Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

[eklavya]

MMS, SG and their termite are patriotic Indians

Question for you: were the people who murdered Mahatma Gandhi and those who were and are sympathetic to the deed patriotic Indians?

MKG and JLN were responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Hindus. No wonder some people killed MKG. If Indian muslims doing riots in India is ok in view of Babri Masjid, then it is OK for a hindu to kill MKG.

[RajeshA]

MMS, SG and their termite are patriotic Indians

Question for you: were the people who murdered Mahatma Gandhi and those who were and are sympathetic to the deed patriotic Indians?/quote]

Those who murdered MK Gandhi were British agents planted in the RSS. They could not have been patriotic Indians.

[RamaY]

MMS, SG and their termite are patriotic Indians

MKG and JLN were responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Hindus. No wonder some people killed MKG. If Indian muslims doing riots in India is ok in view of Babri Masjid, then it is OK for a hindu to kill MKG.

Question for you: were the people who murdered Mahatma Gandhi and those who were and are sympathetic to the deed patriotic Indians?

Godse killed Gandhi. He was found guilty and got the punishment.

Why did he kill is the question. There are four possibilities.
1. He did it on his own (of course with his friends help)
2. RSS was the mastermind behind it
3. British were the mastermind behind it
4. Someone else was behind it

The entire case was investigated from scenario 2. When they failed to prove it, it was determined to be scenario 1. The case was never investigated from scenarios 3 & 4.

Why? Because it was convenient that Satya(truth) also gets buried with Gandhi. Why didn't the then govt did not investigate the case from all scenarios?

Coming to patriotism -

Patriotism is to protect Bharatiya interests irrespective of who is the enemy.
Is it patriotic to fight against the termite family, who is ruling Bharat for the past 60 years?

[Lilo]

x-post

1)A direct Briturd view in Daily Times

These cartoons are among others which appeared in the Daily Mail, UK, drawn by cartoonist Leslie Illingworth.

November 29,1946

2)Briturd view as reflected by American Intelligence (TIME magazine cover)

The cover of the April 22, 1946 issue of Time magazine pictured a grim-looking Mohammed Ali Jinnah and carried the caption,
"His Muslim tigers want to eat the Hindu cow".

Both the Briturd cartoons depict the fate of India as a Cow being eyed by Al-Bakistan which is supposedly the Tiger .
Also note intricate Psy-Ops in the first one.

[svinayak]

Very important to understand each item in these cartoon. It reveals the western mind and what they thought the fate of the India and Indians and Hindoos during that time

[eklavya]

Is it patriotic to fight against the termite family, who is ruling Bharat for the past 60 years?

The British-educated (LSE and SOAS) Varun Gandhi has been appointed the youngest General Secretary of the BJP. With his political pedigree, I think the rest of the BJP will stand no chance. Nehru-ji and Indira Gandhi will still have the last laugh

[Lilo]

Is it patriotic to fight against the termite family, who is ruling Bharat for the past 60 years?

The British-educated (LSE and SOAS) Varun Gandhi has been appointed the youngest General Secretary of the BJP. With his political pedigree, I think the rest of the BJP will stand no chance. Nehru-ji and Indira Gandhi will still have the last laugh

^^
ekalavya ji,
Nice Photu you found to depict "Nehru ji" laughing ,
A Picture after all is worth a 1000 words .

[Neela]

Just to make it clear: Varun Gandhi did his course from LSE and SOAS through correspondence.

[eklavya]

Lilo ji, you are indeed very perceptive. Since some brave souls on the forum are still valiantly fighting for Independence from the British-educated collaborators, perhaps this one is more appropriate

[eklavya]

Just to make it clear: Varun Gandhi did his course from LSE and SOAS through correspondence.

Do we attribute his education to Royal Mail, the Indian Postal Service, DHL, or FedEx?

[abhishek_sharma]

British peer reveals MI6 role in Lumumba killing

[Lilo]

^^

Again we see the Legendary sense of Briturd "fairplay" and "adherence to Rule of Law" in action .

British peer reveals MI6 role in Lumumba killing - Hasan Suroor

The British intelligence services may have just had one of their best-kept secrets blown: their role in the abduction and assassination of Patrice Lumumba, Congo’s first democratically elected prime minister whose Pan-African nationalism and pro-Moscow leanings alarmed the West.

For more than 50 years, rumours have swirled over allegations of British involvement in Lumumba’s brutal murder in 1961, but nothing has ever been proved — leaving the CIA and its Belgian peers alone to take the rap for what a Belgian writer has described as “the most important assassination of the 20th century.” Now, in a dramatic revelation, a senior British politician has claimed that he got it from the horse’s mouth that it was MI6 that “did” it.
.....

In a little noticed letter to the editor in the latest issue of the London Review of Books (LRB), Lord David Edward Lea responded to the claim in a new book on British intelligence, Empire of Secrets: British intelligence, the Cold War and the Twilight of Empire by Calder Walton, that the jury is still out on Britain’s role in Lumumba’s death. “The question remains whether British plots to assassinate Lumumba … ever amounted to anything. At present, we do not know,” writes Walton.

Lord Lea retorted: “Actually, in this particular case, I can report that we do. It so happens that I was having a cup of tea with Daphne Park… She had been consul and first secretary in Leopoldville, now Kinshasa, from 1959 to 1961, which in practice (this was subsequently acknowledged) meant head of MI6 there. I mentioned the uproar surrounding Lumumba’s abduction and murder, and recalled the theory that MI6 might have had something to do with it. ‘We did,’ she replied, ‘I organised it.’”

According to Lord Lea, she contended that if the West had not intervened, Lumumba would have handed over Congo’s — now called Democratic Republic of Congo — rich mineral deposits to the Russians. When contacted by The Hindu, Lord Lea confirmed the contents of his letter to the LRB and that the conversation over tea took place a few months before Ms. Park died in 2010. “That’s the conversation I had with her and that’s what she told me. I have nothing more to add,” he said when asked if he had any other independent confirmation of Ms. Park’s claim.

....

Lumumba had been sheltered by Rajeshwar Dayal — the Indian diplomat who was the UN Secretary General’s representative in the Congo — for several days but was captured and killed soon after he chose to leave the compound.
....

Actual comment by Lard Lea

Letters
Vol. 35 No. 7 · 11 April 2013

From David Lea
Referring to the controversy surrounding the death of Patrice Lumumba in1960, Bernard Porter quotes Calder Walton’s conclusion: ‘The question remains whether British plots to assassinate Lumumba … ever amounted to anything. At present, we do not know’ (LRB, 21 March). Actually, in this particular case, I can report that we do. It so happens that I was having a cup of tea with Daphne Park – we were colleagues from opposite sides of the Lords – a few months before she died in March 2010. She had been consul and first secretary in Leopoldville, now Kinshasa, from 1959 to 1961, which in practice (this was subsequently acknowledged) meant head of MI6 there. I mentioned the uproar surrounding Lumumba’s abduction and murder, and recalled the theory that MI6 might have had something to do with it. ‘We did,’ she replied, ‘I organised it.’

We went on to discuss her contention that Lumumba would have handed over the whole lot to the Russians: the high-value Katangese uranium deposits as well as the diamonds and other important minerals largely located in the secessionist eastern state of Katanga. Against that, I put the point that I didn’t see how suspicion of Western involvement and of our motivation for Balkanising their country would be a happy augury for the new republic’s peaceful development.

David Lea
London SW1

From Wiki

....

Lumumba was forcibly restrained on the flight to Elizabethville (now Lubumbashi) on 17 January 1961. On arrival, he was conducted under arrest to Brouwez House where he was brutally beaten and tortured by Katangan and Belgian officers, while President Tshombe and his cabinet decided what to do with him.
[edit]Death by firing squad
Later that night, Lumumba was driven to an isolated spot where three firing squads had been assembled. According to David Akerman, Ludo de Witte and Kris Hollington, the firing squads were commanded by a Belgian, Captain Julien Gat; another Belgian, Police Commissioner Verscheure, had overall command of the execution site

His death was formally announced on Katangan radio when it was alleged that he escaped and was killed by enraged villagers. On 18 January, panicked by reports that the burial of the three bodies had been observed, members of the execution team went to dig up the bodies and move them to a place near the border with Northern Rhodesia for reburial. Belgian Police Commissioner Gerard Soete later admitted in several accounts that he and his brother led the first and a second exhumation. Police Commissioner Frans Verscheure also took part. On the afternoon and evening of 21 January, Commissioner Soete and his brother dug up Lumumba's corpse for the second time, cut it up with a hacksaw, and dissolved it in concentrated sulfuric acid . Only some teeth and a fragment of skull and bullets survived the process, kept as souvenirs. In an interview on Belgian television in a program on the assassination of Lumumba in 1999, Soete displayed a bullet and two teeth that he boasted he had saved from Lumumba's body. De Witte also mentions that Verscheure kept souvenirs from the exhumation: bullets from the skull of Lumumba.
....

PS: Admirable work by Hasan Suroor @ Chindu in verifying the letter with the Lard and breaking this story.

[brihaspati]

You fly into an abusive rage when presented with evidence about the success of the leading British universities that contradicts your own statement about the condition of the British education system.

You find it impossible to admit to having made a simple arithmetical error.

You think that the Taj Mahal is only considered beautiful because the British were intent on promoting Islamic artistic achievements.

You hold the INC responsible (due to their concerns for British sensitivities) for the BJP government's decision to not release certain papers about Subhas Chandra Bose.

You believe that the litmus test of the Indo-UK relationship is whether the British government treats perceived Khalistan-affiliated Sikhs in the UK in the violent illegal manner that perceived IRA-affiliated Republicans were treated during the Troubles. You also believe that the British government in this day and age would face no legal constraints were it to follow this path.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -editorial

You believe Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Dr. Manmohan Singh and the INC in general are British-educated "collaborators" serving British, not Indian, interests.

I leave it to you to describe your own political and ideological pathology.

You remained completely silent about the Stevens report all the while you were shouting about how constrained UK authorities were to follow the "letter of the law". As to continuing to be able to do so to the present day - you have similarly ignored many other posters putting up material as to how these law-abiding authorities ship up British citizens to be tortured by third parties.

You justify that the Brit gov had to bend the law because of the "exceptional" situations when it was about non-anti-India phenomena- but you were justifying their "not bending the law" when it was about anti-India movements.

You deliberately kept silent when it was pointed out that the authorities bent the law not only to deal with violent activists but also non-violent ones.

That no evidence exists in Indian narratives before the late 18th century British Raj pushed eulogizing of the Taj-Mahal - of any universal Indian appreciation of the Taj - was posted here. That the British began to push for Taj as the most beuatiful and to-be-celebrated archictectural symbol of India specifically on the point that it was "closer to Greek" styles, and that it was more "muslim" than the despised Hindu architecture - was also explicitly quoted from contemporary articles.

That the INC governments established the practice of Indian administrations consistently removing documents or declaring them lost, or not making them available - where Bose was concerned - is there on the record. The specific case happening under BJP cabinet does in no way detract from the much longer record of the INC in this regard.

You were personally very very eager to agree with the whatever-the-secretary-was's official position that the release of the docs would "tarnish" Bose's image. I showed how that meant you were also agreeing to the only possible logical conclusion of the secretary's viewpoint that - Bose had done very bad things against India and Indians in collaboration with the British. You claimed this agreement personally - not just because of INC or BJP.

As for "success" of British uni's you pushed for a relatively new measure of ranking and remained silent when it was pointed out that the "famous" British unis were falling in ranking globally base don other more established rankings - compared to the past.

I do not think you accused me of making a "simple arithmetic error" - you claimed that I did not "know" or "could not do" arithmetic.

You are habitually abusive. Your tactic is to try and humiliate and abuse your perceived "hostile" enemy. You remain dishonestly silent on evidence that you know will go against your claim, you simply do not respond to them - as in Stevens report or their followups - or the continuing record of British bending of "law" from Kenya to Iraq and after.

As for MKG et al, yes much of their role in retrospect - shows up as protective of aspects of British state structure and ruling systems within India for the benefit of the Congress, as well as protection of image of the British for future Indians. It does appear on many counts as manifested in concrete implementation - that they were fighting against British ownership of the repressive state machinery but not against repression themselves, and not against the British per se. It was about control of the power apparatus and not the ideological and identity foundation of that power apparatus.

Every word that you have uttered here, and most likely in your profession or personal life - has been and will always be to whitewash the image of three entities - British Raj, Jawaharlal Nehru and the Congress. You will always abuse, lie, propagandize, deceive to prove your loyalty to the three. I have no sympathies or appreciation for any of the three as entities even though I have excellent relations with many Congressmen, and I know of many good human members of the party at various levels. Your political party affiliation showed up in your assuming that anyone who does not kowtow to the three must be a BJP/RSS man. You will not find many words of appreciation from me about the BJP on this forum.

All your rants have done is to expose your own political and ideological loyalties - to the British, to Nehru, and to the Congress. However, the sense comes through also that you have not been very active in or actually close to the party, and you have had little or no access to people who had opportunity to work with or observe JLN closely. As for the British, I would rather not discuss my assessment.

By the way - your particular style of abusive word usage - narrows down your professional arena for others to estimate. Would you take your colleagues advise as to how to better disguise yourself? You use particular words and expressions that are practically banned in most legit professions except a few narrow lines.

[brihaspati]

Lilo ji,

Lumumba assassination was ascribed to collaboration between three intel orgs - even at that time - the US and Brits were supposed to have done the heavy lifting under cover of the Belgian intel. The particular sadistic way in which he was executed was supposed to be a hallmark of the relevant Brit component in the planning [there was supposedly an Africa expertise group that developed its skills in Sadism in finishing off the Mau Mau].

The way an assassination/killing is carried out leaves patterns of clues as to who might have been behind the plans. Sadism - usually points to Islamists and or the British. Most capable Islamist such units would anyway have a long historical connection or enabling by British intel - because of ex-colonial time linkages.

[RajeshA]

Just to make it clear: Varun Gandhi did his course from LSE and SOAS through correspondence.

Do we attribute his education to Royal Mail, the Indian Postal Service, DHL, or FedEx?

But it does point out that he may not have been part of an environment which contributes to realigning a person's identification with the interests of Britain.

[eklavya]

brihaspati, have you told your academic associates that you would like the British government to abuse the human rights of the Sikhs in Britain, and have you told your friends in Congress that you consider Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru-ji, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and Manmohan Singh "collaborators"? Or do you have more than your usual difficulty in expressing yourself honestly in a setting where you can't hide?

[eklavya]

But it does point out that he may not have been part of an environment which contributes to realigning a person's identification with the interests of Britain.

You must be right. Especially as Varun Gandhi attended the British School in New Delhi, his alignment must be exactly as you have predicted. Like I said, stellar career in BJP awaits, yet another Nehru-Gandhi makes his mark.

[sanjaykumar]

I don't see Britain having a problem with abusing the human rights of Sikhs. The English have abused the human rights of the planet from Irish to Indians to Africans to Maoris to Chinese.

That is a demonstrably true and banal statement. The present day English, to their credit, understand that but third worlders can't seem to. I wonder why? It is evidence of the self debasement that comes with colonialism? Probably nothing so subtle.

I think this topic can be left for now, there is nothing new but a reiteration of uncritical fealties.

[brihaspati]

ekalavya,
my immediate academic colleagues have no need to know about my position on the British state and its record - since that particular discipline does not bother about sociological or humanities topics. However the larger academic community I interact with and often collaborate with in sociological directions - very much know about my position.

I also know that my saying so is not really going to harm any Sikh - because the UK gov will never ever move against a movement that is part of its wider Islamist-Pak nexus long term traditional strategy to keep Indian govs, especially Congress dynastic leaders, within its net.

You would be surprised to know the amount of feeling within relevant humanities/sociology circles against the record of and current perfidious positions taken up by regimes and govs in UK. Unlike you most of them do not feel the need to whitewash the record. Accepted that a large part if them could be pretending as part of the traditional British institutional honey-trap-ism.

As for my Congress "friends" - yes a lot of them know it too. Many hold similar feelings but cannot say so openly. My tests are undertaken while they are on "liquidity" - a great loosener of inhibitions and fears. JLN is a poster boy or a holy figure onlee for the sake of appearance and for the public or for fear of the "High Command".

[Philip]

The CIA and MI6 have worked in tandem post WW2.They have carried out innumerable assassinations and "regime change",manipulating elections,etc.,to the detriment of poor countries.For example,you can add Mossadegh of Iraq,Nkrumah of Ghana,plus the covert operations in Afghanistan out of Pakistan,which led to the Afghans asking the Soviets to intervene.In years to come,we will be told how the "Arab Spring",like the "coloured" revolutions in former East Bloc nations was engineered by the intel agencies of the west,particularly the CIA and MI6. No guesses as to who is also trying hard to prop up the crony capitalist regime in what was once called Indraprastha!

PS:As an insurance policy,they are now making a "Modi"-cum of friendship towards the colour saffron!

[Gerard]

Baggott: Dissident groups 'trying to outdo each other'

Wonder how long before these rebels receive military aid

[eklavya]

Baggott: Dissident groups 'trying to outdo each other'

Wonder how long before these rebels receive military aid

It appears that Gaddafi was never one to miss out on reciprocating the attention lavished on him by his friends:

Gaddafi sent $2 million to republican dissidents before he was deposed

[RamaY]

It appears that Gaddafi was never one to miss out on reciprocating the attention lavished on him by his friends:

Gaddafi sent $2 million to republican dissidents before he was deposed

The real question should be why are this TFTA klinn and corruption free firangis doing with Gaddafi and most importantly what happened to Gaddafi's billions?

[eklavya]

I also know that my saying so is not really going to harm any Sikh - because the UK gov will never ever move against a movement that is part of its wider Islamist-Pak nexus long term traditional strategy to keep Indian govs, especially Congress dynastic leaders, within its net.

The British government will ignore your wishes to abuse the human rights of its Sikh citizens because that would be unlawful. But you should nevertheless inform your colleagues, students, and the British Foreign Office and Home Office (the next time you visit the UK) that you would like the British government to abuse the human rights of its Sikh citizens.

[Vayutuvan]

The present day English, to their credit, understand that but third worlders can't seem to. I wonder why? It is evidence of the self debasement that comes with colonialism? Probably nothing so subtle.

After sanjaykumar ji's reference to Sir CV Raman, I looked up Wikipedia entry under his name according to which he was completely educated in India. The effects of colonial presence is suffocating and long lasting indeed. The least HMG could do to amend some of its past sins is to come clean and unconditionally apologize to all former colonies along with a pledge of "never again". But that is not as important as to stop meddling in others' affairs - especially subcontinental goings-on. Otherwise, as India makes progress they are sure to come back asking for an eye for the eye HMG took for the 200 years.

HMG would see more brihaspatis in the coming years. IMHO, Brihaspati ji of BRF is but a sample of things to come.

[Sanku]

I also know that my saying so is not really going to harm any Sikh - because the UK gov will never ever move against a movement that is part of its wider Islamist-Pak nexus long term traditional strategy to keep Indian govs, especially Congress dynastic leaders, within its net.

The British government will ignore your wishes to abuse the human rights of its Sikh citizens because that would be unlawful. But you should nevertheless inform your colleagues, students, and the British Foreign Office and Home Office (the next time you visit the UK) that you would like the British government to abuse the human rights of its Sikh citizens.

Where has anyone asked for abuse of human rights of anyone? All one has asked for is to not encourage terrorists and shelter them on British soil. OTOH people have pointed out that Britian does abuse human rights all the time at all the place anyway, so it is ironical if anyone claims "human rights record" as defence for lack of action on terrorists in a case human rights are not being denied.

Why are you deliberately saying untruths?

If you claim to be not , can you copy paste a single quote, where any one has asked for human right abuse?

[Sanku]

I also know that my saying so is not really going to harm any Sikh - because the UK gov will never ever move against a movement that is part of its wider Islamist-Pak nexus long term traditional strategy to keep Indian govs, especially Congress dynastic leaders, within its net.

The British government will ignore your wishes to abuse the human rights of its Sikh citizens because that would be unlawful. But you should nevertheless inform your colleagues, students, and the British Foreign Office and Home Office (the next time you visit the UK) that you would like the British government to abuse the human rights of its Sikh citizens.

B-ji; why are you letting this character go on and on?

[Sagar G]

^^^^ For the same reason we let some people talk about "maalnootrition in Gujrat", just plain fun

[Gerard]

Link

Hooded, hanged and left in agony for hours on end: Palestinian security chief tells how he has tormented 'suspects' with MI6's knowledge... and reveals how Britain helps pay for it with £33m foreign aid

[brihaspati]

ekalavya,
we know you have the deepest of compulsions to protect HMG's image. Just as you justified the imperialist sadism when it was not against anti-India movements, a la McCardie on Jalianwallahbag, you will vehemently defend HMG inaction against anti-India movements.

The more you talk of this - the more your callous and cynical justification of "exceptional" situations to approve of murder and torture on innocents or non-violent activists if they are not against India, as you kept silent on Stevens report all the while you were shouting about strict constraint to act within the letter of the law - attitude in favour of blind support for the murderously racist and anti-Indian [as well as anti-Hindu] sentiments in a section of the British state apparatus - comes out on this thread.

So yes, chatter on in your hagiography. You help to illustrate one of the ways among many others by which the imperialist and race+religion based "other-culture" destruction meme within the Brit regimes succeeded against India, and may do so yet again.

[brihaspati]

The British government will ignore your wishes to abuse the human rights of its Sikh citizens because that would be unlawful. But you should nevertheless inform your colleagues, students, and the British Foreign Office and Home Office (the next time you visit the UK) that you would like the British government to abuse the human rights of its Sikh citizens.

B-ji; why are you letting this character go on and on?

Sanku ji,
not every Brit is a turd, and I would very much like the UK establishment to come to an understanding of the changes that must be brought about in its attitudes towards India, the enemies of India as Pak [and the anti-India forces it has nurtured in BD and Nepal], the political establishment in India that they helped to setup and maintain in power through the formal transfer of power - the Congress, and their centuries old vicious hatred of the "Hindu".

They have to abandon Pakistan, and their use and manipulation of their Chinese establishment links - against India.

They have to change "sides", they have to abandon old "friends" and we would be willing to see to their interests as long as we "benefit" too. But not with their old agenda in support of the three pillars of their India policy - supporting and preserving the Pak as an independent entity, the Cong and its dynasty, and the anti-Hindu agenda. I have always advocated honourable retreat for their human "assets" in India, as long as they leave for good.

It is time for them to realize that the power base is shifting from their assets.

[eklavya]

Where has anyone asked for abuse of human rights of anyone?

Why are you deliberately saying untruths?

If you claim to be not , can you copy paste a single quote, where any one has asked for human right abuse?

brihaspati has repeatedly said that the test of the British government's commitment to fight the Khalistani movement is whether it uses illegal methods, just like it used against the IRA and its supporters / sympathisers. Even brihaspati is not denying it, so I wonder why you are getting hot under the collar. brihaspati keeps referring to the Stevens Inquiries as if they are the UK manual for counter-terrorism, when in fact the Stevens Inquiries are seen within the UK as highlighting what the British security services should NOT have done in the fight against the IRA. I find the irony simply too delicious that brihaspati keeps referring to the Stevens Inquiries to highlight the methods the British government should and could use against the Khalistan supporters, if only their intentions towards India were friendly and sincere.

Brihaspati,
What exactly would you have the UK government do if you could insruct within the remit of UK law?

Lisa ji,
your question is interesting. But first, everything that the UK as a state does going against individuals and organizations - is done within UK law?

Brihaspati Ji
I have asked a very simple question, what would you have the UK legally do. KIndly asvise us of your opinion with regards to Khalistanis for example.

Lisa ji,
my post was very simple actually. Why do you specifically restrict UK action to "legal" onlee when it is about dealing with anti-Indian organizations or activities? UK does not restrict itself to strictly legal operations onlee in such cases.

Brihaspatiji,
No answers despite two polite requests! May be it’s because you don’t know how things really work in the UK.

No I did expect you to insist pointedly on the "legal" process onlee.

Both the Khalistanis and the IRA's would be observed collecting funds. But the information on the IRA would be used to help further tighten the noose around the IRA's support base to physically eliminate the IRA networks. We see nothing of the same on the Khalistanis.

This was why I also politely repeatedly asked you as to
(1) why you are restricting yourself to "legal" onlee methods when I did not specify as such in my original post
(2) whether or not UK state regime always restricts itself to the legal onlee when dealing with separatism.

brihaspati, so your grouse is that the UK is not using illegal methods to deal with supporters of Sikh separatism and terrorism in the UK? You would like the UK government to break UK laws to deal with Sikh separatism and terrorism in the UK?

well ekalavya ji,
Its "absence of laws" as per Lisa ji. So it was not illegal to do what was done against the IRA, and therefore would not be illegal either against the Khalistanis.

I asked you two very simple questions - repeatedly - why do you restrict yourself to "legal" methods only? Do you think that UK has always used only legal methods to deal with separatist violence or separatist organizing towards violence?

Brihaspati, Lisa said that there is no law against separatism. There are a great many laws that constrain the behaviour of the UK government and law enforcement authorities.

Now, please could you spell out exactly what you would like the UK government to do against supporters of Sikh separatism in the UK, many of which are British and therefore also EU citizens. Detention without charge? Phone tapping without warrant? Intimidation? Murder?

ekalavya,
Lisa ji repeatedly insisted that the UK gov and system is constrained to work within the letter of the law - and hence the implication was that the inaction against Khalistanis came out of such constraints of the letter of the law.

I have given a summary of the Stevens report and other related revelations - as available online. If as per Lisa ji - all this is consistent with following the letter of the British law as regards dealing with separatism - I see no reason as to why similar "legal" methods cannot be applied to Khalistanis.

But I hope whatever is available of the Stevens report and a couple of follow-up investigations should show my justification for my statement.

ekalavya,
On any insurrection/violent separatisms - different countries will have different "perceptions" - which has nothing to do with their respective "spirit/letter of laws". They would be in their political/military/big-biz/electoral and "national interests" as perceived by ruling coteries. It has no impact on the actual bone of contention here - applicability of methods applied on the IRA - on the khalistanis - by "letter of law" following UK institutions.

The accusation was that I was applying an "Indian prism" on the situation, but in fact I am simply applying a British prism - because the prism is looking comparatively at dealing with IRA and Khalistanis from the obviously "legal/letter of the law following" British prism.

brihaspati, so your contention is that the British government is free to break the British law, and so you would like the British government to use illegal methods to pursue British supporters of Sikh separatism?

I implied that UK gov/agencies did not move with all that they had moved on other "separatisms", as laid out even in public portions of the reports on IRA-agency nexus, - on Khalistanis, because of non-legal, possibly political or touted nationa interests perspectives. It is not about the "letter of the law".

brihaspati, British intelligence and law enforcement agencies are required to work within the letter of the law. So, Lisa is quite correct on this point. By bringing up the treatment of the IRA, you have only highlighted that in exceptional circumstances governments occasionally end up on the wrong side of their own laws. If your yardstick for how the British state deals with Sikh separatists is how they dealt with the IRA, then you are being a bit naive. I was hoping that the US Government-IRA example would make you understand that each state has its own perceptions and interests and acts accordingly; to expect the British state to break its laws for the benefit of the Indian state is tilting at windmills, to say the least.

If the police are "required" to be constrained "by the letter of the law", then obviously the stuff reported in the investigation findings are a total lie. Both cannot be true at the same time. If formal pious statements are acceptable as covers for something illegal underneath, why is it wrong to expect from the "legal" viewpoint for the UK authorities to move similarly against the Khalistanis - if according to many posts on this thread, they are "friends" of India. Further, some have even suggested that it is UK which needs India or is keen to brush up relations because of economic reasons.

So from the wider geo-political, and even the cynical "self interest onlee" line that you endorse, why is it "dunce/daft/naive" for Indians to expect such returns of favour from the UK?


On a separate note - would you personally like or dislike if the UK gov actually went ahead with the IRA style move against Khalistanis organizing in the UK?

brihaspati, the IRA were violent terrorists, and therefore the intelligence and law enforcement agencies got involved.

The separatists in Scotland are running the country; and no one in their right mind in the UK would propose or support any form of intelligence or law enforcement agency action, legal or illegal, against the Scottish nationalists. So Lisa is right, the UK does nothing against its own law-abiding separatists, let alone the separatists that want to split India.

If someone is planning to kill people, the full force of the law should come down on them. My strong preference would be for the law enforcement and intelligence agencies to always act within the law; and if required, for the laws to be made tougher. I find it paradoxical, but I accept, that law enforcement agencies can sometimes do their job (i.e. protect the public) only by breaking the law.

However, I do not expect the UK government to act against lawful political activity, even of the type that I personally find distasteful, like Sikh separatism.

You are indeed okay with bending the law, or not strictly-constrained-by-the-letter-of-the-law where separatism is concerned, as long as such bending is not done in favour of India and strictly for perceived British interests onlee.

Your example of benevolent treatment of Scottish independence movement compared to the IRA - is slightly problematic because you are editing out the underlying British ruling attitudes towards the Irish, that might have gone dormant now, but comes out often in subtle and not so subtle ways - when alcohol, or other relaxing substances pushes civility masks away. The Irish are still bogmen/and halfway between the "n" word and civilized toff world of proper humanity represented by pure Englishmen.

The Scotts will be treated better than the Irish - because of perceptions of identity. The identity schema of UK's modeling of people, has an elaborate hierarchy. Scotts are still not as good as proper human beings from Anglia say, but yet higher than bogmen.

Since the Scottish independence issue leaves your thesis fatally holed below the waterline, you merrily brand the British ruling classes as racists. God forbid if someone questions the prejudices you display in ample measure.

And the tragedy of your perfidy is that you excuse British "bending of the law" to tackle Irish separatism, as necessary under "exceptional circumstances" but your conscience suddenly flares up in indignation when it comes to asking the Brit gov to do the same against Khalistanis.

If all the methods applied to prevent even mere non-terror political activism was well within the constraints of the law - the question originally was a speculation as to what prevented the application of the same logic and mindset in the UK admin to prevent fundraising and activism among Khalistanis.

My whole contention was to try and make people think as to why there are selective applications of doctrine by the Brits where India is concerned - and which seems uncannily unchanging from the imperialist days. It has relevance - because the Kahalistanis, jihad in the wider AFPak-subcontinental domain, ISI, and UK MI, have all long been appearing together in various search paths for connections.

You repeatedly keep silent and avoid the issue - when I point out that the Brits were using the same methods on both violent as well as non-violent activists. If these were applicable on non-violent actvists on the excuse that such activities would ultimately feed into "violence", then the same logic applies for "peaceful" Khalistanis too.

Under what logic you are defending the actions on nonviolents in one case and denying on another?

[eklavya]

The more you talk of this - the more your callous and cynical justification of "exceptional" situations to approve of murder and torture on innocents or non-violent activists if they are not against India, as you kept silent on Stevens report all the while you were shouting about strict constraint to act within the letter of the law - attitude in favour of blind support for the murderously racist and anti-Indian [as well as anti-Hindu] sentiments in a section of the British state apparatus - comes out on this thread.

Utter lies. You have been using the example of how IRA supporters were mistreated as a template for how the Khalistan supporting Sikhs should be treated. I have repeatedly advocated that the law should be respected. For you the law is essentially just a cover story.

[eklavya]

They have to change "sides", they have to abandon old "friends" and we would be willing to see to their interests as long as we "benefit" too. But not with their old agenda in support of the three pillars of their India policy - supporting and preserving the Pak as an independent entity, the Cong and its dynasty, and the anti-Hindu agenda. I have always advocated honourable retreat for their human "assets" in India, as long as they leave for good.

I would like to see you attach this speech on your passport on your next visit to India and/or the UK.

[RamaY]

Eklavya,

Since when people are required to put their opinion on Pass Port. What logic is that?

[Sanku]

Where has anyone asked for abuse of human rights of anyone?

Why are you deliberately saying untruths?

If you claim to be not , can you copy paste a single quote, where any one has asked for human right abuse?

brihaspati has repeatedly said that the test of the British government's commitment to fight the Khalistani movement is whether it uses illegal methods, just like it used against the IRA and its supporters / sympathisers. ?[/b]

[/quote]

First you used the phrase "human rights of sikh citizens" then you want to show it by claiming that B has said something about "using the same methods of Khalistani terrorists as for IRA"

I dont know about you, but to me, Khalistani terrorists != Sikh citizenry. Yes, I would like UK to use all the methods at HMS disposal that it used for one set of terrorists, against other set of terrorirsts.

Where do Sikhs come into the picture at all?

You really need to stop this you know. You are being rather demeaning to all the Sikhs as well.

[Virupaksha]

Eklavya,

Since when people are required to put their opinion on Pass Port. What logic is that?

RamaY ji,

This is the same ideology of "we are in power, express an opinion against mine and I will see how you will earn a living." threat of these powerful elites. Let us not forget that Mridula mukherjee was removed from NMML for disagreeing with these ideologies.

[Vayutuvan]

My question regarding Leveson deal was intended as a "separating hyperplane" query. Now there is some clarity regarding "free speech".

[eklavya]

Yes, I would like UK to use all the methods at HMS disposal that it used for one set of terrorists, against other set of terrorirsts.

Where do Sikhs come into the picture at all?

You really need to stop this you know. You are being rather demeaning to all the Sikhs as well.

Sanku, brihaspati is saying that all the methods that were used against non-violent supporters of the IRA are also legitimate to be used against non-violent supporters of Khalistan (and a large number of Sikhs in Britain fall into this category).

brihaspati specifically mentions Finucane and the Stevens inquiry: Finucane was a lawyer shot dead in his living room in front of his family by Loyalist (pro UK) terrorists, and the allegation (unproven: the Crown Prosecution Service chose not to prosecute on the weight of evidence available to it) is that the UK security services were aware that this was going to happen / had a role in the murder. brihaspati is saying that if British security services got away with whatever they did or did not do in respect of Finucane, then they should and could treat lawful supporters of Sikh separatism in the same way.

When Lisa and I mentioned that the British tolerate lawful non-violent Scottish (SNP) separatism (as an aside, they also tolerate lawful Welsh (Plaid Cymru) and Irish (SDLP) separatism), brihaspati simply said that as far as the English are concerned:

The Irish are still bogmen/and halfway between the "n" word and civilized toff world of proper humanity represented by pure Englishmen

You are free to associate your views with that of brihaspati; I hope you understand what you doing.

[eklavya]

Eklavya,

Since when people are required to put their opinion on Pass Port. What logic is that?

RamaY ji,

This is the same ideology of "we are in power, express an opinion against mine and I will see how you will earn a living." threat of these powerful elites. Let us not forget that Mridula mukherjee was removed from NMML for disagreeing with these ideologies.

Virupaksha, all of us rely only on the rule of the law for our protection. I think the law enforcement agencies in India and the UK will benefit from keeping track of people (possibly US citizens) who say:

I have always advocated honourable retreat for their human "assets" in India, as long as they leave for good.

brihaspati is now getting ready to cleanse India of his political opponents when his side attain power.