The Sikh Council UK facilitated a meeting with Baroness Warsi to feedback on the report by the Cabinet Secretary into UK involvement in the 1984 attack on Sri Harmandir Sahib, Amritsar and discus further actions to address the concerns of the Sikh community.

On Tuesday 25th February 2014 the Sikh Council UK accompanied by many prominent
Sikhs and Sikh Organisations including Lord Indarjit Singh, Judge Mota Singh, Bhai Sahib
Bhai Mohinder Singh, Sikh Federation (UK), Federation of Sikh Organisations, Sikh
Organisation for Prisoner Welfare (SOPW), Kesri Lehar and some ex-Sikh politicians, met
with Baroness Warsi a Senior Minister of State at the Foreign Commonwealth Office
(FCO) and Minister for Faith and Communities in the Department for Communities and
Local Government (DCLG) and a number of government officials from the FCO, Home
Office & DCLG.

The meeting on the Sikh side was chaired by Gurmel Singh (Secretary General of the Sikh
Council UK) and was the first with any cabinet minister to provide direct feedback and
comments following the Cabinet Secretary’s report and the statement by the Foreign
Secretary in Parliament confirming the British Government advice on the attack on the Sri
Harmandir Sahib Complex.

Sikh representatives expressed their deep disappointment with the outcome of the Cabinet
Secretary’s report highlighting serious limitations, omissions and misleading conclusions.
Furthermore it was highlighted that the Prime Minster was yet to respond to Sikh
organisations correspondence prior to the release of the report about the narrow terms of
the review and a substantive written response to the report. The Sikh delegation explained
the community demanded an independent public inquiry and options were discussed at
both a national and international level.

Other key requests for Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) delivered through the meeting
were;
• HMG to condemn the attacks on Sikhs in 1984
• HMG to recognise 1984 as Sikh Genocide
• HMG to examine the relationship and proscription of UK Sikhs (paradigm shift)

Baroness Warsi listened with interest to the concerns raised by all the representatives and
was keen to provide open realistic feedback to the Sikh Communities request whilst
remaining fully supportive in ensuring the commendable contribution and integration of the Sikh Community within British society remained a shining example.

Secretary General of the Sikh Council UK, Gurmel Singh said, “We welcome this opportunity to discuss our concerns with Baroness Warsi. The Sikh Community was united

in their dismay and disappointment in the report and very clear on their expectations of
Government, these were made loud and clear to all the officials in attendance.”

The Sikh Council UK will remain in contact with Baroness Warsi to ensure a timely follow
up to this meeting with an update and reaction to the requests discussed. We will also be
looking to meet with both the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister to ensure full governmental focus on this issue remains.

A meeting of the Panj Singh Sahib held at the Secretariat of Sri Akal Takhat Sahib, Amritsar on 27 January 2014 agreed for the Sikh Council UK to work to resolve matters concerning UK Sikhs.

The decision, issued in the form of an Adesh (order) requires Sikh Council UK, in carrying out this work, to consult with UK religious Jathebandian (organisations) and Gurdwara Committees and to inform and take permission of Sri Akal Takhat Sahib.

The Panj Singh Sahib (five respected Singh’s) led by the Jathedar (leader) of Sri Akal Takhat Sahib are the most senior temporal authority of the Sikhs. They meet regularly to discuss and issue declarations on issues relating to Sikhs. Sikhs across the world will abide by the decisions of the Panj Singh Sahib. The Panj Singh Sahib will typically include the Jathedars of the Five Takhats (seats or thrones of authority) of the Sikh faith or their representatives.

The Panj Singh Sahib met on 27 January 2014 at Sri Akal Takhat Sahib, Amritsar under the headship of Jathedar Giani Gurbachan Singh, Jathedar of Sri Akal Takhat Sahib. Also present were Jathedar Balwant Singh, Jathedar of Sri Damdama Sahib; Jathedar Mal Singh, Jathedar of Sri Keshgar Sahib; Giani Jagtar Singh, Head Granthi Sri Harmander Sahib and Giani Sukhjinder Singh, Granthi Sri Harmander Sahib.

Secretary General of the Sikh Council UK, Gurmel Singh said, “The decision of the Panj Singh Sahib for Sikh Council UK to lead on matters concerning UK Sikhs came as a surprise and is very humbling. Whilst the decision is welcome we will now need to consider how we implement the Adesh and how we improve communication between UK Sikhs and Sri Akal Takhat Sahib.”

Member of the Board of Jathedars of Sikh Council UK, Gurmukh Singh said, “I believe this Adesh is recognition of the affiliated member organisations of Sikh Council UK as well as being an expression of confidence in the Sikh community of UK. The Sikh Council UK must continue working to bring all our Gurdwaras and institutions together either as affiliated member organisations or through partnerships and dialogue with existing Sikh organisations and Institutions.”

Spokesperson of the Sikh Council UK, Kulwant Singh Dhesi said, “This historic announcement is the first time the Panj Singh Sahib have given such a decision in relation to any organisation in any country. Whilst this reflects the progress made by the Sikh Council UK in such a short time it is also a welcome recognition of the role and contribution of Sikhs in the diaspora.”

He added, “Sikhs in the UK and across the world have always respected and worked in accordance with our traditional Jathedar systems but in recent years have sought recognition of the large Sikh diaspora. This is a welcome first step in accommodating and integrating Sikhs outside of India into our central authorities. We will continue supporting our traditional structures, particularly the supremacy of Sri Akal Takhat Sahib, whilst working within them in this new way for the benefit of the entire community.”

END

Notes for Editors
The written Adesh (order) of the Panj Singh Sahib is attached. As this is in Punjabi, an English translation is below:
“5 Singh Sahiban met at the Akal Takhat Secretariat on 27 Jan 2014. After deliberation it was resolved that the religious organisation set up by the congregation of the UK the “Sikh Council UK” should use appropriate efforts / endeavours to resolve all the UK’s religious and community issues having consulted all religious Jathebandian and Gurdwara committees and inform and take permission from the Akal Takhat before reaching the final form.”
Final form means final conclusions / resolutions etc.

Please see below a question put by Rt Hon John Spellar MP to Mike Penning MP, the Minister of State for Disabled People at the Department for Works & Pensions and the answer given on 3rd February.

Mr Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to extend to industrial premises the exemption for Sikhs from requirements to wear safety helmets on construction sites.

Mike Penning: As the law currently stands, turban-wearing Sikhs are exempt from wearing head protection in a high hazard industry, construction, but may be required to wear it in lower hazard workplaces. I am seeking to table an amendment to the De-regulation Bill, which is currently before Parliament, to extend this exemption to all workplaces, including industrial premises. The amendment will also extend the limitation on liability for employers to any work situation where a turban-wearing Sikh chooses not to wear head protection. There may be very limited exceptions, such as for specific roles in the emergency services or armed forces. The Health and Safety Executive is currently consulting on the proposals.

The Foreign Secretary The Rt Hon William Hague MP

Statement to Parliament

‘Indian Operation at Sri Harmandir Sahib in 1984’

Tuesday 4^th February 2014

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Cabinet Secretary’s report into the Indian Operation at Sri Harmandir Sahib, also calledthe Golden Temple, in Amritsar in June 1984.

The House will recall that on 13^th Januaryconcerns were raised regarding two documents released to the public in the National Archives.

The documents relate to the painful events that followed the occupation of the Temple site by Sikh dissidents in December 1983, which led to a six-month standoff with the Indian authorities.

In June 1984 a three-day military operation by Indian forces known as ‘Operation Blue Star’ took place. Official Indian government figures estimate that 575 people died.  Other reports suggest as many as 3,000 people were killed, including pilgrims caught in the cross-fire.

This loss of life was an utter tragedy.Understandably, members of the Sikh community around the world still feel the pain and suffering caused by these events.

Given this, we fully understand the concerns raised by the two documents. Theyindicated that in February 1984, in the early stages of the crisis, the-then British Government sent a military officer to give advice to the Indian Governmentabout their contingency planning.

Many in this House and the whole country rightly wished to know what connection, if any, there had been between this giving of advice and the tragic events at Amritsar over three months later.

Within hours of the documents coming to light, the Prime Minister instructed the Cabinet Secretary to carry out an urgent investigation in four critical areas: why advice was provided to the Indian authorities, what the nature of that advice was, what impact it had on Operation Blue Star, and whether Parliament was misled.

The Cabinet Secretary was not asked to investigate Operation Blue Star itself, or the actions of the Indian government, or other events relating to the Sikh community in India.

While the Cabinet Secretary has investigated these specific matters, I can make clear that during his investigation no circumstantial evidence has been offered, or has surfaced, of UK involvement in any subsequent military operations in the Punjab.

This investigation has been rigorous and thorough.

The Cabinet Secretary and officials have met Sikh organisations to ensure that their concerns informed the investigation.

They have spoken to individuals associated with the two documents, although some other officials are now deceased.

They have examined Hansard records from 1984 to the present day.

And they have carried out an extensive and thorough search of the files held by all relevant Departments and Agencies from December 1983 to June1984.

Their search throughsome 200 files and over 23,000 documents found a very limited number of documents relating to Operation Blue Star.

The Report notes that some military files covering various operations were destroyed in November 2009, as part of a routine process undertaken by the MOD at the 25 year review point.  This included one file on the provision of military advice to the Indian authorities on their contingency plans for Sri Harmandir Sahib.  However, copies of at least some of the documents in the destroyed files were also in other departmental files; and taken together these files provide a consistent picture of what happened.

The Cabinet Secretary’s investigation is now complete. Copies of the report have been laid in the Libraries of both Houses, and it is now beingp ublished on the Government website.

The report includes the publication of the relevant sections of five extra documents that shed light on this period, but which would not normally have been published.

We have taken this step because the whole investigation has been based on a commitment to the maximum possible transparency. We want to be as open as possible with the British public, in so far as that does not undermine the principle upheld by successive British governments of not revealing any information relating to Intelligence or Special Forces.

The main findings of the Cabinet Secretary’s report are as follows:

First,on why the UK provided advice to the Indian Government, the Cabinet Secretary has established that in early February 1984, the-then Government received an urgent request to provide operational advice on Indian contingency plans for action to regain control of the temple complex. The British High Commission in India recommended that the Government respond positively to the request for bilateral assistance, from a country with which we had an important relationship. This advice was accepted by the Government.

Second, the Cabinet Secretary then examined the nature of the advice that was provided to India following that decision.

He has established that a single British military adviser travelled to India between 8^th and 17^th February 1984 to advise the Indian Intelligence Services and Special Group on contingency plans they were drawing up for operations against armed dissidents in the temple complex, including ground reconnaissance of the site.

The adviser’s assessment made clear that amilitary operation should only be put into effect as a last resort, when all attempts at negotiation had failed.  It recommendedincluding in any operation an element of surprise and the use of helicopter-borne forces, in the interests of reducing casualties and bringing about a swift resolution.

This giving of military advice was not repeated.The documents show that the decision to provide advice was based on an explicit recommendation to Ministers that the Government should not contemplate assistance beyond the visit of the military adviser, and this was reflected in his instructions.  The Cabinet Secretary found no evidence in the files or from discussion with officials involved that any other form of UK military assistance – such as equipment or training – was given to the Indian authorities.

The Cabinet Secretary’s report therefore concludes that the nature of the UK’s assistance was purely advisory, limited and provided to the Indian government at an early stage in their planning.

Third, the report examines what actual impact UK advice had on the Indian Operation, which took place between 5^th and 7^th June 1984, over three months later.

The report establishes that during that time the planning by the Indian authorities had changed significantly.

The number of dissident forces was considerably larger by that time, and the fortifications inside the site were more extensive.

The documents also record information provided by the Indian Intelligence Co-ordinator that after the UK military adviser’s visit in February, the Indian Army took over lead responsibility for the operation and the main concept behind the operation changed.

The Cabinet Secretary’s report includes an analysis by current military staff of the extent to which the actual operation in June 1984 differed from the approach recommended in February by the UK military adviser. Operation Blue Star was a ground assault, without the element of surprise, and without a helicopter-borne element.

The Cabinet Secretary’s report therefore concludes that the UK military officer’s advice had limited impact on Operation Blue Star.

This is consistent with the public statement on 15^thJanuary 2014 by the Operation commander, Lieutenant-General Brar, who said that “no one helped us in our planning or in the execution of the planning”.

It is also consistent with an exchange of letters between Mrs Gandhi and Mrs Thatcher on 14^thand 29^thJune 1984 discussing the operation, which made no reference to any UK assistance. Those parts of the letter relevant to Operation Blue Starare published with the Cabinet Secretary’s report today.

The Cabinet Secretary has also examined two other concerns raised in this House and by the Sikh community, namely that Parliament may have been misled, or that the decision to provide advice may have been linked to UK commercial interests.

The report finds no evidence to substantiate either of these allegations. The investigation did not find any evidence in the files or from officials of the provision of UK military advice being linked to potential defence or helicopter sales, or to any other policy or commercial issue.  There is no evidence that the UK, at any level, attempted to use the fact that military advice had been given on request to advance any commercial objective. The only UK request of the Indian Government, made following the visit, was for prior warning of any actual operation, so that UK authorities could make appropriate security arrangements in London.  In the event, the UK received no warning from the Indian authorities before the operation was launched.

The Cabinet Secretary also concludes that there is no evidence of Parliament being misled. There is no record of a specific question to Ministers about practical UK support for Operation Blue Star, and he concludes that the one instance of a Written Question to Ministers related to discussions with the Indian government on behalf of the Sikh Community after the Operation.

In sum, the Cabinet Secretary’s report finds the nature of the UK’s assistance was purely advisory, limited and provided to the Indian government at an early stage; that it had limited impact on the tragic events that unfolded at the Temple months later; that there was no link between the provision of this advice and defence sales; and that there is no record of the Government receiving advance notice of the operation.

Nonetheless, we are keen to discuss concerns raised by the Sikh community. The Minister responsible for relations with India, My Rt Hon Friend the Member for East Devon, and my noble friend Baroness Warsi, the Minister for Faiths & Communities will discuss this with Sikh organisations when they meet them later today.  This reflects the strong, positive relationship the government has with the British Sikh community which plays such a positive role in so many areas of our national life.

We are also determined to look at the wider issues raised by these events about the management and release of information held by Government. Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the 30 year rule has been superseded by a 20 year rule, so that from 2022 all annual releases will be after 20 years. However, it is not clear that this change is being approached in a uniform fashion by all departments. The Prime Minister has therefore decided to commission a review to establish the position across Government on the annual release of papers and the ability and readiness of departments to meet the requirements of moving from a 30 to 20 year rule, including the processes for withholding information.  This review will be carried out by the Prime Minister’s Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, Sir Alex Allan.

Nothing can undo the loss of life and suffering caused by the tragic events at Sri Harmandir Sahib. It is quite right that the concerns that were raised about UK involvement have been investigated. It is a strength of our democracy that we are always prepared to take an unflinching look at the past.

But I hope this investigation and the open manner in which it has been conducted will provide reassurance to the Sikh community, to this House, and to the public, and in that spirit I present it to the House