😔 Jammu and Kashmir: Human Rights

Westminster Hall

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

In a heated parliamentary debate, MPs passionately discussed the ongoing human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, urging the UK Government to take stronger action. They highlighted issues such as arbitrary detentions, internet shutdowns, and the suppression of journalists and political activists under stringent laws. The Government reaffirmed its stance that India and Pakistan must find a resolution, while committing to raise human rights concerns with both countries. The debate underscored the deep connection and responsibility the UK feels towards the region, with MPs demanding more than just rhetoric and calling for tangible progress within the current term.

Summary

  • The session focused on the UK Government’s support for human rights in Jammu and Kashmir, highlighting ongoing challenges and the need for international attention.

  • Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) initiated the debate, expressing pride in the new Labour Government’s commitment to human rights globally and emphasizing the importance of addressing the situation in Jammu and Kashmir.

  • The region of Jammu and Kashmir is highly militarised, with widespread human rights abuses reported by organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as the United Nations.

  • Concerns were raised about the repression of media and freedom of speech, the use of detention without trial, and the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, which grants legal immunity to security forces.

  • Members of Parliament urged the UK to support UN Security Council resolution 47, which calls for a plebiscite for the people of Jammu and Kashmir to decide their future.

  • There was a call for the UK to raise human rights concerns in trade talks and diplomatic negotiations with India, and to push for the release of journalists and the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.

  • Several MPs highlighted the historical responsibility of the UK in the region and stressed the need for the UK to take a more proactive role in advocating for peace and self-determination.

  • The Minister, Catherine West, stated that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. The UK’s role is to encourage dialogue and monitor human rights.

  • The Minister also mentioned that the UK Government raises human rights concerns directly with the Indian and Pakistani Governments, and that they are reviewing the impact of recent aid reductions on the region.

  • The debate concluded with a call for continued focus on the issue, with the hope that within the current Parliament, progress can be made towards a resolution.

Divisiveness

The disagreement displayed in the transcript of the parliamentary session on Jammu and Kashmir can be rated as moderate, warranting a score of 2. The session largely consisted of Members of Parliament from various parties expressing similar concerns about human rights abuses in the region. The consensus among the speakers was clear: there was a shared desire to see improved conditions and respect for human rights in Jammu and Kashmir. However, there were subtle disagreements mainly regarding the role and actions that the UK should take in addressing the issue.

Several MPs emphasized the UK’s historical responsibility and suggested a more active role in mediation and supporting UN resolutions, such as the plebiscite outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 47. For instance, the Members for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) all called for stronger action and advocacy for self-determination. This represents a viewpoint advocating for a more assertive UK intervention.

On the other hand, the Minister for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West) reiterated the government’s stance that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution, and not for the UK to prescribe solutions or act as a mediator. This stance was challenged by some Members who sought clearer actions and more specific commitments, such as the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asking for progress within the current parliamentary term, the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) questioning the government’s support for UN resolutions on self-determination, and the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) requesting explicit action against sexual violence perpetrated as a tool of oppression.

Despite these differences, the disagreements were expressed in a generally constructive manner and without significant tension or outright contention. The debate focused more on urging the government to take additional steps or to clarify their positions rather than outright opposition to government policy. As such, the level of disagreement can be considered moderate but not intense or highly divisive.