Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington): I wish to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the plight of the Sikhs in India, an issue which for some reason best known to the Government, has not been raised in the Chamber force. That omission by the Government could well be due to embarrassment, to say the least.
Just prior to independence the Constituent Assembly in India agreed a package of proposals called the Objectives Resolution which guaranteed the autonomous status of Sikhs in the Punjab. The British Government accepted the validity of the Objectives Resolution and, on the strength of that, granted India independence in 1947. Unfortunately, with the coming of Independence, the guarantees given to the Sikhs were not honored and the constitution was changed to reflect the interests of the Hindu majority.
Since then the British Government have said and done nothing over the years to correct that position, despite their direct involvement. We have continued to give aid to India as though money had gone out of fashion, between 1978 and 1987 Britain has given about $1.6 billion in overseas aid and India has topped the league table of recipients of overseas aid in each of the past 10 years.
There are about 8,000 Sikhs in my constituency, the vast majority of who are decent hard-working people who want to live in peace with their neighbors and make a Positive contribution to the community. Judging from reports that I have read of debates in the American Congress, the same is true of Sikhs who reside in the United States and of Sikhs the world over.
In India, the Sikhs constitute about 2 per cent of the population, but produce a quarter of India’s gross national product. Sikh farmers account for 73 percent of wheat and 48 per cent of rice produced in India. Many Sikhs have made a valuable contribution to the professions to the military and to the Government of India.
I do not have to remind the House, especially at this time of the year, of the contribution that Sikhs have made in two world wars to defend the freedom and security of the United Kingdom. The list of decorations won by Sikh soldiers is a credit to their loyalty and devotion to our country.
Given that background, one would have thought that the Indian Government would have recognized the contribution that the Sikh community makes to the world and would treat it with the respect and understanding that it so richly deserves. Unfortunately the opposite is the case.
While Rajiv Gandhi, the so called leader of the world’s largest democracy, struts like a bloated peacock on the international stage, condemning South Africa for its alleged abuse of human rights he has been responsible for the murder, torture and imprisonment without trial of thousands of his fellow countrymen and he ‘has left a great many others fearing for their lives.
Rajiv Gandhi is aware of and supports unlawful killing and widespread torture by his own security forces and the police. He is aware of and supports arbitrary arrests and prolonged detention without trial. He is also aware of and supports extra judicial execution, which is unlawful killing by the Government or Government-backed forces. Rajiv Gandhi is aware of and supports the killing of political activists as a result of fake encounters staged by the Indian police. The most widespread reports of these killings and other atrocities come from the Punjab, ‘one of the regions where the security forces enjoy immunity from prosecution when exercising shoot-on-sight powers-powers given to them by the Indian Government led by Rajiv Gandhi.
According to an Amnesty International report, of August this year, more than 70 young Sikhs were killed by police in fake encounters in Amritsar in the month of August last year. The Indian Government has done nothing to investigate those claims; they have simply issued blanket denials and ignored any representations made to them.
Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham); Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Dicks: No. I will not. We all know of my hon. Friend’s support for the Indian Government and their behavior.
Mr. Jessel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Hon. Member to attack the head of a very friendly Commonwealth country in such a manner without giving other Hon. Members the right to intervene?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is contrary to our conventions to attack the head of a friendly state un-reasonably but equally no Hon. Member has an obligation to give way to another.
Mr. Dicks: I shall not give way to my Hon. Friend, because he supports the Indian Government and Rajiv Gandhi and the atrocities committed by the Indian Government in the name of so-called democracy.
Dozens of prisoners are reported to have died after torture in police stations, according to the review. Those most at risk of torture are political prisoners, many of whom are Sikhs. The most persistent allegations of torture of political prisoners have come from the Punjab, the home of the Sikhs, where prisoners have said that they were hung from ceilings with their hands tied behind their backs, beaten and given electric shocks. According to the Amnesty International Report, those responsible for torturing prisoners are almost never brought to justice; they are allowed to continue along their evil path uninterrupted by the so-called democratic regime.
Amnesty International has also highlighted the fact that hundreds of political detainees have been held for four years under special security laws which lack basic legal safeguards. As would be expected, they include more than 300 Sikhs held in Jodhpur prison since June 1984, many of whom have been detained for nonviolently expressing their political feelings.
How dare Rajiv Gandhi lecture the South African Government on human rights when evidence from Amnesty International and information received in this country by Sikhs from friends and relatives living in the Punjab show that without doubt Blacks in South Africa are far more likely to have their human rights recognized by their Government than are the Sikhs by theirs. The Sikhs have to endure considerable suffering and injustice, and they do so with great dignity and courage.
The Indian Government claims that Sikh violence has been taking place in the Punjab area and around the Golden Temple in particular. They have produced no evidence to substantiate that claim, and as entry to the Punjab is severely limited many people, including myself, doubt the truth of those claims. Most of the Sikhs with whom I have come in contact, both here and abroad, are seeking a peaceful solution to the Punjab problem and recognition of their position by the Indian Government.
Those interested in democracy should be pressing the Indian Government to behave in a reasonable and responsible manner, while at the same time bringing pressure to bear on them to recognize the human rights violations that have taken place. Unfortunately the British Government is taking a different view. They are turning a deaf ear to the cries of Sikhs in Britain who are concerned about the suffering of friends and relatives in India, and at the same time they are turning a blind eye to reports from organizations such as Amnesty International, which provide clear evidence of that suffering.
On 31 October this year I asked the Foreign Secretary whether he would make a statement on a recent report by Amnesty International entitled, “India a review of Human Rights Violations.” His answer was no. On the same day I asked him what representations he had made to the Indian Government about the alleged violation of basic human rights, as reported by Amnesty International. Again, his answer was no. I also asked whether he would publish the evidence on which he based his view that the judicial system in India protected the rights of minority groups such as the Sikhs. His answer was no. On the same day I asked whether he would receive a deputation from the Sikh community in Britain to discuss the allegation of violations of human rights in India. Again, his answer was no.
Finally, I asked whether the Foreign Secretary would use his g00d offices to persuade the Indian Government to grant me an entry visa to visit the Punjab and make contact with relatives and friends of my constituents. He replied that it was a matter for the Indian authorities.
Let me also bring to light an immigration case that is interesting to say the least. Until March of last year a Mr., Ganga Singh Dhillon a Sikh with an American passport, had been allowed unfettered entry to the United Kingdom. However, when he arrived, in August of last year he was prevented from entering the United Kingdom and sent back on the next available plane without being allowed access to a telephone to contact his solicitor or a Member of Parliament.
On making inquiries on behalf of Mr. Dhillon I was told that he had been excluded for reasons of national security. I then asked what had happened between March 1987 and August 1987 to make the Home Office take this action, I was told that, even as the Member of Parliament involved, I could not be given that information. I am aware, however, as is Mr. Dhillon that the Indian Government had brought pressure to’ bear on the British Government to ensure that Mr. Dhillon was not allowed to enter the United Kingdom. This gentleman well respected in America and known to both Republican and Democrat politicians on Capitol Hill was denied entry to this country to see his family, at the whim of the corrupt Indian Government.
On the evidence of the replies that I have received from the Foreign Office and the attitude towards Mr. Dhillon by the Home Office, it seems to me that the British Government are taking a blinkered, not to say hypocritical view of the situation in India. Our Government have never been slow publicly to condemn South Africa whenever an allegation of the violation of human rights has been made. They have intervened personally in the case of a group of black Africans, known as the Sharpeville Six, who are awaiting execution for crimes committed in the Republic. The Government, without any evidence being available at all, was quick to condemn the Iraqi Government for allegedly gassing the Kurds living in the north of Iraq. Even the Prime Minister, on her recent visit to Poland, spoke out in favor of freedom and justice for the people of that country.
Why, therefore, when it comes to India, does the British Government’s attitude change dramatically? The evidence suggesting widespread violation of human rights is overwhelming. The man who is responsible for implementing that policy, the Minister of Home of fairs, Mr. Buta Singh sought a bribe from me when I last visited India before he would respond to my request for information regarding a constituent of mine, Mrs. Kuldip Kaur who had been wrongly imprisoned in India. That man asked me face to face for a bribe before he would take any action on my behalf.
Mr. Jessel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member of Parliament to take advantage of parliamentary privilege to accuse a Minister in the Government of a friendly Commonwealth country of a corrupt act when that Minister is not here to reply for himself? Is that not grossly improper and an abuse of the House, and is it in order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I doubt whether it is out of order, but it is hardly consistent with the conventions of the House. I ask the Hon Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) to bear in mind that the 20th edition of “Erskine May,” on page 431 states:
’Opprobrious reflections must not be cast in and rulers over, or governments of, independent Commonwealth terrorities or countries in amity with Her Majesty, or their representatives in this country.”
I hope that the Hon. Member will bear that reference in mind.
Mr. Dicks: I thank you. Mr. Deputy Speaker for that ruling, but I remind you that when I made debate on sovereigns the same claim in December 1986 during an Adjournment debate 1 was neither stopped nor corrected. I made the same allegation, because it is true. I was there; know that it happened. Mr. Buta Singh then had the opportunity to take whatever action he wanted against me, but he did not do so. My Hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) bleeds too much for the Indian Government. He should be more objective and take off his blinkers. He would then understand and appreciate the problems that the Sikhs face in India.
There is overwhelming evidence from many quarters that the Sikhs are being persecuted by the Indian Government in general and particularly at the hands of the Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi. Only a few days ago his Minister of Commerce called at No. 10 Downing Street. Among other things, I understand that he asked whether the policy that is about to be introduced to control the appearance on television of IRA terrorists could be extended to include members of the Sikh community living in Britain.
Given that background there can be no justification whatsoever for the British Government’s continued support of the Indian regime. If they are to continue to comment on human rights issues around the world, they have a duty loudly and clearly to condemn the abuse of human rights and’ the persecution of the Sikhs in India. A foreign policy based on selectivity, hypocrisy and double standards may be good for the Foreign Office, but it is not good for the British Government or the British people. It will be seen by many as yet another example of the Foreign Office putting its own interests before those of Britain.
It is not with any pleasure that I speak on this subject today. I do so because I believe that Sikh people in India are being persecuted by the Government there. The Sikh community in my community and elsewhere in the United Kingdom are worried about relatives and friends in India, They can get no access to them and their Members of Parliament cannot in most cases.
The fault lies at the feet of the British Government of 1947 who accepted the word of the Constituent Assembly that Sikhs would be protected in the new constitution, The moment that the constitution came into operation after independence, the Indian Government ignored their obligations regarding Sikhs and their autonomy in their own state of the Punjab and rewrote the constitution to protect the interests of the Hindu majority. That was an appalling thing to do, but the British Government sat back and made no protest.
It is surprising that I have to raise this important matter on the Adjournment because the British Government of the party to which I belong have flatly refused to answer my questions fully and frankly. They have flatly refused to condemn the Indian Government although they condemn the South African Government. The Government has also refused to bring the issue before the House and the British people. The Government meets and greets members of the Indian Government all over the place. They recognize the so called status of Rajiv Gandhi as an international politician of repute a man who goes with a begging bowl looking for aid wherever he can get it, but who has given the Sandinista regime $10.4 million of aid. How can a country which demands aid from us afford to give aid to an evil left wing regime in South America? We must have answers to these questions.
The Indian security services operate within the Indian community in Britain, but the Government is doing nothing about it. The Sikhs in Britain need their families and friends in India to be protected. They need Government support in their effort to get justice in the Punjab. They are not all terrorists, if indeed, any of them are. Most are decent, hardworking people who love this country. Indeed, they love the British Government the Tory Government in particular and have a high regard for our Prime Minister. Why are their views not heard? Why does the Government not respond to them? Why do we continue to bend the knee to this evil Government in India?
Article extracted from this publication >>
