Dear Editor,
Tam writing in response to (Mr. or Mrs?) S.C.Singh’s letter to the editor (WSN 8/24/93) concerning the campaign of Neil Dhillon for U.S. Congress. There are several portions of his/her letter that I find Objectionable and politically naive.
First, who is “S.C.Singh?” Though S.C.Singh has no problem attacking the political acumen of Mr.Bhalla, Singh does not identify himself herself. Could it be that S.C.Singh has even less political sense that the person he/ she attacks? Could S.C.Singh actually be a member of the Neil Dhillon campaign committee, rather than the “average Sikh” that he/she try`s to portray.
S.C.Singh’s attempt to cast aspersions on Mr.Bhalla’s character only reflects the poverty of his/her argument. | know Ravi Bhalla and can testify that he has extensive experience in the political realm, This past summer Mr.Bhalla served as an intern at the White House. Last summer he interned at Congressman Dan Burton’s office. He was chosen for the Presidential Classroom program in high school and has graduated from Junior Statesman’s American Government summer program, Furthermore, he was also Leos for New Jersey’s prestigious Governor’s School program in public affairs, He has stood “shoulder to shoulder with me on Capitol Hill and has lobbied admirably for the Sikh cause. In short, at hardly have come across many youth or adults with as much official experience and understanding as Mr, Bhalla.
Second, S C. Singh’s defense of Dhillon’s politics is perfectly vague. It means everything and yet nothing. It’s nice that he supports human rights, but what does that mean? Every Congressman will swear that they support human rights, even former Congressman Steven Solarz. What specific measures does Mr. Dhillon support for human rights? If questioned on that front, I’m sure that he would have to admit his opposition to the Burton human rights amendment.
Third, if as S.C.Singh states, “The creation of a Sikh nation must be decided by Sikhs who live there,” then why not support the Green resolution calling for a U.N. sponsored plebiscite so Sikhs “may determine for themselves, under fair and peaceful conditions, their political future.”? The language of S.C.Singh’s argument and Congressman Green’s “Dear Colleague” letter closely parallel on this point. However, as we all know, Neil Dhillon is against the Green resolution. Here we find again, the perfectly vague language that makes it seem as if Dhillon supports everyone and everything, If anyone has any doubts the loyalties of Neil Dhillon, please be reminded that he has met and openly appeared in pictures with Indian ambassador SS.Ray. As we all know, SS.Ray is the butcher of Punjab, when he was governor of Punjab from 19861989, SS.Ray and Director of Police Julio Ribero instituted new methods of “population control” to the Sikh homeland, including the “faked encounter” and the “disappearance.” I’m sure Dhillon and Ray had great “conversations” about human rights.
In closing,] urge the World Sikh News to slop printing articles about Mr. Neil Dhillon. He is another in a long line of traitors to the Sikh nation, such as the Dogras, who will sell out our interests for his personal gain. I ask: How can a pro Khalistan paper, continue to print articles about an anti Khalistan, pro India enemy to the Sikh nation?
Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh President, Council of Khalistan.
Article extracted from this publication >> October 15, 1993
