India and Pakistan: Peace Representations

Question for Short Debate

16:02:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the governments of India and Pakistan to bring about peace between the two countries, including with regard to Kashmir and the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty.

My Lords, we are starting slightly late, so we will go on to 5.02 pm.

My Lords, I will begin by reminding your Lordships that the issue of Kashmir is the oldest dispute in the history of the United Nations and has been a bone of contention between India and Pakistan since their independence. According to United Nations resolutions in 1948-49 and many subsequent ones, both countries agreed to hold a ceasefire, withdraw their military and help the UN Commission hold a plebiscite. As a result, the ceasefire took place, but the plebiscite did not, hence the state was divided between the two countries, with both claiming the entire area. Both countries have been to war several times over this, but Kashmir remains unresolved and divided. The human rights situation in the state, particularly in the Indian-controlled part, started deteriorating from day one. With time, Kashmir has become the biggest militarised zone in the world, with 900,000 military and paramilitary personnel operating with complete impunity under the Indian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. According to renowned international human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN Commission on Human Rights and Genocide Watch, more than 100,000 people have been killed, with many more injured, and thousands are held in detention centres and prisons in Kashmir and other parts of India. The Indian Army is reported to be involved in illegal detentions, torture, extrajudicial killing, rape, fake encounters and enforced disappearances, while more than 3,000 mass graves have been identified. The Amnesty International report, A ‘Lawless Law’ illustrates a catalogue of cases where individuals were subjected to repeated use of draconian laws such as the Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, detaining them in custody from two years to more than 30 years. The victims of a widely publicised case of gang rape in the remote village of Kunan Poshpora, where more than 100 women and girls were reported to have been raped by the Rajputana Rifles 68th Mountain Brigade of the Indian Army, are still waiting for justice. Prominent Kashmiri leaders Maqbool Bhat and Afzal Guru were hanged and buried in New Delhi’s Tihar prison, while Mirwaiz Mohammed Farooq, Ashfaq Majeed Wani, Burhan Wani and many others were shot dead, and 90 year-old Ali Gilani died under house arrest. Other prominent leaders, including Shabir Shah, Yasin Malik, Asiya Andrabi and dozens of others have spent most of their adult lives in torture cells, detention centres and prisons. In its reports of 2018 and 2019, the UN Commission on Human Rights asked for free access to both sides of the state to investigate all the reports of human rights abuses, but India has refused to co-operate. Instead, the Indian Government unilaterally abrogated sections 370 and 35A of the Indian constitution, which gave some internal autonomy and preserved the state’s Muslim identity. According to a 2019 Genocide Watch report, Kashmir is at the brink of genocide. With this grim picture of India’s human rights record in Kashmir, all 1 million British Kashmiris are dismayed to know that the British Government are not even prepared to include a human rights clause in our free trade agreement with India. Many call this double standards. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what more must happen in terms of human rights abuses in Kashmir to convince the British Government to include human rights in our free trade agreement with India. When was the last time our Government raised human rights in Kashmir with their Indian counterparts? Recent India-Pakistan military clashes started after a massacre of tourists in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir, which killed 26 innocent tourists. This was a cowardly act of terror, and it received international condemnation. India blamed Pakistan-based insurgent groups for the attack, an allegation Pakistan disputed. It is reported to have offered full co-operation in any joint or international investigation, but India instead announced Operation Sindoor to hit what it called “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan and Pakistani-administered Kashmir. Soon after this terror attack, India closed its border with Pakistan, stopping bilateral trade and unilaterally suspending the Indus Waters Treaty. The treaty was signed in 1960 to regulate the management of the Indus river basin, which is important for supplying both countries with water for irrigation and hydropower. Those tensions turned into a conflict between 6 and 10 May 2025. India and Pakistan conducted a series of military strikes that saw the countries strike deep into each other’s territory, and civilians and soldiers killed on both sides of the line of control. One of these Indian strikes hit a residential area in my parental town of Kotli in Azad Kashmir, where some of my close relatives escaped very narrowly, while two of their neighbours were not so lucky and were killed while asleep in their homes. The scale of the recent conflict took many international observers by surprise, leading to fears of further escalation between two countries which both possess nuclear weapons. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, this is the first time India and Pakistan have engaged in drone warfare in their rivalry, indicating a new era of technological conflict in the region. Similarly, the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada noted how close the conflict came to sensitive sites in both countries, including nuclear command and control installations. International mediation, including the British Foreign Secretary and American President Donald Trump, who offered to help resolve disputes, including the Kashmir issue, and greater trade with both countries, secured a ceasefire on 10 May 2025. Despite that ceasefire agreement, according to Al Jazeera on 22 June 2025, the Indian Home Minister Amit Shah reportedly said that India would “never” restore the Indus Waters Treaty and that the water flowing there would be diverted for internal use. Pakistan has previously suggested that any such move would breach the terms of the treaty and would constitute an act of war. Using water as a weapon of war is a highly dangerous and inhumane act. Water is a lifeline for the people of Pakistan and any attempt by India to disrupt the water supply would have serious consequences. Hence, I ask the British Government to use their friendly relations with India to encourage it to restore the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan to avoid any future conflict on this issue. The ceasefire agreement of 10 May 2025 is hugely welcomed by all, but the world has seen many ceasefires signed by both countries in the past, with commitments to resolve disputes—including Kashmir—peacefully, and they have never reached an agreement for the past 78 years. I therefore believe that third-party mediation is the only way to get the leadership of both countries to sit down and agree on a settlement, taking the aspirations of the people of Kashmir on board. The road to long-lasting and sustainable peace in the region goes through Kashmir. As long as this open wound keeps bleeding, any prospect of peace in the region will remain pie in the sky. The majority of the people in India, Pakistan and Kashmir want peace. Now that the US President has made the offer to help to resolve the Kashmir issue to bring peace, stability and prosperity in the region, countries such as Britain must seize this opportunity and join these efforts to bring a solution to this issue that is acceptable to India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir. Finally, I ask the Minister whether the British Government would join the mediation efforts to bring peace between India and Pakistan.

16:12:00

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, on securing and initiating this debate. I will not pay particular attention in this address to the question of Kashmir. For me, Kashmir is a legacy of the partition of India. If the partition had not taken place, Kashmir would have had a very different character. To link Kashmir and India in this way is a mistake, because Kashmiri Islam has very little in common with Indian Islam. It is also the case that Kashmiris define themselves primarily as Kashmiris, rather than as Hindus or Muslims. So, left to itself, the Kashmiri problem would have been solved in a normal, amicable, political manner. Thanks to the partition, the Kashmir issue has become acute. The partition in turn took place as a result of the British Empire. Wherever Britain has been faced with multi-ethnic societies, it has left many of them after partitioning them—we can think of Malaysia, Cyprus, Ireland and many other countries. Britain has had limited capacity to handle multi-ethnic societies. Therefore, when confronted with India, the problem became even more acute and the partition that took place was the most horrendous event in the history of these two countries. We here do not appreciate how much it is seared into the consciousness of people in India and Pakistan. It was a partition in which millions moved across the boundary and thousands were raped or wounded. That partition is remembered daily by those people who suffered at the hands of it, in broadly the same way that the Holocaust is remembered by Jews whose families suffered. Given all that, the question for us is not to get into the debate about what to do, but whether something can be done to reconcile these two countries to the existence of each other. India and Pakistan were both born within the crucible of the partition. This horrendous event has now built up mutual hatred, so that India cannot say anything good about Pakistan, nor Pakistan about India. In that kind of situation, how can we get these two countries to accept each other as the neighbours they are? I end by suggesting two or three ideas which need to be pursued. The first important thing is that there is a phobia. In India, there is a tendency for people to refer to Pakistan in a very elder brotherly and cavalier kind of manner, saying that they do not expect anything civilised from that part of the world. Conversely, in Pakistan there is a tendency to have a kind of younger brotherly hatred towards India, dismissing the idea that India could ever do anything good. That kind of phobia, with a built-in incapacity to see the good in the other, has to be broken. Unless you do that, you cannot make any sensible reconciliation. To respond to that phobia, you require not just ordinary political forms of co-operation—you need the capacity to appeal emotionally to people, so that they can respond to each other in terms of those historically shared memories, triggered by events. The other thing would be that there are no deep conflicts of interest between India and Pakistan—no economic or political conflicts. They even look alike: culturally, they are similar. The question therefore would be for these two societies to establish institutional relations for clearing up misunderstandings and to create a situation in which they can talk to each other intelligently and peacefully.

16:16:00

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, for tabling this debate. Two lands, two people, two nuclear powers—yet, despite the borders that exist and the wars that have been fought, there is a shared history, intertwined with our own. It was two days in 1947, as the British left India, that changed history and the destiny of this region—14 and 15 August 1947, which saw the birth of two independent nations, Pakistan and India respectively. In my view, war lays the foundations for an inevitable peace, but peace itself is not the mere absence of war. It is the recognition of each other’s rights, embedded in respect and justice, which is ultimately the destiny of these two nations and of Kashmir. At the heart of this inevitable peace is the peace across the lands, often referred to as “heaven on earth”, the state of Kashmir. It was after the Kargil war of 1999 that the late General Musharraf of Pakistan, together with Prime Minister Vajpayee of the BJP, and subsequently Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of Congress, recognised the opportunity that it was peace that was the ultimate victory for all. In that respect, they proposed a four-point plan: no change of borders, but free movement of people across the line of control; self-governance and recognised autonomy for Kashmiris; the demilitarisation of Kashmir; and a joint mechanism, with India, Pakistan and Kashmir all involved. Sadly, political change and instability, and of course the tragic and abhorrent terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008, ended that track of hope. Yet if, as we often say, lessons are to be learned from history, it shows that mediation is key and peace is possible—and that is what we need now. It was only a few days ago that we saw these two nations at war, yet I pay tribute to the role, the leadership and timely mediation, of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the US and Qatar, friends to both nations, which saw the shocking prospect of two nuclear powers in full-scale war recede. What we saw was a courage and recognition by both sides that there would be no eventual winner of the war; therefore, the next step must be respect and trust, as the foundation for confidence-building measures, along with the four principles that I have outlined: respect for peace, and respect for treaties signed and agreements reached, be they the Simla accords or the Indus Waters Treaty, and an end to terrorism, with joint efforts to eradicate the scourge of this abhorrent evil, and ultimately a vision of an inclusive and prosperous future for Kashmiris, which is possible and in reach, based on the framework that I have outlined for the inevitable benefits to both nations and the stability of the wider region. Our role is as a friend to both nations. Yet I would argue it is more than others. We have a legacy, as we have already heard, that we left behind—a legacy I feel most personally attached to, with family and friends. It is a history etched into my own DNA of a shared heritage of both nations. Therefore, I ask the Minster, for whom the whole Committee has great respect, to now be proactive in our facilitation, which provides the basis of direct mediation efforts between our two friends—two nations of the Commonwealth. Let us be proactive in averting the next crisis, the next war, through whatever channels necessary to ensure that vision of peace for Kashmir becomes a living reality.

16:20:00

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, for his powerful opening to the debate. I want to express deep concern about India’s decision to suspend its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty. It is a breach of international conventions. It is also a highly unethical action. Water should never be weaponised. It is not just a resource; it is a basic human right. For decades, even in the face of war and hostilities between India and Pakistan, that treaty was maintained. It has long been a good example of co-operation and diplomacy, despite the tension between the two countries. That is no small achievement and something both countries can be proud of. What has changed? Why is India now threatening to cut off the water to Pakistan? Even if India has legitimate grievances and concerns about terrorism, its response is disproportionate, because it punishes Pakistan’s 240 million civilian population. This will not increase its security. In fact, it is more likely to destabilise the region. India’s decision has not emerged in a vacuum. In other parts of the world, we are witnessing the dangerous normalisation of weaponising water. The most glaring and disturbing example is Israel’s systematic use of water as a tool of domination and deprivation in Gaza. The world has failed to hold Israel accountable; that failure has likely emboldened India and will embolden other countries in the future, who will weaponise water and punish civilian populations. This could happen to India too in the future, which has upstream neighbouring countries. We must not stay silent given what is at stake. Water from the Indus basin is a lifeline for the population of Pakistan. It relies on the Indus basin’s water for around 80% of its agriculture, which accounts for over 20% of its GDP and supports over 40% of its workforce. One-third of Pakistan’s hydropower also depends on the basin’s water. Inaction now will lead to crop failures, deepen food insecurity and increase poverty. Even a small diversion or blockage will have catastrophic consequences. For example, Pakistan could feel the impact during the dry season when water availability is already at its lowest. The suspension of the treaty also means that data-sharing mechanisms on river flows have been suspended. Without real-time data, Pakistan will not be able to forecast and prepare for floods or droughts, or plan for irrigation, hydropower or drinking water. India could also use other tactics to cause harm to Pakistani civilians, such as temporarily holding back water and then suddenly releasing it, without warning, causing massive damage downstream. Sudden flushes of silt that can build up in dams could also cause significant damage downstream to crops in Pakistan. The world cannot look the other way, and the UK can play a crucial role as a mediator and involve the World Bank. Does the Minister share my concerns? Are our Government willing to get involved? Can she share what representations she has made to the Indian Government? How confident is she that she can get representatives from both sides to sit down and try to talk through and resolve this issue? The time to act is now because, once the flow of water stops, so does the hope for peace between India and Pakistan.

16:24:00

My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, for initiating this debate. Of course, all of us come with very different viewpoints from where we originate. The ultimate goal is to ensure that there is peace in the region. Therefore, the first thing we need to do is look at the elephant in the room: why we cannot have a discussion without it becoming so toxic in this country with the diasporas here. We need to remember that words matter when they are expressed here to what happens in the countries of India and Pakistan. The Minister will of course agree that the recent attack was abhorrent. Every community in India united against the attack and came together. That is how this debate should be framed: wherever there is an attack, we come together. Far too many times, I have been in this House listening to attacks on one country or the other in a way that is unhelpful to the UK being able to be a friend to both. We, as those of that diaspora, need to start playing a constructive role in the way that we approach the debate. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, often talks about the people in Kashmir. I am not going to talk about Kashmir, apart from to repeat what I have said to him before: that I hope that he is as affected by the deaths of all the murdered Kashmiri Pandits as he is of any other Kashmiri. We need to show that every human being matters to us, not just those who we seek to represent. I turn to my questions to the Minister. After the attacks in Pahalgam recently, most of us will have seen the report of a Pakistani diplomat making slitting throat gestures to British protesters. That cannot be allowed in our country. I raised it in the main Chamber, but I did not get a response from the Foreign Office on what action has been taken about that incident. Will the Minister also tell the House what is happening about the aid we give and how it is utilised and monitored, so that we are not inadvertently aiding that minority of people who perform terrorist attacks? The large population of Pakistan and the large population of India do not want to be involved in such heinous crimes. Will the Minister respond on those two points? The largest democracy on the planet is now understanding its responsibility, and we need to make sure, in the way we perform with both countries, that Pakistan, too, becomes a thriving democracy.

16:27:00

My Lords, I support the vital question from my noble friend Lord Hussain, and speak to a crisis that has profound implications for not just peace between India and Pakistan but for the foundations of international co-operation in our water-stressed and climate-vulnerable world. I have noted a number of comments made by noble Lords during the debate on Kashmir. I stand behind every word of the 2019 UN report. I hope that the Minister will read it, and I am happy to provide a copy, but I must warn her that it makes for grim reading. Matters have only got worse since July 2019, and we need an urgent update of that report. The violence in Kashmir, as other noble Lords have said, and the aerial strikes that followed between India and Pakistan earlier this year, shocked the international community, but the most devastating development was India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus waters treaty of 1960, a move that was less visible than air strikes but whose long-term consequences may be greater. For Pakistan, a nation of 240 million people, the Indus River system is the backbone of its agricultural economy. It grows crops and sustains entire communities. Suspending the treaty is not a mere diplomatic gesture, it is an act directly threatening the livelihood and food security of millions. Access to water is not a luxury; it is a right. The treaty itself has no provision for unilateral suspension or termination. Article XII(4) explicitly states that the provisions remain in force unless replaced by a new treaty, mutually ratified. India’s action is a flagrant violation, as my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, said, of international law. Our commitments and principles are that agreements between states are to be upheld. This move sets a dangerous precedent. If one country can arbitrarily suspend a decades-old treaty, what becomes of the entire framework of bilateral and multilateral agreements that underpin peace, trade and co-operation around the world? In other parts of the world, such as the Nile basin, the Euphrates, the Tigris and central Asia, Governments will take note of how the Indus Waters Treaty is treated; if one treaty can easily be cast aside, others may follow. Beyond India and Pakistan, others are watching. China, upstream of both nations, is already constructing dams and diversions in the Tibetan plateau. Altering river flows will have implications for not just India and Pakistan but Bangladesh and the entire Ganges-Brahmaputra basin. Victor Gao, a Chinese commentator, recently said, “Do not do down stream what you would not like others to do up stream”. The logic is simple: today, it is India’s up stream; tomorrow, it could be China or another power cutting off a vital river. The unintended consequences of escalating water conflicts, particularly with Bangladesh caught in the crosshairs, are too grave to ignore. It is vital not to forget that climate change is already compounding water scarcity. Suspending the treaty on preventing conflict is a reckless act and, as such, creates a fragile environment. We should welcome the offer from the US to mediate. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will follow suit; I would like the Minister to comment on that, on the back of the recent engagements with Delhi and Islamabad. We urge the Government to go further and to act as a guarantor of peace. We call for the immediate reinstatement of the Indus Waters Treaty and support dialogue not just on the treaty’s revival but to modernise in the face of the climate realities and to look towards resolving the Kashmir conflict. The Indus has sustained civilisations for millennia. If the river runs dry and co-operation fails, it could be not just an ecological disaster but a geopolitical one.

16:31:00

My Lords, last month, as co-chair of the India All-Party Parliamentary Group, I hosted a delegation of cross-party Members of Parliament from both houses of the Indian Parliament to the UK. They were sent by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to communicate to us the horrors of 22 April in Kashmir and the horrors that followed. Similarly, Shashi Tharoor, a member of the Indian National Congress whom I have known for many years, led an all-party delegation to the United States. There, he said that there were three particular reasons for this situation and stated: “The first is that we have had a 37-year pattern of repeated terror attacks from Pakistan accompanied by repeated denials … Pakistan didn’t know allegedly where Osama bin Laden was until he was found in a Pakistani safe house right next to an army camp in a cantonment city … Mumbai attacks, they denied having anything to do with it; one of the terrorists was captured alive, his name, his identity, his address in Pakistan, everything was revealed under interrogation. He told us where he was trained, what was done. The US intelligence as well as ours recorded the chilling voice of the Pakistani handler giving minute by minute instructions to the killers in Mumbai, telling them where to go and they were monitoring Indian TV and saying there are people hiding on the third floor of that hotel, go and shoot them there … they will deny, they did so until they are actually caught red handed”. He went on to say that, secondly, “within 45 minutes or so” of this attack happening, “a group called the Resistance Front claimed credit … It is a well-known proxy front of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, a banned terror organisation listed by the United Nations, listed by the US State Department”. The third reason he gave was that, “when the first strikes happened on the terrorist camps … funerals were conducted, including for members of some of the key … organisations, the Jaish-e-Mohammed in particular and the Lashkar-e-Taiba. The funerals were conducted and photographs emerged on social media showing Pakistani generals and police officers in uniform attending these funerals, being conducted by relatives of these terrorists. So we are looking at three concrete pieces of evidence as far as India is concerned”. On 12 May, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said: “During Operation Sindoor the world has again seen the ugly face of Pakistan, when top Pakistani army officers came to bid farewell to the slain terrorists. This is strong evidence of state-sponsored terrorism … The way the Pakistani army and Pakistan government are encouraging terrorism, it will destroy Pakistan one day … Terror and talks cannot go together”. Climate change-driven water scarcity and sweltering summers have deepened resentment in Kashmir over the Indus Waters Treaty, with increasing support locally in Kashmir for its suspension. For example, Kashmir’s famed saffron, which depends on rains, has shrunk due to inadequate irrigation facilities. In Gulmarg, there was hardly any snow last year, when 70% of the Kashmiri population depends on farming and its mountain cultivators depend on water. China has gotten involved in this as well, and interventions from Beijing over the Indus Waters Treaty risk stirring up regional tensions. Does the Minister agree with this? To conclude, India is now the largest south Asian country in the world by population. It is an oasis of democratic stability: since its independence in 1947, it has never had a coup and never had its Armed Forces interfering in its politics, unlike many of its neighbours. It has a robust democracy where people speak. It is now the fastest-growing major economy in the world, growing at over 6% a year, and is the fourth-largest economy in the world. I predict that, by 2060, it will be the largest economy in the world. It is not in India’s interests to have conflict with its neighbours, including Pakistan. India wants peace with its neighbours. It wants to get on with growing its economy, bettering the livelihood of its people and making a huge, positive contribution to the global community.

16:36:00

My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lord Hussain on securing this short but significant debate. I have been struck by the expertise and knowledge of all those who have contributed so far; I most certainly will not be able to do the debate justice in the few moments I have to speak for my party. As a result of the reprehensible terrorist attacks that took place, for which there should be no impunity, we saw the most intense use of violence in more than 50 years between two nations that are friendly to the United Kingdom and have populations of more than 1.25 billion. As my noble friend Lord Hussain said, it was the first time that the two countries had engaged in drone warfare. However, as my noble friend Lord Mohammed said, there is also concern over the 65 year-old Indus Waters Treaty and the consequences that that may bring—and not just because of the potential, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, said, for wider humanitarian catastrophe. There are other areas of the world where we see the potential for conflict over water. I have made many visits to the Nile area, and I agree with my noble friend that we should be extremely cautious when we see breakdowns of dialogue and diplomacy when it comes to sources of water and irrigation. The ramifications are wider, which is why the breakdown of the India-Pakistan Indus commission is also a significant worry—especially given the fragility in the area, which is, as we have just heard, being exacerbated by climate change. All bilateral treaties between the two nations are now vulnerable but I hope that the degree of stability since might be the basis, as we have heard in this debate, for building some degree of trust. I hope that the UK can support organisations that do the work, quietly and behind the scenes, to start building trust and dialogue on a community basis. We have also heard about the concerns shared by my party with regards to the decision in 2019 by the Government of India on the revocation of Article 370 of the Indian constitution. Notwithstanding the 2024 elections that took place in Kashmir, it should be recognised that Kashmir continues to have less autonomy than India states. I want to ask the Minister about the views of Human Rights Watch when it comes to the denial of freedom of speech and association in that area, as well as the restrictions on broadcasting in India as a whole; the relationship with the BBC has been raised as a matter of particular concern. As my noble friend Lord Hussain and others have said, this may be an opportunity for engagement and, ultimately, mediation. Is it the view of His Majesty’s Government that there is an opportunity ahead for the UK to play a part with two of our allies, who are Commonwealth members and with whom we have such deep and profound diaspora community relationships? Is it not in our interests to support them and the wider humanitarian need for there to be dialogue, understanding and mediation so that we do not see a repeat of the tensions from just a few weeks ago? As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said, we might be able to see a different future for the whole community in this important part of the world.

16:39:00

My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, for securing this important debate. He is rightly concerned about the importance of restoring peace to the region. With more than 3 million British nationals of Pakistani and Indian origin, of course the UK shares strong and long-standing ties with the region. Those ties are rooted not only in modern migration patterns but in a deep, shared history—from our intertwined legacies as Commonwealth nations to our enduring cultural, economic and familial ties. The UK has long valued its partnerships with both India and Pakistan, forged through decades of diplomacy, trade and shared values. These relationships continue to shape our society and contribute meaningfully to our national life. We recognise that rising tensions between the two countries inevitably cause concern and anxiety among those communities. The UK is a close partner to both India and Pakistan, and we on these Benches rightly welcome commitments from both nations to end further military action. We back efforts to support both nations on their path to establishing a lasting ceasefire to restore regional stability and help safeguard civilians in the longer term. We all know that the path to peace is rarely smooth, and these developments, however incremental, are to be welcomed. My colleagues and I remain hopeful that these steps can be built on and that further confidence-building measures can lead to a more stable and secure relationship between these two important states. However, we cannot speak of peace without addressing the horrific act of terrorism that took place in April in the town of Pahalgam, where 26 innocent lives were taken in a brutal and deliberate attack. This was an act of terrorism, and we should call it out clearly and unequivocally as such. Terrorists and their networks are not bound by national borders; they pose a threat to peace and stability far beyond that region. That is why, in my view, the UK should work with the Governments of both India and Pakistan to tackle these threats head on through robust counterterrorism co-operation, intelligence sharing and support for initiatives that promote peace and deradicalisation. It is in the interests of the international community that this conflict does not escalate and that we take meaningful steps now to reduce the chance of future surges in tensions, which would have serious ramifications not only in Kashmir but in this country and the rest of the world. My colleagues and I have long recognised this, and we welcome the fact that the UK has for a long time maintained a deep and historic security relationship with India. Our counterterrorism co-operation stretches back decades, from the New Delhi declaration of 2002 to the India-UK strategic partnership of 2016 and the comprehensive strategic partnership of 2022. These agreements—many of which were reached under successive Conservative Governments, I am pleased to say—have enshrined our commitment to India’s security and our shared interest in combating extremism. We must continue to strengthen those ties under the 2030 road map, ensuring that they remain watertight and fit for today’s security challenges. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to set out what further steps the Government are taking to further this partnership and, specifically, how she is working with counterparts in India to limit the spread of radical nationalism, which directly pertains to this debate. Of course, we must also retain dialogue and co-operation with Pakistan. We are rightly concerned by the continuing presence of terrorist infrastructure within its borders. That is why we support calls for the Government to obtain secure, firm and verifiable commitments from Pakistan to dismantle those networks. The shadow Foreign Secretary has raised this issue directly and forcefully, and we will continue to monitor closely the Government’s efforts, to ensure that they are not just rhetoric but backed by practical steps.

16:44:00

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, for securing and introducing this important discussion. We focused particularly on issues around water and Kashmir, and I will do my best to set out the representations that the Government have made to the Governments of India and Pakistan to bring about peace between the two countries. I will specifically make sure that I include Kashmir and the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, as he asked me to do. I begin by reaffirming the United Kingdom’s long-standing commitment to peace, stability and prosperity in south Asia. Both India and Pakistan are valued and long-standing friends of the United Kingdom. We enjoy deep and historic ties with both countries, underpinned by vibrant diaspora communities, strong economic links and shared democratic values. The recent terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir on 22 April, which many noble Lords referred to, was a horrific reminder of the fragility of peace in the region. This Government condemned the attack in the strongest possible terms, including directly from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and I am sure that all our thoughts remain with the victims, their families and the people of India. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have expressed their condolences and we continue to endorse efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice. In the days following the attack, tensions between India and Pakistan escalated significantly. The military exchanges that followed between 6 and 10 May raised serious concerns about the risk of escalating conflict between two states armed with nuclear weapons. Against this backdrop, the agreement reached on 10 May to cease further military action was a welcome development. Indeed, we commend both Governments for taking this important step and urge them to continue along the path of de-escalation. The Government have made clear representations to both New Delhi and Islamabad at all levels. The Foreign Secretary visited Pakistan on 16 May and India on 7 June to convey our strong support for a continued cessation of hostilities. In both capitals, the Foreign Secretary engaged directly with senior leaders to convey the UK’s strong support for regional stability and encourage continued dialogue. In Islamabad, he met the chief of army staff, the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister Dar and the Interior Minister. In New Delhi, he met Prime Minister Modi, the External Affairs Minister and NSA Doval. These visits were not only timely but essential in reinforcing our message that peace is in the shared interests of both nations and indeed the wider international community. On the matter of Kashmir, the UK’s position remains unchanged. We regard the status of Kashmir as a bilateral issue to be resolved between India and Pakistan, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We do not prescribe solutions, neither do we seek to mediate. However, we continue to encourage both sides to engage in meaningful dialogue and avoid actions that could further inflame tensions. We are acutely aware of the sensitivities surrounding this issue and our goal is to support a peaceful and lasting resolution that respects the rights and aspirations of all communities. Turning to the Indus Waters Treaty, we recognise its importance as a cornerstone of co-operation between India and Pakistan. Since its signing in 1960, the treaty has withstood numerous political and military crises. The treaty has served as a rare example of sustained bilateral engagement even during periods of heightened tension. Through our diplomatic engagements, the Government have made clear the importance of both countries finding a way to share water resources. This is critical, as noble Lords have said, both for regional stability and sustainable livelihoods. We have urged both parties to uphold their commitment and resolve any disputes through the established mechanisms under the treaty. Water security is an increasingly pressing issue in south Asia, particularly in the context of climate change and growing demand. The UK is supporting efforts to improve water governance through our water resources accountability programme in Pakistan. This initiative is helping both federal and provincial governments make decisions about water use more fairly and efficiently. We continue to engage with international partners to support peacebuilding efforts in the region as well. We are in regular contact with our partners in the United States, the European Union and the Gulf states and believe that a co-ordinated consistent international approach is essential to encouraging dialogue and reducing the risk of further escalation. In conclusion, His Majesty’s Government remain committed to supporting peace and stability in south Asia. As noble Lords have suggested, we will continue to use our diplomatic channels to encourage dialogue, promote co-operation and support efforts to address the underlying causes of conflict and, with sustained political will, work to build mutual trust and a commitment to dialogue from all parties involved. We believe that a peaceful and prosperous future for the region is possible. I express my thanks to noble Lords for their continued engagement on this important issue and I commend this debate to the Committee.

Committee adjourned at 4.50 pm.