80th Anniversary of Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan

Lord Parekh Excerpts

Friday 9th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parekh (Lab)]

My Lords, as we celebrate the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, it is important to remember what it actually signifies. Every act of memorialisation or celebration is also a re-enactment. In remembering those who died, we should also remember their sacrifices and commit ourselves to a world in which such sacrifices will no longer be necessary. We do not celebrate or memorialise the past for its own sake; we do that in order to learn lessons, and for inspiration. I very much hope that we will do so in this context, given the violence and injustice we see all over the world.

The Second World War was one of the most vicious wars, far more so than the First World War, with far more casualties, military and civilian. Different countries played different roles, and the important thing is, how was that role interpreted? There, I think we made a serious mistake, to which I want to alert your Lordships—not that this is something new, but it is an important point to bear in mind. People began to interpret the Second World War as a war in which the Americans played the crucial role: they were Europe’s saviours, and they helped us win the war. This is just not true.

The Americans did supply us with weapons and soldiers, but the major role was played by the Soviet Union, which sacrificed the largest number of people—27 million. Of the 15 republics which constituted the Soviet Union, the Russian Republic suffered 87,000 casualties. In short, the Soviet Union played a decisive military role.

After the war, I would have expected us to organise things in such a way that the Soviet role was integrated into the Atlantic Charter and the role that we assigned to a new world body. We did not do that, and we ended up creating the bipolar world in which we were the West, and on the other side were the Soviets. That was a serious mistake, and if we are not careful, we are in danger of doing something similar, because the bipolar world we created is crumbling in front of us. What will we replace it with? A multipolar world? For that world, again, we do not quite know how to get our bearings. This was one mistake, one failing, of the treaty that ended the Second World War.

The other issue that is quite important—and I say this as an Indian—is how India and the role of the Commonwealth were grossly underestimated in the course of the Second World War. India contributed a very large number of people and large amount of money, in lots of ways. Some were voluntary recruits; others had to be compelled. Whatever the reason and whatever the cause, a large number of people were assembled. What did we do to remember their role in the Second World War? Nothing. It is not that we wanted to show any kind of discrimination; it is simply that we forgot—partly because we were in the business of reconstructing the world and partly because we were remembering our own past—what the Indians and others had contributed. It never occurred to us. But the fact remains that we did not play fair by them. For their part, they were caught up in a world that was destroyed by the partition and the enormous amount of bloodshed it caused. Therefore, they could not press for it and we did not think of it, and the result was that, for years and years, India’s and the Commonwealth’s role went unrecognised.

There was another way in which it went unrecognised. The Second World War was supposed to be about giving freedom and fostering democracy. Mahatma Gandhi asked that, before India joins the war, the British should make a commitment to give India independence—would Britain do that? Britain hesitated, and no such commitment was made, with the result that the Indian contribution to the Second World War was far less than it could have been and far more half-hearted.

I end by saying that, if one analyses the Second World War and its consequences objectively and dispassionately and asks oneself what the lessons are to learn from it—not just immediate but long term—one sees that they are only just being learned.

King’s Speech

Lord Parekh Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parekh (Lab)]

My Lords, I extend a very warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, who delivered such a wonderful speech with great economy and wit; it is not often that maiden speeches have these characteristics.

I want to talk about two issues: defence and foreign affairs. When we talk about defence, I am not entirely sure that we are clear about what we are trying to defend. We cannot talk about it unless we know what it is we want to defend—against what and whom. In the process of defending what you wish to defend, is there a danger of corrupting it? For example, when we talk about defending ourselves against terrorism, the question is: what is terrorism and how do we understand it? Is it likely that we are describing people as terrorists who are simply fighting for their rights and dignity? The first thing I want to urge the House to be clear about is what we have in mind when we talk about defence. If we miscalculate what we are trying to defend in any situation, we might end up creating more problems. We cannot, for example, defend ourselves against Hamas by using Hamas-like methods, vocabulary or techniques. That is the first very simple, but important, point I would like to make.

I would now like to speak about how the recent events in Gaza have deeply affected us. What Hamas did was savage, barbaric, brutal and utterly unacceptable. The response to that by Israel was much more civilised, but nevertheless not entirely above board. There are questions about whether killing 10,000 people in the Gaza Strip in response to the loss of 1,400 people in Israel was the proper answer. What the conflict did was to damage both parties. It certainly damaged Hamas, and rightly so, but it also damaged Israel—not just physically but by affecting its reputation outside. When you go into a war or fight a conflict of this kind, you do not come out clean; you also stoop to the level of your opponent. The result, therefore, is a fine community, a highly talented community, finding itself having to depend on the sufferance of its fellow citizens. They have got to be shown to be using the markers of Jewish identity. They have to be careful in taking all those steps.

How have we come to this situation? I will raise one or two important points that we have not dealt with sufficiently. Why is this conflict one of the longest in human history? Why has it been the fiercest? Why has it become a kind of litmus test of one’s concern for the poor and marginalised? Why is your concern for equality tested by whether you care for the Palestinians or not? Why has this conflict become so central to our moral and political understanding?

Precisely because this has happened, we have reached a situation where any action or conflict involving Palestine and Israel draws out millions. It draws out all kinds of strong passions, many of which are unsustainable or unjustifiable, but are nevertheless strongly felt by those who express them.

Therefore, the question to ask is why we have come to this situation, despite all the efforts made by the high and mighty. The answer I suggest is not simply Islamic radicalism. It is at two levels. First, I do not think that the negotiations that have taken place between the Israelis and Palestinians have been conducted in good faith. Each side has hidden motives. Israel, for example, would like to see the Palestinians dispossessed and thrown out of Israel and the Palestinians would like to destroy Israel or reduce it to a minority clamouring for rights.

So it is very important that the two sides talk to each other and create a situation of accommodation and peace. Otherwise, the cycle of violence and hatred will continue. Every death engenders more hatred. Unless we find some way to terminate or tame this cycle, we will be responsible for whatever deaths occur.