Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

[brihaspati]

ekalavya,
I think I have been drawing repeated attention to the UK agencies and their benevolence on people seen to be/merely sympathetic to/not directly connected to terror activities - in connection with the IRA. They were not onlee moving against "violent" terrorists - but they bumped off people merely on allegation/suspicion of being sympathizers.

Isn't it rather uncomfortable to insist that you always want them to act within the "law" - but you also accept that in dealing with such situations - you are also okay with the "law" being bent a little or much - to the extent that action taken against even sympathizers/suspected fund raisers/political activists of the IRA was okay for you, because after all all those peaceful/legal activities still funneled into "violence"? However, you are also okay with the UK agencies not applying the same logic for Khalistanis - for various reasons: its not their problem, they have no national interests, etc.

So in the end, all that fracas about "strictly required to act within the law" against my proposition that law was merely a convenient cover to carry out selective reprisals against separatism depending on commercial, imperial, or political and perceived "national" interests - ultimately was for nothing.

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.

I humbly suggest that you do try to access as much of the relevant reports as possible. Much of it is not public domain, I agree. Yet. You do not have to recant your position publicly either here on the forum in a way that appears to go against the unsullied reputation of the British state, but you just might have the private space to think more on what you are really defending.

The record of British behaviour, often apparently connected to higher echelons of state decision making, in counter insurgency or plain political opposition to prevailing ruling circles visions that also comes from the wrong "identities" - is not that difficult to obtain. It exists in military documents, [the one place where there has been serious objections of "conscience" to the dirty-wars in contrast to the intel wings both mil as well as civ] and COIN studies. It exists in the post WWII period right from the Malayan, the Kenyan, the Yemeni and south Arab phase, all the way to current Iraq.

These are not "exceptions" as you charmingly put it.

Criticism from voices like me, is more about trying to look for what is salvageable in the "British", rather than against the British people. Most of us genuinely want to be friends, and avoid conflict or confrontations. But we repeatedly come up against perfidious and extremely cynical as well as callous, primarily identity politics that destroys any chance of building trust. Whitewashing the role of the British ruling classes and the state machinery, does not help in building genuine foundations for a bridge between the civilizations - like that of India and UK - both of whose commons have had to bear the brunt of the chicanery and criminality of institutional coercion.

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.

[Lisa]

Brihaspatiji,

Lets make this simple. One word answer.

Is Separatism legal or illegal in the United Kingdom?

Remember this is a one word answer question!

[Sanku]

Brihaspatiji,

Lets make this simple. One word answer.

Is Separatism legal or illegal in the United Kingdom?

Remember this is a one word answer question!

Improperly framed question.

[eklavya]

Brihaspatiji,

Lets make this simple. One word answer.

Is Separatism legal or illegal in the United Kingdom?

Remember this is a one word answer question!

Improperly framed question.

Inconvenient, for you, perhaps, but not improper. Your response exposes your discomfort.

[eklavya]

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.

I have seldom seen a man lose an argument with as little grace as you do. 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.

[RajeshA]

Brihaspatiji,

Lets make this simple. One word answer.

Is Separatism legal or illegal in the United Kingdom?

Remember this is a one word answer question!

This question becomes relevant only after one has answered the question:

Does United Kingdom only do or allow things which are legal?

[eklavya]

^^^^^
No country is perfect when it comes to the "rule of the law", but some are better than others. For example, see this ranking:

http://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index-data

[vishvak]

About Indo-UK relations, may be we can ask first if India gives space to separatists from UK by virtue of law or by spirit/action? - the answer is no in straightforward terms - for decades. <= This is an answer that should be appreciated for its worth and in meaning.

Then we can ask if UK does the same for India? May be someone can answer that in detail. Then we talk about "No country is perfect when it comes to the "rule of the law"" and its meaning in Indo-UK relations.

[Lisa]

About Indo-UK relations, may be we can ask first if India gives space to separatists from UK by virtue of law or by spirit/action? - the answer is no in straightforward terms - for decades. <= This is an answer that should be appreciated for its worth and in meaning.

Then we can ask if UK does the same for India? May be someone can answer that in detail. Then we talk about "No country is perfect when it comes to the "rule of the law"" and its meaning in Indo-UK relations.

Vishvakji

You are getting there slowly for if Separatism was legal in the UK then why would any one need to go to India? Seen any Scots in your neighbourhood lately?

P.S. do you care to answer the question?

[RajeshA]

From India's PoV it is totally irrelevant what is legal and what is illegal in UK. The only point of reference for India is, to what extent UK's land and resources are being used against India and India's national interests! If they are then UK is an enemy country.

If UK wishes to be seen differently by India, it should ensure that its land and resources are not being used against India. It is really that simple.

How UK stops the usage of its land and resources against India and Indian national interests, is really up to UK, whether they use legal or illegal means! India can't be bothered one bit about the methodology.

[Sagar G]

Is Separatism legal or illegal in the United Kingdom?

What's up with this gyrating around the same thing again and again ??? How UK deals with separatism in it's land is of no concern to India but how UK deals with anti India elements in it's land is and this is where UK shows perfidy by allowing such elements to survive and multiply even when asked by India to take action against them. No matter how much queen's apologists here try and paint a helpless UK picture by creating a bogeyman about the law there binding the hands of British agencies to act against such elements any person with an iota of brain can see the british attitude hasn't changed regarding India and it's people.

I say pay back in kind.

[brihaspati]

Lisa ji,
my simple question still stands unanswered from your side : does the UK always act within the constraints of its supposed law - regards separatism? You have never answered this.

You also made several accusations : about not knowing how UK works, and even "put" it that my pointers to how UK manifested its mythical "legal constraints" were mere insinuations without proof.

Another simple question onlee - in all your consistent attempt to show that UK in its actions is always constrained by the supposed letter of the law - you were never ever aware of the reports of what British police employed as methods on the IRA?

If you - like ekalavya pretends also - were "unaware" - [and I note that you have not responded to my post on the same, where I have asked you to show me which legal constraints were being followed or which required such behaviour from the UK agencies], are you also really so knowledgeable about UK?

If you were aware - and chose to pretend as if such material didn't exist to accuse me of unfounded allegations - then you are being consistent with British state/admin/ruling regime behaviour of lying through the teeth when faced with your own perfidy.

So would you care to show UK police constrained itself to the letter of the law - that law which does not allow the UK police or state to take any action to prevent Khalistanis - within the references of my relevant post? As you can see, the UK did move against those not directly performing terror acts but merely carrying out political activism.

Somehow - when faced with evidence - like ekalavya, you also studiously avoid acknowledging that evidence - if it does not suit your agenda. Is there any reason behind this? I can understand why ekalavya is compelled to do so, but am curious about you.

[vishvak]

About Indo-UK relations, may be we can ask first if India gives space to separatists from UK by virtue of law or by spirit/action? - the answer is no in straightforward terms - for decades. <= This is an answer that should be appreciated for its worth and in meaning.

Then we can ask if UK does the same for India? May be someone can answer that in detail. Then we talk about "No country is perfect when it comes to the "rule of the law"" and its meaning in Indo-UK relations.

Vishvakji

You are getting there slowly for if Separatism was legal in the UK then why would any one need to go to India? Seen any Scots in your neighbourhood lately?

P.S. do you care to answer the question?

A simplistic logic that separatism is legal in UK therefore separatists do not need to go out of UK can not hide real life selective use of laws - of selectively using human rights laws against others while ignoring human rights laws in other countries, or selectively dealing even with separatism within UK.

A case in point is how elected CM of a state in India Narendra Modi was vilified while cases were sub-judice in India, while giving visa to guys like DMiliband to visit India. Milliband should not be given visa anymore to visit India.

A conclusion one can draw is that UK uses its laws selectively. India's request to not allow anti-India propaganda by ISI - which is a known terror organization implicated even in serial bomb blasts- such diplomatic requests carry diplomatic weight.

What matters now is how sincerely and how much can UK respond to any such requests from India. But UK's adherence to laws selectively can not push this far even when Indians do not allow space for separatists from UK.

[brihaspati]

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.

I have seldom seen a man lose an argument with as little grace as you do. 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.

Well ekalavya, you must have been trained for management or banking - because you never acknowledge that you are either lying, or in the error, or have been pushing a propaganda lie, or constantly moving the focus around by bringing in irrelevant material to try and make people lose the thread of discussion. Your tactic is to abuse your opponent when you can see that you cannot win by facts. No wonder your heart and soul has converged towards defending the British state in all its glory - because the mentalities of that state as a ruling entity and yours - are similar.

You have already shown that you can lie efficiently on behalf of ruling interests of the UK - by joining up with Lisa ji in attacking me on accusations of unfounded allegations that the UK does not constrain itself behind the supposed letter of law when dealing with separatism - all the while you were both fully aware of the Stevens report and following scandals. When pointed out - you did not acknowledge your own lack of "awareness" or knowledge about the UK - but tried to excuse yourself and the UK by saying it was "exceptional". I have pointed you towards other incidents and phases from Kenya to Iraq - total silence form you now - because even if you are a liar, you know that if you acknowledge these others - your earlier propaganda about "exceptions" would stand exposed.


British racism - and continuing institutional racism - is a well known and much studied social sciences arena, with a long line of papers and studies. Look up comparative studies of racism towards regions within the UK, and you will see that the Irish, especially Irish Catholics still come the lowest in the hierarchy.

I guess you have lost so many debates, that you are mortally scared of owning up when you have been in error or been shown a liar - so you are so quick in trying to claim others have "lost". You and Lisa ji can try and shout as mush as you want, but people who have been following this thread will now have the starters to look for as to the real practice of the UK as a state machinery - and how it uses pious selective posturing on legal fineries to cover for imperialist, or exploitative and often sadistic agenda of a minority ruling alliance of big business, transnational financial and criminal networks, and portions of so-called toffs.

The material is out there - and this providing the directions where people can research and find out for themselves - is where you and Lisa ji lost out.

[brihaspati]

By the way - as per Lisa ji's logic - and ekalavya's earlier position that - UK agencies are "required" to function within the constraints of the letter of the law, this implies that whatever is reported in the formal investigations into "collusion" and systematic targeted elimination of non-terror political activists/sympathizers were carried out within the limits of UK law. So these methods must be legally employable then. Therefore Lisa ji's "single word" question becomes irrelevant. As per her own claims - all those methods applied to the IRA non-terrorists, are legally employable against Khalistanis too - if UK authorities always work within the "letter of the law".

[eklavya]

people who have been following this thread will now have the starters to look for as to the real practice of the UK as a state machinery - and how it uses pious selective posturing on legal fineries to cover for imperialist, or exploitative and often sadistic agenda of a minority ruling alliance of big business, transnational financial and criminal networks, and portions of so-called toffs.

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

[brihaspati]

ekalavyaji's liner about "exceptional circumstances" reminded me of a statement by the justice McCardie in the libel suit concerning "Rex" Reginald Dyer of Jallianwallahbag fame. McCardie actually told his jury - before the trial - that "sometimes" "in the interests of the empire...one has to do things which" one should "not normally do". The justifications for imperialist sadism and perfidy - remains unchanged over 90 years, independence or no-independence.

I hope people realize where the mindsets generated by British imperialism in its favour, is concerned, the more things change - the more they remain the same - as in Penguin Island. In spite of claims of having moved on, sarcasm about how people still carry the burden of the past. We are not free of the past - because people sharing our origins - think the same way an imperialist judge thought almost a century ago.

[brihaspati]

people who have been following this thread will now have the starters to look for as to the real practice of the UK as a state machinery - and how it uses pious selective posturing on legal fineries to cover for imperialist, or exploitative and often sadistic agenda of a minority ruling alliance of big business, transnational financial and criminal networks, and portions of so-called toffs.

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

See, you have nothing more left to bolster your campaign of whitewashing! Reduced to this?

[eklavya]

^^^^^
There is clearly no remedy for the blackout inside your mind. You want the British government to murder its own citizens to develop a basis for friendship with India. Then you talk about Dyer, whose insanity you appear to share.

[Shanmukh]

@brihaspati-ji
It is not just when British interests are threatened that the UK acts ruthlessly. It is also when American interests are threatened (although, curiously, the British interests are not always respected by US - well, might is right I suppose).

Here is how the UK is colluding in torture - but then, I am sure Ekalavya-ji can inform us which law allows this. I am no expert in British law.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20505

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20444

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20316

For all the sophistry of `legal actions only' by British forces, when the interests of important allies have been threatened, UK has always reacted brutally, with little regard to any laws, or even basic decency. But then - maybe the lesson for us is that we are not important enough for the Brits?

[eklavya]

To study how the British treated non-violent separatism in N Ireland, it is worth studying the history of the SDLP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Dem ... bour_Party

[brihaspati]

ah ekalavya ji,
such great perceptions about other's supposed contradictions and none whatsoever for one's own?

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. You give the same excuse as was given by "legal" luminaries of UK to justify Dyer, call Dyer "insane", but the assorted UK policemen or intel or gov decisionmakers actions not as insanity but necessary in exceptional circumstances.

Must say something about the psychological problems that occur when one is conscious about one's own lies.

[eklavya]

Here is how the UK is colluding in torture - but then, I am sure Ekalavya-ji can inform us which law allows this. I am no expert in British law.

For all the sophistry of `legal actions only' by British forces, when the interests of important allies have been threatened, UK has always reacted brutally, with little regard to any laws, or even basic decency. But then - maybe the lesson for us is that we are not important enough for the Brits?

nageshks, there are laws in the UK against torture, but in the war against Islamic terrorism, I think these laws are being disregarded. Questions for you:

Would you like Sikh citizens of the UK who are non-violent supporters of Khalistan to be tortured by the British state?

Would you like Sikh citizens of India who are non-violent supporters of Khalistan to be tortured by the Indian state?

[brihaspati]

Now the debate is sought to be shifted towards contextual application of the law -and not any universal "constraints of the law" - depending on whether it can be represented as violent or non-violent. Ah yes the bloody-Sunday massacre was on armed and violent demos'. Finucane was a violent terrorist - and so on.

Even within the so-called "non-violents" the application of legal "constraints" appears to be selective. If people are honest they will report on the differential treatment towards even among non-violents. It is more about who will be amenable to compromise with overall lingering/continuing British hands in the affairs of the aspiring "free/semi-free" entity. It has not much to do with the letter of the law.

Tilak in India was I guess brandishing a rifle when he was struck on his head with a fatal blow. I know of one person I was close to who lost his eye while peacefully protesting as part of Gandhian non-violence - because a British baton was introduced into his eye as he was held down by Indian bootlickers of the Brit officer who did it.

I will wait for the "knowledgeable" to report such differences in treatment on the Irish non-violents.

[eklavya]

ah ekalavya ji,
such great perceptions about other's supposed contradictions and none whatsoever for one's own?

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. You give the same excuse as was given by "legal" luminaries of UK to justify Dyer, call Dyer "insane", but the assorted UK policemen or intel or gov decisionmakers actions not as insanity but necessary in exceptional circumstances.

Must say something about the psychological problems that occur when one is conscious about one's own lies.

brihaspati, you are advocating that the British state use illegal detention, torture and murder against British Sikhs, even if they are non-violent. If this is not insanity, then it is murderous psychosis.

[Shanmukh]

Here is how the UK is colluding in torture - but then, I am sure Ekalavya-ji can inform us which law allows this. I am no expert in British law.

For all the sophistry of `legal actions only' by British forces, when the interests of important allies have been threatened, UK has always reacted brutally, with little regard to any laws, or even basic decency. But then - maybe the lesson for us is that we are not important enough for the Brits?

nageshks, there are laws in the UK against torture, but in the war against Islamic terrorism, I think these laws are being disregarded.

Why are they being disregarded? Until 2005, there were no major attacks in Britain. Why were the British perfectly okay with US torturing its Muslim residents (sometimes, even citizens) in despite of their own anti-torture laws?

Questions for you:

Would you like Sikh citizens of the UK who are non-violent supporters of Khalistan to be tortured by the British state?

Would you like Sikh citizens of India who are non-violent supporters of Khalistan to be tortured by the Indian state?

No. But let me ask you one question in return. Would the British care all that much about the Sikhs if the Indians were in the position of the US?

I am pointing out also that your contention that Britain acts only legally holds little water, as the torture cases in the war against Islamic terror are showing. Also, the list of British excesses in Iraq are so numerous that I won't even bother recounting them. My point is this: When its (and its important allies') interests are threatened, Britain has never cared a fig about any law. The law is recalled only when states like India are affected. After all, Britain was the hub of the Kashmiri jihad for nearly 15 years, and they were lecturing us about human rights and state duties.

[brihaspati]

ah ekalavya ji,
such great perceptions about other's supposed contradictions and none whatsoever for one's own?

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. You give the same excuse as was given by "legal" luminaries of UK to justify Dyer, call Dyer "insane", but the assorted UK policemen or intel or gov decisionmakers actions not as insanity but necessary in exceptional circumstances.

Must say something about the psychological problems that occur when one is conscious about one's own lies.

brihaspati, you are advocating that the British state use illegal detention, torture and murder against British Sikhs, even if they are non-violent. If this is not insanity, then it is murderous psychosis.

No in that case it is you who endorse murderous psychosis - when you excuse British behaviour on Irish and other ethnicities as "necessary under exceptional circumstances". In your case it is even more perfidious, because you make it conditional on British perceived political interests while pretending that you are merely demanding that the "letter of the law" be followed.

I am repeatedly pointing out that the British atrocity and planned atrocity generation moves on innocents and non-violent symathizers of the Republicans - are on record - and shows your claim to be hollow. If such moves on non-violents were justifiable for you as "necessary" in "exceptional circumstances" - what in your remnant logical faculties shores up your posturing against "murderous psychosis"?

[sanjaykumar]

brihaspati, you are advocating that the British state use illegal detention, torture and murder against British Sikhs, even if they are non-violent. If this is not insanity, then it is murderous psychosis.


How ironic. A slave race which was the subject of said "detention, torture and murder"
upholding new, improved British values.

This question is being answered at this time. merely substitute British Moslem for British Sikh.

[Sagar G]

Delhi HC blast: NIA team in Jalandhar Feb 26, 2013

"The Babbar Khalsa top leadership, including chief Wadhawa Singh, and its cadres are active in Pakistan and a few European countries.

In October 2012, a British national Jaswant Singh Ajad, actively working for BKI, Khalistan Zindabad Force and Khalistan Tiger Force was arrested.

So now we have British nationals coming to India and plotting terrorist attacks. What has UK done in this regard ???

[brihaspati]

British "moslem" torture/etc will be a whole different ball-game. Interesting as a study for deeper problems of ideology/religion/race in various institutional layers of UK.

Here the scope was very narrow. 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.

It is a matter of continuing security concern for India. If there are things that need to be sorted out with the UK authorities, we need to do so. If they have not changed their mindset at all in imperialist management techniques of "insurgency" and we cannot change them, it is better to engage them on terms and language they understand.

[eklavya]

^^^^^
Security forces sometimes grossly abuse human rights when dealing with violent extremism of the type pursued by the IRA; I wish they didn't have to, but I acknowledge that they sometimes do. You on the other hand want non-violent Sikh separatists in Britain (and presumably therefore in India, Canada and elsewhere) to be systematically subject to the worst forms of human rights abuse: you are suffering from a murderous psychosis. As for logic, you lost on that point a long time back when the issue of the treatment of Scottish nationalists was brought up; and all you could retort with was "bogmen", "n word", etc.

[Shanmukh]

Britain has been a sponsor of trouble and terrorism everywhere in the world. Most of the Chechen terrorists were holed up in London until 9/11. Babar Ahmad was running terrorist recruitment campaigns and was involved in the attack on the Dubrovka theatre (the attack claimed 100+ lives), The British refused to extradite him to Russia and he was allowed to function peacefully by the British, until his involvement with the Taliban was discovered, whereupon he was extradited summarily to a US prison (Guantanamo>?) and is still rotting there. His being tortured by the US is apparently fine.

Also, another case in point is Akhmed Zakayev. The Brits refused to extradite him saying that there was a substantial risk of his being tortured if sent to Moscow (isn't it a laugh - at the same time, they were shipping others to US prisons and helping torture them).

Britain has always had double standards. The extraordinarily liberal law is only when British interests (and those of their allies) are not threatened.

[eklavya]

brihaspati, you are advocating that the British state use illegal detention, torture and murder against British Sikhs, even if they are non-violent. If this is not insanity, then it is murderous psychosis.


How ironic. A slave race which was the subject of said "detention, torture and murder"
upholding new, improved British values.

This question is being answered at this time. merely substitute British Moslem for British Sikh.

Which values (hopefully free of irony) are you advocating for the "slave race"?

[brihaspati]

^^^^^
Security forces sometimes grossly abuse human rights when dealing with violent extremism of the type pursued by the IRA; I wish they didn't have to, but I acknowledge that they sometimes do. You on the other hand want non-violent Sikh separatists in Britain (and presumably therefore in India, Canada and elsewhere) to be systematically subject to the worst forms of human rights abuse: you are suffering from a murderous psychosis. As for logic, you lost on that point a long time back when the issue of the treatment of Scottish nationalists was brought up; and all you could retort with was "bogmen", "n word", etc.

Well you are back on your old excuse of not doing your own research - or feigning absence of such material - when you laugh or mock others claims. However much you laugh about it - public and institutional racial attitudes and differences even within that based on regions within the UK other than the so-called Anglo-Saxon heartland in the east and south - is well researched and presented. But I am not going to do your research to be hand-waved by some excuse you will concoct to defend British state image.

You have the murderous psychosis because you tried to "excuse" the British record by saying "exceptional circumstances". 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?

[abhishek_sharma]

You on the other hand want non-violent Sikh separatists in Britain (and presumably therefore in India, Canada and elsewhere) to be systematically subject to the worst forms of human rights abuse: you are suffering from a murderous psychosis.

How about not suffering from selective amnesia? This article was posted yesterday:

The first signs of the radicalisation of the Diaspora appeared in 1983 when a group of jihadi terrorists kidnapped Ravi Mhatre, an Indian diplomat posted in the Indian Assistant High Commission in Birmingham, and demanded the release of Maqbool Butt, the leader of the Jammu and Kashmir [Images] Liberation Front, who was then awaiting execution in Tihar jail in Delhi [Images] following his conviction on charges of murder. When India rejected their demand, the terrorists killed Mhatre and threw his body into one of the streets. This kidnapping and murder was allegedly orchestrated by Amanullah Khan, a Gilgiti from Pakistan. He was assisted by some Mirpuris. The British were uncooperative with India in the investigation and declined to hand over those involved in the kidnapping and murder to India for investigation and prosecution. By closing their eyes to the terrorist activities of the Mirpuris from their territory, they encouraged the further radicalisation of the Diaspora.

You want to explain the bolded parts?

[abhishek_sharma]

^^ from the same article:

A careful examination of the details relating to the various jihadi terrorism-related cases in the UK would reveal that MI5 was intercepting the telephone conversations of these Mirpuris and other Punjabi Muslims with their friends and relatives in which they spoke of going to Pakistan for jihadi training. It did not take any action against them because it thought that they were going to wage a jihad only against the Indians and hence did not pose a threat to the British.

[RajeshA]

You want to explain the bolded parts?

This is unfair. You can't post such questions. Such difficult questions can force BRF members to leave BRF and never come back.

[Shanmukh]

You on the other hand want non-violent Sikh separatists in Britain (and presumably therefore in India, Canada and elsewhere) to be systematically subject to the worst forms of human rights abuse: you are suffering from a murderous psychosis..

Ekalavya-ji,
Can you please explain Britain's inaction in the case of violent terrorists and separatists in Russia, India, Israel, and Serbia? I gave you several examples of Britain either turning a blind eye or actually encouraging the violent terrorists to act against foreign governments. Can you please inform us what prevents the British from acting against these?

[abhishek_sharma]

Money being collected in UK for Khalistan, claims terror suspect

British national Jaswant Singh Azad, who was arrested by the Jalandhar district police on September 30, for allegedly funding former terror outfits and forming sleeper cells, has told police that money was being collected in the UK for "Mission Khalistan".

"Azad revealed that funds are being collected from NRI Sikhs under the garb of incidents pertaining to excesses on Sikhs youth in the past. They used to display footage of such incidents to emotionally blackmail the people and fetched funds," said a police officer.

Azad, who is currently in police remand, has also reportedly said that photos of Operation Bluestar were doctored and shown to Sikhs settled abroad to influence them. Demonstrations held against the hanging of former chief minister Beant Singh's assassin, Balwant Singh Rajoana, also allegedly influenced the people to fund the outfits.

Sources added that Azad had said that Sikhs who have sympathy for "Mission Khalistan" had been regularly funding terror organisations every month.

Azad, originally a resident of Duhre village, also revealed that one Parpinder Singh Scotland of the Khalistan Tiger Force (KTF), who is associated with militants like Gurmel Singh Gill and Ranjit Singh Rana, was in India in August for about two weeks. "Azad said he met him during his visit in August. Parpinder directed him to recruit youth to expedite terror activities in the state," said a police officer.

Azad, a permanent resident of Carlisle Terrace, Sunderland in UK, has 14 bank accounts in Jalandhar containing over Rs 1 crore. His wife Jasreigh Kaur had claimed that the amount was meant for the construction of their house in Duhre, said police.

Fund-raising counts as "peaceful" activity onlee. Is that right?

[abhishek_sharma]

Link

LONDON, England (CNN) -- British investigators believe some of the money raised to help victims of last year's earthquake in Pakistan may have been used to fund the alleged airliner terror plot.

In a separate development in the case, another man was arrested Tuesday in connection with the alleged plot to blow up commercial jetliners over the Atlantic, bringing the number in custody to 24, according to London's Metropolitan Police.

A U.S. government official said Tuesday that money trails have been a "major help" in several probes.

The official said the money was collected by a front group for the Pakistani charity Jamaat al-Dawat, which supports Islamic militants. A spokesman for the group has denied the allegations.

The funds are believed to have come from the group's network in Britain, and was not sent from Pakistan, British and U.S. investigators said.