Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

[nachiket]

The khujli being generated in some quarters when the Queendom is criticized is quite amusing to watch.

But I see that the arguments of "Queendom follows the letter of the Law!!" have now degenerated into what shiv saar likes to call "torn-shirt open-fly" arguments of "See India is no better!!".

[Sanku]

I did not see you post any facts or information,

Why blame you failing on others then?

Once more -- the question that I objected to is STILL poorly phrased

However the question is still improperly framed. This was there in my post.

For the question to be meaningful, one would have to define, what is meant by separatism, against who, and under what conditions, the answer would also be more than one word.

The general answer to the vague question is "it depends".

You cant have "is sucking your thumb good or bad" type of question when discussing centuries of institutionalized duplicitous behavior by a power whose chief source of live-hood has been resource extraction through force.

Amazing you missed all this. Guess one sees what one can see.

[RajeshA]

The fact of the matter is that Britain has nurtured both Khalistanis and Islamic fundamentalists to further their agenda against India.

Evidence please Rohit.

There was a report by Matt Waldman about ISI-Taliban links: "The Sun in the Sky". In this context the only interesting thing is the phrase "The Sun in the Sky"!. In India we also have the proverb "Sita kis ka Baap tha?"

Britain has used more of Islam(-ism) to sabotage rivals and colonies than Saudi Arabia. Britain is Islamism Central! AND Britain is Khalistan Central!

Anyway,

[eklavya]

Why don't you tell me under what provision of British law or India-UK treaty the UK courts would have handed over the killers to Indian jurisdiction. In this case, why did the Indian government not apply to the British courts for extradition?

And what under extradition treaty do western countries want Afghanistan/Pakistan to hand over Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders to them? Afghanistan was bombed (by countries including UK) because OBL was not handed over to them. Why? Maybe OBL could have faced justice in a Sharia court in Afghanistan. Actually Taliban offered exactly that. Did UK apply to an Afghan court for OBL's extradition? Why not? It appears that people remember extradition-related laws selectively. It is a sign of very high levels of honesty.

Mhatre was killed in Britain by British citizens and they faced British justice.

What justice did they face? provide link.

So, let me try and understand your "honest" analysis: are you recommending that India should declare all-out war against the UK and the US unless they hand over Mhatre's killers and David Headley, because only dishonest people talk about extradition treaties (while we are at it, also declare war on Pakistan for not handing over Dawood, various LeT leaders, etc)? Or, are you recommending that the US and the UK should have accepted the Taliban's offer to try OBL for his alleged crimes under Sharia law?

[eklavya]

Once more -- the question that I objected to is STILL poorly phrased

However the question is still improperly framed. This was there in my post.

Amazing you missed all this. Guess one sees what one can see.

The question is very properly phrased, and if you did not find the answer inconvenient, I expect you would have answered it. Why don't you present some facts and information to show that separatism in the UK is illegal. Read and learn something about the SDLP, the SNP and Plaid Cymru instead of talking about "shit".

[Sanku]

The question is very properly phrased, .

Once more

For the question to be meaningful, one would have to define, what is meant by separatism, against who, and under what conditions, the answer would also be more than one word.

The general answer to the vague question is "it depends".

You cant have "is sucking your thumb good or bad" type of question when discussing centuries of institutionalized duplicitous behavior by a power whose chief source of live-hood has been resource extraction through force.

The question is of the quality made by 50 centers from the China. One line posters.

Anyway the question was posed to Lisa, not you. So just what is your problem. Let Lisa answer for him/her/itself. If you can read in more in the four words that compose of the question than rest of us can, please feel free to elaborate.

[Hari Seldon]

There's another option of dealing with Anti-India terror financiers and semi-state actors flourishing in UKstan....

Self-exiled Russian tycoon Berezovsky found dead in his UK home

Boris Berezovsky, 67, was a self-exiled and outspoken Russian tycoon who had a bitter falling out with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

If wishes were horses, fugitives from the Indian justice system - from the Dawood gang to Pervez Mush-e-rough would all be looking over their shoulders whenever in UKstan only....

[Aditya_V]

Hari Seldon -> in Berezovsky case, it seems he was planning to return to Russia and bumped off by Western Intel and blaming Putin.

[eklavya]

The question is of the quality made by 50 centers from the China. One line posters.

Lisa's leg-spin has dislodged your bails, and you are complaining about the quality of the bowling, and hoping for the DRS to call a "no ball"? Having been clean bowled, you started the sledging. A quality Indian gentleman would have walked ... and returned to the nets for some practice.

[Sanku]

The question is of the quality made by 50 centers from the China. One line posters.

Lisa's leg-spin has dislodged your bails, and you are complaining about the quality of the bowling, and hoping for the DRS to call a "no ball"? Having been clean bowled, you started the sledging. A quality Indian gentleman would have walked ... and returned to the nets for some practice.

So you cant still answer the question?

[shiv]

The fact of the matter is that Britain has nurtured both Khalistanis and Islamic fundamentalists to further their agenda against India.

Evidence please Rohit.

Actually, this is a statement/sentiment that requires no evidence. Trying to provide evidence only allows people who don't want to believe it to get airtime and bash it down. It simply needs to be repeated long enough and often enough so that it becomes "common knowledge" among Indians "who have read about it somewhere". Seeding the thought in people's minds is a useful trick and the evidence will eventually present itself to them Such a sentiment would be useful to India in the long term IMO.

This is one way information flows among humans and the presence or absence of evidence is peripheral to the issue.

[Varoon Shekhar]

India could embarrass or worry the UK if it states forcefully, that the UK has a history of supporting Islamic fanaticism and separatism on the Indian subcontinent, and that it(India) would hold the UK partly responsible for any upsurge in Kashmir separatism and violence. India can certainly point to the presence of Kashmiri separatists on British soil.

[RajeshA]

Published on Mar 25 2013
Scots independence vote set for September 18, 2014

SCOTLAND’S referendum will be held on September 18 next year, First Minister Alex Salmond announced in the Scottish Parliament on Thursday, March 21.

The date is contained in the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill, introduced to the Parliament and published today, which also confirms that voters will be asked the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?”.

First Minister Alex Salmond said: “On 18 September 2014 people across Scotland will vote to determine their country’s future.

“It will be a historic day, and one on which this ancient nation decides its place in the world.

“People will be able to choose if they want a Scotland that is independent and able to make her own decisions – with a Scottish Parliament that is responsible for making the most of Scotland’s rich resources to benefit its communities and safeguard the welfare of our most vulnerable citizens and accountable for how we engage other nations around the world.

“Devolution has shown how we can use Holyrood’s powers to improve lives in the policy areas where we are already effectively independent.

“Scotland has made great strides since our national Parliament was reconvened in 1999 after almost 300 years.

“We are a more confident country, secure in the knowledge that when we take decisions for ourselves we can help make this a better place to live for all our citizens.

“September 18, 2014 can be a date which becomes etched in our nation’s story as the day Scotland took a decisive step forward to a better, fairer future.”

Alba gu bràth!

Published on Mar 25 2013
Scottish independence: Support gap narrows

The gap between support and opposition to Scottish independence has narrowed, a poll suggests.

Support has grown by two points since January to 36 per cent and opposition has fallen by one point to 46 per cent, while 18 per cent were undecided, according to the Panelbase poll conducted over the past week.

Among those whose minds are made up, the results show the pro-Union Better Together campaign leads by 56 per cent to 44 per cent.

For pro-independence group Yes Scotland, the poll shows attention will have to be focused on female voters.

A total 47 per cent of men support independence, compared with only 25 per cent of women, with the gap growing by seven points since January.

Opposition stands at 40 per cent for men and 52 per cent for women.

[shiv]

India could embarrass or worry the UK if it states forcefully, that the UK has a history of supporting Islamic fanaticism and separatism on the Indian subcontinent, and that it(India) would hold the UK partly responsible for any upsurge in Kashmir separatism and violence. India can certainly point to the presence of Kashmiri separatists on British soil.

Allegations and insinuations against another party are very useful - especially when subversion and deniability have been used by that other party to make life miserable for you. Things like "Evidence" etc is for mango man - the powerless individual. Not for states. Britain has played her game well and needs to have the game played right back at them.

As far as I am concerned, I have no doubt in my mind that Britain provided shelter to a paticularly rabid set of Islamists whom they imported as "displaced Kashmiri refugees" and allowed Pakistan to use them because it gave them leverage over India. No one can ever prove this and any fool who sets out to provide proof is a nincompoop. The way these things are done are so deniably that proof will not come and when it comes it will be denied. The thing to do is to apply science. You have a working hypothesis on the basis of which you formulate a response. If your working hypothesis is right the response will work. If you wait for "proof" then you will never respond. The working hypothesis here is that Britain acted like a bhench*d and supported both Khalistan and Packee terrorism against india.

[abhishek_sharma]

because only dishonest people talk about extradition treaties

Talking about extradition treaties is fine, but it should be done without exceptions. Only dishonest people remember the importance of extradition treaties selectively.

Or, are you recommending that the US and the UK should have accepted the Taliban's offer to try OBL for his alleged crimes under Sharia law?

Nope, I did not recommend that. I was merely pointing out if Mhatre's killers cannot be extradited to India then OBL cannot be extradited to the west either. We should learn to respect the "local law" in both cases.

are you recommending that India should declare all-out war against the UK and the US unless they hand over Mhatre's killers and David Headley,

Why are you changing the topic? At this stage, we are merely discussing that the British response to terrorism in India was unhelpful and uncooperative. What should India do about it? That is a subject of another discussion. We should have that talk but let us complete this discussion first.

[Shanmukh]

Ekalavya-ji,
Here is another - Britain encouraging nuclear proliferation by Pakistanis by handing out remarkably lenient sentences.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js ... t_norman_1

nagesh, the creation of Pakistan itself by the British is a crime against humanity.

When we very rightly ask the British to get tough on supporters of violent Sikh separatism (and my preference would be for them to use legal methods), violent Sikh separatism is being condoned within India by prominent people and organisations, with no action taken by the government authorities, other than a few empty words:

Eklavya-ji - what has some people in India deciding to honour Bhindranwale got to do with Britain refusing to do what is the right (decent, even) thing? India may be ruled by nitwits, charlatans and traitors, but why would Britain encourage violence in India, by commission or by omission? Is it necessary to get everything in India right before we ask Britain to stop harbouring terrorists?

[eklavya]

Talking about extradition treaties is fine, but it should be done without exceptions. Only dishonest people remember the importance of extradition treaties selectively.

abhishek, you do realise that the purpose of an extradition treaty is to return an accused person to the country where they are accused of having commited a crime. The India-UK extradition treaty was signed in 1993 (many years after Mhatre's murder) and in any case the murder was done on British soil. A British court would not have been able to send the murderers to India under any provision in British law. And if you say "the law be damed", then you are asking for anarchy, and all it entails.

I was merely pointing out if Mhatre's killers cannot be extradited to India then OBL cannot be extradited to the west either. We should learn to respect the "local law" in both cases.

No, we should not respect the savage beasts called the Taliban and their so called laws. If, in your opinion, the British government falls into the same category as the Taliban, then we should simply break relations with Britain and refuse to have anything to do with them. No diplomatic relations, no sporting ties, no educational ties, no military ties, no investment, no travel, nothing.

At this stage, we are merely discussing that the British response to terrorism in India was unhelpful and uncooperative.

Actually, we were discussing whether Britain does enough against people living within her own borders in respect of terrorism against India. What do you think the British government should do? And please do not confuse terrorism with separatism, for they are two different things.

[abhishek_sharma]

No, we should not respect the savage beasts called the Taliban and their so called laws.

Taliban are savage beasts? Why? Because they attack the west? If they had not attacked the US/UK they would be called freedom fighters.

If, in your opinion, the British government falls into the same category as the Taliban,

As far as J&K issue is concerned, what is the difference between the policies of Taliban and British govt? They both support, in different ways, Islamic fundamentalism in J&K (by Pakistan and its proxies).

And please do not confuse terrorism with separatism, for they are two different things.

What is the difference? Kashmiri and Khalistani separatists are involved in terrorist activities. What else do they do? Are they involved in some kind of satyagraha? Are their demands (based on religious extremism) justified?

The British arrest Al-Qaeda fundraisers. Why can't they arrest Khalistani fundraisers?

[Vayutuvan]

So, let me try and understand your "honest" analysis: are you recommending that India should declare all-out war against the UK and the US unless they hand over Mhatre's killers and David Headley,...

eklavya ji, why are you bringing in US here? UK and its elites should stop hiding behind the US.

Indo-UK relations have a different dynamic than the Indo-US relations. I do not have to remind you of the 200 years of brutal imperial British rule of the Indian subcontinent.

You asked a question regarding whether India would be willing to offer protection to UK. The answer is a resounding yes provided UK relinquishes its UN P5 seat to India and lets India decide UK's foreign and monetary policy - in essence UK becomes a protectorate of India with an Indian viceroy sitting on the throne in Buckingham Palace with house of commons a puppet of the viceroy. If the British elite (the assorted Dukes, Barons and the sundry lords and knights) ask for special privileges, I am sure the Indian viceroy would gracefully grant the same as long as they grind grind the British commoners into the ground. But then this should not be a problem as that is what they had been doing for millenia, no?

Indo-US entente is alive and well. What is UK's standing (legal or otherwise) in what is a bilateral issue, i.e. Headley?

[abhishek_sharma]

and in any case the murder was done on British soil. A British court would not have been able to send the murderers to India under any provision in British law.

Yes, I understand why "British law" works to protect Kashmiri terrorists from Indian hands. By the way, note that people accused of killing US consulate officers in Mexico were extradited to US.

The UK does extradite its citizens to other countries. One of them was "accused by the USA of terrorism-related offences arising from alleged involvement over the period of 1997 to 2004 with a series of websites, one of which was located on a server in the United States for a short period." This paragraph is OT because the murder of an Indian diplomat is much less serious than allegedly hosting a terrorism-related website on a server based in US.

Suicide-risk British soldier to be extradited to U.S. over allegations of $100,000 fraud

[alexis]

In international relations, might is right. So there is one law for US and another for India.

India is also the same. Indian SC allowed Italian marines to go for voting!!! When did SC allow African and Asian nationals under trial in India to go for voting?

I also dont expect India to extradite anyone who killed a British citizen in Indian soil to UK.

Why should we expect UK to further Indian interests?

[devesh]

I pity your students. Poor fellows think they are paying for an education, when for free they could have rummaged inside the contents of a rubbish bin.

why has this poster not been warned by the Admins yet?

other posters with similar track record of verbal abuse were given a clear ultimatum, and those who didn't adhere, were banned without question.

[devesh]

Why should we expect UK to further Indian interests?

but what about the "separatism" in Pak-land? how was the BD separatism treated prior to 1971? or Sindh/Baloch spearatism?

or for that matter, Tibetan separatism?

clearly, relationship with India is not valued that greatly by the UK, is it? so India has no reason to expect a "great relationship" or actions from the UK which reflect a "great" relationship. consequently, India has no reason to commit to such actions, right?

[eklavya]

The UK does extradite its citizens to other countries.

Of course it does, for crimes committed in the country requesting the extradition. That's the whole point of an extradition treaty. Nobody forced the Indian government to sign the 1993 extradition treaty with the UK, knowing full well how the British courts operate. If you are aware of a better practical alternative perhaps you should propose it.

To help your thought process, suggest you research whether the Indian government requested jurisdiction over the Mhatre murder, over the recent attack on Lt Gen Brar in London, or over the killing of the Indian crewmen killed by the US Navy last year offshore Dubai? Did the Israeli government request jurisdiction over the attempted murder of its diplomat in New Delhi recently?

[abhishek_sharma]

>> That's the whole point of an extradition treaty.

Nope, people can be turned over to foreign countries even without due extradition process. You may want to introspect on why "the law" is followed selectively.

[abhishek_sharma]

By the way, what punishment did those killers get in the British courts? Can anyone post links? Thanks.

[brihaspati]

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.

[eklavya]

Taliban are savage beasts? Why? Because they attack the west? If they had not attacked the US/UK they would be called freedom fighters.

Well before 9/11, only three governments (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE: all allies of the US, and whose citizens played a prominent role in the 9/11 attacks) recognised the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The rest of the world rightly did not recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

As far as J&K issue is concerned, what is the difference between the policies of Taliban and British govt? They both support, in different ways, Islamic fundamentalism in J&K (by Pakistan and its proxies).

The Taliban trains, funds and arms terrorists. The British government tolerates lawful dissent and protest (and support for separatism is lawful in the UK). There is a vast difference between the two.

What is the difference? Kashmiri and Khalistani separatists are involved in terrorist activities. What else do they do? Are they involved in some kind of satyagraha? Are their demands (based on religious extremism) justified?

The British arrest Al-Qaeda fundraisers. Why can't they arrest Khalistani fundraisers?

There is such a thing as lawful dissent, which can extend to separatism, and it is constitutionally sanctioned in several countries. For example, Arundhati Roy and Barkha Dutt (however much you may disagree with their views on J&K) are not in the same category as Hafiz Mohammed Saeed.

[abhishek_sharma]

^^ Thanks for that information.

>> Of course it does, for crimes committed in the country requesting the extradition. That's the whole point of an extradition treaty.

That is not the whole point of extradition treaty. US consulate officers were killed in Mexico, not in US . But the killers were extradited to US. So the location of crime is not that important.

The seriousness of crime is also not important. People have been sent to other countries when they have been involved in much less serious cases.

The presence/absence of a treaty/law is not of crucial importance. See link in my last post.

Al-Qaeda fundraisers are arrested, but Khalistani fundraisers are left alone. So much for your law enforcement machinery.

The real question is: What is important?

[abhishek_sharma]

>> The British government tolerates lawful dissent and protest (and support for separatism is lawful in the UK). There is a vast difference between the two.

Did Khalistani engage in terrorist activities? And their fundraising continues in UK, right? I guess that is "lawful dissent" and "protest". Why were Al Qaeda fundraisers arrested? They too were "protesting" certain British/western policies.

[Haresh]

abhishek_sharma
"By the way, what punishment did those killers get in the British courts? Can anyone post links? Thanks."

Not much happened, I'm afraid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravindra_Mhatre

[eklavya]

^^^^
So, did the Indian government request extradition of Mhatre's killers? Or of Brar's attackers? Or of the US Navy men who killed the Indian crewman offshore Dubai?

Looks like you are complaining about the wrong government.

Also, you don't have to be a hotshot Supreme Court lawyer to work out that the provisions of the US-Mexico extradition treaty have no bearing on the India-UK extradition treaty, which the Indian government willingly signed.

[abhishek_sharma]

>> So, did the Indian government request extradition of Mhatre's killers?

Well, this discussion started when it was claimed (in an article) that "The British were uncooperative with India in the investigation and declined to hand over those involved in the kidnapping and murder to India for investigation and prosecution.".

What does it mean?

>> Looks like you are complaining about the wrong government.

Looks like you are enamored of the wrong "law abiding" country.

[eklavya]

By the way, what punishment did those killers get in the British courts? Can anyone post links? Thanks.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/DIPLOMAT+ ... 0112846135

http://www.britishmurders.co.uk/murder- ... %20Quayyum

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... 44_580.htm
5. In 1988 the then Secretary of State for the Home Department set the tariff at 25 years in accordance with a House of Commons Written Answer given by Leon Brittan, the then Home Secretary, on 30th November 1983, to be found in columns 505-7 of Hansard:
"Life Sentence Prisoners.
"The release of life sentence prisoners is at the discretion of the Home Secretary, subject to a favourable recommendation by the Parole Board and to consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and, if he is available, the trial judge. Taking account again of the public concern about violent crime, in future I intend to exercise my discretion so that murderers of police or prison officers, terrorist murderers, sexual or sadistic murderers of children and murderers by firearm in the course of robbery can normally expect to serve at least 20 years in custody and there will be cases where the gravity of the offence requires a still longer period. Other murders outside these categories may merit no less punishment to mark the seriousness of the offence."
6. The trial judge had written a letter which concluded with, "say 15 years Raja, 10 years Riaz?". The Lord Chief Justice "suggested" "a minimum period of 21 years" for Raja and 16 years for Riaz. The 1988 decision to set a period of 25 years has subsequently been reconsidered by subsequent Secretaries of States on three occasions, but on each occasion the figure of 25 years has been maintained. The latest decision was in 1998. The Divisional Court (Butler Sloss LJ and Latham J) in 1994 held, insofar as Riaz was concerned, that the decision to confirm the period of 21 years for him was not "irrational". (R v SSHD, ex parte Riaz and Raja unreported, 8th December 1994, CO/0786/94).

^ Top

[abhishek_sharma]

^^ One of the guys whose fingerprints was found on the gun was not punished. Kindly explain.

from wiki

The Birmingham Crown court later acquitted on Dec. 4, 2005 Mohammad Aslam Mirza from three charges — murder, kidnapping and the false imprisonment of Ravindra Mhatre.

[eklavya]

>> So, did the Indian government request extradition of Mhatre's killers?

Well, this discussion started when it was claimed (in an article) that "The British were uncooperative with India in the investigation and declined to hand over those involved in the kidnapping and murder to India for investigation and prosecution.".

What does it mean?

It means that the writer does not understand how legal process works. And you don't care how the legal process works. Made for each other as they say.

>> Looks like you are complaining about the wrong government.

Looks like you are enamored of the wrong "law abiding" country.

Oh sure. While your tax dollars are funding the Pakistani armed forces, the ISI and the LeT.

So, what happened to Yasin Malik? Or is it only murders in the UK (where the murderers are actually brought to justice) that get your sense of patriotism exercised.

[eklavya]

^^ One of the guys whose fingerprints was found on the gun was not punished. Kindly explain.

from wiki

The Birmingham Crown court later acquitted on Dec. 4, 2005 Mohammad Aslam Mirza from three charges — murder, kidnapping and the false imprisonment of Ravindra Mhatre.

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.

[abhishek_sharma]

It means that the writer does not understand how legal process works. And you don't care how the legal process works. Made for each other as they say.

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

So, what happened to Yasin Malik? Or is it only murders in the UK (where the murderers are actually brought to justice) that get your sense of patriotism exercised.

Yasin Malik will be discussed in appropriate thread. This thread is for discussing UK-related issues. Have you noticed?

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.

[eklavya]

>> The British government tolerates lawful dissent and protest (and support for separatism is lawful in the UK). There is a vast difference between the two.

Did Khalistani engage in terrorist activities? And their fundraising continues in UK, right? I guess that is "lawful dissent" and "protest". Why were Al Qaeda fundraisers arrested? They too were "protesting" certain British/western policies.

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.

[abhishek_sharma]

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.