Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Lord Gadhia Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gadhia (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as we gather on this sombre and sad occasion, a huge void is felt not only by the Royal Family and our whole nation but by the entire world. It is difficult to think of a public figure who has ever had such a global impact. We often speak about the United Kingdom’s soft power and of global Britain, but so much of this was embodied in, and personified by, Her late Majesty the Queen.
The worldwide outpouring of affection is reflective of a lifetime devoted to service and duty, a theme we have heard again and again, and deservedly so. Her Majesty was a constant and unifying figure, rising above the political fray and forces of division, providing a source of stability over seven decades of incredible change. As someone who arrived in this country 50 years ago in traumatic circumstances, during the expulsion of the Asian community from Uganda, I have not experienced anything other than the second Elizabethan age. For all the change and challenges during her long reign, it has also been a remarkable period of progress and human advancement, a period of improving community cohesion and greater diversity, as barriers to those from any and all backgrounds have come down.
What could be more emblematic of the social mobility of the second Elizabethan age than for someone of Indian origin, displaced from Uganda, to have the opportunity in a single generation to be appointed to this House, taking an oath of allegiance to Her late Majesty? That moment, six years ago this month, was the greatest honour of my life, even more so being a child of the Commonwealth, which occupied such a special status for the Queen. Indeed, as a child of the Commonwealth, I feel like a child of Her late Majesty.
The last occasion on which I was honoured to meet the Queen was during a reception that she graciously hosted at Buckingham Palace to mark the UK-India year of culture. On that occasion, she kindly placed an item on display from her own personal possessions: a wedding gift from Mahatma Gandhi. It was a piece of cloth, woven from yarn spun by Gandhi himself, including the words “Jai Hind”.
It was palpable how connected she felt to India and the wider subcontinent, which makes up almost 75% of the 2.5 billion people across the Commonwealth. These sentiments are mirrored in reverse, exemplified by the day of state mourning that has been declared by the Government of India for this coming Sunday, and the three days of mourning declared by Bangladesh. The Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, has lauded the Queen for her dignity and decency in public life, and the Bangladeshi Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, has described her as a true guardian.
As chair of the British Asian Trust, founded by His Majesty King Charles III some 15 years ago, I know that our new monarch shares the same priorities as his mother for the Commonwealth, and maintains a deep and abiding connectivity with all the countries of south Asia, also including Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Yes, King Charles has enormous shoes to fill, but he also possesses the strength of character and sense of purpose to pick up the baton from his mother, as our constitutional monarchy requires, and to continue the same dedication to public service and duty without missing a beat. Tonight’s broadcast from His Majesty confirms this commitment and determination. In that mission, and in their grief, we offer our new King, the Queen Consort, and the Royal Family our full and loyal support.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I did not have the privilege of knowing Her Majesty personally so I have no stories of cushions or tea sets, but the most precious possession I have is the letter of summons to this House, which reads:
“I give you a seat, a place and a voice”
in the Parliaments of this land. Therefore, it is a real privilege to be able to give my tribute to Her Majesty too.
When the Queen was 21 years old, as I am sure many have said today in this House, she delivered a speech that bore the mark of her maturity—that maturity which guided her life. Her words speak louder than anything we can say:
“If we all go forward together with an unwavering faith, a high courage, and a quiet heart, we shall be able to make of this ancient commonwealth, which we all love so dearly, an even grander thing—more free, more prosperous, more happy and a more powerful influence for good in the world—than it has been in the greatest days of our forefathers. To accomplish that we must give nothing less than the whole of ourselves. There is a motto which has been borne by many of my ancestors—a noble motto, ‘I serve’.”
And she declared
“before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service.”
Today, we think of that unwavering faith, that high courage, that quiet heart, and that beauty which today shines from the ashes. We all feel the baton being passed to the next generation. As it passes, my prayer is that her legacy will be that we walk with that same courage, that same humility, integrity and grace.
The Queen has been a gift to our nation, binding us together. The second Elizabethan era has been a time when culture and society have changed beyond recognition. In the shaking and polarisation, she has been a constant that has unified us. She has shown leadership through service. A role model, she has shown the same ethos that guides the lives of heroes across society: duty, service and responsibility. They may feel outmoded, but these virtues are the root of our prosperity.
It is no small thing to have a Head of State who sees their role as being one who serves. Institutional trust, so fundamental to the flourishing of society, relies on leaders of character being held in high honour by the people. Her unique constitutional position could have been a burden, but she walked with unflappable grace and courage for the common good. From the Cold War through to Covid, she led with courage in crisis after crisis. She consistently lifted our vision higher; with public discourse so often concerned with the next crisis or scandal, she sought to stand above the fray.
As the flame passes on to us, we must remember the core foundational principles that made her such a remarkable woman. She believed that the British nation could be a light among the nations and contribute positively in the world. She consciously and publicly modelled her life on the example of Jesus and saw the future through the lens of hope. May the words she delivered as we began the first Easter of the pandemic—words which reflected her core, driving convictions—carry us in the next season:
“As dark as death can be—particularly for those suffering with grief—light and life are greater.”
Today is a day to remember and celebrate the legacy of a woman who has given us so much. Seventy-three years after the speech given at 21 years old, Elizabeth II readied herself for another landmark moment. It was the outset of the pandemic and she set out a vision for how we should approach the coming season of crisis and change. While lockdown may be over, her words still ring true today:
“I hope in the years to come everyone will be able to take pride in how they responded to this challenge. And those who come after us will say that the Britons of this generation were as strong as any. That the attributes of self-discipline, of quiet good-humoured resolve and of fellow-feeling still characterise this country. The pride in who we are is not a part of our past, it defines our present and our future.”
May that be so.
India: Extremism
Lord Gadhia Excerpts(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, we share the noble Lord’s concern about the importance of ensuring that there is religious freedom, because it is a foundation for economic and public security. I can assure him that the British high commission in New Delhi discusses human rights issues with institutions such as the Indian National Commission for Minorities and state governments. More than that, in direct answer to his question, the British Government work directly with the Indian Government to build capacity and share expertise to tackle challenges, including the promotion and protection of human rights. Next month, that will include working with India on its universal periodic review.
Lord Gadhia (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, instead of interfering in the internal democratic processes of the world’s largest democracy, the Government should be working closely with Prime Minister Modi’s Government to open up and liberalise the Indian economy, and encourage more trade and investment between the UK and India to promote development in both countries? That is what the people of Uttar Pradesh overwhelmingly voted for, and that is the clear message we should send to India—one of our closest friends and allies—from this British Parliament.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, we are indeed clear friends of India. The UK-India trade relationship is flourishing. The two Prime Ministers agreed that, when the UK leaves the European Union, they will make it a priority for both countries to build the closest possible commercial and economic relationship—but our friendship also goes to the development of human rights.
Commonwealth
Lord Gadhia Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gadhia (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as a British citizen of Indian origin born in Uganda, I enjoy a triple connection with the Commonwealth. I was therefore drawn—almost like a magnetic field—towards speaking in today’s debate.
I would like to focus on two themes. The first is the relative roles of Britain and India as two linchpins among the Commonwealth’s 52 members. In doing so, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the various roles that I play in this bilateral relationship, including as a member of the UK-India CEO Forum. Secondly, I would like to suggest some bold steps which the Commonwealth should consider to secure its relevance well into the 21st century.
Britain’s interest in rejuvenating the Commonwealth is self-evident. It suits our post-Brexit narrative and objectives, particularly on trade. However, multilateral organisations are not fashionable at the moment, given the rise of nationalistic and protectionist tendencies, so we should legitimately ask: why would 51 countries want to play ball with us? Before turning to this fundamental question, I should like to address India’s role.
The modern Commonwealth effectively started in 1949 with the London Declaration, which allowed India to remain a member even though it was no longer a dominion, and thereby it became the first republic to do so. As part of this settlement, India agreed to accept the British sovereign as a symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and, as such, as Head of the Commonwealth.
This pragmatic solution secured the participation of India, which could easily have taken a more anti-imperialist stand. To its credit, India’s leadership was more far-sighted and adopted Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of “forget and forgive”. Speaking on 17 May 1949 to the Indian Parliament, Prime Minister Nehru—previously an arch opponent of continued Commonwealth membership—said that,
“I had a feeling when I was considering this matter in London … in a small measure perhaps, I had done something that would have met with the approval of Gandhiji”.
Today, India represents more than half the Commonwealth population of 2.4 billion and is the joint largest economy alongside the UK. For obvious reasons, Britain has historically been seen as primus inter pares among Commonwealth members but I believe it is a mantle that should now be shared with India. This might be seen as a sensitive subject but we should not be afraid to address it directly. This is not to dilute the equal value and status of every member but it recognises the geopolitical realities and choices open to an emerging superpower such as India, for which a seat on the UN Security Council is long overdue and only a matter of time.
The second area which we should assess candidly is the future ingredients of success. Yes, the Commonwealth enjoys some alluring features: scale, growth, youth and diversity. All these are certainly necessary but in my view not sufficient to take the organisation to the next level. I would like to offer three specific suggestions.
The first is to aggressively add new members. As statisticians will confirm, the power of any network is proportionate to the square of the number of nodes, so that each new member is of increasing value to the others. It is hugely positive that Mozambique and Rwanda have joined in recent years and that South Sudan and Gambia are in the queue. However, the Commonwealth needs to be much more ambitious. Why not attract Japan or the Gulf states, or even some European countries—perhaps those sitting outside the eurozone? Given the shifting plates of the world geopolitical order, this is an opportune moment to be brave and think big.
The second proposal is to create a sharper financial focus that provides some glue to bind us together. I mentioned the relative unpopularity of multilateral organisations but it is interesting to note that two new bodies have been created in recent years, both of them banks: the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the BRICS’ New Development Bank. The idea of a Commonwealth bank has been doing the rounds for some time but there is little point in creating a copycat entity. However, the other two are focused on infrastructure and development respectively, so there does appear to be a gap in the market for an institution focused on global trade finance. This would provide a sharper and more practical focus for the Commonwealth and should be considered very carefully.
Thirdly, I believe that it is appropriate to review the leadership profile of the organisation. In doing so, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am in no way criticising the current or previous secretariat of the Commonwealth and I fully echo the comments of my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Goodlad in support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland. However, I feel strongly that the role of Secretary-General should be seen as one of the top global roles that public servants covet in the same way that there is fierce jockeying for position to become the UN Secretary-General, the head of the IMF or president of the European Council. We should absolutely aspire to entice a David Cameron or a Stephen Harper; a Kevin Rudd or a Manmohan Singh to become Secretary-General. This would be a worthy ambition and help to take the organisation to the next level.
We might apply the “visitor from Mars” test to the Commonwealth and ask whether we would create the organisation if it did not exist today. My heart, influenced by my triple Commonwealth identity, would, of course, say yes, but my head would hesitate a little more. However, given that the Commonwealth does exist, we should unequivocally build and strengthen it further so that it achieves its full potential.