Short on time at the moment, so this will a touch cryptic but…

In my last post I pointed out that the Tories latest ‘defectors’ - ex Hounslow councillors Parmod Kad and Sarbjit Singh Gill - weren’t defectors at al, having left the Labour Party in 2006 to stand for election as candidates of the Hounslow Independent Alliance.

Well, since posting that, it has become apparent that there’s a bit more to this story - namely that it would appear that the two gentlemen in question didn’t so much leave the Labour - they were more expelled from the party for matters relating (allegedly) to this report of the Local Government Ombudsman:

London Borough of Hounslow (05/A/14008) NEW

Maladministration causing injustice

Hounslow Council’s Heston and Cranford Area Planning Committee took irrelevant matters into account and failed to give weight to the Council’s own policies and planning guidance when it decided not to take enforcement action against unauthorised development, found the Ombudsman. He found fault in the way the decision was taken, and recommended that it be reconsidered by a different committee.

He said “It appears that there is still a need for training about planning matters for the members of this committee,” as information about the decisions of the Heston and Cranford Area Planning Committee suggested that this was not a solitary lapse.

‘Mr Smith’ and ‘Mr Jones’ (not their real names) lived in a conservation area. They complained about the way that the Council decided not to take enforcement action against a neighbour who had built a rear garage and added features to his house without planning permission. The development has had a detrimental effect on Mr Smith’s and Mr Jones’ enjoyment of their own homes, and they consider that it has reduced the value of their properties. 

The Council investigated Mr Smith’s complaint and agreed that that the development breached the Council’s policies and guidance for building in conservation areas and was detrimental to the local street scene. They made a recommendation to the Heston and Cranford area planning committee that enforcement action should be taken to make the neighbour remove the garage and other unauthorised features.

The area committee decided not to take action. In doing so, they took into account irrelevant matters and factually inaccurate information. They gave little weight to the Council’s policies and planning guidance. Some members of the committee had received no training in planning issues. One of the reasons given for their decision was factually inaccurate.

Mr Smith and Mr Jones were disappointed with the Council’s failure to consider the matter properly and had to make great and prolonged efforts to have the decision reconsidered.

A review of the Council’s records revealed that in recent years this area committee had refused a higher proportion of officers’ recommendations to take planning enforcement action than the Council’s other area planning committees, and that concerns about this committee’s planning decision making had been raised in a report to the Council’s Executive Committee by its Scrutiny Committee in 2003. 

The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended the Council to:

• put this case to the Council’s Sustainable Development Committee for it to consider afresh whether it would be expedient to take enforcement action;
• pay Mr Smith £500;
• pay Mr Jones £500; and
• review the report and recommendations adopted by its Executive in 2003, to see what can be done to build on this report and ensure the implementation of its decisions, and when this has been done, to write to tell the Ombudsman what further action the Council proposes to take.

16 May 2007

Back with a bit more in due course, including - with a bit of luck - the full Ombudsman’s report.

… from the Hounslow Independent Alliance.

Yes, that’s right - despite the Times billing Cameron’s planned meeting with Parmod Kad and Sarbjit Singh Gill, two former Hounslow Borough Labour councillors, as another defection from Labour to the Tories:

Two more local Labour politicians will defect to the Conservatives today in Ealing Southall, adding to Labour’s woes as a by-election campaign in the West London seat enters its final week.

David Cameron, making his third visit to the constituency, will meet two former Labour councillors from a neighbouring borough who are switching to join his party.

One is Parmod Kad, general secretary of the Indian Overseas Welfare Association UK, who was appointed MBE two years ago for services to community relations in Southall.

He lives in Southall although he was a Labour councillor in neighbouring Hounslow, as was Sarbjit Singh Gill, who will defect with him to the Conservatives. Their decision will be hailed by Mr Cameron as another sign of broadening support for his party.

…neither of Cameron’s new acquisitions are actually current Labour politicians or, it appears, even members of the Labour Party, as this table of election results from last year’s local elections (Cranwell Ward, Hounslow) clearly demonstrates:

And for the avoidance of any further doubt, here’s the Hounslow Alliance Party’s annual return to the Electoral Commission. (pdf)

I’ve left a comment on the Times article, by Greg Hurst, pointing out the very obvious, and frankly bizarre error, given that a simple Google search for ‘Parmod Kad Hounslow’ brings up the election result give above as the third item on the list - one slot above Hurst’s article.

Whether that gets past the Times’ moderators is anyone guess at the moment, but to some extent that’s a secondary consideration.

Of considerably more interest, given some of the events that have taken place over the last week, is precisely where Hurst got this incorrect information from.

Did it come directly from Tory Central Office? From their election co-ordinator, Grant Shapps? From Ealing Southall Conservative Association? Or is someone down in Ealing Southall doing a bit of ‘freelancing’ on their campaign?

Over the last week we’ve seen:

- several instances of apparent astroturfing of Lib Dem blogs, which is alleged to have come from Tory supporters, including one badly executed effort that used Grant Shapps own YouTube account (which has already been dubbed 1234Gate) and another in which the name of a Lib Dem councillor in Manchester was used, without his knowledge, to post a suggestion that the Lib Dems should withdraw from the by-election, leaving a straight Labour/Tory fight.
-  a Tory canvasser admit to stealing election leaflets put out by other party’s from local residents’ letterboxes.

- The ‘did she, didn’t she’ non-defection of a Labour councillor, Zahida Abbas Noori, which concluded with an allegation that a letter of resignation from the Labour Party had been inserted on a blank sheet of paper that she’d signed in the belief that it would be used to submit a complaint about Labour’s selection process.

One expects a few shenanigans, a bit of political knockabout and point scoring and a fair bit of spin during a hotly contested by-election, but the antics attributed to the Tory Party on this occasion seem to be going beyond spin and well towards downright dishonesty and a contempt for both the electors of Ealing Southall and the democratic process, particularly as Cllr Noori’s account of the defection that wasn’t raises, if it is true - and the Tories appear not to have attempted to rebut her allegation as yet -  serious questions about the honesty and integrity of a serving local councillor.

When all’s done and dusted and the results are in, its seems likely that serious questions may need to be asked about some of the campaign ‘tactics’ deployed by the Conservative Party and its supporters during this campaign.

That said, what is rather more worrying, in terms of the events of the last week, is the apparent lack of awareness in Tory ranks of the complexities of campaigning and building support in areas that have a diverse - and electorally significant - group of ethnic minority communities, particular ones with roots in the Indian Subcontinent, with all the communalist political frictions and tensions that go with such a background.

To go blundering around in such communities looking for cheap electoral gains, without a clear understanding of the extent to which local politics can be shaped as much by events taking place in the Amritsar, Islamabad and New Delhi and the political and religious divisions of the region, is to invite the potential for trouble of a kind that the Conservative Party (and the Liberal Democrats for that matter) have little or no experience of dealing with or managing.

Whether one likes it or not, in campaigning in such areas one has to be careful not to fall unwittingly into making alliances with or supporting sectarian interests in much the same way that one would do well to avoid running a campaign in Glasgow on openly Protestant or Catholic lines. To campaign in such a way as to invite local communities, even inadvertently, to view an election not as a contest between legitimate political parties but as one between defined sectarian, religious and/or ethnic interests is a dangerous road to go down and one that is, ultimately, more likely to damage community relations rather than promote community cohesion and integration.

While I’ve no reason, at present, to doubt Cameron’s sincerity in seeking to reach out to minority communities and his efforts to reshape the Tory Party into on that is genuinely inclusive of all communities, on the strength of their campaign in Ealing Southall I have serious doubts about the extent to which Cameron, and others amongst the current Tory ‘top brass’ understand and appreciate quite how complicated an arena they are entering or how important it is to build real and genuine relationships with all communities in such areas and not fall into the trap to short-cut their way to a few extra votes on the back of cutting deals with sectarian factions and playing at communalist politics.

Seeing that failed-aspirant-Labour-PPC-turned-Tory Gurcharan Singh is intent on asking a few questions, I thought I might ask a question or two of my own.

Gurcharan, I’d like you to think back a couple of months, to 19th May this year, and the events shown in this video…

Next, I’d like to read this account of events that took place in the Sri Guru Singh Sabha Gurdwara, Southall, following this protest.

Re: Incident of Intimidation & Threats at Park Ave Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Southall on 19.5.07

Press/statement by the General Secretary, Executive Committee, Dr Parvinder Singh Garcha

I humbly wish to bring to the notice of the Sangat a disturbing incident that occurred at Park Avenue Gurdwara on the evening of the 19th of May 2007.

As a background to this, one needs to be aware that some so-called ‘Panthic organisations’ had organised a ‘demonstration’ to protest about the serious situation that had occurred in the Punjab and the very unfortunate loss of life that had occurred in relation to the ‘Sacha Sauda’ incident*. This demonstration had been called without the knowledge and any prior discussion with the management committee of the Gurdwara; although the demonstration was going to take place from Havelock Road Gurdwara to Park Avenue Gurdwara.

*This post of Sunny’s will explain some of the background to this…

The management committee had made regular announcements and giving detailed updates of the situation in the Punjab and also appealed to everyone for calm, and await the effort that senior organisations in the Punjab were making; and also advised that we should all wait for the announcement due on the 20th of May from the Akal Takht Sahib before taking further steps.

One of the apparent organisers of the demonstration, a Mr Gurcharan Singh, had come and met a representative of the executive committee on the 18th of May and advised us that the demonstration would be a peaceful one. He informed us that at the end of the demonstration, persons participating in the demonstration would come and congregate around the Nishan Sahib at Park Ave (the area in front of the Gurdwara) and do Kirten followed by Ardas in that area, and then disperse.

[Cllr Singh has asserted that this refers to a Gurcharan Singh other than himself. The electoral roll does show two individuals named Gurcharan Singh registered in the Southall area - see update at end of post]

However, subsequent events, which I will now detail, showed that this was a pre-planned politically motivated attempt at character assassination as well as an attempt to destabilise the Sabha. The Sangat became clearly aware of this as events unfolded in the Diwan Sahib (the main prayer hall).

he demonstrators came into the front of Park Avenue Gurdwara (as previously discussed) but did not do any Kirten or Ardas. Instead they burnt an effigy and then proceeded into the main prayer hall. The Police left the scene at this stage.

Some of the persons who had led the march approached myself and the stage secretary Mr Tejinder Singh Samra and demanded that they be allowed to say Ardas at 6:30 p.m., which was in between when the Kirten was due to finish and the Katha (discourse) starting. We discussed this with them, and pointed out that this was most unusual and would cause a disturbance to the regular programme of the Gurdwara, and it was not something that had been agreed the day before. Some of those persons said, because of the situation in the Punjab, the Ardas had to be done; we then agreed that it could be done at the end of the programme at about 7:30 p.m. and requested that the entire congregation should join together in this.

However, they said this was not acceptable and that this (i.e. the Ardas) was going to happen whether we liked it or not! In order to defuse the situation as we could clearly see that these persons were demanding in a threatening and aggressive manner; we agreed to their demands, and so we agreed that we could take a short break in the programme and do the Ardas. Not content with that; they then demanded that one of the persons, a certain Mr Manmohan Singh Khalsa, be given five minutes to speak to the congregation so he could make them aware of the events that were going on in India.

We politely reminded them that this was not in order and not something that had been agreed to. One of their lead persons, a Mr Jaswant Singh Dhillon requested that in order to defuse the situation we should allow this speech to go ahead. Also at that time his son, Gurpreet Singh, stated in no uncertain terms that it was going to happen anyway! We then agreed that this person be allowed to speak on the stage but only on the topic of the events going on in the Punjab and after his speech a trustee of the Gurdwara, Mr Surjit Singh Bilga, would also say a few words to the congregation. This was agreed by ALL present.

After the Ardas; I personally went over to Mr Manmohan Singh Khalsa* and humbly requested that he speak only on the situation in the Punjab; which he did for a few minutes. However, after that he started making an attack on the president of the Sabha, Mr Himmat Sohi, for attending a RSS meeting; while this was happening, I realised that some persons had started to use the video screen and were going to put on a video, which apparently had also been put out on ‘Youtube’ (about Mr Sohi) when this was happening. Mr Gurpreet Singh came over to me in a very emotional terms said to me that Mr Sohi was going to be removed as president of the Gurdwara today and I (Dr Garcha) would be declared as president! I was shocked and saddened at the state of events that were taking place. I made my way over to the corner of the prayer hall where the computer controlling the video screen was located. When I got to the computer six people gathered around me and I stated to them in a calm and collected manner that this is not what we had agreed, and as this was the Guru’s Diwan showing videos like this was not permitted. They just replied, “Who are you to stop us!”

*This post gives some of the background to Manmohan Singh Khalsa and his current organisation, the World Muslim Sikh Federation.

At the same time an Elderly volunteer at the Gurdwara (who I recognised as Mr Gill) was pulling me backwards with both his arms! I was shocked. I remonstrated with him very politely and respectfully and said that he should let go of me, but he refused. There was no way that I was going to involve myself in a physical tussle with him even though he was being aggressive and pulling me; he said that this video must be shown, as did the other young persons who were surrounding me at this time. One of those was Mr Harjit Singh who is known to me as a member of the Gurdwara. Mr Harjot Singh (the lead IT coordinator of the Gurdwara) was standing to my left and told me that if I requested him to switch the video off he would do so; to this Mr Harjit Singh said he would stop him from doing it. I did not request him to do so, as I felt that this would further inflame the situation and cause further disrespect to the sanctity of the Diwan. Just at this time Mr Gurpreet Singh came over to me again, and again in very emotional terms, said that the video will go on; and I again remonstrated with him that we had agreed the program with him, his father and Mr Manmohan Singh Khalsa.

He was still very emotional and talking in an aggressive tone and said that I was the person who had expelled him from the membership (this was done by the Executive Committee in April 2006 after due process), and now he was a member of the Sangat and Waheguru (god) gives him permission and that the discussion and agreement made previously doesn’t count for anything and the video will go on!

While this was happening Mr Manmohan Singh Khalsa had taken it upon himself to request another speaker, a Mr Dabinderjit Singh, again breaking the agreement that we had previously made in the Divan, right behind the Palki Sahib (I understand he is from Slough and from an organisation called the Sikh Federation).Once had spoken, Mr Tejinder Singh Samra took the microphone from him and switched it off. As soon as he had done this Scuffles broke out and he was manhandled and pushed to the back and a lot of commotion at occurred as other persons from the Sangat came to protect him from further assault (note that all this happened in the sanctitiy of the Divan and right beside the Palki Sahib where Guru Maharaj were present. At this time, the police were called (it has to be noted that the police that had accompanied the demonstration left soon after the demonstrators came into the front of Park Avenue). I then requested that the sound system be disabled, and this was duly done. This clearly upset many of the persons who were bent on causing trouble. We also requested at this time that the usual program be start and a final prayer of the day be done by the Granthi Sahib (he did a marvellous job during all this commotion; and was continually requesting everyone to be respectful and behave as good Sikhs; although he was being intimidated and asked to go from the Palki Sahib by one of the persons of the organising group; but we give him great credit that he did not move and continued to show the utmost of respect to everyone). So as not to continue to further disrespect to Guru Granth Sahib final prayers were said and the program finished. However, many of the demonstrators still stayed in the hall; and it was apparent afterwards, that some persons had also vandalised the sound system by pulling many of the wires. We thank Mr Harjot Singh, who stayed on, till well past midnight to resolve matters.

By this time the police had also arrived, and I spoke to the duty officer Mr Singleton, and appraised him of the situation; I also said that I expected, many of the persons to leave gradually but requested that he leave two of his officers to ensure that this took place.

It was clear that this was pre-planned and coordinated as many of the demonstrators went upstairs to the office to probably interfere with the video recording equipment; because of this officers were called up to the office to avoid a probable breach of the peace, as persons in the office were concerned that these persons had come with ulterior motives. This was in fact, probably the case as many of them quickly moved out when the police came. However, two or three of them took it upon themselves to shout and became very rude to the policemen. This is very unfortunate as the Police have a difficult enough role anyway.

I, on behalf, of the executive committee and trustees, humbly request all persons involved in this and all members of the Sangat that the Gurdwara is a place of worship and not a place for confrontation, ill feeling and un Sikh like behaviour; and we ask everybody to come together and pray for a peaceful resolution to the current situation in Punjab. We also would like to remind everybody that in order to address some of the issues regarding the Gurdwara where persons may have differing opinions; a working group has been formed, and that is the platform where these differing opinions should be discussed and not in the main Diwan Hall.

For further information regarding this please contact Dr Parvinder Singh Garcha on xxx xxxx xxxx

So, Gurcharan, were you one of the organisers of the protest that resulted in this rather unsavoury sounding incident?

And if so, is it really appropriate for a local councillor, one who is supposed to represent the whole community, to be involved (allegedly) in the organisation of sectarian protests about events taking place thousands of miles away?

Oh, and if, as you said in 2005, ‘No rational sikh will raise the demand for Khalistan’, what’s with all the people chanting ‘Khalistan Zindabad’ in the video? Are they just being irrational?

Feel free to use the comments box - unlike your blog, I don’t screen comments first…

RESPONSE FROM CLLR SINGH

The story from Ministry of Truth is nothing but a lie. I have never met either the Executive committee of Sri Guru Singh Sabha or any of their official and never made any representation to them in any regard. The ministry has got wrong end of the stick. I believe they are talking about a Gurcharan Singh and not Councillor Gurcharan Singh. I would ask them to check their facts and apologise to me unreservedly for the offence they have caused to me and my family.I further believe that by putting this story and linking it with me is nothing short of my character assissinqation.
Cllr. Gurcharan Singh

MY RESPONSE

1. The article above is sourced from a press release issued by the Gurdwara Executive Committee and has been published in good faith. The press release itself is reproduced with only minor annotations to clarify the background to the event which took place at the Gurdwara on the date in question and the background to one of the main protagonists in those events, Mr Manmohan Singh Khalsa.

2. The article, as is evident, does not assert categorically that the Gurcharan Singh referred to by the Gurdwara is Cllr Gurcharan, rather it asks Cllr Singh whether he is the Gurcharan Singh mentioned in the press release and, in the event that he confirmed this to be the case, posed a couple of supplementary questions relating to matters of clear interest to both the Sikh community in Southall, and generally to electors in the area.

3. Having appended Cllr Singh’s response to this article, the demands of accuracy are thus satisfied, in so far as he has issued a denial in response to the questions posed.

4. His assertion that the article is ‘nothing but a lie’ and that it amounts to ‘character assassination’ is a nonsense. Given that a Gurcharan Singh was clearly identified by the Gurdwara has having informed that that the protest was to take place and that one of the main protagonists in the altercation within the Gurdwara following the protest, heads an organisation, the World Muslim Sikh Federation, which was was represented at a meeting in Pakistan attended by Cllr Singh a little less than a month later, it seems perfectly reasonable in light of the content of the Gurdwara’s press release, to enquire as to whether the Gurcharan Singh referred to as an organiser of the protest march was Cllr Singh, or not.

5. I would also not that Cllr Singh states clearly and unequivocally that:

I have never met either the Executive committee of Sri Guru Singh Sabha or any of their official and never made any representation to them in any regard.

However, this article from NRIinternet.com appears to contradict that statement:

Gurcharan Singh became the Mayor London Borough of Ealing

Sep. 16, 2003

Councillor Gurcharan Singh was born in the Punjab in 1948. He moved with his family to Uttar Pardesh, a neighbouring province, in 1954.At secondary school he received a merit scholarship for coming first in his O level exams out of more than 1000 students. He continued his studies at a college and graduated with a BSc in physics, chemistry and mathematics. He also holds a Masters of Science in mathematics. As Gurcharan did not belong to a rich family, he taught high school students to meet his college expenses. While other students travelled by bus, he cycled 13 miles to and from college every day. He also helped his father at his farm. He married Rajinder in 1971, moved to the UK in 1972 and they have three grown up children.

Gurcharan joined the Labour Party in 1976, becoming a councillor in 1982. He is actively involved in Sikh politics and has a strong base in the largest Sikh Gurdwara, Sri Guru Singh Sabha, in Southall.

Singh, who started as a British Rail guard, moved on to become a tax officer. By 1986, he had his own hotel in London. But, Singh says, life kept throwing up challenges his way. ‘‘Today, I have become Mayor with the support of the British, but woh bhi din tha jab mushkilen bahut ayin. Aakhir goron ka desh tha,’’ Singh told The Indian Express over the telephone from London.

When Singh migrated, things were different. Those were the days of racial prejudice. For an Indian to become acceptable, you had to prove yourself, which was not easy, Singh says. Asked why he migrated, he says: ‘‘kyonki koi sifarish nahin thi, Hindustan mein naukri nahin mili.’’

Gurcharan comes from a family with a military background. His father, grandfather, father in-law and grandfather in-law served in the British and Indian armies.

Notwithstanding any question marks over the content of the Gurdwara’s press statement, a matter that the Gurdwara itself seems best placed to clarify, Cllr Singh’s asserts that he has never met the Executive Committee of the largest Gurdwara in Southall (and in Europe, apparently) nor met any of its officers or made any representations to the committee in his 25 years as a councillor of ward with a Sikh population in excess of 4,000 (31.25% of the total population of the ward) that directly adjoins the ward in which the Gurdwara in situated - in fact all of Southall’s six Gurdwaras seem to be in pretty much the same area and within a mile or of each other (and also between 1.3 and 2.3 miles of Cllr Singh’s home, which is in the very ward he represents. One might reasonably assume, from that information alone, that a significant number of his constituents worship at the Sri Guru Singh Gurdwara.

Frankly it is difficult to see quite how Cllr Singh might have avoided meeting the Executive Committee of the Gurdwara and/or its officers, even without the claim that he is active in Sikh politics - an assertion that merit further clarification - and has a strong base at the Gurdwara.

6. So far as accuracy is concerned, and in the absence of further corroboration, Cllr Singh’s comments have been noted, published in full and a note has been inserted into the text of the press release noting his assertion that the individual referred to in the press release is a different Gurcharan Singh.