Continued from Part 1 and Part 2
Statement in HoC and HoL
Now looking at the statement in the House of Commons (HoC) and House of Lords (HoL) and the following questions we can see that many MPs and Peers are taking this issue seriously.
The full session in the HoC can be seen and read here: http://share-inspiration.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/william-hague-1984-amritsar-raid.html
while the session in the HoL can be seen and read here: http://share-inspiration.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/baroness-warsi-lords-1984-amritsar.html.
One can also see the Prime Ministers statement post-inquiry here: http://share-inspiration.blogspot.com/2014/02/pm-david-cameron-statement-post-1984.html
I’m going to attempt to highlight the debate and conversation in both Houses. I won’t be able to comment on every MPs or Peers comments/question but hopefully I’ll be able to provide a flavour of the atmosphere in Parliament and highlight the best points made my MPs and Peers. Any questions which were political point scoring or that was not relevant will not be looked at.
William Hague’s statement highlighted that “Official Indian Government figures estimate that 575 people died. Other reports suggest that as many as 3,000 were killed, including pilgrims caught in the crossfire.” The figure of causalities has been challenged for the last 30 years and continuing to call the individuals in Sri Harmandir Sahib “Sikh dissidents” is also a stab in an open wound. An individual who speaks against the Indian Government, even today, is known as a terrorist or a dissident in India and that individual and the family are more likely to be targeted and jailed or killed. Amnesty International’s report on India backs this up.
The statement continued saying that there is no circumstantial evidence to show British military involvement and after a search of 200 files, 23,000 document this is the conclusion of the inquiry. Some files were destroyed 5 years ago (under a Labour government) but some of the papers in this file had been copied and placed in other department folders. 5 extra documents have been published.
The main findings were that the advice given was as a response to an urgent request for action to regain control. It was recommended to give the advice to improve bi-lateral relationships. The single SAS officer was in India from the 8th to 17th of February. His advice was that military action must be used as a last resort and that any military action should be as a surprise and consists of an air attack. The nature of the assistance was advisement only. The actual impact of the advice was different to the actual attack.
Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham) asked why some files were destroyed in 2009 and whether this was an oversight or was permission given. He also asked if a review was needed to ensure future sensitive and important documents are not destroyed. Mr Hague responded that a review by Sir Alex Allan will be able to cover it and the destroying or releases of documents are not made on political basis nor is it conducted by Ministers. The 25-year rule at the MoD (or 30-year in other departments) is an official process and decisions have to be made on what to keep, destroy and release.
Sir Edward Garnier (Conservative MP for Harborough) asked whether the Government will consider the reaction of communities in the future releases of documents. Mr Hague responded that the Sikh community’s response to the documents was understandable and justified. He also said that all surprises on Government matters cannot be avoided but this current Government wants documents to be published (and in fact want documents to be published under a new 20-year rule).
Sir Edward Leigh (Conservative MP for Gainsborough) asked why Britain was consulted in the first place. Mr Hague responded that India wanted expertise and that British expertise in security situations was renowned in the 80s.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Conservative MP for Louth and Horncastle – also the Father of the House meaning either oldest MP or longest serving MP) said:
“May I add to the answer to the spontaneous question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? It is difficult for the present generation to realize how close our relationships with India still were at that time. My father and grandfather were both born in India, and I knew Indira Gandhi very well. I visited her a fortnight before she was assassinated at her home, after the Golden Temple disaster, and asked her whether she was wise to be surrounded by Sikh bodyguards, who looked magnificent in their uniforms. She said that they were absolutely loyal to her, that some of them had served her father, and that if she were to get rid of them it would be regarded throughout India as an insult to the other Sikhs. There was nothing sinister at all about Britain, and many Brits at various levels, being asked for advice during that terrible period.”
Rob Wilson (Conservative MP for Reading) asked about full disclosure of any information regarding the custody, interrogation, torture, disappearance and murder of thousands of Sikhs in 1984. Mr Hague responded that it is understandable that the Sikh community should raise question to those events, however as they were predominantly within India, Britain is not able to inquire into the Indian Government’s actions.
Mark Pritchard (Conservative MP for The Wrekin) asked that Members opposite (Labour and opposition MPs) are dissuaded in making this a party political issue rather than a pursuit for truth. Mr Hague responded in agreement that this issue is about seeking the truth and not gaining political points.
Chris Williamson (Labour MP for Derby North) asked about a judge-led inquiry and whether the Government would consider this approach which will help enable Parliament to determine whether an apology is appropriate. Mr Hague responded that “people might be interested in other, related issues beyond the scope of the investigation—it is wholly legitimate for them to pursue them—but on the nature of British involvement in the events leading up to June 1984, I think the Cabinet Secretary’s report gives a clear answer.”
The House of Lords discussion was a lot different. It was very respectful, less political point scoring and the elders in particular had a lot of respect for the Sikhs (you could tell from their voice). A lot of the discussion was on the destroying of documents and whether this was correct procedure and what can be done in future to ensure these documents are not destroyed.
A key question was raised by Lord Elystan-Morgan (Cross Bench Peer)
“My Lords, both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to the Amritsar massacre of 1919. Does the Minister accept that this House is very intimately and embarrassingly connected with that massacre, in that after it took place a resolution was passed in this House—I believe unanimously—congratulating Brigadier-General Dyer on his distinguished conduct? Of course, I appreciate the apology made very properly by the Prime Minister some time ago, but has the time not now come when that blot on the escutcheon of this noble and honourable House should be removed?”
Baroness Warsi responded:
“My Lords, I think that particular discussion would go beyond the remit of the Statement today. I go back to what I said before; I had an opportunity to visit Jallianwala Bagh. In many ways this is much more personal to me than it may be to other noble Lords in the House as I am deeply connected to it in terms of my own family connections back to the Punjab. What the Prime Minister did in both visiting Jallianwala Bagh and saying what he said meant a lot to people—and certainly to my grandmother, who is still alive. History always judges matters in a different way but the Prime Minister has certainly tried to put the record straight.”
The Lord Bishop of Chester raised an important point. He asked about whether one of the lessons that should be learnt is that Government should seek to better understand religious sensitivities. Baroness Warsi responded that it was right to understand the sentiments within the British Sikh community and the significance of the attack on Sri Harmandir Sahib. She also said that this is a challenge in a sometimes aggressively secular world and some of these sensitivities are not properly explored or understood.
To be continued…
