Indo-UK News & Discussions- June 2017

[A_Gupta]

The issue is not one-on-one interactions. It is that e.g., when it came to "grooming" gangs, the law was not permitted to operate. When it comes to hooliganism in Leicester, the law is not permitted to operate.

That supposedly "voluntary" Shariah councils operate whose decisions are technically not legally binding, but the women feel coerced into accepting the decisions -- and there is no help from the larger "liberal" society that is fearful of being labeled racist or Islamophobic.

Then there is the issue that is for the UKers to solve - that people who have worked and paid into the system all their lives are short-changed, while refugees are given houses with as many bedrooms as they have children and generous unemployment benefits and they essentially scam the system and take it as life-long benefits instead of taking it to be a time-limited helping hand while they find their footing.

As someone pointed out in one of those sharp but useless debates on YouTube between Mussalman and Britisher, it doesn't matter if 97% of them are decent, law-abiding people. It takes only 3%, especially when unopposed by those decent, law-abiding people, to ruin a society.

[S_Madhukar]

Yup it is the M veto and lawfare that hurts everyone... 1-1 I have not seen any issues at work or outside. That way society is good at keeping a lid on things but things have been getting worse I hear in places like Luton and up north... the illegal boat migration is creating the pressure in the cooker just like in India bcoz we feeling is we might be able to fix the locals but the outsiders will openly transgress

[chetak]

This is what happens when you absent mindedly misplace your empire and have no colonies to loot anymore.............


or is this money to feed, house, and care for the incoming hordes of boat people who must be welcomed and extended hospitality .....

[uddu]

Exclusive | Pakistan Debate Team Pulls Out of Global Contest, Expert Analysis by J Sai Deepak | 4K
The Pakistanis didn't show up. Their debate team are holed up in the hotel shying away from a contest. The cop out by Pakistan is consistent: send proxies to fight, abandon their dead and when all fails lie.

J Sai Deepak exposes Pak's deep fakery.

[chetak]

mistake to give pakistan respectability by agreeing to debate them.

They are the pig.

@OxfordUnion is the mud pit.

[vera_k]

^ This Oxford Union must be some type of FATF compliant money laundering scam set up to bankroll nefarious activities in Pakistan.

Why are Indian people spending their hard earned money on it?

[A_Gupta]

The Oxford Union has had some high quality debates (you can find them on YouTube). But I suppose the Paki touch is the touch of decay.

[Haresh]

Pakistani drug dealer avoids deportation because he was ‘star pupil’ in school

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/pa ... r-AA1Ru7DP

[Lisa]

Better off on benefits under Labour: Salary of £71,000 needed to match handouts haul for bigger families after two-child cap ditched, says think-tank

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... udget.html

[drnayar]

Better off on benefits under Labour: Salary of £71,000 needed to match handouts haul for bigger families after two-child cap ditched, says think-tank

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... udget.html

indeed., a couple on benefits can do with council funded accommodation [ even house , if a few kids ] and live decently than someone one working in the day wage scales !! Pakis incidentally found paradise in UK system !..

[Haresh]

Revealed: NHS doctor charged with sexually abusing 38 patients in his care including children is devoutly Christian Polish father-of-two

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... r-two.html

[sanjaykumar]

Must have been Hindoo in previous incarnation.

[chetak]

[A_Gupta]

AI tells me this is legitimate news:

At least nine UK universities have recently restricted or paused admissions from Pakistan (and Bangladesh) due to stricter UK Home Office rules and high visa refusal rates, with institutions like the University of Chester and University of Hertfordshire halting recruitment until 2026, as part of a broader crackdown on potential misuse of student visas for settlement. These universities are protecting their sponsorship licenses by meeting new guidelines, which demand lower refusal rates, impacting many genuine students.

Universities Involved (Examples):

University of Chester: Suspended Pakistani admissions until Autumn 2026.

University of Wolverhampton: No longer taking undergraduate applicants from Pakistan/Bangladesh.

University of Hertfordshire: Paused recruitment until 2026.

Coventry University: Temporarily stopped recruitment.

University of Sunderland: Paused recruitment.

Oxford Brookes University: Paused undergraduate recruitment.

University of East London: Suspended admissions.

BPP University: Implementing restrictions.

London Metropolitan University: Stopped accepting Bangladeshi students.

Reasons for Restrictions:

Stricter Visa Rules: New UK Home Office rules lowered the acceptable student visa refusal rate for universities from 10% to 5%.

High Refusal Rates: Pakistani (18%) and Bangladeshi (22%) visa refusal rates far exceeded this new threshold.

Concerns Over Misuse: The UK government worries the student route is being used as a "backdoor" to settle in Britain, with a rise in asylum claims from students.

Impact:

These measures affect thousands of prospective students from Pakistan and Bangladesh, impacting their ability to study in the UK.

[Manish_P]

^ Pity that unlike in X (twitter) it is not easy to change the country of origin on passports to 'South Asia'

[Haresh]

Enjoying the fruits of the Peaceful migration

Teenage asylum seekers raped 15-year-old schoolgirl in park after she filmed herself being dragged away, in footage so horrifying it would 'cause a riot'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -riot.html

[Haresh]

British wife of ISIS leader living in Slough sparks security fears

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/b ... af5&ei=126

[SRajesh]

Health Secretary rakin up issues of joining EU back
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... rship.html
Overall joining EU benefits UK more than it benefits EU
But the political implications will be heavy:
Three sticking points :
1. EU residents coming in and claiming benefits until they find work ( having said that there is a big need in various sectors)
2. Sending Illegal boat immigrants will be difficult as France may not accept them back.
3. European WTD especially in health sector means a huge increase in Man power to cover the working directive.
General public are now slowly turning back on the Boris nonsense of Brexit and realised what a scam it was!!
Jihadist will be chomping at the bits for easy movements of the rabble rousers and perc eived benefits of European Human rights
And the right wing will be out on the streets tomorrow toming this and try and defeat it any cost

[S_Madhukar]

But with the economy on a secular decline I doubt except Romania and Bulgaria any body would come… plus UK companies have offices in Poland etc to cater for Brexit already. There was a stat that the Boomers have passed away since 2016 and today Brexit won’t get that many votes. But with existing housing prices and economic malaise there should be debate

[A_Gupta]

Hindus were protesting outside the Bangladesh High Commission in London, when a bunch of Khalistanis showed up to "protect' the Bangladesh High Commission, etc.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/wor ... aign=cppst

[drnayar]

Hindus were protesting outside the Bangladesh High Commission in London, when a bunch of Khalistanis showed up to "protect' the Bangladesh High Commission, etc.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/wor ... aign=cppst

Khalistanis = ISI / CIA

[Haresh]

Hindus were protesting outside the Bangladesh High Commission in London, when a bunch of Khalistanis showed up to "protect' the Bangladesh High Commission, etc.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/wor ... aign=cppst

khalidstanis are jaats, Dipu Das was of the chamar community, why would they care ?

It is just sickening that they would do this, to side with the same people who would rape their daughters.
Disgusting

[drnayar]

Hindus were protesting outside the Bangladesh High Commission in London, when a bunch of Khalistanis showed up to "protect' the Bangladesh High Commission, etc.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/wor ... aign=cppst

khalidstanis are jaats, Dipu Das was of the chamar community, why would they care ?

It is just sickening that they would do this, to side with the same people who would rape their daughters.
Disgusting

Khalistanis do NOT represent Sikhs. I am not one., but happy to be corrected by any Sikh in the forum !

Khalistan is a narrative created by ISI , more active in Canada, UK and US , by a section of radicalised Sikhs

[sanjayc]

When you are dealing with Khalistanis, for all purposes you are dealing with Muslims. Deal with them like that. They are Muslims wearing Sikh turbans.

[gakakkad]

^ what haresh meant is that even withing the Sikhs khalistani was confined to Jat Sikhs. It was entirely a caste based phenomenon. No khatri Sikh for instance was ever affiliated with the terror groups .

So we could say that most Jat Sikhs don't support khalistan. Khalistan is a jat supremacists isi backed terror group . This would probably be the most epistemologically correct description of it .

[Haresh]

When you are dealing with Khalistanis, for all purposes you are dealing with Muslims. Deal with them like that. They are Muslims wearing Sikh turbans.

10000 % true.
The ones who I knew from the 1980's converted

[VinodTK]

How Britain Bankrupted India To Fund World War II (The Sterling Scandal)

We are often taught that the British Empire was the "Arsenal of Democracy." We are rarely told who paid for it.

During World War II, Britain ran out of money. To keep fighting, they didn't just borrow from the United States (Lend-Lease); they executed a massive financial extraction from India known as the Sterling Balances.

The scheme was ruthless in its simplicity: Britain "bought" unlimited supplies—food, ammunition, textiles—from Indian producers. But instead of paying in real money, they deposited "Sterling Credits" (IOUs) into a locked account at the Bank of England in London. Back in India, the colonial government printed Paper Rupees to pay the local producers.

The result was a textbook economic catastrophe. The massive printing of rupees without new goods to buy triggered Hyperinflation. Prices skyrocketed by 300%, destroying the purchasing power of the poor and directly causing the Bengal Famine of 1943. While 3 million Indians starved to death, the British government sat on a mountain of food exported from the very region that was dying.


The "Sterling Balance" Trap: How Britain accumulated a £1.3 Billion debt (approx $45 Billion today) to India, which they refused to pay back until years after the war.
The Inflation Bomb: Visualizing how printing rupees to fund the war effort destroyed the Indian economy from the inside out.

The Bengal Famine Connection: Why the famine wasn't a "natural disaster," but a direct result of Churchill’s "Denial Policy" and inflationary finance.
The "Defaulter" Reality: How Britain eventually "paid" the debt back in devalued currency, effectively erasing billions of dollars of value.

[drnayar]

It is interesting to see the memorandum of the British government through which Mr Gandhi became Mahatma Gandhi officially.

Yes you read it right ...
Mahatma's title was announced through a British memorandum.

source :
https://x.com/rishibagree/status/2006666747303383411

[A_Gupta]

^^^ No, you read it wrong. I don't know why disdain for MKG translates into misinformation. And you think Indians were such idiots as to adopt "Mahatma" from the British as though it was a title like "Sir" from being knighted.

This official usage came two decades after the fact, and if you read the very last sentence on the page - it is "An office order of the Congress government in the Central Provinces in 1938, instructing all (and especially British) officials, to henceforth refer to Gandhi as 'Mahatma".

Earliest known uses -
1909: A letter from Gandhi's friend, Pranjivan Mehta, to Gopal Krishna Gokhale, contains the earliest known written record of the title.
January 21, 1915: A document preserved at the National Gandhi Museum in New Delhi shows Nautamlal Bhagvanji Mehta honoring Gandhi as "Mahatma" in Jetpur, Gujarat

Popularization of the title:
March 1915: Rabindranath Tagore used the title of Mahatma for Gandhi, after Gandhi visited Santiniketan, and subsequently popularized it.
____

Lastly, in the correspondence in "The Transfer of Power" papers to Gandhi, the British begin their letters with "My dear Mr. Gandhi" or "My dear Gandhiji".

[A_Gupta]

How did the British colonial officials refer to M.K Gandhi in public correspondence?

Microsoft Copilot:

Here’s what the historical record — including the sources we just pulled up — shows about how British colonial officials referred to M. K. Gandhi in public, official correspondence. The patterns are surprisingly consistent across decades.

How British Officials Referred to Gandhi in Public Correspondence

British public communications were far more formal and restrained than their private letters. They avoided emotional language and stuck to bureaucratic conventions. Here are the dominant patterns.

1. They almost always used “Mr. Gandhi”

In official communiqués, gazette notifications, court documents, and parliamentary papers, the standard form was:
Mr. M. K. Gandhi
Mr. Gandhi
This was the norm in British administrative style: honorific + surname. It also conveniently avoided acknowledging the spiritual or moral authority implied by “Mahatma.”

2. They sometimes used “Gandhi” without any title

This appeared in:
- Intelligence summaries
- Police reports
- Legislative debates
- Press releases
Dropping the honorific was a subtle way to reduce symbolic stature.

3. They never used “Mahatma” in official British documents

This is confirmed by fact‑checking of the 1938 directive myth: the only known directive using “Mahatma Gandhi” came from a Congress‑led provincial government, not the British.

British officials avoided the term because:
- It implied sanctity
- It elevated Gandhi’s moral authority
- It conflicted with the Raj’s portrayal of him as a political agitator

4. In early South Africa correspondence, they used “Mr. Gandhi” or “M. K. Gandhi”

The archival collection of correspondence between Gandhi and Lord Elgin (1904–1906) shows the same pattern: formal, neutral address.
South African-era formality

5. In parliamentary debates in London, he was “Mr. Gandhi” or “Gandhi”
Hansard records show British MPs referring to him in these terms, even when cri
ticizing him. The tone was often dismissive, but the naming conventions stayed formal.

6. In public-facing propaganda, he was sometimes “the Congress leader Gandhi”

British Information Services and press notes used phrases like:
- “the Congress leader Mr. Gandhi”
- “the leader of the civil disobedience movement”

This framed him as a political actor rather than a moral or spiritual figure.

The people of Bharat revered Gandhi 1900-1948, and this included almost all of the giants of the Independence Movement. You can argue that this reverence was unmerited when viewed in retrospect, that is perfectly fine, I have no arguments with it; history is not eternal truths, but is rebuilt for each era.

This idea that M.K. Gandhi's Mahatma title was a British construct is to play violence with history, and to dishonor all of those people of Bharat. In a speech months after Gandhi's assassination, Sardar Patel referred to those contemporaries from abroad who criticized Gandhi with "As if they know more about Gandhiji’s ways that we who have passed our life with him". That, IMO, holds for future generations as well, but it is perfectly legitimate for your assessment to vary.

[Tanaji]

UK pulls out of Chagos deal

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... -backlash/

What a spineless government! Trump says one sentence and the PM jumps to and says how high sir? Mind you this whole deal was initiated by US in the first place as they didnt want legal uncertainities over island ownership

[drnayar]

UK pulls out of Chagos deal

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... -backlash/

What a spineless government! Trump says one sentence and the PM jumps to and says how high sir? Mind you this whole deal was initiated by US in the first place as they didnt want legal uncertainities over island ownership

UK is just the 51st US state, more beholden to the US than Canada . If Trump sniffs , UK politicians go into palsy collectively

[Lisa]

Mark Tully a British citizen passed away today. For those who would like to remember him, parts of an interview he gave,

https://archive.ph/w1X8Y#selection-867.199-867.210

"One reason, of course, for things failing, is the India-Pakistan dispute. India should do everything it can, as it has done under Manmohan Singh and under Vajpayee, to try and resolve the issue with Pakistan. And in trying to resolve that issue, it should remember that, in a way, the burden of generosity lies on its shoulders because after 70 years Pakistan has lost three wars, has far less population and has not been as economically successful as India.

Only by some element of generosity, India has to try and find ways to resolve the dispute. What has happened in Kashmir and the present atmosphere with Pakistan is a step backwards. And it cannot be entirely blamed on Pakistan. I would go so far as to say that it demeans India to go on blaming everything on Pakistan and treating Pakistan as a hostile element. I know there’s a problem of terrorism in Kashmir. We all accept that. But I still believe if the problem is approached in a generous and proper manner and with willingness, in some way, to give on Kashmir, there can be peace. I’m not saying give away Kashmir, but go some way towards what Manmohan Singh and Vajpayee had proposed. Ultimately, it is in India’s national interest to resolve this dispute."

[S_Madhukar]

I hope Tully told the Queen to give away Northern Ireland as an act of goodwill and even better make Scotland independent … I didn’t mind listening to him back in the day but I am sure he would have missed that old ecosystem

[g.sarkar]

https://www.rediff.com/news/report/vete ... 260125.htm
Veteran journalist Mark Tully passes away in Delhi at 90
Senjo M R, January 25, 2026
The award-winning journalist was ailing for some time and had been admitted to the Max Hospital in Saket for the past week.
"He (Mark Tully) was admitted to Max Hospital, Saket, on January 21, and died today. He (Tully) was admitted under the head of the nephrology department," a hospital source told PTI.
.......
Gautam
Also: https://archive.org/details/nofullstops ... 3/mode/1up

[chetak]

How did the British colonial officials refer to M.K Gandhi in public correspondence?

Microsoft Copilot:

Here’s what the historical record — including the sources we just pulled up — shows about how British colonial officials referred to M. K. Gandhi in public, official correspondence. The patterns are surprisingly consistent across decades.

How British Officials Referred to Gandhi in Public Correspondence

British public communications were far more formal and restrained than their private letters. They avoided emotional language and stuck to bureaucratic conventions. Here are the dominant patterns.

1. They almost always used “Mr. Gandhi”

In official communiqués, gazette notifications, court documents, and parliamentary papers, the standard form was:
Mr. M. K. Gandhi
Mr. Gandhi
This was the norm in British administrative style: honorific + surname. It also conveniently avoided acknowledging the spiritual or moral authority implied by “Mahatma.”

2. They sometimes used “Gandhi” without any title

This appeared in:
- Intelligence summaries
- Police reports
- Legislative debates
- Press releases
Dropping the honorific was a subtle way to reduce symbolic stature.

3. They never used “Mahatma” in official British documents

This is confirmed by fact‑checking of the 1938 directive myth: the only known directive using “Mahatma Gandhi” came from a Congress‑led provincial government, not the British.

British officials avoided the term because:
- It implied sanctity
- It elevated Gandhi’s moral authority
- It conflicted with the Raj’s portrayal of him as a political agitator

4. In early South Africa correspondence, they used “Mr. Gandhi” or “M. K. Gandhi”

The archival collection of correspondence between Gandhi and Lord Elgin (1904–1906) shows the same pattern: formal, neutral address.
South African-era formality

5. In parliamentary debates in London, he was “Mr. Gandhi” or “Gandhi”
Hansard records show British MPs referring to him in these terms, even when cri
ticizing him. The tone was often dismissive, but the naming conventions stayed formal.

6. In public-facing propaganda, he was sometimes “the Congress leader Gandhi”

British Information Services and press notes used phrases like:
- “the Congress leader Mr. Gandhi”
- “the leader of the civil disobedience movement”

This framed him as a political actor rather than a moral or spiritual figure.

The people of Bharat revered Gandhi 1900-1948, and this included almost all of the giants of the Independence Movement. You can argue that this reverence was unmerited when viewed in retrospect, that is perfectly fine, I have no arguments with it; history is not eternal truths, but is rebuilt for each era.

This idea that M.K. Gandhi's Mahatma title was a British construct is to play violence with history, and to dishonor all of those people of Bharat. In a speech months after Gandhi's assassination, Sardar Patel referred to those contemporaries from abroad who criticized Gandhi with "As if they know more about Gandhiji’s ways that we who have passed our life with him". That, IMO, holds for future generations as well, but it is perfectly legitimate for your assessment to vary.

A_Gupta ji,

the man was a wily politician and a shadowy fixer with focus on non majority issues because he thought that his so called "spiritual" force would always and unquestioningly carry the Hindu samaj per his wishes.

there were many people in every corner of colonial India who disliked him intensively and his needless bonhomie with the britshits and the rabidly jihadi forces pushing for partition, separate electorates et al was the reason for the revulsion

He operated with great authority that was never granted to him by any formal legal or political process and yet slyly avoided all responsibility for his perverse actions because he was delibrately but covertly propped up by the britshits and by extension, the congis

He could have, at any time, if he so desired, have stopped the use of the word mahatma in connection to his persona, and yet he did not do so even once. It's not as if he did not know better

his bizzare experiments and perverse actions, especially the unorthodox sleeping arrangements, caused deep distress amongst his own supporters and yet he continued regardless with his murky shenanighans.

he knew exactly what was happening in the political ecosystem of India and his hurtful responses justifying jihadi violence against the majority simply went against the grain. His unasked for yet enthisiastic support for the khilafat movement is a case in point. Whose father what goes, regarding WTF happened in turkey then or even in the turkey of today

this khilafat crap was a bitter taste of things to come. is anyone asking cui bono

The entire mahatma narrative was sustained both by the congis and the britshits because the britshits controlled the press and the levers of power and ghandi himself was a creation of the britshit

the british said that gandhi was worth two brigades in India. why would they even think that

To make such sweeping statements in 2026 is, to say the least, is inappropriate, especially considering the mass of evidence to the contrary that is available in many declassified documents. he actually delayed India's independence by more that ten years with his quirky and whimsical activities that somehow always ended up either supporting the britshits or the jihadis but never the idea of India itself, or was he ever in the slightest, considerate of the aspirations, hopes and ambitions of the majority a lot of whom blindly followed the mirage of the mahatma

BTW, the so called "giants of the Independence movement" were all britshit creations with whitewashed figures like Bose, Savarkar and many other prominent Hindu freedom fighters that included the likes of Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Lala Lajpat Rai, and Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi et al, who were all written out of India's history, and are rarely mentioned even today.

There is a serius need for an Indian narrative, shorn of all colonial influences, especially the vast body of commie generated neocolonial history writing that is being pushed by the BIF as the gospel truth



one must ponder as to why the "mahatma" or even his idiotic chaatukar never seriously figured in the run for the nobel

The South African Gandhi - Stretcher-Bearer of Empire by Ashwin Desai, Goolem Vahed

"India gave us a Mohandas, we gave them a Mahatma," goes a popular South African refrain.

The South African Gandhi focuses on Gandhi's first leadership experiences and the complicated man they reveal—a man who actually supported the British Empire. Ashwin Desai and Goolam Vahed unveil a man who, throughout his stay on African soil, stayed true to Empire while showing a disdain for Africans. For Gandhi, whites and Indians were bonded by an Aryan bloodline that had no place for the African. Gandhi's racism was matched by his class prejudice towards the Indian indentured. He persistently claimed that they were ignorant and needed his leadership, and he wrote their resistances and compromises in surviving a brutal labor regime out of history. The South African Gandhi writes the indentured and working class back into history.

The authors show that Gandhi never missed an opportunity to show his loyalty to Empire, with a particular penchant for war as a means to do so. He served as an Empire stretcher-bearer in the Boer War while the British occupied South Africa, he demanded guns in the aftermath of the Bhambatha Rebellion, and he toured the villages of India during the First World War as recruiter for the Imperial army. This meticulously researched book punctures the dominant narrative of Gandhi and uncovers an ambiguous figure whose time on African soil was marked by a desire to seek the integration of Indians, minus many basic rights, into the white body politic while simultaneously excluding Africans from his moral compass and political ideals.

https://www.amazon.in/South-African-Gan ... 345&sr=8-1