The Met Police are Preparing for Civil War

A week before the terror attack in Kashmir by Jihadist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which killed 26 and injured a further 20,

Sam Bidwell

predicted the potential for a conflict between India and Pakistan to ignite a sectarian civil war in Britain.

[David] Betz notes that “approximately 75 percent of post-Cold War civil conflicts have been fought by ethnic factions”; for decades, we have been busily engaged in importing many of those factions, as part of our national policy of mass migration. […]

To my mind, the single biggest catalyst for the disintegration of British society would be a war between India and Pakistan. […]

Thanks to decades of mass migration, Britain is now home to millions of Indians and Pakistanis. The 2021 census recorded 1.927 million Indians and 1.662 million Pakistanis living in Britain. Since 2021, migration from non-EU countries has soared, meaning that a further 1 million Indians and 291,000 Pakistanis could be living in the UK as of 2025. By any reasonable measure, these are two of Britain’s most sizeable ethnic minority communities. […]

Indeed, there are already recent examples of outright conflict between Indians and Pakistanis on British streets. […]

In August 2022, rioting broke out between Hindus and Muslims in Leicester, in the wake of an India-Pakistan cricket match. The fighting lasted for around a month, and resulted in twenty-five injured police officers, alongside forty-seven arrests. Both communities allege the involvement of extremist groups on the other side.

By the following month, the conflict spread had to Birmingham. On September 20th, video footage showed nearly 200 Muslim men surrounding the Durga Bhawan Temple in Smethwick, in protest at the attendance of Sadhvi Rithambara, a controversial Hindu nationalist speaker.

The events in Leicester paralysed the city for a month. They were prompted by a mixture of low-level tensions over the Kashmir issue, and heightened tensions over cricket. Despite this relatively weak pretext, these riots rendered an entire city ungovernable for a month. An out-and-out war between the two countries would be significantly more explosive and emotive.

An India-Pakistan War could break British politics

A fortnight later, India is in the process of deporting Pakistani nationals after cancelling all visas from the neighbouring nation. Pakistan retaliated, suspending trade and travel with India.

Now, I should not have to care a smidge about this. But, thanks to decades of unwanted mass immigration and a subsequent multicultural management strategy, there are millions of Indians and Pakistanis for whom the politics of their homeland matter more than domestic affairs in Great Britain.

Last year alone, 240,000 Indians and 90,000 Pakistanis immigrated to Britain. Indians also comprised 18 percent of illegal migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats in 2023.

Last week, protestors gathered outside the Pakistani High Commission in London to blare music and wave flags — Indian and Israeli, versus Pakistani and Palestinian — at one another, while bemused police officers stood in the middle. During this, Pakistani Colonel Taimur Rahat appeared to gesture to Indian protestors that they should have their throats slit.

If government officials are already (allegedly) escalating tensions, then Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bellicose promise to “identify, track and punish every terrorist and their backers [and] pursue them to the ends of the Earth” has the potential to ignite the subcontinent’s febrile demographic diasporas in Britian.

This could split the British state in two. As I have written about previously, a powerful Indian and Pakistani lobby have hijacked the UK’s liberal democratic system, leveraging their high levels of ethnic and religious in-group interest to form voting blocks and force established parties to support their sectarian issues.

For example: independent MP Ayoub Khan, who has used half of his interventions since elected to Parliament last July to discuss Gaza, Kashmir, or Bangladesh.

Last month, Khan told a room in Birmingham of fellow Pakistanis, lobbying to build an airport in Mirpur, Pakistan, that the grooming gang scandal is a "false right-wing narrative ... done in order to sow division".

Last week, Khan told Parliament to discuss the rape gangs scandal “in such a way that does not fan the flames of hate towards innocent groups of people who, like all law-abiding citizens, condemn such acts”.

This is despite 80 percent of rape gang perpetrators being ethnically Pakistani, and Islam being a motivating factor for why the rapists targeted and tortured white English girls.

Also sat on the panel was Muslim Labour MP for Birmingham’s Hall Green and Moseley, Tahir Ali, who asked Keir Starmer last November to “commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions.” He referred to a UN Human Rights Council resolution, which the UK voted against, condemning burning the Quran as an act of religious hatred.

While uncollected rubbish attracts “super rats” in his constituency, Ali is lobbying for Britain to help build an airport in Mirpur, Pakistan — the precise region where a majority of rape gang perpetrators originate from. Cosignatories of Ali’s letter include Yasmin Qureshi, who has consistently obfuscated the Pakistani heritage of the rape gangs, and is accused of lobbying on behalf of state-owned Pakistan International Airlines; Zara Sultana, who constantly characterises Israel’s acts of self-defence against Hamas as “a genocidal assault on Gaza”; and Naz Shah, who campaigned in Urdu at the general election, and once retweeted an Owen Jones parody account which said “Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity.”

It is clear that Britain’s Muslim enclaves care more about the Ummah overseas than their Christian countrymen in Britain — and are willing to contort the truth to pursue their interests.

Conversely, the Conservative Party has acquiesced to Hindu lobbying efforts.

In 2013, David Cameron travelled to India, where he announced that Priti Patel would serve as the UK’s first ever “Indian Diaspora Champion”. In 2016, Theresa May led a post-Brexit trade delegation to the country, with Boris Johnson following in her footsteps six years later. At every opportunity, Conservative governments worked to put India at the centre of our political, economic, and military strategy in Asia — with a prospective Free Trade Agreement with India heralded as a “Brexit benefit” by many Leavers.

During last year’s General Election, the Conservative Party’s candidate in Hendon, Ameet Jogia MBE endorsed a “Hindu Manifesto” by Hindus For Democracy. Bob Blackman, MP for Harrow East has also engaged in this sort of shameless pandering to placate the 30 percent of his constituency who are Hindu.

In 2019, he attended a UK4Modi Car Rally in London, where he urged British Hindus to support Modi’s BJP in the Indian general election held in spring of that year. In 2020, he was rewarded for his efforts with the designation of Padma Shri, India’s fourth highest civilian honour.

This pressure to liberalise immigration policy to benefit India (especially in remittances) is applied both without and within Parliament. As Mike Jones highlighted in The Critic, Patel asked the following question in a Foreign Affairs Select Committee meeting titled ‘Global Britain and India’:

“You have mentioned Prime Minister Modi a couple of times. He is the architect of the term “living bridge”, and effectively usage of the Indian diaspora community around the world, not only in the UK, but more broadly, has helped to strengthen ties with key countries. Do you think our own Prime Minister understands the significance of the living bridge and why, domestically, diaspora communities matter when it comes to bilateral relationships?”

Patel understands that the growing presence of an Indian diaspora in Britain can leverage demographic pressure as democratic pressure, and encourage Britain to make diplomatic concessions to the motherland.

Rishi Sunak proposed a similar strategy in 2014, with ‘A Portrait of Modern Britain’ for Policy Exchange. Sunak painted a rosy picture of integration, writing that “Ethnic minorities are three times more likely than the White population to feel that ‘being British’ forms some part of their identity.” He noted that Indians, Britain’s largest foreign ethnic group, were more likely to vote Conservative — and told Al Jazeera that “it would be good for policy-makers and politicians to appreciate striking differences between communities”.

It seems that the tribal ethnic loyalties of new immigrants are acknowledged when they advantage immigrant-heritage politicians, but denied when noticed by the native population, who do not consent to this rapid demographic change. If the host population voted along the lines of their own ethnic interests, they would of course be denounced as irredeemable racists.

It is for that reason that the Metropolitan Police are training their riot officers to prepare for another summer of violent protests by batoning combatants clothed in the Union Jack.

The Met posted a montage of officers at the Metropolitan Police Specialist Training Centre in Kent, with the caption: “Bricks, bottles and fire bombs - our officers prepare for every eventuality at the Met’s elite training centre in Gravesend so they can keep you safe. Stronger tactics means safer communities.”

It seems they had one specific “eventuality” in mind; as does sitting justice minister James Timpson told the Guardian in March that additional prison places have now been created “for the capacity that would be needed if we had the riots, the civil disobedience, [we saw] in the summer.” Some of these were created by the early release of 2,800 violent offenders to “ease overcrowding”.

The narrative that emerged from the disorder following the Southport murders depicted the British public as so febrile that they might be manipulated by online misinformation into attacking ethnic minorities at random. This has set the security state in anticipatory opposition to the host majority, as the protectors of beleaguered minorities, despite the likelihood of said minorities being violent to one another while Brits are barricaded in their homes being much higher.

But fear not, as the same Met Police who defended now-proscribed group Hizb ut-Tahrir’s demonstration after October 7th, saying “The word jihad has a number of meanings”, now insist that “The fact one of the t-shirts has a union flag on it is entirely coincidental”, and that “It's disappointing we are increasingly having to challenge this sort of misinformation which only serves to increase divisions and tensions.”

Well, that’s me convinced.

---