Where Unity Is Strength
Header

Author Archives: Singh

Declaring his interest as member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on the Abolition of the Death Penalty, Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty’s Government what representations they had made to the Saudi government concerning the imminent execution of fourteen individuals including to juveniles.

In response Baroness Goldie said, “we condemn its use in all circumstances and in all countries. It is particularly ​abhorrent when applied to minor crimes and to juveniles in disregard of the minimum standards set out in the EU guidelines on the death penalty of 2008, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Arab Charter on Human Rights.” She went on, “Saudi Arabia remains a Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights priority country, in part due to its use of the death penalty, and it is aware of our position.”

NSO director Lord Singh who has previously spoken out against human rights violations by the Kingdom said, “My Lords, why are the Government so quiet about trade with Saudi Arabia? Why do we export billions of pounds-worth of arms to Saudi Arabia when it is probably the greatest abuser of human rights in the world, against not only neighbouring countries but also its own people, including juveniles?”

In response to Lord Singh Baroness Goldie said Saudi Arabia was an ‘important ally’, and that intelligence shared by them had potentially saved British lives. However despite the close relationship she said, “That does not gag or inhibit us from expressing our strongly held views about abuses of human rights or deployment of the death penalty.”

 

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY – 18/07/17

July 23rd, 2017 | Posted by Singh in Thought for the day - (0 Comments)

Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dicks’ weekend statement that police had prevented as many as five near imminent terrorist attacks over the last few months-, reminds us that we still have much to do to understand and combat the roots of such terrorism.

The seeming paradox behind increasing terrorist outrages and much of the violence in the world today, is how can religious teachings designed to help us be better human beings, be manipulated to lead to the deliberate killing of innocents?

Sikh teachings remind us that what generally passes for religion, is, in reality, a complex mix of superstition, rituals, culture, group history and uplifting ethical teachings. No religion, including my own is immune from followers going against its ethical teachings. Ethical teachings are easy to state, but difficult to live by, and in practice, greater emphasis is often placed on culture and rituals, and sometimes, a perversely unifying belief, that God favours our faith over that of others.

Guru Nanak, looking at conflict between religions in the India of his day, reminded us: ‘the one God of us all is not the least bit interested in our different religious labels but in what we do for others.’ It’s a perversion to believe that God condones killing and murder in His name, and to horrendous crimes and savagery not only between faiths but within the same faith. Today, despite many years of earnest effort for inter faith understanding, there is virtually no dialogue between faiths to explore and understand their different religions. Religious leaders come together, deplore the violence in the world, share tea and samosas, and then, often go back to their congregations to preach exclusivity.

There is an urgent need to look at the environment in which the cancer of terrorism thrives. We need legitimate discussion of questionable attitudes and practices, beginning with those that discriminate against women, gay people and others. Prime Minister Theresa May was right when she recently spoke of the need for difficult conversations about religion. A bold, but courteous, questioning of seemingly divisive practices will help make religion, what it was always intended to be, an active player in working for the common good of all.

 

Our Director’s recent opinion editorial in the Times:

 

Terrorism and Extremist Propaganda

July 3rd, 2017 | Posted by Singh in Current Issues - (0 Comments)

Last week Conservative peer Lord Naseby asked Her Majesty’s Government what measures were being taken to ‘combat extremist propaganda released through multimedia channels, particularly social media, videos, the internet and other online sources.’ The focus of Lord Naseby’s question was limited to online activity, however the NSO acknowledges the issue is not limited to this alone, but is far more complex.

Pointing to issues beyond the internet and specifically interpretation of religion, NSO Director Lord Singh said, ‘My Lords, does the Minister agree that what generally passes for religion is not only ethical guidance for sane living, but a sometimes oppressive culture and a shared history often bent or moulded to dislike or hate others?’

He went on, ‘It is such material that is used to radicalise people. Does the Minister agree that there should be open debate about these things and that this aspect of religion should not be protected by political correctness if we want a truly healthy society?’

Minister of State Baroness Williams said, ‘Lord Singh, as always, makes insightful points.’ She added, ‘The Prime Minister said the other day that we must be prepared to have difficult conversations and I totally agree.’

Emergency services attend to victims of the Tower Bridge terror attack

The Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO) feels it’s time for the country to have an honest debate about the religious motivation behind the jihadist terror attacks in Westminster, Manchester and London Bridge.

For far too long we have heard platitudes from politicians and commentators like ‘terrorism has no religion’ or ‘Islam means peace’, without questioning the real motivation behind the sequence of terror atrocities our country has faced. Many innocent lives have been lost and statements from the Prime Minister like ‘enough is enough’ must be backed with practical steps to get to the root cause of the problem without fear of being labeled ‘Islamophobic.’

We take the view that Western intervention in the Middle East has contributed to contempt for countries like Britain in the eyes of extremists, their sympathizers and sponsors. Moreover the duplicity of politicians like Trump, who on one hand pledge the destruction of Islamic State, whilst selling their backers Saudi Arabia weapons to murder Shias in Yemen, is counter-productive. However, we also know from the history of our forefathers who suffered terrible persecution under India’s Islamic invaders, this is not simply just about Western foreign policy. There is something else at play, and has been for a number of centuries. We must have the courage to name the elephant in the room.

The NSO takes the view that jihadist attacks are primarily motivated by foundational religious texts, and Britain can no longer ignore this. We can no longer bury our heads in the sand and pretend there is no doctrinal motivation. An honest conversation, however difficult, must now take place, acknowledging the existence of verses that are clearly being interpreted by extremist Muslims as a divine license to kill non-believers or kuffar (a derogatory term for a non-Muslim). This is how true interfaith must now evolve and where the conversation, however difficult, must go. We must be clear on which verses are problematic, and how they are being interpreted. We urgently need to know what the Muslim community will do to stop hate preachers from plugging extremist narratives, particularly ones that encourage hate, murder and mayhem.

Lord Singh NSO Director said, “Today’s response to terrorist outrages is frankly pathetic with statements like: ‘the vast majority of Muslims are decent law abiding people’. Of course, they are. So are followers of other faiths. But what of smaller numbers who earnestly believe murderous action against fellow human beings is justified by their religion? Statements like, ‘we must all stand together’, or, that ‘those that seek to divide us will never win’, are fine, but they, and pledges to increase security and intelligence, do nothing to address the underlying causes of religious terrorism.”

He added, “Today, there is an urgent need to look at the environment in which the cancer of terrorism thrives. We will never get anywhere until we are bold enough to attack and break down false barriers of arrogance and superiority between and within different religions. If we do this, we will find core ethical teachings have much in common. We will also find cultural practices of blatant discrimination against women, and others who are in any way different from the norm.”

He went on, “Such attitudes, questionable even centuries ago, have no place in the world of the 21st century and should be unceremoniously discarded. Not easy. It requires religious leaders to declare that oppressive cultural attitudes, and historical enmities embedded in religious texts, have no relevance to the world of today.”

The NSO extends its heartfelt condolences to the friends and families of those who lost loved ones during the London attack.

Sikh Channel interview with Lord Singh

June 5th, 2017 | Posted by Singh in Videos - (0 Comments)

I would first like to thank the MoD for hosting this second Vaisakhi Conference, and Secretary of State for Defence Rt. Hon Michael Fallon and other guests for their kindness on joining us to celebrate one of the most important days in the Sikh calendar.

Vaisakhi, marks the first day of spring in northern India. It’s a time of new hopes and new beginnings; celebrated with colourful processions, fairs and sporting contests.

For Sikhs, Vaisakhi has an added and deeper significance. It was the day chosen by our 10th Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, to give Sikhs a distinct identity, symbolised by the turban and symbols of our faith. The question arises, why did the Guru, who taught the equality of all human beings, deliberately choose to make Sikhs distinctive and recognisable?

For the answer, we have to go back to a cold winter’s day in 1675, when the 9th Guru, Guru Teg Bahadhur, was publicly beheaded in Delhi by the Mughal rulers, for defending the right of the Hindu community, not his own religion, but that of others, to worship in the manner of its choice. It was a unique martyrdom for the cause of religious freedom for all. It was Voltaire who said, ‘I may not believe in what you say; but I will defend to the death your right to say it’. Nearly a century earlier Guru Teg Bahadhur gave that noble sentiment brave and practical utterance.

Following the beheading, the Mughal rulers challenged the followers of the Guru, to come forward to claim their master’s body. But Sikhs, who then had no distinguishing appearance, hesitated to do so. As we celebrate the Christian festival of Easter, we see a striking parallel with a key moment in Christianity with Peter’s denial that he was a follower of Jesus Christ, at the time of Jesus Christ’s martyrdom.

The tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, thought long and hard about the momentary lapse of courage at the time of his father’s martyrdom. It was on the spring festival of Vaisakhi in 1699, that he decided to put the community to the test. Amidst all the fun and celebration, the Guru, suddenly emerged from a tent, sword in hand, and asked for volunteers who would be ready to give their lives there and then, for Sikh principles.

The crowed was hushed to silence fearing anyone who came forward might be harmed. A brave Sikh made his way to the Guru’s tent. Others followed.

After the fifth Sikh, had gone into the tent in response to the Guru’s challenge, the Guru again emerged from the tent, sword in hand. This time however, he was not alone. To the joy and relief of the crowd, the Guru was followed by all five Sikhs, wearing the five symbols of Sikhism, the most prominent of which is neat and uncut hair covered with a smart turban.

The Guru gave the five Sikhs Amrit (blessing and confirmation in the new Khalsa community), and said that in future, all male Sikhs would take the common name Singh, literally lion, as a reminder of the need for courage. At the same time, he declared that all female Sikhs would take the name or title ‘Kaur’, literally ‘princess’, as a reminder of the dignity and complete equality of women first taught by Guru Nanak. Guru Gobind Singh then did an extraordinary thing. He asked the first five members of the Khalsa, now known as the ‘panj piare’, to give him amrit. In a remarkable exercise in humility, master and disciple were now one.

The Guru was now confident that the infant Sikh community could now survive and flourish without a living Guru. He added the writings of his father Guru Teg Bahadhur to the Guru Granth Sahib and declared ‘Guru Manio Granth’. That is that Sikhs should follow the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib as they would a living Guru.

Today, on this anniversary of that historic Vaisakhi, we need to consider the implications of the Guru’s injunction, Guru Manio Granth to life in the world of the 21st century.

In giving supremacy to the Holy Granth over all living leaders, Guru Gobind Singh warned us against false prophets who would try to distort the teachings of Sikhism to suit their own ends. Sadly, today, many Sikhs are chasing after people who are doing precisely this, and looking to superstitious short cuts to a supposed better afterlife, rather than to ethical living.

Guru Gobind Singh’s injunction, ‘Guru Manio Granth’, that is follow the teachings of the holy Granth as you would the founding Gurus, warns us against this distortion and dilution of Sikhism and the need to be true to the ethical teachings contained in our Holy Scriptures. It reminds us not to be passive in our belief, but be active in living true to the teachings. The message of Vaisakhi is that we must not only believe in the teachings, but also let these infuse into the pores of our very being and influence our action and reaction to the world about us, at all times.

In short it’s not enough to simply believe in teachings on equality, religious tolerance and social and political justice as worthy ideals. The message of Vaisakhi is that we must make the furtherance of these ideals the central goal of our lives. We must work together to ensure that the light of the Guru’s teachings reach the furthest corners of our troubled world.

Sikh teachings on human rights have much to offer to a world that has clearly lost its sense of direction. A world in which greed and profit are put before human rights; a world which daily reports of neglect of vulnerable youngster and the frail elderly; a world in which members of the so-called Security Council supply more than 80% of the means of killing in a world awash with arms; weaponry all too easily available to cruel and arrogant leaders. I could go on.

In the past, in India as well as in Europe, religious leaders often amassed power and wealth for themselves, ignoring the need for fairness and justice in society while telling the poor and suffering about promised rewards in heaven. Secular society has gone the other way, arguing that religion should be a private affair and not be allowed to interfere in a materialistic pursuit of wealth and happiness in its blind pursuit of a better life, not in the hereafter, but here and now; and the result is again, power and wealth for some and suffering and cruel hardship for others.

I’ve spent some time in building and construction, but it doesn’t need a construction qualification to understand that that a structure build on inadequate foundations will inevitably suffer damage. Similarly, a blind pursuit of material happiness that ignores the need for the ethical underpinning of society, inevitably results in the cracks in society that we see today.

True ethical underpinning means that human rights, gender equality and concern for others must predicate all we do. They should not subservient to trade and the pursuit of power and privilege as they were a century ago and still are in many parts of the world. Vaisakhi reminds us, that it is the duty of us all to demolish this divide between religious teachings and secular living.

At the same time, Sikhs are duty bound to break down the artificial barriers of superiority and exclusiveness between different faiths and show commonalities far greater and more important than supposed differences.

The task of moving society to more responsible living is not an easy one. It requires the dedication and total commitment inherent in the message of Vaisakhi.

Lord Singh’s talk at the Ministry of Defence on 19 April 2017

Last week the government of Ontario passed a motion which officially recognizes the 1984 anti-Sikh riots orchestrated by Congress politicians as ‘genocide’.

Legislator’s in Ontario’s provincial government passed the motion which was put forward by Liberal Member of the Legislative Assembly Harinder Kaur Malhi last Thursday. The Private Members Notice of Motion number 46, was passed with a majority vote of 35 to 5.

It was first introduced last year by the New Democratic Party (NDP) Deputy Leader Jagmeet Singh, but failed to get cross-governmental support at the time.

Lord Singh of Wimbledon, who has been tirelessly campaigning for justice for the victims of 1984 said:

“We applaud the initiative of Harinder Kaur and the Ontario Legislature in describing the widespread government killings of thousands of Sikhs in India as genocide.”

He went on: “We hope that other governments will follow, resulting in an international inquiry to punish the guilty and bring closure to thousands of still grieving families.”

In a debate in the House of Lords in 2014, Lord Singh said the widespread killing of Sikhs in the wake of Indira Gandhi’s assassination was incited by the words ‘Khoon ka Badla Khoon’, meaning ‘Take blood for blood’ on All India Radio.

At the time he informed peers: “We know all about the disappearances and killings in General Pinochet’s Chile, but a WikiLeaks document carrying a signed report from the American embassy in India shows that more Sikhs were brutally murdered in just three days in 1984 than those killed in Pinochet’s 17-year rule.”

A detailed report on the subject, 1984 Sikhs’ Kristallnacht can be found here

[Tweet by Audrey Truschke @AudreyTruschke on 30 March 17]

The NSO has written to an American academic after concerns were flagged about a controversial statement in her book Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth.

Audrey Trushcke, Assistant Professor of South Asian History at Rutgers University said Aurangzeb executed Guru Tegh Bahadur because he was ‘causing unrest in the Punjab.’ The same comment has been recently made by the Professor on social media.

In a communication to her this week the NSO stated: “As an expert on Aurangzeb you are no doubt aware he imprisoned his own father and murdered his own siblings. Not the actions of a loving son or brother, I’m sure you’ll agree.”

It went on: “His bigotry towards and persecution of India’s minority faiths is widely acknowledged and documented. It’s with this backdrop that a delegation of Kashmiri Pandits approached Guru Tegh Bahadur in 1675. They had been given an ultimatum by Aurangzeb to convert to Islam or perish, a policy we see with modern day ISIS in Syria and Iraq with the persecution of Christians and Yazidi minorities.”

We specifically asked: “How can standing up to religious extremism, bigotry and totalitarianism be possibly described as ‘causing unrest?’ Please do explain.”

At the time of writing we have had no official response from the Professor or the publishers of her book.

Debate: Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack

April 6th, 2017 | Posted by Singh in Current Issues - (0 Comments)

Members of the House of Lords called for a ‘credible investigation’ into the chemical weapons attack in Syria, which was responsible for over 70 deaths in Khan Sheikhoun, Idlib on Tuesday.

According to UK-based monitoring group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, 20 children and 52 adults were killed in the chemical incident.

Calling for an investigation into the atrocity, Baroness Northover said: “If it turns out to be sarin from the regime’s stocks, what actions will be taken to ensure that this time there is full destruction of all Syria’s chemical weapons?”

Referring to a recent US military airstrike against IS which killed a significant number of civilians, Lord Singh said: “My Lords, does the Minister agree with the sentiments of the great human rights activist Andrei Sakharov, who said that there will be no progress on human rights until we are even-handed in condemnation?”

He went on: “Having said that, does she further agree that the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Mosul should be equally condemned as the chemical attack? For survivors and for the relatives of those killed and maimed, it is equally bad.”