Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by johneeG »

Lilo wrote:Leaving aside my sympathies for the poor father beaten up in front of his daughter ,
I feel revolted by Indians and those of Indian descent circulating themselves as "Fans" to Manchester United club in particular .

I mean Manchester IS the city which literally grew by sucking out the life out of the marrow of our ancestors by its mill cloth monopoly for more than a hundred years .

This monopoly itself was so "gracefully" achieved by the ohh soo "legendary British sense of fairplay" who started out by chopping off the thumbs and hands off the weavers who were then known to produce a calico so fine, several meters of which be easily folded into a match box. They systematically imposed crippling taxes and duties on the produce and exports of Indian cloth. Unable to face up to the repression the landless weavers gave up their original livelihoods and simply became destitute ripe and ready for meeting their deaths in the artificial famines induced by the "oh so benevolent overlords".
These famines in turn owed their origin to the large scale replacement of the required foodcrops by useless cash crops, especially Indigo plantations all of which was destined to be dyed onto the now famous "Manchester calico" ( btw the irony of now calling "The" Calico as "Manchester Calico" seems to have been lost on the Briturds).

Fast forward to 1930, when MKG walks up the steps of viceregal palace dressed in a single piece of cloth (as now his country men have been reduced to the penury of being able to afford only one) , the stinking turd Churchill (May he rot in hell) had the temerity to mock him as the "Half Naked Kaffir".

Frankly when ever i visualize this whole series of events, blood simply boils.
Even to this day in our countryside one finds many of the landless people working as agricultural laborers, now being categorized as scheduled castes etc who are infact descendants of those whose forefathers were master craftsmen renowned and appreciated the world over till their skill became the envy for the greed of the Manchester city .

Much of the above is alluded to in the history taught at our school level (though never laid bare as explicitly) yet ones comes across shameless yuppies in our metros yelling away in "sports bars" donning their Manchester U garb and coming across as grade one Aholes .
+108, saar.
You are correct this is taught in schools, but the true horror(from Indian perspective) and impact(from brit economic/social perspective) is not laid bare. Please expand on this... Its very educative.

Posted your post in collection of good posts. Link :)
Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4137
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by Neela »

Brihaspati-ji ,
Here is an extract from "How India clothed the world" . Remarkably similar to what you have been saying.

Image

@Lilo
No reference to cutting off thumbs in the book. ( Book available on Google. )
There is an article by Shashi Tharoor hosted on IIT website with a mention of it but no hard references.
member_19686
BRFite
Posts: 1330
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by member_19686 »

The British destruction of the Indian textiles is explored here:

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogs ... n-and.html

As far as cutting off thumbs goes, my understanding is that it originated in "Consideration on Indian Affairs" by William Bolts, published in 1772. He was a dismissed employee of the East India Company.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by svinayak »

British have systematically erased all the atrocities done on the Indian population for the last 100 years.
The cotton and cloth industry has been the target for atleast 300 years. Lot of trade practices was enacted to restrict and kill the Indian industry was enacted and harsh policy setup inside India to target Indian productivity. They have been worried about Indian productivity and that has resulted in the English industrialization after 1700s due to direct experience with India,

Information of Several things which came from India has been suppressed.
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6601
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by sanjaykumar »

Of course that is the key reason for information dominance: agendas are supported by the unknown, what is not told.

There is a rascal on this forum who insists on whipping up sordid tales of Christian degeneracy, ghoulish European medical practices, intellectual backwardness of Christian Europe in the rejection, and subsequent appropriation of Hindu mathematics.


Perhaps there is a method to the madness.
Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4080
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by Lilo »

Saars , like Viv ji i was first told about this when i was a kid . In my case it was by my grandmother who told me this.

Frankly till i saw the reactions to the post i was thinking that what i had written was something which was common knowledge.

But basically my grandma's version went like this -

Setting:It was the early phase of industrial revolution (it started first in London) and mechanized mills were still producing cloth which was coarse and heavy and was basically no match to the best of the hand woven cloth from India.

A group of master weavers were invited to London to meet the Queen . They presented her with their finest weaves which the queen inspected with awe. She was amazed by the quality, that the cloth was so light and thin (able to be folded into a small match box, able to pass through a ring etc) yet made of pure cotton and entirely made by hand - she couldn't believe that it was made by hand.
The queen praised the weavers and seemed pleased with them, yet when they were sent away - she directed that the thumbs of these weavers are to be immediately cut off . Her benevolent rationale was that since Britain invested so much of its plunder in capitalizing the machinery and the mills they cannot allow the existence of a better quality of cloth than theirs . As long as these weavers keep weaving such fine cloth even in the small quantities they are capable of (making such fine grades of cloth is probably quite labor intensive ) the British mill cloth even though mass produced can never be the "Top" in quality.

So just for the sake of being number one in quality and to benefit from that USP in her European and Colonial markets the Queen got their thumbs cutoff. I wonder if someone was there to quote Milton to the "ohh soo benevolent" Queen would she have acted differently ?
I dont think so.

Regarding the question of why thumbs ?
I vaguely remember that there was supposed to be a specific operation during hand weaving that involves shuttling the bit across the two ends and where the thumb is used to hold the bit before and at the end of one cycle of the weave. So if the thumb is off the hand weave cannot be done. Probably the gurus can explain it better here.

Re: Mentions in current literature,

Haresh ji , Neela ji,
Below is the account from MKG himself
After his arrest, the magistrate once asked Gandhi what his occupation was. Gandhi said: " I am a spinner, weaver and farmer. " He was then 64. Twenty -five years earlier he had written Hind Swaraj. In it had stressed the need of using swadeshi things and of making India free from exploitation from within and without. till then, he had not seen a handloom, nor known the difference between a charkha and a handloom. But he knew how the import of cloth from England had ruined Indian weavers. The Indians helped a foreign government to establish itself firmly on the soil by showing their preference for foreign fineries. He read in books how to increase the export of their mill-made cloth, the east India company terrorized the Indian weavers and compelled them to cut off their thumbs that wove the finest muslin.
two hundred years ago
, India used to export 30 lakh rupees' worth of hand woven cloth a year. After the conquest of India by the British, in 40 years' time, all export eased and 100 years later, India used every year one-fourth of Britain's textile export amounting to 60 crores of rupees. Thus Indian handloom production, which was the envy of the world, got ruined . the weavers lost their occupation, fell back on agriculture and were starved to death. One Viceroy stated that " the bones of the cotton weavers are bleaching the plains of India. The misery hardly finds a parallel in the history of commerce."
Another corroboration came from a recent story mentioned in this thread. It was the story of how a bustling artisan town of 5000 named Mahua Dabar was razed to the ground by the British Army and 1000 remaining massacred by shelling while the rest managed to flee . Previously some from the town chanced upon a few white British soldiers escaping from the Cawnpore garrison during 1857 revolt and promptly killed them as they were still raw from the memories of how their father's hands (they being "transgressing" weavers) were cutoff by the British in the previous generation .
In the early 19th century, the East India Company, eager to promote British textiles, had cut off the hands of hundreds of weavers in Bengal.

Twenty weavers’ families from Murshidabad and Nadia had then fled to Awadh, whose nawab resettled them in Mahua Dabar and allowed them to carry on with their livelihood.

Many of the first-generation weavers had already lost their hands, but they taught the craft to their sons and the small town of 5,000 people soon became a bustling handloom centre...
Sushupti wrote:As far as cutting off thumbs goes, my understanding is that it originated in "Consideration on Indian Affairs" by William Bolts, published in 1772. He was a dismissed employee of the East India Company.
S ji,
This may be so but there prima facie exists no reason to doubt his intentions in revealing it as there seems to be many independent accounts (like the one about Mahua dabar etc as mentioned above).

Basically i think that this history is not lost from the common populace yet - probably 5 years back i came across a story in the local edition of a vernacular paper that a young guy had managed to weave a saree very light and thin and was able to fit it in a gaint match box (not the 50 matchstick one but the 10 x 50 matchstick one) . They printed it as a commendable achievement . Then too a similar account of history was mentioned as the background.

Anyways all said and done ,
Inspite of the systematic attempts by the Britturds to erase/rewrite their savagely bloody history in India (like how they tried with Mahua dabar or the missing thumbs & hands of the weavers) . The unedited and real versions of history are being passed down in Indian households almost akin to how the English pass down their Heirlooms . Many weavers may not be having much in terms of real worldly possessions even to this day but along with their creaky wooden handlooms another intangible heirloom is invariably getting passed down generation after generation (the young man's efforts to fit his weave in a box was a telling sign).

The Britturds just have to quitely wait for their comeuppance .
member_19686
BRFite
Posts: 1330
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by member_19686 »

Image

Note the very last words on the page, link to the book of Bolts:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=98lNAAA ... mb&f=false
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by brihaspati »

Lisa ji,
my post was very simple actually. Why do you specifically restrict UK action to "legal" onlee when it is about dealing with anti-Indian organizations or activities? UK does not restrict itself to strictly legal operations onlee in such cases. Based on what you answer, I will proceed. On the other hand, if I do suggest what could legally be done - even if it has any legal value, I would expect bills or executive orders to be brought in so that in the future even that legal loophole through which the UK gov could be required to take action - would be closed. That is, UK gov would have all the necessary excuses not to take action.
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by member_22872 »

My grand mother also used to tell me about the quality of sarees (don't know from which part, most probably the south). She used to refer to the times as "in those days". She told me that the quality of sarees was so fine that, one can literally fold the saree into a match box. Sure there could be hyperbole, but what I now understand is that it certainly is of extremely high quality, unparalleled in those times.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by Rahul M »

I believe the fine cloth being referred to here is the muslin from bengal. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... atson-silk there has been a recent effort to revive the art with mixed success.
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/ ... -fine-yarn

the cutting off thumbs part is accepted history. I am not aware of original source.
member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by member_22872 »

Rahul ji, very nice, thanks, didn't know it was from Bengal.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by brihaspati »

rohitvats ji,
you can start with R.C.Dutt's
The Economic History of India Under Early British Rule. From the Rise of the British Power in 1757 to the Accession of Queen Victoria in 1837. (Vol. I.)
The Economic History of India in the Victorian Age. From the Accession of Queen Victoria in 1837 to the Commencement of the Twentieth Century, Vol. II. (1904)

These might be available online.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by brihaspati »

sanjaykumar ji,
there are "rascals" on the forum too? Or anyone who brings up instances of "Christian degeneracy", "European medical ghoulishness" and initial rejection and then appropriation of Hindu mathematics - is a "rascal" - a low-life/rabble/mud-dweller/?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by brihaspati »

Regarding the "thumb cutting" story as "dubious" or possible anti-East-India company propaganda, I guess people are referring to Muir's interpretation that it was possibly a story rooted in silk-winders themselves cutting their thumbs off to escape the company pressure to wind/weave.

No which one is more believable - silk-winders themselves cutting their own hands off? Vansittart and others of the period go on oath to depose that the "Hindoos" and Indians in general are rather quaintly attached to their religious tenets. In most of the prevalent tenets - Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs - deliberate amputation of parts of the body [not temporary mutilation or piercings] would be against religion if not done as a sacrifice/offering to the divine.

The English merchant being accused of fraud and hence his testimony being dubious - would imply that almost all of the others from EIC who dismiss such claims of atrocities and similarly from almost every other Englishman on Indian soil, - are dubious. Occasionally and curiously honest about the disastrous and criminal impact of British presence on Indian economy and society - but nevertheless proposing and enforcing continuance of the same exploitative measures - like Clive [on his last return] and Hastings , were accused of every bit of legally cognizable flaws including fraud. Most of the EIC officials as well as English merchants were engaged in practices, or the general arrangement of business in English controlled India - was unlimited and unbridled fraud, deception, extortion, almost literally mafia behaviour - from which a single English merchant could not have escaped. He would have been out of business otherwise.

Neela ji - many thanks for the ref!
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by brihaspati »

However, it would be missing the whole picture if we omit the role of the Indian comprador class - the Gumoshtah's for example. The Indian agents of the EIC and English merchants, who knew the land and the people, their vulnerabilities, helped the EIC and the English merchants to perpetrate the atrocities.

It does not detract any bit from the English role in such atrocities - it was just that they were singularly responsible to encourage such behaviour from a section of Indians, and not discouraging. At the same time, the phenomenon should be kept in mind in trying to understand that there possibly will always be a section of Indians looking for such foreign or external forces to give military/state/repressive cover for their own sadism and robbery on their fellow countrymen. The Brits were just the latest in a long line of invaders - who never made India their "home" [home was always outside in a superior and holier foreign land, and identifications remained outside India - whether be it Mecca, or London], but who like those who came before them - encouraged, protected, and always with state sponsored violence - a class of collaborators, who helped exploit and destroy Indian society and economy and hold up the image and power of the foreign master in every possible way.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by brihaspati »

Haresh ji, from my experience of close quarter combat, if he was being held up by packed bodies - then to sustain serious injuries his frontal part must have been accessible. Even then to be held up it means either the two sides are empty and he is actually gripped by neck/waist from behind to take the blows, or there are humans standing to his two sides but the front has been vacated by others to give arm/body movement space to attackers.

Head butts can be broken by tilting the head properly to take the blow on the upper angle of the forehead, or better still - push it forward as when you "head" for the soccer ball, into the tip of the nose of your attacker. The harder he will hit - the better will his nose be bashed in. If he is too forceful, he might even end up dead. Another place to aim for is the wind-pipe cartilage, to break the cricoid.

These guys will at best get a few years in jail, come out and look for similar ego trips. They will continue forever in looking for such targets, knowing that bashing a certain coloured human is not taken by the society at large as equivalent to bashing other coloured ones. So it would have been better if an unintended accident happened of the nature I referred to - in the process of blind movement by the victim to defend himself.
Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by Yayavar »

venug wrote:Rahul ji, very nice, thanks, didn't know it was from Bengal.
Dhaka ka malmal - or Muslin silk from Dhaka was the finest as per grandmotherly legend.
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6601
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by sanjaykumar »

sanjaykumar ji,
there are "rascals" on the forum too? Or anyone who brings up instances of "Christian degeneracy", "European medical ghoulishness" and initial rejection and then appropriation of Hindu mathematics - is a "rascal" - a low-life/rabble/mud-dweller/?



Err... Brihaspati ji that was meant to be self-referential.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by brihaspati »

^^^I understood : why self-disparage? hence my remark.
Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2177
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by Varoon Shekhar »

"bashing a certain coloured human is not taken by the society at large as equivalent to bashing other coloured ones."

If I read this correctly, an attack on a Black individual would create far more societal outrage, than an attack on an Indian. Yes, that is generally correct, for equivalent types of assaults. Jews and Blacks are no-no's for any kind of assault, physical or verbal. Sensible people won't condone an attack on an Indian, but there won't be the same kind of uproar over such an incident.
Klaus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2168
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 12:28
Location: Cicero Avenue

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by Klaus »

Acharya wrote:British have systematically erased all the atrocities done on the Indian population for the last 100 years.

Information of Several things which came from India has been suppressed.
Prize nuggets and classified material does remain in places such as Chatham House.
ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by ArmenT »

Rahul M wrote:I believe the fine cloth being referred to here is the muslin from bengal. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... atson-silk there has been a recent effort to revive the art with mixed success.
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/ ... -fine-yarn
Yep, any way you swing it, calico (or rather, the underlying material, cotton) just isn't as fine as silk in nature. Muslin silk could be fine enough to pass through a ring, but not cotton cloth.
Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4137
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by Neela »

Silk production goes through more stages than cotton making it inherently expensive.
Cotton sits right when it comes to quality and price.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7831
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by rohitvats »

brihaspati wrote:rohitvats ji,
you can start with R.C.Dutt's
The Economic History of India Under Early British Rule. From the Rise of the British Power in 1757 to the Accession of Queen Victoria in 1837. (Vol. I.)
The Economic History of India in the Victorian Age. From the Accession of Queen Victoria in 1837 to the Commencement of the Twentieth Century, Vol. II. (1904)

These might be available online.
Many thanks.
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1881
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by Lisa »

brihaspati wrote:Lisa ji,
my post was very simple actually. Why do you specifically restrict UK action to "legal" onlee when it is about dealing with anti-Indian organizations or activities? UK does not restrict itself to strictly legal operations onlee in such cases. Based on what you answer, I will proceed. On the other hand, if I do suggest what could legally be done - even if it has any legal value, I would expect bills or executive orders to be brought in so that in the future even that legal loophole through which the UK gov could be required to take action - would be closed. That is, UK gov would have all the necessary excuses not to take action.
Brihaspatiji

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

Let me help you. Separatism is not proscribed in the UK either by act or by precedence. This being a material fact the police are powerless. Let’s go further, ask anyone who visited the Danny Boy pubs in Hammersmith during the troubles. People were openly collecting money for the IRA whilst British soldiers were dying in NI. If they could do little about that why should they really be concerned with Khalistan supporters?

All you appear to have is a CT with no basis in fact.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by brihaspati »

Lisa wrote:
brihaspati wrote:Lisa ji,
my post was very simple actually. Why do you specifically restrict UK action to "legal" onlee when it is about dealing with anti-Indian organizations or activities? UK does not restrict itself to strictly legal operations onlee in such cases. Based on what you answer, I will proceed. On the other hand, if I do suggest what could legally be done - even if it has any legal value, I would expect bills or executive orders to be brought in so that in the future even that legal loophole through which the UK gov could be required to take action - would be closed. That is, UK gov would have all the necessary excuses not to take action.
Brihaspatiji

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

Let me help you. Separatism is not proscribed in the UK either by act or by precedence. This being a material fact the police are powerless. Let’s go further, ask anyone who visited the Danny Boy pubs in Hammersmith during the troubles. People were openly collecting money for the IRA whilst British soldiers were dying in NI. If they could do little about that why should they really be concerned with Khalistan supporters?

All you appear to have is a CT with no basis in fact.
No I did expect you to insist pointedly on the "legal" process onlee. Much in UK law is unstated, driven by interpretations of precedences - and there are gaps in the law through which things like "separatism" slip through. But then one has to wonder as to why a nation or regime so obsessively concerned about sedition has nothing against "separatism".

Maybe because you chose not to highlight the advantages of not having formal hard laws against "separatism" in UK? Apart from the triviality of open collection for IRA during the troubles - which would have also served the purpose of intel in observing who collected and who gave, the crucial point lies in how that information would be used.

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

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

For both the above, I had the IRA very much in mind. Shall we go into how not onlee the IRA but all associated or unassociated forms of Irish separatism were "legally" dealt with by the UK state machinery?

Or you do not want to highlight the fact that not having formal "acts" against separatism actually helps the British colony in Ireland - which has its own little separatism from the majority Irish of the concerned island? However that still does not prevent selective and not that "legal" methods to be applied against hated versions of "separatism" and protect the loved versions?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by brihaspati »

Maybe some hints towards why it is advantageous not to have formal laws against "separatism" in UK:

http://ansionnachfionn.com/2013/03/21/b ... -scotland/
I noted back in January of 2012 the calls emanating from leaders of the separatist British Unionist minority in the north-east of Ireland suggesting that their vital (as well as historic) links with Britain and Lowland Scotland should be secured by “partitioning” any future independent Scottish nation (essentially moving the border between Scotland and England up to a line between Kilmarnock on the west coast and Dunbar on the eastern coast, and taking in areas around or including Glasgow). Lord John Kilclooney, better known as the former UUP head-honcho John Taylor, was the first off the blocks with this:

“Northern Ireland is not only geographically close to Scotland but shares more with Scotland than with any other country. When the majority in Ireland voted for independence from the UK… Northern Ireland remained within the UK as was the desire of most people in that part of Ireland. Should there ever be a majority in Scotland for independence it should not be binding on all the people of Scotland.

If, say, Strathclyde or the Lowlands prefer to remain in the UK then that decision should be honoured by a partition of Scotland.”

Ah yes, because appeasing a small, violent and anti-democratic British separatist minority worked out so well in Ireland didn’t it?

But no matter, Taylor’s attitudes were reflected in those of other British Unionist leaders. Tom Elliot, the then worse leader of the UUP up to the present worse leader of the UUP, declared:

“…the constitutional approach of Alex Salmond appears to pose a greater threat to the union than the violence of the IRA.”

Ta-dah! But others remained focused on the idea of divide and conquer. Like Tory bigwig Malcolm Sinclair, the 20th Earl of Caithness (but of course):

“A former Conservative minister has said Orkney and Shetland should have the right to remain part of the UK if Scotland votes for independence.

The Earl of Caithness has tabled amendments to the Scotland Bill, which gives further powers to Holyrood.

He said a referendum vote favouring independence should not be binding on the Northern Isles, unless the majority of islanders voted “yes”.”
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by eklavya »

^^^^^
brihaspati, so your grouse is that the UK is not using illegal methods to deal with supporters of Sikh separatism and terrorism in the UK? You would like the UK government to break UK laws to deal with Sikh separatism and terrorism in the UK?
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1881
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by Lisa »

Brihaspatiji

It is pitiful watching you write all this without so much as one fact to back up any of it.

All this while you seem to have forgotten the elephants in the room. If Separatism were such a problem in the UK please explain how a referendum is being organised for Scotland? As for how the IRA has been dealt with, let me help you again. Martin McGuinness their ex commander is deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. My, my what a cruel way the British have of dealing with their enemies.

As for your thrust for legalities, let me enlighten you further. The former Deputy Prime Minister could not get the police to investigate the hacking of his phone. He had to apply for a Judicial Review as the police in essence told him, the second most powerful man in the UK to take a running jump as they were not answerable to him and you are attempting to convince this forum that the UK police happily indulge in illegalities as a matter of course! Let’s compare this with the Indian government’s recent investigation on Stalin where the police do exactly what the government want on demand.

You are using an Indian prism to talk about the UK and substituting facts with CT probably because, unlike me, you have no facts to hand.

I put it to you that you have very little actual knowledge of how the UK actually works.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by brihaspati »

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.

Lisa ji,
yes UK laws act according to the political or perceived national interests of UK. Fair enough. You can assume what you want about my knowledge of the UK and how it actually "works". The pleasure is all mine. By the way some among the IRA/Sinn- Fein leadership surviving to take on a political role, does not negate the reality of the anti-Republican campaign by successive British governments.

And you are still not saying anything about the non-legal methods applied?
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1881
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by Lisa »

brihaspati wrote:Lisa ji,
yes UK laws act according to the political or perceived national interests of UK. Fair enough. You can assume what you want about my knowledge of the UK and how it actually "works". The pleasure is all mine. By the way some among the IRA/Sinn- Fein leadership surviving to take on a political role, does not negate the reality of the anti-Republican campaign by successive British governments.

And you are still not saying anything about the non-legal methods applied?
Brihaspatiji

I do not think that you have understood much of what I have written. It is
totally opposite to what you are saying, ie UK law DOES NOT act
according to political or perceived national interests. It act to the letter of
the law.

With regards to the IRA, again I do not think you have so much as a clue
on what the actual situation is else you would not be using the phrase
'surviving'. They voluntarily arranged a ceasefire and independently put their
arms 'beyond use'. They have not disbanded.

With regards to non-legal method, you are making the suggestion not I.
You provide the facts.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by Agnimitra »

Here's how the UK (and EU) operates when it comes to managing propaganda against external targets:
A new TV station is going on air in London this Thursday night aiming to give a platform to the voices of those in opposition to the current leadership of Iran. This comes just over a week after 19 state-run Iranian TV and radio stations were banned in the EU. RT discusses the matter with investigative journalist Tony Gosling who's in Bristol.


So while loudly tomtomming their great commitment to equality and free speech at every opportunity (using some suitably innocuous anecdotes), they gain the moral high ground from which to mount all manner of overt and covert ops against others. The UK and EU is a nest of separatist serpents from other countries.
Last edited by Agnimitra on 23 Mar 2013 04:27, edited 1 time in total.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by brihaspati »

Lisa ji,
any rough estimates of those from the IRA's military and political wings, who were eliminated physically by the state? By "surviving", I meant those who were still alive at the time of the GFD agreement. I had to read through fat volumes of docs connected to the NI peace agreement because of a certain reason. Let us not assume too much about our respective lack of knowledge.

I asked you two very simple questions - repeatedly - why do you restrict yourself to "legal" methods only? Do you think that UK has always used only legal methods to deal with separatist violence or separatist organizing towards violence?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by brihaspati »

An old news item. If true, may indicate modus operandi of legal methods adopted.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 77671.html
Britain planned to build a Taliban training camp for 2,000 fighters in southern Afghanistan, as part of a top-secret deal to make them swap sides, intelligence sources in Kabul have revealed. The plans were discovered on a memory stick seized by Afghan secret police in December.

The Afghan government claims they prove British agents were talking to the Taliban without permission from the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, despite Gordon Brown's pledge that Britain will not negotiate. The Prime Minister told Parliament on 12 December: "Our objective is to defeat the insurgency by isolating and eliminating their leaders. We will not enter into any negotiations with these people."

The British insist President Karzai's office knew what was going on. But Mr Karzai has expelled two top diplomats amid accusations they were part of a plot to buy-off the insurgents.

The row was the first in a series of spectacular diplomatic spats which has seen Anglo-Afghan relations sink to a new low. Since December, President Karzai has blocked the appointment of Paddy Ashdown to the top UN job in Kabul and he has blamed British troops for losing control of Helmand.

It has also soured relations between Kabul and Washington, where State Department officials were instrumental in pushing Lord Ashdown for the UN role.

President Karzai's political mentor, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, endorsed a death sentence for blasphemy on the student journalist Sayed Pervez Kambaksh last week, and two British contractors have been arrested in Kabul on, it is claimed, trumped up weapons charges. The developments are seen as a deliberate defiance of the British.

An Afghan government source said the training camp was part of a British plan to use bands of reconciled Taliban, called Community Defence Volunteers, to fight the remaining insurgents. "The camp would provide military training for 1,800 ordinary Taliban fighters and 200 low-level commanders," he said.

The computer memory stick at the centre of the row was impounded by officers from Afghanistan's KGB-trained National Directorate of Security after they moved against a party of international diplomats who were visiting Helmand.

A ministry insider said: "When they were arrested, the British said the Ministry of the Interior and the National Security Council knew about it, but no one knew anything. That's why the President was so angry."

Details of how much President Karzai was told remain murky. Some analysts believe Afghan officials were briefed about the plan, but that it later evolved.

The camp was due to be built outside Musa Qala, in Helmand. It was part of a package of reconstruction and development incentives designed to win trust and support in the aftermath of the British-led battle to retake the stronghold last year.

But the Afghans feared the British were training a militia with no loyalty to the central government. Intercepted Taliban communications suggested they thought the British were trying to help them, the Afghan official said.

The Western delegates, Michael Semple and Mervyn Patterson, were given 48 hours to leave the country. Their Afghan colleagues, including a former army general, were jailed. The expulsions coincided with a row within the Taliban's ranks which saw a senior commander, Mansoor Dadullah, sacked for talking to British spies. One official claimed the camp was planned for Mansoor and his men.

The computer stick contained a three-stage plan, called the European Union Peace Building Programme. The third stage covered military training.

Curiously, the European Union says the programme did not exist and there were no EU funds to run it.

Afghan government officials insist it was bankrolled by the British. UK diplomats, the UN, Western officials and senior Afghan officials have all confirmed the outline of the plan, which they agree is entirely British-led, but all refused to talk about it on the record. President Karzai's office claimed it was "a matter of national security".

The memory stick revealed that $125,000 (£64,000) had been spent on preparing the camp and a further $200,000 was earmarked to run it in 2008, an Afghan official said. The figures sparked allegations that British agents were paying the Taliban.

President Karzai's spokesman, Humayun Hamidzada, accused Mr Semple and Mr Patterson of being "involved in some activities that were not their jobs."

The camp would also have provided vocational training, including farming and irrigation techniques, to offer people a viable alternative to growing opium. But the Afghan government took issue with plans to provide military training, to turn the insurgents into a defence force.

Afghan government staff also claimed the "EU peace-builders" had handed over mobile phones, laptops and airtime credit to insurgents. They said the memory stick revealed plans to train the Taliban to use secure satellite phones, so they could communicate directly with UK officials.

Mr Patterson, a Briton, was the third-ranking UN diplomat when he was held. Mr Semple, an Irishman, was the acting head of the EU mission. Officially, the British embassy remains tight-lipped, fuelling speculation that the plan may have been part of a wider clandestine operation.

A spokesman repeated the line used since Christmas: "The EU and UN have responded to inquiries on this. We have nothing further to add."

But privately, the UN maintains it had no role in setting up the camp. Meanwhile, Mr Semple's EU boss, Francesc Vendrell, admitted he had very little idea what was going on.

Yet the British ambassador, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, cut short his Christmas holiday to meet President Karzai and "spell out the Foreign Office paper-trail" which diplomats claim proves his government had agreed. They met twice, but it was not enough to stop Mr Semple and Mr Patterson being forced to leave.

Gordon Brown has also said Britain would increase its support for "community defence initiatives, where local volunteers are recruited to defend homes and families modelled on traditional Afghan arbakai".
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1881
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by Lisa »

Carl,

It is an offence to take political sides on any broadcast channel in the EU.
The Iranian channel was doing exactly that and furthermore was taking
editorial direction directly from the Iranian government. I sure you knew this
fact but posted the post anyway. Correct?

Very strange though, a Russian channel jumping to the defence of an
Iranian channel. A bit like Pol Pot coming to Idi Amin's defence. Very nice
but I wouldn't invite either one's practices to my country.
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1881
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by Lisa »

Brihaspatiji

Thank you for the Afghan related article. Kindly point out where the UK police is mentioned.

Furthermore, it is you who is suggesting illegal means not me. Why are
you asking me to defend your own accusation? You made a comment you
cannot substantiate and you want me to defend it. Very strange.

You say you studied the NI peace agreement, strange that the republican
negotiators never made any demands for justice for all these illegal
activities you are suggesting. What do you know of their sufferance that
even they do not know?
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by Agnimitra »

Lisa wrote:Carl,

It is an offence to take political sides on any broadcast channel in the EU.
And you're saying that the BBC is not politically partisan, I take it? On other threads I have provided several examples of clear spin and bias in programming on BBC Farsi - about Iran, especially to influence the Iranian expat community, about the Iranian regime and even about regional players such as India. The thing is, a lot of the antics of the UK/US becomes much more obvious in their non-English programming, rather than English. That's how they keep up a more innocent image in front of their own citizens like yourself.

Consider this more obvious example: The US broadcasts VOA Persian to Persian audiences worldwide, and also into Iran (via illegal dishes that most Iranians use). VOA Farsi programming is not only very politically partisan, but even religiously partisan - with discussions about whether the Islamic version of Christ is actually an anti-Christ, etc. This is broadcast by a US government service in Farsi. And then American politicians will innocently stand up and wonder aloud why these medieval Iranians think this is a crusade, and how they are religiously obsessed. Most Americans hardly know about some aspects of American programming directed into these countries. then there is the matter of evangelical programming and internet that does an even more biased job of it, and many of them do receive GOTUS support.

Nothing wrong with it - that's part of their war. All I'm saying is that Western countries in general know which buttons to push in target countries, and they have no reservations in pushing it. That they have evolved a very sophisticated way of doing it is to their credit. But just know that some of us here aren't foolish enough to stand up and eulogize their moral superiority.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by brihaspati »

Following up on Semple, another old item from Indrani Bagchi in the backdrop of the famous London Conference to reassure the frightened child called Pakistan:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... nciliation
Is India's neighbourhood set to get even more dangerous?
Indrani Bagchi, TOI Crest Feb 6, 2010, 09.50am IST

(Pakistan has pushed hard…)

In December, 2007, Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, threw out two Britons - Michael Semple and Mervyn Patterson- for allegedly bribing Taliban leaders in Musa Qala, Helmand, where British troops were fighting - not always to advantage.

Karzai, apparently enraged that the British were paying off the Taliban behind his back and demanding that these "leaders" be accommodated in the Afghan government, refused to comply, and in the face of British displeasure, expelled them.

Semple, said security officials in Afghanistan, is probably best described as the Afghanistan-Taliban brains trust for the UK's MI6, its external intelligence arm. In a re-run of the 19th Century 'Great Game' adventurers, Semple has been a prime advocate of 'reintegration' and 'reconciliation' with the Taliban as a key strategy to win the war in Afghanistan.

His background is equally interesting - Semple's father was a general in the British army and his wife Yamima's father, General Mirdha, a buddy of former Pakistani president Yahya Khan, putting him on an inside track to military-intelligence decision makers in Pakistan. The idea of wooing over softer Taliban leaders and quelling Pashtun anger isn't new or novel. Today, it is largely Semple's doctrine of 'reconciliation' that's driving the present British-led initiative to sift the 'good' Taliban from the 'bad', and bring the 'good' into the tent. It's a line that Pakistan has pushed, leveraging the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and army's deep contacts with the Taliban. Islamabad is peddling a promise, once betrayed in 1996 when the group overran Kabul, that the Taliban could be persuaded to control violence and create a backdrop that would allow the West to make a face-saving exit from Afghanistan. Alongside, the Taliban could be persuaded to be a replacement for Karzai, despised by Pakistan and slowly disgraced in Washington.


LONDON MOVE STUNS INDIA

The Afghanistan conference in London last week was a shocker for Indian mandarins who had hoped to muscle in and get a larger say in Afghan policy given the money and effort New Delhi has put into the reconstruction efforts. But what happened was that India got blindsided by the British swallowing the Pakistani line that Islamabad could deliver peace by negotiating a deal with the Taliban.
[....]
Pakistan has pushed hard to remain in the driver's seat on Afghan policy. And, at least for now, it appears to be winning by hard-selling the line that without the involvement of the ISI, re-integration will remain a non-starter. That was evident first at the Istanbul Af-Pak meeting leading up to the January 28 London conference , where Pakistan insisted India be kept out of the talks, and even a feeble attempt by Karzai to get India to the table was brushed off. India fretted and fumed impotently, but found itself completely dealt out of the game by Pakistan and the UK leading the charge, letting Karzai announce that he was going to draw his brothers back into the tent, and requesting the Saudis to mediate a 'reintegration and reconciliation' with the Taliban.

This was only formalizing a process that had started in 2009, when the Taliban leadership had met with the Afghan government in the desert kingdom . These meetings broke the ice, even quietly blessed by US special envoy to Af-Pak , Richard Holbrooke. After the London conference, Saudi envoy to India Faisal Tarab told Crest in a carefully worded comment, "We are ready to mediate with the Taliban, but we will not talk to terrorists.'' Saudi King Abdullah has just met Karzai and the outcome of that conversation could determine the success or otherwise of the proposed venture.

For India, global approval of the reconciliation process implies Pakistan, with its ISI and army, is likely to take a leading role. As Holbrooke told MK Narayanan, who was till recently NSA, and Nirupama Rao quietly during his last visit a couple of weeks ago, Pakistan has worked itself into a paranoia about India's presence in Afghanistan; India would have to be removed from all decision-making on Afghanistan, they insisted. As London showed, Islamabad got its way.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by brihaspati »

Lisa wrote:Brihaspatiji

Thank you for the Afghan related article. Kindly point out where the UK police is mentioned.

Furthermore, it is you who is suggesting illegal means not me. Why are
you asking me to defend your own accusation? You made a comment you
cannot substantiate and you want me to defend it. Very strange.

You say you studied the NI peace agreement, strange that the republican
negotiators never made any demands for justice for all these illegal
activities you are suggesting. What do you know of their sufferance that
even they do not know?
Hmm, I am sure you have access to the Stevens Report? Some names might help jog the memory too - Finucane for example or Lambert? Nelson, or Rupert or Kevin? I will wait until you remember.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Post by brihaspati »

While we wait for Lisa ji to remember, I searched for all the names I mentioned and found them in a single article online : I am hopeful that we can all be enlightened about how exactly the "letter of the law" is followed by the British state and "police" when it comes to certain types of separatism:

http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/brit ... -ira-1205/
3. The Provisional IRA

The Provisional IRA was a paramilitary organization created in 1969 with the aim of creating a United Ireland through both political and paramilitary efforts. In 1969, the IRA began to prepare for a military offensive action against the British occupation in Northern Ireland and to cause a collapse of the Northern Ireland government. Attacks were taken against British troops and economically significant targets were bombed.

Bloody Sunday

On January 30, 1972 in Derry, Northern Ireland, 26 civil rights protesters were shot by the British during a civil rights march with over thirteen killed, seven of them teenagers. All those shot were unarmed. The event was known as Bloody Sunday and led to a massive increase in IRA recruitment and support.

A ceasefire was reached in 1975, however it broke down in 1976 due to internal divisions within the IRA. Gerry Adams, who became leader of the IRA, then created a new strategy called the “Long War” which organized the IRA into small cells and increased use of the Sinn Féin as a political instrument in the “propaganda war.”

Ceasefire

Between 1971 and 1994, the IRA especially targeted the British Army, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), and the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR). A ceasefire was ultimately declared in 1994, temporarily breaking down between 1995 and 1997. The ceasefire was then re-instituted in 1997 and has lasted until present day, with the IRA giving up all its weapons and declaring an end to violent strategy in 2005.

4. The Stevens Report

Collusion

In 1989, the first of three official British inquiries was launched by Sir John Stevens, at the time a Deputy Chief Constable at Cambridgeshire, to investigate British intelligence and army collusion with the IRA in carrying out acts of violence, bombings and murder. The inquiry concluded that, “the conflict in Northern Ireland was needlessly intensified and prolonged by the ‘disastrous’ activities of a core of army and police officers who colluded with the terrorists responsible for dozens of murders.” The collusion “ratcheted up the hatred and bitterness” between the Irish Catholics and Protestants. Particular focus was placed on looking into the covert British army outfit, the Force Research Unit (FRU), and FRU agent Brian Nelson, who “infiltrated and effectively ran the Ulster Defence Association, a loyalist terror group”. He “was responsible for at least 30 murders, and...many of the victims he helped to identify were not involved in terrorism.”

The Murder of Patrick Finucane

The inquiry’s main prerogative was investigating the 1989 murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane, whose death was attributed to “loyalist terrorists guided to him by [FRU agent Brian] Nelson.”[1] The inquiry further concluded that, “a branch of British army intelligence and some police officers in Northern Ireland actively and deliberately helped a loyalist paramilitary group to murder Catholics in the late 1980s.”[2] [Lisa ji - there we go - "police officers"]

Obstruction of Investigation

Collusion was defined in the inquiry as, “the failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, withholding of intelligence and evidence and the involvement of intelligence agents in murder.” The inquiry “faced obstruction from its very first day from members of the security forces opposed to the inquiry”, and there was a “possibility” of the withholding of evidence being sanctioned by some levels of government.[3]
[Lisa ji might help us in identifying the specific laws that required such obstructions]

The inquiry also reported on some of the efforts to obstruct its investigation. One of these took place the night before the planned arrest of Nelson and other senior loyalists, when “information was leaked to the loyalist paramilitaries and the press”, resulting in the mission being aborted. Nelson’s FRU handlers had advised him to leave home the night before. A new date was set for the arrest, however the night before this next operation, the inquiry’s “Incident room was destroyed by fire,” which was said to be “a deliberate act of arson.”[4] [Again, UK laws do not rule out arson as possibility.]

The Murder of Brian Lambert

On November 9, 1987, a young Protestant student named Brian Lambert was shot and killed, “mistakenly targeted in revenge for the Remembrance Day bombing at Enniskillen the day before.” A Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) informant, William Stobie, “was recruited as an agent by RUC special branch in November 1987 following his arrest for the murder of Lambert for which he was released without charge.” In 2001, he was arrested by the Stevens Inquiry team for the murders of Finucane and Lambert and “two weeks later Stobie was shot dead.”[5] [Accidental death by unknown assailants - again not ruled out by law as a possibility]

5. The Force Research Unit (FRU)

A few months following the release of the Stevens Inquiry, it was reported that, “between 1969 and the IRA cease-fire of 1997, nearly 4,000 people were murdered in the course of ‘the Troubles,’ as the violent conflict in Northern Ireland is euphemistically called.” Furthermore, the British “fought a very dirty war” as they “didn't operate by due process. They allowed their agents on both sides, those who had infiltrated the IRA and the paramilitary groups, to engage in crimes to further their own ends.”

The FRU and the RUC had “police officers who operated under a policy through which details of suspected IRA members were passed along to Protestant paramilitary death squads, who then assassinated them.” The FRU, which was created in the 1980s, would “recruit and train double agents to work inside the paramilitary groups” and it “assisted Protestant terrorists in carrying out what were, in effect, proxy assassinations of Catholics.”[6]
[Again, Lisa ji might help us with the specific provisions of the law which were used in their proper "letter"]

6. The Omagh Bombing

The Bombing

On August 15, 1998, a car bombing took place in Omagh, Northern Ireland, killing 29 people and injuring roughly 220 others. It was described as “Northern Ireland's worst single terrorist atrocity.”[7] The attack was instantly blamed by the RUC on a group called the Real IRA (RIRA). Police had been clearing the area around the courthouse prior to the bombing, having received a “telephone tip off”, however “police were pushing everyone towards the bottom end of the town not knowing the bomb was there.”[8]

Double Agent

It was revealed in 2001 that David Rupert, an American double agent working for both the FBI and MI5 had “infiltrated the core of the organisation which planted the Omagh bomb.”[9]


Whistleblower

Over the course of several years, a series of articles in the British and Irish press reported on stories told by Kevin Fulton, the pseudonym of a British double agent in the IRA. Fulton became a highly controversial whistleblower regarding collusion between the British Army and the IRA. In 2001, he spoke out about the Omagh bombing, saying that “security forces didn't intercept the Real IRA's Omagh bombing team because one of the terrorists was a British double-agent whose cover would have been blown as an informer if the operation was uncovered.” Also, he “phoned a warning to his RUC handlers 48 hours before the Omagh bombing that the Real IRA was planning an attack and gave details of one of the bombing team and his car registration.”[10] In 2006 it was reported that “the British security service, MI5, withheld vital anti-terrorism intelligence just months before the Omagh bombing in 1998.”[11]

Collusion and Investigation

In 2003, senior officials in the Irish Police were “accused of ignoring a clear warning about the Omagh bomb atrocity to protect a Real IRA informer,” and “the bomb was allowed to 'go through' to preserve [the informer’s] role in the terrorist organization.”[12] A year prior, family members of the victims of the Omagh bombing attempted to set a meeting with Prime Minister Tony Bair regarding their concerns over the police investigations into the bombing, however, Blair "angered families of the Omagh bomb victims by refusing to meet them at 10 Downing Street.”[13]

7. Fulton and Thatcher

In 2002, Fulton spoke out regarding how “he was told by his military handlers that his collusion with paramilitaries was sanctioned by Margaret Thatcher herself.” Fulton had worked for the FRU while being a mole in the IRA. From 1981 until 1995, “Fulton remained on full army pay as he worked his way through the ranks of the IRA.” Fulton said that he helped mix explosives and “develop new types of bombs,” and “that some of the things [he] helped develop did kill.” He also stated that, “my handlers knew everything I did.” Fulton went on to become a member of the IRA’s torture unit, "which interrogated and executed suspected informers.”

In 1992, Fulton warned his handlers in both the FRU and MI5 that “his IRA mentor Blair was planning to use a horizontally- fired mortar for an attack on the police. His handlers did nothing. Within days, Blair fired the device at an armoured RUC Land Rover in Newry, in the process, killing policewoman Colleen McMurray. Another RUC officer lost both his legs.” Fulton split with the IRA and the FRU in the mid-90s and claimed to have been set up by the FRU to be discovered as a mole since he had “outlived his usefulness.” The idea was to have him discovered so that the IRA would “believe they were free of informers.” Meanwhile, “the army had secured a far more highly-placed mole within the IRA,” codenamed Stakeknife.[14]


8. Stakeknife

In 2003, the British mole in the high ranks of the IRA, codenamed Stakeknife, was revealed to be Alfredo Scappaticci. He headed the internal security unit [the death squad] of the IRA, “was secretly paid £80,000 a year for his role,” and “[was] also suspected of involvement in more than 40 murders. Dozens of people may have been allowed to die in order to protect his cover.” Also, “Scappaticci, a close friend of Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams since they were interned together in 1971, joined the IRA in the 1970s but became an informer after a brutal beating from a fellow Provo in 1978.”[15]

Interestingly, “Scappaticci has made millions in a taxpayer-funded resettlement package which was put in place after his cover was blown,” and “has also been given a new home, a new job, a new identity and a new face, thanks to plastic surgery,” as a result of help from MI5. Even the Sunday Herald, which reported this story, “was threatened with a court gagging order when MI5 was alerted that the paper planned to tell readers about Scappaticci's new life.”[16]

[This must be by the letter of the law: so why cannot similar methods be applied on Khalistanis?]

9. Deadly Double Agents

In 2006, it surfaced that “Britain allowed two IRA informers to organise 'human bomb' attacks,” a tactic which “involved forcing civilians to drive vehicles laden with explosives into army checkpoints.”[17]

Kevin Fulton also spoke out about how “MI5 arranged a weapons-buying trip to America in which he obtained detonators, later used by terrorists to murder soldiers and police officers,” and that, “British intelligence co-operated with the FBI to ensure his trip to New York in the 1990s went ahead without incident so that his cover would not be blown.” Further, “the technology he obtained has been used in Northern Ireland and copied by terrorists in Iraq in roadside bombs that have killed British troops.”[18]

In 2003, it was reported that aside from Stakeknife, “four more senior Provisionals, including Stakeknife's deputy, were double agents,” and that Stakeknife “is rated as only fifth in importance.”[19]

Another leader of the IRA’s internal security unit and Stakeknife's deputy was John Joe Magee, “one of the most feared men inside the Provisional IRA” who was “trained as a member of Britain's special forces. The IRA's ‘torturer- in-chief’ was in reality one of the UK's most elite soldiers,” and “most of those he investigated were usually executed.”[20]


10. The Sinn Féin and British Intelligence

Denis Donaldson, who headed the party's administration office, “said he was a British agent for two decades.”[21] Shortly afterwards, he was expelled from the party, and less than four months later he was “found shot dead.”[22]

In 2008, it was revealed that the personal driver for Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams, Roy ‘The Rat’ McShane, “was an informer in the pay of MI5.”
On top of this, Sean O’Callaghan, a member of Sinn Fein’s ruling council, also happened to be “working for the Irish police.”[23]

Bill Clinton and Gerry Adams

In 1998, a former US Ambassador to the UK claimed that the Clinton Administration “leaked British intelligence on Northern Ireland to the Irish Republican Army,” and that in 1994, “President Clinton approved the United States visa application of Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, the I.R.A.'s political wing.”[24]

11. FRU Back in Action

In 2007, it was reported that the FRU had changed its name to the Joint Support Group (JSG) and was active in Iraq since the US-UK invasion in 2003. JSG agents “are trained to turn hardened terrorists into coalition spies using methods developed on the mean streets of Ulster during the Troubles, when the Army managed to infiltrate the IRA at almost every level. Since war broke out in Iraq in 2003, they have been responsible for running dozens of Iraqi double agents.”[25] Interestingly, in 2003, the former head of the FRU in Northern Ireland throughout the Troubles, Brigadier Gordon Kerr, had “been sent to the Gulf to head up British spying activities in the Middle East”[26] and went on to head the JSG in Iraq after the occupation.[27]

[So the methods remain applicable]
Those who have studied the British trials of Indian freedom fighters or insurgent groups - should not be surprised by the methods indicated. But it might be surprising for those who do not have the benefit of the Indian prism.
Post Reply