I do not believe that the true friends of India would be unwilling to make such representations, because as with my family there are times when it is necessary for us to express our views robustly in private and when the need arises in public. The human rights position in the Punjab and the dangerous position in Kashmir which seems to be deteriorating fast call for the British Government to make such representations. Britain has a great historic responsibility for India’s past and it has a great responsibility now to speak up on behalf of people who have many relatives and friends there. The Kashmiri communities are desperately worried about their families and their friends and are concerned about the future of their country. Sikhs too, have great worries. I hope that the Minister will echo their concerns and will make it clear that the British Government, in the spirit of true friendship is prepared to make representations to the Indian government.
The Parliamentary under Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on raising the important subject of Britain’s relations with India. Those relations are reinforced by strong links of many kinds and on many levels historical, political, cultural, commercial and, indeed, personal. The planned state visit to Britain next month by the President of India will be an occasion to which to celebrate the closeness and warmth which I know that you experienced, Mr. Speaker, during your visit to India last August.
I shall not take up the time of the House by speaking at too much length of Britain’s involvement in India’s history before independence, except to note that it has left us with many things in common beyond a language and an obsession with cricket. Our democratic, administrative and legal systems are similar, but many countries have parliaments, bureaucrats and courts. What matters in this case is that Britain and India both rely on those institutions to protect the same values, the same democratic rights and the same civil liberties. When an Englishman and an Indian talk of freedom of speech and of the rule of law, they are talking about the same thing. I am certain that the Indian government no less than the British Government, ar committed to the maintenance and promotion of those values, rights and liberties.
If I talk of a long historical connection, it is emphatically not out of a sense of nostalgia, but because our shared past gives both India and Britain common guideposts to the future in our shared determination to sustain democratic institutions and individual freedom under the law.
One of the most important elements in relations between two countries is represented by the many people of Indian origin who have settled in Britain. They have made a significant contribution to all aspects of national life here. Their continued involvement in, and concern for, their country of origin can be of great value in making our relations still closer more substantial and more productive.
The hon Member raised certain human rights issues. I do not suggest that anybody in India would claim that India has a completely unblemished human rights record. Indeed, it is hard to point to a country that has, The Indian Government are the first to concede that abuses have taken place. As is scarcely surprising in so vast a developing country, the administration of law and order sometimes falls short of the best intentions of the government. But India cannot reasonably be compared with countries that systematically abuse human rights as a matter of Government policy.
India is a democratic country with an independent legal system to which those who believe they have been treated unfairly have recourse and there is a vibrantly free press in which injustices can be and are exposed. I have no doubt of the genuine commitment of the Indian government to the maintenance of political freedoms and civil liberties. Before we start to criticize we need to consider the magnitude of the problems that India faces in maintaining the unity and integrity of a secular state in so vast and complex a country, with is great diversely of race, religion and language.
The hon Member also mentioned problems in Kashmir. Both the Indian and Pakistani Governments have been concerned by events there, and I believe wish to avoid further increase in tension in the area. We have made clear our concern at the political unrest in the Kashmir valley and at the loss of life that has resulted, whether through acts of terrorism which, I am sure the hon Gentlemen will agree, can solve nothing, or through the shooting of reportedly unarmed civilian demonstrators by the security forces.
Our own longstanding position on the dispute over the status of Kashmir has been one of neutrality. We believe it can be settled only by agreement between the two Governments concerned. We have recently discussed the situation there with representatives of both the Plait an and Indian government. We have made it clear that we believe that the dispute is one to be settled between them and we hope that they will be able to reach a peaceful settlement of the issues involved. We have encouraged both sides to avoid a confrontation which we are convinced neither side wants. We have also made it clear that we have absolutely no sympathy with those who espouse violence for political ends, at the same time we hope that the problems of law and order to which the hon Gentleman referred can be handled with maximum restraint.
There were a number of United Nations resolutions on Kashmir in 1948 and 1949. The issue at the time was whether Kashmir should accede to Pakistan or India. Britain voted in favor of these resolutions the texts of which represented agreement between India and Pakistan. Under that agreement, both countries agreed “‘to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by another peaceful means mutually agreed on between them.”
Both sides also committed themselves to ‘‘a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir.”
Our longstanding position is entirely consistent with the terms of the agreement. We are confident that real progress in settling this dispute can be made only by agreements reached between India and Pakistan.
The hon. Member may have read that the Indian Prime Minister convened an all party meeting on 7 March to discuss the situation in Kashmir. The next day, a senior delegation of Indian Members of Parliament visited Kashmir to assess the situation. Mr. V.P Singh has since appointed a Cabinet Minister for Kashmir and a multi-party committee to assist him. We welcome these moves and hope that they may contribute to the search for a peaceful solution to the current problems.
The hon Member was able to be among the first foreign parliamentarians to visit the Punjab recently to investigate reports of all alleged human rights violations. The House will have been concerned at learning of the various incidents to which he referred, but I am sure he will not expect me to comment on them. The fact of his visit is, T hope that the hon Gentleman will agree an encouraging sign of the determination of the Indian government to find a solution to the current problem, and of their refusal to brush those problems under the carpet.
I well understand the concern felt by many in the community here about their friends and families in India as a result of reports received about the situation in Punjab.
However, we should look at the situation in the Punjab as a whole. In our view many of the Reports reaching people in this country do less than justice to the truth of this tragic and complex problem.
The history of the current troubles in the Punjab is long and complex. The Sikh communities in India have played a distinguished part in Indian life and customs and continue to do so. Many of them seek to pursue their grievances and aspirations as they are entitled to do, by legitimate constitutional means. But minorities are engaged in a bitter terrorist struggle against the authorities to achieve what they cannot achieve by democratic means the dismemberment of the secular state of India. It is against this background that we need to view events in Punjab.
Last year, tragically over 2,000 people were reported killed in the Punjab in terrorist related violence. There have been many reports during the last year of indiscriminate attacks on innocent people, including some by Sikhs on Sikhs trying to defend other members of the community. Earlier this month we have seen reports of terrorists firing on a bus in the Punjab. In the incident, 10 people were reported to have been shot dead.
Under the previous Government, in March last year a package of measures was introduced including the easing of restrictions and the release of detainees when no evidence could be brought against them. After being elected to office last November, the new Indian government announced that they would give priority to resolving the current problems in the Punjab. Prime Minister VP Singh’s visit to Amritsar in December was a brave and widely welcomed gesture.
Last December and in January this year, he held two all-party meetings to discuss the Punjab. At the January meeting the Indian government introduced a package of measures which included a review of all detainee cases, and reminders to local police authorities of the need to maintain stricter police discipline, and I am sure that the hon Gentlemen welcomed that. The new Indian governments have also promised to bring to trial those accused of involvement in anti-Sikh riots which followed Mrs. Gandhi’s assassination in late 1984.
As the hon. Member sent to the Punjab he may be aware that the Indian Prime Minister visited the Punjab on 14 March and announced the formation of an advisory committee to help the administration of the state. That committee will consist of representatives of different political parties and social groups. I see that this development has been welcomed in the Indian press.
The hon Gentleman referred to the importance of building confidence. I agree with him, and I hope he will agree that the measures to which J have referred are a step in that important direction.
In 1988-89 a total of 1,839 Indian students in the United Kingdom received British Government support. The special Foreign Office scholarships scheme for India has been increased since 1988 so that in this financial year we intent to spend just under | million which will fund about 130 students here. We have no knowledge of students from the Punjab or indeed from Kashmir being prevented from attending courses.
The hon Gentleman referred to Amnesty International. We have commended Amnesty to the Indian Government at ministerial level as a serious and responsible organization, but we accept that the issuing of visas is a matter for the Indian Government. We welcome the Indian Foreign Minister’s answer to a parliamentary question on 15 March, when he said that the Indian governments were considering allowing an Amnesty International team to visit the Punjab.
I return to the general subject of the debate Britain relations with India. I listened with interest to what the hon Gentleman said and I urge him to work with us to continue to improve those relations and to encourage those in this country who have ties of blood and of kinship with India to support those who seek to resolve the country’s problems by peaceful and constitutional means. That is what we owe to India, and to the principles by which we in Britain and the people of India live.
Article extracted from this publication >> April 20, 1990
