‘We share a history and the future': diaspora communities in UK decry Kashmir conflict
People around the world held their breath this week as India and Pakistan appeared to edge closer and closer towards war.
For diaspora communities with family in the region, especially in Kashmir and along the border between the two countries, recent days in particular have been filled with fear and anxiety.
On Saturday, a US-mediated ceasefire offered some reprieve, though the news was undercut by cross-border shelling and explosions in Indian-administered Kashmir hours after it was announced.
While the longevity of the ceasefire remains in doubt, the initial news provided some relief for members of the UK's south Asian community, who had gathered in Parliament Square in central London to call for de-escalation.
'We cried a little, it was absolute joy,' said Raman, 26. 'I come from India and I'm pretty close to the border. It was a constant worry about what was going to happen.'
'I've haven't sleep for three nights. We are constantly checking our phones. Today is the longest I've stayed without checking my phone in four days.'
Nasreen Rehman, 74, was similarly relieved by the announcement. 'Thank goodness, we've averted something which could have been catastrophic but already a lot of lives have been lost.'
After 26 people were killed in an attack at a popular local tourist destination in Kashmir, India paused the vital Indus waters treaty which governs the distribution and use of waters from the Indus River between the two countries.
Rehman is concerned about the suspension of this longstanding agreement. 'At the end of the day, we are human beings. We share a history and we share the future. Now we have threats of stopping water? What does that mean?'
While a ceasefire pulls both nations back from the brink of all-out war, there are still concerns about how robust it will be.
'How many times in the past year have we heard the word ceasefire? We've heard that far too many times in the context of Israel-Palestine and it has meant nothing,' said Rajiv Sinah, 27.
'Our demonstration, which was called a few days ago, is no less relevant today despite the news of a supposed ceasefire because now we need to advocate for a way forward.
'The people of India, the people of Pakistan and the people of Kashmir want nothing more than peace and to be able to live their own lives and instead they are losing their lives, their livelihoods, their families at the behest of governments that do not represent their people,' Sinah added.
Tarun Gidwani, 36, is similarly apprehensive. 'It was a huge relief but even though there's a ceasefire, there isn't the de-escalation. Tensions are still quite high and there's no real roadmap to stability, especially in Kashmir region.'
Before the announcement of the ceasefire, he described feeling 'really worried'.
'It's two nuclear powers engaged in aerial attack in the most densely populated region on the planet. Back home in India, there were mock drills in schools and offices. It was a tense atmosphere.'
Shakuntala Banaji is hopeful that the ceasefire might hold. 'I think that the national interests of both India and Pakistan lie in sustaining this ceasefire,' she said.
She called on government, 'particularly Labour and the prime minister, to stop playing division politics between Hindus and Muslims and between people who come from India and Pakistan by favouring one country over the over'.
This week, on the same day that a trade-deal described as 'landmark' by Keir Starmer was announced between the UK and India, the Home Office announced restrictions on Pakistani nationals applying for work or study visas.
Last year, Starmer caused anger after singling out the Bangladeshi community in a debate hosted by the Sun about immigration, saying: 'At the moment people coming from countries like Bangladesh are not being removed.'
Banaji said: 'They need to think very carefully about emboldening a nuclear power when they have no support here in the diaspora for that kind of politics.'
Summing up the mood of many who attended the demonstration, she said: 'Our shared humanity across the India-Pakistan border and in Kashmir should trump all the other considerations of race and religion in the region. If we are to move forward we would have to move forward together.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
5 hours ago
- BBC News
Indira Gandhi: The forgotten story of India's brush with presidential rule
During the mid-1970s, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's imposition of the Emergency, India entered a period where civil liberties were suspended and much of the political opposition was jailed. Behind this authoritarian curtain, her Congress party government quietly began reimagining the country - not as a democracy rooted in checks and balances, but as a centralised state governed by command and control, historian Srinath Raghavan reveals in his new Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India, Prof Raghavan shows how Gandhi's top bureaucrats and party loyalists began pushing for a presidential system - one that would centralise executive power, sideline an "obstructionist" judiciary and reduce parliament to a symbolic in part by Charles de Gaulle's France, the push for a stronger presidency in India reflected a clear ambition to move beyond the constraints of parliamentary democracy - even if it never fully materialised. It all began, writes Prof Raghavan, in September 1975, when BK Nehru, a seasoned diplomat and a close aide of Gandhi, wrote a letter hailing the Emergency as a "tour de force of immense courage and power produced by popular support" and urged Gandhi to seize the moment. Parliamentary democracy had "not been able to provide the answer to our needs", Nehru wrote. In this system the executive was continuously dependent on the support of an elected legislature "which is looking for popularity and stops any unpleasant measure".What India needed, Nehru said, was a directly elected president - freed from parliamentary dependence and capable of taking "tough, unpleasant and unpopular decisions" in the national interest, Prof Raghavan model he pointed to was de Gaulle's France - concentrating power in a strong presidency. Nehru imagined a single, seven-year presidential term, proportional representation in Parliament and state legislatures, a judiciary with curtailed powers and a press reined in by strict libel laws. He even proposed stripping fundamental rights - right to equality or freedom of speech, for example - of their urged Indira Gandhi to "make these fundamental changes in the Constitution now when you have two-thirds majority". His ideas were "received with rapture" by the prime minister's secretary PN Dhar. Gandhi then gave Nehru approval to discuss these ideas with her party leaders but said "very clearly and emphatically" that he should not convey the impression that they had the stamp of her approval. Prof Raghavan writes that the ideas met with enthusiastic support from senior Congress leaders like Jagjivan Ram and foreign minister Swaran Singh. The chief minister of Haryana state was blunt: "Get rid of this election nonsense. If you ask me just make our sister [Indira Gandhi] President for life and there's no need to do anything else". M Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu – one of two non-Congress chief ministers consulted - was Nehru reported back to Gandhi, she remained non-committal, Prof Raghavan writes. She instructed her closest aides to explore the proposals further. What emerged was a document titled "A Fresh Look at Our Constitution: Some suggestions", drafted in secrecy and circulated among trusted advisors. It proposed a president with powers greater than even their American counterpart, including control over judicial appointments and legislation. A new "Superior Council of Judiciary", chaired by the president, would interpret "laws and the Constitution" - effectively neutering the Supreme sent this document to Dhar, who recognised it "twisted the Constitution in an ambiguously authoritarian direction". Congress president DK Barooah tested the waters by publicly calling for a "thorough re-examination" of the Constitution at the party's 1975 annual idea never fully crystallised into a formal proposal. But its shadow loomed over the Forty-second Amendment Act, passed in 1976, which expanded Parliament's powers, limited judicial review and further centralised executive amendment made striking down laws harder by requiring supermajorities of five or seven judges, and aimed to dilute the Constitution's 'basic structure doctrine' that limited parliament's also handed the federal government sweeping authority to deploy armed forces in states, declare region-specific Emergencies, and extend President's Rule - direct federal rule - from six months to a year. It also put election disputes out of the judiciary's was not yet a presidential system, but it carried its genetic imprint - a powerful executive, marginalised judiciary and weakened checks and balances. The Statesman newspaper warned that "by one sure stroke, the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favour of the parliament." Meanwhile, Gandhi's loyalists were going all in. Defence minister Bansi Lal urged "lifelong power" for her as prime minister, while Congress members in the northern states of Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh unanimously called for a new constituent assembly in October 1976."The prime minister was taken aback. She decided to snub these moves and hasten the passage of the amendment bill in the parliament," writes Prof December 1976, the bill had been passed by both houses of parliament and ratified by 13 state legislatures and signed into law by the Gandhi's shock defeat in 1977, the short-lived Janata Party - a patchwork of anti-Gandhi forces - moved quickly to undo the damage. Through the Forty-third and Forty-fourth Amendments, it rolled back key parts of the Forty Second, scrapping authoritarian provisions and restoring democratic checks and was swept back to power in January 1980, after the Janata Party government collapsed due to internal divisions and leadership struggles. Curiously, two years later, prominent voices in the party again mooted the idea of a presidential 1982, with President Sanjiva Reddy's term ending, Gandhi seriously considered stepping down as prime minister to become president of India. Her principal secretary later revealed she was "very serious" about the move. She was tired of carrying the Congress party on her back and saw the presidency as a way to deliver a "shock treatment to her party, thereby giving it a new stimulus".Ultimately, she backed down. Instead, she elevated Zail Singh, her loyal home minister, to the serious flirtation, India never made the leap to a presidential system. Did Gandhi, a deeply tactical politician, hold herself back ? Or was there no national appetite for radical change and India's parliamentary system proved sticky? There was a hint of presidential drift in the early 1970s, as India's parliamentary democracy - especially after 1967 - grew more competitive and unstable, marked by fragile coalitions, according to Prof Raghavan. Around this time, voices began suggesting that a presidential system might suit India better. The Emergency became the moment when these ideas crystallised into serious political thinking."The aim was to reshape the system in ways that immediately strengthened her hold on power. There was no grand long-term design - most of the lasting consequences of her [Gandhi's] rule were likely unintended," Prof Raghavan told the BBC."During the Emergency, her primary goal was short-term: to shield her office from any challenge. The Forty Second Amendment was crafted to ensure that even the judiciary couldn't stand in her way."The itch for a presidential system within the Congress never quite faded. As late as April 1984, senior minister Vasant Sathe launched a nationwide debate advocating a shift to presidential governance - even while in power. But six months later, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in Delhi, and with her, the conversation abruptly died. India stayed a parliamentary democracy.
The Independent
6 hours ago
- The Independent
India opens world's highest railway arch bridge built with 28,000 tonnes of steel
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the Chenab Railway Bridge, the World 's tallest railway arch bridge at 359m above the Chenab River, 35m taller than the Eiffel Tower, connecting Kashmir to the rest of India via rail. The 1,315m bridge, part of the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla Rail Link (USBRL) project, was built with over 28,000 tonnes of Steel, designed to last 120 years, and can withstand high winds (up to 266kmph) and seismic activity (up to magnitude 8). Engineering challenges included stabilising slopes in the fractured Himalayan geology, with G Madhavi Latha from the Indian Institute of Science advising on slope stabilisation and foundation design, requiring real-time construction plan modifications based on geological data. Construction involved building 26km of new roads to transport heavy machinery to the remote site, with the USBRL project costing Rs437.8bn (£3.7bn) and the Chenab Bridge alone costing approximately Rs14.86bn (£128m). The Chenab Bridge, designed with contributions from Indian and international firms, including WSP Finland and Leonhardt Andrä und Partner, aims to significantly reduce travel time between Katra and Srinagar to three hours via the Vande Bharat Express.
Daily Mail
8 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy wants Trump to pressure Russia and help broker an end to the war
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told ABC This Week co-anchor Martha Raddatz that he sees Donald Trump as a key figure who can end the war between his nation and Vladimir Putin 's Russia. In an interview that aired Sunday, the Ukrainian President noted that 'the majority of wars were finished with some kinds of agreements … [with] strong third parties involved who can put pressure on the aggressor,' Zelenskyy told Raddatz. 'Are there enough levers and powers to stop this in the United States? Yes, I am convinced that the president of the United States has all the powers and enough leverage to step up,' Zelenskyy continued. 'He can unite around him other partners like European leaders,' he concluded. 'They [are] all looking at the President Trump as a leader of the free world, a free, democratic world, and they are waiting for him,' Zelenskyy added. The Ukrainian President also called for America to pressure Russia via economic sanctions, noting that only the United States can actually make a difference. 'It doesn't matter who wants, apart from the United States, to apply sanctions against Russia,' Zelenskyy stated. 'If it's not the United States, there will be no real impact.' Ukrainian Pres. Zelenskyy told @MarthaRaddatz his country is ready for a ceasefire brokered by the Trump administration: "I am convinced that the president of the United States has all the powers and enough leverage to unite European leaders.' — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 8, 2025 Some Washington, DC Republicans agree with the Ukrainian President's calls to be tougher on Russia. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Emeritus, Michael McCaul (R-Texas) told Fox News' Shannon Bream in a Sunday morning interview that he believes his House colleagues would support a bill by Senator Lindsey Graham to put extreme pressure on Russia. 'So, you have to put pressure. How do you do that? Secondary sanctions. Lindsey Graham has a bill. If he passes it tomorrow, we'll pass it in the House,' McCaul said. 'And secondly, keep the flow of weapons going into Ukraine to pressure Mr. Putin to act in good faith. I have little confidence in him,' McCaul added. Graham's bill would place a 500% tariff on any nation that purchases Russian oil, uranium, and petroleum products. The legislation presently has the support of a bipartisan group of 82 members of the United States Senate. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala) is one of the cosponsors of Graham's bill, but is at the same time no fan of Zelenskyy's. Tuberville told WABC 770 AM host John Catsimatidis in a Sunday morning interview that he views Zelenskyy as 'dictator'. 'He knows that if he had an election he'd get voted out … Back during World War II, we had elections. You can't stop your constitution just because there's a war going on.' 'That's when you really need to look into your constitution. Zelenskyy is a dictator, and he has created all sorts of problems,' Tuberville stated. 'We've got a lot of money that's been missing. No telling where it's gone … It's way out of control. But the Biden administration allowed it to happen. It really escalated the last couple of years.' 'My God! It would be like our Vietnam War. But it's probably three or four times worse than the Vietnam war, because we only lost 50,000. I think both of these [nations] have lost close to 500,000 to 700,000 people. It's devastating to the world,' Senator Tuberville added.
