Breaking News: New National Archive Information Shows How The British Government Betrayed Sikhs

[lsingh]

Funny how uk prides itself as a "genuine democracy", yet jus like communist countries like china, n.korea, old soviet union and the totalitarian india, theyve seemed to have forced a ban on wat can and cant be reported to the masses via the media. Disgraceful.

True, we have often wondered why the British/western media did not cover Sikh issues. Massive demos went unreported , The BBC only started small scale reporting of Bluestar after 25 years. Mark Tully often just repeated the Indian Govt line or used Khushwant Singh who also gave a pro India view.

As for the USA they had a major network of spies at all levels in Indian society. The USA said they received good information from the Congress but had not built up the same network within the BJP in the 1990' when the new BJP Govt in 1998 exploded a nuclear bomb and caught the USA off guard. I also read in the Indian media that the USA had monitored Bluestar from their spy satellites and had recorded the events on film.

[StarStriker]

True, we have often wondered why the British/western media did not cover Sikh issues. Massive demos went unreported , The BBC only started small scale reporting of Bluestar after 25 years. Mark Tully often just repeated the Indian Govt line or used Khushwant Singh who also gave a pro India view.

As for the USA they had a major network of spies at all levels in Indian society. The USA said they received good information from the Congress but had not built up the same network within the BJP in the 1990' when the new BJP Govt in 1998 exploded a nuclear bomb and caught the USA off guard. I also read in the Indian media that the USA had monitored Bluestar from their spy satellites and had recorded the events on film.

What i still do not understand is.....that during the cold war, the scummy yanks and the soviets would randomly take sides of nations, purely to annoy the opposing cold war enemy. For example in the isreal-egypt war, the yanks supported isreal, soviets aided egypt, yanks supported old cuban govt, russians supplied the cuban rebels (castro/guevara) etc. But how come then, the yanks DID NOT support the sikhs during the 70s-90s? Since the soviets supported afghans and also india, so surely the yanks shudda sided with sikhs/khalistan, since they were the aid for pakistan within that region? Then u have saggy thatcher n the scummy brits, who feel like they owe india their support for some reason. Coz wat u have to remember, is during the cold war, it literally was childish behaviour frm the soviets and the yanks, who were so obsessed with gettin 1 over the other in every aspect (space race, nuclear bombs, olympics, proxy wars etc), but yet wen it comes to panjab civil war, they all made the sikhs the exception and all were determined to stop us frm attaining equality n after independance.

[Ranjeet01]

Starstriker

What you must realise is that the west does not do anything if there is no benefit to them.

The question you must ask yourself, what benefit from a geopolitical/strategic point of view would the west have to support Sikh equality and Sikh independence.

Pakistan was created by the British to counter any influence a United India (if you go by the British Raj India), it would have far greater influence from South East Asia, Indian Ocean, Middle East and Central Asia. In an ideal situation, the west would love break up the subcontinent into more nation states, because then could play the divide and rule once more and it would provide more markets to sell military hardware. However, a subcontinent with too many nation states would mean a lot more anarchy,and this would play into China's hand. Therefore,for the west having India as it is has a counterbalance to China.

Supporting a Sikh independent nation ( since we tend to be pioneers) would mean other parts of India would follow suit.

[lsingh]

It was a tug of war both the UK and Soviets tried to please India to win them over. The Sikhs got caught in it and were easy targets. The USA was concerned with Afghanistan and Iran and had lower interest in India. I think the West thought they could win India over as the Indians showed they could be bought easily.

[jkvlondon]

Starstriker

What you must realise is that the west does not do anything if there is no benefit to them.

The question you must ask yourself, what benefit from a geopolitical/strategic point of view would the west have to support Sikh equality and Sikh independence.

Pakistan was created by the British to counter any influence a United India (if you go by the British Raj India), it would have far greater influence from South East Asia, Indian Ocean, Middle East and Central Asia. In an ideal situation, the west would love break up the subcontinent into more nation states, because then could play the divide and rule once more and it would provide more markets to sell military hardware. However, a subcontinent with too many nation states would mean a lot more anarchy,and this would play into China's hand. Therefore,for the west having India as it is has a counterbalance to China.

Supporting a Sikh independent nation ( since we tend to be pioneers) would mean other parts of India would follow suit.

maybe , and I'm only spitballing ... but if the isis/taliban influence grows in pakistan maybe khalistan would provide a good base for western operations if they get booted out of pakistan

[hsingh8963]

^ Indeed. If we were at all united we could make these talks happen.

[Ranjeet01]

JKV

I have thought about that particular scenario before, having western bases in a Khalistan where the likes of US can keep an eye on India, China and what would be left of Pakistan.

At the moment, that would probably be the only way to make it happen. However, the question to ask what concessions would we have to make?

[DailyMail]

JKV, Ranjeet01,

The idea of khalistan being a "buffer state" has been proposed before and remains the solution of choice whenever this question is discussed on the Sikh media channels with jathebandi's purporting to represent the Sikh agenda. The justification behind such a notion being that both Pakistan and India are nuclear powers who are not on "friendly terms" and a small trigger or escalation of violence could cascade into all out nuclear war. A buffer state will help avoid such a war due to infringement of territorial integrity and national sovereignty. Also, Pakistan is very temperamental when it comes to allowing the US military to use its airspace and land to launch military attacks in Afghanistan. Remember how Pakistan banished the Americans after they killed Bin Laden? At one point the US were using Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan!

For the Sikhs, I believe if they push for this solution, it will be the only way forward. But for some Sikhs,being at the behest of the Americans, it'll mean they still won't be truly independent.

[JagsawSingh]

The idea of khalistan being a "buffer state" has been proposed before and remains the solution of choice whenever this question is discussed on the Sikh media channels with jathebandi's purporting to represent the Sikh agenda. The justification behind such a notion being that both Pakistan and India are nuclear powers who are not on "friendly terms" and a small trigger or escalation of violence could cascade into all out nuclear war. A buffer state will help avoid such a war due to infringement of territorial integrity and national sovereignty.

I think you know, DailyMail, that it was me who, in the past, here on this very forum, has articulated and advanced that 'buffer state' theory.

I'm not going to go over old territory again but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that a free Punjab will come (and it will be called 'Punjab' not 'Khalistan') and it will come about purely because world powers will see it as being in their interest to have it. That scenario is inevitable.

But....for the moment, we Sikhs need to seriously up our intellectual game. Collectively, we're just not too smart. For example, we're not, collectively, well-read and intellectual enough to understand how Putin's new idea of politics by confusion is being embraced by organisations all over the world, incuding our own UK govt. In Russia, the way Putin did it was by actively supporting a cross-section of groups totally at odds with each other such as neo-nazi skinheads to anti-racism groups. The idea is that you make a series of contradictory statements...do a series of contradictory things thus ensuring your enemy is in such a constant state of confusion that he no longer knows who his enemies are, thus rendering him ineffective as an opponent. This is exactly what the right wing Hindu groups in Punjab, such as the RSS have done over the last couple of weeks. They've been doing things on behalf of Sikhs...and for the benefit of Sikhism....such as converting chrstians back to Sikhism not because they are nice people. Its because they are probably 2 or 3 steps intellectually ahead of us.

Our free Punjab homeland will come, but we need to up our intellectual game first.

[DiscoverSikhism]

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ, ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਿਹ

Encouraging to read some very good posts.

We've had a great response from the Sangat. Also from Tom Watson (UK Labour MP) who immediately circulated the information and Parvinder Singh, author of '1984 Sikhs Kristallnacht', who has a great blog http://8t4files.wordpress.com/

Unfortunately, so far there has been a poor response from both the Sikh media and so called Sikh leaders.