(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for self-determination in Kashmir.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to be given the opportunity to have this very important and timely debate in this Chamber today, because for millions of Kashmiris across the world and the UK, the question of self-determination is not some distant, abstract foreign policy matter; it is about families torn apart, homes bulldozed, voices silenced, human rights abused and a people denied the most fundamental democratic right—the right to choose their own destiny; the right to self-determination. As someone who has campaigned on this matter for over a decade in this House, may I begin by saying very plainly that the world has failed the people of Kashmir and continues to do so?
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend speaks with great passion. He says that the world has failed the people of Kashmir, and I agree. Does he agree that no longer should politicians in this place view the matter of Kashmir as some kind of bilateral issue between Pakistan and India? In fact, it is a matter for international law, and our Government and our country have a special historic duty not to wash their hands of the matter of self-determination for the people of Kashmir, which is their birthright.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Let me put down the marker now: interventions are interventions, not speeches.
Imran Hussain
I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. He is right, and I will come on to the substance of the point he makes shortly.
Kashmir remains one of the world’s most heavily militarised zones and longest unresolved international disputes. Today’s problems have their origins in the unfinished business of partition in 1947, and it is important to start there—a moment in history when Britain played a direct and undeniable role. In 1948, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 47, which mandated a free and fair referendum to allow the sons and daughters of Kashmir to determine their own future and their own destiny.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
My hon. Friend speaks with great moral clarity. Does he agree that, given that the matter has been decided by the UN, lasting peace in the region cannot be achieved without dialogue that includes the voices and aspirations of the people of Kashmir themselves?
Imran Hussain
As ever, my hon. Friend makes a fine point. She is absolutely right. Let us make that point clear: only the Kashmiris themselves can determine their own destiny. It is not a matter for India, for Pakistan or for any other country.
As I was saying, the Kashmiris were promised a referendum 70 years ago. That referendum never happened. Their calls for justice have gone unanswered, their fundamental human rights have been violated, and their right to self-determination has been repeatedly denied. For more than 70 years, Kashmiris have continuously endured persecution, oppression and injustice. Throughout the period, draconian and repressive laws, including the Indian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, have been used to grant sweeping powers to the Indian security forces, allowing detention without trial, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. All three of those Acts are illegal under international law, yet we continue to have silence from the international community.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend on his continued advocacy on this subject. Does he agree that international humanitarian law is clear that the protection of civilians is not optional, that the UK has deep and historic ties to Kashmir and its people, and that we are therefore not fulfilling our obligations? Given that context, does he agree that we need to do more?
Imran Hussain
I absolutely agree. We have a deafening silence and lack of action. One cannot choose between human rights abuses. In Kashmir, we continue to see human rights defenders, journalists and political leaders being targeted relentlessly. Political prisoners are denied the right to a fair trial and used as an example of what happens when Kashmiris dare to speak the truth. That is not the rule of law; it is state-sponsored persecution designed to break the will of an entire people.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution. Could explain he explain what actions the UK Government could best make to assist the Kashmiri people to get self-determination?
Imran Hussain
That is the very point that I am coming to. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) said, for decades successive UK Governments have hidden behind the policy and line that Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. Let us start by saying clearly that Kashmir is not a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan but an international issue. The first thing the Government can do is start recognising it as that. The roots of the situation continue to be within UN Security Council resolutions that Britain helped to draft and promised to uphold.
When a people are denied their right to self-determination, when human rights abuses are systematic and documented and when—this is another point—two nuclear states sit on a knife edge, the world, and especially the UK, cannot wash its hands of responsibility.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Lady arrived after the start of the debate. I will allow her to intervene on the strict understanding that she remains for the entirety of the debate. That goes for any other Members who arrived after the start of the debate.
Anna Dixon
Thank you, Sir Roger, and please accept my apologies. I thank my hon. Friend, who is a great advocate, for taking an intervention. In the great city of Bradford we share a large British-Kashmiri community, whom I met recently. Will he join me in calling for greater international diplomatic efforts to try to bring a resolution to the situation and give the Kashmiri people the self-determination for which they have been waiting for so long?
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come to that firmly when I get to my asks. The international community cannot continue to ignore Kashmir for the whole number of reasons I have outlined.
Let us to turn to the current situation, which has deteriorated sharply since August 2019 when the authoritarian, right-wing Modi Government unilaterally and unconstitutionally revoked articles 370 and 35A. That stripped Jammu and Kashmir of what little autonomy it had, in direct violation of international law, of commitments made to the people of Kashmir and of decades of United Nations resolutions. The consequences were immediate and devastating, with a 150-day communications blackout, mass detentions of political leaders, violent crackdowns across the valley, journalists silenced and civil society dismantled. It transformed communities into open-air prisons.
Families were separated, businesses destroyed, young people denied education and everyday life suffocated under curfews and lockdowns. Nearly six years on, the prosperity and normality that was promised never materialised. Instead, we see further repression and further deepening of the injustices. Now, with the domicile rules, we are seeing blatant attempts to permanently change the demographics of Kashmir. Let there be no doubt: the right-wing Modi Government have one aim, which is to try to quash the Kashmiri struggle for good.
This is a timely debate, as I said at the beginning. While we mark UN Human Rights Day today, let us be clear that Kashmir’s human rights abuses are not isolated or occasional events; they form a systematic pattern of intimidation and control. Arbitrary detention, custodial torture, forced disappearances and collective punishment continue with impunity. Women have endured gender-based violence at shocking levels, with over 11,000 documented cases since 1989—an appalling statistic that speaks to the use of sexual violence as a weapon of repression.
Political prisoners remain behind bars without any due process. Khurram Parvez, a globally respected human rights defender, has spent years in prison for documenting abuses. Yasin Malik has been convicted in proceedings widely condemned for lacking fairness and transparency by every human rights organisation and now faces the death penalty. Many others, including Asiya Andrabi and Irfan Mehraj, remain imprisoned under draconian legislation. Political disputes are criminalised with one aim: to silence legitimate voices for self-determination. Kashmiris continue to suffer under a system that strips them of dignity, voice and agency.
In Azad Kashmir, where conditions are arguably much better and where there can be simply no comparison with the violence and bloodshed faced daily by Kashmiris on the Indian side, we have recently seen, very concerningly, a region-wide lockdown triggered by deep public grievances and followed by the suspension of mobile internet and even landline services. Markets have been closed and transport halted. Heavy deployments of security forces have created real fear and uncertainty for ordinary people. Those events have tragically led to the deaths and casualties of many. The current dispute started with Kashmiri grievances and demands, at the core of which were basic rights such as the right to a decent education, decent healthcare, fair pricing for electricity, and basic human rights that should be granted to all people.
Of course, I welcome the de-escalation of the situation and the positive negotiations between the Pakistani Government, the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and the grassroots movement, the Awami Action Committee. I thank all colleagues who signed the letter from the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, and I am grateful to those Governments for liaising with it. But let me make it absolutely clear that the human rights of Kashmiris must be respected and that all the reasonable demands of the Awami Action Committee must be met in full and implemented in full.
The central point of this debate is our moral, legal, historical and political duty. The United Kingdom is not a neutral observer in this conflict. Our decisions at partition, our diplomacy in the early decades and our vote for United Nations resolutions created obligations that remain unfulfilled to this day. We helped to shape Kashmir’s unresolved status, and therefore we bear a share of the responsibility for resolving it. We cannot speak of human rights in other parts of the world while telling Kashmiris that their rights are a matter for someone else to address. That is completely absurd and a clear abdication of our responsibilities.
We cannot pick and choose when it comes to human right abuses, yet for decades successive Governments have done just that. Governments of all stripes since the early ’70s have relied on the easy line that this is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, which has allowed us to wash our hands of moral, legal or political obligations. Let me be clear: this is not a bilateral issue and never has been. At its heart are international law and the right of Kashmiris to self-determination.
Action is required. Silence is not neutrality; frankly, it is complicity. The world has allowed UN resolutions on Kashmir to sit gathering dust for decades, and that must end. The UK must match its words with action by raising human rights concerns at every diplomatic level, demanding the release of political prisoners, insisting on independent access for journalists and observers, and ensuring that any future trade negotiations with India contain binding human rights conditions. Trade cannot trump human rights, and economic deals must never come at the expense of the Kashmiri people’s dignity, safety and democratic rights.
I have some simple questions for the Minister. First, do the Government and the Minister, who speaks for them, accept that the UK has a moral, historical and legal responsibility to support the full implementation of United Nations resolutions? Will he confirm that the UK Government’s position is to support the Kashmiri people’s birthright to self-determination through a free and fair plebiscite? Will the Government commit to ensuring that future trade negotiations with India do not come at the expense of human rights, accountability or justice, as trade cannot be prioritised over the rights of people who have been oppressed for generations, or do we apply a different set of rules to Kashmir?
The key question that we, our Kashmiri constituents and everybody up and down the country who champions human rights are asking is: what is the Government’s stance on whether this is a bilateral or an international issue? When political parties go out campaigning in our constituencies, big promises are made on issues such as Kashmir. Frankly, people are fed up with promises made by successive parties and Governments, all of which have gone on to betray the Kashmiri people.
Do the Government have the moral courage to stand by and defend their obligations under international law, to provide a case that moves away from the age-old wrong argument—that this is a bilateral issue—to one that recognises it as an issue deep-rooted in international law? That is the central question for the Government and the Minister. Along with hundreds of thousands of people watching, I would appreciate a straight answer.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman was generous in giving way, but he has eaten into the time available. Eight Members who wish to speak have submitted names: by my miserable mathematics, that works out at about four minutes a head. Anybody who has not put in their name ahead of the debate is unlikely to get called. I call Ayoub Khan.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Thank you, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for his passionate statement and for securing the debate.
We speak about a valley that has carried the weight of unfulfilled promises for generations. Kashmir is not a footnote in history; it is a living community whose rights were affirmed by the United Nations and yet remain suspended in political frost. According to UN resolutions, the people of Kashmir were promised the right to decide their own future through a plebiscite. That right has not expired with time; it still stands like an unopened door. As has been stated, we must be clear that Kashmir is not a bilateral quarrel, to be tucked quietly into the filing cabinets of the two states. It is an international issue rooted in international commitments.
Whether it wishes to or not, the United Kingdom sits inside the story. The partition that sculpted two nations also abandoned the Kashmiri people to a limbo not of their choosing. Our responsibility is not sentimental; it is legal, historical and moral. Economic partnerships must never become soft pillows under which we smother our legal obligations. Human rights abuses in Kashmir continue in the dark corners where accountability rarely reaches: sexual violence, disappearances, extrajudicial killings and detentions without trial or legal counsel.
Those are not allegations to be met with diplomatic murmurs; they demand consequences. The UK must move beyond symbolic gestures and consider targeted sanctions, just as we have invoked international law in response to atrocities elsewhere, including the mass killing of Palestinians. Justice cannot be selective. The human reality along the line of control rarely makes headlines. Families divided by an invisible frontier, guarded by soldiers, live as if they are stitched to opposite pages of the same book, unable to meet, to mourn, to celebrate. That is unnecessary cruelty disguised as security.
I call on the Minister to reflect on one issue on which the Government can deliver: the transformation of the line of control from a barrier into a bridge. Let designated crossings be open for humanitarian movement and for families tied by history, culture and ancestry. The United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan can support and safeguard the crossings. Compassion can be supervised; it does not need to be suppressed.
The promise of a plebiscite is not a relic; it is the cornerstone of Kashmir’s right to self-determination. The UK Government must recognise that this is no longer a bilateral matter, but a global obligation. When India, for example, threatens to undermine the Indus waters treaty through collective punishment, the UK should send a firm signal that the international community will not tolerate such tactics. We ask for action and not eloquence, for courage and not choreography, and above all, for the rights of the Kashmiri people to be finally honoured.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing this important debate on such an important day. In south Asia, the long-drawn dispute over the state of Jammu and Kashmir remains a hanging fireball between two hostile nuclear neighbours, India and Pakistan, bringing human misery in the form of wars over the issue and continuing to threaten regional and global peace.
The international community has failed Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir for the last 78 years by not implementing the plebiscite determined from the United Nations Security Council resolution 47. Instead, for the past 78 years, we have seen the Indian Government take advantage of that failure by subjecting Kashmiris to unlawful killing, torture and multiple human rights violations.
Over half of my constituents in Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley are from south Asia, and the majority are Kashmiris. The treatment of Kashmiris in the Indian-occupied Kashmir has worried them for many years. As a born Kashmiri, seeing the level of brutality and oppression by the Indian-occupied Kashmiri forces is absolutely devastating. It is just as distressing that the Government are not taking matters into their own hands and pushing to make the plebiscite happen.
The United Kingdom now has to step up to right the wrongs against the Kashmiri people. United Nations resolution 47 not being implemented is unfinished business for this Government, considering that the resolution was determined when the United Kingdom was under a Labour Government. It was a Labour Government then and it must be a Labour Government now who help the Kashmiri people in their fight against the injustices caused by Modi and his Bharatiya Janata party-led Government. The UK Government must now push for the long-overdue plebiscite and hold India accountable for the actions against Kashmiri people.
The silence of the international community cannot go on any longer and cannot be unrecognised. The world cannot afford to ignore the Kashmiri people any longer. It is a matter of humanity and justice. The goal for the Kashmiris has always been self-government and the right to self-determination. The right to self-determination is not a privilege; it is a fundamental human right, and the United Kingdom must do everything in its power to help Kashmiris towards that.
My role is not to take sides by being pro-Pakistani or anti-India. As a born Kashmiri, I believe that it is my duty to highlight the abuses of human rights violations to this House. Even after seven decades, people of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir are waiting for the right of self-determination promised by the United Nations. Notwithstanding over 25 United Nations resolutions calling for the solution to the dispute, India is still reluctant to grant Kashmiris the right of self-determination, and the world cannot stand by and allow that to happen.
The Scottish people were rightly afforded a referendum to express their desire for independence, and the UK had a referendum on remaining in or leaving the EU. Kashmiris are not begging for freedom, and neither will they beg for something that is their fundamental human right.
Seven decades later, the people of Kashmir are still waiting. This is not a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. The international community needs to take responsibility, and the British Government need to take responsibility. We should not have trade agreements with India while the abuses continue, because that will be seen as rewarding one of the biggest—if not the biggest—oppressors of human rights in the world.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I will be brief, because a lot of colleagues want to get in. I compliment the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on his superb presentation, which showed passion and knowledge of the issue.
The fundamental issue, of course, is the one that the hon. Gentleman hit on many times: this is not a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, but an international issue that comes from all that went on in the process of the decolonisation of British India in 1947-48. It was India that referred the issue to the United Nations for resolution, so India’s constant denial that it is a UN matter fits rather strangely with Indian political history ever since that time.
The effects of the partition of Kashmir and the line of control have been beyond dramatic for both India and Pakistan. The partition encouraged massive levels of arms expenditure in both countries, doing enormous damage to the social infrastructure of both societies, in the ’50s, ’60s and ever since. It then encouraged both countries to develop nuclear weapons and to leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The inadequacy of British behaviour in the 1940s led to the militarisation of the whole of the subcontinent; the loss of thousands of lives in successive conflicts between India and Pakistan, as well as with China; and, of course, the ever presence of nuclear weapons. If we look at India’s and Pakistan’s expenditure on defence compared with the expenditure that should be going on education and social needs, we begin to see the consequences of the issue.
Many people in this country feel very strongly about this issue. They are from Kashmir themselves, or they have grandparents, parents and many relatives in Kashmir; there is a very close relationship. They feel angry—the hon. Member for Bradford East put this well—that at every election, when party leaders happen to descend on Birmingham, Bradford or parts of London, they are given a note by their offices saying, “Say something about Kashmir, because it’ll go down well.” They do, and it does go down well, and that is the end of the story. Absolutely nothing has been done, by any Government, for a very long time to promote the idea that the people of Kashmir should be allowed to decide their own future.
That is not to say that there are not serious imperfections in both Azad Kashmir and Jammu Kashmir. The Indian military presence in Indian-occupied Kashmir is now the biggest it has been for a very long time. Successive laws have been passed, particularly by the Modi Government, to reduce the special status of Kashmir—which at least gave a nod towards the idea that it was an international dispute to be settled—and, essentially, to try to fully annex it.
I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will tell us that the Government recognise, first, that the issue should go to the UN, that the Government will push it at the UN as a permanent member of the Security Council, and that the Government will revisit the UN statements made in the 1940s and the many since. Secondly, I hope that the Government will do everything they can to encourage the self-determination of the people on both sides of the line of control in Kashmir. The idea that a beautiful place such as Kashmir, with such history and potential, should be divided and occupied by the military, and that resources go into the military and into what becomes a security state because of the tensions over the occupation of Kashmir is incomplete decolonisation. It is decolonisation that should have happened in the 1940s. Britain, because of its colonial history, has a very special responsibility to ensure that the people of Kashmir are able to decide their own future.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I am now setting a formal four-minute time limit on speeches.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on his continuing leadership on this issue, not just in this House but around the country.
It is quite disappointing. The last time we debated this subject in Westminster Hall was in March. I think about the many hours that we spend debating foreign policy issues in this place, and the fact that Kashmir does not often get the hearing it deserves and the prominence that it demands, given the issue’s impact on so many hundreds of thousands of our constituents throughout the country and its importance on the international stage.
I want to impress on the Minister, so that he hears it from all of us in this place, that the line that this is a bilateral issue is wearing thin. It really no longer holds water, not least because of China’s increasing interest in the Aksai part of the region. If we are serious about taking a leadership role through our UN Security Council membership, saying that these issues are bilateral makes it look as if we are not interested and pushes it back to two peoples we know are looking for help and leadership on this issue.
What I find most disheartening is that I have many Kashmiri constituents and many wonderful Kashmiri local councillors, and they hold a hope in their heart that the resolution promised to them in 1948 would, at some point, become a reality that would allow them and their families in Kashmir that very basic and fundamental right of self-determination, but that light of hope is fading. Time is passing and the clock is ticking, and it seems we are getting further away from a peaceful resolution to allow for the self-determination of Kashmir than we have been at any point in my time in the House. That cannot be allowed to continue under any Government, but specifically not under a Labour Government, given that we not only have a fundamental commitment to the basic premises of human rights but put such things at the heart of what we do.
I want to press the Minister, and I hope he can provide some answers, because the issues around the UK’s relationship with India are genuinely important. Since the previous debate in March, there have been three significant interactions with India: the trade deal delegation went out in October; Prime Minister Modi visited in July; and the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), visited India in November. Those are three high-level interactions with India.
Will the Minister confirm that in each of those interactions the issue of human rights in Kashmir was raised with Indian Government representatives? It would be wonderful if he is able to say what those representations were. I appreciate that he might not, but knowing that the Government are using every lever available to them, and every diplomatic and political opportunity, to continue to push for the plight of a group of people who are looking to us for leadership would give us some hope that the thing we all aspire to is not completely off the Government’s agenda.
I want to press the Minister on something else. When I speak to representatives of the diaspora community in the UK, there is sometimes a feeling that direct engagement with the Government is not what it should be. There is a feeling that sometimes, as has been mentioned, the words “Kashmir” and “self-determination” are said, and there are tick points that have to be referenced in order to get through a meeting, but actually the commitment is becoming more skin deep.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Gareth Snell
No, I will not.
The Minister is a diligent man and takes these issues very seriously; will he outline what regular engagement there is between the Foreign Office and representatives of the Kashmiri diaspora in the UK? How are we making sure that the voices of people who have a deep and meaningful connection to Kashmir are heard at the highest levels of Government? Will he potentially commit to making statements, so that we do not have to do these things through Westminster Hall debates and the whole House can discuss these issues with the prominence that they deserve?
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing the debate.
I want to put on the record that the SNP fully supports the right of the people of Kashmir to exercise their fundamental human right to have a free, safe and legal vote on their own future. That vote has been mandated by numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions, and that vote must be not only free, fair and transparent, but conducted free from violence and intimidation, and under the auspices of the United Nations.
As we have heard from several Members, for almost 80 years the people of Kashmir have suffered persecution, oppression and injustice while the world has, at best, wrung its hands and issued ineffectual statements condemning India’s actions or, at worst, shrugged, looked away and totally ignored their plight, allowing the world’s largest military occupation to continue largely unchallenged and unquestioned. That decades-long military occupation has resulted in a catalogue of human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, forced disappearance, arbitrary detention, media censorship, attacks on journalists and political activists, the targeting of human rights defenders and mass incarcerations. The security forces have also used rape and other forms of sexual violence as a way to control and punish Kashmiri civilians.
As we have heard, the ongoing repression took a sinister, unconstitutional twist in 2019, when the Indian Government unilaterally revoked articles 370 and 35A of the constitution. In the wake of those decisions, and in a move straight from the authoritarian playbook, the Indian Government acted swiftly to prevent the possibility of public protests by arbitrarily detaining hundreds of people, including journalists. They imposed a communications blackout and severe restrictions on the right of freedom of movement and assembly.
That move was not only unprecedented, unilateral and unconstitutional; it was a direct violation of international law and a flagrant breach of the commitments that India had made to Kashmiri people. It was a cynical and blatant attempt by the Modi Government to crush the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination once and for all. I echo the question posed by the hon. Member for Bradford East, when he asked where the international community has been for the last 78 years. Seven decades of issuing condemnatory statements denouncing India has made little or no difference to the lives of the people of Kashmir.
Whether we like it or not, the United Kingdom has a historical and moral obligation to take a lead in finding a just and lasting solution to the conflict. The UK cannot pretend to be a neutral bystander, because history dictates that the UK is not. We need a resolution in line with the UN resolutions, and one that recognises the inalienable right of the Kashmiri people to determine their own future through a free, fair and transparent referendum. The voice of the Kashmiri people is the most important voice here, but I fear that, unfortunately, to date their voice seems to be the one that is being listened to least. That must not and cannot be allowed to continue.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on securing this vital debate and on his leadership. Many of us present spoke in this place about human rights violations back in March, so I am pleased that we are taking seriously the need to carry on a sustained conversation on this pressing matter.
The situation in Jammu and Kashmir was brought to my attention by a number of local councillors, including Majid Khan, Amjid Wazir, Javid Najmi and Waseem Akbar, and others such as Matloob Butt from Tunstall. I pay tribute to the community leaders who work tirelessly to raise awareness of a crisis that too often fails to make it into the media. When I spend time listening to members of our Kashmiri community, the message is so clear: our words have simply not been enough.
Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove is home to a large Kashmiri community who are deeply concerned about the conflict. Their family ties to the region are at once a huge source of pride and a profound concern. Many of my constituents spend their day-to-day lives knowing that their family members are experiencing ongoing restrictions on civil liberties, arbitrary detentions and a denial of meaningful political determination.
Over the past year, the Labour Government have demonstrated a renewed confidence on the world stage as a serious diplomatic power. It is my duty as a Member of Parliament to speak in solidarity with my constituents, and to urge our Labour Government to use their influence to take tangible action to promote self-determination in Jammu and Kashmir. Acknowledging the crisis is not enough. We can no longer pretend that conversation and debate alone can resolve this decades-long struggle. Now is the time to take seriously our role in resolving the conflict and take real, practical steps towards bringing about long-term peace and stability in the region.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for bringing this issue to the House. He spoke to me last week, and I am happy to support him. Indeed, I think I have supported him every time he has brought this issue to the House, whether in Westminster Hall or the main Chamber.
The ongoing humanitarian and social situation in Kashmir has been sad to see. I support the very clear principle that the people of Kashmir should have the right to determine their future. There is no doubt that the current situation in Kashmir is having a direct impact on that, and more must be done to support Kashmir and its people. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. He understands these things, and compassion and understanding are his forte. He will do all he can to ensure that his responses give us some reassurance.
Repressive policies continue to be carried out in Kashmir, including the use of arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings and other most serious abuses, including sexual abuse. Recently, in 2024 and 2025, there has been a reported rise in militant and counter-insurgency-related violence. This year, a report noted that between August ’24 and July ’25 there were some 53 militant attack-related incidents, in which some 42 civilians and 20 security personnel were killed.
Although Christians make up only 1% of the population in Kashmir, last week I took the opportunity to ask the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about the significant impacts on faith in the region. There have been documented reports of harassment, threats and intimidation. Such incidents occur within a broader environment of religious tension that affects many communities, not only Christians. Will the Minister give us some reassurance that people in religious minorities are being protected?
This matters—it matters to you, Sir Roger, it matters to me, and it matters to all of us who hold these obligations—because all communities must feel safe, and self-determination depends on all communities feeling safe and politically represented. There is no point in self-determination if people cannot express their identity, which is at the very core of what the hon. Member for Bradford East referred to.
A genuine self-determination process thrives off leadership and free elections, which are the core needed for freedom, whereas Kashmir has witnessed the detention of political leaders, restrictions on civil liberty and interference in elections. Those things are entirely against the process of self-determination. This is where I believe that our Government, and our Minister, can be effective. There is also a role for the United Nations to play—maybe the Minister can give his thoughts on how that could work. The UN should be able to step in and provide leadership to help the process to get to a stage where self-determination can be supported and then put into action in an effective and clear way.
Self-determination in Kashmir is not only a principle of international law but a fundamental democratic right—the right of a people to shape their own political, social and cultural future. Until those essential foundations are restored and protected, the claim that Kashmir is experiencing or moving towards genuine self-determination cannot be sustained. For that reason, we must do more to get to the point where we can support the calls of the people of Kashmir for that. I look to the Minister for his commitment to give that support, to ensure that peace, faith and rights are protected in Kashmir.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on securing this debate, and on all the work he does with the APPG.
I speak on behalf of many of my constituents in Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, and particularly our vibrant Kashmiri community, who are deeply concerned by the escalating human rights crisis in Jammu and Kashmir. I draw attention to the latest UN assessment, issued on 24 November, which expresses grave concern about systematic human rights violations following the Pahalgam attack in April, which was an atrocity we all unequivocally condemn. The experts emphasise that respect for human rights is non-negotiable even when combating terrorism. Their findings are alarming: about 2,800 people including journalists and activists have been arrested under Indian national laws such as the public safety Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which have been made more stringent under Prime Minister Modi’s BJP Government.
The UN reports torture, incommunicado detention, suspicious deaths and the targeting of Muslim and Kashmiri communities alongside punitive demolitions, forced evictions and arbitrary displacement, all in violation of India’s Supreme Court rulings. Communication blackouts, blocked social media and restrictions on independent journalism have compounded the crisis. Beyond Kashmir, Kashmiri students in India face surveillance, hate speech is rising, and nearly 1,900 Muslims and Rohingya refugees have been expelled without due process.
The latest UN warning reflects a long-standing pattern of repression dating back to 1947. Since then, the region has endured wars, insurgencies, mass displacements and cycles of violent repression. The revocation of article 370 in 2019 further undermined autonomy, ushering in years of mass detentions and communication shutdowns.
The UN findings confirm what Kashmiris have long experienced: heavy-handed security measures, unchecked emergency powers and the silencing of dissent. The current ceasefire between India and Pakistan has not addressed the underlying issues. Suspended treaties and diplomatic contacts remain unresolved, and experts warn that without dialogue it is a question of not if, but when hostilities resume. Human Rights Watch highlights the wider impact of hostilities including hate speech, repression of peaceful critics and communal polarisation, echoing decades of Kashmir’s troubled history.
The UK cannot resolve the conflict, but we cannot be indifferent to it—and we certainly should not be hiding behind the bilateral policy abrogation. We should press the Indian Government to end arbitrary detentions, repeal draconian laws and allow independent investigations. We should encourage both India and Pakistan to avoid actions that escalate tensions, and create space for dialogue. Above all, the voices and the rights of the Kashmiri people must be central to any peace process. The world is watching, and so are my constituents. It is our moral duty to act, uphold human rights and ensure that Kashmiri voices are heard.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) spoke with great passion, but it is a passion that I fear clouded his recollection of some of the history. Under the Indian Independence Act 1947, the rulers of each of the princely states had the responsibility to choose between the two emergent nations, and Kashmir’s ruler Maharaja Hari Singh had to decide whether to accede to India or to Pakistan. As he was doing so, Pakistan’s militia and troops invaded the part of Kashmir now known as Azad Kashmir. He then signed the legal instrument of accession to the dominion of India. That clarified the position of Kashmir in international law: Kashmir became a part of India.
It is also clear that Pakistan was the primary aggressor in the dispute. On 1 January 1948, India referred the situation to the UN Security Council. After much deliberation, the United Nations passed resolution 47, which my hon. Friend adverted to. However, again he showed a selective memory, because in fact the plebiscite had the precondition that Pakistan should secure the withdrawal of all its tribesmen and troops and Pakistani nationals from occupied Kashmir and put an end to the fighting in the state. That never happened, so the plebiscite that would have followed did not follow either.
The subject of this debate is the issue of self-determination, so I propose to examine the total lack of self-determination that the Kashmiri people actually have in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. As a constitutional entity, so-called Azad Kashmir, which is better known as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, is not just strange but unique. It has been given the trappings of a country with a President, Prime Minister and even a Legislative Assembly, but it is neither a country with its own sovereignty nor a province with its own clearly defined devolved authority from the national Government of Pakistan.
Under section 56 of the AJK interim constitution of 1974, the Pakistan Government can dismiss any elected Government in AJK, irrespective of the support they might have in the Legislative Assembly—no respect there, then, for self-determination. Strangely enough for an entity that purports to be a country, the constitution bars anyone from public office and prohibits them from participating in politics unless they publicly support the principle of Kashmir acceding to Pakistan. Imagine that—a country whose politicians can be politicians only if they say they do not want to be a country.
It will therefore come as little surprise to hon. Members when I say that all the major civil and police administrative positions in AJK are held by Pakistani civil and military officers. It may also come as no surprise to find that the putative country has no representation in the Parliament of Pakistan. The territory’s local representatives are excluded from not just Pakistan’s Parliament but even those Pakistani bodies that negotiate inter-provincial resource allocation or federal taxes—so much for “no taxation without representation”.
It is not a country. It is not a province. It is not a state. It is a satrapy. Were I not a British MP conscious of the fact that much of this mess is a legacy of our colonial past in the region, I might also describe it as a prize of war. But then, of course, that is precisely what Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is: a territory taken by force, not permitted even the freedoms of other Pakistani citizens—
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing this debate. For some, Kashmir is seen as a geopolitical flashpoint, but for thousands of people in my constituency and across the UK, it is something far more personal and intimate. It is a place where their parents were born, the place where their children’s grandparents still live and the place they call home, even from thousands of miles away.
My office has heard from many families who were gripped by fear as the recent violence escalated. One article described the situation bluntly:
“We were not able to step outside of our homes because of the intensity of firing from both sides. We could only hear loud bangs from inside.”
Others shared the heartbreak of losing relatives in the clashes, and several wrote to me terrified because their elderly parents were visiting during the violence and became stranded, unable to return safely. These are not distant political events; they are lived experiences for people I represent.
The human rights violations that we have heard about from Members on both sides of the Chamber do not exist in isolation. The root causes go back decades to the 1947 partition and the unresolved question of Kashmir’s political status, with incursions and human rights abuses from both the Indian side and the Pakistani side—a legacy of imperial decision making that continues to shape instability today. The violence is escalating, and the reports that India intends to impose Israel-style policies in Kashmir—demographic engineering, land dispossession and silencing of activists—only deepen the urgency.
The right to self-determination is not optional. It is enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions 47 and 51. For 77 years, this promise has been denied. As a permanent member of the Security Council and a nation that champions democracy and human rights, the UK must act. I urge the Government to lead on human rights, and demand and facilitate independent investigations into atrocities on both sides of the line of control; to push for and facilitate dialogue, and to use our diplomatic influence to bring India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri representatives around the negotiating table; to support and enforce the 18 UN resolutions since 1947, none of which has been fully implemented, and especially advocate for a free and fair plebiscite; and to provide humanitarian support as required to protect civilian life on both sides of the line of control.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I turn to the Front-Bench spokespeople. Mr Mathew, you have no more than 10 minutes.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing this debate, and I thank all Members who have spoken so far with such eloquence, passion and knowledge.
The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned about the ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir. This is not a new conflict, but a particularly long and devastating one that affects many in the UK, particularly those in communities with strong personal ties to the region. We have all learned from other long-running conflicts, such as in the middle east, that unresolved disputes can lead to immense suffering. Now, in the season of good will, the UK Government must play an active role in advocating for peace and reconciliation between India and Pakistan by hosting a peace conference that includes the representatives of the area’s population, including AJK. We urge both Governments to engage in a peace process that delivers a sustainable solution. The UK should work with the international community to provide diplomatic support for a just and lasting settlement.
The region remains one of the most militarised in the world, with widespread allegations of suppression and discrimination. With the UN reporting serious human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir in 2018 and 2019, and the revocation of article 370 in 2019, the subsequent restrictions on Kashmiri rights are deeply disturbing. When the world is on the brink of so many disasters, let us see peace in Jammu and Kashmir, a peace conference held, and a referendum organised. The UK must use its influence to support UN inspections and engagements in Kashmir so the people of the area can prosper in peace.
The Liberal Democrats believe in defending human rights and equality globally; we think that UK foreign policy should promote those values internationally. The UK must reverse its cuts to official development assistance and ensure that aid focuses on poverty and human rights, and indeed on ending wars. Where better to do that than in Jammu and Kashmir by utilising the soft power of our aid programme?
The Kashmir crisis is a long-standing issue that cannot be ignored. The UK must use its diplomatic channels to promote peace, hold human rights violators accountable and support those affected by the conflict. More importantly, it must see that those who stand with guns on both sides of this long-standing conflict do the same. We stand for a peaceful, just and humanitarian approach to resolving conflict. We also say, in all humility, humanity and love: let us put this conflict in the bin of history and remind both sides that, in the words of the late Jo Cox, there is so much more that unites us than divides us.
Happy Christmas, everyone. Let’s hope it’s a good one without any tears.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I know this is a matter in which the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) has long taken an interest, as have many hon. Members here today. I thank him for securing this debate. Although we might not agree on the way forward to finding a resolution, it is undeniable that he spoke with passion and clear personal conviction. I thank him for his contribution, even though he might not thank me for mine. However, I have some questions for the Minister that he will be happy with, even if we might be looking for different answers.
I also thank the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for his contribution, which provided a clear and concise history and a reminder of the complex and confrontational timeline of events. It was helpful context and brought some balance to the debate.
I note the work of my colleagues, the hon. Members for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Sri Lanka, I know that being an officer of a country-related APPG is no small task. The hon. Members’ commitment to this area deserves recognition.
The position of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on Kashmir remains as it did when we were in government. It has been the long-standing position of the United Kingdom that it must be for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution on Kashmir. It is not appropriate for the UK to prescribe solutions. We are respectful of the governance of those two Commonwealth countries and are very conscious of history.
Of course, we have a strong interest in regional stability and peace, so it is right that all British Governments engage to encourage both India and Pakistan into dialogue to find a lasting diplomatic solution. Clearly, we never want to see inflamed tensions continue between the two. Can the Minister confirm that this remains the UK Government’s position? What recent diplomatic efforts have the Government made on that front?
This has been a very difficult year in the region with the murderous, violent terrorism that took place in April, which is sadly part of a long-standing pattern of attacks on civilians and visitors to the region and minority communities. The House will be well aware of the consequences that this act of terrorism subsequently triggered across the border region. I know this period has also been hard for the diaspora communities, particularly those in the UK. That all underscores the importance of tackling terrorism and fostering peace and stability.
Can the Minister update the House on what practical steps the Government have taken on the security front since the spring? How will they continue to try to ease tensions between India and Pakistan? It would be helpful to know what recent discussions the Minister has had to this end with counterparts from our key allies. What measures are the Government taking to prevent scenarios that could cause tensions to escalate among communities in the UK?
The House will be well aware of the economic challenges in the region, including those particular to Pakistan. What steps are the Government taking to encourage steps to address the economic pressures in Kashmir, including reforms to ensure sustainable growth? Can the Minister set out the Government’s position on official development assistance in Kashmir? Can he also tell us what assessment he has made of the level of investment by China in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, what the investment pipeline looks like, and China’s long-term perspective and goals when it comes to the region?
This issue is for India and Pakistan. It is not for the House or this Government to prescribe actions to either of those Governments. What should motivate us all is a peaceful vision where Kashmiris enjoy stability and prosperity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The fact that this is the fourth debate on Kashmir this year tells its own story; it shows the strength of feeling in this House and among our constituents. With your permission, Sir Roger, I will try to make a little progress before taking interventions, of which I suspect there will be many, so I can leave some time for my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who made a powerful speech and, I am sure, wishes to make some concluding remarks.
As the whole House knows, Kashmir is one of the most sensitive and enduring challenges in south Asia. It is a flashpoint between two nuclear-armed states and a place where history, identity and geopolitics collide. As both my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford East and for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) demonstrate, even the history of the ’40s remains a fraught question in this House and many other places. The dispute has endured for nearly eight decades, and it defines the security landscape of south Asia. As we have seen this year, the stakes are incredibly high, and miscalculation or escalation could have consequences far beyond south Asia. That is why Britain, while maintaining a neutral stance, urges dialogue and respect for human rights.
We also encourage restraint, and we are working with our international partners to support peace and stability in south Asia. I recognise that Kashmir is not just a territorial dispute, but a question of identity, rights and aspirations for millions of people. It is a matter that resonates deeply here in the UK, given our historical ties and the presence of vibrant British Pakistani and British Indian communities—I am proud to be joined this morning by representatives of those communities. About 1.6 million British Pakistanis and 1.8 million British Indians live here, many of whom have roots in Kashmir.
I reaffirm the UK Government’s long-standing position on Kashmir, which is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. That principle is central to our approach, and it reflects our belief in diplomacy and our respect for human rights.
Mr Falconer
I will make a brief comment on the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) in relation to the UN statement of 24 November on alleged human rights abuses in Indian-administered Kashmir. The British Government take such statements seriously and are continuing to monitor the situation in Kashmir. We are clear about the importance of respecting human rights, and we wish to see any remaining restrictions lifted as soon as possible and any remaining political detainees released.
Gareth Snell
I thank the Minister for the tone in which he is responding. He says that the UK Government’s position is that this is a matter for India and Pakistan, but that we encourage dialogue. Will he set out what practical steps the Government are taking to ensure that dialogue happens? What is the FCDO tangibly doing, short of determining an outcome, to get India and Pakistan to come to a conclusion?
Mr Falconer
As the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) rightly said, this has clearly been a year of incredible tension between India and Pakistan. We have used our relationships with both countries, both of which are friends and have long-standing diplomatic, historical and political connections with the UK, to try to ensure dialogue. It is clear from press reporting, let alone diplomatic reporting, that the tensions between those two countries continue.
Jeremy Corbyn
What plans do the UK Government have to take the issue to the UN? We must ensure the UN is seized of the issue in a way that it has not been. It has obviously tried to bring about a ceasefire when there has been conflict between India and Pakistan, but that is not enough; there has to be a fundamental resolution to the basic problem, which is the lack of a right to self-determination for the people of Kashmir.
Mr Falconer
As I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), we talk directly to both India and Pakistan. As the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) knows, there is strong disagreement between India and Pakistan about whether this issue should return to the United Nations. As my hon. Friends the Members for Brent West and for Bradford East noted, at different times India and Pakistan have respectively thought UN involvement was helpful or not helpful. I do not wish to take a view this morning about whether a further reference to the United Nations is useful at this time, but it is critical in 2025 and into 2026 that there is dialogue between India and Pakistan. We have seen the extent of the pressure when dialogue breaks down.
Barry Gardiner
I am very grateful to the Minister for taking all these interventions. Does he agree that the cross-border terrorism—most of the terrorist camps are based in Azad Kashmir—is specifically designed to engender a crackdown on human rights in Jammu and Kashmir and to foment tension? Therefore, one of the things that his Government could do is press the Government of Pakistan to close those terrorist camps. We know where they are: the South Asia Terrorism Portal records 42 identified terrorist training camps located in Pakistan, and 21 located in Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. That report was updated in September.
Mr Falconer
The House will appreciate that I will be moderately circumspect on security questions in relation to the region, but clearly there was an abominable terrorist attack in May, and there continue to be terrorist attacks in Pakistan week in, week out—not, we suspect, related to Kashmir, but related to the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and ongoing tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is clearly a blight on south Asia that so many countries in the region believe their neighbours are hosting terrorists who threaten them. The UK seeks to help on this issue. It is vital, and it has clearly been a cause of the most recent breakdown in relations.
Tahir Ali
In 2020, our delegation from the APPG on Kashmir was refused entry to Indian-occupied Kashmir, and we were given full, free and unfettered access to the side of Kashmir administered by Pakistan. If India has nothing to hide, why does it not allow international and United Nations observers unfettered access to occupied Kashmir on the Indian side?
Mr Falconer
As I have said in other contexts, it is valuable for British MPs to be able to travel across the world to see the situations on which we report, but British travel advice in relation to Indian-administered Kashmir, as well as in relation to the other side of the line of control, is complex. I encourage people, including MPs, to look at that advice before they travel. I have already helped colleagues who have got themselves into scrapes in 2025, so I would like people to warn me in advance.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The situation is exactly the same in respect of journalists. Does the Minister agree that journalists must always be allowed access to every part of the world so they can truly document the position, whether in respect of alleged terrorist camps or otherwise?
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Member came into the Chamber very late indeed. I call the Minister.
Mr Falconer
It is, of course, important that journalists can do their jobs across the world. I take from your tone, Sir Roger, a renewed clarion call to make a bit more progress before taking further interventions.
We do not advocate a specific mechanism for self-determination, but we support efforts that allow Kashmiris to shape their future. I hear colleagues’ desire that British officials and Ministers be available to the very significant Kashmiri diaspora. I have sought this year to engage directly, including in Birmingham in June. If MPs would like me to meet their constituents in relation to these issues, I would be very happy to do so. I remind colleagues that I am the Minister with responsibility for Pakistan, and that the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) has responsibility for India. I am sure we would both be prepared to do diaspora engagements, where appropriate. Some of these questions are sensitive—in some areas, very sensitive—and I am always happy to engage on them with Members across the House. I recognise how deeply and personally they are felt, and how it is sometimes easier to have such conversations away from the Hansard record.
The UK Government stand firm in our commitment to human rights, peace and stability. We believe that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting solution to the situation in Kashmir, which must take into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We will continue to encourage dialogue, condemn violence and support efforts that uphold dignity and human rights for all.
Jim Shannon
I made a specific request in relation to the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities in Kashmir. What has been done to assist them?
Mr Falconer
I can confirm to the hon. Member that we make representations to both the Indian and Pakistani Governments on human rights, and the protection of minorities on both sides of the line of control, and indeed in both countries, is an important issue for the UK.
We want to see a future in which both countries enjoy peaceful relations, the Kashmiri people can live with dignity and security, and south Asia can thrive as a region of stability, growth and opportunity.
Imran Hussain
I thank hon. Members for their excellent contributions. The courage and conviction with which many have spoken will send one message to the British Kashmiri community. There are more than a million British Kashmiris—I am surprised the Minister failed to acknowledge that number. Listening to this debate will be not only more than a million British Kashmiris, but also all those who champion human rights. This issue is not isolated to Kashmiris around the world; it is an issue with international law and human rights at its heart.
Imran Hussain
I am not sure I am able to give way. Am I able to, Sir Roger?
Ayoub Khan
We have constantly heard that this is a bilateral issue. The existence of UN resolutions clearly suggests it is not a bilateral but an international issue. Does the hon. Member agree?
Imran Hussain
I absolutely agree. That has been the central theme throughout this debate, and it continues to be the most pressing matter. I will come back to that point, but I first want to pay tribute to the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. Those listening to the debate will at least know there continues to be hope, because there are Members of Parliament who have the moral conviction to stand on the right side and ensure voices of justice and of their constituents continue to be heard.
I am disappointed but also grateful to the Minister. He has given me the most time ever to sum up—10 whole minutes. But equally, that shows how little he said. That is not personal to the Minister, because he is following the Government line. As we heard from the Opposition as well, these lines are decades old. Frankly, just because lines are decades old does not make them right. We not only lack the moral courage required by the situation, but our silence continues to make us complicit.
Imran Hussain
No. My hon. Friend said many completely baseless things and therefore I will not give him any more time.
At the heart of the issue is the fundamental right of a people—promised to them under international law and supported by the international community at that time—for which they have had to wait decade after decade. The Minister was asked how the Government could contribute to making India and Pakistan move towards dialogue. Tragically, that is not possible unless the Government first acknowledge that it is not a bilateral but an international issue. Without acknowledging that, we are unable to take the matter to the UN, because that is not our position.
Not once did the Minister even confirm our support for United Nations resolutions. It is a strange state of affairs when we cannot stand in this House and say, “Actually, we support United Nations resolutions.” It is not the first time; tragically, we see more and more situations where the international rules-based order is under serious threat. We cannot pick and choose where we say international law should apply. The double standards are now becoming so plain and bare, to be seen by all people. There may well have been a time when that could have been justified because people did not have social media and those truths were not exposed, and perhaps people and Governments could get away with it. That is simply not true now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Imran Hussain
I will take one or two interventions, but then I want to use the last two minutes to close this debate.
Andy McDonald
Can my hon. Friend help me with this conundrum? It has been suggested that somebody in a monarchical position in years past has decided to cede a territory to one country or another. Would that not therefore deny the people of that territory the right to self-determination? I am curious; I wonder what would happen in this country if there were an issue between France and Ireland, and yet the British people were not allowed the right to self-determination. Would that make sense?
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the whole thing is absurd.
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend makes the point that I was coming to about the international picture at the moment. Frankly, it continues to expose time and again the absolute double standards and disrespect for international law, along with the need to reform the United Nations from its current format. Furthermore, it continues to expose the absolute denial to accept certain injustices in the world.
Mr Falconer
I am rather shocked by the discourtesy of giving my hon. Friend 10 minutes, only for him to claim that it was because I did not have enough speech to give. I am very happy to provide further remarks on the points that my hon. Friend raises.
The question of whether this is a situation of interest to India and Pakistan seems to me inarguable—it was inarguable in the 1940s, just as it is inarguable in the 2020s. One of my colleagues mentioned the build-up of military forces in the region. Clearly, we must attend to the world as it is and to conflicts as we have seen them in 2025. I want to reassure my hon. Friend, because I know he pays close attention to these issues: we do not take a two-sides approach to international law. We remain deeply and profoundly committed to it, but we also believe in diplomacy. It is inarguable that in south Asia diplomacy between India and Pakistan is necessary. We want to see more of it. Kashmir has been disputed for such a very long time; no plausible analyst in the entire world would believe that the issue is resolvable without the involvement of those two states.
I am sad that my hon. Friend felt that, in my speech, I was not attending to some of the core questions of the conflict. I reassure him that, just as during my engagements with Pakistan and my colleagues’ engagements with India, we are very conscious of the diplomacy.
Imran Hussain
I am grateful to the Minister. The point that I made, and make again, is that he did not address the four very simple questions that I put to him.
In closing, I again thank all the hon. Members who have spoken passionately and have again shown the Kashmiri community and others that they have a voice in this place. We may not get the response from the Government, but there is an early-day motion that now has the support of over 40 Members from different parties. Later today I will also be giving the Prime Minister a letter signed by over 50 parliamentarians from across the parties. The voice of Kashmiris will never be silenced as long as I am in this place.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for self-determination in Kashmir.