The West maintains starkly contrasting standards when addressing issues within its own borders compared to those in rapidly developing non-Western economies like India. While it’s not technically within the purview of Western nations to interfere in India’s internal affairs, they often engage in such meddling while grappling with internal challenges of their own. This behavior suggests a penchant for interventionism, even as their own domestic affairs spiral into disarray.
With the geopolitical landscape undergoing unprecedented shifts, the West finds itself increasingly marginalised. As global sentiment turns sceptical of the West’s authoritative stance, Western powers cling desperately to remnants of their once-dominant position. Their tendency to lecture India, a nation once under their colonial rule, may stem from a desire to maintain the illusion of imperial might in a world where their influence wanes.
However, this attempt to assert importance in a world growing indifferent to their opinions resembles a modern-day Don Quixote tilting at windmills. As the West struggles to extricate itself from its own predicaments, it finds itself ensnared in a web of its own making. For instance, the UK’s historical track record of Islamic appeasement prompts regular discussions of India’s international issues, including Kashmir, in the British Parliament.
In December 2023, Scottish National Party leader and MP Alison TheWliss brought up the Kashmir issue in the British Parliament. Specifically, TheWliss queried the British government’s stance on the Supreme Court of India’s decision to uphold the President’s authority to revoke Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. The fact that this news was solely reported by Pakistani and Islamic media outlets, without broader coverage, underscores the diminishing significance of the issue. Despite sporadic mentions by various MPs in Parliament, the topic has lost much of its impact. India’s growing global influence has led to increasing indifference towards such tactics from the West, and even the UK government appears to be distancing itself from Islamist rhetoric.
The Scottish National Party has recently faced scrutiny for its connections to Islamist groups. In March 2023, the SNP elected Humza Yousaf as its new leader and Scottish First Minister. Yousaf, the son of first-generation Pakistani immigrants, has faced repeated criticism for his alleged affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood. His election marked a significant moment as he became the first Muslim to lead a major UK political party, a development celebrated by much of the international media as a testament to the UK’s multiculturalism.
While Humza Yousaf himself does not espouse an Islamist agenda and predominantly focuses on local issues relevant to Scotland, the Scottish National Party (SNP) has increasingly adopted a strongly one-sided anti-Israel position amid the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. Yousaf, however, has been vocal about addressing what he perceives as a growing wave of Islamophobia in the UK. The Scottish First Minister reportedly urged UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to establish an independent review of anti-Muslim sentiment within the ruling Conservative Party. This call came in response to Conservative MP Lee Anderson’s comment, accusing the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, of being “controlled by Islamists.”
Anderson’s suspension from the UK’s ruling party due to his “Islamophobic comments” serves as a testament to the considerable influence wielded by Islamists in the country. It appears paradoxical that the UK continues to intervene in India’s internal matters, such as the Kashmir issue, and inadvertently fuels anti-India sentiments among Islamists in India while facing threats to its own democracy.
According to various media reports, British lawmakers advocating a pro-Israel stance amid the Israel-Palestine conflict have been subject to numerous threats. The UK has witnessed a surge in pro-Palestine and anti-Israel protests, particularly following Israel’s response to the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7, 2023.
An article titled “Are ‘Islamists in Charge of Britain’?” published in The FreePress highlights the increasingly aggressive and antisemitic nature of pro-Palestine protests in the UK, where demonstrators are calling for the dissolution of the state of Israel. The report underscores the closure of several Jewish schools in the UK due to safety concerns and a troubling surge in antisemitic incidents.
The article also discusses the threats directed at British MPs who have voiced support for Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It mentions Conservative MP Mike Freer, representing a constituency with a sizable Jewish population, who recently announced his decision not to seek reelection due to threats against himself and his family over his pro-Israel stance. Freer disclosed that he had begun wearing stab-proof vests during meetings with constituents due to safety concerns. The article recalls the tragic events of 2021 when another Conservative MP, Sir David Amess, was fatally stabbed by an Islamist during a constituency meeting, and the 2017 terrorist attack in which an Islamist assailant mowed down pedestrians before fatally stabbing an unarmed police officer outside Parliament’s gates.
In a recent development in the UK Parliament, the Scottish National Party (SNP) tabled a motion urging for an “immediate ceasefire in Gaza,” condemning Israel’s actions since October 7 as “collective punishment.” Responding to this, the Labour Party, the main opposition, submitted an amendment proposing an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire to be observed by all sides.” Concurrently, the Conservative government introduced its own amendment to the original motion, advocating for an “immediate humanitarian pause” while affirming Israel’s right to self-defence.
As per the customary procedure in UK parliamentary democracy, when the government proposes an amendment to an opposition motion, it is the government’s amendment that takes precedence for debate. This effectively necessitates that members of Parliament (MPs) vote either in favour of the original SNP motion, which was notably critical of Israel, or the government’s amendment, which did not explicitly call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
This predicament particularly troubled Labour MPs, who depend on Muslim votes for a significant portion of their electoral support. The combination of sentiments towards appeasing the Islamic community and concerns for personal safety amidst Islamist threats prompted these MPs to appeal to the Speaker of the House of Commons for a resolution. Consequently, the Speaker made the unprecedented decision to allow both the government’s and Labour’s amendments to be debated, departing from the conventional parliamentary procedure.
This recent development in British politics marks a significant departure from the conventions of British democracy, representing a new low and highlighting the UK’s increasing trend towards Islamic appeasement. The presence of Sharia courts in the UK underscores its status as a haven for Islamists. What’s particularly striking is the irony that while the UK grapples with the threat posed by Islamists, its taxpayer-funded media outlets exhibit blatant Hinduphobia, consistently vilifying India and Hindus on a range of issues, from the inauguration of the Ram Mandir to discussions on the Uniform Civil Code, anti-CAA protests, and the Kashmir conflict.
It’s remarkable to observe that countries like the UK, while struggling to address internal Islamist challenges, find themselves constrained by the facade of secularism they once embraced to lecture countries like India on issues such as the “oppression of minorities” and “Islamophobia.” In their efforts to pressure countries like India over perceived human rights violations and freedom of expression, Western powers have unwittingly empowered and emboldened the Islamist lobby, effectively creating a Frankenstein monster that now threatens to turn against its creators.
European countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France, and Germany, alongside the UK, grapple with Islamist threats but hesitate to denounce the global Islamist coalition’s persecution of Hindu minorities and the genocide of Kashmiri Pandits. Despite instances like BJP leader Nupur Sharma facing death threats over comments about Prophet Muhammad, only Dutch politician Geert Wilders openly supported her. As Islamists wreak havoc and right-wing parties rise due to public frustration, Western nations persist in appeasing Islamists while the media portrays them as victims in India.
In 2023, the UK enacted the Public Order Act, granting police expanded authority to manage protests and make arrests based on suspicion. The law allows police to issue orders banning individuals from participating in protests and controlling their activities. While protests are not outright banned, police now have discretion to regulate and temporarily prohibit them, particularly if they pose a serious disruption to key infrastructure or transportation networks. These measures aim to address disruptive protest tactics that have disproportionately impacted the public and diverted police resources from regular crime prevention efforts.
The recent law passed in the UK to regulate protests mirrors measures taken by the UP government, led by Yogi Adityanath, to address disruptive protests in India. Despite similarities, Western media portrays UP’s actions negatively, labelling them as oppressive to Muslims and suppressing freedom of expression. The contrast in perception highlights a biassed narrative against India.
While protests in the UK and Europe, such as those by NHS nurses, railway workers, and farmers, often go unnoticed by Western media, protests in India consistently grab headlines with exaggerated coverage. This disparity underscores the biassed portrayal of Indian events in Western media, perpetuating distorted narratives. Despite this, mainstream Indian media rarely questions the double standards applied by the West, highlighting the need to challenge colonial tactics and strive for change through critical inquiry.
Comments