Indo-UK: News & Discussion

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 02 Jul 2009 00:52

Interesting site

‘The Indian caste system and the British’

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 02 Jul 2009 02:06

bart wrote: The government should appoint a body to codify something called Indian English, define its grammar rules, publish and Indian English standard dictionary, and by law all software/OS sold here should be mandated to have Indian English as an option.

You nailed it. Do another IPL on the English..

It won't be such a clean sweep, but once you have your own "Oxford", our numbers will take care of the rest

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Jul 2009 02:12

Avinash R wrote:Some good news. Atleast a start has been made and looted property which has religious significance is being returned.

Guru Gobind Singh's plume brought back
The DIG, who had done a lot of research on the plume, said he had taken possession of the ''Kalgi'' from a family in England after a great persuation. He, however, did not disclose the name of family.

Last time they demanded 75 Million pounds . Wonder how much and who paid the sum for the return of the Kalgi.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Jul 2009 02:23

The Urdu and regional language docs around the 1857 period were neglected I think primarily because of the Marxist ideological straightjacket stemming from Marx's hilarious commentary on the first "war of Independence".

Regime supported Indian historians have always felt uncomfortable with 1857. It has many connotations dangerous for all succeeding Indian regimes.

Marx's comments stifled Indian Marxist historians because they could not decide whether 1857 was "good" or "bad" - bad because it spread colonialism, and good because it overturned "feudalism", and like Alexander's supposed invasion, provided with great relief for the historians, a context and connection to the more "understood" and "comfortable" Marxist-European linear schema of historical development.

Even after Independence, GOI would be uncomfortable with the "mutiny" aspect of the the 1857 military, and I think we will recognize this discomfort even on this forum. The whole gamut of constructions of "martial races" actually based on who remained loyal to licking British boots, perhaps continues in their long shadows even on to the current system - thereby possibly causing discomfort.

The possibility of collaboration between supposedly unmergable faith communities against a GOI perceived as the common enemy is also a dangerous portent.

Then there comes the political ramifications and merry confusions on images of even current political descendants of forces who took an active role. If you focus too much on 1857 as an attempt at "liberation" against a "foreign" occupying force, what happens to the "shining-sun" Scindhia who carries the name of someone who definitely collaborated with and helped this "foreign occupying" force?

I think it should be obvious why it took a certain Savarkar to portray 1857 as a "war of independence", and what happened subsequently to that Savarkar.

Access to these Urdu records, during my attempts, were stymied because, I was not a "professional historian". I had to be "supervised" by an "acceptable professional historian" if I wanted to get access, which I refused. Western journalists, and historians ofcourse even then had easy access. But I have not seen much coming out of their pens - probably they shied away from writing what they found because it would do their regimes no good at all.

Even, recently, with the supposed Glasnost in UK historians, just try to raise two issues - the triangular Atlantic trade and its role in capital extraction and jumpstarting the so-called "industrial revolution", and the role of exploitation of child labour in British capital formation.

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 03 Jul 2009 22:04

This should probably go to marriage or media thread..

But, it is a British legacy that we are throwing out, not an Indian one.

India media hails gay sex ruling

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 03 Jul 2009 22:07

But, it is a British legacy that we are throwing out, not an Indian one.

Succinctly put.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 04 Jul 2009 20:12

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8133299.stm

Eh, what work with India did he do?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 04 Jul 2009 20:41

As Rajaramji mentioned English is indeed a corrupted version of Sanskrit, like the other European languages. I had a few weeks ago had a Japanese ask me how come Indians spoke English so well..i told him it's derived from Sanskrit an Indian language. He did'nt believe it, then. Next day, he landed up and i'd forgotten the incident, and called me to the side. He said i was right. I asked about what? He said English like oher Euro languages in indeed coming from India. I said..oh that..thats common knowledge in India. I bet my bottom yen, this guy would have told this to lots of people.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 04 Jul 2009 20:56

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picture ... l?image=14

Good article. See all pics. I wonder how true are some statements give by Madari..very well covered. Why should the Vadi be banned from something they do so well for so long..

And this is awesome too...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picture ... ml?image=3

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 04 Jul 2009 22:53

English does not derive from Sanskrit any more than apes derived from humans

William Jones

The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 04 Jul 2009 23:06

Further to the court ruling on gay sex.

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/v5/images ... on-600.png

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 04 Jul 2009 23:54

To be really accurate you can say English and Sanskrit have a common ancestor in proto-Indo-European.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Jul 2009 03:36

English is almost entirely "Old-Germanic" - "Freisian" in fact. Those who are familiar with modern versions of both languages will see how English is a horrible corruption of the Germanic. Accents and spellings have been horribly twisted around from the Germanic roots, and obviously the "English" could not manage to catch up to the "language" in over almost 1500 years.

"is" - Germanic "ist"
"almost" - Proto-IE "al", proto-Germanic-"alnaz"
"entire-ly" Latin-"integer"
"Old"- Germanic - "alt"
"in" - Germanic - "in"
"fact" - Latin - "factum"
"Those" - Germanic - "daz"
"who" - Germanic - "hwer"
"are" - Old Norse "eru"
"familiar" - Latin - "familia"
"with" - Germanic "widar" ( apossible Sanskrit connection too)
"versions" - Latin "vertere"
"of" - Germanic "aba", Latin "ab"
"modern" - Latin "modernus"
"both" - Germanic "beide"
"language" - Latin "lingua"
"will" - Germanic "wili"
..............................
(Here Germanic implies old Germanic/old high Germanic)

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Jul 2009 04:03

For those interested in linguistics

Indo-European Languages Tree

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2009 06:32

Loooong time ago, when I was completing my Masters in Artificial Intelligence, during a course in natural Language I was told (in writing) that Sanskrit was the first language. Sanskrit it was/is said was the first to come up with grammar - thus a language.

Just based on some of the Scriptures I find it very hard to believe that there was a "language" prior to Sanskrit. The maturity in ALL respects is unparalleled.

Sorry, back to the thread?

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 05 Jul 2009 08:21

NRao wrote:I find it very hard to believe that there was a "language" prior to Sanskrit

If you do a little bit of research you will figure out that there is another language which is as old as or even older than Sanskrit within India. It is Tamil and it is not derived from Sanskrit. The difference between Sanskrit and Tamil is that Tamil is still alive, used in real life, spoken by millions every day and is jealously protected by millions.

Sorry for the OT. I have no intention of offending anyone here. But I would like to point out that many of us mourn the fact that Sanskrit is not actively used today, but are offended when Tamil's vehemently guard their language.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 05 Jul 2009 08:32

rgsrini wrote:Sorry for the OT. I have no intention of offending anyone here. But I would like to point out that many of us mourn the fact that Sanskrit is not actively used today, but are offended when Tamil's vehemently guard their language.

Who on BRF has shown that attitude?

Can you site any specific posts please?

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 05 Jul 2009 10:28

Kakkaji,

I don't think I can refer you to a post that says that verbatim, because I was trying to point out a general feeling that I have picked up here. Here is one of the recent posts that alludes to that.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 72#p689472
I am sure if I search hard enough I can find similar posts. Even I have the desire to revive Sanskrit...

Anyway, Let me state it differently so that my message is not lost. Here it is. While we are extremely fond of Sanskrit, we don't allow the same consideration to others in our country sometimes. Back to Indo-UK discussions.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 05 Jul 2009 11:26

^^ Absoluely correct, Tamil is indeed seeped in antiquity and goes way back and very well may be the oldest living language on the planet.. However the development of the idea of a hypothetical Proto Indo-European language older than Sanskrit was a result of AIT. It was taken for granted at AIT happened and thus there had to be a linguistic branch from somewhere in Central Asia or the Urals region towards Europe and another towards Norh India (where the Aryans settled). However PIE remains to this day a hypothetical venture. Apologies for the slight OT..

Purush · Post by **Purush** » 05 Jul 2009 13:24

MI6 chief blows his cover as wife's Facebook account reveals family holidays, showbiz friends and links to David Irving
link

The new head of MI6 has been left exposed by a major personal security breach after his wife published intimate photographs and family details on the Facebook website.

Sir John Sawers is due to take over as chief of the Secret Intelligence Service in November, putting him in charge of all Britain's spying operations abroad.

But his wife's entries on the social networking site have exposed potentially compromising details about where they live and work, who their friends are and where they spend their holidays.

Amazingly, she had put virtually no privacy protection on her account, making it visible to any of the site's 200million users who chose to be in the open-access 'London' network - regardless of where in the world they actually were.

There are fears that the hugely embarrassing blunder may have compromised the safety of Sir John's family and friends.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 06 Jul 2009 02:07

rgsrini wrote:Anyway, Let me state it differently so that my message is not lost. Here it is. While we are extremely fond of Sanskrit, we don't allow the same consideration to others in our country sometimes.

That is unfortunate. I don't see why it has to be a zero sum game, where any gains for Sanskrit have to be at the cost of Tamil, or any other Indian language. India is such a large country that we can build enough momentum behind many Indian languages at the same time.

Let those of us who want to support the revival of Sanskrit do so. Let those who wish to have Tamil recognized and supported as a classical language, do so too. Both efforts can move in parallel without one hurting the other.

IndraD · Post by **IndraD** » 06 Jul 2009 12:02

Wife blows new British spy chief's cover online

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 07 Jul 2009 22:27

'If you choose to live in this country, you live by its rules', says judge as she jails Muslim extremists for arson attack on publisher's home
7th July 2009

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Jul 2009 02:21

Tributes paid at 7 July memorial

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Jul 2009 02:27

"Documentary" blames "the British and Israeli Secret Services" for 7/7

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 09 Jul 2009 17:22

Hello,
I am new to the forum. I just wanted to ask some questions.
I was born in the UK, my parents came here from Punjab in the 60's.

I have been lurking around the forums and have only posted on the Real Estate thread.

My questions are as follows:

1/ What is the general opinion of Indians born in the UK?

2/Do you think there will be a "drift back" to India.

3/ I worked for two rich Indian families from India quite some time ago.
Although they professed a hatred of the UK and all things British they were all actually "Brown Sahibs"
All went to UK universities, spoke fluent english rather than Hindi, and also were members of various "establishment" type clubs in London.

One of them had the irritating habit of calling white Britons "Sir/Madam". When I refused to do so he was shocked.
How do you feel about these sort of people ??

4/I can tell you how the average Brit fells about Indians later if you want.
What role do you think the UK Indian diaspora will play in future UK-India relations ?

Regards

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 09 Jul 2009 17:49

X-post

Neela wrote:The beginning of the dramatic decline of tiger populations

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 09 Jul 2009 18:00

beeb's broadside, err broadcast, on PBS on 7-july was amusing onlee. 7-july memorial attended by bigwigs there (better than MMS at least, who ignored the first Mumbai train blasts anniversary).

But interesting thing was the bad guiys were referred to as "terrorists" without the sneer quotes.

The very next segment was about "militants" in Pak's tribal areas. Hmmm, why aren't those milibands terrorists now, one wonders?

Also had a few seconds on general stone throwing by disaffected KM yoots. Ominous. The great $hitish are upto no good as usual in drip by drio keeping the valley in the limelight.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Jul 2009 23:35

Being British is about driving in a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, then travelling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a Japanese TV. Cheers!
And the most British thing of all? Suspicion of all things foreign!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jul 2009 02:08

Welcome Haresh. The best thing the UK diasporia can do is to think and grow rich. Without that they wont ahve role. the reason is demographics. Indian diasporia is not as large as it should be. No doubt on per-captia basis its quite well off but not on an aggregate sense.

Dont be fooled by language. Its only a communication tool. Can't be a basis for identity or ethnicity. India always had its Brown sahibs and black knights and even now has Resident Non Indians.

The test is how do they feel about India?

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 10 Jul 2009 08:45

Good to see that at least one judge in the UK has some balls.
Judge tells muslim extremists, "If you choose to live in this country, you live by its rules."

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 10 Jul 2009 09:23

For Hatesh:

I would also suggest UK based Indians to get access to archives on India in Oxford, Cambridge etc., read/scan and publish every unknown stories about India. Many people will have to get involved in that.

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 10 Jul 2009 16:07

Many Thanks for your replies.

"The test is how do they feel about India?"

It has been more than 20 years since I last visited.
I was single then and since I got married in 1995 and had children I can only say the importance of India to my identity has grown.

My father used to visit India (Punjab) twice a year.
My kids knew nothing of India until they talked to Grandad. They know they are somehow connected to this vast and mysterious land are wish to visit it.

I have met people of India decent in the UK who have either:
1/ No interest in India and have changed their names from Davinder/Darshan to "Dave" or Jagdish/Joginder to "Joe"

2/People who have an interest and wish to reconnect, but unfortunatly have lost their roots. The children of indentured labourers from 3/4/5 generations ago.

3/People like myself who have a link and do not want under any circumstances to loose it.

The goras in the UK are harking back to Empire & at the same time need India for business.
Whenever a story about India appears the inevitable derogatoty comments appear.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Busine ... rchresults

At the same time they are $hit scared of the moslems in the UK and appease them whenever they can.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 10 Jul 2009 20:37

They are finished here. The real trouble now is between the islamists and everyone else, and I do mean everyone.

How is that possible? Islam is only 3% of UKstani population, is it not? That too concentrated in some urban ghettos, no? And watched, infiltrated, manipulated constantly by the likes of MI5 etc, no? If jokers like Anjem Choudhary are the islamist threat to Ukstan, then the joke is on the islamists, I daresay.

Sure, some have surmised that the 3% figure is deceptive because the faithful have large families and their proportion in the under-5 population is a lot higher and that in the under-1 popn may just pop the double digit mark. Meanwhile the natives grow old rapidly and worry more about pensions than creeping islamization the majority of them won't be around to enjoy anyway. That is the alarmist POV.

Time will tell who wins in UKstan.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 10 Jul 2009 21:13

he is correct in that pakistanis and muslims are a big terror group in UK. And they are so because the British govt turns their face away to indescretions by this community.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds ... 133134.stm

and more here

Pakistani fans terrorise Indians and South Africans after their victory at the T20 semi-finals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS9na3-W ... re=related
(look at how these 'kids' are waving their fists at those they think are Indian)

In Bradford
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42FbNrbIaIk

In Luton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zKD-BXCjdg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-Xn2-3GkoU

In Bury park, Luton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7G_PcNp8m4

In London
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olHXMfqkxd8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcIwU7-j3qI

other examples:

1. A SIKH waiting in the queue for fish n chips was told by a Pakistani fan draped in the Pakistani flag " take that rag of yer head or we'll rip it off"

these were followed by more imaginative chants such as "f**k u Indians , f**k u Indians"????

3. An SIKH male, 5.8 wearing an Indian top was walking towards his seat at the front of the ground with his friend, ( News stand), was immediately, booed and jeered at by Pakistani fans, with all sorts of swearing in Urdu directed towards him. He was then set upon by two Pakistanis, who ran up to him, waving fists by the side of his head, (fist sign which means b*llo*k, im sure u know), aimed i guess at the fact that he was wearing an Indian top.

They then proceeded to cover his head with the Pakistan flag and choke him out, and one of the Pakistani men, snatched his beer and poured it over his head.

The Pakistani crowd (young and old, inc women) cheered in approval, then began the RACIST chant "who let the SINGHS OUT, WOOF, WOOF!

The police who were merely 10 metres away, very casually made there way towards the trouble/assault.

BY the time they got there, the perpetrators had already fled.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 10 Jul 2009 21:32

The Pakistani crowd (young and old, inc women) cheered in approval, then began the RACIST chant "who let the SINGHS OUT, WOOF, WOOF!

WTF?

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 11 Jul 2009 16:33

Take it easy on Muslim extremists, police told

by Macer Hall for the Daily Express, July 11

Police will be ordered not to charge Muslim extremists in many hate crime cases – to stop them becoming more militant.

Guidelines will tell forces to press for conviction only in cases of clear-cut criminal acts.

Officers will be advised not to proceed when evidence of lawbreaking is “borderline”.

Examples of crimes to which a blind eye may be turned include incitement to religious hatred or viewing extremist material on the internet.

Last night critics warned that the move could mean Islamic radicals being give the freedom to encourage violence.

Some saw the move as a politically correct attempt to appease extremists who hate Britain.

It could even mean officers tolerating many activities of Muslim preachers of hate like the hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza.

Tory MP David Davies said: “This sounds like abject surrender. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law.

“It doesn’t matter whether someone is suspected of incitement to hatred or shoplifting – they should all face the same risk of prosecution.

“There should be no special favours or treatment for any section of the community.”

Officials insist there is no suggestion that people who have clearly committed offences will avoid prosecution.

Hmmm. One comment notes:

In part, they don't want to subject Muslims to prison dawah by incarcerating them. Essentially, they are creating a new problem in order to sidestep the one they already created by allowing the prisons to become conduits for jihadist indoctrination -- a move also influenced by a politically correct fear of the consequences of causing offense.

Like a wise ekhanomist (JK Galbraith?) said of certain ekhanomic activities decades ago:

It works great. Till it doesn't

So shall the 2 sides in UKstan (only 1 of whom appears eager to fight right now) discover when phase transition occurs and anew equilibrium is discovered after a mayhemic interregnum. I wouldn't write off any side at this time. In a decade we will know who has the upper hand, I surmise.

Sure enough. Some on the extreme right in UKstan seem ready to take the bait.

The BNP leader Nick Griffin has described Islam as a “cancer” that should be removed from Europe by "chemotherapy".

In an interview with Channel 4 News, Mr Griffin, who has just been elected to the European Parliament, said there was "no place in Europe for Islam".

The BNP leader said he agreed with a candidate for the Flemish far right party, Vlaams Belang, who had declared: "We urgently need global chemotherapy against Islam to save civilisation."

link

No doubt extremists like Anjem Chaudhary and Griffin cloud the debate and over-represent their real strength. But as the demographic numbers change, so will the potency of the threat to peace. UKstan and EU have to be careful. The world is watching if they will live upto their humanitarian principles.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 11 Jul 2009 17:21

Interesting choice of words..chemotheraphy, he is not advocating surgery, perhaps to stay on the right side of eengleesh law

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 11 Jul 2009 19:49

Anyway back to the UK govt's appeasment of islamic fanaticism. Here is a letter written by a Labour MP begging for votes.
It is really sickening:
Labour and British Muslims:
Can we dream the same dream?
by Mike O`Brien MP

Are some Muslims about to vote against the best friend they have ever had in government? Can people really claim that the Labour Government is a friend of Muslims after Iraq? The answer may surprise you.

Understandably, many Muslims are very angry about the war. Traditionally they have supported Labour but some are now switching to the Liberal Democrats, Respect or even the Tories. But the real question is whether there is a danger that anger may be causing Muslims to vote against their own long-term interests?

Putting a cross on a ballot paper is much more than just about expressing anger; a General Election is not some kind of referendum on the Governments` record on one issue. It is about making a balanced political judgment between political parties and deciding which of them should have a majority in a Parliament. It is about the kind of country you want to live in. It is about considering what a Labour Government rather than a Conservative Government has done and will do in the future for Muslims. I suggest that a vote, which weighs in the balance the long-term implications for Muslims, is the right approach.

We all know the importance of Iraq. Indeed, some people will try to convince you that it is the only issue that matters. Most however, will look beyond Iraq to also consider other issues such as the fate of the Palestinians. Despite the many setbacks over the last few years, the creation of a Palestinian state is a cause that the Prime Minister has repeatedly raised with great conviction and never abandoned. He has even declared it to be his personal priority. It is the key to peace in the Middle East. He has long advocated a two state solution, Palestine and Israel, side by side, both at peace. The reality is that the only way a Palestinian state will be created is if Israel is prepared to concede land it currently occupies on the West Bank and Gaza. Whether we in Britain like it or not, the reality of the modern world is that only the Americans can influence Israel. And it seems only Tony Blair has any influence with the Americans. Can anyone seriously imagine that Michael Howard or Charles Kennedy would be able to significantly influence George W. Bush? If they do, then they need to join the real world. The Prime Minister who has the most political clout to help the Palestinians is Tony Blair.

No one claims that the creation of a Palestinian state is going to be an easy ride for Tony Blair or for the Labour government but we are willing to stay the distance, no matter how difficult it gets. The Labour government and the Prime Minister have a record of arguing strongly that the creation of a Palestinian state is essential to peace and justice, and that any settlement must be based upon land being given for peace in line with UN Resolution 242. When the Americans and Israelis refused to negotiate with Yasser Arafat, Tony Blair promptly sent myself as the Foreign Office Minister, to visit Yasser Arafat in the Muquata in Ramallah to convey the message that we had not abandoned him. Tony Blair’s message was clear: we will work with the elected leader of the Palestinians, even if the Americans will not. On the issue of the assassination of the leaders of Hamas, Jack Straw as the Foreign Secretary was the first Western politician to condemn Israel’s actions.

Soon after the recent US elections, Tony Blair travelled to Washington to make it very clear that he wanted to see the road map to a Palestinian state opened up. If we are to have a Palestinian state in the next five years, then a key player in creating it will be the British Prime Minister, who will need to have world influence. In practice, only Tony Blair has the required credentials and track record. The reality remains that with George W. Bush in the White House, neither Charles Kennedy nor Michael Howard has the clout to deliver.

Are you still unconvinced that the Muslims need or should want a Labour Prime Minister in Downing Street? Well, let‚s compare Tony Blair with previous Prime Ministers. He is the first Prime Minister to have ever read the Qur‚an, to quote from it and to talk about it. Can anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher or John Major doing the same? Whilst in opposition, Tony Blair had developed a genuine dialogue and relationship with a number of Muslims and Islamic organisations, based not just on getting votes but also on his interest in assisting Muslims achieve their rightful place in British life.

After 1997 Muslim groups were welcomed into the Home Office, the Foreign Office and 10 Downing Street. For the first time ever, four Muslim peers were appointed to the Lords and the first Muslim Labour MPs were elected. Even today, no other Party has a Muslim in the Commons. Labour is also the Party that has the largest number of Muslim councillors. We are proud of this achievement, but we have not yet finished. If you ask who are the only Party running Muslims in seriously winnable seats for the next election, the only answer is Labour.

The Muslim Council of Britain has been at the forefront of lobbying the Government on issues to help Muslims. Recently Iqbal Sacranie, the General Secretary of the Council, asked Tony Blair to declare that the Government would introduce a new law banning religious discrimination. Two weeks later, in the middle of his speech to the Labour Party Conference, Tony Blair promised that the next Labour Government would ban religious discrimination. It was a major victory for the Muslim community in Britain.

But this is not the first and only time that Labour Party has delivered for Muslims. When I was a Home Office Minister in 1997, the MCB lobbied me to introduce not only a new law which would increase sentences for racial violence and harassment but also to recognise the particular problems faced by Muslims. As a result we were able to amend the law to make religion a factor in any violence and harassment. Today, new Crime Bill, announced in the Queens Speech is coming before Parliament to toughen the laws on incitement to religious hatred. This has upset some M.P.`s such as Evan Harris MP, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who has said he will oppose it because it is unnecessary!

Within weeks of coming to power, people will remember that Labour also repealed the appalling Primary Purpose Rule that discriminated against people coming to join their families in Britain, from Pakistan, Bangladesh and from other Muslim countries. This law introduced by the Conservatives caused a great deal of anguish and had broken up families. Labour promised to repeal it and promptly delivered after the election.

The new Labour Government was the first British government to give state recognition and funding to Muslim schools. Previously only Christian and Jewish schools had been allowed this opportunity. The Liberal Democrats opposed Muslim schools and Labour had to push legislation through the Commons against their strong opposition. At the same time the Foreign Office adopted a new policy to provide support for the Hajj delegation, sending doctors and administrators to Saudi Arabia to help British Hajjis. We are the only Western government to do so. Thousands of Muslims who travelled to Mecca have benefited from the change. And each year in the Commons there is now an Eid celebration, often attended by the PM, as he did this year.

I also remember when the issue arose about Muslims being included in the Remembrance Day ceremonies. Tony Blair was appalled that Muslims were being excluded and changed the protocol. He insisted that at all future civic ceremonies, including for example the commemoration of September 11 at St Paul’s Cathedral, Muslims would have a prominent role.

And across a whole range of social issues, on creating jobs, reducing poverty, on welfare reform and housing policy, Muslims have benefited from Labour government policies. Take for example the Sure Start initiative, which financed the new crèche opened at the London Muslim Centre in East London. It provides childcare facilities for the predominantly Muslim women in the whole area, in a place in which they have confidence in leaving their children.

In 2000 I took through the Commons the first Race Relations laws in a quarter of a century. Labour wanted to ensure that all public services had an obligation to promote good community relations. The impact of the law will be wide ranging.

Some might say these changes are all the result of pressure from within the Labour Party rather than the personal influence of Tony Blair himself. It is certainly true that it is the Labour Party as a whole which has had the support of Muslims; it is the Party that has supported migrant communities and the Welfare State. But Tony Blair’s keen interest in Muslim issues has been a key driver of progress through the last seven years. He was keen to ensure the interests of Muslims were considered and protected when Labour introduced the Minimum Wage, the Working Families Tax Credit and community development strategies.

It was also the PM who was personally committed to the intervention in Kosovo to help the Muslims who were being murdered by the Serbs. This was an intervention entirely for humanitarian reasons, opposed by many on the liberal Left of British politics like George Galloway. Many Muslims in Kosovo owe their lives to British intervention. Likewise, British funding of the reconstruction of Bosnia has helped Bosnian Muslims slowly re-build a future. It is Tony Blair who has personally championed the entry of Turkey- a Muslim country into the EU and he has taken a personal interest in dealing with the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. One of the key policies promoted by the Chancellor, Gordon Brown has been development aid, with 33 of the countries receiving British foreign aid being Muslim. Since 1997, the British aid assistance to Bangladesh alone has doubled.

You will have noticed I have left out the anti-terrorism legislation out of this balance sheet. There is no denying that this is a difficult issue; so let me tackle it head on. After the Madrid bombing, no one seriously doubts that we face concerns about terrorism but many have concerns about the ways in which anti-terrorism laws are being implemented.

I come from an Irish Catholic family brought up in the West Midlands. I remember the aftermath of the Birmingham pub bombings, with the introduction of anti-terrorism laws and internment. The 1970s were a time when understandably fear and anger went through the Irish Catholic community in Britain. Remember the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four who were Convicted and later acquitted? Yet, despite the fact that problems arose in implementation of these laws we realise now that the anti terrorist laws were always targeted at terrorists and not at all Irish Catholics. So too today, the legislation is targeted at terrorists, not at all Muslims. Today, Ministers are doing the best they can to ensure that the laws are not wrongly used and have publicly reject the notion that these are anti-Muslim laws. Tony Blair has personally and repeatedly made this clear.

So, I ask Muslims to look at the balance sheet on the Labour government and Blair as a whole. The balance sheet shows show both positives and negatives. No one is suggesting we can possibly measure the suffering of Iraqi’s since the war, any more than we can forget the countless Iraqis that Saddam himself killed during his long tyranny.

It is true that the Prime Minister has disagreed openly with Muslims on removing Saddam and some Muslim may feel betrayed, but, across a range of other vital issues from Kosovo to policies in Britain, the Labour government are trying to deliver an agenda that has shown consideration and respect for Muslims.

And it is also important to reflect on the fact that in some seats a vote for the Liberal Democrats or Respect may be an outlet for anger over Iraq, but, in a House of over 600 MPs, it is unlikely to elect more than a handful of the minority party. The real question is who is in Government? What a protest vote could do across the country is to switch votes away from the Labour column and allow the Party that is in second place in most seats to gain a considerable numbers of M.P.`s. That Party is the Conservative Party, not the Liberal Democrats, nor Respect. The truth is that, if you vote Lib Dem or Respect, then you could end up with a Conservative MP and Conservative Government. That is the mathematics of our system of voting, whether people want it or not. Ask yourself what will Michael Howard do for British Muslims? Will his foreign policy aim to help Palestine? Will he promote legislation to protect you from religious hatred and discrimination? Will he create more jobs or support greater equality? Will he give you the choice of sending your children to a faith school? Will he stand up for the right of Muslim women to wear the hijab? Will he really fight for Turkey, a Muslim country, to join the EU? These are not academic questions. Remember, the last thing we want is to vote in anger and repent at leisure as Michael Howard, with a big smile on his face, walks through the door of Number Ten.

Tony Blair’s record on Iraq may anger many Muslims but his record is about more than one issue. But the issue is about who rules Britain and across a range of issues the Labour Government has delivered again and again for British Muslims. Labour values equality, compassion and a multi-religious Britain and so in that sense we share the dream of most British Muslims. To create that kind of society, we still have a lot to do if we are given the chance.

Mike O‘Brien is the Minister for Energy in the DTI, he is the Labour MP for North Warwickshire.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 11 Jul 2009 20:03

^^^ north warwickshire also being the place with a large concentration of mirpuri muslims... enough to tilt the vote one way or the other
i do think though that some of this vote bank appeasement is in the past. things are hardening