Slough Council veto transnational repression motion, locals outraged and “misrepresented”

Slough (Berkshire, UK) Council vetoed a motion calling on them to raise concerns about Indian anti-Sikh transnational repression last week, visibly angering locals and prompting a statement from Slough Singh Sabha Gurdwara management about being “misrepresented” through the process.

The decision – based on the motion which also included recognition of the 1984 Sikh genocide and the arbitrary imprisonment of Jagtar Singh Johal – came during a public meet on the motion on 25th July, after it was tabled the week earlier by Slough Councillors Waqas Sabah and Sabia Akram, both of whom who are independent after quitting the Labour Party in June in wake of “disillusionment” around the party’s position on the Gaza Genocide by Israel.

The incident saw shouts of ‘If they are murdered it is your fault” and chants in support of Khalistan (free Sikh homeland) after Conservative council leader Dexter Smith refused to allow the motion go to debate, referencing a petition signed by just 57 people that branded the motion “divisive“. At least one signatory claimed to be signing the petition as a representative of Slough Singh Sabha Gurdwara. During the meeting, Councillor Smith claimed regarding the motion, “it sounds anti-Sikh, anti-Indian, or even anti-Indian government.”

Sources have revealed to Sikh PA that at least one of the figures involved in the petition is also involved with pro-India advocacy and has business ties in India, something seen as a conflict of interest which can often be a barrier towards reflecting authentic Sikh sentiment around India’s human rights abuses. On-the-ground reports from Sikh activists have previously revealed how these relationships can be used to manipulate Sikh figures into speaking against community sentiment which is critical of India. Note- in order to avoid personally branding any individuals responsible for this outcome, Sikh PA will not be sharing details of those with these links on this occasion.

The original motion was widely supported, as seen with letters of support from the likes of Guru Nanak Gurdwara Smethwick and the Federation of Sikh Orgs.

Councillor Akram attempted to push back against the move to dismiss the motion, saying “We as councillors are duty-bound to raise and demand answers on behalf of our citizens” in relation to raising “The fact that security agencies have contacted families in Slough where two members and their families – British citizens – lives’ are at risk”.

Despite this, representatives of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats both voted against the motion being debated, whilst several Labour reps – including Sikh councillors – abstained, leading to the debate being dismissed and thus the motion not going through, much to the ire of Sikh locals. Only non-Sikh councillors – most of whom were part of the delegate which resigned from Labour – supported the motion. As attendees shouted regarding the outcome, the meeting was temporarily cancelled before starting up again.

See a full video of it here.

The disdain saw some Sikh groups go as far as calling these Sikh Labour reps “traitors”. The strong sentiment against the motion partly comes from concerns about targeting of the Sikh community by the Indian State, as seen with the assassination of Shaheed (martyr) Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey (BC, Canada) last year.

Two local Sikh activists, prominent supporters of the Khalistan (free Sikh homeland) movement named as Kamaljit Kaur and Gurcharan Singh have been linked with being targets of the Indian State’s ongoing anti-Sikh transnational repression campaign.

Following the outcome, the Sikh Federation highlighted how Councillor Smith’s decision to dismiss the motion was criticised by his fellow Conservative rep Adil Iftarkhar, before going on to say an “amended” motion would be re-tabled, whilst also offering advice on future such motions.

However, post the dismissal of the motion, Singh Sabha Slough Gurdwara Slough released a statement which stated they are “deeply concerned” to not be consulted for the motion, which came about directly from sangat (Sikh congregation) engagement with Councillors Akram and Sabah.

In perhaps the most revealing part of the Singh Sabha Slough statement, the Gurdwara management said “we were currently in discussions with senior Slough Labour Party councillors and Slough MP Tan Dhesi to move forward in raising motions for the 1984 Sikh Genocide directly in Parliament.” The statement goes on to call the petition against the motion “ill-worded” which was used to “misrepresent” Slough Singh Sabha.

A local insider who wished to remain anonymous said to Sikh PA about the fallout, “The sentiments of the local Sikhs behind the motion on this occasion came second to efforts to consolidate the Labour Party’s power in Slough, which Labour’s Sikh reps are supporting. These independent councillors who left Labour as seen as a threat to the party, especially in wake of the general election which saw seats that Labour were favourites for won by independent Muslim candidates, working largely on foreign policy issues to do with Gaza. Labour are concerned this could translate into something similar with Sikh sentiments regarding India, and thus they are trying to stop this at its root, which is in local council affairs such as what we saw with this incident.

“The idea in theory could be right. There is a strong Sikh presence in modern Labour, and channeling community efforts through them could be seen as a great way to further (Sikh community/path focused) influence in government. However, some Sikh orgs believe this will not be the case and Labour will simply not fulfill the expectations of Sikhs as they are posturing to do.

“Now then, many Sikhs will be anticipatedly waiting on both the retabling of such motions in Slough, but also other promises by Labour regarding Sikhs, such as the promise for an independent inquiry into the UK’s role in the 1984 Sikh genocide. But after the recent Labour u-turn around Jagtar Singh Johal, Sikh communities are growing increasingly concerned about how the party represents such issues.”

A new motion is expected to be tabled before the end of 2024.

Media inquiries- media@sikhpa.com.