India and Pakistan: Peace Representations

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, for tabling this debate. Two lands, two people, two nuclear powers—yet, despite the borders that exist and the wars that have been fought, there is a shared history, intertwined with our own. It was two days in 1947, as the British left India, that changed history and the destiny of this region—14 and 15 August 1947, which saw the birth of two independent nations, Pakistan and India respectively.

In my view, war lays the foundations for an inevitable peace, but peace itself is not the mere absence of war. It is the recognition of each other’s rights, embedded in respect and justice, which is ultimately the destiny of these two nations and of Kashmir. At the heart of this inevitable peace is the peace across the lands, often referred to as “heaven on earth”, the state of Kashmir. It was after the Kargil war of 1999 that the late General Musharraf of Pakistan, together with Prime Minister Vajpayee of the BJP, and subsequently Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of Congress, recognised the opportunity that it was peace that was the ultimate victory for all. In that respect, they proposed a four-point plan: no change of borders, but free movement of people across the line of control; self-governance and recognised autonomy for Kashmiris; the demilitarisation of Kashmir; and a joint mechanism, with India, Pakistan and Kashmir all involved. Sadly, political change and instability, and of course the tragic and abhorrent terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008, ended that track of hope.

Yet if, as we often say, lessons are to be learned from history, it shows that mediation is key and peace is possible—and that is what we need now. It was only a few days ago that we saw these two nations at war, yet I pay tribute to the role, the leadership and timely mediation, of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the US and Qatar, friends to both nations, which saw the shocking prospect of two nuclear powers in full-scale war recede. What we saw was a courage and recognition by both sides that there would be no eventual winner of the war; therefore, the next step must be respect and trust, as the foundation for confidence-building measures, along with the four principles that I have outlined: respect for peace, and respect for treaties signed and agreements reached, be they the Simla accords or the Indus Waters Treaty, and an end to terrorism, with joint efforts to eradicate the scourge of this abhorrent evil, and ultimately a vision of an inclusive and prosperous future for Kashmiris, which is possible and in reach, based on the framework that I have outlined for the inevitable benefits to both nations and the stability of the wider region.

Our role is as a friend to both nations. Yet I would argue it is more than others. We have a legacy, as we have already heard, that we left behind—a legacy I feel most personally attached to, with family and friends. It is a history etched into my own DNA of a shared heritage of both nations. Therefore, I ask the Minster, for whom the whole Committee has great respect, to now be proactive in our facilitation, which provides the basis of direct mediation efforts between our two friends—two nations of the Commonwealth. Let us be proactive in averting the next crisis, the next war, through whatever channels necessary to ensure that vision of peace for Kashmir becomes a living reality.