Groupstalk

On Monday 14 April the BBC decided to hold a debate on whether or not there should be a separate Sikh State, Khalistan. Nihal presented the show on BBC Asian Network between 9-10am. The two invited to speak on the subject were Jagdeesh Singh, a Sikh activist from Slough and Deshpal Panesar, an employment law barrister from London.

Jagdeesh Singh put the case for the break up of India and gave a historical Sikh perspective. Whereas Deshpal Panesar – an Indian nationalist - argued Sikhs had flourished in India, although he later admitted Sikhs had ‘had a hard time’.

In total there were 19 other contributors that took part in the discussion or sent texts or emails that were read out on air. The BBC tried to ensure a balance between those for and against a separate Sikh State, but the Khalistanis clearly came out on top.

Gurjeet Singh a leading figure in the Sikh Federation (UK) and from Leicester was the first caller and described the discrimination Sikhs have experienced since 1947 and the lack of justice for the last 30 years since 13 April 1978. One thing that is often misinterpreted that both Gurjeet Singh and Jagdeesh Singh explained was that a sovereign Sikh State would be a home where people of all faiths have freedoms.

Hardeep Singh from Berkshire a graduate in Medical Biology from Brunel University in London and a media correspondent for Panjab Radio then explained the significance of the actions taken by the Indian authorities in 1984 in advancing the case for Sikh independence and Khalistan. He also corrected Nihal who in the introduction referred to Hindu/Sikh riots instead of state sponsored pogroms.

Someone from Leicester named Jagdeesh then explained he was against India breaking up and believed the status quo must be maintained. He was a poor speaker with a limited knowledge of freedom movements who not surprisingly refused to accept Sikhs and others should have the freedom to secure their independence.

Dabinderjit Singh then spoke of the broken promises to Sikhs following Indian independence and the Sikhs refusal to sign the Indian constitution that does not even recognise Sikhs as a separate faith. He argued the continued gross violation of the human rights of Sikhs in the last 30 years reinforced the need for Sikh independence. He also explained the paramount importance in the 9/11 era of Sikhs throughout the world having a Sikh voice to represent their interests. This in part addressed the presenter who asked a number of the callers if they would go and live in an independent Sikh State if it was created.

Other pro-Khalistan speakers before the debate was due to end at 10am included Harbhajan Singh from Leicester, Jagvir Singh from Bristol and Hardeep Singh from Walsall. The only other two callers were a Muslim Panjabi called Ross who argued Panjabis were already independent and someone who called himself Daljit Sahota from Derby. He said he was not in favour of Sikh independence, but also admitted he or his family had not really been impacted on by the events of 1984.

The BBC took the unusual step to extend the debate beyond 10am and invited two controversial callers called Ash and Paul. Ash a Hindu Panjabi was clearly upset and said he was opposed to the carving up of India. He said he had a nasty side and ‘pledged’ to take up arms that would ‘make Al Qaeda look like a little baby’.

The BBC also read out 6 email messages that were mostly in support of Sikh independence and the arguments that had been put forward. The debate was ended by the BBC reading out an emailed statement from Bhai Amrik Singh, the Chair of the Sikh Federation (UK), which is reproduced below:

‘The Indian authorities have systematically discriminated against the Sikhs since 1947 and subverted or suppressed all legitimate political demands for greater autonomy. In the last 30 years the Indian authorities have unleashed a rein of terror through gross violation of human rights of Sikhs in an attempt to extinguish the calls for freedom and Sikh independence.

Sikhs first secured political power in the form of an independent state in 1710, after suffering centuries of foreign invasions and alien domination. The larger sovereign Sikh state was established in 1799 and was recognised by all the world powers. The Sikhs, after the two Anglo-Sikh wars, lost their kingdom and the Punjab came under British rule in 1849. However, in giving up power Sikhs were party to several Treaties with the British.

Sikhs are clear about their nationhood, but it is denied by the Indian State and the Indian political class which are not prepared to allow the Sikhs their national rights.’

On Monday 14 April the BBC decided to hold a debate on whether or not there should be a separate Sikh State, Khalistan. Nihal presented the show on BBC Asian Network between 9-10am. The two invited to speak on the subject were Jagdeesh Singh, a Sikh activist from Slough and Deshpal Panesar, an employment law barrister from London.

Jagdeesh Singh put the case for the break up of India and gave a historical Sikh perspective. Whereas Deshpal Panesar – an Indian nationalist - argued Sikhs had flourished in India, although he later admitted Sikhs had ‘had a hard time’.

In total there were 19 other contributors that took part in the discussion or sent texts or emails that were read out on air. The BBC tried to ensure a balance between those for and against a separate Sikh State, but the Khalistanis clearly came out on top.

Gurjeet Singh a leading figure in the Sikh Federation (UK) and from Leicester was the first caller and described the discrimination Sikhs have experienced since 1947 and the lack of justice for the last 30 years since 13 April 1978. One thing that is often misinterpreted that both Gurjeet Singh and Jagdeesh Singh explained was that a sovereign Sikh State would be a home where people of all faiths have freedoms.

Hardeep Singh from Berkshire a graduate in Medical Biology from Brunel University in London and a media correspondent for Panjab Radio then explained the significance of the actions taken by the Indian authorities in 1984 in advancing the case for Sikh independence and Khalistan. He also corrected Nihal who in the introduction referred to Hindu/Sikh riots instead of state sponsored pogroms.

Someone from Leicester named Jagdeesh then explained he was against India breaking up and believed the status quo must be maintained. He was a poor speaker with a limited knowledge of freedom movements who not surprisingly refused to accept Sikhs and others should have the freedom to secure their independence.

Dabinderjit Singh then spoke of the broken promises to Sikhs following Indian independence and the Sikhs refusal to sign the Indian constitution that does not even recognise Sikhs as a separate faith. He argued the continued gross violation of the human rights of Sikhs in the last 30 years reinforced the need for Sikh independence. He also explained the paramount importance in the 9/11 era of Sikhs throughout the world having a Sikh voice to represent their interests. This in part addressed the presenter who asked a number of the callers if they would go and live in an independent Sikh State if it was created.

Other pro-Khalistan speakers before the debate was due to end at 10am included Harbhajan Singh from Leicester, Jagvir Singh from Bristol and Hardeep Singh from Walsall. The only other two callers were a Muslim Panjabi called Ross who argued Panjabis were already independent and someone who called himself Daljit Sahota from Derby. He said he was not in favour of Sikh independence, but also admitted he or his family had not really been impacted on by the events of 1984.

The BBC took the unusual step to extend the debate beyond 10am and invited two controversial callers called Ash and Paul. Ash a Hindu Panjabi was clearly upset and said he was opposed to the carving up of India. He said he had a nasty side and ‘pledged’ to take up arms that would ‘make Al Qaeda look like a little baby’.

The BBC also read out 6 email messages that were mostly in support of Sikh independence and the arguments that had been put forward. The debate was ended by the BBC reading out an emailed statement from Bhai Amrik Singh, the Chair of the Sikh Federation (UK), which is reproduced below:

‘The Indian authorities have systematically discriminated against the Sikhs since 1947 and subverted or suppressed all legitimate political demands for greater autonomy. In the last 30 years the Indian authorities have unleashed a rein of terror through gross violation of human rights of Sikhs in an attempt to extinguish the calls for freedom and Sikh independence.

Sikhs first secured political power in the form of an independent state in 1710, after suffering centuries of foreign invasions and alien domination. The larger sovereign Sikh state was established in 1799 and was recognised by all the world powers. The Sikhs, after the two Anglo-Sikh wars, lost their kingdom and the Punjab came under British rule in 1849. However, in giving up power Sikhs were party to several Treaties with the British.

Sikhs are clear about their nationhood, but it is denied by the Indian State and the Indian political class which are not prepared to allow the Sikhs their national rights.’

———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ———-

Teacher: What happened in 1869?
Student:Gandhi ji was born.
Teacher :What happened in 1873?
Student:Gandhiji was four years old.

———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ———-

Question:What is the fullform of maths.
Answer: Mentally affected teachers harassing students

———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ———— —

Teacher : Now children , if I saw a man beating a donkey and stopped him then what virtue would I be showing ?
Student : BROTHERLY LOVE

———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ———— —

Teacher :Because of Gandhiji’s hard work what do we get on 15th August.
Student:A holiday

———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ———— —

Teacher :Tomorrow there will be a lecture on Sun.Everyone must attend it.
Raju:No ma’m! I will not be able to attend it.
Teacher :Why?
Raju:My mother will not allow me to go so far!!!

———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ———— —

Teacher:”Can anyone give me an example of Coincidence? ”
Johnny:”Sir, my mother and father got married on the same day same time.”

———— ——— ——— ——-