What's new

British House of Lords called for independence for Kashmir as well for Khalistan

There is no khalistan movement in India , there are bunch of disillusioned people dreaming about khalistan in UK and Canada.
Agreed. As a Sikh living in Canada for 10 years and frequently visited India, I can confirm them. In Canada it is common to see Khalistani banners in Gurdwaras and anti-India sentiments in some families. Overall, Its on a decline though.
 
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/nia-expands-khalistan-probe/article22801101.ece

Agency looking for inputs from U.K., Australia, UAE, Italy and Pakistan
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has expanded its investigation into the revival of the pro-Khalistan movement in Punjab to countries such as the U.K., Australia, the UAE, Italy and Pakistan.

A Home Ministry official said that though the involvement of pro-Khalistan activists based in Canada had not surfaced in the particular case being investigated by the NIA, there were intelligence inputs that established so.

On November 30 last year, on the Punjab government’s request, the Home Ministry handed over the probe into the murder of RSS member Ravinder Gosain in Ludhiana to the NIA.

The agency said Gosain’s murder and targeted killings of eight others from January 2016 were “part of a conspiracy to destabilise Punjab hatched by Sikh extremist elements and others located in various parts of the world.”

The Punjab police had arrested Ramandeep Singh and Hardeep Singh for their alleged role in Gosain’s murder.

The accused were handed over to the NIA. The agency said the accused were asked to target members of the RSS and Hindu organisations. “Besides, in July 2017, they also murdered a pastor named Sultan Masih in Ludhiana,” the agency had said.

Foreign funds

The NIA said funds were channelled from foreign countries for execution of these incidents.

The official said the accused were brainwashed and were incited on religious grounds by their mentors settled abroad. On February 14, the NIA arrested an accused identified as Parvez, alias Farru, from Meerut in Uttar Pradesh.

Eleven arrested

It said Parvez provided the weapons in several of the eight incidents committed as part of an “international conspiracy whose objective was to destabilise the law and order situation in Punjab and to revive militancy in the State”.

So far, 11 persons have been arrested. The Home Ministry informed Parliament on December 27 that Pakistan’s ISI was making efforts to provide “moral and financial support” to pro-Khalistan elements for anti-India activities as well as to revive militancy in Punjab.

Intelligence agencies were in a fix last year when Canadian Defence Minister Harjeet Sajjan visited India. Officials said there were inputs regarding Mr. Sajjan’s soft approach to pro-Khalistan activists in Canada.

Agreed. As a Sikh living in Canada for 10 years and frequently visited India, I can confirm them. In Canada it is common to see Khalistani banners in Gurdwaras and anti-India sentiments in some families. Overall, Its on a decline though.

Have the Canadian Government forget about the Kanisha bombing ?
 
protest wasnt advertised properly or it would have gotten more people attending against India the face of terrorism in SE Asia.

the worlds watching as India is getting exposed


just like the delusional fake balochis living on asylum in Switzerland getting money from New Delhi.


Billboards all over New York times square

This billboard image is fake. Check your source
 
Agreed. As a Sikh living in Canada for 10 years and frequently visited India, I can confirm them. In Canada it is common to see Khalistani banners in Gurdwaras and anti-India sentiments in some families. Overall, Its on a decline though.
It's a big money spinner for donations.
 
It's a big money spinner for donations.

I think Akal Thakt , the seat of Khalsa Panth will think about the Langars which are being used against the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Sahab aboard by the enemies of the Khalsa Panth and Indian Nation.

Wining hearts is the way which is due to the religious belief but when the enemies of the Supreme Creator use our belief in Supreme Creator by adopting our religion and are the reason for killing , occupation then we do need to change that policy which would be for the betterment of the humanity.
 
https://www.hindustantimes.com/worl...and-kashmir/story-DrUrOXtkbdn3tbZG6dvd5K.html

A meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Kashmir this week received a critical update on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir from the president of Azad Kashmir, Masood Khan, prompting charges that it was no more than “Pakistani propaganda”.

There was no representative to provide the Indian perspective to the group comprising MPs from the ruling Conservative and opposition Labour parties. Some leaders of the UK-based Kashmiri diaspora alleged that despite requests to attend the event, they were not invited.

Categorised as a “country group”, the AAPG on Kashmir is one of many informal cross-party groups that have no official status within the UK Parliament, but are governed by rules set by the House and are subject to oversight by the parliamentary standards commissioner. APPGs focus on countries and subjects, and invite leading lights for hearings and events.

Chaired by Labour MP Chris Leslie, the 10-member group on Kashmir has seven Labour lawmakers – including Indian-origin Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi – and three from the Conservative Party. The meeting on Thursday was also attended by Pakistan high commissioner Syed Ibne Abbas.

Efforts to contact Leslie on the meeting did not elicit a response, but senior Conservative MP Bob Blackman said: “The APPG for Kashmir is merely a forum for those who support the illegal occupation of Jammu and Kashmir by Pakistan. Sadly, we have been prevented from forming a Jammu and Kashmir APPG as the Kashmir one already exists.

“The fact that they refuse to allow supporters of the legal position, that Jammu and Kashmir in its entirety is a part of India, demonstrates that they are merely pandering to the Pakistani propaganda machine. It is extremely sad that they refuse to invite organisations, or their representatives, that hold a different view to their meetings.”

The purpose of the APPG on Kashmir is described as: “To support the right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people through dialogue; to seek support from British parliamentarians; to highlight the abuses of human rights in Kashmir; and to seek justice for the people there.”

Jammu and Kashmir chief minster Mehbooba Mufti was reportedly invited to the “hearing” but she did not attend. Azad Kashmir president Khan was reported to have asked the APPG and the UK (as a member of the UN Security Council) to help highlight India’s alleged rights violations in the state.

Kashmir Voice International, a UK-based group comprising Kashmiris from the valley, said: “KVI is the only valley diaspora organisation that understands and deeply feels the pain of their people.

“Not inviting this organisation to APPG meetings is a deliberate attempt to shadow the real situation and provide platform to those who exploit the sufferings of Kashmiris to their benefit.”

MPs on the APPG on Kashmir had secured a debate in the House of Commons in January 2017 on the situation in the state, when most members were critical of India's handling. Only Blackman and Labour MP Veerendra Sharma presented the Indian perspective.

London’s long-standing position, followed by Labour and Conservative governments, is that it can neither prescribe a solution to the Kashmir issue nor act as a mediator. The Labour Party and its MPs see the conflict from a human rights perspective and often highlight it.

The Labour Party wants India to allow international rights monitors to visit the state to verify reports of violations since the current situation in the state, according to one of its senior-most leaders, “is not one that can continue as it is. It needs to be sorted out”.

Shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry told Indian journalists: “Our current position on Kashmir comes from a concern for human rights. We hear a kaleidoscope of stories, from the extremes to the less extreme; the human rights of Kashmiris continue to bubble up. I have spoken to the (Indian) high commissioner about this.

“Kashmiris want to live in peace. That should be our starting point. I know there are people in India who say these stories are exaggerated or indeed downright lies. And if that’s right, it does seem to me that India has nothing to fear from allowing human rights monitors into Kashmir in order to be able to support that it isn’t true.”

Refraining from going beyond the official position that the issue needs to be settled by India and Pakistan, and that Britain had no role, Thornberry said: “It is our place to keep saying that it needs to be resolved in a peaceful way. This is not radical, this is common sense.”
 
A tribunal will rule on a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for classified Prime Minister Office files that are believed to hold information on Britain’s involvement in Operation Bluestar in 1984.

A three-day hearing of the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) will open on Tuesday to determine if Information Commissioner was right to uphold a Cabinet Office decision not to allow the files being made public. The appeal is being handled by IB on behalf of freelance journalist , who has been investigating the exact nature of the then Margaret Thatcher-led government’s assistance in the operation at the Golden Temple in Amritsar.

“The FOI request should be granted because there is public interest in understanding the extent of UK involvement in the tragic events of 1984. Disclosing documents from three decades ago will not harm diplomatic relations — politicians in the UK and India have embraced right to information laws and recognise the importance of public access to national archives,” freelance journalist said.

In 2014, government documents declassified under the 30-year rule to make such material public had revealed that British military advice was given to enemy forces prior to Bluestar.

Then British PM David Cameron had ordered a review into this discovery, which led to a statement in Parliament declaring that Britain’s role had been purely “advisory” and the Special Air Service advice had “limited impact”.

The need for an investigation’ report released last year, says many documents from the incident remain classified and only “full transparency” would reveal the exact nature of Britain’s involvement.

“A public inquiry will allow us to understand how much Thatcher’s decision to send a military adviser to Amritsar in 1984 was motivated by trade and arms deals worth billions of pounds. It will also establish whether the UK military advice was really a one-off or in fact it continued throughout the period, even before the tragic events of June 1984,” he said.

The Prime Minister Office has declined to release the files on the grounds of national security and safeguarding international relations with India. —PTI
 
TH08-UK-OPERATIONBLUESTAR


An exhibit at a museum inside the Golden Temple complex. | Photo Credit: THE HINDU

http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...-sikh-group/article22970473.ece?homepage=true

Efforts for further details of Britain’s involvement in the 1984 Operation Blue Star to be made public stepped up the pace, as a Khalsa Pant launched the formal process for a public inquiry , while the second day of a tribunal pushing for the release of Prime Minister’s office files related to Britain’s involvement in the 1984 operation continued on Wednesday.

The application, commenced in the form of a letter before action on Monday, from law firm KRW Law on behalf of the Khalsa Pant challenges the refusal of the FCO to hold a public inquiry in 2015. It argues that the Heywood Review, held in 2014 following the disclosure of British SAS involvement in the operation, which came out in files made public under the 30-year-rule, was inadequate. “If there was direct involvement in the form of advice or assistance, then the British public should be made aware of this,” said the KRW counsel.

2004 revelations
Details of Britain’s involvement in Operation Blue Star first emerged in 2014 when , an independent journalist researching PM office papers published came across the mention of U.K. involvement in the 1984 operation.

Following the revelations, then Prime Minister ordered his Cabinet Secretary to review the findings. The review concluded the U.K.’s role in June 1984 was “purely advisory, limited and provided to the Indian government at an early stage in their planning,” and also had “limited impact”.

This week’s letter to the FCO, sent on Monday and seen by The Hindu, argued that the initial inquiry viewed military assistance in isolation rather than in the wider context, and highlighted an inquiry unable to address the “public interest in accountability and transparency on this matter.”

The application comes as a separate three-day hearing at the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) in continued, as KRW Law, also representing an independent journalist, sought to appeal the 2015 decision of the Information Commissioner not to require the files to be disclosed. The tribunal was to take place last year, but has been delayed to date. This, the appellants believe, reflects the eagerness of the government to avoid addressing potentially sensitive revelations. “They are embarrassed about security advice that led to obscene human rights violations,” said independent journalist

An independent journalist appeal on the Information Commissioner’s ruling focuses on two sets of documents- Prime Ministerial “PREM” files from between July 1983 and May 1985, and Cabinet Office “CAB” files from between 1979 and mid August 1985. While a large section of the former have been released none of the latter have been released. The government side argues that 92% of the files have been released, though the appellant says hat this figure only relates to the PREM files.

Because of the sensitivity of the issue, the hearing has so far switched between open and closed hearings. Cabinet Office and Information Commissioner witnesses have included senior FCO civil servants , the former director for South Asia and Afghanistan, and , director general for consular and security, while independent journalist and Singh of the Khalsa Pant gave evidence for the appellant.

In an open hearing on Wednesday morning the barrister for the appellant sought to challenge the government position that further disclosures would result in “highly sensitive’ issues being raised that would have consequences for today’s India. They pointed to numerous instances in the material already disclosed that could be deemed sensitive, including blunt initial assessments of the political clout of Rajiv Gandhi, following his mother’s assassination, and to sections of UK correspondence which appeared to suggest Britain was willing to take a tougher line with Sikhs based in the UK that concern to India.

Taking the stand on Tuesday, the FCO’s , sought to distinguish between information that was “historical” and that which had “real implications” for India today, and pointed to its “long record of resistance to external interference.” Disclosure of the latter kind could have a “detrimental impact” on international relations, he said. “It would have to be [different] enough to pose a risk to international relations,” he told the tribunal, when asked by the appellant about what distinguished the information so far disclosed from that which remained out of the public domain. He also referred to “national security” considerations.

Speaking outside the hearing, the KRW counsel argued against the British government’s distinction and said that by their understanding neither then BJP nor the Congress would object to the disclosure of the details which related to “historic” events. He described the secret nature of sections of the hearing as “The UK government’s position is untenable and we will make this argument strongly in our submissions but granted the unjust advantage given to the government who holds the information with closed justice procedures excluding us form the proceedings we rely upon the independent Tribunal to push the government to justify its untenable position.”

It is hoped that should the appeal be successful, and the information released, it would feed into the public inquiry being called for. The tribunal’s ruling can be appealed further, including to the Upper Tribunal, the High Court and potentially Supreme Court.
 
2018_1$largeimg27_Saturday_2018_123425900.jpg


London, January 27

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/ja...r-calls-for-azad-kashmir-on-r-day/534545.html

Clashes erupted outside the Indian High Commission in London on Friday evening as Lord Nazir Ahmed, a pro-Pakistan peer in the House of Lords, attempted to hold a “black day” protest, which was vehemently countered by many Indian and British groups.

The Pakistan-backed ‘black day’ campaign, which coincides with India’s Republic Day and took place outside the Indian High Commission in the heart of Central London.

Hundreds of demonstrators led by Lord Nazir called for independence for Kashmir as well for Khalistan. They were met by an equal number of counter-protesters and soon scuffles broke out, leading to police intervention.

The counter-protesters questioned Lord Nazir on how he was making a mockery of the British system by openly playing Pakistan’s game.

Lord Nazir is a highly controversial figure with a string of scandals, including a conviction for dangerous driving and being ousted from the Labour Party for his anti-Semitic views as well as his perceived sympathy towards radical Islamists. — ANI

One MP = British House of lords??

Is this a typical example of OP's exemplary math skills? :o:
 
Agreed. As a Sikh living in Canada for 10 years and frequently visited India, I can confirm them. In Canada it is common to see Khalistani banners in Gurdwaras and anti-India sentiments in some families. Overall, Its on a decline though.

Even if Sikhs in Canada supported Khalistan they are irrelevant to the ground realities in India

One MP = British House of lords??

Is this a typical example of OP's exemplary math skills? :o:
I should add the one MP who is a disgrace to the membership of the House of Lords

TH08-UK-OPERATIONBLUESTAR


An exhibit at a museum inside the Golden Temple complex. | Photo Credit: THE HINDU

http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...-sikh-group/article22970473.ece?homepage=true

Efforts for further details of Britain’s involvement in the 1984 Operation Blue Star to be made public stepped up the pace, as a Khalsa Pant launched the formal process for a public inquiry , while the second day of a tribunal pushing for the release of Prime Minister’s office files related to Britain’s involvement in the 1984 operation continued on Wednesday.

The application, commenced in the form of a letter before action on Monday, from law firm KRW Law on behalf of the Khalsa Pant challenges the refusal of the FCO to hold a public inquiry in 2015. It argues that the Heywood Review, held in 2014 following the disclosure of British SAS involvement in the operation, which came out in files made public under the 30-year-rule, was inadequate. “If there was direct involvement in the form of advice or assistance, then the British public should be made aware of this,” said the KRW counsel.

2004 revelations
Details of Britain’s involvement in Operation Blue Star first emerged in 2014 when , an independent journalist researching PM office papers published came across the mention of U.K. involvement in the 1984 operation.

Following the revelations, then Prime Minister ordered his Cabinet Secretary to review the findings. The review concluded the U.K.’s role in June 1984 was “purely advisory, limited and provided to the Indian government at an early stage in their planning,” and also had “limited impact”.

This week’s letter to the FCO, sent on Monday and seen by The Hindu, argued that the initial inquiry viewed military assistance in isolation rather than in the wider context, and highlighted an inquiry unable to address the “public interest in accountability and transparency on this matter.”

The application comes as a separate three-day hearing at the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) in continued, as KRW Law, also representing an independent journalist, sought to appeal the 2015 decision of the Information Commissioner not to require the files to be disclosed. The tribunal was to take place last year, but has been delayed to date. This, the appellants believe, reflects the eagerness of the government to avoid addressing potentially sensitive revelations. “They are embarrassed about security advice that led to obscene human rights violations,” said independent journalist

An independent journalist appeal on the Information Commissioner’s ruling focuses on two sets of documents- Prime Ministerial “PREM” files from between July 1983 and May 1985, and Cabinet Office “CAB” files from between 1979 and mid August 1985. While a large section of the former have been released none of the latter have been released. The government side argues that 92% of the files have been released, though the appellant says hat this figure only relates to the PREM files.

Because of the sensitivity of the issue, the hearing has so far switched between open and closed hearings. Cabinet Office and Information Commissioner witnesses have included senior FCO civil servants , the former director for South Asia and Afghanistan, and , director general for consular and security, while independent journalist and Singh of the Khalsa Pant gave evidence for the appellant.

In an open hearing on Wednesday morning the barrister for the appellant sought to challenge the government position that further disclosures would result in “highly sensitive’ issues being raised that would have consequences for today’s India. They pointed to numerous instances in the material already disclosed that could be deemed sensitive, including blunt initial assessments of the political clout of Rajiv Gandhi, following his mother’s assassination, and to sections of UK correspondence which appeared to suggest Britain was willing to take a tougher line with Sikhs based in the UK that concern to India.

Taking the stand on Tuesday, the FCO’s , sought to distinguish between information that was “historical” and that which had “real implications” for India today, and pointed to its “long record of resistance to external interference.” Disclosure of the latter kind could have a “detrimental impact” on international relations, he said. “It would have to be [different] enough to pose a risk to international relations,” he told the tribunal, when asked by the appellant about what distinguished the information so far disclosed from that which remained out of the public domain. He also referred to “national security” considerations.

Speaking outside the hearing, the KRW counsel argued against the British government’s distinction and said that by their understanding neither then BJP nor the Congress would object to the disclosure of the details which related to “historic” events. He described the secret nature of sections of the hearing as “The UK government’s position is untenable and we will make this argument strongly in our submissions but granted the unjust advantage given to the government who holds the information with closed justice procedures excluding us form the proceedings we rely upon the independent Tribunal to push the government to justify its untenable position.”

It is hoped that should the appeal be successful, and the information released, it would feed into the public inquiry being called for. The tribunal’s ruling can be appealed further, including to the Upper Tribunal, the High Court and potentially Supreme Court.

Britain has sold India Jaguars, Sea Harrier jets, Hawk trainers. WHat is so sensitive about training Indian special forces troops ?
 
Britain has sold India Jaguars, Sea Harrier jets, Hawk trainers. WHat is so sensitive about training Indian special forces troops ?

HAL Marut was way before HAL Jaguars . Indian Military Staff should declare the real names of the Indian Military equipment which are being solely produced by Indian defense company.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...nsitivities/article22987673.ece?homepage=true

U.K. govt. opposes disclosure of more documents

A tribunal on whether further details of British involvement in the run-up to the 1984 Operation Blue Star should be made public was set to conclude later on Thursday, as the issue of Indian sensitivities around UK Based Pakistan backed Seperatis both past and present and its potential impact on U.K.-India bilateral relations took centre stage.

Counsel for the Cabinet Office sought to argue against further Cabinet Office and Prime Ministerial documents to be made public on the ground that they related to discussions involving intelligence services and that issues around separatism continued to be viewed as a “threat to the existence of the Indian state” and of the “highest sensitivity.”

However, counsel leading the appeal for the publication of the documents argued that “serious human rights abuses were committed against the Indian community in Britian” and that the disclosures were necessary to fully understanding the wider factors influencing the relationship and the context of what was done.

“From our point of view, we see a very compelling public interest in anything that helps us join the dots,” the counsel for the appellant, freelance journalist , told the tribunal.

Political issue

She argued that there had been little sign in the evidence presented to the court that the issue remained a highly sensitive political issue in India, with the potential to damage bilateral relations, pointing to the failure of Britain to consult India on the 2014 disclosures.

The appellant, law firm KRW, is acting on behalf of an independent journalist who is seeking four files relating to the Operation Blue Star to be made public. Details of Britain’s involvement in the operation first emerged in 2014 when an independent journalist, researching cabinet office papers published , came across the mention of the U.K.’s involvement in the 1984 operation.

Advisory role

Following the revelations, then Prime Minister David Cameron ordered his Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Haywood to review the findings.

The review concluded the U.K.’s role in June 1984 was “purely advisory, limited and provided to the Indian government at an early stage in their planning,” and also had “limited impact”.

An independent journalist is challenging a 2015 decision by Britain’s Information Commissioner that supported the Cabinet Office decision not to release the additional Cabinet Office and Prime Ministerial files on the operation.

While open parts of Wednesday’s hearing focussed on what constituted “historical” information, and what would have “real implications” for bilateral relations today (a distinction that the Cabinet Office legal team sought to make), much of Thursday’s hearing focussed on issues around the Joint Intelligence Committee, and whether freedom of expression exemptions applied to briefing documents for the committee. Under section 23 Britain’s Freedom of Information Act 2000, information held by a public authority is exempt from disclosure requirements if it relates to bodies including the security services, secret services, and special forces and other bodies.

The Cabinet Office legal team has sought to maintain that the information in the suppressed files had to be substantially different and pose a threat to bilateral relations, irrespective of which political party was in power in India, compared to what had already been divulged. “There is a good deal of institutional continuity on India around territorial integrity…violent extremism,” , a senior civil servant, formerly the head of South Asia and Afghanistan at the Prime Minister Office, told the tribunal during Thursday’s hearing. The tribunal has switched between open and closed evidence sessions, which excluded appellant counsel.

In the concluding session on Thursday, the Cabinet Office’s counsel focused on the Section 23 exemptions, as well as exemptions relating to Section 27 of the same Act relating to impact on a diplomatic partner. Summing up the conclusions of the FCO witnesses he said that the expectations of the Indian government would be that Britain would apply “particular importance to questions of confidentiality” and that there remained “particularly sensitivities” around the issue of UK Based Pakistan backed Seperatism. “The Indian government regards such separatist movements based in UK and anywhere else as a threat to the existence of the India state…with the highest order of sensitivity….the passage of time does not diminish the significance of this information in this case.”

However, the appellant’s position that there was little evidence to support the Cabinet Office position regarding current Indian sensitivities about further disclosures, was also supported by the Counsel for the Office of Information Commissioner.

Sources have suggested India holds a neutral position on the issue, viewing the decision on whether to release further information on the case as a purely domestic matter for Britain.

The tribunal is expected to rule by July, with the potential for further appeals.

The case coincides with the launch of the legal process for a judge-led public inquiry on British involvement in Operation Blue Star earlier this week, by the Sikh Federation (UK), represented by KRW. , an advisor to the Sikh Federation (UK) said they believed that whatever the result of the ongoing tribunal it would help build their case for a public inquiry.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...nsitivities/article22987673.ece?homepage=true

U.K. govt. opposes disclosure of more documents

A tribunal on whether further details of British involvement in the run-up to the 1984 Operation Blue Star should be made public was set to conclude later on Thursday, as the issue of Indian sensitivities around UK Based Pakistan backed Seperatis both past and present and its potential impact on U.K.-India bilateral relations took centre stage.

Counsel for the Cabinet Office sought to argue against further Cabinet Office and Prime Ministerial documents to be made public on the ground that they related to discussions involving intelligence services and that issues around separatism continued to be viewed as a “threat to the existence of the Indian state” and of the “highest sensitivity.”

However, counsel leading the appeal for the publication of the documents argued that “serious human rights abuses were committed against the Indian community in Britian” and that the disclosures were necessary to fully understanding the wider factors influencing the relationship and the context of what was done.

“From our point of view, we see a very compelling public interest in anything that helps us join the dots,” the counsel for the appellant, freelance journalist , told the tribunal.

Political issue

She argued that there had been little sign in the evidence presented to the court that the issue remained a highly sensitive political issue in India, with the potential to damage bilateral relations, pointing to the failure of Britain to consult India on the 2014 disclosures.

The appellant, law firm KRW, is acting on behalf of an independent journalist who is seeking four files relating to the Operation Blue Star to be made public. Details of Britain’s involvement in the operation first emerged in 2014 when an independent journalist, researching cabinet office papers published , came across the mention of the U.K.’s involvement in the 1984 operation.

Advisory role

Following the revelations, then Prime Minister David Cameron ordered his Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Haywood to review the findings.

The review concluded the U.K.’s role in June 1984 was “purely advisory, limited and provided to the Indian government at an early stage in their planning,” and also had “limited impact”.

An independent journalist is challenging a 2015 decision by Britain’s Information Commissioner that supported the Cabinet Office decision not to release the additional Cabinet Office and Prime Ministerial files on the operation.

While open parts of Wednesday’s hearing focussed on what constituted “historical” information, and what would have “real implications” for bilateral relations today (a distinction that the Cabinet Office legal team sought to make), much of Thursday’s hearing focussed on issues around the Joint Intelligence Committee, and whether freedom of expression exemptions applied to briefing documents for the committee. Under section 23 Britain’s Freedom of Information Act 2000, information held by a public authority is exempt from disclosure requirements if it relates to bodies including the security services, secret services, and special forces and other bodies.

The Cabinet Office legal team has sought to maintain that the information in the suppressed files had to be substantially different and pose a threat to bilateral relations, irrespective of which political party was in power in India, compared to what had already been divulged. “There is a good deal of institutional continuity on India around territorial integrity…violent extremism,” , a senior civil servant, formerly the head of South Asia and Afghanistan at the Prime Minister Office, told the tribunal during Thursday’s hearing. The tribunal has switched between open and closed evidence sessions, which excluded appellant counsel.

In the concluding session on Thursday, the Cabinet Office’s counsel focused on the Section 23 exemptions, as well as exemptions relating to Section 27 of the same Act relating to impact on a diplomatic partner. Summing up the conclusions of the FCO witnesses he said that the expectations of the Indian government would be that Britain would apply “particular importance to questions of confidentiality” and that there remained “particularly sensitivities” around the issue of UK Based Pakistan backed Seperatism. “The Indian government regards such separatist movements based in UK and anywhere else as a threat to the existence of the India state…with the highest order of sensitivity….the passage of time does not diminish the significance of this information in this case.”

However, the appellant’s position that there was little evidence to support the Cabinet Office position regarding current Indian sensitivities about further disclosures, was also supported by the Counsel for the Office of Information Commissioner.

Sources have suggested India holds a neutral position on the issue, viewing the decision on whether to release further information on the case as a purely domestic matter for Britain.

The tribunal is expected to rule by July, with the potential for further appeals.

The case coincides with the launch of the legal process for a judge-led public inquiry on British involvement in Operation Blue Star earlier this week, by the Sikh Federation (UK), represented by KRW. , an advisor to the Sikh Federation (UK) said they believed that whatever the result of the ongoing tribunal it would help build their case for a public inquiry.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom