I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

Like yourself I have no time for narrow minded, pindu, dogmatic, casteist and morally corrupt jerks posing as Sikhs for their own selfish ends but lets not let these morons detract from the real issues that need to be addressed.

Lets be honest Sunny taking out in Punjab has never been about ‘apprehending or trial etc’, you know that. It goes much further and as Sonia comments if we ‘think there is no ‘torture’ involved in this ‘taking out’ business – in a country like India? …. face it, human rights abuses in india are all over the f***ing place’

Lets wake up and smell the coffee – taking out has been about literally taking out, i.e. captivity, torture ransom from family, and extra-judicial killing. Usually some sort of combination of the above. But because in Punjab the victims were Khalistani to many peeople it didn’t really matter the desired outcome was extra judicial killing.

For the past two decades, thousands of people who sympathised, protested against police atroctities, provided shelter to families of police targets, were an aquaintance of or related to Khalistanis were simply ‘taken out’ extra judicially. This was all part of a strategy to imbibe a state of fear to create a climate wherein the so called intelligentia could ‘have a sane conversation’, as you put it.

Guantanemo, in comparison, is a much milder form of ‘taking out’ (let me clarify: Guantanemo is inexcusable: I only say milder because the captives there are known to be STILL ALIVE and in whatever minimal form it is provided, have realised legal or other representation which means they will have to be accounted for). Regardless of what political ideology those captives stand for, it is becoming apparent that many if not all are probably innocent of any crime, as has been the legal conclusion thus far for the foreign nationals freed. The difference with Pubjab in the 80′s and 90′s is that the opportunity was not afforded to draw such a conclusion. In Guantanemo those that have been freed had access to legal or other representation whereas in Punjab seldom did the captives make it to court.

Sunny, I can’t believe that you’ve suggested people get on the bandwagon of human rights in Punjab so that Khalistanis don’t politicise a human rights situation that only exacerbated to restrict the political movement they were part of.

Too litte, too late, for the wromg intentions!!

If there are people who really care about human rights they should be interested despite or regardless of what people with opposing political views are commenting. It should be a principled stand. I didn’t start supporting the war in Iraq simply because Islamic propagandists and anarchists were opposing it. However, the so called progressives have stood by and watched the demise of human rights in Punjab because they did not agree with the ideology of the people who were being ‘taken out’.

Rab Rakha.

well you lot have a funny idea of human rights if that is the case!! or clearly never spent any time in an Indian prison, or had much to do with the indian police.

face it, human rights abuses in india are all over the f***ing place, where to start is the hard one.

No, I’ve never agreed with extra-judicial killings, but I also believe that ‘taking out’ (apprehending, trials etc) was necessary despite all the accusations that the state just wanted to go after any Khalistani.

I have already acknowledged that. The point that I was making was (admittedly not very clearly!!) many human rights reports have also said that the Kahlistani militants weren’t responsible for many deaths that were attribute to them.

BTW You are selective in answering questions. You’re not a pXXXXXXXXX are you? So in true Jeremy Paxman style…..

In light of the Human Rights Watch and Ensaaf report do you still stand by the following statement :

‘Sikh militancy in Punjab wasn’t killed off just by placating the Khalistanis. They actively went after the trouble-makers and took them out. Once you no longer have the trouble-makers who will use any excuse to create a schism, then we can have a sane conversation.’ http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1208

Do you agree with the methods adopted in Punjab by which people were illegally and arbitrarily identified as ‘troublemakers’and taken out (i.e. killed extra-judicially) to create a climate to ‘have a sane conversation’, as you put it.

Don’t mean to be a troublemaker. lol.

The above report does.

In light of the Human Rights Watch and Ensaaf report do you still stand by the following statement :

‘Sikh militancy in Punjab wasn’t killed off just by placating the Khalistanis. They actively went after the trouble-makers and took them out. Once you no longer have the trouble-makers who will use any excuse to create a schism, then we can have a sane conversation.’ http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1208

Do you agree with the methods adopted in Punjab by which people were illegally and arbitrarily identified as ‘troublemakers’and taken out i.e. killed extra-judicially to create a climate to ‘have a sane conversation’?

Rab Rakha

No I don’t. I think Khalistanis are deluded and naive (and sometimes dangerous) but I’d never deny them the right to live. I just don’t want them claiming to be representing all Sikhs in this country or all over the world. But there’s no doubt many of tyhe Khalistanis around in India during the 80s and 90s were trouble-makers and involved in killing of innocent people.

Going back to your earlier comments you appear to even portray a denial of the right to life for people holding such political views. I don’t wish to misquote you and thus seek clarification.

The reason I labour on this point, and I apologise for this, is that this is the very cause of the denial of justice to so many innocent bystanders and political activists as well as families of miltants extra-judicially killed in Punjab and other parts of India. Too few people and willing to scrutinise the reasons why so many were killed in such a relatively short period of time.

Rab Rakha

Firstly I didn’t say they were all innocent bystanders. Please read my post. I hav read this and various other Human Rights reports on Punjab and rest of India.

Secondly that doesn’t mean that the non-innocent protagonsist does not have any rights. E.g some had no doubt committed excesses, but once arrested shouldn’t they have been brought to the courts instead of being killed extra judicially?

You seem to still be suggesting that if you support Khalistan politically this is still not an innocent and legitimate aspiration. Is that really your view?

The extra-judicial killing of Sikh activists, for example the bullet for bullet policy pursued by police in Indian state agencies and their criminal agents- ‘black cats’ (taking out as you seem to have called it and supported) has no means of either discriminating between the innocent bystander and militant, nor the legitimate political activist.

Why do you appear to have such hatred for people who even legitimately support Khalistan to the extent that there seems to be a denial of their rights to freedom of expression and self determination?