August 17, 2026 01:43 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
After SC rebuke, BCI chief apologises to NALSAR students over enrolment freeze row | Independence Day: PM Modi’s big youth pitch— AI training, free coaching amid exam row and job concerns | ‘Shakti Ki Saptadhara’: Modi reveals 7 pillars to power India’s next leap in his I-Day speech from Red Fort | West Bengal STF arrests 3 more suspected Pakistani spies in Cooch Behar | Bengal man arrested in Bengaluru over terror links, Afghanistan travel plan | Ajit Doval breaks silence on Operation Sindoor in Discovery’s explosive new docuseries | Rahul Gandhi's 'mock hug' taunt sparks row; Centre stresses 'mutual respect' with Italy | Delhi on high alert: Bomb threat to High Court, airport and multiple locations ahead of I-Day | ‘Who are they to interfere?’: CJI Surya Kant slams Bar Council of India over NALSAR students’ enrolment row | 'Shows how low Congress has sunk': BJP slams Rahul Gandhi over Modi foreign policy jibe
UK Parliament | Kashmir
Image: Wikimedia Commons

India condemns language used against PM Modi in UK parliamentarians' debate on Kashmir

| @indiablooms | Sep 24, 2021, at 10:03 pm

London/IBNS: India has strongly condemned the motion on "Human rights in Kashmir" tabled by the Members of Parliament from the UK's All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Kashmir in the House of Commons, according to media reports.

The Indian government expressed dismay at some of the language used by participating MPs in the Backbench Debate, specifically Pakistani-origin Labour MP Naz Shah, according to a report in the media.

Indian High Commission in London condemned the attack on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and highlighted Kashmir's status as an integral part of India.

"It is with sadness that the High Commission of India notes that an august institution of a fellow democracy has been misused today to level abuse against the elected leader of the largest practicing democracy in the world," the Indian High Commission said, referring to Naz Shah's remarks on the 2002 Gujarat riots.

"As on previous occasions, the High Commission of India reiterates that any assertion made in any forum on a subject related to an integral part of India needs to be duly substantiated with authentic verifiable facts," it added.

The debate was scheduled to be held in March 2020 but had to be postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

It was opened by Opposition Labour Party MP Debbie Abrahams who recounted her visit to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in February 2020.

"The Pakistani government allowed us unfettered access... we used our meetings to ask pointed questions related to human rights issues highlighted in United Nations reports," said Debbie Abrahams.

Over 20 cross-party MPs participated on both sides of the debate.

One of the participating MPs drew the attention of the house towards the terrorist camps harboured by Pakistan in the region and drawing parallels with neighbouring Afghanistan.

"Over the years Pakistan has harboured Taliban leaders and the ISI, their security services, provided other forms of support to them and to other terrorist organisations," he said.

Conservative Party MPs Bob Blackman and Theresa Villiers spoke about how India has acted true to its democratic credentials by completing local elections in Kashmir last December despite pandemic-related challenges.

Reiterating the UK government's unchanged stance on Kashmir as a bilateral issue, the Minister for Asia in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), Amanda Milling, said, "The government takes the situation in Kashmir very seriously but it's for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political solution, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It's not for the UK to prescribe a solution or to act as a mediator."

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.