Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Mar 2013 05:30

Those who want to understand possible mechanisms as to how some "freedom fighters" "survive" better than others under British benevolence towards freedom seekers - can perhaps study the process by which Sinn Fein leaders to emerge as prominent ones post negotiations - were surrounded by eyes and ears during their rise-through-the-ranks phase.

member_19686 · Post by **member_19686** » 23 Mar 2013 05:38

PM apologises for MI5's role in murder of Ulster lawyer but wife slams report into police collusion in his murder
38-year-old was shot dead in front of his wife and children at home in 1989
Report by Sir Desmond de Silva QC published today reveals the killing might not have happened without the involvement of security agencies
Widow Geraldine has repeatedly called for a full public inquiry
David Cameron admitted there was collusion between police and loyalists responsible for the killing but only ordered a review of the case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2OJmwbmmx

Famous British spirit of following the "letter of the law".

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 23 Mar 2013 05:50

After having lived in New Zealand for 4 years and Australia for 10, it is exceedingly obvious that the BBC and other British associates are the fountainhead of anti-Indian propaganda in the English speaking world. It is almost comical how anti-Indian articles pop up soon after any Indian advancement. What the BBC shits out, the press in New Zealand and Australia regurgitates. Today, the BBC, the Guardian and the Daily Mail take turns in India bashing.

In 1998 India was the unstable nuclear power that would trigger the next nuclear war. A few days later Pakistan went nuclear at the press of a button. Pakistan's surprising nuclear readiness and the origins of Pakistan's nuclear capacity was deliberately not questioned. India's nuclear restraint for 25 years, unsurpassed among the nuclear powers, was deliberately ignored. India was blamed for somehow forcing Pakistan to "go nuclear" in a few days, a djinn feat no self-endowed nuclear power had achieved by then or achieved since. Kargil came and went. Where was the nuclear war?

India's rush to declare Pakistan the instigator for terrorist attacks in India is ridiculed as simpleton-like behaviour. Today, the Supreme Court of India holds Pakistan and the ISI responsible for the 1993 Mumbai blasts. I'm sure the British are enjoying the fact that it took the Indian legal system 20 years to get to this point.

Audio recordings of Pakistani involvement in the 2008 Mumbai attacks only proved once again that India didn't rush to blame Pakistan for those terrible attacks either, but, of course, British press offered tripe in the guise of civil discourse.

Just like denying India's entry into the UN Security Council, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Australia Group, and other bullshit organisations, is a carefully orchestrated manouevre in which complicit countries take turns in protesting India's inclusion, the British press including the BBC, the Guardian and the Daily Mail, run a carefully orchestrated campaign in denying India of real grievances whilst acknowledging the woes of Pakistan, apparently due to Indian arrogance or hostility.

Australians and New Zealanders had no reason to question the Dossier on the Weapons of Mass Destruction because the "free" press in Mother England gave them no reason to believe that the data was simply a fine piece of manufactured British shit.

I could go on and on. 14 years is a long time to observe, understand, and eventually reject.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 23 Mar 2013 05:56

^^ How could you forget the leading article on BBC the day before India launched Chandrayana - about a survey that shows Indian men have smaller penises.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 23 Mar 2013 06:02

Carl wrote:^^ How could you forget the leading article on BBC the day before India launched Chandrayana - about a survey that shows Indian men have smaller penises.

Yes, I remember that. It was discussed in my work place in Sydney. I wonder if Einstein knew that British shit travels at the speed of light.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 23 Mar 2013 06:03

UK Economy poised to soar, set to regain former glory

Amazing tale. Must read.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Mar 2013 06:03

At a conference soon after, a serious speaker tried to say as table-side joke - that seeking the moon was a hidden mammary fetish. I suggested that maybe seeking poles of the spheroidal earth by adventurers were of the same genre, but seeking angular, conical or cylindrical mountain peaks were perhaps driven by a hankering for more masculine appendages.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 23 Mar 2013 06:07

brihaspati wrote:At a conference soon after, a serious speaker tried to say as table-side joke - that seeking the moon was a hidden mammary fetish. I suggested that maybe seeking poles of the spheroidal earth by adventurers were of the same genre, but seeking angular, conical or cylindrical mountain peaks were perhaps driven by a hankering for more masculine appendages.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 23 Mar 2013 09:02

Why bellyache over Britain/Australia's motivated reporting on India?

Has an Indian publication ever run an investigative report on Australian sexual exploitation of poor Indonesians or British 'tourists' in Goa?

For that matter I don't recall reading the sexual exploits of Australian males in the third world in an Australian paper-perhaps it is accepted as part of their culture.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 23 Mar 2013 12:15

brihaspati wrote: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.

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?

As an aside, it is worth remembering that the IRA was welcome in the White House and on Capitol Hill until 9/11, and many US citizens funded the IRA. So, even allies like the UK and the US were not aligned on how to deal with supporters and funders of terrorism against the UK in the US.

Gerry Adams Shakes Hands With Clinton

Gerry Adams Shakes Hands With Clinton
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: March 17, 1995

For Congress's annual St. Patrick's Day luncheon, Newt Gingrich, the House Speaker, invited Ireland's new Prime Minister, John Bruton, to be the main event. But the first handshake between President Clinton and Gerry Adams, the head of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army, stole the spotlight.

Some of the 50 people at the luncheon, most of them Irish-American members of Congress, thought Mr. Clinton might forgo a handshake because he was under tremendous pressure from Prime Minister John Major of Britain not to give Mr. Adams a warm embrace.

But the President did not hesitate, several people at the luncheon said, although the handshake came after photographers had left the room.

"Gerry was concerned about the protocol of how he should go up to the President, but when he walked up, the President gave him a very big handshake," said Representative Peter T. King, a Republican from Seaford, L.I., who sat to the right of Mr. Adams at the lunch.

After an awkward moment of silence, the room exploded with applause.

Mr. Adams said the President did not urge him to make sure the I.R.A. disarms, something Mr. Major asked the President to do. Mr. Clinton has invited Mr. Adams to a White House reception on Friday and, his aides say, plans to speak to Mr. Major over the weekend in an effort to patch up their differences.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Mar 2013 14:31

sanjaykumar wrote:Why bellyache over Britain/Australia's motivated reporting on India?

Has an Indian publication ever run an investigative report on Australian sexual exploitation of poor Indonesians or British 'tourists' in Goa?

For that matter I don't recall reading the sexual exploits of Australian males in the third world in an Australian paper-perhaps it is accepted as part of their culture.

We have Indian media?

We only have Macaulayite, Cultural Marxist, Dhimmi, and Yuppy media! Who among them really has an Indian PoV? Very few and they are busy countering what the rest of the media say. Hardly any time for such investigative and analysis reports of Westerners. Much of the media does not even have an India-centric mind to think like that!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Mar 2013 19:12

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. She [apologies if I am wrong about the gender] made comments about the IRA's formal giving up of its armed agenda/surrender of arms as if somehow that negated the prior history of UK gov's/secret services/police's "legal" management of the IRA.

She found nothing or apparently being so much more knowledgeable about UK than me - she appeared to be unaware of the Stevens report on the role of the police and its following 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.

This material on UK gov/police/mi5 and the IRA has been in the public domain [at least a large part of it] for a pretty long time. I had/have access to other restricted material but which therefore I cannot quote. Isn't it strange that my repeated hints at the reality of the IRA-UK connection and what it shows about the so-called "letter-of-the-law" was ignored or trashed as showing my lack of knowledge about the British law and her superior knowledge of the same?

Will I be too much in the wrong to interpret this as an attempt to put the real role played by UK's coercive wings under the carpet and defend British selective inaction against separatism - stretch the law or perhaps follow the "law" for crushing certain "separatisms" while taking cover under the excuse of "letter of law" or "constraints" to protect when it comes to desirable separatisms?

In this backdrop was I so wrong in stating that UK used "law" selectively in its political or perceived "national interests" and it had less to do about the "letter of the law" - a contention that Lisaji vehemently protested?. But I hope whatever is available of the Stevens report and a couple of follow-up investigations should show my justification for my statement.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Mar 2013 19:27

ekalavya,
if you ha dcared to notice - I did not edit out the Clinton-Gerry Adams bit in the earlier post. We are not discussing US role - at least that wa snot the starting point of the exchange with Lisa ji. She had taken exception to my desire for the application of all the "methods" that the UK regimes applied on other "separatisms" - on the Khalistanis.

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.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 23 Mar 2013 19:56

^^^^^
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?

Even if your contention is correct (which I very much doubt), I fail to see why a British government should pursue this course of action; after all, what's in it for them? Votes? Money? Security? If India had the bargaining power (say, linking the award of the MMRCA contract to action against Sikh separatism), perhaps the British may proactively hunt down the enemies of the Indian state, but absent such incentives, I can't see the British going out of their way (to the extent of breaking their own laws) to help India in this matter.

I wonder if the BJP, and its political ally and partner in government, the Shiromani Akali Dal, are aligned with your view on this matter. Are you aligned with their views on Balwant Singh Rajoana, who has been convicted and sentenced to death by an Indian court? After all, there are prominent people in Punjab who openly call the terrorists that murdered CM Beant Singh "martyr" and so forth. I wonder what the BJP and SAD government in Punjab is doing about this.

Should we not ask what the state government in Punjab is doing about convicted Sikh terrorists before asking what the government in the UK is doing about their supporters in the UK?

Go to President and get Beant killer released, Akal Takht orders Badal
Reading the order, Akal Takht chief Giani Gurbachan Singh also conferred the title of 'Zinda Shaheed' (Living Martyr) on Rajoana for his "brave, determined and fearless stand against the atrocities by the centre". He also bestowed upon Dilawar Singh, who had blown up Beant Singh and died in the process, the title of 'National Martyr of Sikhs'.

Badal defends his government seeking mercy for Rajoana
He told reporters here that the state government had taken this stand "keeping in view the sentiments of the people and in order to avoid any law and order problem".

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 23 Mar 2013 20:42

Perhaps priority needs to be towards clear discourse by Indians about ISI propaganda so Sikh and in general Indians do not fall for it and waste time. Also, perhaps it is wiser to have better and stronger armed forces so that countries like UK do not create excuses, like Iraq war, while bigger countries like USA with much bigger war machine fight. Better to deal with Americans, Australians well while continuously improvising our own defenses which is needed anyway.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Mar 2013 20:58

ekalavya,
I was not having the debate with you about what should be the priority, which gov or regime should be asked first, which Indian political party should be included in the blame list for inaction or not, which other country sees eye-to-eye with UK on IRA, etc.

You first commented as to why Lisa ji was justified in what she was claiming about the mythical "letter of the law" and "constraints". Then you moved on to why Clinton's mollycoddling of IRA - which you did not explain as to why it was so relevant as to Lisa ji's contention about UK's "legal constraints". In fact, your pointer should show as to why Clinton's actions would be more constraining for the UK to carry out what it was carrying out on the IRA - whereas in reality UK did opposite to what Clinton's favour meant. Why stop at Clinton either - surely if you are this much aware of cross-purposes among the "allies" over the "Irish" question, you know that this particular story has much earlier roots for USA, and why at a certain stage IRA was important for USA's transnational plans for both South America and parts of Asia. But the very fact that UK gov/agencies were doing what they were doing in the period they were doing it - indicates that US actions/demands/pressures were not that "legally constraining" for the UK agencies.

Now you move on to as to why Indian regional or national parties should first be pilloried for failing to take action against Khalistanis. I am not sure what your motivation is in trying to ignore that the context of the debate was about Khalistani organizations in UK and we are discussing UK gov role.

You are most free to bash the BJP or any of its allies as to why they are not doing more to bash the khalistanis in India. I am not a member of any political party registered in India at the moment. This also implies that I have no compulsion to be seen as blindly supporting each and every move or posturing of any political party. I have repeatedly said so on the forum, and I have also repeatedly said that all hopes for the future of India should not be pinned exclusively on the BJP. But none of this is relevant for this thread.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 23 Mar 2013 21:17

Sikhs really do need to return to West Panjab. I don't think there is any room for them in India.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Mar 2013 21:20

^^^Thats an IED better not laid for this thread?

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 23 Mar 2013 21:33

I am only concurring with the sentiments of the Living Matyrs of the Sikh Nation and also suggesting a rational, non-hypocritical course of action. I am sure there is no offence taken.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 23 Mar 2013 22:07

brihaspati wrote: Now you move on to as to why Indian regional or national parties should first be pilloried for failing to take action against Khalistanis. I am not sure what your motivation is in trying to ignore that the context of the debate was about Khalistani organizations in UK and we are discussing UK gov role.

brihaspati, since you are a practiced observer of statecraft, please tell me what sort of self-respecting state would do what you appear to expect the British state to do i.e. break its own laws and persecute its own citizens to help another state for no perceptible benefit to itself?

You must think Whitehall is full of rank dunces.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Mar 2013 23:29

ekalavya,
whether it is in the interest of Whitehall to move against the Khalistanis - is what the fundamental question reduces to. I hope you understand now that yours and Lisa ji's initial contention about inaction==legal constraints == UK gov/institutions always works within legal constraints where separatism is concerned, is overruled by your own supposition - that it is not in the interest of UK/"Whitehall" to move against UK based khalistanis or khalistani movements being sponsored/supported/fed-into from UK.

This was the whole point on which Lisa ji objected - that 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".

I guess we realize we have come back full circle to initial point of the debate?

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 23 Mar 2013 23:57

^^^^^
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.

As an aside, what is your view of the Canadian legal system?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4353555.stm

prahaar · Post by **prahaar** » 24 Mar 2013 00:05

Eklavyaji, you did not acknowledge the fact about national interest governing supreme and not BS like letter of law (even in case of the super law-abiding UK). The reason about not stopping Khalistani activities in UK sounded more like SP/BSP supporting UPA2 to keep out communal BJP

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 24 Mar 2013 00:16

prahaar wrote:Eklavyaji, you did not acknowledge the fact about national interest governing supreme and not BS like letter of law (even in case of the super law-abiding UK). The reason about not stopping Khalistani activities in UK sounded more like SP/BSP supporting UPA2 to keep out communal BJP

prahaar, letter of law is only BS if you want someone else to break the law for your benefit.

Can you please rob my neighbourhood bank and give me the proceeds: if you get caught, you will have my sympathies and, in any case, I will have the bank notes

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 24 Mar 2013 00:38

eklavya wrote:Should we not ask what the state government in Punjab is doing about convicted Sikh terrorists before asking what the government in the UK is doing about their supporters in the UK?

Since when did actions by Indian political parties became an excuse to justify British ignorance/support for anti India elements ???

This type of talk is in the same category as "What about malnootrition in Gujrat".

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 24 Mar 2013 00:47

Sagar G wrote:
eklavya wrote:Should we not ask what the state government in Punjab is doing about convicted Sikh terrorists before asking what the government in the UK is doing about their supporters in the UK?
Since when did actions by Indian political parties became an excuse to justify British ignorance/support for anti India elements ???

This type of talk is in the same category as "What about malnootrition in Gujrat".

Sagar G, can you tell me how the British government is supporting anti India elements?

For example, the US government takes your and brihaspati's tax dollars and uses them to build up the Pakistani armed forces. What is the British government doing to harm India's interests?

brihaspati's view is that the British government should follow illegal methods to pursue anti India elements in Britain. What would you like the British government to do?

I would like the Indian government to hang Rajoana. Where are you on this? We can talk about malnootrition too if you like.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 24 Mar 2013 00:56

eklavya wrote:Sagar G, can you tell me how the British government is supporting anti India elements?

By allowing them to prosper in there land, ex the Attack on Lt. Gen Brar.

eklavya wrote:For example, the US government takes your and brihaspati's tax dollars and uses it to build up the Pakistani armed forces. What is the British government doing to harm India's interests?

It never fails to prop up Pakistan against India similarly like USA.

eklavya wrote:brihaspati's view is that the British government should follow illegal methods to pursue anti India elements in Britain. What would you like the British government to do?

Legal or illegal I don't care they must not allow any anti India activity or elements to maintain any kind of safe havens in Britian.

eklavya wrote:I would like the Indian government to hang Rajoana. Where are you on this?

I agree with you but what India does has got nothing to do with what Britain can do to stop anti India activities on it's ground.

eklavya wrote:We can talk about malnootrition too if you like.

Find a leftie to satisfy your need.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 24 Mar 2013 01:27

Sagar G wrote:
eklavya wrote:Sagar G, can you tell me how the British government is supporting anti India elements?
By allowing them to prosper in there land, ex the Attack on Lt. Gen Brar.

The attackers were caught by the British authorities and are being prosecuted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19837410

If anyone is aware of other acts of terrorism being planned in the UK against India and Indians, they need to bring this to the attention of the Indian and the British authorities: the British authorities are obliged to pursue people planning terrorist activities. But they will not pursue people who talk against India and the Indian state; the law in the UK does not prohibit such activity. A lot of the fund raising (say Gurudwara and Mosque based) for Sikh and Islamic terrorist organisations is almost impossible to differentiate from genuine charitable giving.

Sagar G wrote:
eklavya wrote:For example, the US government takes your and brihaspati's tax dollars and uses it to build up the Pakistani armed forces. What is the British government doing to harm India's interests?
It never fails to prop up Pakistan against India similarly like USA.

David Cameron in his 2010 visit to Bangalore openly accused the Pakistani state of being a sponsor of terrorism against India. Has any serving US president said this openly? Britain does not give military aid to Pakistan.

Sagar G wrote:
eklavya wrote:brihaspati's view is that the British government should follow illegal methods to pursue anti India elements in Britain. What would you like the British government to do?
Legal or illegal I don't care they must not allow any anti India activity or elements to maintain any kind of safe havens in Britian.

As you live in the US, you must be aware of the First Amendment. There is something like that in the UK too. So, the British authorities cannot prosecute anti-India political activity.

Sagar G wrote:
eklavya wrote:I would like the Indian government to hang Rajoana. Where are you on this?
I agree with you but what India does has got nothing to do with what Britain can do to stop anti India activities on it's ground.

It is very hard for me to ask my neighbour to stop playing the piano (on account of disturbing my beauty sleep) when my brother in the room next door is playing Iron Maiden on full volume. There will be a problem with hypocrisy, double standards, etc. Its better if brother turns off the music before I ask neighbour to stop playing the piano.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Mar 2013 02:20

ekalavya,
I repeatedly asked Lisa ji, whether or not the UK state/regime/police always acts within the "law/letter of the law" in dealing with "separatisms"? The answer I repeatedly got was that I knew nothing about how UK follows its laws, and that there are "constraints" within the very "legal system" that ruled out action against separatists. I showed at least some public domain evidence as to how British agencies moved against civilians or sympathizers of IRA objectives, who were not involved in "terrorism".

The whole debate started off with her objections to my questions about the relative indifference - and that the law appeared to be applied in different "letters" depending on the target of the separatists.

The Stevens report and subsequent revelations did throw a partial opening into how "law" or"letter of the law" did not really matter for the British state where separatism was concerned, if that separatism aimed at potential loss of territory for the UK.

I am charmed by your language that when faced up with how the "letter of the law" was followed in the case of IRA - you hand wave it as "exceptional". Before my citing of the public domain material I was being accused of "no understanding how sincerely or seriously constrained by the letter of the law" British authorities are, and that I was merely "insinuating" where I had no proof of the perfidious and deceptive use of the excuse of "letter of the law" by the same authorities. Were you or Lisa ji so completely unaware of the Stevens report that you yourself had no counter-example in your mind to your own claims of innocence of the UK agencies?

Now that I did put up at least one pointer - you put this as "exceptional". If I put up more - not all of which are easily public-domain-able, will it become a sequence of "exceptions"? Is there any urgent need for this bending over backwards to defend the image of the British state and authorities in this particular domain?

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?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 24 Mar 2013 02:40

eklavya wrote:If anyone is aware of other acts of terrorism being planned in the UK against India and Indians, they need to bring this to the attention of the Indian and the British authorities: the British authorities are obliged to pursue people planning terrorist activities. But they will not pursue people who talk against India and the Indian state; the law in the UK does not prohibit such activity. A lot of the fund raising (say Gurudwara and Mosque based) for Sikh and Islamic terrorist organisations is almost impossible to differentiate from genuine charitable giving.

If this is the attitude of British authorities then they must not also dream about having any kind of cordial relationship with India. Just to refresh memories about the attack and clear the air about British lethargy towards anti India sentiments

Attack not meant to kill Brar, but show ‘uprising’ still alive

Of late, some militant Sikh youth have gone a step beyond by even disrupting these national events. Sources said the Sikh youth make forced entry at R-Day or I-Day receptions, posing as invitees from the Indian community, and mask their faces before shouting pro-Khalistan slogans, breaking glassware, and grabbing/throwing microphones.

"These radical Sikh men then escape on their motorcycles as quickly," an intelligence official said adding that though the local police are posted outside, they do little to stop or intercept them. Sources indicated that the UK law enforcement authorities prefer to take a neutral stand, assessing the Sikh protests as an internal matter of the Indians. Though the Indian authorities have been pursuing the British government to get tough with the Sikh extremist elements, the UK has been reluctant to oblige.

Khalistani terror finds haven abroad

Government sources said while Wolverhampton and Birmingham are known centres of activity for extremist groups like the BKI, International Sikh Youth Federation (Rhode) and Khalistan Commando Force (KCF)

Senior Indian government officials say there is enough intelligence to show that attacks from pro-Khalistan separatists are planned and coordinated from Canada and Germany-based radicals with funds and encouragement from UK.

“We have been receiving reports of BKI activity for three months and have been in touch with our Western counterparts through liaison meetings…It is possible the attack on General Brar was sponsored by radicals based across the English Channel,” said a senior official.

Operation Bluestar's Lt General K.S. Brar attacked in London

He frequently visited London. However, in recent years, the Sikh Federation, a successor to the banned International Sikh Youth Federation had begun tracking his movements and posting them on the internet.

India expects UK to act on Khalistanis

New Delhi has taken a dim view of the British government’s inaction in checking the activities of these militants, who disrupted this year’s Independence Day celebrations in the town of Coventry — home to a large population of British-Indians.

India objects not only to the disruptive activities of such militants but also their unchecked ability to spread anti-India hatred through speeches.

eklavya wrote:David Cameron in his 2010 visit to Bangalore openly accused the Pakistani state of being a sponsor of terrorism against India. Has any serving US president said this openly?

Before you brought India into the argument to hide British perfidy and now brining in US to do the same and Cameron was only doing lip service otherwise Brit-Afghan-Pak talk as recently done wouldn't have happened.

eklavya wrote:Britain does not give military aid to Pakistan.

But gives it a platform to plot against India.

eklavya wrote:As you live in the US, you must be aware of the First Amendment. There is something like that in the UK too. So, the British authorities cannot prosecute anti-India political activity.

I don't live in the US and neither aware of the first amendment but if as you say that Britain will keep staring away from anti India activities even when India has asked it to stop them then Britain must very well know that India can play the same game with it and turn a blind eye towards any anti Britain activity that might happen in India which might then develop into something not so favourable for Britain.

eklavya wrote:It is very hard for me to ask my neighbour to stop playing the piano (on account of disturbing my beauty sleep) when my brother in the room next door is playing Iron Maiden on full volume. There will be a problem with hypocrisy, double standards, etc. Its better if brother turns off the music before I ask neighbour to stop playing the piano.

See all your fancy analogies isn't going to hide the fact that Britain not only supports anti India activities but remains nonchalant to them. If Britain want's to continue on this path it may, India will payback in kind some day or the other but them please spare me the BS lectures about how British laws are binding the hands of Briturds from acting against anti India elements.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 24 Mar 2013 03:27

brihaspati wrote:The Stevens report and subsequent revelations did throw a partial opening into how "law" or "letter of the law" did not really matter for the British state where separatism was concerned, if that separatism aimed at potential loss of territory for 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.

MI5, MI6, the police and the army get involved when someone starts shooting and blowing-up people. And in dealing with violent terrorism, always acting by the book is incredibly difficult, whether we are talking about the UK, the US or India.

brihaspati wrote: 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?

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.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 Mar 2013 03:34

>> 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.

But Sikh separatists were involved in violent acts in India, right?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 Mar 2013 03:36

>> David Cameron in his 2010 visit to Bangalore openly accused the Pakistani state of being a sponsor of terrorism against India.

What did David Miliband say after Mumbai attacks?

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 24 Mar 2013 03:56

abhishek_sharma wrote:>> 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.

But Sikh separatists were involved in violent acts in India, right?

abhishek, if there is a Hafiz Muhammad Saeed type character or Lashkar-e-Taiba type organisation in the UK that is planning terrorist attacks in India, then without any doubt the UK has to act against that person or organisation, and if they do not, then the UK is in the same category as Pakistan i.e. state sponsor of terrorism.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 Mar 2013 03:59

eklavya wrote:abhishek, if there is a Hafiz Muhammad Saeed type character or Lashkar-e-Taiba type organisation in the UK that is planning terrorist attacks in India, then without any doubt the UK has to act against that person, and if they do not, the UK is in the same category as Pakistan i.e. state sponsor of terrorism.

This might be relevant.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 Mar 2013 04:02

>> and if they do not, the UK is in the same category as Pakistan i.e. state sponsor of terrorism.

That is precisely the point. UK (US, Canada etc) use (and/or ignore) their laws when their citizens (or friendly countries) are involved and take all steps to stop violence. Otherwise they find laws (or legal loopholes) to ignore (or rationalize) the actions of terrorists.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 Mar 2013 04:08

I posted this a few months ago. (about Bali bombings).

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 24 Mar 2013 04:12

abhishek_sharma wrote:>> David Cameron in his 2010 visit to Bangalore openly accused the Pakistani state of being a sponsor of terrorism against India.

What did David Miliband say after Mumbai attacks?

He proved that he is Tzutiya Class I. Later on David Miliband also criticised Cameron for calling Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism, so David Miliband has fully aligned himself politically with the anti-Indian terrorists:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... n-pakistan

Now, what should the UK government do: lock him up?

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 24 Mar 2013 04:19

abhishek_sharma wrote:I posted this a few months ago. (about Bali bombings).

Thank you ... very interesting.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 24 Mar 2013 05:06

For the sake of completeness.

http://www.protectionproject.org/wp-con ... Asians.doc