Accessed: Sunday 11/12/11
The following are direct excerpts from Hansard (Parliamentary Archive)
1)
Link:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2000/jan/19/pakistan#S5LV0608P0_20000119_HOL_96
Subject: Pakistan
HL Deb 19 January 2000 vol 608 cc1119-62 1119
3.7 p.m.
Lord Weatherill rose to call attention to the situation in Pakistan; and to move for Papers.
Lord Nazir:
Kashmir will remain a dangerous flashpoint until a just and equitable solution has been found. It has already been the cause of two wars between India and Pakistan and the cause of some 25,000 deaths. Unless one has been to Pakistan it is difficult to appreciate how passionately this is felt.
We have both an interest and, I believe, a responsibility because the matter was not fully addressed in 1947 when the Maharaja of Kashmir (a Hindu) opted to remain independent rather than—at that time—join India or Pakistan. We should bear in mind that most of his subjects were Muslims. It may be that the Maharaja was right and that the only solution is an independent Kashmir with its boundaries guaranteed by the international community. However, that is a matter for another day.
Lord Desai:
I do not want to go into the question of Kashmir or south Asia. As the noble Lord correctly said, that is for another day. If I start speaking on that, not just nine minutes, but nine hours will not be enough. I want only to say this: Kashmir is not just part of south Asian politics; it is part of British politics. It is our problem and not just south Asia's problem. Many, many citizens of this country are deeply concerned, and they have different views on it. There is no single agreed line on Kashmir. Even historical facts can be disputed again and again. It is very important that Her Majesty's Government keep an eye on this problem and do anything they can to help solve the burning problems in south Asia.
Viscount Waverley:
Finally, there is Kashmir. Pakistan's internationalisation and Islamisation of Kashmir is undermining Pakistan's interests and the Kashmiris' demand for self-determination. While the Kashmiris have a case to be answered, realistically, territorial integrity safeguards will never make for an acceptable solution to Pakistan and Muslim Kashmiris. I regret that the new regime in Pakistan has seemingly prioritised Kashmir, for two reasons. First, a large amount of essential internal state reorganisation must be implemented; and, secondly, an atmosphere conducive to successful negotiations with India will never be achieved by continued saber-rattling—this not withstanding the new nuclear threat, fanned by a hard-line Pakistan military and a Hindu fundamentalist Indian government. There has indeed been uncertainty as to who controls Pakistan's nuclear capability.
It is worth noting that the large majority of Pakistanis living in Britain are in fact of Kashmiri origin. This has enormous significance and, not surprisingly, even certain Ministers in the United Kingdom are deemed to have a jaundiced view of Islamabad as many of their constituents come from what is known as Azad or free Kashmir. Indeed, 31 new Labour constituencies are influenced by Kasmiri Pakistanis.
I have just one question for the Minister. Given the recent Lahore Declaration, affirmed by the June G8 communiqué of which the UK played a part and is a signatory, both accords acknowledging through the Simla Agreement that the Kashmir issue is to be resolved bilaterally between Pakistan and India, and given that the UN resolution, of which the UK was also a signatory, gave the Kashmiris the right to self-determination, will the Minister say today whether the Government support the successive accords or the UN resolution? The two are contradictory and therefore misleading and complicate a resolution.
Lord Ahmed:
I have listened with great interest to the speeches and should like to discuss a few of the concerns that have been addressed. The first issue is the imminent visit to the Indian sub-continent by the Foreign Minister, Keith Vaz, who is responsible for visa sections abroad. I understand that he will be visiting India and Bangladesh. However, unfortunately, he will not be visiting Pakistan. I express my concern about this matter, on behalf of over half a million British Pakistani Kashmiris and British businesses. The biggest problem in the world relating to entry clearance visas is in Islamabad. To alleviate these problems it is imperative that Mr Vaz visits Islamabad; otherwise, individuals and businesses from the British Pakistani Kashmiri community will be at a loss.
....
On the issue of relations with India, General Musharraf has made positive moves; for example, he unilaterally implemented a military de-escalation on Pakistan's international borders with India. Pakistan would welcome unconditional, equitable and result-oriented dialogue with India to resolve all issues; especially the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir. It is imperative that we put pressure on India. The United Nations resolutions on Kashmir are valid. No bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan can supersede the United Nations resolutions, because the United Nations is the supreme legal body.
I accept that Pakistan is currently not a democracy. However, that should not prevent the implementation of the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir. Furthermore, India is not the great democracy it pretends to be. It has 700,000 soldiers committing gross human rights violations in Kashmir. India's Interior Minister, L. K. Advani, pursues fascist policies: he was responsible for the destruction and demolition of the Babri mosque and the slaughter of 2,000 innocent civilians. He continuously threatens to take Azad Kashmir, a beautiful heaven on earth where I was born.
Baroness Williams of Crosby:
I conclude by asking the Government whether there is any truth in today's report in the Pakistan newspaper, Jang, that China has said that she will not allow any harm to come to Pakistan's security and national integrity, that she will not remain silent if Pakistan is made the target of aggression, but, perhaps more important, that she is willing to meet whatever defence needs Pakistan might have and, furthermore, that she reiterates Pakistan's position on Kashmir. I make no judgment about what China is alleged to have said. I state only that if that is true, as the Pakistani newspaper suggests, then we are into a much more dangerous period in the world's history than most of us would have believed even a week ago. Perhaps the Government can throw some light on that. Perhaps they can tell us what urgent steps they are taking to try to obtain the international community's support for a new attempt to resolve some of the terrible, long-lasting and increasingly dangerous problems of Kashmir.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal:
We have urged General Musharraf to renounce the option of military aggression over Kashmir and to make early moves towards reducing tensions with India. We have also asked that Pakistan co-operate fully with international efforts to combat the scourge of terrorism. We remain deeply concerned about Kashmir, both as a potential flashpoint and for the sake of the Kashmiri people. Our position is well known: we call for India and Pakistan to reach a just and lasting settlement that reflects the views of the Kashmiri people and offers them the best hope of peace and security. We have reiterated our calls for Pakistan and India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and address the root causes of the differences between them.
2)
Link:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2000/apr/06/terrorism-bill#S5LV0611P0_20000406_HOL_91
Subject:
Terrorism Bill
HL Deb 06 April 2000 vol 611 cc1427-90 1427
3.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton)
Lord Ahmed:
For example, I am a Kashmiri-born British citizen. I support the right of self-determination for the Kashmiri people. Many Members of Parliament and noble Lords attend public meetings and fund-raising dinners and make speeches against abuses of human rights in Kashmir. If this Bill is passed, shall I break the law in future when I support the Kashmiri people or their right to self-determination and the implementation of UN resolutions on Kashmir?
....
Already British Kashmiris feel that their voices have been silenced in the interests of commercial gains in India. Let us not restrict our rights to support genuine struggles to achieve the right of self-determination and democracy. I support the Government's aim of preventing terrorism. However, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will respond in his comments tonight and in Committee to some of the concerns that I have expressed.
Lord Desai:
There are other areas much closer to British life, but because of the south Asian diaspora we have people here who feel very strongly about Kashmir and Sri Lanka. Although the government of India are a democratic liberal government, there are genuine differences among the Kashmiris about its legitimacy. We really ought to think very carefully about not having too broad a definition of terrorism and, whatever definition we use, we should not extend it too broadly to here, there and everywhere. If we do that, we will certainly be creating an injustice. I do not know whether we shall fall foul of the European Court but I do feel that we shall be creating an injustice.
Lord Bassam of Brighton:
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, struck an interesting and valuable note when he said that we must do our best with the definition. That is very sound and good advice. This afternoon we have had many examples of people who claim that they might be caught by the new definition of terrorism in the Bill. Indeed, a wide-ranging expression of concern has been voiced about the definition. The noble Lords, Lord Cope, Lord Rogan, and Lord Goodhart, the noble Baronesses, Lady Park and Lady Miller, together with my noble friends Lord Desai and Lord Ahmed, all raised concerns in different ways, as did other noble Lords. But this much needs to be said. Our intention is not to catch a latter-day Mandela, a Green activist, a GM-crop protestor or peace protestors or, indeed, those in support of the Kashmiri cause, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ahmed. Similarly, as the Guardian put it, it is not our intention to catch "Swampy" or a Mrs Pankhurst in our embrace under this definition.
3)
Link:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2002/nov/05/pakistan#S5LV0640P 0_20021105_HOL_7
Subject:
Pakistan
HL Deb 05 November 2002 vol 640 cc557-9 557
2.41 p.m.
Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they recognise the newly elected Government of Pakistan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos):
My Lords, the British Government recognise states not governments. We have welcomed the holding of multi-party elections in Pakistan. The elections are an important milestone in Pakistan's ongoing transition to democracy. The next crucial step is the transfer of power to the new national assembly and establishing parliament's role. We will continue to watch this process closely and are committed to remaining engaged with the Government of Pakistan throughout their transition.
Lord Ahmed:
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her kind reply. Will she agree that democratically elected governments are good for the rights of their electorate, and for peace, stability and regional development? Will Her Majesty's Government encourage the governments of India and Pakistan to start dialogue to resolve the issue of Kashmir in accordance with the will of the people so that they can have a free, fair and impartial plebiscite to decide their future?
Baroness Amos:
My Lords, it is absolutely clear that democracy is good for south Asia. In particular, we welcomed the announcement of the Indian and Pakistani governments to withdraw their forces from their international border. We hope that both sides will take further steps to de-escalate tensions and that this will lead to a resumption of dialogue between India and Pakistan, because only dialogue can lead to a lasting solution of the Kashmiri issue.
Baroness Williams of Crosby:
My Lords, I commend the Minister on her reply. It is very welcome to see some steps to de-escalate what has been a very troubling position. Given that we very much commend the Government of Pakistan on the help they have 558 extended with regard to Al'Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan, what steps are they taking to close down training camps on their territory on the other side of the line of control, from which there is a steady infiltration of terrorists into India?
Baroness Amos:
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that we have welcomed the steps that President Musharraf has taken so far to clamp down on terrorist and extremist groups in Pakistan. We shall urge him to continue in that vital task. We have made clear that the international community will expect Pakistan to take firm action against any terrorists seeking to use that country as a safe haven.
4)
Link:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1999/may/27/kashmir#S5LV0601P0_19990527_HOL_47
Subject:
Kashmir
HL Deb 27 May 1999 vol 601 cc1042-4 1042
11.25 a.m.
Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as a permanent member of the Security Council, they will ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to report on the shelling by India and Pakistan across the cease-fire line in Kashmir.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean):
My Lords, we have no plans to ask the Secretary-General to report on the shelling across the line of control in Kashmir. As a friend of both India and Pakistan, we continue to urge both countries to work together, in the spirit of their talks in Lahore in February, to resolve the issues between them, including Kashmir. We have raised our 1043 concerns about the recent fighting with the Indian and Pakistani governments and will continue to follow developments closely.
Lord Avebury:
My Lords, has the noble Baroness noted the concern expressed by the UN Secretary-General about the use of jet aircraft and helicopters in the military action across the line of control, which I believe is unprecedented in peacetime? Will the Security Council at least discuss this crisis so as to obtain an immediate cease-fire and, preferably, ensure that the report of the UN observers, who are on this cease-fire line, is published so that the responsibility for the military action which has developed over the past few weeks can be identified?
Further, would the Government also be able to suggest in a resolution to the Security Council that the artillery units, which are kept by both sides adjacent to the line of control, be withdrawn to a distance of at least 20 kilometres from that line? Should we not also suggest that a representative of the Secretary-General visit Islamabad and New Delhi at the invitation of those governments to see what further steps the UN can take, in pursuance of its peace-keeping function, to ensure that the conflict is brought to a quick end?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
My Lords, the noble Lord has put forward these suggestions before; indeed, he was kind enough to share them with us in a debate that we had on the issue on 20th April. However, any offers of help in this situation, whether they come from the UN or from the friends of both countries who wish to help, must be acceptable to both countries if they are to stand any chance whatever of success. I am bound to point out to the noble Lord that his suggestions certainly strike Her Majesty's Government as being unlikely to find favour with either India or Pakistan. Her Majesty's Government are focusing on encouraging both sides not to escalate the military action, while seeking to find new ways of reducing the tensions and continuing the dialogues that both prime ministers began in February and which, I believe, received general support from the House when we discussed the matter on 20th April.
Lord Ahmed:
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that since the recent air strikes with MI17 helicopter gunships backed by MiG fighters, aircraft from the Indian Air Force have caused more than 10,000 people from Dras and Kargil to leave the area and go to Ladakh because they have nowhere to go? Is she also aware that last year, when violations of the line of control took place, over 50,000 people moved from that line because of the continuous shelling from both sides? As a consequence, the people who suffer are the Kashmiri people. Does my noble friend agree with me that the showing of excessive force would lead to a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan and that only by resolving the issue of Kashmir, in accordance with United Nations resolutions, will this dispute be settled?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are, of course, well aware of 1044 the extremely worrying situation that is developing in Kashmir. I hope it will help if I give a little more detail of what we understand to be the position on the ground. Several hundred Kashmiri militants have crossed the line of control into India-held Kashmir. They are holding ground there to a depth of several kilometres and appear to be digging in. The area is mountainous and some of the militants' positions are located at about 17,000 feet above sea level. As my noble friend has pointed out, the Indians have responded by deploying a division of troops in the area and by carrying out air strikes. The fighting marks a worrying escalation in the conflict around the line of control.
It is important for everyone involved in this situation to act with as cool a head as possible. Accordingly, we have instructed our acting High Commissioner in Pakistan and our High Commissioner in New Delhi to urge their host governments to do everything that they can to calm the situation, to reduce the risk of escalation and to reiterate their commitment to seeking a peaceful solution to their bilateral problems. We made these points yesterday to the Pakistan High Commissioner in London.
Baroness Rawlings:
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Minister agrees the impetus for a just and lasting solution to the longstanding dispute over Kashmir must come from India and Pakistan themselves. Does the Minister consider that our influence in seeking to prevent the escalation of this most recent conflict by urging both India and Pakistan to resolve their differences and defuse the growing tensions in Kashmir through dialogue was in any way influenced by the Foreign Secretary's trip to the region in 1997 and the comments attributed to him at the time?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
No, my Lords, I do not believe that. As the noble Baroness knows, and as your Lordships discussed on 20th April, this tension over Kashmir has resulted in a conflict which has lasted for over 50 years. Sometimes the conflict worsens and sometimes it is in abeyance. The fact is that both India and Pakistan are well aware that we are ready to help if we are asked. However, we recognise that any offer of help, whether it comes from the United Kingdom, the United Nations or from whatever country or institution, has to be acceptable to both sides if it is to stand any chance of success. We continue to urge both sides to do everything they can to resolve their differences. As I said to the House when we discussed this matter in April, we also believe that any solution, if it is to last, must involve and must reflect the views of the people of Kashmir.
Lord Dholakia:
My Lords—
Noble Lords Next Question!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:
My Lords, I think we must move on to the next Question.
5)
Link:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/2000/may/18/kashmir#S5LV0613P0_20000518_LWA_41
Subject:
Kashmir
HL Deb 18 May 2000 vol 613 cc36-7WA 36WA
Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their assessment of the tension on the line of control between India and Pakistan. [HL2310]
Baroness Scotland of Asthad:
The tension in Kashmir, including along the Line of Control, is a cause for concern. We continue to encourage India and Pakistan to find, through dialogue, a just and lasting solution acceptable to the people of Kashmir.
Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any evidence of British men training to take part in hostilities in Kashmir. [HL2311]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal:
We are aware of reports of UK citizens travelling overseas for "Jihad" training, and of allegations that these individuals then take part in conflicts in different parts of the world. There is no evidence of any breach of UK laws.37WA
Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support a final resolution of the Kashmir conflict; and what steps they have taken in this regard. [HL2312]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal:
We fully support India and Pakistan in their search for a solution in Kashmir. We continue to encourage them to return to dialogue to find a just and lasting solution acceptable to the people of Kashmir.
6)
Link:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/2000/may/24/kashmir- humanitarian-needs#S5LV0613P0_20000524_LWA_1
Kashmir:
Humanitarian Needs
HL Deb 24 May 2000 vol 613 c85WA 85WA
Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the assessment of the present humanitarian need in Kashmir (Azad and Indian occupied); and what steps they are taking to address the situation. [HL2308]
Baroness Amos:
The security situation in Kashmir remains tense. We do not have first-hand information about the humanitarian situation there, although a number of international agencies issue situation reports.
7)
Link:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2004/mar/09/kashmir#S5LV0658P0_20040309_HOL_32
Subject:
Kashmir
HL Deb 09 March 2004 vol 658 cc1116-9 1116
§ 2.46 p.m.
Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will facilitate peace talks between India and Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir.
Baroness Crawley:
My Lords, we commend the statesmanship and courage that President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee have demonstrated in moving Pakistan and India resolutely towards substantive talks on all the outstanding issues between them, including Kashmir. As a friend of both countries, we stand ready to offer any assistance that they might request. But at their 1117 root the differences between Pakistan and India are bilateral in nature and will have to be resolved through peaceful engagement between the two countries.
Lord Ahmed:
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply and I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for encouraging both India and Pakistan to talk during the SAARC conference. Does the Minister agree that, in order to reach a lasting solution on the issue of Kashmir, the Kashmiri leadership must be involved in the talks between India and Pakistan and that violence on all sides must stop? Does she also agree that fence building along the line of control has to stop if we are to secure the right to self-determination for the Kashmiri people? Finally, military personnel in residential areas of the Kashmir valley must leave as soon as peace talks begin.
Baroness Crawley:
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his encouraging words about my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I very much agree that the views of the Kashmiris must be taken into account if any settlement of the issue of Kashmir is to be durable. Of course it is not for us to go into the nature of that settlement, but we welcome, for example, the announcement made by the Government of India of an inquiry into the killing of five civilians in Bandipore on 8 February. It is important that the inquiry is thorough, transparent and independent, and that any perpetrators of human rights abuses are brought to justice.
Lord Howell of Guildford:
My Lords, as the Minister rightly indicated, it is obviously not for Britain to tell India and Pakistan how to resolve their differences. However, does she agree that the Indian cricket tour of Pakistan which is just beginning—an historic development—and the moves towards talks are promising signs? Will she undertake to ensure that, while we do not interfere, we extend to both governments every possible offer of facilities and encouragement, not merely to talk about Kashmir and its difficulties over the years, but also to discuss mutual disarmament and de-escalation, in particular on the nuclear side?
Baroness Crawley:
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his words of encouragement in regard to the cricket tour. My noble friend the Leader of the House knows more than I do about the intricacies of who is up and who is down in cricket, but certainly a unique tour is about to begin.
We very warmly welcome the announcement that the Indian and Pakistan Governments have made in regard to agreeing an agenda and timetable for substantive dialogue to begin following the Indian general election. I agree that this is a promising start after many years of anxiety world wide about the situation in the region. It builds on the highly significant breakthrough in relations announced by President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee at the beginning of January. We welcome the agenda and timetable; we wish it well and encourage it.
Lord Avebury:
My Lords, while endorsing the welcome given by the Minister to the signs of progress that we see between India and Pakistan, particularly the cessation of shelling across the line of control, how can the views of the people of Kashmir be taken into account? Does she think that, notwithstanding the fact that we have no direct role to play in the negotiations between India and Pakistan, we could encourage both countries to allow greater freedom of expression in the parts of the territory which are under their own jurisdiction? This would enable the people of Kashmir to exchange views, both among themselves and across the line of control, on a future constitutional settlement.
Baroness Crawley:
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the views of the Kashmiri people must be taken into account if a settlement is to be sustainable. As to his point about freedom of expression for the people of Kashmir, we welcome the steps taken by the Jammu and Kashmir state government to address human rights grievances, including the disbanding of the police special operations group and the release of leading political detainees.
Lord Paul:
My Lords, when I was in India recently I met the Indian Prime Minister, who was cautiously optimistic about the new negotiations. Will my noble friend the Minister congratulate Mr Vajpayee? He has been working on this for four years, persevering with every new initiative despite the setbacks. The final negotiations have now started and Mr Musharraf has responded very well. Will my noble friend congratulate them on this start? Does she agree that any outside interference can only damage the negotiations that they have started and that we should refrain from doing so?
Baroness Crawley:
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that a solution to the problems of Kashmir will be through direct bilateral agreements between India and Pakistan. I agree that Prime Minister Vajpayee is to be congratulated on the hard work that he has put into reaching the position we are now in, where there is an agenda and substantive timetable for talks to begin after the Indian elections. I also of course congratulate President Musharraf.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree:
My Lords, does the Minister also agree that there is a strong element of urgency in this matter as people are dying every day it goes on? The bloodshed which has already taken place is heartbreaking. We should all recognise that there is a real need to settle the matter.
Baroness Crawley:
My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness about the urgency of the matter. That is why we welcome the detailed talks that 1119 are taking place between Deputy Prime Minister Advani of India and the leaders of the moderate separatist Kashmiri groupings called the All Parties Hurriyat Conference. The noble Baroness will know of the ceasefire along the line of control. We encourage the confidence-building measures that are taking place, such as the Muzaffarabad and Srinagar bus link which will bring benefits to people living on both sides of the line of control.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale:
My Lords, if the voices of the people of Kashmir are to be heard, the guns must be silent. Is it not the case that, in this instance, the less the Government try to do the better?
Baroness Crawley:
My Lords, I think I made it clear in my earlier replies that I believe an appropriate line is to be drawn between encouragement and intervention.
Lord Dholakia:
My Lords, I endorse much of what the noble Lord, Lord Paul, said about the negotiations that are taking place at the present time. Not only the cricket tour but also the opening of airways between India and Pakistan, better trade links between India and Pakistan and better links for surface transport between the two countries are steps in the right direction. Does the Minister agree that we should congratulate both countries on having the courage to move in a peaceful manner?
Baroness Crawley:
Absolutely, my Lords. The opening of transport links is a very encouraging start to what we all hope will be the beginning of a real solution.
Lord Weatherill:
My Lords, in view of the fact that yesterday was Commonwealth Day, does not the Minister feel that it would be a considerable encouragement to Pakistan if it could now be brought fully hack into the Commonwealth family?
Baroness Crawley:
My Lords, the decision on lifting Pakistan's suspension from the counsels of the Commonwealth is ultimately a matter for the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, as the noble Lord will know. However, Her Majesty's Government consider that Pakistan has met the criteria laid down by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group and support its readmission to the counsels of the Commonwealth as a result.
8)
Link:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/2000/may/18/pakistan -india-and-kashmir-uk-funded-ngo#S5LV0613P0_20000518_LWA_1
Subject:
Pakistan, India and Kashmir: UK-funded NGO work
HL Deb 18 May 2000 vol 613 c29WA 29WA
Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which British and foreign non-governmental organisations, which are active in Pakistan, India and Kashmir, received funding directly or indirectly from the British Government in the fiscal years 1997–98 and 1998–99; and whether they will provide details of the funding provided by each organisation. [HL2307]
Baroness Amos:
The Department for International Development (DFID) is currently supporting in excess of 70 projects, implemented through British non-governmental organisations, in Pakistan and India. It would be difficult to delineate in the way requested because we are not funding any projects specific to Kashmir. We will place a list of these organisations in the Library of the House.
9)
Link:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2000/dec/12/address-in-reply-t o-her-majestys-most#S5LV0620P0_20001212_HOL_123
Subject:
Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
HL Deb 12 December 2000 vol 620 cc225-354 225
3.9 p.m.
Adjourned Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by the Lord Graham of Edmonton—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
Lord Avebury:
I turn now to another area of conflict which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed; namely, the state of Jammu and Kashmir. I visited Azad Kashmir in April, and in November I spent two days each in Jammu and Leh, talking to leaders of political parties, the military, minorities, students, humanitarian agencies, journalists, academics and people in the street. There was an almost universal demand for peace. Even the leaders of the political parties which are opposed to Indian rule were positive about the Ramadan cease-fire, although as one would expect they wanted it to be followed or accompanied immediately by talks on a political solution to this 53 year-old problem. Others said that they wanted the cease-fire to be made permanent. A group of young unemployed men said that their main anxiety was the lack of economic activity—an effect of the tension between India and Pakistan which erupted into an armed clash across the Line of Control in the spring and summer of 1999. A military source in Kashmir told us that 100,000 shells were fired by both sides in the course of the conflict. At a cost of 150 dollars each, the shells fired would have been worth an enormous amount. In Jane's Defence Monthly last June it was estimated that the Indians had spent 49 million dollars on replacing the shells fired. If we double that figure, taking the Pakistani contribution into account, we see that 100 million dollars went up in smoke on shells alone, to take no account of the loss of life and the other damage caused.
The only elements which did not approve the ceasefire in Kashmir were the armed groups. They have continued their operations and have recently been hitting soft targets, civilians and members of minority groups. Among the recent victims have been Agha Mehdi, the distinguished leader of the Shi'as in one part of the territory, five Sikh lorry drivers and five Hindus from the Doda area. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, mentioned an earlier case, the massacre at Chitti Singhpura, where large numbers of Sikhs were killed. This is a new phenomenon in the territory. Until recently, members of minority groups were immune. Those crimes are not calculated to end Indian rule in Kashmir, but serve to intimidate those who want to engage in a political process. Yesterday, Mr Abdul Ghani Lone, one of the Hurriyat leaders, said that militants should respond to the cease-fire and that, in any case, all foreign mercenaries will have to leave Kashmir once a dialogue has started. I hope that the violence does cease; but, as we learnt in Northern Ireland, if people want peace badly enough, they are not going to be deterred by atrocities or by the few bombs and bullets that the armed groups continue to fire.
I hope that we shall now see inclusive round table conferences of Kashmiris, first in Srinagar, then in Muzaffarabad, to enlist the forces of the whole community on either side in taking a political process 283 forward. If there is a permanent peace, there is no reason why the Line of Control should not be opened, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, suggested; not just one bus, but a regular service, might be opened between Muzaffarabad and Srinagar. We shall have to see how best we can help these processes, while recognising that any decisions are entirely a matter for the people of Kashmir themselves. There are possibilities for "track two" initiatives, such as the conference which I had the privilege of attending in New Delhi, organised by the International Centre for Peace Initiatives. Meanwhile, we should encourage India and Pakistan to extend the cease-fire and to compete with each other in devising new confidence-building initiatives that would help to give some momentum to the development of a purely Kashmiri process, to enable the people themselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, said, to take part in these initiatives.
...
Why, for example, is Britain a supporter not only of the United Nations' proposed plebiscite for the Kashmiris, but also of bilateral resolution, thereby excluding the Kashmiris themselves, as reflected in the Simla agreement, again in Lahore, and more recently in the G8 Cologne communiqué?
10)
Link:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2001/jul/16/pakistan#S5LV0626P 0_20010716_HOL_352
Subject:
Pakistan
HL Deb 16 July 2001 vol 626 cc1350-70 1350
8.11 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the social and political situation in Pakistan:
Lord Ahmed:
I should like to congratulate the Pakistan Government on their devolution programme and on the recent successful local and district elections, including the legislative elections in Azad Kashmir. These were generally believed to be fair and without violence.
Lord Avebury:
It was encouraging to hear that there has been a good atmosphere at the talks. As I understand it, Prime Minister Vajpayee has accepted an invitation to visit Pakistan at some unspecified date in the future. I believe that the two leaders genuinely did want to find areas of agreement, although on the central question of Kashmir it was hard to imagine how either of them could move away from positions that they had adopted so firmly over the course of many years. It would be unrealistic to expect that a problem which has defied solution for well over half a century could be resolved in the space of a few hours' discussion in Agra, however well intentioned the parties may be. I agree with those who have said that to begin with what is needed are confidence building measures such as the withdrawal of forces on both sides of the Line of Control, the opening up of communications between the two halves of the divided state of Kashmir and an agreement that only democratic means should be used to solve that problem.
....
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, referred to the elections in Azad Kashmir. I slightly take issue with him as I believe that it was unfortunate that the JKLF, which advocates the independence of Jammu and Kashmir, was prevented from contesting those elections. I hope that everyone agrees—this has already been said in the course of the debate—that the final solution of the problem of Kashmir has to be one which is acceptable to the people of the whole state. Since a referendum has been ruled out, the only remaining method people would have of making their views known would be elections throughout every part of the territory. If candidates were able to argue among themselves for different constitutional outcomes, that would enable the elected representatives to enter the debate with the democratic legitimacy that only free elections can confer.
Lord Grocott:
We are still assessing initial reports of this weekend's historic summit in India between Prime Minister Vajpayee and General Musharraf. We are encouraged by the courage and vision that both leaders 1368 demonstrated by resuming dialogue. We hope that the personal rapport that they have established will lead to a wide and constructive discussion of the issues that divide their countries, including that of Kashmir. As many noble Lords pointed out, including my noble friend Lord Ahmed and the noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord Hannay, if only Pakistan and India could redeploy some of the resources that they devote to military spending, that would be of enormous benefit to the people of India and Pakistan. The United Kingdom supports all efforts to resolve the Kashmir conflict. We believe that it is now for the leaders of India and Pakistan to take the initial meeting forward.
11)
Link:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2002/jan/08/export-control-bil l#S5LV0630P0_20020108_HOL_111
Subject:
Export Control Bill
HL Deb 08 January 2002 vol 630 cc468-518 468
4.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville):
Lord Ahmed:
The export criteria state that export licences will not be issued, if there is a clear risk that the intended recipient would use the proposed export aggressively against another country or to assert by force a territorial claim". Yet the Government's annual report on Strategic Export Controls for 2000 highlights that the UK is exporting equipment with a potentially offensive use to India and Pakistan (in dispute over Kashmir). Those cases are of particular concern given the current environment. For example, in the case of India, 699 standard individual export licences have been granted, including components and technology for combat aircraft and helicopters and components and technology for surface-to-air missiles. In the case of Pakistan, 88 standard individual export licences have been granted, including components for combat helicopters, 171 shotguns and military communications equipment.
end..........
