MP warns British streets could erupt amid escalating India-Pakistan conflict
The escalating conflict between India and Pakistan has raised fears of violence on the streets of the UK, with one MP warning that protests are likely to take place
Tensions have risen between the nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan, sparking fears of spillover confrontations on British soil, warns a UK MP, with community leaders calling for calm.
A Daily Telegraph report highlights concerns that the deteriorating situation in South Asia may lead to unrest in the UK, particularly in areas with large British Pakistanis, Kashmiris, and Indians communities.
Birmingham Perry Barr's independent representative Ayoub Khan, who is of Pakistani-Kashiri descent, expressed his worries to the Telegraph regarding potential protests in the UK, triggered by increasing tensions concerning family members in the conflict zone.
He stated: "Many communities are feeling the distress emanating from the region, and it is crucial for emotions to not run high.
"British Pakistanis, Kashmiris and Indians are all worrying for loved ones overseas at present, and it is vital that we do not compare or diminish the relative pain being felt by either community.", reports Birmingham Live.
"I expect there to be protests and rallies, but I appeal for people to stay calm.
"It is imperative that our communities come together to promote the principles of humanity and not division, and vital that the Government does its utmost to broker an immediate end to hostilities," he further commented.
The comments come amid heightened unease following the disturbing turmoil in Leicester and Smethwick during 2022, which saw chilling scenes of street clashes primarily involving young lads, with instances of individuals masked in balaclavas caught on video spewing racist slurs after a cricket game between India and Pakistan.
Social media fuelled the friction between Hindu and Muslim communities, igniting deep-seated concerns amongst locals.
Adding his voice to the conversation, Vinod Popat of the Hindu Community Organisations Group—representing nearly 50 Hindu groups in Leicester—pleaded for peace, stating, "When things like this in the region happen, emotions run high and it can spill out into this country, especially among the young on both sides."
He continued by emphasising the need for unity: "Here in Leicester and the rest of the UK, we need to live in harmony and there has to be cohesion."
Popat also pointed out the potential local impact of international tensions: "But, whatever happens in south-east Asia between India and Pakistan means there's apprehension that it could have an impact on the streets here."
Leicester South's independent MP Shockat Adam echoed these sentiments in his own comment within the same report, expressing grave concerns about the knock-on effects: "The situation in the region is alarming and there is a genuine fear that tensions from the region could spill into the streets here in Leicester."
Significant strides have been made by faith and community groups in tackling the root causes of previous disturbances, with leaders emphasising the collective responsibility to maintain calm.
The message is clear: "The onus is on everyone to act responsibly and not take to the streets."
In a move to foster unity and prevent conflict, outreach has extended to various groups, as expressed in the recent statement: "I have reached out to the police, faith groups and community organisations to promote peace and unity in our vibrant communities, so we can work collaboratively to ensure we do not see any repeat of the troubles in 2022."
Maswood Ahmed from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) stressed the importance of solidarity, saying: "Here in the UK, we must unite, upholding our shared values of peace and respect."
He further underscored MCB's position, urging local leadership to be vigilant, "The MCB urges community leaders to take proactive steps in working with local authorities to safeguard public safety and uphold community harmony."
Meanwhile, police are investigating an incident from last month's demonstration at the Pakistan High Commission in London, following shocking claims about an official's menacing gesture.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Could Donald Trump scrap Aukus?
America's policy undersecretary of defence, Elbridge Colby, is one of the brightest brains in Donald Trump's administration. Having served in the first Trump presidency, Colby has an outstanding reputation as a defence and strategic thinker. He is also, however, very much aligned with Trump's America First thinking in respect of foreign policy, and the United States' relationship with her allies. That would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain In tasking Colby on Wednesday with reviewing the Aukus nuclear submarine-centred strategic partnership between the US, the UK and Australia, the president sends a clear message to Britain and Australia: Aukus is part of his inheritance from Joe Biden, and its future therefore is far from assured. In a media statement, the Pentagon said: 'The department is reviewing Aukus as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president's America First agenda. As (Defense) Secretary (Pete) Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs. This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria.' Colby himself has been ambivalent about Aukus ever since it was established by Biden, and then Australian and British prime ministers, Scott Morrison and Rishi Sunak, in 2021. Addressing a Policy Exchange forum last year, Colby said he was 'quite sceptical' about the Aukus pact, and questioned its viability and ultimate benefits. In a more recent interview with the Australian newspaper, Colby said Aukus's Pillar 1 – the nuclear submarine programme under which Australia would purchase several Virginia-class boats, pending the acquisition of new generation UK-Australian Acute-class submarines – is 'very problematic'. He did say, however, that Pillar 2 – the sharing of military intelligence and technical know-how between the partners – 'is great, no problem'. Colby's long-standing concern is the US's ability to take on China if it ever comes to conflict in the Asia-Pacific, especially over Taiwan. 'How are we supposed to give away nuclear attack submarines in the years of the window of potential conflict with China?' he told the Australian. 'A nuclear attack submarine is the most important asset for a western Pacific fight, for Taiwan, conventionally. But we don't have enough, and we're not going to have enough.' If this is the starting position for Colby's review, its scepticism contradicts the steadfast commitment to Aukus from the current Australian and British Labour governments. Indeed, Britain's latest Strategic Defence Review places high priority on the Aukus partnership as an integral element of British strategic and force planning. Given Colby's previous form on Aukus, the review may well recommend scaling back or discontinuing the nuclear submarine Aukus pillar. But that would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain, let alone for Colby's own strategic vision, outlined in his 2021 book, of an 'anti-hegemonic coalition to contain the military ambitions of China', in which he specifically envisioned Australia. Arguably, it doesn't matter which country mans the attack nuclear submarines assigned to the Asia-Pacific theatre, as long as the boats are there. But will Colby see it that way? In Australia, however, the administration's announcement immediately set a cat amongst the pigeons. Currently, Australia spends just over two per cent of GDP on defence, and the Trump administration, including Colby, is pressuring on Australia to do far more. This month, Hegseth, told his Australian counterpart that Australia should be committing at least 3.5 per cent of GDP to ensure not just Aukus, but that her fighting personnel and ageing military hardware are fit for purpose and contributing commensurately to the Western alliance. After his face-to-face meeting with Hegseth, Australian defence minister Richard Marles seemed open to the suggestion. His prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is not. In his first major media appearance since his thumping election win a month ago, Albanese was asked whether the US could renege on supplying nuclear submarines to Australia if spending is deemed inadequate. 'Well, I think Australia should decide on what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that', Albanese replied. It hasn't escaped notice here that the Pentagon announced its Aukus review less than 48 hours after Albanese made his declaration, and just days before the Australian prime minister is expected to have his first personal meeting with Trump at the G7 Leaders' Summit in Canada. That meeting, carrying the risk of a public Trump rebuke, surely will be dreaded by Albanese. Dealing with the Americans' insistence on a near-doubling of Australia's defence investment is politically diabolical for Albanese. He has just won re-election on a manifesto promising huge additional social investments, especially in Australia's version of the NHS and a fiscally ravenous National Disability Insurance Scheme. Albanese must keep his left-wing support base onside by expanding already huge public investments and subsidies in pursuing his government's ideological Net Zero and 100 per cent renewable energy goals. All that on top of a burgeoning national debt. To achieve Nato's GDP defence spending target of 3 per cent, let alone Hegseth's 3.5, something has to give. Albanese cannot deliver both massive social spending and vast defence outlays: to keep the Americans happy, and justify the continuation of both Aukus pillars, he will need to either prove himself a Bismarck-calibre statesman, or risk electoral wrath if he retreats on his domestic spending promises, and cuts existing programmes across his government, to afford adequate defence spending headroom. Australia needs America to be a strong ally in our troubled region, but the United States needs steadfast allies like Australia and Britain. Now the administration's scepticism about Aukus's value to the US is officially on the table, with a review entrusted to its biggest Aukus sceptic in Elbridge Colby, Australia and Britain must justify why all aspects of the partnership are a worthwhile investment with them, as America's partners, committed to playing their part in full. How well they do it will be a measure of their political and diplomatic competence.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
The BBC is helping Reform - and has become a danger to democracy
You might not know it - as the national broadcaster, the source of most information for most of Britain has singularly failed to report it - but the BBC has drawn up plans to win over Reform voters. It's strange how the BBC, a channel of staggering narcissism which never misses a chance to talk about itself, isn't saying much about the leaking of minutes from a meeting of its Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee. Read more The story was broken by the Byline Times, one of Britain's 'new media' outlets that's increasingly proving to be an excellent source of investigative journalism. BBC Director-General Tim Davie and other senior figures like 'News CEO' Deborah Turness want to reshape the broadcaster to appeal to Reform voters. They believe BBC news and drama is causing 'low trust issues' among the radical right. Turness discussed altering 'story selection' and 'other types of output, such as drama' to win Reform hearts and minds The committee includes former GB News executive Robbie Gibb, appointed to the BBC board by Boris Johnson. Emily Maitlis once called him an 'active agent of the Conservative Party'. Minutes stated that bosses 'recognised the importance of local BBC teams in the plan, given their closeness to audiences'. So keep an eye on how BBC Scotland behaves from now on. Here's the bottom line: the BBC should not seek to appeal to anyone. It should report the news with complete objectivity, impartiality, and political neutrality. The words 'without fear or favour' should be tattooed on the heart of every BBC employee, especially the cosseted, overpaid establishment mandarins who run the organisation. We pay their wages. The BBC should represent Britain in its entirety, not favoured special interest groups. However, this courting of Reform proves impartiality to be a lie. It doesn't matter if Marxists or Nazis like a particular story. It's irrelevant whether coverage makes liberals happy or conservatives sad, or vice versa. No consideration should ever be paid to whether drama is perceived as progressive or reactionary. What matters is that news is reported accurately and fairly, analysis is balanced, and drama has cultural merit and entertains. By attempting to woo Reform, the BBC alienates everyone else. Worse, the BBC reinforces the grievances levelled against it. Scotland's Yes movement has accused the BBC of bias for years. Now independence supporters can continue to do so but with ammunition to back up their allegations. How can the BBC pretend to report news honestly, or reflect British politics and culture fairly, when it has been caught out cosying up to Nigel Farage? BBC Director-General Tim Davie with former Conservative PM David Cameron (Image: free) The BBC slits its own throat. And many of its enemies will gleefully watch the blood spill. Specifically, Farage. He has consistently attacked the BBC. Indeed, he uses his own platform - the disgracefully biased GB News - to do so. With delicious irony, Farage previously accused the BBC of being a 'political actor'. Well, now the broadcaster appears to be acting politically for its nemesis. Farage threatened to boycott the BBC, and claimed editors used 'story selection' to bash Reform. If Farage ever takes power he'll gut the BBC in an afternoon. In truth, the BBC deserves all it gets. It made Farage's career, endlessly platforming him, giving him far higher exposure than other comparative politicians. If you think there's any fairness to BBC coverage ask yourself how much you see the LibDems on air compared to Reform. Then look at the two parties and their parliamentary representation. Reform has five MPs, the LibDems 72. Indeed, the Greens have four. Do the Greens get four-fifths of the time devoted to Reform? Do they hell. Only last month, Davie, the director-general, was sounding off about the 'crisis of trust' in Britain. He grandly claimed the BBC would play a leading role in reversing the decline and help combat division. The BBC would create a future where 'trusted information strengthens democracy'. Davie, though, is doing everything he can to deepen division, damage democracy and foment distrust in journalism at a time when society needs good, honest reporting more than ever. When he said 'reform' was needed, it now appears Davie meant with a capital R. Currently, Reform is causing chaos in councils the party won at the English local elections. Will that be reported under the new pro-Reform BBC guidelines? I'm afraid we now need to ask ourselves whether the BBC will tip the next election for Reform. Davie should go, along with the entire BBC board. They disgrace journalism, and are not impartial or balanced. Read more The notion of politicising drama is disgusting. Artists exist to create and enrich our lives, not do the bidding of tawdry media executives in hock to the hard-right. In Britain, trust is at rock bottom. New findings released yesterday from the National Centre for Social Research found that just 19% of us believe the current system of governing Britain works. Only 12% trust governments to put country before party. As long as I've been alive, the BBC was billed as the last redoubt for fairness and balance. Over the last decade, that claim has well and truly undergone an acid bath. Now, the mask is off. The BBC has shown us what it really is, and we need to take notice. Globally, the rise of the hard-right has caused many to lose their minds - from commentators and business leaders, to political parties and academics. In Britain, the BBC hasn't just suffered a nervous breakdown, it has completely surrendered its principles of fairness. It's now more a danger to our democracy than a line of defence. Neil Mackay is the Herald's Writer-at-Large. He's a multi-award winning investigative journalist, author of both fiction and non-fiction, and a filmmaker and broadcaster. He specialises in intelligence, security, crime, social affairs, cultural commentary, and foreign and domestic politics
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Porn Britannia, Xi's absence & no more lonely hearts?
OnlyFans is giving the Treasury what it wants – but should we be concerned? 'OnlyFans,' writes Louise Perry, 'is the most profitable content subscription service in the world.' Yet 'the vast majority of its content creators make very little from it'. So why are around 4 per cent of young British women selling their wares on the site? 'Imitating Bonnie Blue and Lily Phillips – currently locked in a competition to have sex with the most men in a day – isn't pleasant.' OnlyFans gives women 'the sexual attention and money of hundreds and even thousands of men'. The result is 'a cascade of depravity' that Perry wouldn't wish on her worst enemy. In business terms, however, OnlyFans is a 'staggering success', according to economics editor Michael Simmons. 'Britain's sex industry brings in far more to the economy than politicians are comfortable admitting'; OnlyFans might just be Britain's most profitable tech start-up. 'If we are going to wage a moral war on porn,' Simmons argues, 'we should at least be honest about what we're sacrificing.' Louise and Michael joined the podcast to discuss further (1:21). Next: could Xi Jinping's time be up? Historian Francis Pike writes about the unusual absence of China's President Xi. China-watchers have detected some subtle differences from the norm in Chinese media, from fewer official references to Xi to changes in routine politburo meetings. So, could Xi Jinping be forced to step down? And if so, who is on manoeuvres and why? Francis joined the podcast alongside former diplomat Kerry Brown, professor of China Studies at King's College London (22:31). And finally: is the era of the lonely hearts ad coming to an end? Tony Whitehead provides his notes on lonely hearts columns this week, writing about how, 330 years after they first appeared in print in Britain, they may soon disappear. Francesca Beauman – who literally wrote the book on the subject, Shapely Ankle Preferr'd – and Mark Mason join the podcast to provide their favourite examples, from the serious to the humorous (35:13). Hosted by William Moore and Lara Prendergast. Produced by Patrick Gibbons.
