Kashmir: Human Rights and Peace

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tahir Ali]

Khurram Parvez is not the only political prisoner; Yasin Malik and many others are in that situation. I am sure that the Minister will respond accordingly to that.

Journalists who work abroad have been stopped from flying out of the country, and others have had their passports impounded without reason—a blatant interference with the right to mobility. Local media has been stripped of its editorial independence. It is heavily dependent on Government advertising and suffused with opinions and news reports tailored to pro-Government narratives.

As I said in last week’s debate, if Modi and his Government have nothing to hide, and if everything happening in the area is completely democratic, why are they not allowing international observers and human rights organisations in and out of Indian-occupied Kashmir? It is because they know that, if they do, the lies that they have been spinning to the international community will begin to unravel. Since 2019, Modi’s BJP-led Government have cut internet, mobile and telephone lines, which has been an obvious attempt to cut the area off from the outside world, and vice versa.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very passionate case for the rights of Kashmiris. He is absolutely right to mention the revocation of articles 370 and 35A. Does he agree that that was in direct contravention of international law and a clear attempt by the right-wing Modi Government to quash the Kashmiris’ struggle? And is he as concerned as I am at the lack of international condemnation?

[Tahir Ali]

My hon. Friend and I are on the same page when it comes to Kashmir and the struggle for Kashmiris. The violation of international humanitarian law should not fall on deaf ears from the international community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

As my hon. Friend knows well, this is an area of the world in which we have long been engaged. It is the position of this Government, as it has been of many previous Governments, that for this issue to be resolved sustainably it will require an agreed compromise between the two countries. That remains our position.

[Imran Hussain]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Falconer]

I will make a little bit of progress, and then I will.

It is vital to ensure effective and constructive dialogue with the communities affected. We raise our concerns, where we have them, with the Governments of India and Pakistan. The UK Government are monitoring the situation. I understand that several restrictions put in place in Indian-administered Kashmir have been lifted. We are clear on the importance of human rights being respected, and we continue to call for all remaining restrictions imposed since the constitutional changes in August 2019 to be lifted as soon as possible and for any remaining political detainees to be released.

[Imran Hussain]

I welcome the fact that the Government are calling for the human rights abuses, which have escalated since 2019 after the illegal revocation of articles 370 and 35A, to be ended. Will the Minister clarify one point? While he uses the line used by successive Governments that this is a matter for India and Pakistan, will he at least confirm that we support the Security Council resolutions that very clearly restate the birthright of the Kashmiris to self-determination through a free and fair plebiscite?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. It is our long-standing position that for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution on Kashmir, the wishes of the Kashmiri people do need to be taken into account. I do not want to go beyond the existing position that I have set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

I do not accept that our position on Kashmir undermines the commitment to international law that this Government have sought to evince in all our actions. In relation to the allegations that have been referenced in this debate and the many other reports from both Pakistani-administered Kashmir and Indian-administered Kashmir, we expect international law to be upheld and we continue to hold our principled position on these questions.

[Imran Hussain]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Falconer]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her long commitment to these issues. We do encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws adhere to international standards on free and fair trials, and that that is seen through fully.

[Imran Hussain]

I am grateful to the Minister for sparing so much of his time. I welcome his making the Government’s position clear that we will call out human rights violations in the region and condemn violations that occur, but will the Minister also confirm that, in line with our policy and our international obligations, no future trade deals in the region will be agreed at the expense of Kashmiris’ human rights? I say this despite the fact that I promote trade deals in the whole region of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, because it has a great deal to offer.

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. We remain committed to the promotion of universal human rights. When we have concerns, we raise them directly with partner Governments, including at ministerial level. That is undertaken completely separate from any negotiations of trade agreements, but agreeing trade deals is part of building open and trusting relationships with important partners, which then allows for some of those free and frank discussions about human rights to take place.

We welcome reports that some detainees have been released, but we remain concerned by some ongoing detentions. I note that the people of Indian-administered Kashmir have recently used their collective voice through a 64% turnout in the state assembly elections last October in what was happily a largely peaceful electoral process. We also note that the state legislative assembly in Srinagar has now been restored.

I reiterate that India and Pakistan are long-standing and important friends of the United Kingdom. We encourage both to engage in dialogue and find lasting diplomatic solutions to maintain regional stability. The UK Government’s position is clear: any allegations of human rights abuses are deeply concerning and must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently. In recent years, the UK Government have raised our concerns with the Governments of India and Pakistan.

Question put and agreed to.

Jammu and Kashmir: Human Rights

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this timely and important debate.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, for more than 70 years, the people of Kashmir have suffered persecution, oppression and injustice. Their calls for justice have gone unanswered, their fundamental human rights have been violated, and their right to self-determination has been repeatedly denied. They have faced enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and the largest military occupation in the world. Even today, mothers wait in vain for sons who never return and wives live in perpetual uncertainty—so much so that the term “half-widows” has tragically entered our lexicon.

That injustice has been facilitated by laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, which even the Supreme Court of India describes as “lawless law”. Those laws grant military personnel extraordinary powers to detain, arrest and even take lives without fear of prosecution. They have been weaponised against human rights defenders, journalists and political activists. Today, Yasin Malik, Khurram Parvez, Asiya Andrabi and Irfan Mehraj, as well as hundreds of others, remain imprisoned as a result of those draconian and illegal laws. Not one of them has been allowed the right to a fair trial. We must be clear in this House and call it what it is. It is not the rule of law; it is state-sponsored persecution and oppression, used over seven decades to try to silence the voice of the Kashmiris.

In August 2019 the Indian Government took the unprecedented and unconstitutional step of unilaterally revoking articles 370 and 35A, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special status. That action was not only a direct violation of international law, the commitments made to the Kashmiri people and decades of United Nations resolutions; it was, let us be clear, a blatant attempt by the right-wing Modi Government to quash the Kashmiri struggle once and for all. The consequences were devastating: a 150-day communications blackout, mass detentions, violent crackdowns and the transformation of the region into an open-air prison. Families were separated, businesses destroyed, young people denied education and basic rights trampled upon. Yet the Kashmiri people have shown remarkable resilience in the face of such adversity.

In the elections of September 2024, held after a decade of political repression, voter turnout reached 63%. It was not merely an election; it was a referendum in which large numbers of Kashmiris took part, and the voice of the Kashmiri people unequivocally rejected the revocation of articles 370 and 35A, and demanded the restoration of the region’s special status. Indeed, the first act of the democratically elected Assembly was to pass a resolution to that effect.

The question that is central to today’s debate is: where has the international community been? Despite the overwhelming evidence of human rights abuses, the response from the international community has been deafening. Although United Nations human rights organisations and Governments worldwide have issued statements of concern, statements alone are insufficient. Action is required.

The silence is not merely inaction; it sends a dangerous message that nations can suppress, oppress and brutalise without any consequences. We have a moral and historic duty to act, particularly given this Parliament’s role in shaping the region’s legacy—a point we can never forget. We have a duty beyond that of other nations, so today I press the Government and the Minister, who is a dear friend of mine. Over the last decade, she and I have discussed this issue on many occasions.

We must start by moving away from the decades-old policy in this area—the policy that has been adopted by Governments of all stripes. The central point is that this is not a bilateral issue. We have to be absolutely clear: this is not an issue for India or Pakistan to determine. There is a central voice here, and that is the voice of the Kashmiri people. That voice has been ignored for far too long, so I urge the Minister to listen. I sincerely think she will, and I hope she responds to that point.

Although I support trade agreements with the region, we cannot in good conscience enter into a clear agreement with India, as talks now begin, without addressing the human rights abuses in Kashmir. Trade must not come at the expense of human rights. Any future trade deal with India must be conditional on tangible actions to end these violations, which include repealing repressive laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Public Safety Act; restoring Kashmir’s special status; and upholding the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination. I hope the Minister will address these important points on the UK Government’s position and on the trade deal.

Finally, the voices of the hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris in this country will be heard on this important issue. I am a proud British Kashmiri, and Kashmiris stand tall and proud, and will never bow or beg in the face of oppression and injustice. Our voices will be heard, and we will continue to raise our voices loud and clear until our birthright of self-determination is granted.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frith]

rose—

[Imran Hussain]

rose—

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West]

Our position is that it is for the two countries to take charge of the overall situation, while obviously listening to the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

[Imran Hussain]

I have a follow-up point. As it stands, the position under international law is very clear; there is a United Nations resolution that gives the birthright of self-determination to the Kashmiris. Do the UK Government support that position? That is the question.

[Catherine West]

A wish and a prayer is one thing, but to resolve this will definitely come down to the two partners and listening to the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We are here to support and to monitor human rights, but as has been clear in the debate, we cannot prescribe, take charge or dictate terms.

Gaza

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

The hon. Member is right to talk about the ongoing need for aid in the region, and the Prime Minister was very careful in his speech at the end of last week—I think he has mentioned it since then in the press—to say that humanitarian aid must continue. Gaza was specifically mentioned, because it is one of our top priorities. The hon. Member is aware that the decision to divert some of our aid spending into the defence of Europe is only a week old, but he must also be aware that we will come forward with the detail of that. I reassure him and his constituents that Gaza was specifically mentioned in this House by the Prime Minister, because it remains one of our top priorities in the Foreign Office.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is clear that Israel has been emboldened by Trumpian tactics in imposing a total siege and blocking all supplies, including humanitarian aid into Gaza, to force new ceasefire terms. We in this House should be clear and call that what it is: collective punishment of the Palestinian people, starvation as a method of war, and a blatant war crime. Will the Minister finally sanction Israel for these gross violations of international law?

[Catherine West]

Specifically on the question of sanctions, I think my hon. Friend knows what I am going to say, which is that we do not talk about them until we make a decision. We review any tools that we have available to us to protest. We also need to understand that we are in the midst of a peace process. We know that peace processes throughout history have had stop-start elements. What we are doing is making clear our views—the views of this House and of the Government—that humanitarian aid must not be prevented from entering Gaza. While this important peace process is going on, people still need to eat. They still need lifesaving medical treatment. Children still need to be educated. That is the point we have continued to make all the way along.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

It is an honour to serve under chairship today, Dame Siobhain. It is also an honour to bring this debate to Westminster Hall, and I am delighted to see so many parliamentary colleagues in attendance. With that being the case, I am not planning to take up my full allotted 10 minutes, as there is obvious enthusiasm among Members to participate in the coming hour. There are many colleagues here who have been passionate campaigners for justice for many years, and I would like to hear as many speeches as possible this afternoon.

On 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice delivered its advisory opinion in respect of the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem. The ICJ was clear that Israel’s occupation, annexation and continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is unlawful, and that Israel is under an obligation to end its unlawful presence in the OPT as rapidly as possible, with the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements. The Court built on the determination that Israel has committed systemic violations of international humanitarian law by recognising that Israel has permanently acquired territory by force and suppressed the right of Palestinians to self-determination.

When the Minister rises to speak later in this debate, can he confirm that the Government agree that the occupation is illegal, and that they will call on Israel to comply with the ICJ and demand an end to the occupation? While the UK has called for an end to settlement expansion, do the Government agree that Israel must comply with the ICJ and not only stop settlement expansion but evacuate settlers from Palestinian land?

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important and timely debate. He is absolute right to point out that this is perhaps the most substantial advisory opinion on Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, which makes it clear that settlements are illegal, as is Israel’s ongoing expansion of them, and settlement goods are illegal, as is the import of them. Does my hon. Friend agree that this places a particular and clear obligation on our Government to act immediately and abide by international law?

[Brian Leishman]

I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend, and I pay testament to the work he has done to bring this issue to Parliament in the primary Chamber. I would also appreciate it if the Minister could explain why—to quote the UK ambassador to the UN—we supported

“the central findings of the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion”,

but then abstained at the UN general assembly on 18 September 2024, where an overwhelming majority of nations supported the ICJ’s advisory opinion? They demanded that Israel brings to an end, without delay, its unlawful occupation within no more than 12 months’ time, by 18 September 2025.

Israel has developed and maintained its settlements through the forced removal and displacement of Palestinians. The Court’s opinion is that Israel has the obligation to make

“reparation for the damage caused…to all natural or legal persons concerned”

in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you as our Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this important debate, which he introduced with clarity and power. I also thank other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken—it has been a passionate and compelling discussion.

Liberal Democrats have long argued that the UK should uphold the rule of law and the role of international institutions in our foreign policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) argued in this debate. The post-1945 rules-based order was forged by Churchill and other leaders and has endured until now. It not only holds moral weight but is in the interests of democracies such as the UK. For that reason, we believe that, as a member of both, the UK should observe the opinions and judgments of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

We think it is irresponsible for Conservative Members to say, as they often do in the Chamber, that those are foreign courts. They may be located overseas but they have legitimate jurisdiction over the UK because previous Governments, both Conservative and Labour, have consented to that. Trying to portray them as a threat to UK sovereignty is not only false but damaging, as it reduces the likelihood of other states accepting their jurisdiction.

[Imran Hussain]

The hon. Gentleman is making a pertinent point about the international, rules-based order. We see that the International Court of Justice is investigating genocide but states are acting as though it is not; we have seen the International Criminal Court threatened directly by the most powerful country in the world; and we see international hypocrisy and double standards like we have never seen before. Surely the international, rules-based order is not only collapsing but dying before our eyes, if the UK Government and others do not act now.

[Calum Miller]

The hon. Member makes a powerful point to which I am sure the Minister will wish to respond.

Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) have been right to recognise the terrible level of violence that we have seen over the 16 months since the atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October. We are moved to tears and anger when we hear of the deaths of infants in tents and hospitals in Gaza. At the same time, we are shocked and appalled to see the emaciated state of hostages such as Eli Sharabi as they are released from Hamas captivity in a gruesome pageant. There has been inhumane cruelty towards innocent civilians. That underscores why the rule of law matters. The ICC is right to consider cases against leaders on both sides. The UK should enforce these warrants.

It has been impossible for us to consider the ICJ opinion today without reference to the proposals for Gaza put forward by President Trump last week, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) highlighted. Since 5 November, Liberal Democrats have pointed out that President Trump would be unpredictable, and that the UK needed to put itself in a position of strength so as not to get swept into the chaos that the new resident of the White House would unleash.

Since the ICJ’s opinion was delivered in July 2024, the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories has worsened appreciably. Northern Gaza has been flattened and its citizens placed under displacement orders. Gaza is today riddled with unexploded ordnance, even as Palestinians return home under the fragile ceasefire. In the west bank, settlement expansion has continued, and the Israel Defence Forces have continued arbitrarily to detain Palestinians and protect illegal settlements. The Israeli Knesset has outlawed the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Extremist members of the Israeli Cabinet have continued to call for the annexation of the west bank, and welcomed President Trump’s suggestion that Palestinians be forced from Gaza, yet the ICJ’s opinion is clear. It creates obligations on other states, including the UK, which include supporting the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, taking steps to prevent trade or investment that assists in maintaining the illegal situation, and not rendering aid or assistance that maintains the situation.

In response to that call, Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called on the Government to take the following steps: legislate to cease trade with illegal settlements in the occupied territories; sanction those who advocate illegal settler expansion or violence by settlers towards Palestinians, in particular Minister Smotrich and former Minister Ben-Gvir; restrict all arms sale to Israel, including component parts for F-35 aircraft, since those have been used against Palestinians in the occupied territories; and immediately recognise the state of Palestine. Ministers have repeatedly refused to take those steps—

Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hamish Falconer]

It is important that we treat the international institutions with the respect that they deserve. This is an indictment from the ICC and we respect it. The ICJ process to which the hon. Gentleman refers has not found; it is at an advisory opinion stage. We need to treat international law with the respect that it deserves.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

The Minister will be aware that, as well as the ICC’s recent decision to issue arrest warrants, there is now an entire body of international law, including the ICJ’s advisory opinion, adopted by the UN General Assembly, ruling Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories illegal, as well as South Africa’s case at the ICJ on genocide, that points towards a clear position in international law. Does the Minister therefore agree that if we are to preserve the integrity of the international rules-based order, we must start by ending the international hypocrisy and double standards and reaffirm that all states, including the UK, have an absolute obligation under international law to act now to bring all those who commit war crimes to justice?

[Hamish Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I want to underline this Government’s commitment in relation to accountability for war crimes. We stand against international crimes of this nature in all places, everywhere, and our commitment to international law is one of the most powerful levers we have in trying to prevent war crimes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hamish Falconer]

The Foreign Secretary has set out our views on the Israeli application of international humanitarian law at greatest length in relation to the decision to suspend arms licences. We keep those issues under regular review and will update the House if there is a change in our assessment.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

As we have heard again today in the Chamber, war crimes in Gaza continue, making it clear that the time for empty promises and hollow words is over. Does the Minister agree that the international community must finally fulfil its responsibility and take real action, starting with immediate sanctions on the hard-right extreme Ministers in the Netanyahu Government?

Oral Answers to Questions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I paid tribute to the right hon. Gentleman earlier, but this is one area that was left in a mess. Frankly, £3.4 billion being spent on refugees in hotels is the lion’s share of that amount. That is a lot for me and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for development to deal with, but we will do all we can to get back to that 0.7% as soon as possible.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

T2. Next week marks five years since the illegal revocation of articles 370 and 35A took away what little autonomy the Kashmiris had and paved the way for further persecution of the Kashmiris by the Indian armed forces. Will the Minister make it clear that she is committed to upholding international law? Will she confirm that the UK will uphold UN resolution 47, which demands the birthright of the Kashmiris—the right to a free and fair plebiscite?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)]

I thank the hon. Member for his passionate defence of human rights in Kashmir. He of course understands the UK Government’s position that all countries should respect sovereignty, human rights and the rule of law, and we push all parties to work towards upholding United Nations resolutions.