I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Jammu and Kashmir. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Dr Allin-Khan.

I am very pleased to have secured this important debate on the Government’s support for human rights in Jammu and Kashmir, and I would like to thank parliamentary colleagues who have joined me to contribute to the debate.

The complex issues faced in the region were last debated here back in 2021, so it is vital that we have this opportunity to highlight the challenges faced by those living in Jammu and Kashmir.

I am proud that we now have a Labour Government who have returned the UK to its rightful place on the world stage, advocating and working for the protection of human rights across the globe.

I therefore welcome the opportunity to ask the Minister about that work and how it relates to the now union territories of Jammu and Kashmir.

When our TV screens are sadly filled with images of conflict from around the world, other international issues often fail to get the exposure they perhaps should, and I see part of my role as a Member of Parliament as being to highlight areas of international concern that we should not neglect to bring attention to as we continue to support our international partners in reaching a just solution.

Let us not forget that this troubled region is one of the most militarised places in the world, and ordinary Kashmiris have lived through decades of conflict and widespread abuse at the hands of state and non-state actors.

The population of Kashmir remains divided between three countries, and though it is welcome that elections have now been held after a 10-year hiatus, the Indian authorities have failed as yet to provide a timeline for fully restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood.

After years of delay, I applaud Jammu and Kashmir for partaking in the democratic process, despite, I am sure, feeling alienated and disempowered after decades of impasse.

I want to acknowledge the large Kashmiri diaspora here in Britain, including in Hyndburn and Haslingden, and their aspirations for a just settlement.

As the Minister will know, human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as the United Nations, continue to highlight human rights concerns such as the repression of the media and freedom of speech in Jammu and Kashmir and the widespread use of detention before trial.

I do agree—that is very important—and I will get to that shortly. Human Rights Watch has stated that the Indian Government have not fully restored freedom of speech and association since the revocation of article 370 of the constitution in Jammu and Kashmir.

It said in its July 2024 report: “The Indian security forces continue to carry out repressive policies including arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings, and other serious abuses.

” Many of these violations are enabled by legislation such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act 1990 and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978, which obstruct the normal course of law, impede accountability and jeopardise the right to remedy for victims of human rights violations.

My hon. Friend’s constituents and mine will recognise well the title of Amnesty International’s report: “Five years of silence and struggle in Kashmir”.

Does she agree we are making it very clear that this Government and the MPs present today will not allow that to be the case for human rights in Kashmir?

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called.

Order. As so many Members wish to speak, I suggest that we stick to four-minute speeches where possible, please.

I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate and for her persuasive and articulate speech. I also thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain).

Britain has long been a beacon of justice—a nation that has stood as the gold standard for the rule of law, a pillar of fairness to which the world looked in times of darkness.

Our legal system has been revered globally and trusted so profoundly that even international contracts choose English courts as the final arbiters of truth.

That is the legacy that we inherited, a legacy of unwavering integrity and of standing for what is right, no matter the cost, but I fear that that legacy has been somehow slipping in these times. In recent years, we have seen the principles that once defined us compromised by political expediency.

The fair and equal application of justice has been tarnished by the weight of economic interests, and our moral compass has wavered in the face of convenience. How can we claim to champion human rights when we turn a blind eye to atrocities that violate the very essence of international law?

Kashmir, a region bound by United Nations Security Council resolutions, has been abandoned to decades of suffering.

The people of Kashmir endure a brutal occupation, with their voices silenced and their rights stripped away, while we—the nation that helped shape modern international law—remain silent.

In Gaza, civilians are caught in an unrelenting cycle of violence and despair, yet our actions remain hesitant and inconsistent. Contrast this with our swift and justified response to Russian aggression! Why do we pick and choose when to stand for justice?

Why do we let economic interests decide who is held accountable and who is ignored? This is not the Britain that we aspire to be. If we are to reclaim our moral authority and restore our standing as the defender of justice, we must hold all violators of international law to the same standard.

That means taking a stance even when it is difficult. It means considering sanctions against nations such as India for the ongoing abuses in Kashmir.

It means standing resolute, not for profit or political gain, but for the fundamental human rights of every individual, no matter where they live or who they are. Justice must not be selective. Human rights are not negotiable. Let us be the nation that places international law above all else.

I ask the Minister: given the United Nations Security Council resolutions that have been ignored, what sanctions will this Government now impose to remain consistent in our legal and moral obligations?

I call Tahir Ali.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have been promoted!

Order. I remind hon. Members that because so many want to speak in this important debate, we need to stick to four-minute speeches and keep interventions to a minimum.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate.

This is a personal issue for my constituents and for me, as my great-grandparents come from Jammu and Kashmir, which is now occupied by India. The United Kingdom has a historic responsibility for this issue: it was during the British Raj when the statehoods of India and Pakistan were created.

The principality of Kashmir was predominantly a Muslim area and, from the beginning, there were problems regarding who would run it.

In 1948, the Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, went to the UN and asked for UN Security Council resolution 47, which guaranteed that all Kashmiris had the right to choose their future through a democratic vote. That still has not happened 76 years later.

Instead, a very right-wing Hindutva-led Prime Minister, Mr Modi—Hindutva is the concept that India is for Hindus first—is in power. Since his Government have been in power, things have got worse for the people of Kashmir.

One of the first things the Indian Government did, in 2019, was revoke article 370, meaning the situation has gone from bad to worse. The revocation of that article, and some others, split occupied Kashmir into three different areas.

The revocations have also allowed people who are not from Kashmir to settle there. Thousands of acres of land have been grabbed, apparently for development purposes. Yet the rule in Kashmir is that Kashmiris should be able to settle there.

This is a deliberate ploy to change the demographics on the ground so that if ever there was a plebiscite, Kashmir would probably be kept with India. Apart from that, there have been human rights abuses such as pellet guns being aimed at children.

There was a 500-day period when there was no internet for the entire area. People have been arrested and incarcerated without due process under the law if they are critical of the Indian Government.

India is supposed to be the largest democracy in the world—we are told—yet in Kashmir the Assembly has been dissolved. People in Kashmir have no right to vote.

The Prime Minister has recently done great work on Ukraine; I ask him and our Foreign Office to get involved in this issue, stop treating it as a bilateral issue—it is not—and for once ensure that the people of Kashmir have the right to decide their destiny as to where they want to be.

As so many people have already said, we talk about human rights and we talk about the rule of law; it is about time that people in Kashmir were given their human rights, and one of the fundamental human rights is the right of self-determination.

I echo the comments of my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour about Majid Khan and Amjid Wazir. Many of my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent North have deep ties with Kashmir. Does my hon.

Friend agree that the work that Majid Khan, Amjid Wazir and others do locally to raise awareness of the terrible ongoing human rights violations is incredibly important? Too often, there is not enough understanding among our wider constituents of the ongoing human rights violations.

I of course agree with my hon. Friend. I am of course aware that we are speaking during the holy month of Ramadan. This is a time of deep reflection when it is very apt that we discuss the need for peace and resolution.

It is, of course, the role of India and Pakistan to seek a diplomatic and political resolution and an end to the human rights abuses, and so find a sustainable peace and self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but I ask the British Government to take an active role in mediation.

Crucially, the negotiations must include the voices of the Kashmiri people and, in acknowledgment of International Women’s Day next week, they must include the voices of women.

Academics, human rights organisations and the UN rightly point out that it is often women who are frequently the most severely affected emotionally, physically and economically.

Of greatest concern is the use of sexual violence and rape, which is so often used as an instrument of war in any conflict. This has been used to intimidate and silence women and communities.

The fear instilled in women means that their day-to-day existence, safety, security and mobility are curtailed. Enhanced security protocols and militarisation have an enormous negative impact on the lives of women, even reducing their access to education and, crucially, healthcare.

Conflict results in the loss of husbands, either by extrajudicial killings or imprisonment, which often means women have to work to support their families. We need to support the economic empowerment of women as well as their physical security in Jammu and Kashmir.

For peace to be secured and for resolution to be reached, the voices of women must be heard in the dialogues and mediation in respect of the Kashmiri conflict.

I urge the Minister, in the light of our global reputation for mediation, to do all that can be done to help to secure peace, democracy and self-determination in Jammu and Kashmir for all Kashmiri people—men women and children.

I thank the Minister for replying in such detail to the points made, and I fully accept that she and the Government are raising the article 370 suspension with India.

Is she able to tell the House what the Indian response was, or share some detail of the importance with which India took that intervention from the United Kingdom?

The point is that this is a frequent agenda item. Without wanting to go into private discussions, the fact is this: constituents raise the matter with Members, and we then relay that message. That is as transparent as we can possibly be.

As ever in foreign policy, it is almost impossible to control the response of our interlocutors. I also responded to yesterday’s urgent question in the House; if I could control my interlocutor’s response, I would be in heaven.

Many Members raised the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and the Public Safety Act. The UK Government encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws are in line with international standards.

Any allegations of human rights abuses must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently. My hon.

Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), for Sheffield Central, and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) talked about communications restrictions and the worrying situation for journalists. It is wonderful to have a journalist, my hon.

Friend the Member for Rochdale, in the House making such effective interventions through speeches, with such heart for his community.

Is there a role for the special envoy in relation to religious discrimination and abuse in the region? If so, we all believe that there is no better person than the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) to do that job.

Of course. The work of envoys and the work of the United Nations is very important for providing us with data and up-to-date analysis, but the Foreign Office also has a role in visiting the region. The way our heads of mission are able to go into those parts is really wonderful.

Some Members mentioned a journey that UK Members of Parliament made some years ago. Their entrance was blocked because some areas are simply too difficult to enter; they are too violent and not safe enough.

We have our own teams—envoys, United Nations teams and our own staff—that are able to give us up-to-date guidance. I want to touch briefly on freedom of religion or belief, because the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raises it regularly and the right hon.

Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) spoke about its importance. I want to reassure them that when I visited Delhi, I met Hindu, Christian, Sikh and Muslim communities to hear about the different traditions in the region.

We had a very impressive visit, which made a huge impression on me, to the Jama Masjid, one of the most ancient religious sites in Delhi.

I thank the Minister for her graciousness in letting me intervene a second time. The Ahmadiyya Muslims are suffering persecution simply because they are of a different kind of the Muslim religion. Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss with them the persecution that they are enduring?

The hon. Gentleman refers to the Ahmadiyya, but that is mainly an issue in other parts of the region. With his permission, I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), to write to him with more detail.

To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, the UK Government are aware of reports of the detention of a number of journalists.

We are clear about the importance of respect for human rights, and continue to call for any remaining restrictions to be lifted as soon as possible, and for any remaining political detainees to be released. My hon.

Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) raised the UN plebiscite. It has been the long-standing position of successive UK Governments that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution on Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator.

On that point, can the Minister confirm whether adherence to human rights and international law will be included as conditions within any trade agreements with India?

rose—

rose—

rose—

I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North first.

I thank the Minister for her diligent response to the debate. Is it reasonable for my constituents to hope that, within the next four and a half years—a single Parliament of this Labour Government—things will have progressed, rather than being simply being rehearsed and repeated?

Her response has been sincere, but do the Government have a clear objective to move things forward and move the dial on this long-standing issue?

I thank the Minister for being so generous with her time. I want to pick up on her point about it not being for the UK to prescribe a solution.

I entirely understand why that is the position that she and previous Governments have had, but in 1948 there were eight votes in favour of the special resolution of the Security Council. The USSR abstained.

The UK was one of the countries that voted in favour of that resolution, which said a plebiscite should happen.

Does the UK no longer support the position that we adopted in ’48—I appreciate that that was a long time ago—or do we think that, although it is a potential solution, we do not necessarily want to push it?

Our position is that it is for the two countries to take charge of the overall situation, while obviously listening to the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

I have a follow-up point. As it stands, the position under international law is very clear; there is a United Nations resolution that gives the birthright of self-determination to the Kashmiris. Do the UK Government support that position? That is the question.

A wish and a prayer is one thing, but to resolve this will definitely come down to the two partners and listening to the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We are here to support and to monitor human rights, but as has been clear in the debate, we cannot prescribe, take charge or dictate terms.

Can I at least ask that, in any interactions with the Indian Government, Ministers push for the prosecution of men who use rape and sexual violence as tools of oppression? They are not being prosecuted at the moment.

My hon. Friend makes a very important point—it is International Women’s Day on Saturday.

Regardless of where those awful crimes happen, we will always take violence against women and girls extremely seriously—it is one of the Foreign Secretary’s priorities—and raise it with whichever Government have it happening in their area.

Thank you for your patience in chairing the debate, Dr Allin-Khan; I think we will come back to this topic. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Jammu and Kashmir.