§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick]
§ 10 pm
§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)I am pleased to introduce a short debate on relations between Her Majesty's Government and India, the first such debate in the House for some considerable time. I have recently returned from a brief visit to India, and I thank the authorities, especially the governor of the Punjab, for their assistance and co-operation, and a range of human rights organisations and their brave and dedicated members for their help and support during my visit.
My main purpose was to investigate human rights in the Punjab. With the intractable problem of Northern Ireland much in my mind, I realise that no Britisher in India can feel superior when discussing human rights in the Punjab, where the forces of law and order are pitched against terrorists. I talked to police officers in the Punjab who, like security officers in Northern Ireland, told me that many of the terrorists were gangsters who preyed on Sikhs and Hindus for money and power. Few, they argued, were motivated by dreams of an independent Khalistan.
I talked to human rights groups in the Punjab who, like their counterparts in Northern Ireland, told me that state violence and repression had alienated many in the Punjab, Sikh and Hindu, and had provoked widespread violence and terror. Both sides claimed, rightly I am sure, that all ordinary people in the Punjab, Sikh and non-Sikh, are sickened by violence and want an end to it. I talked to scores of those ordinary people, and their stories were deeply disturbing.
I shall never forget the Sikh father whose 14-year-old daughter was raped and drowned by a police officer. The father was brutally beaten by police three times over two days. He was seeking the return of his daughter's body for cremation. He was warned that, if he did not stop complaining, what had happened to his 14-year-old daughter would happen to his seven-year-old daughter. The father is refusing to wear shoes until he gets justice.
I shall not forget the young Sikh who was shot as a terrorist after he stood with his arms above his head in a field for five minutes. The police later admitted that they had made a mistake. Senior police officers saluted at the young man's cremation. His family is still waiting for the compensation that it was promised.
I shall not forget the relatives of the young man who was shot while marching in a Sikh religious festival. Again, the police admitted a mistake. His brother has been warned off pressing for police officers to be punished.
I shall not forget the 500 prisoners in the Amritsar security prison who lined up in the sun to meet me and my team. Each one was holding his record papers. There were more than 300 held on petty offences without bail. The youngest was a boy of 14½ who had been held in that prison for eight months without trial.
There were mothers and daughters who talked about their husbands and brothers who had been abducted by the police months and even years ago. There were men and women who showed us bruises, scars, broken arms and broken legs that were the result of police interrogation. I shall never forget the men and women who complained of 1334 systematic police harassment, with regular house searches, property smashed, goods and money stolen, and threats of extortion of money to avoid imprisonment.
There is no doubt that Operation Bluestar, the Army code name for the attack on the Golden temple in 1984, will never be forgotten or forgiven by most Sikhs. It defiled their holiest place and strengthened the view of many of them that the last Indian Government had embarked upon a deliberate policy of eradicating Sikhs, who form just 2 per cent. of India's population. Such feelings were intensified by the massacre of 5,000 Sikhs in Delhi hours after the assassination of Mrs. Indira Ghandi and of many Sikhs in other parts of India.
In Delhi, I visited some of the 1,200 widows struggling to bring up their families alone. One woman cried bitterly as she showed me the photographs of her dead husband and sons. She lost 18 relatives to the murderous mobs. From the window of a two-roomed tenament, home to a family of six, I looked down across a mud hut village which is home to 1,000 families who fled east Delhi to find relative safety with other Sikhs in west Delhi. With the monsoons, this mud village becomes a sea of mud, with the summer heat a stinking cesspit. There are no drains, water supply or electricity; there are typhoid and cholera. The new governor of Delhi has promised these people a plot of land nearby where they can build decent homes. They hope that this promise will be kept and that the bulldozers will not return to demolish their huts.
None of these people, the victims of murderous communalism, believe that what happened was spontaneous. The mobs were organised. They were led. The plan was to kill as many male Sikhs as possible, including boys and even babies.
While the horror of the massacres will never dim, many Sikhs cheered last year's election of Mr. V. P. Singh as India's Prime Minister. The BJP, the Hindu fundamentalist party, appears opposed to Mr. Singh's pressing on with his plans, announced after his election victory, to secure reconciliation with the Sikhs in the Punjab. Elections to the Punjab state assembly are seen by Mr. Singh as a top priority. However, unless they are called by 11 May, President's rule will continue—and that will surely spark off more and escalating violence.
There are those inside and outside the Punjab who believe that a new settlement for the Punjab is possible. A federal solution, with the central Government retaining powers over foreign relations, defence and communications, is widely supported. The Prime Minister and the new governor of the Punjab rightly stress that building confidence and trust is vital if reconciliation is to succeed. Early elections to the Punjab state assembly are seen by many as vital to that confidence-building process.
There should also, in the view of many, be independent machinery for monitoring human rights in the Punjab, together with independent machinery for investigating complaints against the police. Amnesty International, which has hitherto, unfortunately, been refused permission to visit the Punjab, could offer the governor and the Government of India valuable advice about how to establish that machinery.
During my visit, Sikhs complained to me about a number of problems. They complained about there being no Sikh in the Cabinet or in any of the senior executive positions in the Punjab Government. They complained about the apparent bar on Sikhs reaching the most senior 1335 ranks of the army. Many Sikhs believe that they are mistrusted. They resent the propaganda that has depicted the Sikh turban worldwide as a symbol of terrorism.
People living overseas, including British citizens of Sikh origin, find it difficult to visit their families and friends. I hope that the British Government will make representations to the Indian Government to make that easier. I also hope that they will make representations to the Indian Government urging them to allow young Sikhs form the Punjab to study in Britain and other overseas countries. At the moment, they experience great difficulty in obtaining student visas to study here or elsewhere.
If there is uncertainty about the future of the Punjab, there is great anxiety about the future of Kashmir. During my visit to Kashmir, there were many reports of mass protests involving anything up to I million people, with deaths, injuries and many more soldiers being deployed. It is now believed that between 200,000 and 300,000 security forces are deployed in Kashmir, and more are on the way. A permanent curfew has been in place for the past nine weeks.
Many argue that the people of Kashmir should be given a referendum in which they could vote freely and fairly for their future. There appear to be three options—for them to remain part of India, for them to join Pakistan or, the option that has been gaining support, for Kashmir valley to join Azad Kashmir and parts of Jammu, to become a new independent state.
During my visit, a prominent Kashmiri business man who favoured the third option said:
We could become the Switzerland of Asia, with tourism and the careful development of our natural resources. The borders could be guaranteed internationally, safeguarded by the United Nations. A state of 10 million people, we could become a tranquil, prosperous buffer between India and Pakistan.The Indian Government are making a serious mistake by alleging that there are those outside Kashmir and outside India who are instigating violence and disorder in Kashmir. In making those charges, the Indian Government's credibility is seriously undermined so long as they refuse permission to foreigners to visit Kashmir, and so long as they stop the world's media reporting what is happening in Kashmir.I hope that India's new Prime Minister will quickly see the difficulties that his Government will face if they continue that policy. I hope that he will allow visitors and the free reporting of what is happening in Kashmir. I hope that the Indian Government will agree to a request that I made informally today to the Indian high commission for a parliamentary delegation from the House to be allowed to visit Kashmir shortly. I welcome the visit that is to be made to Kashmir next month by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
Some 56 British Members of Parliament, representing all political parties and from all parts of the United Kingdom, have now signed and supported motions on the Order Paper calling for the people of Kashmir to be allowed to determine their own destiny.
At this time in Kashmir, there are severe shortages of food and water. There are drastic evacuations of non-Muslims from Kashmir. The authorities are transferring large numbers of prisoners from Kashmir to the much hotter climate of Rajastan, and there are worrying reports that death squads are being formed and trained. As I said earlier, there are reports of substantial extra troop deployments to Kashmir.
1336 There can be no doubt that what has happened in the Punjab since 1984 scars the reputation of India, the world's largest democracy, and that the popular uprising in Kashmir threatens peace in the region. All true friends of India—we are all well aware of the deep affection and regard that you, Mr. Speaker, have for that country, which is shared by many hon. Members—wish every good fortune to Mr. Singh and his Government in resolving the vexed and dangerous issues that threaten the future of his Government and, more important, the future and well-being of all the people of all religions of India.
I hope that the Minister can say tonight that the Government are anxious to make representations to the Indian Government—especially on my requests for more efforts to facilitate visits by British citizens of Sikh origin to the Punjab, to help young Sikhs to study overseas, to allow foreign nationals to visit Kashmir and to allow the foreign media to report what is happening in Kashmir.
I do not believe that the true friends of India would be unwilling to make such representations, because—as with any 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 community 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, are 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 the warmth of those relations—a 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, are committed to the maintenance and promotion of those values, rights and liberties.
1337 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 our 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 criticise, 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 its great diversity 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. Gentleman will agree, can solve nothing, or through the shooting of reportedly unarmed civilian demonstrators by the security forces.
Our own long-standing 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 Pakistan and Indian Governments. 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.
1338 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. Britian voted in favour of these resolutions, the texts of which represented agreement between India and Pakistan at the time, but much has happened since, not least the 1972 Simla agreement on bilateral relations between India and Pakistan. Under that agreement, both countries agreed
to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed on between them".Both sides also committed themselves toa final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir".Our long-standing 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 alleged human rights violations. The House will have been concerned at learning of the various incidents to which he referred; but I am sure that he will not expect me to comment on them. The fact of his visit is, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree, an encouraging sign of the determination of the Indian Government to find a solution to the current problems, 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 community 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 a minority 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 saw reports of terrorists firing on a bus in the Punjab. In the incident, 10 people were reported to have been shot dead. In the same week, we saw reports of an attack by terrorists who opened fire in a crowded bazaar in Abohar in the south of the 1339 Punjab, in which at least 31 people were left dead. Attempts to pin all responsibility for such outrages on the Indian Government fly in the face of the facts.
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 V. P. 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. Gentleman welcomed that. The new Indian Government 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 went 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 that he will agree that the measures to which I have referred are a step in that important direction.
The Indian Government are determined—as any Government must be—to root out terrorism. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that we support them in their attempts to maintain the unity and integrity of India and in taking the necessary measures to deal with those who use violence as a means of achieving their aims.
1340 The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of points on which he asked me to comment. He referred to encouraging young Sikhs to study in the United Kingdom. We welcome any overseas students from India who have been accepted for a full-time course of study and who can show that they have funds to support themselves here without working.
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 intend to spend just under £1 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 organisation, 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 Government were considering allowing an Amnesty International team to visit the Punjab.
I return to the general subject of the debate—Britain's 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.
§ The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.