Kashmir

Debate between John Hemming and David Ward

Thursday 11th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ward]

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s words about Raja Najabat Hussain. There are also many others who have stuck at this issue for a long time. I will focus on self-determination a little later.

This debate is long overdue. Thousands of parliamentary questions have been asked about Kashmir in the House of Commons, but I believe that the last time there was a comprehensive Kashmir-dedicated debate on the political and humanitarian situation in Kashmir was, believe it or not, in 1999, 15 years ago. The conflict in Kashmir was discussed in a debate in the main Chamber a few years ago in 2011—I believe that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) was behind that—but it was a shared debate.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

In respect of the debate in the Chamber, my hon. Friend should note that occasions such as this are part of the reason for having a Backbench Business Committee that allows Back Benchers to drive what is debated by Parliament. This debate was not allocated in Government time.

[Mr Ward]

Indeed; the Backbench Business Committee has proven to be extremely valuable because we can raise issues that may not seem to be vastly important but are none the less important to focus on for particular groups. I am reminded of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), who secured an Adjournment debate on the Kashmiri involvement in the census. Without these debates, we would not have the opportunity to raise such issues. A three-hour debate on Kashmir is justified and, as we can see by the attendance, welcome.

The conflict in Kashmir is long-standing and complex. The former princely state is divided: approximately one third is Azad Kashmir, or AJK, and approximately two thirds is administered or controlled by India. Other parts include Gilgit-Baltistan, which is administered by Pakistan, and the Chinese-administered disputed regions of Aksai Chin and the Trans-Karakoram Tract. That much we know.

More than 24 years ago, I stood as a candidate in a parliamentary by-election in the seat I eventually managed to win. I asked my party for a briefing on Kashmir, and it was provided to me. I had already been a councillor in the area for six years. I knew of the issue, but I thought that I had better be on message, which shows how young and naive I was. The response that came back was safe and predictable. If asked on the doorstep or at a public meeting about the Kashmir issue, the safe things to talk about were the United Nations resolution, self-determination and the plebiscite, and I suspect that all candidates from all parties receive that briefing. I have probably attended more than 300 meetings on this subject—many of them largely the responsibility of Raja Najabat Hussain—in Bradford and here over the past 30 years, and the message has not changed much at all. Many Members will have attended meetings in their own areas where a succession of speakers turn up and say more or less the same thing to a round of applause. They are followed by another speaker, who is followed by another speaker, and then we go and have a meal.

[John Hemming]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that one of the difficulties with long-standing conflicts is that the temperature is raised by human rights abuses and that a focus on dealing with human rights abuse is not only good in itself, but assists in resolving the political problems in the long term?

[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.

Death Penalty (India)

Debate between John Hemming and David Ward

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Like everyone else, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for sponsoring and supporting this debate, which is important not only internationally, but to many people in the UK. I have busily been trying to edit my comments to avoid repeating what previous speakers have said and to save a bit of time, so what I say today will not be the only thing I have to say on this issue; it will be the bits that are left. I may avoid repetition, but there may be a few pauses in my speech as I try to make the best of what I have.

We have had an overwhelming response to the petition, with well over 100,000 signatures nationwide. Some of my constituents have travelled all the way from Bradford for this debate, and I hope they are viewing it in the Chamber. We are going to No. 10 to present the Prime Minister with an additional petition of 2,000 signatures from local people in Bradford and the surrounding area, calling for the abolition of the death penalty in India. Many people in Bradford East feel strongly about this issue, and it is important to highlight the fact that those signatories are from all walks of life. They find the death penalty abhorrent, and the issue speaks to everyone, no matter what community they are from.

There are many long-established arguments for and against the death penalty, some of which have been mentioned today. I do not intend to go through them again. We have all been well briefed for the debate by Amnesty International and other organisations, and the evidence shows that despite the comments by the Indian Supreme Court in 1983, there are nearly 500 people on death row in India today. For the record, it is important to note that we do not condone the actions of people who illegally take or endanger lives, no matter what their cause, but it is also vital to highlight the fact that the death penalty is wrong and should not be part of any judicial process in any part of the world.

A matter that has not been touched on, apart from in a passing reference by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), is the difficult question of a nation criticising another nation. We need to be careful not to appear holier than thou, especially when we are criticising other democracies. Yes, we have abolished the death penalty and we can therefore speak with some authority on that matter, but we must be careful none the less, because I believe that such events as the Iraq war reduced our moral authority. It had many tragic consequences, one of which was that it reduced our moral authority in the eyes of the international community. Whether we are talking about arms sales, foreign interventions or prevention of terrorism legislation, we need to be sure that we can speak with authority, and we therefore need to be careful about what we do. I was delighted to see the Prime Minister’s statement about the deeply shameful event in Amritsar in 1919, but we are still waiting for Tony Blair to make an apology for what has happened far more recently.

My key point is that we must be ever vigilant about what we do and how we behave. The message from this debate needs to go out not just as a message from a relatively small group of Back Benchers on a Thursday afternoon; it needs to be a message from the Government. If it is to have any authority, however, we must constantly watch what we are doing, to ensure that we are above reproach ourselves. When I was in the west bank recently, I challenged the forcible removal of Bedouins from the land that they had lived on for hundreds of years, but the question was thrown back at me: “What about how you treat the Travellers at Dale Farm?” We are debating this matter here in the Chamber today, but we are also being listened to by the world, and we must take care not to appear righteous when we have not earned the right to do so.

As a liberal, I believe that it is our intrinsic right and, more importantly, our fundamental duty to speak up for all people, and especially for minorities who do not have suitable champions for their cause and who face persecution, wherever in the world that might occur and no matter what entrenched views or self-interest they might be battling against. The oppressors often have powerful weapons at their disposal to stifle debate. For the whole of my political career, I have fought and campaigned against prejudice and injustice, at a local level in my constituency and internationally, and I welcome the opportunity that this debate provides today. I thank other hon. Members for turning up in such numbers today—there were more here earlier—because it is crucial that this “small-l liberal” issue should be raised.

I have touched on the necessity for India to uphold the basic human rights that are espoused in the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This is an important issue for my constituents, especially those in the Sikh community, who have long borne the brunt of judicial and societal discrimination in parts of India. We are fortunate to have more than 5,000 people from the Sikh community living in Bradford. They make a vital contribution to the social, religious and economic fabric of the local area, and it is appalling that those vibrant and flourishing communities are not treated with the same dignity and respect for human rights in all parts of the world as they are in Bradford.

The number of states that still have execution as part of their judicial process is thankfully now relatively small, but there are still far too many. It is an outdated and barbaric penalty, and although only a handful of states now use it, there are still too many.

Over the past few years, I have been approached by a number of constituents about the cases involving Balwant Singh Rajoana and Professor Bhullar. I know those cases well, and I am sad that those people are still on death row. I must be honest and tell the House, however, that on researching this issue more thoroughly, I was deeply shocked to discover the sheer scale of the human rights abuses that the Indian Government have not acted against, over many years. I am a member of Amnesty International, and I regularly receive the evidence that it produces. It is shocking to learn of the extensive use of forced evictions, the excessive use of force, arbitrary arrest and detention, and the fundamental lack of due process that are still prevalent in India. Amnesty states:

“Impunity for abuses and violations remained pervasive.”

The continuing existence of India’s controversial Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act gives the Indian army arbitrary powers and near-immunity from prosecution. I have been vocal in the past on the subject of Kashmir, and I was aware of the scale of human rights abuses in Indian-occupied Kashmir, but not of their prevalence in wider India, especially against members of the Sikh community.

India is the third largest economy in the world, and will be an indispensible trading partner for Britain and the EU.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. For the hon. Gentleman just to walk in and intervene in this way is discourteous to everyone else in the Chamber. I understand that he wants to make an intervention, but he must be in the Chamber for at least five minutes before he does so. I am not making a personal attack on him, but he must show good manners to everyone else.

[Mr Ward]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

India’s growing status in the world, its growing economy and its importance to Britain and the EU are no excuse for not doing anything about this matter. They provide an imperative for ensuring that the crucial link between our two countries can be used as a lever to bring about change in India. When we are seeking to improve our own economy, particularly through exports and international trade, the temptation is there, but there is a danger that we hold back for fear of offending a foreign economic power with which we feel we need to develop closer links. It would be immoral, in my view, if growing trade links were used as an excuse for holding back on deserved criticism.

It is crucial for today’s debate that pressure is placed on the Indian Government— not by a group of Back Benchers or petitioners, but by this Government—to uphold basic human rights as a fundamental policy and procedure. We need to outlaw this terrible death penalty once and for all. It is one of the most inhumane and abhorrent punishments used in today’s world—and it needs to end.

[John Hemming]

When I listened to my hon. Friend’s speech on television earlier, I noticed him stressing the importance of our role as a Parliament in commenting on what happens in other countries. Does he agree with me, however, that on issues such as the death penalty in India or the rule of law in Kashmir, it is right for all Parliaments to be committed to improving human rights throughout the world?

[Mr Ward]

That is essential. My earlier point was that if we are to make criticisms, particularly of other democracies, we need to be cleaner than clean and we need to ensure that our record is clean in all respects so that we can speak with moral authority on these crucial issues affecting so many parts of the world.