> The Panjab national team represents a minority originating from the Panjab/Punjab, a region in todays India and Pakistan
The team doesn't represent the whole minority though. It represents (at most) the Panjabi community of Britain only. Currently it is not attempting to select players from the wider diaspora. The PFA website itself tells us this plainly.
> The minority it refers to is listed in Minority Rights International Groups "Minority Directory" (one qualifying criteria for membership) as Sikh in India
"Sikh in India" is not equivalent to "Panjabi community worldwide", and is quite different from "Panjabi community in the UK."
Not all Panjabis are Sikhs, nor vice versa. So I don't know why you equate this minority directory listing of "Sikhs" (in India or worldwide) with the Panjab FA based in Birmingham and which itself states on its own website that it is currently only for British Panjabis.
> I don't really get the issues you have about the qualification eligibility with the Panjab team.
I'm basically just repeating the same issues I raised at the time they joined, and we debated those. It's a matter of honesty, clarity (transparency if you prefer), and factual accuracy. I'm not against Panjabis or Sikhs (or ConIFA). I just think that this situation could be interpreted as a bending or breaking of the membership criteria to crowbar in this member.
Besides, even supposing that the PFA was instead called the Sikh FA, and really did represent the full demographic of Sikhs worldwide, we know that Sikhism is a religion. I am not in favour of religion-based teams, and you were previously opposed to them also. That may have been just your own personal view rather than ConIFA policy, but as I can't currently see the membership criteria (aka internal regulations) published on your website, I don't know. Maybe the regulations have changed.
Anyway, more generally, I would like to know whether ConIFA could/would review the membership of any member which fails to actually represent what it claimed or intended to represent when it joined.
> England still calls itself England, even though it does not represent the people that happen to roam around that part of the island, but only English citizens.
> England wouldn't select a Scot or one of the Mongolians, but only English People
I don't follow. As you know, the English national team represents people born in England or with a parent or grandparent born in England (more specifically, the "territory of the FA"). This is not based on religion or culture etc, just history. Just the geographical location at the time of birth.
See the case of Joe Baker or John Bain if you want an example of England selecting a Scot (or e.g. Matt Elliott vice versa) - of course there are many similar cases. Mongolians I don't recall. Players born in e.g. Malaysia and India have played for Scotland and England though.
> You mentioned that "playing a team selecting players of single ethinicity" is the opposite of diversity. ... that argument is valid for all national teams in the world.
I can't think of many national teams (nowadays) which deliberately choose players of a single ethnicity (or deliberately exclude an ethnicity). Such selections are a kind of discrimination in my view, and hardly different from selecting a team based on race, or sexuality, or something like that.
> I can be a Mongolian speaker, a Sapmi, a Swedish and a Sikh simultaneously. Why should I "force" anyone to only play football representing one of the many facets that puts him in a random box?
To me that sounds like an argument against teams such as Panjab, because someone playing for the Panjab team is indeed representing only one of his facets at the expense of his other facets. If one of the Panjab players instead played for England (say) he would be representing both his Panjabi heritage and his English heritage simultaneously. Nobody is stopping these guys playing football. They are not sportingly isolated.