The faith advisor of an independent review commissioned by the British government informed media that a tiny minority amongst the Sikh community in UK “are very aggressive, very loud and not representative of majority British-Sikh community”.

The British government must acknowledge religious organizations as a positive force, according to the key review of faith engagement by Colin Bloom.

Bloom considered how the government might honor religious organizations’ contributions while combating harmful practices.

The public survey received more than 21,000 responses, and Bloom provided the British government with 22 suggestions.

Bloom said, “We are seeing a very small group of people using aggressive tactics to try and outrage all Sikhs to believe what they believe about whether it’s… Khalistan or other issues. And so I’m very pleased to say that in the last few years, the British government has been increasing its awareness of this problem and they’re beginning to tackle it. But my report is the first, I think, to really lay out very clear terms, which is evidence-based, that this is a problem that needs to be addressed”.

He claimed that the authority had no qualms about taking seriously the threat posed by pro-Khalistan and Sikh extremists.

“The problem…with this is that there are overwhelming majority of the nicest, kindest and most decent people in the UK. And, a tiny minority amongst them are very aggressive, very loud and not representative of majority British-Sikh community”, he said. “Let’s not forget that there are still a number of Sikh extremist and terrorist organizations that are prescribed as terrorist organizations, whether that’s Babbar Khalsa…” he said, noting that International Sikh Youth Federation was banned but has been “de-proscribed” in the UK.

The Khalistan movement has its roots in the partition of India and Pakistan. Some Sikhs argued for the establishment of an independent Sikh state, to be known as Khalistan, in their former homeland of Punjab after Pakistan was established as an overt Islamic Republic for the Subcontinent’s Muslims, and India was established as a secular republic. Since then Khalistan movement has been active against India.

On March 19, a huge number of Indians gathered in front of the Indian High Commission in London to protest against the “disrespectful act” of Khalistan supporters against the Indian flag. They demanded swift retaliation.

Later, India brought up the issue of the security of its diplomatic missions in the UK and demanded that the British government take swift action against the anti-India elements.

Bloom hoped that the extremist actions of a few people wouldn’t damage the bilateral ties between Britain and India.

“I hope it doesn’t damage the relations between the UK and India. We have some of the strongest ties, a great deal of affection, and obviously, a shared history that goes back many hundreds of years”, Bloom said.

“I hope that continues, whether that’s with the British Hindu community, the British Sikh community, the British Muslim community, whoever it may be, we have to continue to build on those things that bind us together rather than would divide us”, he added.

Willian Shawcross Report

William Shawcross’ Independent Review of Prevent, the British counter-extremism program, issued a warning in February about the rise of pro-Khalistan extremism in the UK’s Sikh communities.

Shawcross noted that the Khalistanis were inciting Sikhs in Britain to rebel against the British government, and spreading false accusations that the British government was persecuting Sikhs and aiding the Indian government in doing the same in India, while glorifying violence committed by the pro-Khalistan movement in India.

The investigation should look into the larger context in which this particular incident occurred as well as the mistakes that allowed this threat to go unchecked for too long.

Similar to Islamist hate preachers, Khalistani activists have been promoting an ideology and a series of conspiracy theories that have led Sikhs in Britain to believe that violence is acceptable in “self-defence” since they are constantly being attacked.

This puts the entire society in peril by dividing a varied population that depends on intercommunal harmony and understanding to prosper. It is also harmful for Sikhs since it runs the risk of encouraging youth and others to engage in terrorism and criminality.

By believing the dishonest characterisation of Shawcross and his review you are in fact aiding the Islamist project.

The long-awaited independent review of Prevent by William Shawcross was finally released on Wednesday the 8^th January.

“Prevent” is one of the four “P”’s in the UK Counter Terrorism strategy called the Contest Strategy– alongside: “Pursue”, Prepare” and “Protect.” The Prevent strategy’s primary role is to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism through tackling the causes of radicalisation and respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism, safeguarding and supporting those most at risk of radicalisation through early intervention, identifying them and offering support, and enabling those who have already engaged in terrorism to disengage and rehabilitate

The review criticises the existing way that the strategy is being implemented for straying from its “overarching objective”  of stopping people from supporting terrorism and calls for more to be done to tackle the ideology that inspires and legitimises Islamist terrorist attacks. One would assume that this approach is common sense and the only way to “prevent” people from becoming violent. After all, prevention is better than cure and terrorism cannot be countered without neutralizing the ideas it is built upon.

We should all welcome an improved Prevent Strategy that more effectively stops people from becoming radicalised in the first place. But, inevitably, among those who hold the Islamist world view that Prevent seeks to challenge, this isn’t the case,.

As soon as Shawcross was appointed in January 2021, a slick, well-established strategy to assassinate his character him was deployed by Islamists and their supporters. Overnight, social media was awash with mendacious claims of Islamophobia, old quotes of his emerged and were shared wildly out of context in an unedifying ‘gotcha’ manner. Hundreds of people and groups publicly boycotted his review, before it had even started.

Why did they do this? And what else can we expect from the Islamist playbook now the review is published?

Character assassination is a psychological tool of war used by Islamists extensively to attack the credibility of the intended target. The intention is to harm their opponents and discredit their work, politically, morally, socially, and even economically, through the spreading of rumours, false accusations, and the manipulation of facts.  The Minister of Islamic Affairs in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, agrees with me. In other words, Shawcross should expect more of the same!

Keep an eye out for the (now) tiresome ploy of an opening statement to the press condemning the review signed by hundreds of organisations, many of whom (a quick google search would show) are sympathetic to the Islamist worldview. Furthermore, I and no doubt many others were bombarded with WhatsApp messages the evening before the release claiming that it is being driven by an “anti-Muslim ideology” by an individual that is “hostile to Muslims” and urging recipients to send an angry cut-and-paste rejection of the review to their local MP and “speak out against the Government”.

It is precisely because the review targets the very ideology that Islamists (especially the Muslim Brotherhood) hold dear that means that unless they disavow their world view, they have no option but to go on the offensive. Many of them will refuse to accept the review’s findings without reading it because, for them, Prevent in principle is xenophobic towards Muslims. They have cast themselves as the vanguard, defenders of Muslim rights, and they stand side by side with their comrades – to do anything else would mean that they have to believe an alternative truth and admit that they have been wrong the whole time. Don’t hold your breath and expect of them to do this!

The reality is that the review does not target Muslims or Islam. It targets Islamism and the groups and individuals that have supported extreme Islamist ideologies and narratives. It is not “anti-Muslim” to target Islamists and many Muslims agree. Most Muslims are not Islamists or even supporters of the ideology. Muslims suffer the largest number of casualties globally from Islamist terrorism and in the UK, non-Islamist Muslims are just as much the target of this vile ideology – in some cases even more because they are regarded as traitors to the cause. Furthermore, ordinary Muslims like me reject what we have called in the past the bigotry of low expectations, from non-Muslims, and we expect to be treated as equal citizens.

We have rejected the political goals of Islamism that reject the values that led our immigrant parents to stay in the UK – In other words, by believing the dishonest characterisation of Shawcross and his review you are in fact aiding the Islamist project, and, in doing so you are doing us harm.

About Author: Haras Rafiq is a Counter-Extremism and Counter Terrorism expert since 2004. Until recently, Haras was the Managing Director of ISGAP (Academic Research Centre) and served as CEO and Executive Board Member for seven years at Quilliam International (UK, USA and Canada) – and until 2018 as a member of the Advisory Group on Online Terrorist Propaganda at Europol’s European Counter-terrorism Centre (ECTC).

Haras is also a trustee of the UK Charity Muslims Against Antisemitism and has been a trustee of the UK and French Government Securities Think Tank – The Franco British Council. Haras has testified at various Parliamentary hearings including the All-Party Parliamentary Groups (UK) and at Senate Committee Hearings (USA) as well as the EU Parliament.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.