Upload
aditya-vardhan-madabhushani
View
217
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A report on the politics of britain from a dharmic religious perspective.
Citation preview
Britain’s Dharmic Communities
and the General Election 2015
Britain’s Dharmic Communities
and the General Election 2015
Dharmic Ideas & Policy Foundation (DIPF)
Chairman: Prof. Nath Puri
Co-Director: Dr. Gautam Sen
Co-Director: Dr. Prakash Shah
Communications: Mukesh Naker
Council Members
Prof. S. N. Balagangadhara
Sandeep Balakrishnan
Smita Barooah
Dr. Come Carpentier
Dr. Jakob de Roover
Dr. Koenraad Elst
Dr. Manish Pandit
Mr. Rohit Patel
Dr Jasdev Rai
Dr. Yvette Rosser
Sanjeev Sanyal
Dr. Atul Shah
Dr. Rakesh Sinha
Rajiv Varma
Swami Vigyananand
Britain’s Dharmic Communities and the General Election 2015
A report prepared by Prakash Shah, DIPF Co-Director
© Dharmic Ideas & Policy Foundation, September 2015 143 Cavendish Rd, Leicester LE2 7PJ United Kingdom E: [email protected] W: dharmicideas.wordpress.com
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or reproduced in any form or by any
means, now known or hereinafter invented, including photocopying and recording or in any
information, storage or retrieval system, without the permission in writing of the publisher. The views
expressed in this report do not reflect those of any particular individual associated with the DIPF.
Preface
The Dharmic Ideas & Policy Foundation (DIPF) was established in February 2015 to give the Dharmic Community Organisations (i.e. of Indian traditions) and grass roots a steer on key policy matters that impacted on them. GE2015 was an important landmark for the Dharmic community. This report is aimed at the Dharmic communities and the political parties. Dharmic Communities. The work of organisations such as British Hindu Voice (BHV) over the last six plus years is beginning to shift mind-sets as this report shows. Dharmic community organisations for 40+ years confused their role in being non-party political. While this may be the right position for organisations to hold, it also confuses policy discussions, debates and impact assessments as being political. Consequently Dharmic organisations only infrequently had discussions or debates on national or local policy matters at management committee level or membership level. Possibly more than any other factor, this has reduced the number of Dharmic voters at elections to very small percentages. BHV began the process of getting organisations to separate party political issues and policy issues and helped organisations come together on key policy areas such as articulation of a position on the law on caste and helping with the formation of the Anti Caste Legislation Committee and the Coalition for Dialogue. Political Parties. This report provides notice that the Dharmic voter cannot be ignored any longer particularly in a climate of greater plurality among political parties and the greater choice available to the voter. It also aims to provide a better understanding of how the key political parties view and treat the Dharmic communities, what their underlying policies mean, and how this impacts on the Dharmic voter.
Mukesh Naker Communications Officer, DIPF and British Hindu Voice
Contents
The Dharmic Communities and Political Parties 1
Manifestos 6
Constraints on Freedom of Expression and Political Participation 9
Narendra Modi and India 13
Conclusions and Recommendations 16
1
Britain’s Dharmic Communities
and the General Election 2015
The General Election of 7 May 2015 (GE2015) marks a remarkable shift in British politics in
terms of the organisation, political awareness, public demands, and voting patterns of the
Dharmic communities. This report outlines these shifts, examines the possible reasons
thereof, and provides further reflection on the issues that will remain salient to the British
Dharmic voter for the future. For the purposes of this briefing the Dharmic voter is a person
who follows any of the Indian traditions. While there is some research and analysis of how
Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups or Asians in general tend to vote, there is
little available research on how the Dharmic communities have tended to vote or act during
elections. This report is therefore the first to tackle this specific domain.
The Dharmic Communities
and Political Parties
A number of key indicators show the
Dharmic communities’ determination to
reshape their relationship to the realm of
British politics. Until recently, the Dharmic
voter has been taken for granted by the
political parties. The Labour Party has
tended to rest upon the complacent belief
that the Dharmic voter, being of
immigrant background, could be relied on
to support the Labour Party hands down,
in line with that party’s perceived softer
attitude on the rights of immigrants and
minorities. Meanwhile, the Conservative
Party has not taken the time to cultivate
the votes of the Dharmic communities
presumably based on the assumption that
they would vote Labour. While exceptions
to the general rule do exist within all
major parties, and some changes are
already afoot, there will be little dissent
from the general observation that they
have tended to demonstrate a nonchalant
attitude towards the Dharmic voter.
Perhaps all the major parties were
justified in adopting the positions they
did. After all, the historical rate of voting
among Hindus is low and those in the
know point out that only around a quarter
of Hindus eligible to vote actually do so.
Coupled with the fact that the
constituency system makes the courting
of Hindu, Jain and Sikh votes a laborious
affair with doubtful gains, this meant that
the parties had no real incentive to offer
bespoke packages to attract Dharmic
communities (see Figure 1 on London
Hindu voter concentration). Instead, they
had to make do with recycled
platitudinous soundbites to suit the
relevant demographic. The contrast is
often made with the Muslim community
in Britain, which is perceived as highly
politicised and easily persuaded via the
Friday mosque prayer and through other
2
networks to lobby and vote on matters of
importance to Muslims. The Muslim
community has for a decade or longer
developed various means to have its
strength reflected in elections, including
an understanding of which constituencies
it can influence. For their part, MPs and
local politicians often acknowledge the
importance of taking on a cause or issue
because it is treated as important by the
Muslim community at a local, national and
even international level. Similarly,
concerns of the Jewish community are
also aired as seen in the manifesto of the
Board of Deputies of British Jews and
taken up via their extensive networks
within and outside the political domain.
The Christian Churches have many ways of
influencing political decisions that affect
or are of concern to the Christian faithful,
and enjoy an asymmetrical position of
influence because of the constitutional
position of the Anglican Church, and
through the House of Lords, inter-faith
fora and specifically the Hindu-Christian
forum.
The lack of attention given to the Dharmic
communities nevertheless seems counter-
intuitive. While their voting strength may
not be being mobilised as fully as it might
be and they may not fully exploit the
potential to vocalise community specific
concerns, the British Hindu community’s
demographic profile and positive key
indicators should perhaps have resulted in
a different position of political importance
accorded to that community. As Kapil
Dudakia has stated in his blog Kapil’s
Khichadi:
Today the Hindu community is
seen to be well integrated, well
educated, law abiding, hugely
contributing in business, hard
Figure 1 London Hindu voter concentration
Source: http://www.may2015.com/
3
working, professional, diligent,
honest and community spirited.
These are but a few examples of
the many positive attributes that
one may consider when describing
the Hindu community in Britain.
Yet he goes on to articulate the
counterintuitive nature of the lower
political profile of the community:
Participation within the political
arena has not been to the same
extent as one would expect of
such a vibrant and successful
community. In the recent past it
has become increasingly clear that
there is a danger that the political
fraternity might be taking the
Hindu community for granted, or
even worse, ignoring it given it
may not always be as loud as other
minority ethnic or religious groups.
In addition, the hitherto prevailing system
of dominance of British politics by two
large parties is no longer a reality. As the
Hindu Council noted just prior to the
election: “it's no longer just a two-horse
race and the current situation
demonstrates the influence a minority
party can have in a coalition
Government.” Given that the vote of each
community can make a significant
difference, this makes how the Dharmic
voter acts an issue of major significance,
particularly in marginal constituencies.
The difference that courting the broadly
‘ethnic’ vote makes was revealed starkly
in a 2013 study by British Future which
found that in GE2010, although the
Conservatives won the supports of 36% of
voters across the UK, only 16% of those
from ethnic minority backgrounds chose
to vote Conservative. Labour’s profile
among the electorate was markedly
different because it enjoyed 68% support
among non-white voters, but 29% support
among voters as a whole. The same study
showed that if the ethnic minority vote
had reflected the national average,
involving an increase in their vote by some
500,000, the Conservatives would have
won an outright majority and would not
have had to join a coalition with the
Liberal Party.
It has been recognised that the Dharmic
organisations and community have some
way to travel in order to make up for their
lower starting point. Activist groups such
as the Dharma Seva Purva Paksha (DSP)
campaign group, which sought to mobilise
the Dharmic voter during GE2015, have
reported that they had to make a choice.
Rather than tackle the whole range of
issues of concern to the Dharmic voter
they had to mobilise limited resources and
devote them to raising awareness around
a few issues that would affect the Dharmic
voter such as the caste legislation.
4
For GE2015 it has been estimated that in
some marginal constituencies the number
of Dharmic voters did make or could have
made a significant difference to the
outcome to the Conservative Party
winning seats from either the Labour or
Liberal Democratic parties. A study
conducted by British Future after GE2015
shows that, while the Labour Party still did
better among ethnic minorities as a whole
by winning 52% of their vote in contrast to
31% of the national vote, the ‘Asian’ voter
is almost as likely to vote Conservative as
the average British voter. More
dramatically, there was a palpable shift in
the voting pattern in GE2015 towards the
Conservative party among both Hindus
and Sikhs to the extent that a majority of
both groups now vote Conservative (see
Figure 2). In what could signify a major
shift in the British electoral landscape
away from the Labour Party, it has been
noted that the overall ethnic minority
vote for the Conservatives has doubled,
and this can be put down mainly to Hindu
and Sikh voters, since Muslim and
Christian ethnic minorities still prefer to
vote Labour.
Another study conducted by researchers
from YouGov and the University of
Manchester makes less dramatic claims
but shows the same direction of travel as
the one by British Future. Although the
researchers of the YouGov/Manchester
study do not specify the behaviour of
Dharmic voters during GE2015, they do
provide figures for Indian as well as
Pakistani and Bangladeshi voting patterns
from which we can also draw some
conclusions.
Figure 2: Ethnic Minority Vote by Faith Group Source: British Future, General Election 2015 and the Ethnic Minority Vote
5
From these figures (see Figure 3), the
researchers say we can imply a switch by
Indian voters from Labour to
Conservatives of 5.5%. Although most
Indians still appear to vote Labour
according to these figures, fewer voted in
GE2015 for either the Labour or Liberal
parties as compared to those in GE2010,
and more voted for the Conservatives.
Based on the assumption that Hindus,
Sikhs and Jains make up the bulk of the
‘Indian’ population surveyed these figures
also confirm a swing to the Conservatives
among Dharmic voters has taken place.
The vast majority of Pakistanis and
Bangladeshis can be counted as Muslim.
More Pakistanis voted Labour in GE2015
than in GE2010, and the vote switch
largely appears to have been away from
the Liberal Democrats than away from the
Conservatives. Pakistanis therefore
appear to vote Labour far more than
before. Remarkably, Bangladeshi voters
have an implied swing from Labour to
Conservative of 12% while their support
for the Liberal Democrats also dropped
significantly.
2010 2015 2010 2015 2010 2015
Indians Pakistanis Bangladeshis
Conservative 27 35 16 17 15 27
Labour 50 47 59 69 72 60
Lib Dem 19 8 23 5 11 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
F igure 3 : Vot ing Behaviour Change o f Ind ians, Pak istanis And Bangladeshis
G E2010 - G E2015
Conservative Labour Lib Dem
6
Manifestos
The palpable stir taking place within the
Dharmic communities indicates that they
do not want their distinct concerns to be
ignored any longer. They are increasingly
able and willing to articulate their own
positions and to test the parties against
those positions. To some extent, this
already happens behind closed doors by
way of quiet lobbying that is characteristic
of a demographic that does not tend to
shout loudly about every concern. The
recent announcement of a government
consultation, which will include a review
of crematoria for Hindus and Sikhs, is one
recent example of the outcome of
quietist, behind the scenes lobbying by
the Hindu Forum of Britain (HFB) for many
years.
An illustration of how the Dharmic
community has sought to establish its
own identity in the public sphere is the
emergence of dissent against the label
‘Asian’ in media, research and policy
discussions since that label is often felt to
portray statistics and trends negatively
associated with Muslims. On the one
hand, such dissension expresses the fact
that the Dharmic communities have come
to assume an overwhelmingly positive
profile according to key indicators
including marginal involvement in
criminality and recourse to welfare, and
scoring well for participation in
employment or self-employment.
On the other hand, as Hardeep Singh of
the Network of Sikh Organizations has
noted, there is criticism that Muslim
involvement is occluded when negative
behaviour, such as the overwhelming
Muslim male involvement in the abuse of
young vulnerable girls in Rotherham and
other places, is portrayed as a general
attribute of ‘Asians’. Statistics compiled by
the Muslim Council of Britain are clear in
showing that the Muslim profile in
employment, criminality and reliance on
welfare are overwhelmingly negative in
comparative terms.
Recent debate has also questioned the
use of the terms BME (Black and Minority
Ethnic) or BAME (Black, Asian and
Minority Ethnic). If this terminology was
ever useful in capturing the reality of
diversity in the UK, it is of much
diminished importance today. Among
others, academic Emma Dabiri recently
supported a call by Trevor Phillips to end
the use of terms BME and BAME, saying:
“I do not identify with others on the basis
that neither of us is white”. Yet this
message has not gone out to all official
circles, and the Labour Party continues to
use the term BAME to lump together all
non-white people.
The articulation of specific claims by the
Dharmic communities was most clearly
shown by the issuing of Hindu and Sikh
manifestos prior to GE2015. For example,
the Hindu Forum of Britain (HFB) and the
National Council of Hindu Temples (NCHT)
Manifesto for General Election 2015, the
text of which is substantially based on the
one proposed by Kapil Dudakia, received
the support of many other organisations
and individuals. It highlighted the
7
following issues as among those of
concern: the need to repeal the caste
provision in the Equality Act 2010; the
continuance of the programme of Free
Schools (and Faith Schools) so that a
greater diversity of Hindu schools can be
set up; a Bank Holiday dedicated to
Diwali; recognition that Jammu and
Kashmir are an integral part of India and
not an issue of outside interference;
congratulating PM Modi and forging a
closer partnership on issues affecting both
countries; the need to raise concerns at
governmental level about the violations of
Hindu human rights inter alia in Pakistan
and Bangladesh; the need to raise the
issue of cross border terrorism directly
with the Pakistani Government; the
deployment of the full force of law to
investigate and bring to justice the
perpetrators of sexual
grooming; the
denouncing of forced
religious conversions;
and identifying and
repatriating Hindu
artefacts in the UK’s
national treasure.
The UK Hindu Council’s
manifesto echoes the
first one by highlighting
concerns about
grooming and forced
conversions; ending the
caste provision in the Equality Act; the
status of Kashmir and the situation of
Kashmiri Pandits, as well as Hindus in
other countries including Bangladesh,
Pakistan, Malaysia and Afghanistan. In
addition, the Hindu Council’s manifesto
introduced the following themes: support
for planning applications and access to
grant funding for temples; the need to
reverse the compelled serving of meat at
lunchtime given its impact for Hindu or
other schools that wish to adopt a
vegetarian ethos; the need to retain GCSE
and A level qualifications community
languages; support for yoga and ayurveda
as an alternative, drug free, cost effective
treatment, and increased choice for
patients; revision of the widespread use of
the term Asian; encouraging engagement
with the British Hindu community to
ensure Hindu representation at all levels
of politics, public appointments and board
representation; and increasing Hindu
recruitment in the British Armed Forces.
The Sikh Manifesto issued by the Sikh
Network also contains echoes from the
Hindu manifestos as well as setting out
specific Sikh aims. The areas of common
importance include more effective
representation in parliament; action
8
against grooming and forced conversions;
and support for faith schools.
The manifestos provide some indication of
the specific issues that have surfaced for
the Dharmic voter that should be
receiving the attention of political parties
and candidates. Judging by the
proceedings of various pre-election
hustings the stance of most politicians is
that, on the whole, the Dharmic voter is
concerned more or less about the same
issues as everyone else. However, it can
be seen that even among the wider issues
of concern to the general British voter,
specific nuances such as the provision and
recognition of alternative health services
might still have relevance to the Dharmic
voter and deserve greater attention in the
future.
9
Constraints on Freedom of
Expression and Political
Participation
GE2015 demonstrated that there are ways
in which the voices of the Indian
communities are stifled by the
surrounding ethos of rules and other
strictures, which indirectly impose
constraints on Dharmic organisations from
raising concerns that voters should rightly
be engaged with. On the one hand, it is
the organisations which are often at the
coal face, being in key consultative roles
when it concerns policy issues that
government deals with at all levels. On
the other hand, many functionaries within
Dharmic community organisations also
have a belief that they are not entitled to
cross the political/non-political boundary.
Rather than being understood as
refraining from siding with a particular
political party during election time, this
alleged prohibition on crossing the
boundary is generally understood as an
obligation to remain silent on any issue of
political salience no matter what its
impact on its membership or the wider
Dharmic community. These constraints
against Dharmic organisations can work
against issues of concern becoming known
to the Dharmic voter as well as to the
general public, and can result in the
hampering of the Dharmic voter from
being effectively engaged with the
political process. These issues impinge on
and shape active participation in the
political process and need to be seriously
reconsidered.
A particular issue of concern that arose
during the election campaign was the
attempt to squash the involvement of
some Hindu bodies in expressing the
concerns of the wider Dharmic
community. A specific campaign was
launched against the National Council of
Hindu Temples whose General Secretary,
Satish Sharma, issued a letter dated 3 May
2015 outlining the position of the
Conservative, Labour, and Liberal parties
on the caste issue (see appendix). It
specified the stance taken by the
leaderships of the parties, or inferred the
position of the leaderships from the
undenounced statements or actions of
their MPs, in supporting or not the as yet
unimplemented caste clause in the
Equality Act 2010. The letter effectively
highlighted that while the Labour and
Liberal Democratic parties had supported
the caste clause without taking the
concerns the Dharmic communities
seriously, the Conservative party had
maintained a stance of openness to
discussion about the clause. The letter
carried the following paragraph, which
provoked unease especially among
members of the Labour Party:
This is NOT a recommendation for
members of the Dharmic
communities to vote for a
particular Party but it would be
unfair not to recognise that the
Conservative Party is the only
principal party which has rejected
the process whereby this
legislation was forced thru, the
Conservative Party is the only
10
party which has consistently
listened to us and voted against
this legislation and whose
members are committed to
repealing the Caste amendment if
re-elected.
The letter then urges British Hindus that
they must vote and “should re-consider
their habitual allegiances” and compare
the past ideal with the present reality. The
letter specifically says that it is not
recommending a particular political party
to vote for during GE2015, while at the
same time laying out part of the record
and position of the different parties on
the caste clause.
However, journalist and writer, Sunny
Hundal, who is also a Labour activist,
considered that the letter warranted
reporting to the Charity Commission,
which then began an investigation on the
NCHT. Although the Charity commission
eventually exonerated the NCHT, the
threat of investigation has had a real
impact in the minds of some Hindu
organisations and activists who began to
worry that their ability and duty to
safeguard the interests of their members
on key policy impacts could be curtailed.
Another incident also involving the
campaign against the caste legislation
occurred in the bitterly contested Harrow
East constituency. A flyer (see appendix),
distributed to voters in the constituency
by the Dharma Seva Purva Paksha (DSP)
campaign and media organisation, also
challenged the Labour and Lib Dem
prospective candidates, Uma Kumaran
and Ross Barlow, on the basis that their
parties had supported the caste legislation
in 2013. Although Kumaran condemned
the flyer as “gutter politics”, the
Conservative candidate, Bob Blackman,
who successfully defended his seat in the
constituency, was reported as having said
that the flyer did not have anything to do
with him. He also noted, “You should see
some of the leaflets going out about me
by Muslim organisations”, adding that he
had complained to police about an
anonymous leaflet from “Muslim
extremists”.
Among other things, the coverage given to
the campaign leaflets on caste in the
Harrow East constituency reflects how the
Dharmic community has to overcome an
additional burden of proof, given that, as
with the political process, the emphasis in
the media has also been that caste
discrimination should be made unlawful,
while the concerns of the Dharmic
community have been ignored altogether.
The presumption of the unreasonableness
and immaturity of the Dharmic voter
comes across loudly from the incidents
recounted. If she or he takes a stand
against something of vital concern for the
future of their community in the UK, it is
not regarded as legitimate and extraneous
concerns are thrown in to muddy the
waters and put the Dharmic voter on the
defensive.
At around the time of GE2015, the case
concerning corruption in the 2014 London
Borough of Tower Hamlets mayoral
election was also being litigated. While
the concerns of the applicants in that case
about inappropriate methods being
11
employed to secure the mayoral election
are understandable, it is also of concern
that the High Court’s judgment extends
the notion of undue influence involving
the threat of spiritual injury contrary to
section 115 of the Representation of
People Act 1983. The original version of
that section had been introduced during
the nineteenth century on suspicion that
the Catholic Church would seek to affect
the outcome of elections in the southern
counties of Ireland. That legislation was
issued during a period of British
colonialism in Ireland, and the court did
take notice of the fact that since 1900
allegations about such corruption were
hardly raised.
It should then be disconcerting that rather
than consigning that section of the
legislation to history, the High Court’s
judgment specifically endorsed its current
relevance and then proceeded to apply it.
The same judgment refers to a fifty-one
page letter by some Anglican bishops
which became known as a pamphlet for
the Labour Party as being “harmless”. This
kind of difference of treatment between
the Anglican and minority faiths and
traditions smacks of a legally sanctioned
double standard and should be of further
concern to the Dharmic voter.
Section 115 is an unwieldy provision
couched in Protestant theological
assumptions. However, it is quite possible
that charges could be levied against a
Dharmic organisation should it pronounce
on a particular issue of importance, like
the caste legislation, during an election
campaign. Precisely this question was
raised in an article
by Giles Fraser in
The Guardian in
which he referred to
a pre-election letter
by Trupti Patel,
president of the
HFB. In that letter,
as part of her
perceived duty “to
carry the hopes and
aspirations of
thousands of Hindu
families in the UK”,
she had noted that
only the
Conservative Party
would end the caste
clause. However, Fraser goes further and
suggests double standards because
actions by Imams in the Tower Hamlets
case led to legal action while Trupti Patel’s
12
letter did not. Fraser is wrong however in
assuming that Islam and the Dharmic
traditions are entities of the same kind
and that in not having proceeded against
the HFB there was some kind of
unfairness to Muslims. After all, unlike in
Islam the deference to their doctrinal
religious authority of the type imams may
elicit is simply irrelevant to Hindus and to
organizations like the HFB, which play a
completely different role. As Trupti Patel’s
letter specifically indicated, she merely
tried to reflect the ”hopes and
aspirations” of the Hindu families, and not
to exercise some religious authority or
leadership. Not realising that the HFB is
not a charity, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
weighed in, suggesting unfairness to
Muslims because the Charity Commission
had not announced an investigation of the
HFB!
Even if there may not yet be an instance
of prosecution against Dharmic bodies, it
is not beyond the range of possibility that
such charges could arise for reasons of
political rivalry, just as the move to initiate
the Charity Commission investigation
against the NCHT was pushed by a Labour
Party activist, as well the threats made
against the HFB. The hostile political
climate generated in part by the threats of
investigations against Dharmic charity
organisations or the prospect of
prosecution against Dharmic bodies raise
serious matters of the freedom of speech,
expression, political participation, and
association.
13
Narendra Modi and India
Prime Minister Modi has survived many
an attack on his reputation since 2002
when he became Chief Minister of the
Indian state of Gujarat, which is also the
place of origin of a large section of the
Hindus and Jains in the UK. British officials
had also been instructed since the 2002
riots not to deal directly with Mr Modi. In
2003, an application was filed for an arrest
warrant for Mr Modi, under section 134 of
the Criminal Justice Act 1988, following
allegations of torture. The request for a
warrant was dismissed by a judge because
of the lack of evidence produced by those
petitioning for the warrant.
Mr Modi suffered other humiliations at
the hands of Labour governments. Like
many left-wingers members of the Labour
Party have consistently expressed an anti-
India and anti-Modi stance. Another part
of the campaign against him took the
form of visa denials in the UK and, since
2005, in the United States. In 2007, an
early day motion (EDM) on the killing of
Muslims in Gujarat was primarily
supported by Labour and Liberal
Democrat MPs. Those signing up to the
EDM, which makes no mention of
murdered Hindus, applauded “the recent
decision of the United States not to grant
a visa to the Gujarat Chief Minister
Narendra Modi for severe violations of
religious freedoms.”
In 2010 the Conservative-Liberal
Democrat coalition government began to
lift the boycott against Mr Modi with the
announcement that the then High
Commissioner to
India would be going
to Gujarat, which was
already known for
being a flagship state
for attracting foreign
direct investment.
Matters took a
dramatic turn after
the 16 May 2014
election in India
which resulted in a
resounding victory
for the BJP and the
NDA coalition of
which it forms the
major part, with Mr
Modi becoming Prime Minister of India.
David Cameron congratulated Modi on his
election victory, inviting him to visit the
UK. The visit by Mr Modi was somewhat
delayed as a result of the GE2015 in the
14
UK but is now due to take place in
November 2015.
While the Conservative government has
made it clear that it welcomes Mr Modi,
the stance of the other parties has been
ambivalent. The Labour Party in particular
has a history of hostility against Mr Modi,
and as Kapil Dudakia argues, this must
partly be motivated by its reliance on
votes from the UK’s Muslim electorate.
The new Labour Party leader Jeremy
Corbyn has played a significant role in
shaping policy against Mr Modi being
welcomed in the UK. The Labour party
carries a huge burden of having taken a
stand against the leader of the largest
democracy in the world. While a minority
in that party do favour a softer, more
nuanced and welcoming stance towards
the BJP and Mr Modi, they appear to be
insignificant in the larger scheme of things
within the party.
As the British government began to court
Mr Modi from 2012, elements within the
Labour and Respect parties continued to
insist on embargoing him. An EDM of 17
December 2012 sponsored by George
Galloway demanded that Modi not be
allowed to visit Britain and that the British
High Commissioner in India sever relations
with him. The EDM’s co-sponsors were
three Labour MPs, all with significant
Muslim voters in their constituencies.
Another EDM tabled on 4 September 2013
sponsored by six Labour and Respect
party MPs, took a similar stand. One of its
co-sponsors was Jeremy Corbyn.
As concerns broader policy towards India,
the Hindu manifestos referred to above
suggest that Labour Party members,
without demur from the Labour
leadership, and indeed outright refusal to
answer specific questions put to the
leadership, have meanwhile advocated a
referendum in Kashmir. That amounts to
an interference in India’s internal affairs
and a concession to Pakistani jihadist
pressure which has resulted in massive
human rights violations against non-
Muslim Kashmiris, including their forced
expulsion from Kashmir. Support for a
referendum effectively endorses the
human rights violations carried out by
Pakistan-sponsored jihadists. Yet this
appears to be the current stand of the
Labour Party.
The caste legislation mentioned above,
which received much support from the
Labour and Liberal Democrat benches in
parliament, is also ultimately conceived of
as backing the efforts of Church-led
proselytism and conversions in India.
Implicit in such support is the idea that
Dharmic traditions are false religions and
no longer worth preserving. It is widely
known that figures for the UK’s Dalit
population were picked out of thin air to
justify the caste legislation, with a
constant ratcheting up of the number.
While Lord Avebury cited a figure
between 50,000 and 200,000, Jeremy
Corbyn was not to be outdone when citing
a figure of 1 million Dalits as present in
the UK. Bearing in mind that the Dharmic
population amounts to some 1.3 million at
the last Census, this figure for Dalits is
staggering. Given these and other strands
of its poor record of policy towards India,
15
it is difficult to imagine how the Labour
Party could convince the Dharmic voter
that it remains in their interest to back it
in future.
Meanwhile, the Conservative Party was
the only one that had considered the role
of India as a global player in their GE2015
election manifesto. They were the only
party that made pledges to support India’s
bid for permanent membership of the UN
Security Council and to initiate a free
trade deal between the EU and India.
16
Conclusions and
Recommendations
The Dharmic voter has become a
significant political player in
contemporary Britain.
The major parties still have some way
to go to realise the potential that the
Dharmic voter offers to their prospects
of success.
The manifestos issued by the Dharmic
organisations are one reflection of a
changed political consciousness
among Dharmic voters.
The specific needs and demands of the
Dharmic voter deserve greater
attention in the future.
Political party policies should be
designed to reflect the needs and
demands of the Dharmic voter for the
sake of fairness, equity and symmetry
among the electorate.
The demographic profile of the
Dharmic community is
overwhelmingly positive and political
parties need to ensure they earn the
dividends that result from this.
Recent trends, and especially the
voting pattern in GE2015, confirm that
there is a turn towards the
Conservative Party among Dharmic
voters and this is a trend that no party
can ignore.
Dharmic organisations need to be able
to have their say and be involved in
political processes.
There is concern about the ways in
which political expression can be
frustrated by the use of malicious or
politically motivated allegations about
breaches of the law.
Threats of investigation and
prosecution can silence the Dharmic
voter’s engagement in the political
process and affects their freedom of
speech, expression, political
participation and association.
British governments led by the Labour
Party have initiated moves to boycott
the current Prime Minister of India,
Narendra Modi, since his time as Chief
Minister of Gujarat.
Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn,
has supported motions in parliament
to reinstate Mr Modi’s diplomatic
boycott and visa denial by the UK.
Labour’s current policy on Mr Modi
has yet to be ascertained.
Labour and Liberal Democratic party
members have supported anti-India
policies including support for the caste
legislation for Christian proselytism in
India and an effective end to the
Dharmic traditions regarded as false
religions by evangelical churches.
Without demur from its leadership,
Labour Party members have
supported a referendum in Jammu
and Kashmir effectively endorsing the
results of jihadist cleansing of non-
Muslims from the territory.
Not all political parties have
formulated policies that see a positive
India-UK relationship as a benefit to
both countries and the Dharmic
communities in the UK
Dharmic Ideas & Policy Foundation
Chairman: Prof. Nath Puri | Co-Director: Dr. Gautam Sen | Co-Director: Dr. Prakash Shah
Communications: Mukesh Naker
143 Cavendish Rd, Leicester. LE2 7PJ United Kingdom
E: [email protected] W: dharmicideas.wordpress.com
Council Members
Dr. Come Carpentier | Dr. Jakob de Roover | Dr Jasdev Rai | Dr. Koenraad Elst | Dr.
Manish Pandit | Rajiv Varma | Dr. Rakesh Sinha | Mr. Rohit Patel | Prof. S. N.
Balagangadhara | Sandeep Balakrishnan | Sanjeev Sanyal
Smita Barooah | Swami Vigyananand | Dr. Yvette Rosser | Dr. Atul Shah