Baroness D’Souza Sparks Debate on Indian Democracy in the House of Lords
The following piece is from our UK Organizer, Rajiv Sinha.
On Friday, 2nd February Pragna Patel, Raju Bhatt, Sunita Viswanath, and I had dinner at a Sri Lankan restaurant in King’s Cross, London. Our cofounder Sunita was in town for her second visit to Hindus for Human Rights UK. Pragna and Raju are veteran campaigners with decorated careers. We’re very grateful and proud to have their friendship and support.
Over dinner Pragna was filling us in on her latest work. She mentioned someone she had been working with, then an idea emerged. I have been intent on accelerating HfHR UK’s parliamentary advocacy, so this idea was perfectly timed.
From left to right: Pragna, Raju, Sunita, and Rajiv.
Ten days later Pragna told me that her connection, Baroness Frances D’Souza, had agreed to help us by submitting a question to the ballot for discussion in the House of Lords on the human rights situation in India. Baroness D’Souza is a “crossbencher” – House of Lords language for someone with no political party affiliation. This was exciting, but there was no guarantee that the question would be drawn from the ballot. Additionally, the ballot has a cut-off point, meaning that if the question were not picked a certain number of times, it would have been dropped. There was a lot of uncertainty, but we prepared nonetheless.
The Baroness asked for a brief on the state of human rights in India so she could get more acquainted with the subject she was raising. This recognisably formed the basis of her comments in the Chamber. We had to get this brief sent over quickly in case the question got accepted for the coming Thursday.
I scrambled to put together this document in one day. Luckily I had an extensive roadmap to follow from the US team of HfHR, as I always do. Thanks in particular to Pranay and Ria – the speedy turnover wouldn’t have been possible without them. They had a document from a few years ago that was a great foundation – I just had to update it to contain more recent cases and to be UK- rather than US-focussed.
After delivering the brief to the Baroness, we got the really exciting news that the Baroness’ question had been drawn from the ballot! It was scheduled for the House of Lords session starting at 11am on Thursday, 14th March under the title “Reported threats to democratic freedoms in India”. This was a few weeks later, so my scramble turned out to be unnecessary. But we couldn’t have known that in advance; we had to be ready. Now I could relax and focus on promoting the event. The heavy lifting was now with the Baroness.
Yesterday I woke up with nervous excitement. I assumed that the House of Lords stream would be live, then potentially made available in full later. So I was expecting to have to screengrab Baroness D’Souza’s question. Luckily, the site actually has its own cut and download tool to email you recordings of sessions, which made capturing the debate very easy.
It was thrilling to hear Baroness D’Souza’s name called out in the Chamber. Time for the question. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) – the government representative appointed to this question – began the official response by reaffirming the British administration’s commitment to ‘standing up for democracy and defending human rights around the world’. He went on to say that they ‘discuss all elements of [their] relationship with India, including concerns where [they] have them’.
Baroness D’Souza begins questioning the British government on human rights in India.
Baroness D’Souza pushed back against Lord Ahmad’s response, citing ‘the BJP policy of Hindu nationalism, increasingly invading press freedom, political opposition, and civil society space. For example, the use of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act [UAPA], sedition law, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act [CAA], and the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act [FCRA] all hint at an electoral autocracy in the world’s largest nominal democracy. There appears to be a departure from India’s secular constitution and its underlying democratic principles.’
The subsequent, eleven-minute discussion brought in contributions from several peers (members of the House of Lords). This in itself is something of a success – there’s no guarantee that anyone else will contribute, it could have been a rudimentary question and response. I’m also pleased that we had involvement from people across the political spectrum. Lord Singh of Wimbledon (crossbench) brought up the fact that ‘last year the Canadian government expelled Indian diplomats for their involvement in the murder of a Canadian Sikh. This was followed by an attempt by the Indian government in America to assassinate an American Sikh. In this country the death of a Sikh in suspicious circumstances in Birmingham led Westminster police to warn prominent Sikhs of a possible threat to their lives at the hands of Indian agents. Prime Minister Modi, shown in a BBC documentary as having a responsibility for the Gujarat riots in which thousands of Muslims were killed, [has now executed] a citizenship law that will disadvantage thousands of Muslims in a so-called secular state. Is the government not being a little hypocritical in not voicing its criticism of Hindus’ abuse of human rights in the same strident terms as it reserves for Russia and non-Commonwealth countries?’
Other contributors included Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour), Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat), The Earl of Leicester (Conservative), Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative), and Lord Alton of Liverpool (crossbench). The topics they raised were: India-United Kingdom trade negotiations and the free trade agreement (FTA), religiously motivated acts of violence against Christians, the democratic process, communal violence and sectarianism, the crisis in Manipur, and caste. Lord Alton closed the discussion, highlighting the condition of India’s ‘166 million Dalits, who continue to be discriminated against. And does [Lord Ahmad] raise with the Indian government the wonderful Indian constitution crafted by a Dalit, Dr Ambedkar, which guarantees those rights and the work of people like Dr. Brian Grim which shows how freedom of religion or beliefs leads to prosperity, stability, and harmony?’
This is a wonderful platform upon which to build. We did lots of promotion in advance of the event, both through community emails and social media. We will continue to do so going forward to keep the pressure on our politicians and build advocacy.
For one thing, Baroness D’Souza kindly said that she would speak to the people that asked the supplementary questions that kept the debate going. Off the back of this, we will build a pool of interested peers, with whom we hope to continue parliamentary efforts on this topic, such as by tabling a further, more substantive debate in the House of Lords. It’s also important to note, as was pointed out to me by Raul Lai who has much more experience with Parliament, that the more weighty work tends to happen behind closed doors. Therefore, the exposure gained from this event helps both to develop the conversations that take place less visibly, as well as to promote the issue of human rights in India to the wider public.
We are extremely grateful that the Baroness agreed to do this and for the discussion in the chamber that she sparked. And we are extremely grateful to Pragna, without whom this would not have happened.
HfHR UK is currently at a major turning point in our advocacy work following the Parliamentary comment. We must take advantage of the buzz created by the recent Parliamentary debate to continue our advocacy. We kindly ask you to donate to Hindus for Human Rights to support this cause. Any amount helps; whether it's £5 or £50, your donation helps us work towards a fairer, more democratic, and more inclusive India.
Watch the full parliamentary debate below: