Kashmir: Self-determination

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend speaks with great passion. He says that the world has failed the people of Kashmir, and I agree. Does he agree that no longer should politicians in this place view the matter of Kashmir as some kind of bilateral issue between Pakistan and India? In fact, it is a matter for international law, and our Government and our country have a special historic duty not to wash their hands of the matter of self-determination for the people of Kashmir, which is their birthright.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Let me put down the marker now: interventions are interventions, not speeches.

[Imran Hussain]

I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. He is right, and I will come on to the substance of the point he makes shortly.

Kashmir remains one of the world’s most heavily militarised zones and longest unresolved international disputes. Today’s problems have their origins in the unfinished business of partition in 1947, and it is important to start there—a moment in history when Britain played a direct and undeniable role. In 1948, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 47, which mandated a free and fair referendum to allow the sons and daughters of Kashmir to determine their own future and their own destiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady arrived after the start of the debate. I will allow her to intervene on the strict understanding that she remains for the entirety of the debate. That goes for any other Members who arrived after the start of the debate.

[Anna Dixon]

Thank you, Sir Roger, and please accept my apologies. I thank my hon. Friend, who is a great advocate, for taking an intervention. In the great city of Bradford we share a large British-Kashmiri community, whom I met recently. Will he join me in calling for greater international diplomatic efforts to try to bring a resolution to the situation and give the Kashmiri people the self-determination for which they have been waiting for so long?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman was generous in giving way, but he has eaten into the time available. Eight Members who wish to speak have submitted names: by my miserable mathematics, that works out at about four minutes a head. Anybody who has not put in their name ahead of the debate is unlikely to get called. I call Ayoub Khan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I will be brief, because a lot of colleagues want to get in. I compliment the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on his superb presentation, which showed passion and knowledge of the issue.

The fundamental issue, of course, is the one that the hon. Gentleman hit on many times: this is not a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, but an international issue that comes from all that went on in the process of the decolonisation of British India in 1947-48. It was India that referred the issue to the United Nations for resolution, so India’s constant denial that it is a UN matter fits rather strangely with Indian political history ever since that time.

The effects of the partition of Kashmir and the line of control have been beyond dramatic for both India and Pakistan. The partition encouraged massive levels of arms expenditure in both countries, doing enormous damage to the social infrastructure of both societies, in the ’50s, ’60s and ever since. It then encouraged both countries to develop nuclear weapons and to leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The inadequacy of British behaviour in the 1940s led to the militarisation of the whole of the subcontinent; the loss of thousands of lives in successive conflicts between India and Pakistan, as well as with China; and, of course, the ever presence of nuclear weapons. If we look at India’s and Pakistan’s expenditure on defence compared with the expenditure that should be going on education and social needs, we begin to see the consequences of the issue.

Many people in this country feel very strongly about this issue. They are from Kashmir themselves, or they have grandparents, parents and many relatives in Kashmir; there is a very close relationship. They feel angry—the hon. Member for Bradford East put this well—that at every election, when party leaders happen to descend on Birmingham, Bradford or parts of London, they are given a note by their offices saying, “Say something about Kashmir, because it’ll go down well.” They do, and it does go down well, and that is the end of the story. Absolutely nothing has been done, by any Government, for a very long time to promote the idea that the people of Kashmir should be allowed to decide their own future.

That is not to say that there are not serious imperfections in both Azad Kashmir and Jammu Kashmir. The Indian military presence in Indian-occupied Kashmir is now the biggest it has been for a very long time. Successive laws have been passed, particularly by the Modi Government, to reduce the special status of Kashmir—which at least gave a nod towards the idea that it was an international dispute to be settled—and, essentially, to try to fully annex it.

I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will tell us that the Government recognise, first, that the issue should go to the UN, that the Government will push it at the UN as a permanent member of the Security Council, and that the Government will revisit the UN statements made in the 1940s and the many since. Secondly, I hope that the Government will do everything they can to encourage the self-determination of the people on both sides of the line of control in Kashmir. The idea that a beautiful place such as Kashmir, with such history and potential, should be divided and occupied by the military, and that resources go into the military and into what becomes a security state because of the tensions over the occupation of Kashmir is incomplete decolonisation. It is decolonisation that should have happened in the 1940s. Britain, because of its colonial history, has a very special responsibility to ensure that the people of Kashmir are able to decide their own future.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I am now setting a formal four-minute time limit on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) spoke with great passion, but it is a passion that I fear clouded his recollection of some of the history. Under the Indian Independence Act 1947, the rulers of each of the princely states had the responsibility to choose between the two emergent nations, and Kashmir’s ruler Maharaja Hari Singh had to decide whether to accede to India or to Pakistan. As he was doing so, Pakistan’s militia and troops invaded the part of Kashmir now known as Azad Kashmir. He then signed the legal instrument of accession to the dominion of India. That clarified the position of Kashmir in international law: Kashmir became a part of India.

It is also clear that Pakistan was the primary aggressor in the dispute. On 1 January 1948, India referred the situation to the UN Security Council. After much deliberation, the United Nations passed resolution 47, which my hon. Friend adverted to. However, again he showed a selective memory, because in fact the plebiscite had the precondition that Pakistan should secure the withdrawal of all its tribesmen and troops and Pakistani nationals from occupied Kashmir and put an end to the fighting in the state. That never happened, so the plebiscite that would have followed did not follow either.

The subject of this debate is the issue of self-determination, so I propose to examine the total lack of self-determination that the Kashmiri people actually have in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. As a constitutional entity, so-called Azad Kashmir, which is better known as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, is not just strange but unique. It has been given the trappings of a country with a President, Prime Minister and even a Legislative Assembly, but it is neither a country with its own sovereignty nor a province with its own clearly defined devolved authority from the national Government of Pakistan.

Under section 56 of the AJK interim constitution of 1974, the Pakistan Government can dismiss any elected Government in AJK, irrespective of the support they might have in the Legislative Assembly—no respect there, then, for self-determination. Strangely enough for an entity that purports to be a country, the constitution bars anyone from public office and prohibits them from participating in politics unless they publicly support the principle of Kashmir acceding to Pakistan. Imagine that—a country whose politicians can be politicians only if they say they do not want to be a country.

It will therefore come as little surprise to hon. Members when I say that all the major civil and police administrative positions in AJK are held by Pakistani civil and military officers. It may also come as no surprise to find that the putative country has no representation in the Parliament of Pakistan. The territory’s local representatives are excluded from not just Pakistan’s Parliament but even those Pakistani bodies that negotiate inter-provincial resource allocation or federal taxes—so much for “no taxation without representation”.

It is not a country. It is not a province. It is not a state. It is a satrapy. Were I not a British MP conscious of the fact that much of this mess is a legacy of our colonial past in the region, I might also describe it as a prize of war. But then, of course, that is precisely what Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is: a territory taken by force, not permitted even the freedoms of other Pakistani citizens—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Mohamed, you have three minutes.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing this debate. For some, Kashmir is seen as a geopolitical flashpoint, but for thousands of people in my constituency and across the UK, it is something far more personal and intimate. It is a place where their parents were born, the place where their children’s grandparents still live and the place they call home, even from thousands of miles away.

My office has heard from many families who were gripped by fear as the recent violence escalated. One article described the situation bluntly:

“We were not able to step outside of our homes because of the intensity of firing from both sides. We could only hear loud bangs from inside.”

Others shared the heartbreak of losing relatives in the clashes, and several wrote to me terrified because their elderly parents were visiting during the violence and became stranded, unable to return safely. These are not distant political events; they are lived experiences for people I represent.

The human rights violations that we have heard about from Members on both sides of the Chamber do not exist in isolation. The root causes go back decades to the 1947 partition and the unresolved question of Kashmir’s political status, with incursions and human rights abuses from both the Indian side and the Pakistani side—a legacy of imperial decision making that continues to shape instability today. The violence is escalating, and the reports that India intends to impose Israel-style policies in Kashmir—demographic engineering, land dispossession and silencing of activists—only deepen the urgency.

The right to self-determination is not optional. It is enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions 47 and 51. For 77 years, this promise has been denied. As a permanent member of the Security Council and a nation that champions democracy and human rights, the UK must act. I urge the Government to lead on human rights, and demand and facilitate independent investigations into atrocities on both sides of the line of control; to push for and facilitate dialogue, and to use our diplomatic influence to bring India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri representatives around the negotiating table; to support and enforce the 18 UN resolutions since 1947, none of which has been fully implemented, and especially advocate for a free and fair plebiscite; and to provide humanitarian support as required to protect civilian life on both sides of the line of control.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I turn to the Front-Bench spokespeople. Mr Mathew, you have no more than 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

The situation is exactly the same in respect of journalists. Does the Minister agree that journalists must always be allowed access to every part of the world so they can truly document the position, whether in respect of alleged terrorist camps or otherwise?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member came into the Chamber very late indeed. I call the Minister.

[Mr Falconer]

It is, of course, important that journalists can do their jobs across the world. I take from your tone, Sir Roger, a renewed clarion call to make a bit more progress before taking further interventions.

We do not advocate a specific mechanism for self-determination, but we support efforts that allow Kashmiris to shape their future. I hear colleagues’ desire that British officials and Ministers be available to the very significant Kashmiri diaspora. I have sought this year to engage directly, including in Birmingham in June. If MPs would like me to meet their constituents in relation to these issues, I would be very happy to do so. I remind colleagues that I am the Minister with responsibility for Pakistan, and that the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) has responsibility for India. I am sure we would both be prepared to do diaspora engagements, where appropriate. Some of these questions are sensitive—in some areas, very sensitive—and I am always happy to engage on them with Members across the House. I recognise how deeply and personally they are felt, and how it is sometimes easier to have such conversations away from the Hansard record.

The UK Government stand firm in our commitment to human rights, peace and stability. We believe that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting solution to the situation in Kashmir, which must take into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We will continue to encourage dialogue, condemn violence and support efforts that uphold dignity and human rights for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain]

I am not sure I am able to give way. Am I able to, Sir Roger?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Yes, you are able to give way.

[Ayoub Khan]

We have constantly heard that this is a bilateral issue. The existence of UN resolutions clearly suggests it is not a bilateral but an international issue. Does the hon. Member agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Final remarks, Mr Hussain.

[Imran Hussain]

I am grateful to the Minister. The point that I made, and make again, is that he did not address the four very simple questions that I put to him.

In closing, I again thank all the hon. Members who have spoken passionately and have again shown the Kashmiri community and others that they have a voice in this place. We may not get the response from the Government, but there is an early-day motion that now has the support of over 40 Members from different parties. Later today I will also be giving the Prime Minister a letter signed by over 50 parliamentarians from across the parties. The voice of Kashmiris will never be silenced as long as I am in this place.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for self-determination in Kashmir.