§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
§ 10 pm
§ Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington)I wish to bring to the attention of the House the continuing persecution of the Sikhs living in their homeland, the Punjab—an issue that I have brought before the House on three previous occasions in the 12 years that I have been a Member of Parliament.
I noticed that nearly 30 hon. and right hon. Members were in the Chamber to listen to a debate about Bosnia, in which British people are not really interested because it is not of direct concern. We now have a debate—at least, a statement—about the position in a Commonwealth country, and the 30 people who were in the Chamber at 10 o'clock have almost all left. I find that surprising and disappointing.
Sikhs in my constituency and throughout the world are worried for relatives and friends who continue to live in that part of India. The rape of young women, the beating of old men and the murder of young boys, together with the imprisonment without trial of thousands of innocent people, have been taking place for more than a decade and continue to this day.
Living in fear is part of everyday existence in Punjab. The freedom that we take for granted in Britain does not exist in that part of India.
Recent evidence obtained from police files shows that bodies of police suspects murdered in police custody have been cremated as "unclaimed" and that that practice has continued since 1984. The documents that I have with me were given by or bought from police authorities in the Punjab. They list names of people relating to the bodies that have been cremated; yet the Indian authorities denied the existence of such records.
The Indian Express carried a front-page story in its edition of 3 February 1995, in which it said that, during the three years 1991–93, the Punjab police dumped about 426 bodies for cremation as "unclaimed" on the Patti Municipal Committee. In many cases, the relatives had not been informed even though the bodies had been identified.
In the same region last year, another 17 "unclaimed" bodies were sent by the police for cremation. Why cremation? Because burnt bodies cannot be examined later for evidence of torture or other abuse.
Police sources have disclosed that, although some of those so-called "missing persons" may have died as a result of torture while in police custody, others may have been eliminated because they had some evidence of police brutality—in other words, they had witnessed what was going on, and they had to be put away together with those who were murdered as suspects.
A local human rights group brought that position to the attention of the Indian high court, but its action was dismissed on the grounds that only relatives of murdered individuals could be party to any litigation. That approach is a bit like telling the relatives of Kuwaitis who disappeared during the occupation of Kuwait to apply to the Iraqi high court in Baghdad for an inquiry to be held into their disappearance.
652 Investigations into allegations of police torture are rare and, even when such allegations have been established, prosecutions have not taken place. According to recent reports by Amnesty International, there is no evidence of a police officer having been convicted of human rights violations in Punjab. That says it all about the so-called free and democratic nature of that place and the police reaction to law and order.
The British Parliament has refused to condemn the behaviour of the Indian Government, no matter how well documented the facts are. The Government refuse, supposedly because India is a powerful Commonwealth country. Indeed, India refers to itself as the "largest democracy in the world". Perhaps the phrase the "largest hypocrisy" is more appropriate; it is one that I use frequently to describe that Government and that country. The Labour party, with its close links with the Congress party and the Gandhi family, prefers to say nothing at all—I suppose that that is par for the course for that party.
Abuses elsewhere, such as in Bosnia and in parts of the Soviet Union, have led to condemnation by our Government. Why have the Indian Government escaped Britain's wrath? If the Indian Government have nothing to hide, what are they attempting to cover up? Why will they not grant me a visa to enter the country? I reiterate my offer to the Indian Government; if my Sikh friends are telling me lies, I will condemn them outright upon my return from Punjab; on the other hand, if the Indian Government have been misleading the rest of the world, I will shout the facts from the rooftops upon my return to Britain.
With such a reasonable offer available, perhaps the Government and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will seek to persuade the Indian Government to grant me a visa. I sincerely hope that they will. As the elected representative of some 8,000 Sikhs, I believe that it is important that I see the position for myself. I hope that, with the help of the Foreign Office, I shall gain access to that country.
Recognition of the rights of Sikhs who are living in Punjab is all that Sikhs elsewhere want. That means the right to press for self-determination and to strengthen the call for an independent Kalistan. Sikhs cannot understand how Britain, which is their mother country in some ways, can take such determined action against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and yet stand by and do nothing about human rights abuses in India. They wonder why they are treated differently, but they are also aware that Punjab is not an oil-rich region. Our Government give the impression that they are being selective in their opposition to human rights abuses. If that impression is to change, our Government must condemn outright the behaviour of the Indian Government.
There should be no aid programme to India, particularly because aid is now tied to good human rights practices. If that is the case, how can we give a penny to the Indian Government which use and abuse the Punjabi people in their own country? If that has no effect, I believe that our Government should break off all diplomatic ties with India. Perhaps the "curry club" lunches between hon. Members in the House and the people who represent the Indian Government should also come to an end. There can be no appeasement of a Government who treat one of their ethnic minority groups in that way.
653 We are now celebrating the end of the second world war—a war that was fought to preserve freedom of expression, freedom from tyranny and freedom of self-determination. In Punjab there is no freedom of expression, only its restriction. In Punjab there is no freedom from tyranny, only the fear of tyranny. In Punjab there is no freedom of self-determination, only the ability to whisper the word "Kalistan", because to do otherwise would put lives at risk.
For Sikhs in Punjab, we should read Muslims in Kashmir. Who is causing their suffering? It is none other than the Indian Government. The Sikhs in Punjab and the Muslims in Kashmir turn to us for help. They believe in the democratic principles upon which our Parliament is based. How much longer must they suffer and how many more excuses will be found to justify ignoring their pleas?
As I said earlier, this is the fourth time that I have raised the issue on the Floor of the House of Commons. I suspect that, for the fourth time, my hon. Friend will read a Foreign Office brief and that no further action will be taken. I suspect that there will be no effort to help me to secure a visa to visit India. I suspect that the Government will not raise the issue of human rights with the Indian Government and that they will not consider doing away with the aid programme because of the abuse of human rights in India. I shall probably hear—with great respect to my hon. Friend—platitudes and no firm decisions.
There are about 300,000 Sikhs in this country. The 8,000 Sikhs in my constituency will want to know how Parliament can spend hours talking about Bosnia—which is of no concern to this country in any shape or form; the Balkans were never part of the Commonwealth—yet can debate this very important issue for half an hour four times in 12 years. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has many Sikhs in his constituency, so I now give way to him to say whatever he wants to say.
§ 10.8 pm
§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) for raising this very important subject. As he said, many thousands of Sikhs live in Gravesend and Northfleet in my constituency. They are very concerned about their families and friends who remain in Punjab and many hundreds of my Sikh constituents travel to Punjab every year to visit them. They find the situation there to be extremely insecure.
In this country we take it for granted that human rights will always be preserved, and that if difficulties arise for ourselves and our families, in extremis we can turn to the police for help. Those are freedoms and rights not easily available to residents in Punjab. Not only are their families vulnerable to the depredations of the police but, if things go wrong and they are the victims of extortion or violence of any sort, they cannot have recourse to the police authorities, as should be their right.
What remains in Punjab is an extreme uneasiness for the individual, especially as there has been no proper investigation of the considerable number of cases of people who have disappeared over the years. Families throughout Punjab—and therefore, by extension, families in this country—have seen their members disappear. Justice does not ensue.
654 I know of a case of a constituent who—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)Order. As I understand it, this is an intervention.
§ Mr. ArnoldI am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I thought my hon. Friend had finished: now I am not sure whether he has.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerNo, I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) say that he would give way.
§ Mr. DicksI am quite willing to allow my hon. Friend to finish what he has to say before I resume, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Let us have a little order here. First, I hope that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has the Minister's permission too. This is not something that can just be done off the cuff, on the spur of the moment. Does the hon. Member have the Minister's permission?
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry)I am perfectly content for my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham to intervene, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerHas the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington finished his speech?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerIn that case, the hon. Member for Gravesham may speak.
§ Mr. ArnoldI am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for clarifying the situation, because I thought that I was making a speech supporting my hon. Friend's admirable speech in his Adjournment debate.
I was saying that many of my constituents are concerned about the lack of follow-up to the disappearances that have occurred in Punjab, especially when young men from their extended families have disappeared. For instance, there was a ghastly case of a young man disappearing and all the stories were that he was being held in prison in a police station. The family was eventually advised that the young man had died in custody, yet only a few weeks later he was clearly seen at the window of the prison. When the case was pursued with the prison authorities and the place was eventually checked out, the young man had disappeared yet again.
With my Latin American experience, I know about the concerns about those who have disappeared in Argentina. In the last decade of the 20th century such dreadful things are still happening.
It is especially relevant to raise the matter in the House of Commons, because until 1947 the House was responsible for the conduct of affairs in India. In some ways the agreement made by Mountbatten with the successor authorities, especially Nehru and the Congress party, for the creation of India led to the current position. The great Sikh leaders of the day took at his word and at face value the promises that Mr. Nehru made them concerning the autonomy and the governance of greater Punjab, as it then was—promises that he subsequently broke.
655 As a result of the haste with which we left India and of the lack of care taken at the time to ensure that the legitimate rights of the Sikhs were sustained, we have a responsibility.
The debate is especially relevant this week, because over the past weekend we have celebrated Victory in Europe day. While I was doing so in my borough of Gravesham, I met an elderly Sikh visiting from India, who told me how he had served as a sergeant-major with the British forces in Italy as part of the imperial Indian army under the Raj.
We owe a debt of gratitude to those people. We owe it to them to speak up for human rights in Punjab, so that they can live in peace in the land of their forefathers.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry)My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is and has been a robust champion of those of his Sikh constituents and others who have continuing concerns about the welfare of Sikhs in Punjab. I sincerely hope that the Indian authorities grant him a visa to travel to India. I cannot see that they have anything to lose by ensuring that everyone has access to see for themselves the situation in Punjab and elsewhere.
It is clearly an issue that raises broad concern in the House, as has been evidenced by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and the presence with me on the Front Bench of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), both of whom take a close interest in the welfare of the Sikh community here in the United Kingdom and overseas.
One reason why a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister is standing at the Dispatch Box answering on matters which are clearly the internal interest of another sovereign state is that large numbers of our fellow countrymen and women are Sikhs, who understandably take a close personal interest in the welfare and well-being of Sikhs throughout the world. The second reason for Ministers to become involved in the matter is human rights. Concern for human rights knows no national borders.
We take human rights issues extremely seriously. Serious abuses of human rights, wherever they may occur, such as summary execution, arbitrary imprisonment and torture, all deserve and will attract the condemnation of the House and the British Government. Hon. Members can rest assured that we shall continue to press for the strongest support for human rights throughout the world. Whenever we meet Ministers from countries where there are concerns about human rights violations, we draw attention to those concerns.
We should, however, be wary of absolutes, and of seeing things entirely in black and white. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is a long-standing critic of the Government of India over many years. As he made clear, he has introduced a number of Adjournment debates on the matter, and his criticism of the Government of India has been sustained. That is matter for him. Clearly, my hon. Friend has not sought to temper his criticism in light of the guidance of "Erskine May" that
opprobrious reflections must not be cast in debate on sovereigns and rulers over, or governments of, independent Commonwealth territories or countries in amity with Her Majesty.".656 I am sure that it is understood by all who have taken a close interest in the matter over many years that, given his strong views on the matter, my hon. Friend has only "opprobrious reflections" for the Government of India. I appreciate that nothing is likely to deter him from his personal views on the matter.Just as I promised to reflect carefully on everything that my hon. Friend said, so I ask my hon. Friend and the House to reflect whether the issues are quite as stark as he set out.
Until two years ago, the situation in the Punjab was unsatisfactory and unstable. There was widespread violence, with several thousand people being killed every year. We were concerned about the nature and level of human rights abuses there. Ministers, including my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, discussed those concerns with the Indian Government on numerous occasions.
We emphasised to the Indian Government the need to respect human rights and the rule of law in confronting terrorism, and the importance of bringing those responsible for any wrongdoing to justice. We continue to make those points, not just in relation to Punjab. Concerns for human rights are a regular element in our discussions with the Indian Government at all levels.
At the same time, we have consistently condemned terrorism, which can offer no solution to the problems of Punjab or anywhere else. Atrocities committed by terrorists are as unacceptable as human rights abuses committed by security forces. It must be remembered that the Indian Government faced a serious challenge from terrorist violence in Punjab. In 1991 alone, it resulted in more than 5,000 deaths, including terrorist attacks on trains and buses, which were held up and innocent passengers gunned down and murdered.
We have always acknowledged and supported the right of the Indian Government to defend India against terrorist activities, and their responsibility to protect their citizens from terrorism.
§ Mr. DicksWill my hon. Friend confirm that the figures he quoted came from Indian Government sources?
§ Mr. BaldryWe have a high commission in India, which closely monitors reports of deaths in papers and from contacts and sources throughout India. I do not think that there is any doubt about the range and scale of the number of deaths that took place in 1991.
It is important to see developments in Punjab in perspective. There has been considerable progress since earlier Adjournment debates initiated by my hon. Friend. The situation now bears little resemblance to that of two years ago. The security situation has been transformed. There have been virtually no terrorist incidents this year, and terrorist activity has been severely curtailed, even if the potential for it has not been completely removed.
A key element in that new climate has been the creation of the Indian National Human Rights Commission. The Indian Government deserve credit for that. Although still a comparatively fledgling organisation, it has made an encouraging start in terms of casework and policy. The commission visited Punjab in April last year. Its report stated that there was
near unanimity that terrorism has been containedand awidespread feeling that life in urban and rural areas has largely returned to normal".657 The report concluded that changes in the situation on the ground should pave the way to normalising the role and function of the police, and re-establishing district magistrates' authority over them. That has since proved to be the case.The newly established National Human Rights Commission has also challenged the constitutional validity of the controversial Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act—TADA. That was first introduced in 1985 to deal with the exceptional situation in Punjab, but it is in force throughout India. The central Government have recognised the need to prevent the abuse of that legislation. The Indian Home Minister told Parliament last year that he had asked all Chief Ministers to review TADA cases and to ensure that there was no suggestion of innocent people being harassed by the local authorities.
The Home Ministry has also reminded state governments that TADA was enacted to deal with terrorism, and was not to be used for political purposes. TADA cases are now kept under review by a high-level committee chaired by the Home Minister. He has said that he intends to visit the capital of every state in the union where people are detained under TADA, to ensure that those powers are not being abused.
Of course, it must be in the interests of India and all those concerned for India that all possible objective mechanisms are available to investigate and deal with any complaints of human rights abuses. That is why we have to continue to urge the Government of India to allow greater access by the International Committee of the Red Cross and Amnesty International to areas such as Punjab.
We have consistently encouraged the Indian authorities to allow international human rights groups and other international observers to visit areas where human rights abuses have taken place. Amnesty International visited Bombay last year. I understand that it is discussing further visits with the Indian Government. I hope that those will include a visit to Punjab.
Just as important as the improvements in promoting human rights is the fact that the democratic process is now fully operational, right down to grass roots level. Participation in elections has risen steadily during the past three years. State elections were held on 19 February 1992. The Congress (I) party won 12 of the 13 seats, but the turnout was only 28 per cent., reflecting a boycott by the Akali Dal parties. The first municipal elections in 13 years were held on 6 September 1992, just seven months later, and there voter turn-out increased dramatically, to 71 per cent. The largest number of seats went to independent candidates.
The move towards the restoration of political normality was further confirmed by the rural elections in 1993. Just under a year after the state elections, voter turnout was an emphatic 82 per cent. Since January 1993, there has been a further parliamentary by-election in May 1993; and again in September 1994, block and district level elections were held for the first time in 19 years. That is impressive evidence both of the Indian Government's determination to restore the democratic process to Punjab at all levels, and the desire of the people of Punjab fully to participate in their own governance, as evidenced by the involvement of the Akali Dal parties.
Those figures provide a clear indication that the majority in Punjab have rejected violence. Other figures confirm it. The number of monthly deaths has shown a 658 clear and steady decline. Violence has reduced significantly and consistently since 1993. From several thousand deaths in 1992, there were only 394 in 1993, and less than 100 last year. That improving trend is continuing into 1995. So far this year, I am glad to say that there have been no deaths as a result of militant activity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned Khalistan. We are aware of calls by some Sikh groups for a separate state of Khalistan, but it has to be remembered that not all Sikhs want to see the break-up of India. India is a democracy. To be credible, calls for a separate state should be debated within the constitutional and democratic means available for that purpose. The Indian Government have the right to seek to uphold the territorial integrity of India.
There is other evidence of Punjab's return to stability. The process of law is reasserting itself after years of acquiescence in the face of intimidation, and the courts have intervened on behalf of a number of detainees via habeas corpus proceedings. Economic life has also largely returned to normal. Punjab is traditionally India's most prosperous state. Once again, industrial and agricultural endeavour is flourishing, factories are resuming production, and people are going about their business without hindrance.
§ Mr. DicksIf all those things are happening, as my hon. Friend says, because terrorism has reduced, why is police brutality still in the ascendancy? As I understand it, there are no signs whatever of such brutality easing. If terrorism is easing—I am delighted that it is, because I share my hon. Friend's view that it has no part to play—why is police brutality not following the same pattern?
§ Mr. BaldryI am not quite sure on what basis my hon. Friend makes his allegations. Clearly, if there are allegations of police brutality, such matters would need to be progressed through the courts in India. It is quite clear that the courts are not slow to take action where they think that it is appropriate. Action may also be taken through the mechanism of the new National Human Rights Commission.
As I shall make clear in a moment, the state of Punjab is also contemplating introducing its own local human rights commission. So there is no lack of willingness on the part of India in general, or Punjab in particular, to ensure that any violations of human rights are examined fully and in detail.
The media also have a part to play. The attention of the press and the wider media is no longer monopolised by terrorism, and they are returning to their usual functions, and subjecting the Government's conduct to close scrutiny. Coverage of issues such as corruption, unemployment, price rises, power shortages, and, indeed, human rights issues, has resumed.
Of course much still needs to be done in Punjab, but the clear trend is towards the re-establishment of the rule of law and respect for human rights. The Chief Minister of Punjab has agreed to give favourable consideration to establishing a state human rights commission under the terms of the Indian Human Rights Act 1993.
The national context is also important. The treatment of detainees by law enforcement authorities remains a problem in India, but there has been a definitive change in the Indian Government's attitude towards human rights. 659 They are taking seriously the international concerns expressed—by ourselves among others—over India's human rights record. They have done more than take note: they have taken action.
As I said earlier, much remains to be done in Punjab, but the trend is encouraging. India is a democratic state. Its people are subject to the rule of law—a principle to which this country contributed significantly. Remedies against abuse of human rights or personal liberties are available within the Indian legal system. The new National Human Rights Commission shows signs of acting as a watchdog against unchecked abuse.
The Indian authorities will need to remain vigilant, as will the friends of India, for the sake of the people of Punjab and India's reputation abroad. The first helpful steps have been taken, however, and we must jointly ensure that we continue along the right road.
I referred to the Sikh community in this country. I should like to end with an important consideration. Of 800,000 people of Indian origin who have made their home in Great Britain, the Sikhs are the largest group, totaling more than 660 300,000 people. They have made a valued contribution to many areas of our national life. They are inventive, industrious and energetic. It is entirely fitting that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington should express their concerns—as have other hon. Members—and seek to promote their legitimate interests.
There is a wider perspective. The Sikhs are part of the larger community of Indian origin in Britain. That community as a whole, as we can say from experience in so many of our constituencies, makes a significant and increasingly important contribution, not only to the life of this country, but to our broader relationship with India. They are one of the foundations on which that relationship so solidly rests.
We must press the case of any individual part of this edifice in a way which does not damage the whole. It is vital, therefore, to maintain this twin perspective. The need to argue—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.