To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they are making to the government of India about the position of minorities in that country.

My Lords, India is a multifaith, multi-ethnic and multilingual democracy, and it remains among the most diverse societies in the world. It is home to Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians and several other religions. India should be proud of this diversity. The UK maintains a broad, deep and respectful partnership with India, which includes dialogue on human rights and minority issues. The British high commission in New Delhi, along with our wider network across India, monitors the human rights situation and engages with government and civil society stakeholders. Where concerns arise, we raise them directly with Indian counterparts.

I thank the Minister for her reply. As she said, India is one of the great democracies of the world, and it is even more sad that the present Government are so repressive of a range of minorities, so that even academics, if they speak up against the Government, find themselves oppressed. I particularly draw the Minister’s attention to the adivasi community, whose traditional tribal lands are now heavily militarised. For example, in the Bastar region of the state of Chhattisgarh, there are armed encampments all along the main roads and, for every nine civilians, there is one armed guard, leading inevitably to human rights abuses and the imprisonment of innocent protesters. What steps are the Government taking to make representations to the Indian Government about the adivasi community in particular?

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for bringing our attention to this. It is an important issue and he is right to raise it. We have our network across India and will raise issues such as those that he mentions. We keep a close eye on human rights in India. Human rights are of course universal and, whatever the nature of our relationship with any Government, we are not afraid to raise issues as and when we need to.

My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to urge the Government of India to ratify key international human rights treaties and withdraw reservations that dilute existing commitments to align their domestic Laws with international norms, particularly on caste-based and religious discrimination?

We raise these issues with the Indian Government, as my noble friend would expect us to. Clearly, it is for India to make its own choices, and it has been many decades, thankfully, since we were in a position to do otherwise, but we continue to have the appropriate conversations that she would wish us to have because, as I said in my earlier answer, some things, such as human rights, are universal, and that is how this Government approach these issues.

My Lords, were assurances on freedom of religion or belief sought from the Government of India ahead of the recently agreed trade deal? The UK’s independent Trade and Agriculture Commission will scrutinise the free trade agreement and report on whether the measures within it are consistent with UK protections for animals, plant life and life, animal welfare, and the environment, but what, if any, scrutiny is carried out on the welfare of Christians and other persecuted minorities?

As I said, we raise the issues that the noble Lord is concerned about directly with the Government of India. Animal welfare, plants and phytosanitary issues all relate to trade, our ability to trade fairly and being fair to our producers here in the UK. They are part of a trade negotiation that is in many ways quite separate to the conversations that we would have anyway, regardless of where we stand in our relationship when it comes to trade.

My Lords, this should not be separate, because the noble Baroness, while in Opposition, was in the same Division Lobby as me on a Labour Motion that said that every trade agreement going forward should have human rights chapters as part of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, said at the Dispatch Box that the India agreement will not have human rights chapters. If we are to have discussions with our Indian friends about human rights, labour Laws and the standards of supply chains, where will we see human rights reflected in our trading arrangements if not in a free trade agreement?

I think that—how shall I put this?—the nature of our relationship with the Government of India changes in accordance with the nature of our position in relation to these conversations. It is a judgment: are these things best progressed in the way that we would all like if we take a hard line as part of a trade agreement, or are they best progressed in other ways? It is all about getting the right outcome for our relationship and for human rights. It is a constant judgment. At the moment, we are dealing with the trade negotiation in a separate track to our conversations about human rights. It is slightly different when it comes to labour rights and the treatment of workers and other such issues. However, it is fair for the noble Lord to raise this, and it was fair for us to use, when in Opposition, methods to raise our concerns that we may not feel we want to use in government.

My Lords, as the Minister said in her earlier answers, it is vital that His Majesty’s Government leverage their influence to try to ease tensions arising between communities. However, the Government have a more fundamental duty to make sure that those tensions are not imported into the United Kingdom. A Home Office report, commissioned by the Home Secretary, pointed out that Hindu nationalism was one of the most serious threats to domestic security. What is the Minister doing to prevent foreign nationalism becoming an internal threat?

This is a matter of great concern and the Government are, as the noble Earl said, looking at this incredibly carefully, not just in relation to Hindu nationalism but other forms as well. We are concerned about this; we talk to colleagues in the Home Office, my noble friend the Faith Minister and other colleagues in the local government department as well. This is not something that we wish to see enacted on our streets, or indeed on social media, in the UK. We are vigilant and we will take steps as and when we need to.

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of Indian Laws on freedom of religion or belief, and how to engage with the Indian Government on the misuse of those laws to target religious minorities, especially Christians and Muslims?

I would also add the Dalit community to that list. This is obviously a concern. There is no room for conversion Laws—that is not something that we want to see, and it is a concern in terms of human rights. As I have said when other issues of concern have been raised, we will continue to raise these as appropriate, usually in private with the Government of India.

My Lord, it is right that we criticise the treatment of minorities in India, where a historic mosque was demolished to build a Hindu temple, where the Home Minister describes Muslims as “termites” and where a young British Sikh has been detained and tortured for years. But does the Minister agree that our condemnation would carry far more weight if we were seen to treat non-Abrahamic communities fairly in this country? The Casey report of 2016 gave numerous examples of hate crime against Christians, Jews and Muslims, but no mention of non- Abrahamic faiths. We now talk of additional protection and funding against antisemitism and Islamophobia, again ignoring the suffering of non-Abrahamic faiths. I must declare an interest: I speak as a Sikh, believing in the equal treatment of people of all faiths and beliefs.

I do not think that there is anybody in this House who would not agree that we should—and do—believe in the equal treatment of all people of all faiths and beliefs. This is fundamental to who we are. We have Laws that support this, and the vast Majority of people in this country support that too. Where we fall short or where there are problems in our communities or at high-profile events, there are steps that could and should be taken, and this Government support that.

My Lords, I too want to express disappointment, as did my noble friend Lord Purvis, at the lack of human rights chapters in the trade agreement with India. If we look at the Amnesty International report from 2024, we see that huge concerns were expressed about the detention of journalists, about the bulldozer justice that is meted out to minority faiths and about issues in the Punjab and Kashmir. If we cannot challenge the Indian Government but are just going to raise issues with them, what are we going to get back from them, other than just having words with them? Have the Government dropped the ball with this trade agreement, in which they should have included human rights chapters?

I hear the challenge, and it is a judgment, is it not? You are trying to get a trade agreement with the Government of India. Is that best served by including measures on human rights? Would that jeopardise your trade agreement? Should that then happen? Or will you see the reaction that you would like in terms of human rights by standing firm? I just do not know which would be the right way to go, but at the moment we are dealing with a trade agreement and we are also having conversations about human rights. I think that, from where we are at the moment, that is the right thing to do. It is treating the Government of India with respect and allowing us to have those conversations, which I would say are often more fruitfully had in private than in other ways that we could go about this.