** Tom Watson Uk Member Of Parliament Reveals Biggest Secret: Britain Involved In 1984 Army Attack On Darbar Sahib

[Jonny101]

Interesting debate on here, seems general brar seems disillusioned is still holding on the the false belief that indira gandhi had no corresponce with margret thatcher requesting her advice or assistance, we know now for a fact there was intelligence shared and deep collusion in the disastrous massacre of June 1984. Brar now wants the secret docs held by the RAW to be disclosed.

Brigadier khan shamefully as an Indian muslim seems quite smug and happy with his role in the attack on the sri harmandir sahib. He shows no signs of remorse but attempts to justify the attack.

Brar is a confirmed liar. His dishonest words carry no legitimacy.

As for Khan, not too long ago I started a topic showing how Indian Muslims viewed 1984 as a karmic payback against the Sikhs for 1947. Kashmiri Muslims are okay, but the other Indian Muslims have absolutely no sympathy for the suffering Sikhs endured in 84.

[lsingh]

The Indians themselves have said that they working with the Uk on Bluestar at least 8 months before June 84.Brar is looking very foolish with his line that the massacre was only planned days before. Brar and Khan were used to show a secular face to the massacre, the Indians have no use for them now.

[lsingh]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26271938

Sikh groups demand full inquiry on UK links to Golden Temple attack By Ed Lowther

Political reporter, BBC News

Sikh protest at Downing Street Campaigners staged a protest outside Downing Street on Thursday

Campaigners representing UK Sikhs have demanded a full public inquiry into the extent of UK involvement in a deadly 1984 attack on a Sikh temple in India.

An open letter to PM David Cameron, backed by the Sikh Federation UK and the British Sikh Council, argued that there were "too many serious questions that remain unanswered" on the claims.

The Sikh Federation's Dabinderjit Singh said Foreign Secretary William Hague had misled Parliament about the raid.

The UK government stood by its account.

Prime Minister David Cameron commissioned cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood in January to investigate claims of British involvement in the raid on the Golden Temple in the city of Amritsar.

Mr Hague presented its findings to Parliament earlier this month, which confirmed that the Indian government had sought advice from an SAS officer on how best to storm the temple.

The Golden Temple is the holiest shrine for Sikhs The Golden Temple is one of the holiest shrines for Sikhs

The officer said a raid should only be a last resort and suggested helicopters could be used as part of a strategy to minimise casualties, Sir Jeremy said.

Mr Hague told MPs earlier this month that the Indian government's campaign had "differed from the approach recommended", partly because there had been no "helicopter-borne element".

But Mr Singh said: "Every single book [on the subject] says that actually helicopter gunships were used. They were used on the 4, 5, and 6 June 1984.

"So that starts to put a different level of complicity in terms of what Parliament was told."

Mr Singh added: "So not only was the foreign secretary and the report that has been produced misleading, it was not truthful."

'Damage limitation'

The inquiry was launched last month after declassified documents were said to suggest Margaret Thatcher's government was involved in planning the raid, called Operation Blue Star.

Official figures put the death toll at 575, but Mr Hague said other reports suggested "as many as 3,000 people were killed including pilgrims caught in the crossfire".

UK involvement had had only a "limited impact" on the events at Amritsar, Mr Hague said.

But Mr Singh claimed that tanks used to storm the temple had been manufactured by a British firm, and representatives of Indian special forces had also travelled to England to make inquiries about getting SAS training for their troops.

"India turned it down," he went on. "But the point is, what were the British doing offering that training? Why were they welcoming those special forces, who actually led the operation against the Sikhs?"

The cabinet secretary's report had been "too narrowly focused", Mr Singh argued.

"It was looking at the advice that was given, but not looking at the context in which that advice was given, asking the question why was the British government contemplating providing military assistance of whatever sort."

The Sikh groups' open letter to the government said: "The review has been perceived as a damage limitation exercise and the report produced showed no empathy for the thousands of innocent Sikhs killed."

Mr Hague's Commons statement in full

The British Sikh Council's Gurmukh Singh said the recent revelation about the SAS officer's advice had brought the "more extreme side [of the Sikh community] and the moderate side together with some sort of common understanding".

"Unless there is admission of the truth, and the whole truth is revealed, and then there is reconciliation, you cannot draw a line under 1984," he concluded.

But Mr Hague dismissed a call from Labour MP John McDonnell for a full public inquiry in his Commons statement on 4 February.

"I think the facts have been set out clearly by the cabinet secretary, a respected official and the most senior civil servant in the country, who has served governments of all parties in a non-partisan way," he said.

The foreign secretary told MPs: "This loss of life was an utter tragedy.

"Understandably members of the Sikh community around the world still feel the pain and suffering caused by these events."

Responding to the campaigner's allegations, a government spokesman said: "The [cabinet secretary's] report found that the nature of the UK's assistance was purely advisory, limited and provided to the Indian government at an early stage.

"The then-government did send one military adviser to provide military advice on Indian contingency plans for an operation in the temple complex. However, this military advice was a one-off. It was not sustained.

"There was no other form of UK military assistance, such as training or equipment, to the Indians with Operation Blue Star. The actual operation implemented by the Indian Army differed significantly from the approach suggested by the UK military officer."

More on This Story

Related StoriesUK advised India before temple raid 04 FEBRUARY 2014, UK

Golden Temple SAS claims overlooked in India 15 JANUARY 2014, INDIA

[WaljinderSingh]

1984 Operation Bluestar Sri Harmandir Sahib - House of Lords, Lords Chamber (3rd Mar'14)

[ssinghuk]

1984 Operation Bluestar Sri Harmandir Sahib - House of Lords, Lords Chamber (3rd Mar'14)

Wonderful speech by Lord Singh at the beginning.

[garch]

Warsi white washed all concerns raised at the end..

[lsingh]

Good points made by Lord Singh were

That pilgrims that had been detained by the Indian army were killed with Grenades by the soldiers as they sat with their hands tied often with their own turbans

The November massacre was preplannned by India to happen at the time of Guru Nanak Dev Ji's Gurprub. It was brought forward due to Indiras assassination. Those that say if Indira had not been killed Sikhs would not have been killed are wrong, the massacre would have happened anyway.

By raising the points in the House of Lords they appear on Hansard the parliament website

Go to 9.10pm to read the debate on the site below

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/140303-0003.htm

Sikh Community

Question for Short Debate

9.10 pm

Asked by Lord Singh of Wimbledon

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further steps they will take to improve relations with the Sikh community arising from the publication of government documents regarding British involvement in planning the attack on the Golden Temple.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, the debate is time-limited to 90 minutes. All Back-Bench contributions will be limited to 10 minutes each.

Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB): My Lords, the first week of June will mark the 30th anniversary of the Indian Government’s attack on the Golden Temple—the Vatican of the Sikhs. The attack was deliberately timed to coincide with the martyrdom anniversary of the temple’s founder Guru Arjan, when the huge complex would be full to overflowing with pilgrims. Tanks and armoured vehicles were used. On conservative estimates, well over 2,000 pilgrims were killed. Eye-witnesses told of how some who surrendered were tied up in their own turbans and shot. Other eye-witnesses outside the temple complex, including my own in-laws, described with horror how they saw groups of pilgrims being herded together and then dispatched with hand grenades. Many of the atrocities were reported in the British and world press. The President of India at the time, Zail Singh, a Sikh, who was the nominal head of India’s armed services, was not even consulted.

Every June Sikhs remember the huge loss of life and the mindless damage to the Golden Temple, the historic centre of the Sikh faith. The question arises: why did Indira Gandhi resort to such brute force against the Sikhs? The Indian government version, unquestioningly accepted by our Government—and I speak as a British Sikh—was that there were 17 wanted

3 Mar 2014 : Column 1198

separatists “holed-up”—to use the Indian Government’s jargon—in the Golden Temple. They were a threat to a country of 1 billion people. The absurdity is obvious. In addition, this version does not explain why 40 other historic gurdwaras in Punjab were attacked at the same time. Sikh gurdwaras are open to all. Why were the so-called separatists not simply arrested by the hundreds of soldiers and police who daily entered the gurdwara for the traditional free food?

What Sikhs were demanding at the time was a fair share of Punjab’s river waters to irrigate their fields—and, more importantly, fair treatment for all India’s minorities against growing evidence of majority bigotry. Earlier in the same year hundreds of Muslims in Mumbai were massacred, with the mob carrying barriers proclaiming: “Majorities have their rights”.

The true reason for Mrs Gandhi’s vindictive attitude to Sikhs stemmed from her prison conviction for electoral fraud in the election of 1975 and her seizing power and imposing dictatorial rule. Her son Sanjay had married a Sikh and she turned to Sikhs for support. Sikhs, although less than 2% of the population, were at the forefront of the opposition to dictatorial rule, in which the poor—particularly Muslims—were forcibly sterilised and others dumped in the wilderness to make Delhi a tidier place for the Asian Games. Maneka Gandhi, Sanjay’s wife, true to Sikh democratic traditions, openly opposed the dictatorships.

Sikhs were never forgiven by Mrs Gandhi. When she returned to office, she cynically decided to play to majority religious bigotry, first against the Muslims and then even more vindictively against Sikhs. The June 1984 carnage in the Golden Temple far exceeded in numbers and barbarity the 1919 massacre led by General Dyer at the nearby Jallianwala Bagh. Even worse was to come.

The widespread killing of thousands of Sikhs following Mrs Gandhi’s assassination was blamed on spontaneous mob violence. All the evidence is that it was pre-planned for the anniversary of Guru Nanak’s birthday and was simply brought forward, with the government-controlled All India Radio constantly inciting the killers with the words “Khoon ka badla khoon”, meaning “Take blood for blood”. The army was confined to barracks for three full days to allow free rein to organised gangs carrying Sikh voter lists, armed with identical steel rods and an unusually plentiful supply of kerosene, to go around the capital in municipal buses beating and burning male Sikhs and gang-raping women and young girls. Prominent Hindus and Sikhs begged the new Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, to order troops to restore order. His chilling response was: “When a big tree falls, the ground is bound to shake”. The same scenes were enacted throughout the country. We know all about the disappearances and killings in General Pinochet’s Chile, but a WikiLeaks document carrying a signed report from the American embassy in India shows that more Sikhs were brutally murdered in just three days in 1984 than those killed in Pinochet’s 17-year rule.

I turn to our Government’s involvement, as revealed in documents that have now come to light. In their initial reaction, the present Government said that support for Mrs Gandhi was “minimal”. I beg them to

3 Mar 2014 : Column 1199

think again in the light of the evidence of persecution of Sikhs that was freely known at the time. A Government committed to human rights must question the morality of “minimal” involvement in the persecution of minorities. The released documents praise Mrs Gandhi and cast aspersions on UK Sikhs, with not one word of concern over the murder of thousands of Sikhs.

I was not in the least surprised to read of SAS involvement; I wrote about it at the time in the summer 1984 issue of the Sikh Messenger. Nor was I surprised by evidence linking British support for Mrs Gandhi to a £5 billion arms contract and the need to “keep Mrs Gandhi happy”. In November 1984 I went to see a senior Cabinet Minister to seek government support to end the pogrom against Sikhs. I received the reply: “Indarjit, we know exactly what is going on but we’re walking on a tightrope; we’ve already lost one important contract”.

At the time I was a member of the UNA, where we discussed the killings. The director, Malcolm Harper, formally raised evidence-based concerns with the Government, asking them to support a UN inquiry into the killings. I made a presentation to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Rights, then chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The APPG decided to send two parliamentarians to investigate but the High Commission refused them visas. They appealed, saying that the visit would help to improve Hindu/Sikh relations. They were again refused.

Sikhs accept that today’s Government are in no way responsible for the mistakes of the past. However, they can and must help to heal wounds. I was in Westminster Abbey this morning and heard Archbishop Desmond Tutu quote the words:

“The time for the healing of the wounds has come”.

This is true for the wounds in the Sikh community, opened further by the new revelations.

I take this opportunity to thank many in the Hindu community who hid and sheltered Sikhs at the time of the killings. Others risked their lives carefully documenting the names of Congress Party leaders inciting mobs to kill. Sikhs owe them a great debt.

Two of the three main political parties in India have declared their support for an open inquiry. Even Rahul Gandhi, leader of the Congress Party, has admitted that some Congress officials were involved in the killings.

Speaking in the Indian Parliament in 2005 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made the revealing comment:

“Twenty-one years have passed … and yet the feeling persists that somehow the truth has not come out”.

I urge the Government to add their support for an open, independent inquiry into the massacre or genocide of Sikhs in 1984 in the same way that they are backing a UN-led inquiry into the killing of Tamils in Sri Lanka. Against this, all offers of government assistance and offers to talk to Sikhs pale into an unnecessary distraction.

Eighty-three thousand Sikhs gave their lives supporting Britain in the two world wars. In comparison, giving public support for an open, UN inquiry is a small ask. Not to do so will give a clear message to Britain’s half a million Sikhs and others concerned with human rights that the UK Government are ambivalent and selective on issues of human rights. As director of the

3 Mar 2014 : Column 1200

Network of Sikh Organisations, the oldest and largest grouping of Sikhs in the UK, and of the more recently formed Sikh Council UK, I offer my full and unconditional support to the Government to help end the 30-year nightmare suffered by Sikhs. We are confident that our Government will not let us down.

[lsingh]

Its an important point that Lord Singh makes that the British Govt is giving public support for the UN inquiry into the killings of Tamils in Sri Lanka which was a conflict that involved a large military force of Tamils, whereas the Sikhs were civilians. Surely the Govt has set the precedence for supporting human rights inquires, so it would not be difficult to call for an inquiry into the Sikh killings. Sikh organisations should use the Tamil example when dealing with the British Govt.

[BobbyMann75]

No surprise at the rank hypocrisy of the UK Govt, criticising Sri Lanka for its poor human rights, while maintaining an intentional silence on India's HR violations.

[lsingh]

Often Sikhs say there is no point in getting foreign Govts to support their case. Look at the Tamils, not only have they won over the UK and Canadian Govts but those Govt are actually taking action against Sri Lanka.The western Govts support an independent inquiry into human rights abuses by Sri Lanka, something the Sikhs have not put across effectively.The Tamil Tigers were an active force involved in a lot of killings, however that does not stop Canada or Uk supporting the Tamils. The Tamils have lobbied far more effectively than the Sikhs something to learn.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-pulls-funding-for-commonwealth-in-flap-over-sri-lanka/article17998194/

April 14, 2014

Canada pulls funding for Commonwealth in flap over Sri Lanka

By KIM MACKRAEL

Baird accuses Sri Lanka of dragging feet on human rights, political reconciliation; Ottawa to hold back $10-million in funding for Secretariat

Canada is suspending voluntary funding for the Commonwealth Secretariat over alleged human rights abuses by Sri Lanka, the organization's current chair.

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird accused Sri Lanka on Monday of failing to take meaningful action on human rights and political reconciliation. The decision to halt funding for the Commonwealth Secretariat comes five months after Prime Minister Stephen Harper skipped the 2013 Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Colombo because of concerns about Sri Lanka's human-rights record.

Canada will hold back $10-million in annual voluntary funding for the Commonwealth Secretariat during the remainder of Sri Lanka's term as chair, Mr. Baird said.

The Secretariat is responsible for implementing the decisions and plans of Commonwealth leaders, who represent countries that were once part of the British Empire.

Mr. Baird did not comment on the status of other funding Canada provides to other organizations of the Commonwealth, such as the Commonwealth of Learning.

"This decision was not taken lightly," Mr. Baird said in a statement on Monday.

"We can no longer justify providing additional funding to an organization that turns a blind eye to human rights abuses, anti-democratic behaviour and religious intolerance in its member states."

Mr. Baird said the money, which totals $20-million over two years, would instead go to efforts to combat early and forced marriage and human-rights promotion in Commonwealth countries.

He did not specify which organizations would receive the funding.

The Sri Lankan government defeated the separatist Tamil Tigers in 2009, but continues to face allegations that it has done little to address war crimes committed during the 26-year armed conflict.

A recent report by the United Nations Human Rights Council found the government had failed to credibly investigate past human-rights violations and recommended an independent international inquiry.

"Canada remains deeply concerned about the absence of accountability for alleged serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian standards in Sri Lanka," Mr. Baird said Monday.

Canada attempted in 2011 to persuade the Commonwealth to adopt a values charter along with tools to deal with members who violated it, but felt that the current secretary-general, Kamalesh Sharma, was not helpful in moving the proposal forward. A watered-down version of the values charter was passed in late 2012.

Roland Paris, who teaches international security and governance at the University of Ottawa, said Canada's decision to cut funding from the Commonwealth hurts the organization – and not Sri Lanka.

And he said Canada has used its seat in the Commonwealth effectively in the past, citing former prime minister Brian Mulroney's campaign against apartheid in South Africa.

"We can have greater influence working within the organization," Prof. Paris said.

Canada is not the first country to pull voluntary funding from the Commonwealth: In October, 2013, Britain announced a reduction in funding to the Commonwealth Secretariat over a two-year period.

Follow me on Twitter: @kimmackrael1