Kashmir

Lord Barker of Battle Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ward]

I regard human rights abuses as being a constant cause of conflict. As I will mention later, we have had periods of calm and progress, but then something happens that freezes that good progress. Often, that is because of the abuse and violations that have taken place.

The prevailing view on this debate—certainly in India and, from what I have read in the press, in the Indian high commission in the UK—is that the debate is not welcome and the House of Commons should not be poking its nose into someone else’s business. The House of Commons briefing paper includes a quote from the state president of the Bharatiya Janata party referring to this debate as

“a brazen interference in the internal affairs of India”

and

“that Jammu and Kashmir is a settled issue and cannot be reopened under any pretext whatever.”

It does not seem to be a settled issue to me.

I kindly received a message from Mr Balwinder Singh Dhillon, who wrote to me yesterday or the day before. He said:

“I am very concerned why our Members of Parliament are wasting their valuable time and resources to promote these key ring leaders of these terrorist organisations”.

I am not aware that I have done that. In fact, I know that I have not, but that shows something of the degree of emotion that surrounds this area.

A press release came out in the Asianlite newspaper, supported by the Indian high commission. It names the deputy high commissioner. It says that I have called this debate because—I have heard this one before—I have many Muslims in my constituency who have pressured me into doing so. I have to tell the Chamber that I am not very good at responding to pressure. It is offensive when people make such comments about me.

The Times of India quoted the Deputy Prime Minister as saying—it was originally quoted in August, but it has been resurrected—that

“Britain does not want to be a mediator between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.”

I accept that, and I do not think I have ever suggested that it does. There is a massive difference, however, between mediation and the offer of help, to which I will return. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister making it categorically clear that he did not oppose the debate in itself and that we had a right to discuss whatever we want to discuss, although I will further justify that later.

I have no qualms about raising the issue of Kashmir in Parliament. We cannot escape the British legacy on the matter. We have a responsibility. We have not so much a right as an obligation to take an interest in Kashmir. We should not take a mild interest from a distance; we should offer help to resolve the conflict. I do not take the view that Britain is interfering. We are highlighting the importance of resolving the issue, not for one side or the other, but for all inhabitants of the region. Ultimately, given the propensity for terrorist acts to be undertaken anywhere in the world as a result of conflict in one part of the world, resolution is of interest to us as well.

Efforts to resolve the conflict have so far been unsuccessful. We have to be honest about that. India and Pakistan have always maintained that this is a matter for them alone, and that might be suggested today. We know about the Simla agreement and the Lahore declaration. We know that that is the line that has been taken, all the way from Sir Owen Dixon through to the improvements and progress made post-2003 right up to today, including the 15 boxes of mangoes that were sent recently as a gift from Pakistan to India. Perhaps we need more mangoes. We need positive moves, even if they might be regarded just as gestures.

We have had so many false starts on reaching agreement, which have faltered for various reasons, including awful, atrocious terror attacks in India, infringements across the line of control—even with the flood devastation facing people on both sides of the line of control—domestic politics in India and political instability in Pakistan. For whatever reason, just as progress is made towards some sort of normalisation, there is a freeze.

The constant cry from Kashmiris is that they have been overlooked as major stakeholders. Their exclusion from peace talks has led to frustration and growing disenchantment, particularly for those seeking independence from India and Pakistan. I welcome the contribution I received from the Kashmir Initiative Group, which made the observation that, while it is common to hear about the trust deficit between Delhi and Islamabad—we are all familiar with that—the trust deficit that has developed in Jammu and Kashmir over the years is seldom discussed. There have been periods of calm when greater progress could have been made. There have been opportunities and there was fertile ground for greater progress to be made, but the danger is that the absence of genuine political initiative in Kashmir will leave the region susceptible to a resurgence of violence at any time. Other Members might refer to that. I am not the first to comment on the withdrawal of NATO-led forces, the international security assistance force, from Afghanistan and the added challenges that that could bring to Kashmir.

Barrister Sultan Mahmood Chaudhry, the former AJK Prime Minister, met MPs here this week through the all-party parliamentary group for Kashmir. With the rise of extreme jihadists and NATO forces leaving Afghanistan, there is a real danger that what he called “unemployed jihadists” will look for new opportunities within the unresolved Kashmir conflict, whether they are invited to take part or not. Further escalation of the conflict through acts of terror could be perpetrated in the name of the unresolved issue over Jammu and Kashmir. That means that the situation is of interest not just in that area but internationally.

On the removal of article of 370 of the Indian constitution—others may comment on this—it has been eroded over time, but it does grant Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir autonomous status within the country. Removal is a controversial and decisive step, even the discussion of which could be a catalyst that sparks an uncontrollable and dangerous escalation in the conflict. It could be a magnet—I have already referred to one possible source—for disenchanted jihadists.

If further justification for Parliament’s interest in the conflict is necessary, I return to my constituents. Each time I meet members of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front or the Jammu Kashmir National Independence Alliance, it becomes clear to me that the Kashmir conflict is not a mere matter of interest to them or just something that they read about; it is an anguish that burns within them and never leaves. They do not just in the newspapers occasionally follow events that happen a long way away; news gets fed directly to them through strong family links. On visiting the area—I know that many hon. Members have—I might be asked by shopkeepers on the high street in Mirpur whether I know their cousin on Nottingham street in Bradford. That helps us to understand the links and why the matter is so important.

Seeking a final resolution to the Kashmir question is hugely important for world peace—it is that serious—because the potential still exists for India and Pakistan to go to war. We only have to think back to December 2001 when we were on the brink of something terrifying as both armies mobilised along the international frontier and maps were drawn up of where a potential nuclear strike might occur, or November 2008 and the atrocious Mumbai attack, to realise that the longer the issue remains unresolved, the more dangerous it becomes in this already dangerous world.

Despite criticism from various quarters, this debate is actually timely. Following a long period of relative calm and with new political leaders in both India and Pakistan, we now find ourselves in a period of opportunity to discuss new and perhaps more fruitful avenues to achieve peace and security for the Kashmiri people. It may sound controversial to some, but I long ago ditched the party line that peace can be attained through a plebiscite. I just do not think that that will happen. The long-awaited plebiscite seems no longer to be a route towards a solution, but instead a contributor to the ongoing conflict. What is the point of a referendum when the outcome will not be accepted by the loser? Would we be having a Scottish referendum if we believed that whoever lost would take up arms? Was a referendum the answer in Northern Ireland? We knew that the result of a Northern Ireland referendum of whatever form would not have resulted in people saying, “Well, we lost.” It is crucial to accept the reality.

Let us not forget that the plebiscite did not propose to offer the third option of an independent state of Kashmir. However, it did offer Kashmiris a say in deciding their own future. That was its value and that vital element can still be achieved. If it is to happen, a plebiscite needs to be viewed as a means to an end and not the end in itself. Surely the end should be peace and security in Kashmir and for the people who live there. The question then is, how can those within the former princely state, who have suffered for so long, have some say in what their future should be? Sometimes to get to what can be, we have to accept what cannot be.

[Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Although I am struggling to agree with much of what my hon. Friend says, it is not right to say that the people of Kashmir do not have a say in their future. At the most recent state elections, 61% of them participated, and there will be elections again this year. There is a democratic process, and it forms part of the world’s greatest democracy.

[Mr Ward]

I was approached by someone who said that the separatists should be fully engaged in the elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ward]

I am not suggesting that. As I said earlier when discussing mediation, we should certainly not be forcing a solution; I do not see that as a part for us to play. However, we have close and strong links with those countries, and I believe we have some part to play. We should acknowledge that and find out what that part is. The hon. Gentleman talked about trust; this period of distrust, this failure of trust, has not affected us, but it has resulted in hundreds and thousands of people dying. That has an impact internationally, but also on the people whom I represent.

[Gregory Barker]

Given Britain’s legacy in India, I have to say that I find the assumption—presumption, rather—that we somehow have a role to play slightly offensive. It smacks of neo-imperialism, it is arrogant and we should respect the extraordinary achievements of India since 1947. Britain would have a role to play only if and when our advice or assistance were sought. Clearly, in this case, it is not.

[Mr Ward]

Well, that is one view. We have a role to play and our task is to find what the role can be. I will come on to that later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ward]

My doubt is whether some people want a solution. We have a part to play, but I will come to that.

In 2009, an opinion poll conducted by Chatham House provided more evidence, if that were needed, that the views of people on either side of the line of control differ widely on a range of issues. Wide differences also exist among the views of people from district to district, not only among those from AJK or J and K. They certainly differ a lot in Pakistan and Indian-administered areas.

The consensus view, however, held by 75% of AJK people and 82% of J and K people, is that the dispute is important. They believe it to be a strong issue and they have little faith that politicians will sort it out. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) might well trust the politicians to sort things out, but the people of Jammu and Kashmir do not.

When asked what the most important theme was for the people of the whole area, 66% in AJK and 87% in J and K said unemployment. Basic, ordinary things concerned people—things no different from those affecting our own country. They want to get on in life, get a job and look after themselves. On political change, fewer than 1% in either AJK or J and K wanted the status quo; they wanted change, and just over 40% in both areas wanted independence. Although the preference for independence was fairly uniform across AJK, however, it was very unevenly distributed in J and K. There is no evidence that the proposition to join India or Pakistan would come close to obtaining more than a quarter of the total vote.

That was one opinion survey, but at least it provided an attempt to answer one of the most serious criticisms levelled at India and Pakistan—namely that the views of those in both Pakistan and India-administered Kashmir were not sufficiently heard in the debate about their future. At least the survey gave them a voice.

I will finish on the subject of human rights violations; others will probably refer to them in more detail—in particular the atrocities committed by the Indian army. On hearing about the debate, various groups representing non-Muslim Kashmiris approached me. I knew, and was certainly made aware, that members of my own party were concerned that the debate would be an Indian-bashing one and that, as an MP who represents a large Kashmiri community, many originating from AJK, I would be biased. For party colleagues to hold that view is disappointing; they clearly do not know me. I met a small group of Kashmiri Pandits, who told me how many thousands of people from their community were forced to flee in fear in from the Kashmir valley. Many fled to Jammu, and I have to tell the Chamber that they still live in pretty intolerable conditions there to this day.

If decisions cannot yet be agreed about who is right or wrong, which country Kashmir should belong to or whether it should be independent of either India or Pakistan, can it still not be agreed that terrorist acts and violations of human rights should not and will never provide a path towards such an agreement? Until that peaceful path is found, can we not increase measures that normalise life, such as lax borders, demilitarisation, increased trade and removal of mines? Above all, as those measures begin to make life more tolerable for the long-suffering people on both sides of the line of control, can both the Indian and the Pakistani Governments make a commitment to refuse to allow normalisation measures to be derailed by the violent reaction to normalisation that is inevitably carried out by terrorists? The measures can and should continue.

[Gregory Barker]

It is very difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic. Surely the terrorists, most of whom penetrate across the border from Pakistan, would like nothing more than the withdrawal of Indian troops, who are there to protect the border and the integrity of the frontier. If the troops withdraw, de facto the terrorists will have won.

[Mr Ward]

There is a strong argument that the terrorists need the armies as much as the armies need the terrorists. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the powers of the armies in both countries, I do not see how he can understand the difficulties faced by the two Governments, who have made steadfast efforts in the past to reach a peaceful solution.

Above all, as various measures begin to make life more tolerable for those on both sides of the line of control, both Governments must ensure, as they have in the past, that there is a commitment to continuing with the process of normalisation. As the right hon. Gentleman said, while the issue remains unresolved, both India and Pakistan consider a significant military presence is necessary in the region, which brings hardships and human rights abuses for the people there.

One of the most disappointing and perhaps tragic aspects of this whole saga is that huge numbers of people in both India and Pakistan live below the poverty line. How much more money could be spent on health, education and development if it was not being spent on guns, mines and keeping standing armies of hundreds of thousands of troops? We are aid providers, so are hon. Members really saying that we do not have a direct say or interest in that, or any influence over it? Armies need enemies to justify their existence. How many hungry children die because the Kashmir dispute remains unresolved after all this time?

Before I draw to a close, I ask the Minister what our Government are doing. Have they washed their hands of the British legacy? Is there no diplomatic pressure they believe they can bring to bear on the respective Governments to find a lasting solution to the conflict, or at least move towards a process of normalisation for those who have suffered? Does he not see that the continuation of the conflict presents a real danger to international peace, through the involvement of extreme elements in Kashmir?

This is not about being patronising, condescending or judgmental. It is not about diplomatic finger-wagging. We want to be a friend to Pakistan and to India, but support for Pakistan as an ally in the war on terror or for India because of its power and value to us as a trading nation—or for whatever reason hon. Members believe is right—should not make us afraid of being a critical friend. We look on the Kashmir conflict not in a patronising way, but with great sadness, because we believe that it holds back both Pakistan and India from what together they could be.

Many people have helped me on this issue. I finish by thanking Victoria Schofield, in particular, for her support and advice, and by quoting her book, “Kashmir in Conflict”, in which she states:

“That the world can be held in thrall because India and Pakistan, after over half a century, are still arguing about their respective positions on Kashmir, invokes international concern at the highest level.”

That, if nothing else, makes it important that we discuss the matter here in the UK Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I shall be relatively brief, not least because so much of what I wanted to say in this debate has already been expressed far more eloquently than I could hope to do. I am also chided by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), as I am a white, middle-aged male—

[Paul Uppal]

I would not say middle-aged.

[Gregory Barker]

I would not say middle-aged either, but I get the gist.

Over many years in the House I have had the great pleasure of listening to a number of speeches by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), and I must say that the one he gave today was the best I have ever heard from him, not least because he quoted so approvingly a great Tory philosopher and statesman. If he wants to improve the tone of his speeches in the Chamber more generally, perhaps he should quote approvingly great historical Tory figures at greater length in future.

I understand the emotions that this debate has given rise to. Everyone present agrees that, wherever in the world and by whomever they are committed, human rights abuses will never be condoned by anyone in the House. We all want Kashmir to live in peace and prosperity.

However, there is a difference between us. There are those who are much more concerned that the British legacy in India means that we should tread much more carefully in seeking to express views on, let alone intervene in, the internal politics of that great democracy, and there are those who seem to presume that we have some enduring legacy that gives us the right to interfere. British insertion into what I see as an explicitly domestic issue for India and Pakistan is deeply unhelpful. We should be mindful not to insert ourselves. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), as much as I see no role for the United Kingdom, I see no role for the United States either.

Unlike many other people who have spoken in a very informed way this afternoon, I am not an expert on Jammu and Kashmir—I have visited India many times, but never that region. However, in my time in the Government, I was privileged to get to know a tremendous politician who is a former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, my former opposite number in the Indian Government under the previous Administration, Mr Farooq Abdullah. It is just wrong to pretend that people from Jammu and Kashmir are not playing a vibrant role in the life of the world’s biggest and greatest democracy.

I know that others have mentioned it already, but we must remind ourselves that the recently concluded Indian elections were the largest exercise in democracy in the history of the world: 550 million free Indians, including 7 million from Jammu and Kashmir, voted in peaceful elections and witnessed the orderly transition of power to a new Government with a new vision. We should not cease to celebrate that. As we look around at a globe with so many troubles and so much strife, we must ensure that we praise and single out a triumph of humanity such as democracy in India. Elections for the legislative assembly of the state of Jammu and Kashmir had a turnout of more than 61% in 2008, which is significantly higher than in presidential elections in the United States. I expect that the turnout will be very substantial in the elections later this year.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the place we are discussing is not England. It is a beautiful part of the world, but it is very different. India’s land border with Pakistan in that state is 1,200 km long. Jihadi elements and terrorists are infiltrating into India from Pakistan as part of a terror campaign. The border is porous and must be protected. Soldiers are there not simply to intimidate but to protect the integrity of not only Jammu and Kashmir but the whole Indian nation, which has been subject to vile terrorist attacks, just like we have in the west and in the UK. Obviously, on 9/11 we remember in particular the attacks on the United States. It is important that wherever democracies stand up against terrorism around the world, we stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

I do not want to labour my points any further. Although I understand that Members wish to speak up in defence of their constituents and articulate their concerns, particularly those of constituents who are of Kashmiri origin, we must nevertheless look forward, not back. We must be mindful of India in the 21st century, rather than look back to a role that we may have played in the 20th century. We in Westminster should concern ourselves with forging a new relationship that looks firmly to the future, not with the internal affairs of that great democracy.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

We have a late entry into the debate: hot off the plane, Mr Gavin Shuker is going to speak until 4 o’clock.