‘1984 Sikh genocide’ motion dropped in UK council, fury follows
LONDON: Protests and pandemonium erupted in UK’s Slough borough council last week after a motion saying it “recognises and commemorates the 40th anniversary of the 1984 Sikh genocide and condemns recent killings of Sikh activists in foreign countries” was withdrawn at the last minute.
The withdrawal followed a challenge to the motion’s inclusion by the council leader, Dexter Smith of the Conservative party.The motion was proposed by councillor Sabia Akram, who quit PM Keir Starmer’s Labour party this June over issues related to the war in Gaza and now sits as an Independent.
The ruckus unfolded after Smith told a council meeting on July 25 that he had received a petition from 57 Sikh residents in Slough saying the motion undermined community cohesion, was divisive, could create ill-feelings towards Sikhs, and they strongly refuted some of its text.
The motion called on Smith to request the UK govt to “seek justice for victims of the 1984 Sikh genocide”, to hold accountable those responsible, and condemn all human rights violations and abuses against Sikhs and minorities in India and in J&K.
The motion also called on Smith to write to Slough MP Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi to “convey the demand of Slough Sikhs to support a referendum on independence in Punjab” and write to UK foreign secretary advocating release of imprisoned British Sikh Jagtar Singh Johal. Another key demand in the motion was to write to PM Starmer to convey “deep concerns at UK intelligence reports of Indian govt agencies targeting Sikh activists in Slough”.
Smith said he accepted that to some, it sounded like a pro-Sikh motion and to others, as “anti-Sikh, anti-Indian or even anti-Indian govt”. “It offers sympathy to victims of inter-communal violence in India in 1984, but also appears to ascribe motives and blame for actions that followed both,” Smith said.
Proposer Akram defended her wording of the motion.“People in this chamber are safe to call the 1984 atrocities an act of genocide. It was also an accepted definition by the Indian PM (Narendra) Modi, no less. The fact that security agencies have contacted members of two families in Slough who are British citizens to say their lives are at risk demonstrates the real threat to our sovereignty as a country,” Akram said.
Akram referred to the assassination of Khalistani separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada last year and the death of activist Avtar Singh Khanda in “mysterious circumstances” to contend that the issue of anti-Sikh transnational repression was “very real”.
Nineteen councillors voted in favour of the challenge, eight against, two abstained and eight did not vote. This meant the challenge was upheld and the motion was treated as withdrawn.
The fury followed soon after in the council’s public gallery and the meeting had to be adjourned whilst it was cleared of angry Sikhs. They shouted “never forget 1984 Sikh genocide”, “Shame on you” and accused the council of being supporters of genocide. Another screamed: “There are Sikhs in Slough under threat by the Indian govt. If they are murdered, you are all at fault.”
The Sikh Federation UK said: “We wrote to the council leader in advance of the meeting and said preventing the motion from being debated was a direct attack on democratic British values and it would lead to community disharmony.”
The withdrawal followed a challenge to the motion’s inclusion by the council leader, Dexter Smith of the Conservative party.The motion was proposed by councillor Sabia Akram, who quit PM Keir Starmer’s Labour party this June over issues related to the war in Gaza and now sits as an Independent.
The ruckus unfolded after Smith told a council meeting on July 25 that he had received a petition from 57 Sikh residents in Slough saying the motion undermined community cohesion, was divisive, could create ill-feelings towards Sikhs, and they strongly refuted some of its text.
The motion called on Smith to request the UK govt to “seek justice for victims of the 1984 Sikh genocide”, to hold accountable those responsible, and condemn all human rights violations and abuses against Sikhs and minorities in India and in J&K.
The motion also called on Smith to write to Slough MP Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi to “convey the demand of Slough Sikhs to support a referendum on independence in Punjab” and write to UK foreign secretary advocating release of imprisoned British Sikh Jagtar Singh Johal. Another key demand in the motion was to write to PM Starmer to convey “deep concerns at UK intelligence reports of Indian govt agencies targeting Sikh activists in Slough”.
Smith said he accepted that to some, it sounded like a pro-Sikh motion and to others, as “anti-Sikh, anti-Indian or even anti-Indian govt”. “It offers sympathy to victims of inter-communal violence in India in 1984, but also appears to ascribe motives and blame for actions that followed both,” Smith said.
Proposer Akram defended her wording of the motion.“People in this chamber are safe to call the 1984 atrocities an act of genocide. It was also an accepted definition by the Indian PM (Narendra) Modi, no less. The fact that security agencies have contacted members of two families in Slough who are British citizens to say their lives are at risk demonstrates the real threat to our sovereignty as a country,” Akram said.
Akram referred to the assassination of Khalistani separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada last year and the death of activist Avtar Singh Khanda in “mysterious circumstances” to contend that the issue of anti-Sikh transnational repression was “very real”.
Nineteen councillors voted in favour of the challenge, eight against, two abstained and eight did not vote. This meant the challenge was upheld and the motion was treated as withdrawn.
The fury followed soon after in the council’s public gallery and the meeting had to be adjourned whilst it was cleared of angry Sikhs. They shouted “never forget 1984 Sikh genocide”, “Shame on you” and accused the council of being supporters of genocide. Another screamed: “There are Sikhs in Slough under threat by the Indian govt. If they are murdered, you are all at fault.”
The Sikh Federation UK said: “We wrote to the council leader in advance of the meeting and said preventing the motion from being debated was a direct attack on democratic British values and it would lead to community disharmony.”
