Britain’s Dharmic Communities

and the General Election 2015

Britain’s Dharmic Communities

and the General Election 2015

Dharmic Ideas & Policy Foundation (DIPF)

Chairman: Prof. Nath Puri

Co-Director: Dr. Gautam Sen

Co-Director: Dr. Prakash Shah

Communications: Mukesh Naker

Council Members

Prof. S. N. Balagangadhara

Sandeep Balakrishnan

Smita Barooah

Dr. Come Carpentier

Dr. Jakob de Roover

Dr. Koenraad Elst

Dr. Manish Pandit

Mr. Rohit Patel

Dr Jasdev Rai

Dr. Yvette Rosser

Sanjeev Sanyal

Dr. Atul Shah

Dr. Rakesh Sinha

Rajiv Varma

Swami Vigyananand

Britain’s Dharmic Communities and the General Election 2015

A report prepared by Prakash Shah, DIPF Co-Director

© Dharmic Ideas & Policy Foundation, September 2015 143 Cavendish Rd, Leicester LE2 7PJ United Kingdom E: director@dipf.org.uk W: dharmicideas.wordpress.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or reproduced in any form or by any

means, now known or hereinafter invented, including photocopying and recording or in any

information, storage or retrieval system, without the permission in writing of the publisher. The views

expressed in this report do not reflect those of any particular individual associated with the DIPF.

Preface

The Dharmic Ideas & Policy Foundation (DIPF) was established in February 2015 to give the Dharmic Community Organisations (i.e. of Indian traditions) and grass roots a steer on key policy matters that impacted on them. GE2015 was an important landmark for the Dharmic community. This report is aimed at the Dharmic communities and the political parties. Dharmic Communities. The work of organisations such as British Hindu Voice (BHV) over the last six plus years is beginning to shift mind-sets as this report shows. Dharmic community organisations for 40+ years confused their role in being non-party political. While this may be the right position for organisations to hold, it also confuses policy discussions, debates and impact assessments as being political. Consequently Dharmic organisations only infrequently had discussions or debates on national or local policy matters at management committee level or membership level. Possibly more than any other factor, this has reduced the number of Dharmic voters at elections to very small percentages. BHV began the process of getting organisations to separate party political issues and policy issues and helped organisations come together on key policy areas such as articulation of a position on the law on caste and helping with the formation of the Anti Caste Legislation Committee and the Coalition for Dialogue. Political Parties. This report provides notice that the Dharmic voter cannot be ignored any longer particularly in a climate of greater plurality among political parties and the greater choice available to the voter. It also aims to provide a better understanding of how the key political parties view and treat the Dharmic communities, what their underlying policies mean, and how this impacts on the Dharmic voter.

Mukesh Naker Communications Officer, DIPF and British Hindu Voice

Contents

The Dharmic Communities and Political Parties 1

Manifestos 6

Constraints on Freedom of Expression and Political Participation 9

Narendra Modi and India 13

Conclusions and Recommendations 16

1

Britain’s Dharmic Communities

and the General Election 2015

The General Election of 7 May 2015 (GE2015) marks a remarkable shift in British politics in

terms of the organisation, political awareness, public demands, and voting patterns of the

Dharmic communities. This report outlines these shifts, examines the possible reasons

thereof, and provides further reflection on the issues that will remain salient to the British

Dharmic voter for the future. For the purposes of this briefing the Dharmic voter is a person

who follows any of the Indian traditions. While there is some research and analysis of how

Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups or Asians in general tend to vote, there is

little available research on how the Dharmic communities have tended to vote or act during

elections. This report is therefore the first to tackle this specific domain.

The Dharmic Communities

and Political Parties

A number of key indicators show the

Dharmic communities’ determination to

reshape their relationship to the realm of

British politics. Until recently, the Dharmic

voter has been taken for granted by the

political parties. The Labour Party has

tended to rest upon the complacent belief

that the Dharmic voter, being of

immigrant background, could be relied on

to support the Labour Party hands down,

in line with that party’s perceived softer

attitude on the rights of immigrants and

minorities. Meanwhile, the Conservative

Party has not taken the time to cultivate

the votes of the Dharmic communities

presumably based on the assumption that

they would vote Labour. While exceptions

to the general rule do exist within all

major parties, and some changes are

already afoot, there will be little dissent

from the general observation that they

have tended to demonstrate a nonchalant

attitude towards the Dharmic voter.

Perhaps all the major parties were

justified in adopting the positions they

did. After all, the historical rate of voting

among Hindus is low and those in the

know point out that only around a quarter

of Hindus eligible to vote actually do so.

Coupled with the fact that the

constituency system makes the courting

of Hindu, Jain and Sikh votes a laborious

affair with doubtful gains, this meant that

the parties had no real incentive to offer

bespoke packages to attract Dharmic

communities (see Figure 1 on London

Hindu voter concentration). Instead, they

had to make do with recycled

platitudinous soundbites to suit the

relevant demographic. The contrast is

often made with the Muslim community

in Britain, which is perceived as highly

politicised and easily persuaded via the

Friday mosque prayer and through other

2

networks to lobby and vote on matters of

importance to Muslims. The Muslim

community has for a decade or longer

developed various means to have its

strength reflected in elections, including

an understanding of which constituencies

it can influence. For their part, MPs and

local politicians often acknowledge the

importance of taking on a cause or issue

because it is treated as important by the

Muslim community at a local, national and

even international level. Similarly,

concerns of the Jewish community are

also aired as seen in the manifesto of the

Board of Deputies of British Jews and

taken up via their extensive networks

within and outside the political domain.

The Christian Churches have many ways of

influencing political decisions that affect

or are of concern to the Christian faithful,

and enjoy an asymmetrical position of

influence because of the constitutional

position of the Anglican Church, and

through the House of Lords, inter-faith

fora and specifically the Hindu-Christian

forum.

The lack of attention given to the Dharmic

communities nevertheless seems counter-

intuitive. While their voting strength may

not be being mobilised as fully as it might

be and they may not fully exploit the

potential to vocalise community specific

concerns, the British Hindu community’s

demographic profile and positive key

indicators should perhaps have resulted in

a different position of political importance

accorded to that community. As Kapil

Dudakia has stated in his blog Kapil’s

Khichadi:

Today the Hindu community is

seen to be well integrated, well

educated, law abiding, hugely

contributing in business, hard

Figure 1 London Hindu voter concentration

Source: http://www.may2015.com/

3

working, professional, diligent,

honest and community spirited.

These are but a few examples of

the many positive attributes that

one may consider when describing

the Hindu community in Britain.

Yet he goes on to articulate the

counterintuitive nature of the lower

political profile of the community:

Participation within the political

arena has not been to the same

extent as one would expect of

such a vibrant and successful

community. In the recent past it

has become increasingly clear that

there is a danger that the political

fraternity might be taking the

Hindu community for granted, or

even worse, ignoring it given it

may not always be as loud as other

minority ethnic or religious groups.

In addition, the hitherto prevailing system

of dominance of British politics by two

large parties is no longer a reality. As the

Hindu Council noted just prior to the

election: “it's no longer just a two-horse

race and the current situation

demonstrates the influence a minority

party can have in a coalition

Government.” Given that the vote of each

community can make a significant

difference, this makes how the Dharmic

voter acts an issue of major significance,

particularly in marginal constituencies.

The difference that courting the broadly

‘ethnic’ vote makes was revealed starkly

in a 2013 study by British Future which

found that in GE2010, although the

Conservatives won the supports of 36% of

voters across the UK, only 16% of those

from ethnic minority backgrounds chose

to vote Conservative. Labour’s profile

among the electorate was markedly

different because it enjoyed 68% support

among non-white voters, but 29% support

among voters as a whole. The same study

showed that if the ethnic minority vote

had reflected the national average,

involving an increase in their vote by some

500,000, the Conservatives would have

won an outright majority and would not

have had to join a coalition with the

Liberal Party.

It has been recognised that the Dharmic

organisations and community have some

way to travel in order to make up for their

lower starting point. Activist groups such

as the Dharma Seva Purva Paksha (DSP)

campaign group, which sought to mobilise

the Dharmic voter during GE2015, have

reported that they had to make a choice.

Rather than tackle the whole range of

issues of concern to the Dharmic voter

they had to mobilise limited resources and

devote them to raising awareness around

a few issues that would affect the Dharmic

voter such as the caste legislation.

4

For GE2015 it has been estimated that in

some marginal constituencies the number

of Dharmic voters did make or could have

made a significant difference to the

outcome to the Conservative Party

winning seats from either the Labour or

Liberal Democratic parties. A study

conducted by British Future after GE2015

shows that, while the Labour Party still did

better among ethnic minorities as a whole

by winning 52% of their vote in contrast to

31% of the national vote, the ‘Asian’ voter

is almost as likely to vote Conservative as

the average British voter. More

dramatically, there was a palpable shift in

the voting pattern in GE2015 towards the

Conservative party among both Hindus

and Sikhs to the extent that a majority of

both groups now vote Conservative (see

Figure 2). In what could signify a major

shift in the British electoral landscape

away from the Labour Party, it has been

noted that the overall ethnic minority

vote for the Conservatives has doubled,

and this can be put down mainly to Hindu

and Sikh voters, since Muslim and

Christian ethnic minorities still prefer to

vote Labour.

Another study conducted by researchers

from YouGov and the University of

Manchester makes less dramatic claims

but shows the same direction of travel as

the one by British Future. Although the

researchers of the YouGov/Manchester

study do not specify the behaviour of

Dharmic voters during GE2015, they do

provide figures for Indian as well as

Pakistani and Bangladeshi voting patterns

from which we can also draw some

conclusions.

Figure 2: Ethnic Minority Vote by Faith Group Source: British Future, General Election 2015 and the Ethnic Minority Vote

5

From these figures (see Figure 3), the

researchers say we can imply a switch by

Indian voters from Labour to

Conservatives of 5.5%. Although most

Indians still appear to vote Labour

according to these figures, fewer voted in

GE2015 for either the Labour or Liberal

parties as compared to those in GE2010,

and more voted for the Conservatives.

Based on the assumption that Hindus,

Sikhs and Jains make up the bulk of the

‘Indian’ population surveyed these figures

also confirm a swing to the Conservatives

among Dharmic voters has taken place.

The vast majority of Pakistanis and

Bangladeshis can be counted as Muslim.

More Pakistanis voted Labour in GE2015

than in GE2010, and the vote switch

largely appears to have been away from

the Liberal Democrats than away from the

Conservatives. Pakistanis therefore

appear to vote Labour far more than

before. Remarkably, Bangladeshi voters

have an implied swing from Labour to

Conservative of 12% while their support

for the Liberal Democrats also dropped

significantly.

2010 2015 2010 2015 2010 2015

Indians Pakistanis Bangladeshis

Conservative 27 35 16 17 15 27

Labour 50 47 59 69 72 60

Lib Dem 19 8 23 5 11 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

F igure 3 : Vot ing Behaviour Change o f Ind ians, Pak istanis And Bangladeshis

G E2010 - G E2015

Conservative Labour Lib Dem

6

Manifestos

The palpable stir taking place within the

Dharmic communities indicates that they

do not want their distinct concerns to be

ignored any longer. They are increasingly

able and willing to articulate their own

positions and to test the parties against

those positions. To some extent, this

already happens behind closed doors by

way of quiet lobbying that is characteristic

of a demographic that does not tend to

shout loudly about every concern. The

recent announcement of a government

consultation, which will include a review

of crematoria for Hindus and Sikhs, is one

recent example of the outcome of

quietist, behind the scenes lobbying by

the Hindu Forum of Britain (HFB) for many

years.

An illustration of how the Dharmic

community has sought to establish its

own identity in the public sphere is the

emergence of dissent against the label

‘Asian’ in media, research and policy

discussions since that label is often felt to

portray statistics and trends negatively

associated with Muslims. On the one

hand, such dissension expresses the fact

that the Dharmic communities have come

to assume an overwhelmingly positive

profile according to key indicators

including marginal involvement in

criminality and recourse to welfare, and

scoring well for participation in

employment or self-employment.

On the other hand, as Hardeep Singh of

the Network of Sikh Organizations has

noted, there is criticism that Muslim

involvement is occluded when negative

behaviour, such as the overwhelming

Muslim male involvement in the abuse of

young vulnerable girls in Rotherham and

other places, is portrayed as a general

attribute of ‘Asians’. Statistics compiled by

the Muslim Council of Britain are clear in

showing that the Muslim profile in

employment, criminality and reliance on

welfare are overwhelmingly negative in

comparative terms.

Recent debate has also questioned the

use of the terms BME (Black and Minority

Ethnic) or BAME (Black, Asian and

Minority Ethnic). If this terminology was

ever useful in capturing the reality of

diversity in the UK, it is of much

diminished importance today. Among

others, academic Emma Dabiri recently

supported a call by Trevor Phillips to end

the use of terms BME and BAME, saying:

“I do not identify with others on the basis

that neither of us is white”. Yet this

message has not gone out to all official

circles, and the Labour Party continues to

use the term BAME to lump together all

non-white people.

The articulation of specific claims by the

Dharmic communities was most clearly

shown by the issuing of Hindu and Sikh

manifestos prior to GE2015. For example,

the Hindu Forum of Britain (HFB) and the

National Council of Hindu Temples (NCHT)

Manifesto for General Election 2015, the

text of which is substantially based on the

one proposed by Kapil Dudakia, received

the support of many other organisations

and individuals. It highlighted the

7

following issues as among those of

concern: the need to repeal the caste

provision in the Equality Act 2010; the

continuance of the programme of Free

Schools (and Faith Schools) so that a

greater diversity of Hindu schools can be

set up; a Bank Holiday dedicated to

Diwali; recognition that Jammu and

Kashmir are an integral part of India and

not an issue of outside interference;

congratulating PM Modi and forging a

closer partnership on issues affecting both

countries; the need to raise concerns at

governmental level about the violations of

Hindu human rights inter alia in Pakistan

and Bangladesh; the need to raise the

issue of cross border terrorism directly

with the Pakistani Government; the

deployment of the full force of law to

investigate and bring to justice the

perpetrators of sexual

grooming; the

denouncing of forced

religious conversions;

and identifying and

repatriating Hindu

artefacts in the UK’s

national treasure.

The UK Hindu Council’s

manifesto echoes the

first one by highlighting

concerns about

grooming and forced

conversions; ending the

caste provision in the Equality Act; the

status of Kashmir and the situation of

Kashmiri Pandits, as well as Hindus in

other countries including Bangladesh,

Pakistan, Malaysia and Afghanistan. In

addition, the Hindu Council’s manifesto

introduced the following themes: support

for planning applications and access to

grant funding for temples; the need to

reverse the compelled serving of meat at

lunchtime given its impact for Hindu or

other schools that wish to adopt a

vegetarian ethos; the need to retain GCSE

and A level qualifications community

languages; support for yoga and ayurveda

as an alternative, drug free, cost effective

treatment, and increased choice for

patients; revision of the widespread use of

the term Asian; encouraging engagement

with the British Hindu community to

ensure Hindu representation at all levels

of politics, public appointments and board

representation; and increasing Hindu

recruitment in the British Armed Forces.

The Sikh Manifesto issued by the Sikh

Network also contains echoes from the

Hindu manifestos as well as setting out

specific Sikh aims. The areas of common

importance include more effective

representation in parliament; action

8

against grooming and forced conversions;

and support for faith schools.

The manifestos provide some indication of

the specific issues that have surfaced for

the Dharmic voter that should be

receiving the attention of political parties

and candidates. Judging by the

proceedings of various pre-election

hustings the stance of most politicians is

that, on the whole, the Dharmic voter is

concerned more or less about the same

issues as everyone else. However, it can

be seen that even among the wider issues

of concern to the general British voter,

specific nuances such as the provision and

recognition of alternative health services

might still have relevance to the Dharmic

voter and deserve greater attention in the

future.

9

Constraints on Freedom of

Expression and Political

Participation

GE2015 demonstrated that there are ways

in which the voices of the Indian

communities are stifled by the

surrounding ethos of rules and other

strictures, which indirectly impose

constraints on Dharmic organisations from

raising concerns that voters should rightly

be engaged with. On the one hand, it is

the organisations which are often at the

coal face, being in key consultative roles

when it concerns policy issues that

government deals with at all levels. On

the other hand, many functionaries within

Dharmic community organisations also

have a belief that they are not entitled to

cross the political/non-political boundary.

Rather than being understood as

refraining from siding with a particular

political party during election time, this

alleged prohibition on crossing the

boundary is generally understood as an

obligation to remain silent on any issue of

political salience no matter what its

impact on its membership or the wider

Dharmic community. These constraints

against Dharmic organisations can work

against issues of concern becoming known

to the Dharmic voter as well as to the

general public, and can result in the

hampering of the Dharmic voter from

being effectively engaged with the

political process. These issues impinge on

and shape active participation in the

political process and need to be seriously

reconsidered.

A particular issue of concern that arose

during the election campaign was the

attempt to squash the involvement of

some Hindu bodies in expressing the

concerns of the wider Dharmic

community. A specific campaign was

launched against the National Council of

Hindu Temples whose General Secretary,

Satish Sharma, issued a letter dated 3 May

2015 outlining the position of the

Conservative, Labour, and Liberal parties

on the caste issue (see appendix). It

specified the stance taken by the

leaderships of the parties, or inferred the

position of the leaderships from the

undenounced statements or actions of

their MPs, in supporting or not the as yet

unimplemented caste clause in the

Equality Act 2010. The letter effectively

highlighted that while the Labour and

Liberal Democratic parties had supported

the caste clause without taking the

concerns the Dharmic communities

seriously, the Conservative party had

maintained a stance of openness to

discussion about the clause. The letter

carried the following paragraph, which

provoked unease especially among

members of the Labour Party:

This is NOT a recommendation for

members of the Dharmic

communities to vote for a

particular Party but it would be

unfair not to recognise that the

Conservative Party is the only

principal party which has rejected

the process whereby this

legislation was forced thru, the

Conservative Party is the only

10

party which has consistently

listened to us and voted against

this legislation and whose

members are committed to

repealing the Caste amendment if

re-elected.

The letter then urges British Hindus that

they must vote and “should re-consider

their habitual allegiances” and compare

the past ideal with the present reality. The

letter specifically says that it is not

recommending a particular political party

to vote for during GE2015, while at the

same time laying out part of the record

and position of the different parties on

the caste clause.

However, journalist and writer, Sunny

Hundal, who is also a Labour activist,

considered that the letter warranted

reporting to the Charity Commission,

which then began an investigation on the

NCHT. Although the Charity commission

eventually exonerated the NCHT, the

threat of investigation has had a real

impact in the minds of some Hindu

organisations and activists who began to

worry that their ability and duty to

safeguard the interests of their members

on key policy impacts could be curtailed.

Another incident also involving the

campaign against the caste legislation

occurred in the bitterly contested Harrow

East constituency. A flyer (see appendix),

distributed to voters in the constituency

by the Dharma Seva Purva Paksha (DSP)

campaign and media organisation, also

challenged the Labour and Lib Dem

prospective candidates, Uma Kumaran

and Ross Barlow, on the basis that their

parties had supported the caste legislation

in 2013. Although Kumaran condemned

the flyer as “gutter politics”, the

Conservative candidate, Bob Blackman,

who successfully defended his seat in the

constituency, was reported as having said

that the flyer did not have anything to do

with him. He also noted, “You should see

some of the leaflets going out about me

by Muslim organisations”, adding that he

had complained to police about an

anonymous leaflet from “Muslim

extremists”.

Among other things, the coverage given to

the campaign leaflets on caste in the

Harrow East constituency reflects how the

Dharmic community has to overcome an

additional burden of proof, given that, as

with the political process, the emphasis in

the media has also been that caste

discrimination should be made unlawful,

while the concerns of the Dharmic

community have been ignored altogether.

The presumption of the unreasonableness

and immaturity of the Dharmic voter

comes across loudly from the incidents

recounted. If she or he takes a stand

against something of vital concern for the

future of their community in the UK, it is

not regarded as legitimate and extraneous

concerns are thrown in to muddy the

waters and put the Dharmic voter on the

defensive.

At around the time of GE2015, the case

concerning corruption in the 2014 London

Borough of Tower Hamlets mayoral

election was also being litigated. While

the concerns of the applicants in that case

about inappropriate methods being

11

employed to secure the mayoral election

are understandable, it is also of concern

that the High Court’s judgment extends

the notion of undue influence involving

the threat of spiritual injury contrary to

section 115 of the Representation of

People Act 1983. The original version of

that section had been introduced during

the nineteenth century on suspicion that

the Catholic Church would seek to affect

the outcome of elections in the southern

counties of Ireland. That legislation was

issued during a period of British

colonialism in Ireland, and the court did

take notice of the fact that since 1900

allegations about such corruption were

hardly raised.

It should then be disconcerting that rather

than consigning that section of the

legislation to history, the High Court’s

judgment specifically endorsed its current

relevance and then proceeded to apply it.

The same judgment refers to a fifty-one

page letter by some Anglican bishops

which became known as a pamphlet for

the Labour Party as being “harmless”. This

kind of difference of treatment between

the Anglican and minority faiths and

traditions smacks of a legally sanctioned

double standard and should be of further

concern to the Dharmic voter.

Section 115 is an unwieldy provision

couched in Protestant theological

assumptions. However, it is quite possible

that charges could be levied against a

Dharmic organisation should it pronounce

on a particular issue of importance, like

the caste legislation, during an election

campaign. Precisely this question was

raised in an article

by Giles Fraser in

The Guardian in

which he referred to

a pre-election letter

by Trupti Patel,

president of the

HFB. In that letter,

as part of her

perceived duty “to

carry the hopes and

aspirations of

thousands of Hindu

families in the UK”,

she had noted that

only the

Conservative Party

would end the caste

clause. However, Fraser goes further and

suggests double standards because

actions by Imams in the Tower Hamlets

case led to legal action while Trupti Patel’s

12

letter did not. Fraser is wrong however in

assuming that Islam and the Dharmic

traditions are entities of the same kind

and that in not having proceeded against

the HFB there was some kind of

unfairness to Muslims. After all, unlike in

Islam the deference to their doctrinal

religious authority of the type imams may

elicit is simply irrelevant to Hindus and to

organizations like the HFB, which play a

completely different role. As Trupti Patel’s

letter specifically indicated, she merely

tried to reflect the ”hopes and

aspirations” of the Hindu families, and not

to exercise some religious authority or

leadership. Not realising that the HFB is

not a charity, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown

weighed in, suggesting unfairness to

Muslims because the Charity Commission

had not announced an investigation of the

HFB!

Even if there may not yet be an instance

of prosecution against Dharmic bodies, it

is not beyond the range of possibility that

such charges could arise for reasons of

political rivalry, just as the move to initiate

the Charity Commission investigation

against the NCHT was pushed by a Labour

Party activist, as well the threats made

against the HFB. The hostile political

climate generated in part by the threats of

investigations against Dharmic charity

organisations or the prospect of

prosecution against Dharmic bodies raise

serious matters of the freedom of speech,

expression, political participation, and

association.

13

Narendra Modi and India

Prime Minister Modi has survived many

an attack on his reputation since 2002

when he became Chief Minister of the

Indian state of Gujarat, which is also the

place of origin of a large section of the

Hindus and Jains in the UK. British officials

had also been instructed since the 2002

riots not to deal directly with Mr Modi. In

2003, an application was filed for an arrest

warrant for Mr Modi, under section 134 of

the Criminal Justice Act 1988, following

allegations of torture. The request for a

warrant was dismissed by a judge because

of the lack of evidence produced by those

petitioning for the warrant.

Mr Modi suffered other humiliations at

the hands of Labour governments. Like

many left-wingers members of the Labour

Party have consistently expressed an anti-

India and anti-Modi stance. Another part

of the campaign against him took the

form of visa denials in the UK and, since

2005, in the United States. In 2007, an

early day motion (EDM) on the killing of

Muslims in Gujarat was primarily

supported by Labour and Liberal

Democrat MPs. Those signing up to the

EDM, which makes no mention of

murdered Hindus, applauded “the recent

decision of the United States not to grant

a visa to the Gujarat Chief Minister

Narendra Modi for severe violations of

religious freedoms.”

In 2010 the Conservative-Liberal

Democrat coalition government began to

lift the boycott against Mr Modi with the

announcement that the then High

Commissioner to

India would be going

to Gujarat, which was

already known for

being a flagship state

for attracting foreign

direct investment.

Matters took a

dramatic turn after

the 16 May 2014

election in India

which resulted in a

resounding victory

for the BJP and the

NDA coalition of

which it forms the

major part, with Mr

Modi becoming Prime Minister of India.

David Cameron congratulated Modi on his

election victory, inviting him to visit the

UK. The visit by Mr Modi was somewhat

delayed as a result of the GE2015 in the

14

UK but is now due to take place in

November 2015.

While the Conservative government has

made it clear that it welcomes Mr Modi,

the stance of the other parties has been

ambivalent. The Labour Party in particular

has a history of hostility against Mr Modi,

and as Kapil Dudakia argues, this must

partly be motivated by its reliance on

votes from the UK’s Muslim electorate.

The new Labour Party leader Jeremy

Corbyn has played a significant role in

shaping policy against Mr Modi being

welcomed in the UK. The Labour party

carries a huge burden of having taken a

stand against the leader of the largest

democracy in the world. While a minority

in that party do favour a softer, more

nuanced and welcoming stance towards

the BJP and Mr Modi, they appear to be

insignificant in the larger scheme of things

within the party.

As the British government began to court

Mr Modi from 2012, elements within the

Labour and Respect parties continued to

insist on embargoing him. An EDM of 17

December 2012 sponsored by George

Galloway demanded that Modi not be

allowed to visit Britain and that the British

High Commissioner in India sever relations

with him. The EDM’s co-sponsors were

three Labour MPs, all with significant

Muslim voters in their constituencies.

Another EDM tabled on 4 September 2013

sponsored by six Labour and Respect

party MPs, took a similar stand. One of its

co-sponsors was Jeremy Corbyn.

As concerns broader policy towards India,

the Hindu manifestos referred to above

suggest that Labour Party members,

without demur from the Labour

leadership, and indeed outright refusal to

answer specific questions put to the

leadership, have meanwhile advocated a

referendum in Kashmir. That amounts to

an interference in India’s internal affairs

and a concession to Pakistani jihadist

pressure which has resulted in massive

human rights violations against non-

Muslim Kashmiris, including their forced

expulsion from Kashmir. Support for a

referendum effectively endorses the

human rights violations carried out by

Pakistan-sponsored jihadists. Yet this

appears to be the current stand of the

Labour Party.

The caste legislation mentioned above,

which received much support from the

Labour and Liberal Democrat benches in

parliament, is also ultimately conceived of

as backing the efforts of Church-led

proselytism and conversions in India.

Implicit in such support is the idea that

Dharmic traditions are false religions and

no longer worth preserving. It is widely

known that figures for the UK’s Dalit

population were picked out of thin air to

justify the caste legislation, with a

constant ratcheting up of the number.

While Lord Avebury cited a figure

between 50,000 and 200,000, Jeremy

Corbyn was not to be outdone when citing

a figure of 1 million Dalits as present in

the UK. Bearing in mind that the Dharmic

population amounts to some 1.3 million at

the last Census, this figure for Dalits is

staggering. Given these and other strands

of its poor record of policy towards India,

15

it is difficult to imagine how the Labour

Party could convince the Dharmic voter

that it remains in their interest to back it

in future.

Meanwhile, the Conservative Party was

the only one that had considered the role

of India as a global player in their GE2015

election manifesto. They were the only

party that made pledges to support India’s

bid for permanent membership of the UN

Security Council and to initiate a free

trade deal between the EU and India.

16

Conclusions and

Recommendations

The Dharmic voter has become a

significant political player in

contemporary Britain.

The major parties still have some way

to go to realise the potential that the

Dharmic voter offers to their prospects

of success.

The manifestos issued by the Dharmic

organisations are one reflection of a

changed political consciousness

among Dharmic voters.

The specific needs and demands of the

Dharmic voter deserve greater

attention in the future.

Political party policies should be

designed to reflect the needs and

demands of the Dharmic voter for the

sake of fairness, equity and symmetry

among the electorate.

The demographic profile of the

Dharmic community is

overwhelmingly positive and political

parties need to ensure they earn the

dividends that result from this.

Recent trends, and especially the

voting pattern in GE2015, confirm that

there is a turn towards the

Conservative Party among Dharmic

voters and this is a trend that no party

can ignore.

Dharmic organisations need to be able

to have their say and be involved in

political processes.

There is concern about the ways in

which political expression can be

frustrated by the use of malicious or

politically motivated allegations about

breaches of the law.

Threats of investigation and

prosecution can silence the Dharmic

voter’s engagement in the political

process and affects their freedom of

speech, expression, political

participation and association.

British governments led by the Labour

Party have initiated moves to boycott

the current Prime Minister of India,

Narendra Modi, since his time as Chief

Minister of Gujarat.

Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn,

has supported motions in parliament

to reinstate Mr Modi’s diplomatic

boycott and visa denial by the UK.

Labour’s current policy on Mr Modi

has yet to be ascertained.

Labour and Liberal Democratic party

members have supported anti-India

policies including support for the caste

legislation for Christian proselytism in

India and an effective end to the

Dharmic traditions regarded as false

religions by evangelical churches.

Without demur from its leadership,

Labour Party members have

supported a referendum in Jammu

and Kashmir effectively endorsing the

results of jihadist cleansing of non-

Muslims from the territory.

Not all political parties have

formulated policies that see a positive

India-UK relationship as a benefit to

both countries and the Dharmic

communities in the UK

17

Appendix

18

19

20

21

22

Dharmic Ideas & Policy Foundation

Chairman: Prof. Nath Puri | Co-Director: Dr. Gautam Sen | Co-Director: Dr. Prakash Shah

Communications: Mukesh Naker

143 Cavendish Rd, Leicester. LE2 7PJ United Kingdom

E: director@dipf.org.uk W: dharmicideas.wordpress.com

Council Members

Dr. Come Carpentier | Dr. Jakob de Roover | Dr Jasdev Rai | Dr. Koenraad Elst | Dr.

Manish Pandit | Rajiv Varma | Dr. Rakesh Sinha | Mr. Rohit Patel | Prof. S. N.

Balagangadhara | Sandeep Balakrishnan | Sanjeev Sanyal

Smita Barooah | Swami Vigyananand | Dr. Yvette Rosser | Dr. Atul Shah