Jump to content

David Cameron: Britain Caused Many Of The World's Problems


Recommended Posts

David Cameron: Britain caused many of the world's problems

Britain is responsible for many of the world’s historic problems, including the conflict in Kashmir between India and Pakistan, David Cameron has said.

article-1373478-0B7D773400000578-412_634x476.jpg

The Prime Minister appeared to distance himself from the imperial past when he suggested that Britain was to blame for decades of tension and several wars over the disputed territory, as well as other global conflicts.

His remarks came on a visit to Pakistan, when he was asked how Britain could help to end the row over Kashmir.

He insisted that it was not his place to intervene in the dispute, saying: “I don’t want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world’s problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place.”

His remarks about Kashmir were greeted warmly by the audience of Pakistani students and academics, but drew accusations from historians that the Prime Minister was wrongly apologising for Britain’s past.

Daisy Cooper, the director of the Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit, said: “This is typical of the UK’s schizophrenic relationship with former colonies where it is both proud and embarrassed about its past. The Coalition has said that it has big ambitions for a modern Commonwealth and the UK should stop being embarrassed about its colonial past and they should work with other countries to help improve their human rights.”

Tristram Hunt, the Labour MP, historian and former television presenter, said: “To say that Britain is a cause of many of the world’s ills is naïve. To look back 50-odd years for the problems facing many post-colonial nations adds little to the understanding of the problems they face.

“David Cameron has a tendency to go to countries around the world and tell them what they want to hear, whether it is in Israel, Turkey, India and Pakistan.”

Mr Cameron’s apparent willingness to accept historic responsibility for the Kashmir dispute has echoes of public apologies issued by his Labour predecessors.

In 1997, Tony Blair apologised to the Irish people for the famine the country suffered in the mid-19th century. And in 2006, he spoke of his “deep sorrow” at Britain’s historic role in the African slave trade.

In 2009, Gordon Brown issued a formal Government apology to tens of thousands of British children shipped to Australia and other Commonwealth countries between the 1920s and 1960s.

In the same year, Mr Cameron said that Britain should do more to celebrate its history, writing: “We must never forget that Britain is a great country with a history we can be truly proud of. Our culture, language and inventiveness has shaped the modern world.”

Sean Gabb, of the campaign group Libertarian Alliance, said Mr Cameron should not apologise for Britain’s past.

He said: “It’s a valid historical point that some problems stem from British foreign policy in the 19th and 20th centuries, but should we feel guilty about that? I fail to see why we should.

“Some of these problems came about because these countries decided they did not want to be part of the British Empire. They wanted independence. They got it. They should sort out their problems instead of looking to us.”

Mr Cameron’s remark is striking because he has previously spoken of his pride in Britain’s past and named Viscount Palmerston as one of his historical inspirations.

As foreign secretary and later prime minister in the mid-19th century, Palmerston was popular for his brazenly interventionist foreign policy, an approach that later became known as “gunboat diplomacy”.

Mr Cameron was in Pakistan to make amends for any offence he caused last year by accusing the country of “exporting” terrorism.

Kashmir has been contested since 1947 when India was partitioned. The original borders were drawn up by Viscount Radcliffe, a law lord who became chairman of the two boundary committees set up with the passing of the Indian Independence Act.

He submitted his partition in August 1947 and the two nations were created.

While some historians say that makes Britain responsible for the dispute, others point to Hari Singh, the Hindu ruler of Kashmir in 1947.

Despite an expectation that Muslim areas of the subcontinent would become part of Pakistan, he decided that Muslim-majority Kashmir should be part of India.

Pakistan and India have fought three wars over Kashmir since partition, and the dispute continues to strain their relationship. On a visit to India last year, Mr Cameron was criticised when he said Britain should approach its former imperial possession “in a spirit of humility”.

As well as Kashmir, some historians say Britain bears historic responsibility for other international disputes.

Many trace the Israel-Palestine dispute back to Britain’s decision in 1917 to establish a “national home for the Jewish people” in the territory then known as Palestine.

The borders of many Middle Eastern states were also drawn by Britain. The badly-defined and highly unstable border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan was also largely defined by Britain in the late 19th century.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8430899/David-Cameron-Britain-caused-many-of-the-worlds-problems.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/UK-open-to-Sikh-as-head-of-armed-forces-judiciary-David-Cameron/articleshow/33552759.cms? UK open to Sikh as head of armed forces, judiciary: David Cameron

Kounteya Sinha,TNN | Apr 10, 2014, 02.21 PM IST

LONDON: British Prime Minister David Cameron has for the first time said that UK is open to having a Sikh as the head of its armed forces or as a chief justice in its judiciary.

Hosting a Baisakhi celebration at 10 Downing Street, Cameron heaped high praise on "the hard working" Sikh community in UK and invited more from the community to enter British parliament.

Referring to the "hard work so many Sikhs now do in our parliament," Cameron said "Not enough - I'm proud that we have in Paul Uppal a British Sikh on Conservative benches, Paul is here working hard, but we shouldn't rest until we see more British Sikhs on green benches and red benches, until we see more British Sikhs at the top of every one of our organisations - whether that is our army, or our judiciary - not because we should believe in tokenism, but because we believe, I believe, that we won't access the talent of our country unless we demonstrate that everyone from every background and faith can get to the top of any organization that they choose and that is so important for our country".

According to Cameron, British Sikhs "have been an absolute model in terms of integrating into our communities and playing a role in our communities; whether it is in our armed forces, whether it is serving in government, whether it is working in business, whether it is representing us brilliantly on the cricket field, there's hardly an area of natural life where British Sikhs haven't made a huge impact".

Cameron hosting the fourth Baisakhi party in 10 Downing Street also recalled the recent floods that devastated parts of UK.

He said "We had people from across the country who had shown extraordinary public service in the floods earlier this year, and we had then Sikhs who had gone out of their way to travel across our country and help people, whether they were in Somerset, whether they were in the Thames Valley, whether they were in East Anglia, who needed help. "Serving the community, putting back into the community is something deep in the heart of all British Sikhs," he said.

The Sikh vote bank will be a major factor in the next general election in UK in 2015.

Britain's 2011 census says UK is home to nearly 4.3 lakh Sikhs of which 4.2 lakh live in England alone. The community is also very politically active.

Around 3 in 4 Sikhs have voted in different elections in the last 4 years. Around 2 in 3 voted in the 2010 general elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's almost funny:

The British army (and its other western allies) have just had their arses handed to them by a considerably inferior (in terms of technology) Afghan guerilla army - and suddenly they aren't averse to having some Sikh token in as head of their force....

I wonder what sort of opportunist sycophant might raise his (or her!) head from amongst our lot for this position?

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's almost funny:

The British army (and its other western allies) have just had their arses handed to them by a considerably inferior (in terms of technology) Afghan guerilla army - and suddenly they aren't averse to having some Sikh token in as head of their force....

I wonder what sort of opportunist sycophant might raise his (or her!) head from amongst our lot for this position?

Who knows? Maybe David Cameron does have a lot of respect for Sikhs, and really believes a Sikh has potential to be head of the army. Although, I don't think most of the public would be happy with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who knows? Maybe David Cameron does have a lot of respect for Sikhs, and really believes a Sikh has potential to be head of the army. Although, I don't think most of the public would be happy with that.

And what imperialist and neo-imperialist bullshit has the British army largely been up to for the past few centuries. What kind of idiot would want our own lot to jump back on that bandwagon? The mind boggles.

Of course white man wouldn't mind a Sikh man as head of the army now; seeing as their own lot have done such a 'grand job' in Iraq and Afghanistan recently....

Then there'll be the unabashed tokenism with some idiot Singh all over the media as if all is okay with race relations in the country now; and foreign policy isn't largely some barely concealed racist opportunism to grab resources from foreign shores.

I tell you, some of our lot are so desperate to try and fit in, they would sell their own (and the communities) souls for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it sounds like a nice way to destroy Pakistan, get Singh on board, India is on board, america will get on board easily then it's a matter of shifting china to the side the arabs don't care. Disolve pakistan and place it's entire state under indian control, sell the land cheap and send all the biharis there. Let the indian army disable all the jihadi camps they will be gone in a matter of days.

Edited by JatherdarSahib
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the British had any brains they would help Sikhs gain the independent state they are fighting for and then become allies with them.

This will give them crucial territorial ground in Asia aswell as creating an addition buffer zone close to Afghanistan.

This would truly be truly thanking the immense help that the Sikhs have given Britain rather than just saying " thanks lads good work keep it up"

But the British don't have the best War strategy and the fact that they lost WW2 very badly proves this and recently in Iraq where no WMD were found. It was only Russia who saved Nazism all over the world. If the Russians couldn't defeat the Paathans then the Brits couldn't have stood a chance. But the Sikhs did, i wonder why ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it sounds like a nice way to destroy Pakistan, get Singh on board, India is on board, america will get on board easily then it's a matter of shifting china to the side the arabs don't care. Disolve pakistan and place it's entire state under indian control, sell the land cheap and send all the biharis there. Let the indian army disable all the jihadi camps they will be gone in a matter of days.

How many of you knew that Britain/Europe had a pact with Ukraine that if Ukraine diossolved its weapons it will be given an assurance of protection against war/annexation. What happened recently? The crimean region went and UN Nato didnt do anything.

'India is on board, america will get on board easily then it's a matter of shifting china to the side the arabs don't care. Disolve pakistan and place it's entire state under indian control,'

You forgot the super powers the like of Iran, Afganistan (which is now autonomous) and Russia, Korea and the Bushido's.

Edited by PAL 07
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the British had any brains they would help Sikhs gain the independent state they are fighting for and then become allies with them.

If Sikhs had any brains they would avoid any such alliance with the Brits and remember how these 'allies' attacked and plundered their hard-earned state pretty much immediately after forming an 'alliance' with the Lahore darbar against perceived French and Russian foes. Then they should recall how they were left to fend for themselves at partition (as a thank you for all their help in the 'World Wars').

If you can't see that these people have never and have no intention of ever seeing people like us as equals, then I might go as far as to say that you are a perfect exemplar of the term 'gullible'.

If the idea of turning Panjab into something akin to a launching pad for western interference into Islamic lands isn't lunacy, I don't know what is? Of course, that wouldn't work out bad for us...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Sikhs had any brains they would avoid any such alliance with the Brits and remember how these 'allies' attacked and plundered their hard-earned state pretty much immediately after forming an 'alliance' with the Lahore darbar against perceived French and Russian foes. Then they should recall how they were left to fend for themselves at partition (as a thank you for all their help in the 'World Wars').

If you can't see that these people have never and have no intention of ever seeing people like us as equals, then I might go as far as to say that you are a perfect exemplar of the term 'gullible'.

If the idea of turning Panjab into something akin to a launching pad for western interference into Islamic lands isn't lunacy, I don't know what is? Of course, that wouldn't work out bad for us...

"Let us get even a settee amount of autonomous land, and we'll make the rest ourselves" Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bindranvale.

Also remember during partition of India in 1947 one thing good about the British is that they offered us Khalistan, nobody else did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Let us get even a settee amount of autonomous land, and we'll make the rest ourselves" Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bindranvale.

Also remember during partition of India in 1947 one thing good about the British is that they offered us Khalistan, nobody else did.

Are you serious?

So you think we should be thankful to the people who came and destroyed Sikh political sovereignty? Because they very kindly offered to restore it before they ran off and left us to face genocide?

I'm pretty sure the offer alluded to above was born of some selfish political strategic objective (on part of the Brits) rather than any genuine desire to see Sikh independence. In the end they only would've put their pet pendus in power and tried to manipulate this 'Khalistan' for their own purposes.

What a genius; you appear to have a ghulaam mentality towards goray?

Try reading MUCH more and experimenting with an independent mindset before you write? It might help you in a big way. It's this type of mentality that leads to enslavement. Truth is that certain people are just plain sheep. What does it matter if our subordinators are Hindu or British, aim for complete freedom - not some compromise that turns us into some other communities pawns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Let us get even a settee amount of autonomous land, and we'll make the rest ourselves" Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bindranvale.

Also remember during partition of India in 1947 one thing good about the British is that they offered us Khalistan, nobody else did.

There is no proof that British offered sikhs Khalistan apart from few sikh historians who wrote this without any evidence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in the future, the British will have some kind of hand in helping Sikhs attain their right to self determination. The Brits are good and bad. If Sikhs have the brains to play politricks with the British they can get Khalistan easily and then keep a robust and friendly relationship with the British rather than the likes of Hundustan which is a poodle to foreign countries (hence it being so poor and weak,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in the future, the British will have some kind of hand in helping Sikhs attain their right to self determination. The Brits are good and bad. If Sikhs have the brains to play politricks with the British they can get Khalistan easily and then keep a robust and friendly relationship with the British rather than the likes of Hundustan which is a poodle to foreign countries (hence it being so poor and weak,

So you're a typical jat phudu then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So you're a typical jat phudu then.

What are you? a chamar? a bapha? a chooda? a nai? a bahman?

seems like you're the maha-phudu of all the phudus that ever existed... You wouldn't know a word of English if it wasn't for the British Empire introducing schools in Punjabi villages, or offering your parents or grandparents the opportunity to come abroad as skilled-labourers... where it was in the best interest of the Jat zamindars to keep all the other castes uneducated so they could work on their farms and fix their ploughs for the rest of their lives in exchange for grain. At least give the British empire the respect it deserves for God's sake, or atleast acknowledge their positive points.

Fact is, Jats would continued to treat you people like shit if the British Empire didn't intervene with certain rights for laborers, and offer you people other opportunities. And besides, it was the Majithia (Jats) and the Nabha Dynasty (Sidhu-Brar Jat) who led the Singh-Sabha reforms and allowed Gyani Dit Singh (a Chamar) to introduce 'egalitarianism' into the "Sikh panth" half-a-century later.

Sikhism and the Sikh identity was never egalitarian; it was the influence of the British, and the re-interpretation of Sikh scriptures (in a Christian/victorian manner) i.e. post-1920's version of SIkhism, and the influence of free-masonry and similar ideologies from the west which re-shaped Sikhism into an egalitarian supposedly-'casteless' religion. Yes, Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa in 1699 and gave all amridharis the name "Suraj-banshi Kshatriya", but social practice of casteism amongst the Sikhs continued to be the same in the presence of the GUru and nowhere is it mentioned any 'amridhari' sikh of the period married a man/woman of another caste... it just gave them a martial 'brotherhood' identity regardless of their original caste-by-birth, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sikhism and the Sikh identity was never egalitarian;

What a straight phudhu you are.

What a completely shite grasp of Sikh history you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what is mind-blowingly conspicuous, comical and at the same time alarming about certain Khalistanis. They actually don't realise that without a 'sovereign-mindset', one that projects enough confidence and resilience to carve out a destiny against heavy odds, Khalistan is unachievable.

Instead they actually think that psychologically, spiritually and physically subordinating themselves to the west (be it the US or the Brits) is the way forward......

What the ...........!!!!

What kind of lowly, shameful, slave-puppet state do they envisage for Sikhs? How much anakh do these people really have?

Really, most of these are peasants who just want to make more money from their farms. They'd sell their soul to the white man to achieve this. Paradoxically, most of them act allergic to Sikhi ideals of egalitarianism whilst wanting to 'save Sikhi' with Khalistan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL Khalistan argument would never have happened if Gyani Zail Singh, being the maha-phudu tarkhan that he was, had never joined hands with Indra Gandhi in order to get rid of Jat Sardar Darbara Singh (CM of Punjab popular amongst the Landed Class). He failed and created a right mess of it, by funding "extremist-Sikh" groups he had no control over in the end LOL.

Maha-phudu Tharkhan and his "intelligent" engineering lol. So the Congress Party made him president of India after Operation BlueStar, because he was a 'Sikh', he not only accepted the offer like a beysharam, but he did admin cut ALL with the position... and the poor tarkhans legs used to shake as used to give public speeches LMAO... Vah bei vah TK'ano

Link to comment
Share on other sites

president of India after Operation BlueStar

Gyani Zail Singh was the president during Operation BlueStar, not "after".

One comment I would like to make as a general observation on this forum. I think anyone adhering to Sikh beliefs and way of life is a son, daughter of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj. Our lineage begins and ends with our guru. Anyone thinking otherwise is surely misguided.

Edited by OnPathToSikhi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Let us get even a settee amount of autonomous land, and we'll make the rest ourselves" Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bindranvale.

Also remember during partition of India in 1947 one thing good about the British is that they offered us Khalistan, nobody else did.

I can bet you were brought up in India. Most of us from there have the Ghulam Pravirti. We talk a lot and try to sound intelligent but in our hearts we hold 'Angrez' in a very high esteem. If an Angrez says a word condescending praise our chest fills up with pride. And in our heart we actually do not hold grudge that it were the Angrez who connivingly usurped the Sikh State. All we remember about the British is that they gave us the governance, the trains and the roads. And since they offered us a choice for our homeland in the end their every doing of the past automatically becomes okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can bet you were brought up in India. Most of us from there have the Ghulam Pravirti. We talk a lot and try to sound intelligent but in our hearts we hold 'Angrez' in a very high esteem. If an Angrez says a word condescending praise our chest fills up with pride. And in our heart we actually do not hold grudge that it were the Angrez who connivingly usurped the Sikh State. All we remember about the British is that they gave us the governance, the trains and the roads. And since they offered us a choice for our homeland in the end their every doing of the past automatically becomes okay.

I may sound pro british but that is not the case, and the anti brit rhetoric here makes me believe you guys are the "crazed pindus". Your all clearly showing your lack of political skill.

If any of you would have studied the politics Guru Gobind Singh Ji used during his volatile times you would realise that alienating yourself from your enemies is not a clever option. Guru Jee assisted bahadarshah zafar even though his father ordered the killing of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji.

My point is that the British always have a hand in any course of world politics. Assistance from them would be wise rather than taking a Boko Haram stance even though they have given little back to the Sikh nation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may sound pro british but that is not the case, and the anti brit rhetoric here makes me believe you guys are the "crazed pindus". Your all clearly showing your lack of political skill.

If any of you would have studied the politics Guru Gobind Singh Ji used during his volatile times you would realise that alienating yourself from your enemies is not a clever option. Guru Jee assisted bahadarshah zafar even though his father ordered the killing of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji.

My point is that the British always have a hand in any course of world politics. Assistance from them would be wise rather than taking a Boko Haram stance even though they have given little back to the Sikh nation

Very good point veer, sikhs need to be more familiar with puratan rajniti.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 years later...
On 4/12/2014 at 8:30 PM, Premi said:

 

Who knows? Maybe David Cameron does have a lot of respect for Sikhs, and really believes a Sikh has potential to be head of the army. Although, I don't think most of the public would be happy with that.

Can't believe how naive I was back then !

On 4/12/2014 at 10:07 PM, dalsingh101 said:

 

And what imperialist and neo-imperialist bullshit has the British army largely been up to for the past few centuries. What kind of idiot would want our own lot to jump back on that bandwagon? The mind boggles.

 

Of course white man wouldn't mind a Sikh man as head of the army now; seeing as their own lot have done such a 'grand job' in Iraq and Afghanistan recently....

 

Then there'll be the unabashed tokenism with some idiot Singh all over the media as if all is okay with race relations in the country now; and foreign policy isn't largely some barely concealed racist opportunism to grab resources from foreign shores.

 

I tell you, some of our lot are so desperate to try and fit in, they would sell their own (and the communities) souls for it.

Wouldn't be surprised if something like this was implemented in not so distant future. Convenient scapegoating if anything goes wrong. If not, then subterfuge from within from resentful ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Premi said:

Can't believe how naive I was back then !

Wouldn't be surprised if something like this was implemented in not so distant future. Convenient scapegoating if anything goes wrong. If not, then subterfuge from within from resentful ones. 

Better late than never I guess. Good your eyes have been opened up. 

That scapegoating thing you talk about is why we should vocally agitate to not be used as token lightening rods. People are waking up though. That's why we have 'No more sepoys' sprayed on colonial era propaganda type statues.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...