In House of Commons British MPs voice concern at India suppressing freedom and peaceful protests

Winding up a debate by House of Commons MPs on India on Monday, the Minister for Asia in the British Foreign Officer Nigel Adams disclosed his prime minister, Boris Johnson, will raise human rights issues with Narendra Modi when he visits India later in spring. Adams said: “Where we have serious and specific concerns, we will raise them directly with the Indian government.” He concluded: “Let me end by reassuring colleagues that the UK government will continue to monitor developments relating to the protests incredibly close.”

Earlier he disclosed: “We have requested that (human right body) Amnesty’s (bank) accounts (in India) be unfrozen while the investigation (against it) is ongoing, and in our contacts with the Government of India we have noted the important role in a democracy of organisations such as Amnesty.”

The hybrid debate (with a majority of participants appearing via video link) in Westminster Hall of the Houses of Parliament was on “press freedoms and safety of protestors in India”. This arose by virtue of a public e-petition on the treatment of agricultural stake-holders camped on the outskirts of Delhi and of journalists covering the agitation with an independent mind-set. If such a petition attracts 100,000 signatures, then it becomes incumbent on the Commons to debate the issue. In this case more than 115,000 endorsed the move within days of it being initiated by a west London Liberal Democrat local councillor Gurcharan Singh.

In the most overwhelming indictment of India by British parliamentarians in living memory, 19 out of 20 speakers either severely criticised or expressed reservation about the BJP regime. In these situations, a government minister mostly refrains from tabling concern about a friendly country – which Whitehall considers India to be. Yet Adams departed from protocol to do so.

Of course, the opposition Labour party’s shadow foreign secretary Stephen Kinnock didn’t mince words. “Mr Modi needs to recognise that the world is watching and that what happens in India resonates here in our country,” he asserted. “He must recognise his responsibility, in line with international law, to keep the Sikh community safe and confident in India’s law enforcement.”

He emphasised: “We are deeply concerned about reports of live ammunition being used by the police.” He demanded: “Will the minister confirm that the Prime Minister will take this opportunity (at the G7 summit in Cornwall in June) to stress to Modi the need for India to adhere to the high standards that are expected within the international community, particularly with regard to universal human rights and the rule of law?”

Brendan O’Hara of the Scottish National Party felt “the UK government have called out the Indian government”. He nevertheless underlined: “We add our voice to those in the international community and domestic organisations calling for the Indian government immediately to stop their crackdown on the protestors, the farmers’ leaders and journalists.”

Only Theresa Villiers of the ruling Conservative party, a former minister of state, came to India’s rescue. In a speech parroting the Indian High Commission’s propaganda sheet, she stated: “India is a country where respect for the rule of law and human rights is constitutionally protected and embedded in society. The authorities’ approach to the protests should not shake our faith in that central truth.”

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi maintained: “It will not be lost on anybody that the UK Tory government, in their desperation to get a trade deal, are failing spectacularly to stand up for the human rights of the protestors.” Interrupting Kinnock, he brought up “the farcical manner in which some Indian actors and cricketers copy-pasted the official government line (on the farmers’ agitation) on their social media accounts”.

Layla Moran, foreign affairs spokesperson of the Liberal Democrats, asked if the British foreign secretary could say “what assessment has been made of whether the new farmers’ laws in India are in breach of Article 9 of the international treaty on plant genetic resources on food and agriculture?”

Virendra Sharma, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for India, normally a safe bet for the Indian mission, could not help but deviate from his track record of stout defence of New Delhi. His Sikh dominated constituency of Ealing Southall had thrown up the highest number of signatories to the petition.

“The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of democracy and a right that thousands of Indian farmers are using today,” he remarked. He called on the Adams to “commit to helping that cause (of an agreement between the Indian government and the farmers) by offering British skills in negotiation and compromise to help both sides bring the issue to a close”.

Seema Malhotra, another lawmaker more often than not sympathetic to India, pointed out: “The Indian government have said that they will preserve the minimum support price, but there is not yet a legislative base for that… Experience in other countries has suggested that, rather than improving farmers’ incomes, corporatisation has depressed them.” She also intervened with a reference to “right-wing groups” (code for Hindu extremists) holding car rallies in Sikh dominated areas in the UK a fortnight ago to divide the Indian origin community.

The big guns included Jeremy Corbyn, until a year ago Labour leader. He highlighted “the nature of the way in which the protestors – the strikers – have been attacked in Delhi is unprecedented, as have been the reaction of the Indian government to the way in which the media have responded”.

Nadia Whittome alleged: “Our home secretary (Priti Patel) is an active supporter of the BJP.”

Bob Blackman a Conservative MP, who generally goaded by his Gujarati constituency stands up for Modi, was missing in action.

Predictably a contingent of three Pakistan extraction MPs were among the contributors, with their barrage of biased and premeditated India-bashing. But by and large the lawmakers explained they were voicing their grievance because they were friends of India, though not necessarily of the present Indian dispensation.

Sam Tarry, who, too, represents a significant number of Sikh voters, signed off with the words: “The world is watching. Bole so nihal, sat sri akal.”