The core issue goes beyond providing security to the mission against the demonstrators; it is that of giving political legitimacy to their cause
Written by Kanwal Sibal, Shyamala B Cowsik, Veena Sikri, Bhaswati Mukherjee
Updated: March 31, 2023 07:11 IST
The recent attack on the Indian mission in London by a Khalistani mob when the country’s national flag was desecrated and the British police failed to provide any security despite being alerted raises questions about the host government’s commitment to the Vienna Conventions and to the ambitious goals set out in the India-UK Roadmap 2030 to elevate bilateral ties to a comprehensive strategic partnership. Any real strategic partnership is founded on respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of parties and non-interference in internal affairs. The UK establishment does not respect these boundaries in allowing political activity by secessionist Sikh elements on its soil, in league, besides, with Muslims of Pakistani origin with links to Pakistan’s intelligence operatives in Britain. It needs to reflect on whether supporting Sikh separatism in the UK is compatible with the comprehensive strategic partnership that the two countries intend to forge.
The core issue goes beyond providing security to the mission against the demonstrators; it is that of giving political legitimacy to their cause. The UK authorities know who the protestors are, their extremist ideology, foreign intelligence links and agenda. The history of Khalistani terrorism in Punjab, the shelter that Pakistan gives to Khalistani elements on its soil even today, the ISI’s attempt to revive the insurgency in Punjab, and the immediate trigger for the demonstration — the crackdown on Amritpal Singh and his followers who were hell-bent to revive terrorism in the state — are all known to them. The UK establishment is sending the wrong political signals to India.
The UK authorities refer to the legal right to peaceful protest and freedom of expression in the country as justification, even though there is no legal compulsion to allow the demonstrations at the doorstep of the mission. This way they assure maximum propaganda advantage to the demonstrators for their “cause”.
The MEA, frustrated by the UK government’s attitude, has voiced its resentment at this unacceptable indifference to the security of Indian diplomatic premises and personnel and has demanded an explanation and immediate steps to identify, arrest and prosecute all those involved in the incident. Lord Ahmad from the UK foreign office, and now Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, have palliatively called the action against our mission completely unacceptable and claimed disingenuously that the UK government will always take the security of the Indian High Commission seriously. Their statements neither identify the group that desecrated the Indian national flag and violated the mission’s premises nor say anything about arresting and prosecuting them. The London Police has been casual in stating that by the time they reached the premises most of the protestors had left and that one individual had been arrested on suspicion of violent disorder — apparently, released on bail since then.
The UK authorities can easily identify all those involved in this protest, given the massive coverage of London by CCTV cameras, especially around foreign missions. We should, unfortunately, be prepared for no serious action by the UK government. Its position on issues of protests apart, sections of the British political class, human rights activists, parliamentarians dependent electorally on Sikh votes (who mistakenly assume that all British Sikhs support the Khalistani extremists), the media and parts of the academic community would slam the government headed by an Indian-origin British Prime Minister for bowing to the “Hindu nationalist” Modi government. The problems in India-UK relations thus go beyond obtaining satisfaction over the present incident.
The fact that UK authorities have allowed a subsequent demonstration by Khalistanis against the mission, though this time on the opposite pavement and with police presence, confirms their unwillingness to yield on the principle of allowing such protests. This is a signal that the UK government is not against the agitational methods of the Khalistanis to flag their cause, and this gives political comfort to the Khalistanis in the US, Canada and Australia as well. Looking the other way and indulgence can easily morph into support for Sikh extremists and violent separatism.
India may now be feeling “enough is enough”. We have, as a first step, withdrawn the extra security provided to the UK High Commission, though normal security as obliged by the Vienna Convention will still be provided. We have many options: Put a hold on planned official visits, not push the calendar of the FTA negotiations and postpone the negotiations relating to defence cooperation, which require a high degree of mutual trust. Suspending the electronic visa facility for UK nationals, revoking the OCI cards of all those preaching secession and seizure of their properties in India by enacting a law are other options.
Such steps are needed in the wider context of activities by Khalistani and other anti-Indian elements in the US, Canada and Australia who have staged ugly attacks on Indian diplomatic missions, religious establishments and persons of Indian origin, with police indifference. This developing Hindu phobia needs nipping.
Sibal is a former foreign secretary. Cowsik, Sikri and Mukherjee are former ambassadors
© The Indian Express (P) Ltd