UK Sikhs may ‘no platform' Labour MPs over lack of Amritsar massacre inquiry
Over 450 gurdwaras, charities, associations and university societies have written to prime minister Keir Starmer demanding he honour previous promises to fully investigate the affair or risk 'massive consequences for the re-election of many Labour MPs.'
The ultimatum coincides with a Trafalgar Square rally on Sunday marking the 41st anniversary of the massacre in Amritsar, when thousands of people were killed after Indian forces stormed Sikhism's holiest site to remove firebrand leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, horrifying moderates.
The letter, dated 1 June, said the Sikh community is 'hugely disappointed there has been a deafening silence' to recent letters and calls for timelines for an inquiry that would investigate 'UK involvement in the Indian military operation and anti-Sikh measures in Britain when Margaret Thatcher was in power.'
In 2014, the accidental release of documents revealed Thatcher's government had full knowledge of India's plan, Operation Blue Star, with an SAS officer advising beforehand. David Cameron ordered his most senior civil servant to investigate, but his review, which said the British officer's advice was ignored by the Indian army, disappointed Sikhs, with Labour politicians, including Keir Starmer in a 2022 letter, repeatedly promising an independent inquiry.
Campaigners, who had hoped an inquiry would be launched before the end of the tragedy's 40th anniversary year, are now warning that Labour MPs face being banned from Sikh temples and events.
'Regrettably, we are today being forced to put the Labour leadership on notice,' the letter adds.
'If a judge-led public inquiry is not announced in parliament by the end of July 2025 the Sikh community will implement a 'no platform' policy for all Labour MPs from 1 August that are not supporting a judge-led public inquiry … Sikhs are well-respected (and) can build political alliances. Sikhs may need to make it their business to campaign with others locally and nationally to get the wider public to punish Labour for broken promises.'
The Guardian has seen a list of seats nationwide where Sikh Federation UK has identified the 'Sikh vote' as 'critical'. Dabinderjit Singh, the Sikh Federation's executive lead, warned Labour faced 'permanent' loss of support from the 'majority' of the community, which they believe is a million-strong – double the figure in the last census – with not everyone recording their religion and recent migration.
Meanwhile, concerns have intensified among British Sikhs about India's treatment of minorities and transnational repression, amid strengthening UK trade ties.
Singh said talks were under way with the Lib Dems, Reform and the SNP about support for an inquiry, and that every Labour MP would be written to, adding: 'There are 105 (seats) we're monitoring where the Sikh vote will matter, including Ilford North, Ilford South, Wolverhampton seats, Birmingham seats, Derby seats.
'Labour announced the (Pat Finucane) inquiry in September … don't tell us, when there were thousands of people killed in 1984, that our lives matter less.'
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
'Following the 1st May election … some people are saying Sikhs are going to start to vote Reform,' he added.
'I think it's the frustration. Lots of people just get so frustrated with politicians making promises and then doing the exact opposite, on a range of issues. That's the bigger danger – that people therefore look for something different, independent candidates, Reform candidates, Green candidates.'
Singh said while he 'struggled' personally with Reform's stances, he added: 'I've met Nigel Farage before, and Ukip, as it was then, were greatly supportive on Sikh issues … for their own reasons. I can see things getting really divisive.'
Two British Sikh candidates ran for Reform in 2024's general election in London. Meanwhile Rajbir Singh, a former Labour leader of Sandwell council in the West Midlands, defected to Reform in April.
Approached for comment, the Foreign Office pointed to comments made in January by leader of the house, Lucy Powell, who, asked when an independent inquiry would be initiated, said: 'I know that this matter is of great importance to the Sikh community across the UK … we need to get to the bottom of what happened.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
3 minutes ago
- Times
Symbolic gestures won't prevent illegal working
T he Home Office's latest move to crack down on illegal working in the gig economy feels more like political theatre than a serious solution. Announcing a plan to share data with food delivery businesses such as Deliveroo, Just Eat, and Uber Eats, specifically around asylum hotel locations, sounds bold on paper. But in reality, it is unlikely to achieve much. The government wants these companies to flag and cancel accounts repeatedly active in 'high-risk' areas. But this relies on the flawed assumption that such monitoring will deter or even detect illegal workers. It won't. The simple fact is that account sharing is incredibly easy to get around. More information will be shared with food delivery companies such as Just Eat, Uber Eats and Deliveroo ALAMY And the reality is that these companies do not have a genuine incentive to stop it. Unlike traditional employers, they are not subject to a penalty of up to £60,000 per illegal worker. So why would they invest in better checks or policing their own systems? The simple fact is that gig economy companies do not know who is using their apps, and who is engaging with their customers under their brand name, making illegal work easy, effortless and undetectable. If ministers were serious about tackling this issue, they would demand more — facial recognition or real-time identity verification every time a job is accepted could make a real difference. Illegal workers simply would not be able to operate. But until that's mandated, and until companies face real consequences, nothing will change. Worryingly, the issue does not end with gig economy firms. There is a troubling lack of understanding among traditional employers about their own compliance risks. Since 2022, businesses have been allowed to use digital verification services for right to work checks on British and Irish nationals. But many are using the same checks for foreign workers without realising that doing so leaves them legally exposed. Employers are surprised to learn that they are not establishing the all-important statutory excuse for their foreign workers. Large organisations — including NHS trusts, local authorities, universities and household organisations — are unknowingly putting themselves at risk. They believe using digital verification is enough — but it does not give them the legal protection they think it does. When foreign workers lose their right to work, or even exceed their permitted hours, employers are shocked to be slapped with penalties from the Home Office. Both the gig economy and traditional employment are riddled with loopholes. And while the government focuses on symbolic gestures such as data sharing, illegal work will continue, unchecked and undetected. If this crackdown is to mean anything, there needs to be more enforcement, starting with the government holding the platforms and third-party providers accountable. Emma Brooksbank is a partner at the law firm Freeths
Times
3 minutes ago
- Times
Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties
E ugene Shvidler left the Soviet Union in 1989 and obtained refugee status in the US before being granted a UK visa under the highly skilled migrant programme. A British citizen since 2010, Shvidler and his family chose to build their lives in England. He has not set foot in Russia since 2007, holds no ties to its regime, and has never been a citizen of the Russian Federation. Indeed, in 2022, he publicly condemned the 'senseless violence' in Ukraine. Nevertheless, that year the British government took the draconian step of freezing Shvidler's assets on the basis that he was 'associated with' Roman Abramovich, the former owner of Chelsea FC; and that he was a non-executive director of Evraz, a mining company carrying on business in a sector of strategic significance to Russia. Critically, because Shvidler is a British citizen, the asset-freeze makes it a criminal offence for him to deal with his assets anywhere in the world — subject to certain limited exceptions. Roman Abramovich, left, with Eugene Shvidler, centre ALAMY Ironically, had Shvidler not become a British citizen, the asset-freeze would be limited to his assets in the UK — he would have been better off. Instead, he cannot even buy food without obtaining a licence to do so. This is in circumstances where he has done nothing unlawful. It is unquestionable that the asset-freeze interferes with Shvidler's ability to have peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, a right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is whether such interference is justified in the public interest. Having failed to persuade the government and the lower courts that the answer to that question was a resounding 'no', Shvidler appealed to the Supreme Court to uphold his rights. Sadly, they did not do so — the majority decision of four to one deferred to the government on the basis that the executive branch has a 'wide margin of appreciation' when imposing sanctions for the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Lord Leggatt did not defer. In a dissenting judgment that will roar through the ages, he championed the constitutional role that our courts should play in keeping checks and balances on the executive powers exercised by the government. Without that separation of powers, our fundamental liberties are under threat. Citing Magna Carta and Orwell, Lord Leggatt stood up for those liberties and declared unlawful the asset-freeze 'without any geographical or temporal limit' which has deprived Shvidler of the basic freedom to use his possessions as he wishes, a freedom to which he should be entitled as a citizen of this country. In 1989, Shvidler left a country in which — in his words — 'individuals could be stripped of their rights with little or no protections'. He has since left the UK for the same reason. James Clark is a partner at the firm Quillon Law; Jordan Hill, an associate at the firm, also contributed to this article
Times
3 minutes ago
- Times
Samantha Yelland prosecuted Constance Marten and Mark Gordon
Samantha Yelland, a solicitor, was the senior crown prosecutor and reviewing lawyer in the prosecution of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon, who were convicted of the manslaughter of their baby daughter after a lengthy and chaotic retrial at the Old Bailey, which the judge accused them of trying to 'sabotage' and 'derail'. The first time this case was tried, the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the most serious charge of manslaughter. Given there was no definitive cause of death or much of the usual evidence we rely on in homicide cases, we had to think creatively about what alternative evidence we could use. At the retrial, we were able to combine witness testimony and expert evidence, including analysis of weather data at the time of the offence. Becoming a trainee supervisor. I've experienced first-hand how the training you receive early on shapes your future career. It's important to me to help to give lawyers starting out in their careers the best start possible. All my fellow females striving to ensure equality in our profession. When I started there were hardly any female judges. Now, they make up half of all the judges at the Central Criminal Court. And most of my colleagues in the homicide unit are female. Read everything. I was once providing telephone advice to someone arrested for shoplifting. She was somewhat inebriated and, forgetting who she was speaking to, ended the call with 'bye, love you'. Ultimately this job is about victims of crime and their loved ones. The best and the worst bits of my day depend on whether they feel that justice has been achieved. A power for judges to impose extra time on top of a defendant's sentence if they were deemed to have unnecessarily wasted the court's time. • Read more law stories and insights from our experts I love a musical so it would have to be Times Law is taking a three-week break and returns on September 4
