way they sought to relate to each other, thanks to the wisdom and foresight of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. When I became the Finance Minister of India in 1991, our Government launched the Indo-British Partnership Initiative. Our relationship had by then evolved to a stage where we had come to regard each other as partners. Today, there is no doubt in my mind that Britain and India are indeed partners and have much in common in their approach to a wide range of global issues.[well obviously not in Afghanistan as shown by the London conference from which India was excluded, and obviously not on the death penalty issue or the Khalistani terror revival - but maybe agreements should be seen in the vague general wordings of statements issued about "cooperation" and should not be expected in concrete cases]

What impelled the Mahatma to take such a positive view of Britain and the British people even as he challenged the Empire and colonial rule? It was, undoubtedly, his recognition of the elements of fair play that characterized so much of the ways of the British in India. Consider the fact that an important slogan of India's struggle for freedom was that "Self Government is more precious than Good Government". That, of course, is the essence of democracy. But the slogan suggests that even at the height of our campaign for freedom from colonial rule, we did not entirely reject the British claim to good governance. We merely asserted our natural right to self-governance.

Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian Prime Minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too. Our notions of the rule of law, of a Constitutional government, of a free press, of a professional civil service, of modern universities and research laboratories have all been fashioned in the crucible where an age old civilization met the dominant Empire of the day. These are all elements which we still value and cherish. Our judiciary, our legal system, our bureaucracy and our police are all great institutions, derived from British-Indian administration and they have served the country well.

Of all the legacies of the Raj, none is more important than the English language and the modern school system. That is, if you leave out cricket! Of course, people here may not recognise the language we speak, but let me assure you that it is English! In indigenising English, as so many people have done in so many nations across the world, we have made the language our own. Our choice of prepositions may not always be the Queen's English; we might occasionally split the infinitive; and we may drop an article here and add an extra one there. I am sure everyone will agree, however, that English has been enriched by Indian creativity as well and we have given you R.K. Narayan and Salman Rushdie. Today, English in India is seen as just another Indian language.

The idea of India as enshrined in our Constitution, with its emphasis on the principles of secularism, democracy, the rule of law and, above all, the equality of all human beings irrespective of caste, community, language or ethnicity, has deep roots in India's ancient civilization. However, it is undeniable that the founding fathers of our republic were also greatly influenced by the ideas associated with the age of enlightenment in Europe. Our Constitution remains a testimony to the enduring interplay between what is essentially Indian and what is very British in our intellectual heritage.

The idea of India as an inclusive and plural society, draws on both these traditions. The success of our experiment of building a democracy within the framework of a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious society will encourage all societies to walk the path we have trodden. In this journey, both Britain and India have learnt from each other and have much to teach the world. This is perhaps the most enduring aspect of the Indo-British encounter.

It used to be said that the sun never sets on the British Empire. I am afraid we were partly responsible for sending that adage out of fashion! But, if there is one phenomenon on which the sun cannot set, it is the world of the English speaking people, in which the people of Indian origin are the single largest component.

No Indian has paid a more poetic and generous tribute to Britain for this inheritance than Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore. In the opening lines of his Gitanjali, Gurudev says:

"The West has today opened its door.
There are treasures for us to take.
We will take and we will also give,
From the open shores of India's immense humanity."

To see the India - British relationship as one of 'give and take', at the time when he first did so, was an act of courage and statesmanship. It was, however, also an act of great foresight. As we look back and also look ahead, it is clear that the Indo-British relationship is one of 'give and take'. The challenge before us today is to see how we can take this mutually beneficial relationship forward in an increasingly inter-dependent world.

I wish to end by returning to my alma mater. Oxford, since the 19th century, has been a centre for Sanskrit learning and the study of Indian culture. The Boden professorship in Sanskrit, and the Spalding professorship in Eastern Religions and Ethics, stand testimony to the university's commitment to India and Indian culture. I recall with pride the fact that the Spalding professorship was held by two very distinguished Indians: Dr S. Radhakrishnan, who later became the President of India, and by Dr. Bimal Krishna Matilal. In the context of the study and preservation of Indian culture, I also wish to recall the contribution of another Oxonian, Lord Curzon, about whose project to preserve and restore Indian monuments, Jawaharlal Nehru said, "After every other Viceroy has been forgotten, Curzon will be remembered because he restored all that was beautiful in India."

Oxford has sent out many men to rule India. Some stayed behind to become India's friends. Men like Edward Thompson, Verrier Elwin and many others are remembered in India for their contribution to our life and society.
[At one stroke Curzon's politically divisive role and the foundational contribution to the long chain of events leading to Partition and its violence and continued Islamism - waived out of representation - with a benign Curzon being reconstructed. This is the Brito-phile method.]

I always come back to the city of dreaming spires and of lost causes as a student. Mr Chancellor, I am here this time in all humility as the representative of a great nation and a great people. I am beholden to you, Mr Chancellor, and to my old university for the honour that I receive today. Thank you.

What is pertinent to note is that - this voice - or the sentiments echoed by this voice is represented as India. But more so in the context of discussion on the forum, this speech is a crucial and compact exemplar of the mindset in post-Independence India that is an attempt at a hybrid of two fundamentally opposing civilizational viewpoints, essentially an impossibility and more a cover for the consciousness of rootlessness and a hankering for acknowledgment and recognition by an identity perceived to be the superior one. There is shame and anxiety in rejecting the British, for there is no strong faith or pride in the Indian one.

The speech gives away two crucial subconscious acknowledgment of the dependence - the idea that "self-confidence" is based on "recognition and approval" by British or other foreign systems, and that Oxford/British education systems produce the best "rulers" of India, and pride and allusion to the Oxford connection of the speaking "ruler".

This was the foundation of the collaborator class that was fostered through the carrot and stick policy of the Raj, and remains the fundamental block in India truly finding itself as an independent policy framer in the global context. And the collaborator class remains active - and knows that part of its strength derives from the collaboration, and hence the vicious aggression to defend British image or the silence as in the case of the UK parliamentary daring to debate something that is a matter of internal legal concern. No handwaving and shouting that this is after all India's law and non-Indians should not be demanding that Indian law be flouted.

Just remember - onlee 4 voices represent the sum-total of Indian feelings about the past and the future of how Indians should look at UK. MKG, JLN, Rabindranath Thakur, and honbl PM Shri Manmohan Singh.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 27 Mar 2013 21:06

There is only the appreciative-of-the-British statements by MKG that are usually quoted : most of his other problematic quotes are never mentioned - one for example is,

Had we adopted non-violence as the weapon of the strong, because we realised that it was more effective than any other weapon, in fact the mightiest force in the world, we would have made use of its full potency and not have discarded it as soon as the fight against the British was over or we were in a position to wield conventional weapons. But as I have already said, we adopted it out of our helplessness. If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.
Speech (16 June 1947) as the official date for Indian independence approached (15 August 1947) , as quoted in Mahatma Gandhi : The Last Phase (1958) by Pyarelal Nayyar, p. 326.

Here the standard interpretation is that he is talking of "other Indians". Typically this interpretation is accompanied by the quote restricted only to the last sentence. The reason the full paragraph is usually not quoted is because taken in the context of his other texts - like "doctrine of the sword", this would implicate the Indian component of the "non-violent" movement as fraudulent or insincere - according to his own laid out standards and criteria.

MKG's own assessment of the general Indian attitude and mindset towards the British - if we assume that he did not include himself in the "we" that would have nuked UK - in 1947, is that India in general would have gone forward to nuke UK.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Mar 2013 21:14

brihaspati wrote:MKG's own assessment of the general Indian attitude and mindset towards the British - if we assume that he did not include himself in the "we" that would have nuked UK - in 1947, is that India in general would have gone forward to nuke UK.

Now that is something one doesn't hear all too often!

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 27 Mar 2013 21:54

eklavya,

I am afraid you are right.
The problem is that the various Human Rights provisions make it impossible for a Democracy to defend itself.
Law firms which specialise in "Human Rights" are very left/communist/socialist leaning, infact you would think they were still involved in Student Union politics.
However the old saying that a Liberal/lefty is just someone who hasn't been mugged yet is true.
As the islamists increase in confidence so they will attack the two sacred cows of the left/liberals, the gays and women. It will be interesting to see how they react.

Britains secret services have always been hand in glove with the islamists. I remember a story in the Times during the Yugoslav civil war of a group of MI5/6 officers flying to Bosnia to meet up with the moslem militia's in conjunction with Hizbut Tarir activists from the UK!!!
What the hell were they thinking???

Have a look at this from the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... n-war.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... in-UK.html

It is only a matter of time and the UK is going to be mauled by their own rabid dog.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 28 Mar 2013 04:10

brihaspati wrote: This was the foundation of the collaborator class that was fostered through the carrot and stick policy of the Raj, and remains the fundamental block in India truly finding itself as an independent policy framer in the global context.

A heavy dose of ignorance was the foundation and a complete disregard for the facts fostered the retard class which thinks that Nehru-ji (along with Nasser, Sukarno, Tito, etc.) came up with the Non Aligned Movement and the Indo-Soviet Friendship Treaty was signed under Indira Gandhi's premiership as a means of perpetuating British influence.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Mar 2013 07:11

Retards often show up in their selective swallowing of hagiographies - especially the loud ones who are in love with everything British and Nehruvian - or rather the sole fulcrum of their otherwise deracinated lives. The Bandung conference is very well studied in the history of international relations. Those a little bit honest and not intellectually challenged - usually study up what JLN attempted, and what the end results were.

Someone called Kotalewala's role in nicely diminishing JLN's fondest rhetoric, the pushing to the front of Chou en Lai, and successful British FO/CO manipulations of the majority of the "commonwealth" countries which were simultaneously commonwealth and "non-aligned" - in both the lead up to and the follow-ups has generated a lot of papers.

In fact the UK FO/CO was early on in the game - and were active in shaping up who would be invited, where the conference should be held, and how the commonwealth countries should respond, how and on what issues.

The first official "non-aligned" heads of states conference was held at the initiative of Tito 6 years after Bandung - 1 year before China invaded India, and all talk of Panchsheel had to be thrown away to appeal for US airpower. Tito's motivations for non-alignment have been questioned on the basis of the mysterious supposed document of secret British-Soviet percentage division of Europe as zones of influence as apparently agreed between Churchill and Stalin.

The remarkable independence shown in allying with the Soviets must have been revealed in the extraordinary hemming and hawing and postponing of buying of Soviet aircraft while JLN was still the sole ruler.

Finally - the whole internal tussle between US and UK over continuing influence or control from colonial presence needs to be forgotten to represent India's supposed non-alignment as being disadvantageous to UK. Non-alignment would ensure slower militarization in India, greater protection and military capacity buildup for Pakistan, promotion of a false sense of security with China until it would be too late - that is except India, both of India's military enemies would be given time to prepare for their respective aggressions while India would be starved of defence buildup.

In fact not everyone in the British policy making side at the time failed to see the advantages for UK. It would be in their interest if India stayed neutral.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 Mar 2013 07:34

Very interesting to see how people cannot connect the obvious dots even when equipped with the benefit of hindsight.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 28 Mar 2013 08:13

A question related to UK but a diversion from the topic at hand -

B ji, Eklavya ji, Haresh ji, Lalmohan ji, and others who are knowledgeable about UK, could you please comment on the recent passing of the law that bloggers/on-line news outlets need to register with the HMG to limit the slander/libel liability? Is it good, bad or neutral for free speech and civil liberties?

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 28 Mar 2013 16:11

matrimc,

Do you have a link to a story please?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Mar 2013 17:30

matrimc ji,
has the bill been passed? I am not following the story. But are you referring to the follow up from the Tamiz vs Google case?

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 28 Mar 2013 17:32

brihaspati wrote:
alexis wrote:In international relations, might is right. So there is one law for US and another for India.
So you agree that for UK, following the "letter of the law" is not a priority - but it alls depends on who is mightier internationally.

India is also the same. Indian SC allowed Italian marines to go for voting!!!
Perhaps a confusion of logic? You wanted to show that India kowtows to mightier ones in legal affairs. That only shows that India "also kowtows". It does in no way show that "UK" courts strictly follow the letter of the law irrespective of the might or political interest behind the accused.

When did SC allow African and Asian nationals under trial in India to go for voting?
This again is interesting on its own - for you have to show court proceedings that explicitly dealt with requests for "voting in country of citizenship " from African or other Asian nations, which were refused.

I also dont expect India to extradite anyone who killed a British citizen in Indian soil to UK.
Quite possibly true. But if there would be suspected terror or anti-state angles to it, we cannot be so sure. Is it not also interesting that none of the terror outfits on Indian soil ever go after European heads and torsos' and none of them ever killed a British - or visibly "white" British - on Indian soil? When they take "white Europeans" hostage, they treat them well, and let them go - as in the Naxalite "capture" of "Italians". Maybe they know which side their bread is buttered on? Also it is not just about saving "whites".

Even in the notorious AFPAK - how many British "whites" have been targeted for torture/capture/liquidation compared to Americans?

On the other hand, Europeans are most reluctant to hand over European criminals involved in actions against the Indian state - to Indian courts - as in the Purulia arms drop cases.

Why should we expect UK to further Indian interests?
That is the whole point of the debate. You have hit the nail on its head. But wouldn't you expect it? Given that we are no longer supposed to be enemies - and all friends and brothers? We are suppose dto have left the bitterness of the Raj solidly buried in the sand and cooperate and collaborate in a new "friendship"? Is it not living in the past if we still suspect UK to have subversive motives against India?

Abhishek_Sharma ji - one of them initially got 25 years and the second got 21 years. These were later reduced by a couple of years (by 5 years and 2 months respectively). As far as I knew sometime ago- both are now free and maintain low profiles. The third one as you yourself posted - got freed by the jury after 9 days, even if his fingerprints were apparently found on handguns connected to the case.

I only stated that everyone kowtows to might. One quote "due process of law" only when the other side is weak. India and UK are similar in this aspect.

i dont expect any nation to further interest of another nation unless it suits its interests. So i dont expect UK/US/Italy to further our interests. Similarly i dont expect India to further interests of other countries.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Mar 2013 18:26

alexis wrote:i dont expect any nation to further interest of another nation unless it suits its interests. So i dont expect UK/US/Italy to further our interests. Similarly i dont expect India to further interests of other countries.

'Nation' is perhaps here not the right granularity. I think many just don't believe that there is anybody speaking from the Indian side.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 29 Mar 2013 00:26

I gather that this is called the Leveson deal. Here is the link to The Guardian which I harvested from slashdot.

Press regulation deal sparks fears of high libel fines for bloggers:Websites could have to pay exemplary damages if they don't sign up to new regulator, claim opponents of Leveson deal

Here is the link to the slashdot.

UK Bloggers Could Face Libel Fines Unless Registered As Press

slashdot posters are widely considered to be very libertarian. So sometimes they go overboard when it comes to rights. In any case several putative UK citizens posted their comments in the above discussion with opposing views which. So there is two sides to the story. What I gather is the following:

1. The bill passed with overwhelming - almost close to being unanimous - majority in the house of commons. But they are asking for "second reading" (what does that mean?).

2. Will go to upper house and the lords can send it back several times. If it is anything like Indian system (which is highly likely as India follows British political system), then they would have to pass the bill after 3 returns to the lower house.

3. The bill in its current form seems to be aimed at the big publishing houses.This seems to be in reaction to the recent Murdoch news paper reporters tapping of phones. In that sense, it seems to be a good thing. Looks the only people who are opposing it are the big news houses who would have to register now. Lords obstructing the bill seems to be a given considering that the British elite are in bed with big business.

4. One worry people seem to have is that this could be used as the thin wedge (or at the top of the proverbial slippery slope) to further limit free speech on the internet (aka blogging by individuals) slowly but surely.

May be it is much ado about .

In any case, BRF admins should look into this to see if BRF is affected.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 29 Mar 2013 02:20

alexis wrote:So i dont expect UK/US/Italy to further our interests. Similarly i dont expect India to further interests of other countries.

Why not? They do require access to potentially very large Indian markets. India would not (should not) be averse if they offer a good deal, i.e. on India's terms. That requires trust and there is large trust deficit with UK due to their meddling in the subcontinent.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 29 Mar 2013 06:03

brihaspati wrote:Retards often show up in their selective swallowing of hagiographies - especially the loud ones who are in love with everything British and Nehruvian - or rather the sole fulcrum of their otherwise deracinated lives. The Bandung conference is very well studied in the history of international relations. Those a little bit honest and not intellectually challenged - usually study up what JLN attempted, and what the end results were.

Someone called Kotalewala's role in nicely diminishing JLN's fondest rhetoric, the pushing to the front of Chou en Lai, and successful British FO/CO manipulations of the majority of the "commonwealth" countries which were simultaneously commonwealth and "non-aligned" - in both the lead up to and the follow-ups has generated a lot of papers.

In fact the UK FO/CO was early on in the game - and were active in shaping up who would be invited, where the conference should be held, and how the commonwealth countries should respond, how and on what issues.

The first official "non-aligned" heads of states conference was held at the initiative of Tito 6 years after Bandung - 1 year before China invaded India, and all talk of Panchsheel had to be thrown away to appeal for US airpower. Tito's motivations for non-alignment have been questioned on the basis of the mysterious supposed document of secret British-Soviet percentage division of Europe as zones of influence as apparently agreed between Churchill and Stalin.

The remarkable independence shown in allying with the Soviets must have been revealed in the extraordinary hemming and hawing and postponing of buying of Soviet aircraft while JLN was still the sole ruler.

Finally - the whole internal tussle between US and UK over continuing influence or control from colonial presence needs to be forgotten to represent India's supposed non-alignment as being disadvantageous to UK. Non-alignment would ensure slower militarization in India, greater protection and military capacity buildup for Pakistan, promotion of a false sense of security with China until it would be too late - that is except India, both of India's military enemies would be given time to prepare for their respective aggressions while India would be starved of defence buildup.

In fact not everyone in the British policy making side at the time failed to see the advantages for UK. It would be in their interest if India stayed neutral.

What a load of retarded nonsense. Nehru-ji was one of the main drivers of Bandung and subsequently NAM, neither of which were remotely instruments to promote British foreign policy interests. I note that the retardator did not make even a feeble attempt (the retardator's tiny mind was overwhelmed by the paki feat of logic of linking Nehru's role at Bandung/NAM to the promotion of British interests) to show how Indira Gandhi was collaborating with British foreign policy.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Mar 2013 09:01

retard devotees of whitewashing Brit+Nehruvian-image project - never ever care to look up existing material - from their much loved British scholarship sources too. Just like their pretentious and dishonest masters, they wait quietly even if they comes across such material - because acknowledging the existence of such material pierces their fragile egos, as well as proves that they are lying all the time to protect their masters' image.

Their own favourite British side scholarship has put up ample material to try and show that Nehru's role in Bandung was minimal, only enhanced Chinese role and the stature of Chou, and that the British had their interests kept in good hands through commonwealth politics. British FO+CO were quiet active and quite successful in their supposed objectives in manipulating the delegates and even the invitation process.

Mere abuse is insufficient to dismiss the record - even if it is a favourite British tactic. The retard devotees of the British ruling systems will do no research of their own, exclude all material that goes against their propaganda, and when such material is put up by dissenters - they will hand wave in true management or banker style - if feasible, and if infeasible - simply ignore and pretend as if the counter-material does not exist.

The retard devotees constantly try to stretch and hem and haw and flutter - a forever shifting of focal points of a discussion. The topic was the leadership at transition to whom power was "handed" over by the Brits - and the sly "manager" is drawing even IG into the category!

The liar agents of British imperialism kept silent all along about what they knew about very British investigations into how the ruling regime and its police were constantly bending the "law" - and not working at all within the so-called "letter of the law" which they were supposedly "required" to and were strictly "constrained by" - all the while they were accusing others of not knowing about how strictly constrained British regime+police+state was always by the "letter of the law". When faced with the record, they do not acknowledge that they were deliberately keeping silent while abusing their critics - pretending as if all the reports of bending the law didn't exist - but merely hand wave - oh they were just exceptions. The habitual liars next stop responding when asked to look up repeated and continuing records of the habits of the same forces in constantly going beyond the "letter of the law" continuing into the latest phase as in Iraq - because they hope to establish the "exceptional" nature by not acknowledging the other cases.

These abusive habitual liars show exactly the traditional British imperialism phase state level method of dealing with exposure of their own twisted and hagiographic mentalities.

I wonder - trying to apply the method of the hagiographers - if the retard is really managing people or finances of others, how much is he screw*** with his clients lives and savings by lying and abusing or pretending absence of material that contradicts his pitch? Has the "city" really concentrated such crooked elements from the world over in its towers and that which in no small way destroyed millions of lives through what is effectively fraud even if working within the "letter of the law"? The method on this thread and the financial crooks - appear uncannily similar. I guess such a personal speculation is fair for this thread since similar speculations have gone by without apparent censor a short while ago.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 29 Mar 2013 14:39

brihaspati wrote: The liar agents of British imperialism kept silent all along about what they knew about very British investigations into how the ruling regime and its police were constantly bending the "law" - and not working at all within the so-called "letter of the law" which they were supposedly "required" to and were strictly "constrained by" - all the while they were accusing others of not knowing about how strictly constrained British regime+police+state was always by the "letter of the law". When faced with the record, they do not acknowledge that they were deliberately keeping silent while abusing their critics - pretending as if all the reports of bending the law didn't exist - but merely hand wave - oh they were just exceptions. The habitual liars next stop responding when asked to look up repeated and continuing records of the habits of the same forces in constantly going beyond the "letter of the law" continuing into the latest phase as in Iraq - because they hope to establish the "exceptional" nature by not acknowledging the other cases.

.

I am getting tired of this.
This was the original focus of the discussion. Enough evidence has been provided to show that Britards provide sanctuary to all kinds of dangerous men and groups.
London is the main draw for warlords, separatists and terrorists. And London loves the money that comes with it. HOw else would guys like Duspercenti , who even an illiterate numb-nut of an abdul knows is corrupt, walk freely , buy property and enjoy the good life in England.
Let us see , for warlords , we have Mexican cartels laundering money through HSBC. For sepearatists - that runs into probably severals 10s if not 100s. KAshmir, Khalistan etc. Let us not forget that British authorities were fully in the know and knew what was about to unfold in the Purulia arms drop case. Terrorists - Abou Farres from the Algerian groups, Hamas , the LTTE allowed a free run. London IS the terrorist haven. Despite overwhelming proof , all of which were listed politely, this poster goes on and on . What else can one say - a perfect shoeshine boy !

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 29 Mar 2013 14:48

More.
HSBC lax in preventing money laundering by cartels, terrorists/
UK fights image as terrorist haven

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 29 Mar 2013 15:07

Neela wrote:More.
...
UK fights image as terrorist haven

There is nothing in the news article which shows that UK is actually "fighting" the terrorist haven image. Remarkable.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 29 Mar 2013 15:40

brihaspati wrote:
This was the foundation of the collaborator class that was fostered through the carrot and stick policy of the Raj, and remains the fundamental block in India truly finding itself as an independent policy framer in the global context.

brihaspati wrote: The topic was the leadership at transition to whom power was "handed" over by the Brits - and the sly "manager" is drawing even IG into the category!

So, it was always known that the retardator is a bare-faced liar, and here he is at it again. He quotes a speech given in 2005 by a British-educated PM and clearly alleges that the British-educated collaborator class ruling India is the fundamental block, etc to this day. Well, Nehru-ji, Indira Gandhi and Manmohan Singh were all educated at British universities. Either the retardator withdraws his original allegation, which he knows he cannot defend, or he has to lie about what he was actually alleging. So, the retardator chooses to lie, which he does all the time anyway, including about Nehru-ji's foreign policy, which had nothing to do with preserving British influence. The retardator has only succeeded in exposing his own pathetic lies.

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 29 Mar 2013 16:25

From the guardian, islams best friend in the UK.

No mention of the fact that the police found a envelope, stuffed with cash about £100, 000 marked "for the mujahedeen in Chechnya"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... y-save-him

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 29 Mar 2013 17:24

Neela wrote:
brihaspati wrote: The liar agents of British imperialism kept silent all along about what they knew about very British investigations into how the ruling regime and its police were constantly bending the "law" - and not working at all within the so-called "letter of the law" which they were supposedly "required" to and were strictly "constrained by" - all the while they were accusing others of not knowing about how strictly constrained British regime+police+state was always by the "letter of the law". When faced with the record, they do not acknowledge that they were deliberately keeping silent while abusing their critics - pretending as if all the reports of bending the law didn't exist - but merely hand wave - oh they were just exceptions. The habitual liars next stop responding when asked to look up repeated and continuing records of the habits of the same forces in constantly going beyond the "letter of the law" continuing into the latest phase as in Iraq - because they hope to establish the "exceptional" nature by not acknowledging the other cases.

.
I am getting tired of this.
.

Me too...

Neela wrote: This was the original focus of the discussion. Enough evidence has been provided to show that Britards provide sanctuary to all kinds of dangerous men and groups.
London is the main draw for warlords, separatists and terrorists. And London loves the money that comes with it. HOw else would guys like Duspercenti , who even an illiterate numb-nut of an abdul knows is corrupt, walk freely , buy property and enjoy the good life in England.
Let us see , for warlords , we have Mexican cartels laundering money through HSBC. For sepearatists - that runs into probably severals 10s if not 100s. KAshmir, Khalistan etc. Let us not forget that British authorities were fully in the know and knew what was about to unfold in the Purulia arms drop case. Terrorists - Abou Farres from the Algerian groups, Hamas , the LTTE allowed a free run. London IS the terrorist haven. Despite overwhelming proof , all of which were listed politely, this poster goes on and on . What else can one say - a perfect shoeshine boy !

And this is a benign view: that brits were merely greedy b@sturds.
The worst case scenario is that the brits are trying to perpetuate their Raj era politics by actively propping up separatist elements in most of its colonies(one of the prime ones being India). Similarly, the NAM was just a facade to avoid joining the Amirkhan side. It was the Amirkhans who made the brits to give up their colonial possessions. Because the Amirkhans were looking to take over the baton. Like typical brit elites, they were playing from all sides. They were 'advising' the Amirkhans and taking their help in various matters, they were also planting those elites into power in the colonies(while freeing them) which would perpetuate the Raj in a crypto manner. Dear Chacha ji happened to be one such pliant elite who was chosen not because of his capability or popularity(both of which, he lacked), but because of his deracination and compliance. Of course, the brits may not be the only ones to have handle on uncle ji, others(like USSR) may also have had a handle on him.

As for his daughter, there are open allegations both online and other media that she was sponsored by KGB and her cabinet was infiltrated by both super-powers at the time. In fact, KGB seems to have admitted that it was sponsoring the family from that time.

So, the worst case scenario is that the brits have been trying to re-colonize the desh and for this purpose the brits purposely kept desh divided and destabilized(by creating pakis and wannabe pakis and then supporting them).

The CITY seems to be the headquarters of international financial networks which seem to have grown rich by accumulating the wealth from various countries during colonial period and post-WWs. They are using this wealth to perpetuate their hegemony by propping up separatist movements, revolutions and what not. These networks seem to connect the various mafias, drug-lords, separatists and elites from various erst-while colonies. The same networks seem to be used to move the funds by the jihadis as well. It for this reason that the elites do not finish off the separatists in their own country. If some country tries to liberate itself from such foreign funded separatists then various 'legal arms' of the network come into the play. LTTE is a good example. And that is the reason for the survival of Naxals. Roberto moved against the LTTE and was gone. His mother was also gone when she went against Khalistanis(which she had helped in propping up).

Most of the islamist regimes are directly or indirectly also propped by them. And when it suits them, these islamist regimes are disposed off on some pretext or the other(like democracy...

). Of course, even while they are busy disposing off one tyrant and setting up democracy, at the same time they would be providing asylum to many erstwhile or potential tyrants or islamists.

Rule of law(or even morals) are remembered when it suits them to remember it. And forgotten when it suits them to forget it. Even while hosting Mush, they had the temerity to deny visa to Modi!

And we are being given 'respect for law and morals' lecture. Pathetic performance! I mean if one wants to polish up the image of one's master, then atleast one should choose a good topic and good timing(and a good opponent). All I can say is that this particular discussion is only bringing out how dubious and double-faced the brit regime has been(thanks to various posters who have posted here on this issue). Even in the face of facts(and the clear inference), bluster and abuses are being used to deny the obvious. And that is getting tiring indeed. It is embarrassing to watch this pathetic arguments that brits could not stop the separatists just because of the 'law', oh the sacred law which just cannot be violated! And when it was shown by various posters that the same law did not stop the same brits from going after many others in other cases, then the attempts to obfuscate the issue by portraying it as some sort of exception.

Trying to bring the rulers of desh into the equation to divert the issue. Really!!! As if anyone believes(or argues) the rulers of desh are dudh ka dhula...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Mar 2013 18:24

Can this be independently verified?

http://larouchepac.com/node/13595

Two MI6 Agents In Delhi Detained
February 18, 2010 • 8:12PM

The Indian Intelligence Bureau (IB) has detained two British nationals, Stephen Hampston and Steve Martin, in New Delhi's Radisson Hotel following reports of their suspicious activities. Following questioning, the Indian intelligence officials found them carrying a map of the Indira Gandhi International Airport (Delhi's international airport) and sophisticated equipment that could track aircraft, including military planes. "The equipment, which is believed to have the capacity to track an aircraft [from] around 100 kilometres away, is being examined by experts," the news agency quoted an unnamed senior police official as saying. "They checked into the hotel on February 13 and hotel authorities informed us after they found their activities suspicious. We are questioning them," a police officer said.

Delhi was on high alert since the Pune bombing last week, where two bombs were thrown at the German Bakery. The bombs killed 9 people and injured at least 40.

The British intelligence activity has been hastened up following a decision by Islamabad and New Delhi to hold talks on Feb. 25. The MI6 agents and the Pune bombers were trying to create major incidents which would put the suspicion on Islamabad cancelling the talks.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Mar 2013 18:26

brihaspati garu,

a direct question: can you imagine that Nathuram Godse was being played by the Brits? Is it possible to use that as a working hypothesis?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Mar 2013 19:14

I have proposed before - that the cases that stand out in sharp contrast to British intel record against violent groups in India, includes the supposed failure to "know" about how demobilized or ex-BIA Muslim soldiers were training the ML gangs in preparation for "direct action", and the "assassination" of MKG.

If one follows the case-records of the British empire phase court depositions against insurgent groups in India, one can see that they almost always succeeded in planting moles at the heart of the groups [the few exceptions I know, perhaps better not be mentioned. They afford a study for Brito-philes as to what might thwart them in their agenda.]

Even the white paper published by HMG of India in 1943 on the 1942 developments, quote passages from MKG's frustration at the "nonviolent" struggle not yielding what he wanted - and his hints of potentially allowing "violence". The Brits mention this to delegtimize MKG's image - but they also quote other Congress leaders at that meeting. Note that most of the members of that meeting were picked up ina couple of hours in early morning [this particular meeting went into the depths of the night]. Someone had quickly ran immediately from the meeting to his/her Brit handlers to report. Also as is typcial in such scenarios - therew ould be at least two - to verify each other's inputs independently to the handlers.

When the Brits had this level of penetration of the Congress highest echelons, and almost every other organized overt opposition groups - it would be not unlikely to hypothesize that the assassination plan was allowed to go forward with full knowledge from the core of the British intel.

The hand of the assassin is the most visible one but not the head. The Punjabi fanatics murdering IG or Nathuram - are people who have already left their rationality behind out of deep personal grievance and idealism. But what the intel plants do - is to fund, resource, support, facilitate and enocurage or intensify by radicalism - these individuals to take the drastic step. I am not beyond supposing that the org/orgs which put up Nathuram had individual plants handled by Brit intel.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Mar 2013 19:42

brihaspati garu,

it is interesting that 3 of our 5 leaders assassinated were killed through assassination from an individual from an org which had some subcontinental religio-ethnic grievance with the leader but a org whose members were often resident in UK - Pre-Partition Brit-loving Indian diaspora (could have influenced Nathuram Godse to kill MK Gandhi), Khalistani diaspora (who could have influenced Beant Singh and Satwant Singh to kill Indira Gandhi) and LTTE diaspora (who could have influenced Dhanu to kill Rajiv Gandhi). There is a certain pattern there.

In the case of Indira Gandhi even her interview scheduled on that date was with a Brit reporter.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 29 Mar 2013 21:37

Godse's ideology and thinking was virtually identical to that of the Hindu-nationalists who accuse the Congress of pandering to muslims, etc. He was or had been a member of the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, although the RSS is clearly ashamed about this association.

This is what Godse said at his trial:

My Life, My Wall
I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy, which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi. I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi's persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims.

As for the people he was working with:

Why Godse Killed Gandhi???
In those early days of freedom, it was unthinkable that anybody would dare raise a finger, leave alone a gun, at Gandhi. Yet Nathuram Vinayak Godse did the unthinkable, with more than a little help from Narayan Apte, Vishnu Karkare, Gopal Godse, Madanlal Pahwa and Digambar Badge. Godse assassinated Gandhi on January 30, 1948, approaching him during the evening prayer, bowing, and shooting him three times at close range with a Beretta semi-automatic pistol. Immediately after this, he surrendered himself to police. Nathuram Godse, Apte and their accomplices look remarkably relaxed during the trial, unconcerned about the possibility of being sentenced to death – eventually Godse and Apte were hanged; Karkare, Gopal Godse, Pahwa were sentenced to life imprisonment. They never regretted their deed.