India fumes as UK party backs Kashmir plebiscite

[Lonewarrior]

LONDON: Labour delegates unanimously passed a controversial motion on Kashmir at their party conference in Brighton, leading to India’s UK mission cancelling a dinner with Labour Friends of India. The motion says Kashmir should be given the right of self-determination as per UN resolutions and urges Labour to stand with Kashmiris “fighting against occupation”.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-fumes-as-uk-party-backs-kashmir-plebiscite/articleshow/71302601.cms

 

[KingKhanWC]

Labour has a great man as leader. If he becomes PM you can be sure he will speak of this more often and even may request a new vote in the UNGA to push India into changing its policies.

Imran has started this , its time for British Pakistanis to lobby their MPs in this issue.

 

[Majestic_Inzi]

Labour has a great man as leader. If he becomes PM you can be sure he will speak of this more often and even may request a new vote in the UNGA to push India into changing its policies.

Imran has started this , its time for British Pakistanis to lobby their MPs in this issue.

This man is indeed a good person but i sense he like Bernie Sanders will never get elected.

 

[KingKhanWC]

This man is indeed a good person but i sense he like Bernie Sanders will never get elected.

Yes he may never but one day someone like him will. Tories have a lot of old people who are stuck in the British Empire mentality but they are dying out. You lose crediblity if you do not speak out against injustice due to your own economic interests. We also have to realise British Pakistanis are more politically active than British Indians which will help the Kashnmir issue being relevant for years to come.

 

[KingKhanWC]

This man is indeed a good person but i sense he like Bernie Sanders will never get elected.

Yes he may never but one day someone like him will. Tories have a lot of old people who are stuck in the British Empire mentality but they are dying out. You lose crediblity if you do not speak out against injustice due to your own economic interests. We also have to realise British Pakistanis are more politically active than British Indians which will help the Kashnmir issue being relevant for years to come.

 

[PakLFC]

If India wants peace with Pak then a plebiscite is the only solution with all three options being made available to the Kashmiris. Yes Hindu Pandits must be allowed to return home as well. You can't blame Kashmiris from wanting Independence from that cesspit that is India))

 

[SensiblePakFan]

This man is indeed a good person but i sense he like Bernie Sanders will never get elected.

Indeed, the powers that be will try their best to keep them away.

 

[Varun]

This is getting boring.

In today's Internet age you can take a fine toothed comb and pick up any teensy-weensy story and claim 'victory for your country'.

For the rest of us - give us a buzz when something actually happens in godforsaken Kashmir. Some teeny bopper political party in the North Pole isn't going to fix anything.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Some Indian may not admit but it is a huge set back.

A diplomatic failure indeed.

 

[Gullycricket]

But But nobody cares about what IK is saying ....Only a fool would deny the damage which India is causing to its image abroad

 

[IndianHero]

Kashmir is integral part of India & no one can deny it. I tell u wat, even if UN passes resolution (hypothetically in day dreams) still India will say that Kashmir is integral part of India Period.

 

[Manager101]

An independent Kashmir as a whole is the only solution.

 

[Akki malhotra]

Right now no one is forcing India for kashmir. But let us tell you, even if world powers force India, which is unlikely to happen, still India won't give an inch of kashmir.

 

[Ram Shekhar]

Modi has failed India. Of course, the secular Indians will be finally happy that Imran has finally achieved it. Now for the regime change in India!

 

[Majestic_Inzi]

Right now no one is forcing India for kashmir. But let us tell you, even if world powers force India, which is unlikely to happen, still India won't give an inch of kashmir.

British india said the same.

The west also supported apatheid in SA blindly. The current actions india is making it easy.

 

[Mamoon]

Pakistan could have attempted to pressurize India into a plebiscite decades ago had they respected the UN Resolution.

Pakistan’s refusal to adopt the resolution is a clear indication that they want to maintain the status-quo in Kashmir.

 

[Mamoon]

British india said the same.

The west also supported apatheid in SA blindly. The current actions india is making it easy.

British Raj had no legal claim on India. They held on for as long as they had money, which wasn’t the case after WWII.

India has not colonized Kashmir. They have exercised their constitution right. It is not discriminatory like Apartheid either.

 

[Bewal Express]

British Raj had no legal claim on India. They held on for as long as they had money, which wasn’t the case after WWII.

India has not colonized Kashmir. They have exercised their constitution right. It is not discriminatory like Apartheid either.

Desperate to please the Hindutuva again!Who the hell are you tell Kashmiris who it belongs to? Let them decide, and you can tell from the lockdown who the occupiers!

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Right now no one is forcing India for kashmir. But let us tell you, even if world powers force India, which is unlikely to happen, still India won't give an inch of kashmir.

India went begging for US support after getting a beating in the war with China, they certainly gave more than an inch on that occasion. Leave the tough talk where it belongs and be thankful that the world is generally on India's side for these issues. Appreciate it rather than making grand claims which could never be backed up.

 

[Bewal Express]

Right now no one is forcing India for kashmir. But let us tell you, even if world powers force India, which is unlikely to happen, still India won't give an inch of kashmir.

Tough talk, what happened with China?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Tough talk, what happened with China?

You are China?

 

[Bewal Express]

You are China?

Yes, i also have Chinese Ancestry

 

[Ronaldo7]

The kashmiri king wanted independance too but wasn't given the choice

The fact is that he was a hindu and Kashmir was a majority muslim state just rejects whatever you are saying.
Kashmiris wanted independence not India

 

[MenInG]

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-fumes-as-uk-party-backs-kashmir-plebiscite/articleshow/71302601.cms

This is the topic. Stick to it or risk ending up banned.

 

[IMMY69]

This is correct.

Is it also correct that Singh committed genocide on the muslims?

 

[s28]

I was at Labour Party Conference in Brighton
Very happy to see so much support for Kashmir

Councillor Afrasiab Anwar MBE

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VCJT8Pzn7XA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[s28]

Cllr Naseem Begum

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nAEbcBkwA-c" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[s28]

Cllr Ahmed Bostan

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sJnD8y-EV1U" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[KingKhanWC]

@s28

Thanks for uploading those. Did you see more British Pakistani councellours than before?

 

[s28]

Yes. (although my experience only spans 2 conferences)
Certainly a lot more of our Councillors but also MPs/PPCs around
e.g. Faiza Shaheen taking on Iain Duncan Smith
e.g. Salma Yaqoob standing for WM Mayor

 

[Nostalgic]

About time. It was the post-war Attlee government that presided over this mess. For all their other commendable achievements, in particular the creation of the British welfare state, Kashmir remains a blot on their record.

I’m not sure how involved the government in London was in the fiasco, since it was mainly Mountbatten calling the shots, but I can’t imagine them being totally oblivious of what the viceroy was up to. I wonder also if Labour was somewhat pro-Congress given Nehru’s perceived socialism. @KB would know.

 

[KB]

I wonder also if Labour was somewhat pro-Congress given Nehru’s perceived socialism. @KB would know.

In the words of the British historian, Peter Hennessy, “the Labour Party enjoyed a close relationship with Congress politicians (Jinnah's people thought, with some reason, that Labour ministers were in the Congress's pocket).”

Of course there was more to the British government’s favouritism to Congress, after the war ended, then the close links between the parties and personal relationships. Wider British interests had dovetailed with Congress interests in aiming to deliver an undivided India. British economic and strategic interests were seen as best protected by a fast transfer of power to the Congress. Close cooperation with the Congress was viewed as vital to ensure that India joined the Commonwealth and was not seduced by the communist influence.

On Kashmir more specifically, to be fair to Attlee he did try to persuade Nehru on the necessity of a plebiscite. In Attlee’s own words:



"I can recall many long discussions with Mr Nehru on the vexed question of Kashmir, sometimes between the two of us, sometimes with other prime ministers, but they proved fruitless. Although we proposed every possible variant to have fair plebiscite, to which he had already agreed in principle, we could not get acceptance from Mr Nehru. I have always considered this to be the blind spot of a great statesman."


 

[Nostalgic]

In the words of the British historian, Peter Hennessy, “the Labour Party enjoyed a close relationship with Congress politicians (Jinnah's people thought, with some reason, that Labour ministers were in the Congress's pocket).”

Of course there was more to the British government’s favouritism to Congress, after the war ended, then the close links between the parties and personal relationships. Wider British interests had dovetailed with Congress interests in aiming to deliver an undivided India. British economic and strategic interests were seen as best protected by a fast transfer of power to the Congress. Close cooperation with the Congress was viewed as vital to ensure that India joined the Commonwealth and was not seduced by the communist influence.

On Kashmir more specifically, to be fair to Attlee he did try to persuade Nehru on the necessity of a plebiscite. In Attlee’s own words:



"I can recall many long discussions with Mr Nehru on the vexed question of Kashmir, sometimes between the two of us, sometimes with other prime ministers, but they proved fruitless. Although we proposed every possible variant to have fair plebiscite, to which he had already agreed in principle, we could not get acceptance from Mr Nehru. I have always considered this to be the blind spot of a great statesman."


Was Labour’s desire for a united India at odds with Washington? I believe there were opinions in favor of Pakistan based on the theory that a Muslim state was more likely to not fall under the sway of the Soviets, whereas a Congress-run India could be expected to tilt towards the Soviets.

As for the Attlee-Nehru conversations, Kennedy said something similar. A quote I read, attributed to him, was that Nehru can hold you in thrall for hours on any topic of your choosing, but mention Kashmir and he stares at the flower in his lapel and goes into a trance.

 

[s28]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">On a call with Pakistan's PM Imran Khan I listened to his concerns about the situation in Kashmir, including the ongoing curfew.<br><br>The UN has a vital role in ensuring dialogue between India and Pakistan. Any political resolution must uphold the human rights of the Kashmiri people.</p>— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) <a href="https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1177659330566529025?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[KB]

Was Labour’s desire for a united India at odds with Washington? I believe there were opinions in favor of Pakistan based on the theory that a Muslim state was more likely to not fall under the sway of the Soviets, whereas a Congress-run India could be expected to tilt towards the Soviets.

I think Washington was largely uninterested in the region and deferred to Britain. After independence, although recognising that Pakistan could serve as the site of US bases in the context of the developing cold war and that Pakistan’s nearness to the Persian Gulf meant it could be useful as an ally in defending oil routes, it was in fact initially quite indifferent towards Pakistan, and it was only really after 1954, that military and economic assistance on a large scale was offered.

As for the Attlee-Nehru conversations, Kennedy said something similar. A quote I read, attributed to him, was that Nehru can hold you in thrall for hours on any topic of your choosing, but mention Kashmir and he stares at the flower in his lapel and goes into a trance

It was not only words that Nehru seemed to lose at mention of Kashmir, but his moral bearings as well. As he is once quoted saying:

“We have gambled at the international stage on Kashmir, and we cannot afford to lose. At the moment we are there at the point of a bayonet. Till things improve, democracy and morality can wait."

 

[Nostalgic]

I think Washington was largely uninterested in the region and deferred to Britain. After independence, although recognising that Pakistan could serve as the site of US bases in the context of the developing cold war and that Pakistan’s nearness to the Persian Gulf meant it could be useful as an ally in defending oil routes, it was in fact initially quite indifferent towards Pakistan, and it was only really after 1954, that military and economic assistance on a large scale was offered.



It was not only words that Nehru seemed to lose at mention of Kashmir, but his moral bearings as well. As he is once quoted saying:

“We have gambled at the international stage on Kashmir, and we cannot afford to lose. At the moment we are there at the point of a bayonet. Till things improve, democracy and morality can wait."

Given Washington’s indifference, what do you make of Liaqat Ali Khan’s maiden trip to the US? It comes up for a lot of debate, and is considered some sort of momentous statement of intent for both Pakistan and the US, setting up a relationship that was to last decades, and a snub of a supposed overture that the Soviets had also made at the same time. Was the trip really this momentous?

Nehru’s change of heart on the plebiscite is much talked about. My theory is he never intended to go through with it in spite of promising it. Didn’t Krishna Menon also say something along the lines of, “now that that [expletive] (i.e. Hari Singh) has signed the instrument, we’re never letting it go.”

 

[KB]

Given Washington’s indifference, what do you make of Liaqat Ali Khan’s maiden trip to the US? It comes up for a lot of debate, and is considered some sort of momentous statement of intent for both Pakistan and the US, setting up a relationship that was to last decades, and a snub of a supposed overture that the Soviets had also made at the same time. Was the trip really this momentous?

Nehru’s change of heart on the plebiscite is much talked about. My theory is he never intended to go through with it in spite of promising it. Didn’t Krishna Menon also say something along the lines of, “now that that [expletive] (i.e. Hari Singh) has signed the instrument, we’re never letting it go.”

Pakistan’s birth was, of course, very difficult and the economic, institutional and strategic inheritances left it feeling vulnerable. As an anxious state it sought financial and military assistance. Britain was in depleted financial health after the war and its role in the Kashmir dispute was not viewed favourably by the Pakistan state. In these conditions many in the establishment thought the USA was the best bet.

This was not uncontested. A Bengali faction led by Khawaja Nazimuddin favoured an approach to foreign policy with an emphasis on pan-Islamic links. And then there were those on the left that favoured a more pro-Soviet stance. But ultimately the faction led by Ghulam Muhammad, Zafrullah Khan, Ayub Khan and Iskander Mirza, which sought close ties to the USA, prevailed.

It was symbolically significant that Liaquat visited the US in 1950 rather than Moscow. It also says much about the anxious mindset of the elite that Liaquat expended great energy in the trip in trying to persuade the US of the need for a territorial guarantee for Pakistan underwritten by the US and Britain. Although Liaquat made a good impression, in substance though little seemed to have been achieved from the visit. No promises of aid, no territorial guarantee, no assurances on Kashmir. Liaquat was disappointed and and therefore did not agree with his cabinet that Pakistani troops should be sent to Korea.

When in 1951 the US provided significant amounts of aid to India, compared with the offer to Pakistan, even Ghulam Muhammad complained that it had left them feeling like “a prospective bride who observes her suitor spending very large sums on a mistress, i.e. India, while she herself can look forward to no more than a token maintenance in the event of marriage.”

It has been suggested that just before his demise, Liaquat was seriously reconsidering the government's pro-Western foreign policy stance.

 

[KB]

Nehru’s change of heart on the plebiscite is much talked about. My theory is he never intended to go through with it in spite of promising it. Didn’t Krishna Menon also say something along the lines of, “now that that [expletive] (i.e. Hari Singh) has signed the instrument, we’re never letting it go.”

I think you are probably right. In 1949 the Canadian President of the security council established a plan for demilitarisation before the plebiscite. Pakistan accepted the proposals but India rejected them.



In 1950 Sir Owen Dixon - the UN representative who was working on an agreement
on Kashmir - concluded:



"I became convinced that India's agreement would never be obtained to demilitarise in any such form or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, which would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperilled."



Later in 1951, Robert Menzies - the Australian PM - suggested the stationing of Commonwealth troops and a joint Indo-Pakistani force and to allow the plebiscite administrator to raise local troops. Pakistan agreed to the proposals and India rejected them. 



The truth slipped out when Patel wrote to Nehru, at the time Dixon was trying to reach agreement, "If we are not careful, we might land ourselves in difficulties because once demilitarisation is settled, a plebiscite would be, as it were, round the corner." 







 

[Nostalgic]

I think you are probably right. In 1949 the Canadian President of the security council established a plan for demilitarisation before the plebiscite. Pakistan accepted the proposals but India rejected them.



In 1950 Sir Owen Dixon - the UN representative who was working on an agreement
on Kashmir - concluded:



"I became convinced that India's agreement would never be obtained to demilitarise in any such form or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, which would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperilled."



Later in 1951, Robert Menzies - the Australian PM - suggested the stationing of Commonwealth troops and a joint Indo-Pakistani force and to allow the plebiscite administrator to raise local troops. Pakistan agreed to the proposals and India rejected them. 



The truth slipped out when Patel wrote to Nehru, at the time Dixon was trying to reach agreement, "If we are not careful, we might land ourselves in difficulties because once demilitarisation is settled, a plebiscite would be, as it were, round the corner." 







You may recall that we were discussing the Alistair Lamb book a few months ago. I did finally manage to find a used paperback in excellent condition, but it didn’t come cheap. Anyhow, Owen Dixon comes up again and again in that book, so much so that towards the end, Lamb concludes that Dixon’s partition plan was the only viable one and that had the two countries agreed, this conflict would’ve been over decades ago. One detail that took me by surprise was that initially, it was Liaqat who declined Dixon’s offer of a discussion on partitioning Kashmir along the same lines as Punjab and Bengal, or for holding regionalized plebiscites. Lamb reads between the lines and suggests Liaqat did so because he knew Nehru would decline it anyhow. Perhaps, but I don’t think Liaqat turning it down helped. Let Nehru decline it, why do his job for him?

 

[KB]

You may recall that we were discussing the Alistair Lamb book a few months ago. I did finally manage to find a used paperback in excellent condition, but it didn’t come cheap. Anyhow, Owen Dixon comes up again and again in that book, so much so that towards the end, Lamb concludes that Dixon’s partition plan was the only viable one and that had the two countries agreed, this conflict would’ve been over decades ago. One detail that took me by surprise was that initially, it was Liaqat who declined Dixon’s offer of a discussion on partitioning Kashmir along the same lines as Punjab and Bengal, or for holding regionalized plebiscites. Lamb reads between the lines and suggests Liaqat did so because he knew Nehru would decline it anyhow. Perhaps, but I don’t think Liaqat turning it down helped. Let Nehru decline it, why do his job for him?

Yes, I agree completely.

 

[s28]

How desperate is this? Leave the kid alone

https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/a-close-pak-connection-to-labours-antiindia-stance/1630997

 

[Hornbill]

UK's Labour Party Steps In To Counter Anti-India Stance Over Kashmir
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nd...nce-over-kashmir-2131411?amp=1&akamai-rum=off

 

[Romali_rotti]

UK's Labour Party Steps In To Counter Anti-India Stance Over Kashmir
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nd...nce-over-kashmir-2131411?amp=1&akamai-rum=off
View attachment 97037

Lol ... I don't think he will get much votes from the Indian diaspora.... But never too late to bend over when you need to..

 

[GBK_Fan]

And they fall in line!!

 

[cricketjoshila]

And they fall in line!!

May not help them. Too late, too little.

 

[GBK_Fan]

May not help them. Too late, too little.

Indians are generally well off from other ethnic groups, so they won’t be happy with Labours increased tax plans + going after grammar and private schools even before their Kashmir shenanigans. I expect Lib Dem’s and conservatives to gain.

 

[Captain caveman]

Indians are generally well off from other ethnic groups, so they won’t be happy with Labours increased tax plans + going after grammar and private schools even before their Kashmir shenanigans. I expect Lib Dem’s and conservatives to gain.

Some indians are but many are what would be described as working class, traditional labour voters

 

[GBK_Fan]

Some indians are but many are what would be described as working class, traditional labour voters

From what I hear even they are not happy with the school policy and the Kashmir fracas especially the violent mob at the Indian consulate. I am not well connected within the Indian community tbh, so my opinion is based on a very tiny cross section

 

[Captain caveman]

From what I hear even they are not happy with the school policy and the Kashmir fracas especially the violent mob at the Indian consulate. I am not well connected within the Indian community tbh, so my opinion is based on a very tiny cross section

Most people are interested in their own financial interests ie.
Tax increases/decreases
Benefit increases
etc.
I don't think the proposed closing of grammar schools is a big deal to most people, except the upper middle class white people.
And the only people making a fuss about kashmir are the mepuris(azad kashmiris), everyone else either cursed or praised the decision for removing article 370 for a few days and then got back to their normal life.

 

[GBK_Fan]

Most people are interested in their own financial interests ie.
Tax increases/decreases
Benefit increases
etc.
I don't think the proposed closing of grammar schools is a big deal to most people, except the upper middle class white people.
And the only people making a fuss about kashmir are the mepuris(azad kashmiris), everyone else either cursed or praised the decision for removing article 370 for a few days and then got back to their normal life.

Not true for all. I know about the school issue from a maid who visits my house and her elder son is into a grammar school. It represents the aspirational aspect of society

 

[Captain caveman]

Not true for all. I know about the school issue from a maid who visits my house and her elder son is into a grammar school. It represents the aspirational aspect of society

Not really, theres very good private schools and theres very good state schools. Theres not even that many grammar schools in the country anymore, many were closed down years ago.

 

[GBK_Fan]

Not really, theres very good private schools and theres very good state schools. Theres not even that many grammar schools in the country anymore, many were closed down years ago.

If grammar schools are not really an issue than Labour should not have it in their manifesto. Maybe take it up with them?

 

[Captain caveman]

If grammar schools are not really an issue than Labour should not have it in their manifesto. Maybe take it up with them?

I dont know why you keep going on about grammar schools, it only affects a small percentage of voters, mostly upper middle class people.
I went to gammar school for 2 years and then left , because i was the only asian in my class. I went to the local state school after i left the grammar school and ended up going to a top univesity. So grammar schools are over rated and form a part of the old boys network, were you will find a disproportionate number of the top executives at companies coming from these handful of schools. Thats why corbyn as a socialist wants to close them down, so everyone gets a fair chance.

My old grammar school, is just a few roads away from where i live, theres alot more asian and black kids attending now, then when i attended, when i say alot, i mean a few more.

The main issues for voters are financial taxes and benefits
Health and police/ law and order
And the big one BREXIT

 

[GBK_Fan]

I dont know why you keep going on about grammar schools, it only affects a small percentage of voters, mostly upper middle class people.
I went to gammar school for 2 years and then left , because i was the only asian in my class. I went to the local state school after i left the grammar school and ended up going to a top univesity. So grammar schools are over rated and form a part of the old boys network, were you will find a disproportionate number of the top executives at companies coming from these handful of schools. Thats why corbyn as a socialist wants to close them down, so everyone gets a fair chance.

My old grammar school, is just a few roads away from where i live, theres alot more asian and black kids attending now, then when i attended, when i say alot, i mean a few more.

The main issues for voters are financial taxes and benefits
Health and police/ law and order
And the big one BREXIT

And I know families which buy houses in catchments to ensure their kid gets into a desired school. It’s all anecdotal tbh.

This thread is about British Indians who may move away from Labour and I just shared the conversation I had. Almost all of the professional Indians, I know, don’t vote for Labour anyway and none of the points you highlighted above will move them towards it. For the few working class families, I know, grammar schools was an issue, as it provides their kids a chance to get the same exposure as kids from other well off families. If that’s not a big issue as per you, so be it.

 

[Captain caveman]

And I know families which buy houses in catchments to ensure their kid gets into a desired school. It’s all anecdotal tbh.

This thread is about British Indians who may move away from Labour and I just shared the conversation I had. Almost all of the professional Indians, I know, don’t vote for Labour anyway and none of the points you highlighted above will move them towards it. For the few working class families, I know, grammar schools was an issue, as it provides their kids a chance to get the same exposure as kids from other well off families. If that’s not a big issue as per you, so be it.

The buying houses in catchment areas is true, but its for state schools with excellent exam results and not grammar schools, grammar schools have an exam entry. Also, its mostly white people who do this not asians.

Actually the thread is about the state of india fuming because a british political party has backed a plebiscite in kashmir.

Anyway, what i listed are the main concerns that voters have and wasn't specifically aimed at any party.

The fact is that every party wants to get as many votes as it can and if indians decide to vote against labour that would be disappointing for the labour party, but would not have that much affect, apart from a couple of seats, just not that many indians in the uk to make a difference.

Opinion polls have the tories winning the election anyway, so it doesn't look like its going to matter anyway.

 

[GBK_Fan]

The buying houses in catchment areas is true, but its for state schools with excellent exam results and not grammar schools, grammar schools have an exam entry. Also, its mostly white people who do this not asians.

Actually the thread is about the state of india fuming because a british political party has backed a plebiscite in kashmir.

Anyway, what i listed are the main concerns that voters have and wasn't specifically aimed at any party.

The fact is that every party wants to get as many votes as it can and if indians decide to vote against labour that would be disappointing for the labour party, but would not have that much affect, apart from a couple of seats, just not that many indians in the uk to make a difference.

Opinion polls have the tories winning the election anyway, so it doesn't look like its going to matter anyway.

Disagree on catchment areas only done by whites as almost all Indian families with kids, I know, have done it. Agree on the rest

 

[Captain caveman]

Disagree on catchment areas only done by whites as almost all Indian families with kids, I know, have done it. Agree on the rest

Its done mostly by people who are slightly better off than the average uk citizen, but not rich enough to afford to send their kids to a private school(for some reason private schools are called public schools in the uk). You may know more of these type of people, but on the whole its less common in asians than white families.
Its also frowned upon by the schools and they now have started to put measures in place to counter such applicants such as asking how long the family has been living at the address, if they have only just moved before a childs application for a place at the school, the school would reject the applicant.