At the July meeting of Slough Council, Khalistani extremists sitting in the public gallery became abusive after a foreign agenda-driven motion was challenged and withdrawn.
At the meeting in question, the controversial motion, ‘1984 Sikh Genocide’, was due to be heard and debated. The motion was proposed and tabled by Councillor Sabia Akram, and seconded by Councillor Waqas Sabah.
Although the councillors explained that they had proposed the motion due to some of their residents asking them, due to the nature of the content of the motion, it is clear the highly organised international Khalistani extremist network is at play here.
The motion centred around the events which took place in India in 1984, when the Congress party, the ruling government party in 1984, organised attacks on Sikhs following the murder of the then prime minister, Indira Gandhi, who had earlier been killed by her two Sikh bodyguards.
Prior to the motion being heard at the meeting, the event was widely publicised by the extremist social media channel AK Media. AK Media is well known for supporting controversial figures, including anti-vaxxers such as Piers Corbyn, conspiracy theorists such as Kate Shemirani, and hatemongers like Gurcharan Singh.
The motion contained extremely controversial proposals, including a referendum for independence of Punjab in India, and Kashmir. The fact it was entitled ‘1984 Sikh Genocide’, something which hasn’t happened, speaks volumes. You would be forgiven for asking what this has to do with Slough Council and local issues. How such a motion has even been allowed to be added to the agenda is controversial, and reveals severe flaws in Slough Council governance.
Independent research conducted by the Pew Research Center shows that 95% of Sikhs were “overwhelmingly proud Indians”, and that the vast majority, 70%, said that a person who disrespects India cannot be a Sikh.
~ Pew Research: Religion in India: Tolerance and Segregation
Before the motion could be debated, the Mayor chairing the meeting, Councillor Dhillon, explained that a challenge to the ‘inclusion’ of the motion had been received.
The Leader of the Council, Councillor Smith, challenged the inclusion of the motion, after having received a petition from Sikh residents of Slough. He explained that the Sikh residents had expressed in the petition that:
This motion undermines community cohesion in Slough, they feel it will be divisive to good community relations and they say create ill feeling towards the Sikh community. They strongly refute some of the assertions and arguments put forward in the text, accordingly they urge councillors do not proceed in debating this motion.
He went on to explain he had asked the proposer of the motion, Councillor Akram, to withdraw the motion a few days beforehand, but his request was refused. He also expressed that many would find the wording of the motion to be Anti-Sikh, anti-India, and anti-Indian government.
Loud noises from the public gallery could be heard as Councillor Smith finished speaking, we can only assume from Khalistani extremists who were not happy with what he had said.
Councillors present voted whether the challenge should be upheld. The results were clear and announced as follows:
- For: 19
- Against: 8
- Abstentions: 2
- Not Voting: 8 (note it was not made clear what the difference between not voting and abstention was)
The challenge was therefore upheld, and the motion was withdrawn.
As the meeting tried to continue, loud noises could be heard from the public gallery, and predictably, the Khalistani extremists in the gallery became abusive to the elected members. They had been reminded multiple times to behave in a well-behaved courteous manner, not only as would be required during a council meeting, but in public life also.
The meeting had to be stopped whilst the aggressive shouting continued, and the group of extremists were led out. The Khalistanis shouted ‘fake Sikhs’, ‘gadaar’ meaning traitor, ‘supporters of genocide’, ‘shame on you’, and ‘there are Sikhs in Slough under threat from the Indian government’. The fact the Mayor had to earlier bring up behavioural decorum multiple times throughout the meeting made it very clear this was what was expected from the Khalistanis. Their reputation precedes them.
The wording used in the shouting by the Khalistanis in the council meeting, and the content of the motion, are on par. Conspiracy-laden, inaccurate, and false. Khalistanis rely on the spread of such conspiracies spread widely through their networks. No evidence has ever been presented that anyone in the UK is at threat from the Indian government.
It was clear that these abusive Khalistanis were part of the coordinating group which led to the motion being proposed in the first place.
They accused the councillors of being supporters of genocide, which begs the question, supporters of which genocide? India has the largest population of Sikhs in the world, it is where Sikhism originated, where its home is today, and the Sikh population in India has more than doubled from 14 million to over 30 million since 1984. By many indicators, they are the wealthiest and most successful community in India. Independent research conducted by the Pew Research Center shows that 95% of Sikhs were “overwhelmingly proud Indians”, and that the vast majority, 70%, said that a person who disrespects India cannot be a Sikh [1]. Yet the Khalistani terror network continues to spread the lie that Sikhs are persecuted in India, and somehow suffering a genocide, although there is nothing to indicate this.
In fact, the only place Sikhs have suffered any genocide is in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which raises the concern that all eight of the Councillors who voted against the challenge, and wished the debate to take place, were of a Pakistani Muslim background. There were many Councillors of Sikh and Indian heritage in the meeting, a motion such as this would surely be more important to them. But none of these were in support of the motion being included. These Pakistani-origin councillors don’t seem to be too concerned about bringing up the genocide of Sikhs, Hindus, and other minorities, in their country of origin. This begs the question, why are the Pakistani Muslim councillors trying to sow division in communities by giving such a high platform to Khalistani extremists and their fake extremist propaganda?
Divisive motions platforming fake narratives such as this can only lead to hate between communities, that is their very aim and purpose. They have no place anywhere, let alone in council meetings. The councillors have to be held accountable, become better educated about such issues, and not led astray. Instead of stopping the indoctrination of innocents in our community, they are becoming influenced themselves. The greater worry is that in the background, the Islamist-Khalistani alliance backed by the terrorist elements in the Pakistani state, well documented by many, may be coming to the fore, and elected members of the government may be becoming pawns in it.
It is clear this is what many in the Slough community are seeing, and it is wonderful to see the Sikh community standing up to the Khalistani extremists trying to divide communities. The petition is a wonderful indication of this, all the signatories being Sikhs. If the behaviour of the Khalistanis in the council meeting towards elected members is any indication, being abusive and aggressive, whilst knowing they are being filmed, we can only assume how they may behave or what they will do to others when they are not being watched.
As peace-loving members of the Slough community and the UK, we must all stand together and support the Sikh community in standing against the Khalistani extremists misrepresenting them and trying to drown out their voices.
References
[1] Religion in India: Tolerance and Segregation: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/06/29/religion-in-india-tolerance-and-segregation/
