There
are emotional arguments
both for and against the
proposed law change
By Amit RoyNov 30, 2024
MY UNCLE, who died, aged 88, in August, would have turned 89 last week.
He had been suffering from vascular dementia, but the idea of assisted dying would have horrified him. In fact, three days before he died, he told me he wanted to have a big party when he returned from hospital. He did go home for 24 hours, but deteriorated so sharply overnight he had to be rushed back to hospital, with me in the ambulance alongside him.
Among British Asians, there hasn’t been much of a demand I can detect for Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s terminally ill adults (end of life) bill for England and Wales. Scotland is also considering a change in the law.
We have all heard the emotional arguments, both for and against such a bill. Who can fail to be moved?
At present, laws across the UK prevent people from asking for medical help to die. If the bill becomes law, it would give people, in certain circumstances, the right to die at a time of their choosing. Invariably, there will be abuses, possibly where substantial inheritances are at stake.
I tried to look up the Hindu view on euthanasia and suicide. Most would say that assisting death brings bad karma, because it violates the non-violence principle. But there are accepted Hindu ways to bring about death.
Most Hindus would say that “a doctor should not accept a patient’s request for euthanasia since this will cause the soul and body to be separated at an unnatural time. The result will damage the karma of both doctor and patient.
“Hindus believe in the reincarnation of the soul (or atma) through many lives – not necessarily all human. The ultimate aim of life is to achieve moksha, liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth.
“A soul’s next life is decided by karma, as the consequence of its own good or bad actions in previous lives. The karma somehow represents the net worth of the soul’s good and bad actions. A soul cannot achieve moksha without good karma.
“Killing (euthanasia, murder, suicide) interferes with the killed soul’s progress towards liberation. When the soul is reincarnated in another physical body, it will suffer as it did before because the same karma is still present.”
For the time being, it seems best not to change the law.
AS THE King and prime minister lead the 80th anniversary commemorations of VJ Day on Friday (15), this may be the last poignant major wartime anniversary where the last few who fought that war can be present.
Everybody knows we won the second world war against Hitler. But how many could confidently explain the complex jigsaw across different theatres of the wider global conflict? The anniversary is a chance too for the rest of us to learn a little more about a history that most people wish they knew better.
Those three short months from May to August between VE Day and VJ Day in 1945 reshaped our modern world. The Potsdam conference rewrote the map of Europe. Britain’s voters dismissed Churchill with a Labour landslide. Atom bombs were dropped, killing 70,000 people instantly in Hiroshima. Historians still debate whether it was a terrible crime or a defensible choice to avoid a land invasion of Japan. Yet the second bomb on Nagasaki, killing 50,000 more, is harder to try to rationalise in utilitarian terms. The shadow of the mushroom clouds add to the solemnity of the VJ Day commemoration. Eight decades on, the focus is on commemorating service and mourning all who suffered from war and dictatorship.
The vast Commonwealth contribution to the war in the east will be one focus of the 80th anniversary commemorations. General Slim’s Fourteenth Army has been called the “forgotten army” which won a “forgotten war” in Burma. It was an enormous multi-national force. Old war movies of the Burma campaign rarely reflected that only a tenth of its soldiers were from Britain, with nine-tenths from India or Africa.
The Indian Army of the second world was the largest volunteer army in history, growing from 195,000 men in 1939 to 2.5 million by 1945, its fledgling air force expanding a hundred-fold from 285 men to 29,000.
The battle of Kohima in May and June 1944 was the turning point of the war in the East. It blocked the Japanese invasion of India from advancing to seize Dimapur, while creating the route into Burma. Kohima even won a surprise victory over D-Day as Britain’s greatest battle at a National Army Museum event a decade ago. The audience found historian Robert Lyman’s argument persuasive that “great things were at stake in a war with the toughest enemy any British army has had to fight”.
It sounds strange, to our modern ears, that Indian soldiers would volunteer for the army of the British imperial power. Yet, the British Indian army’s successful defence of Kohima illustrates why many Indian officers saw the Japanese regime as the more imminent existential threat than a faraway Hitler. So the Indian Army outnumbered – by a 50:1 ratio – the 43,000 rebels who heeded Subhas Chandas Bose’s effort to raise a rebel army for the Germans and Japanese. Indian soldiers won 22 of the 34 Victoria and George Crosses of the Burma campaign. Commonwealth service was honoured despite and alongside the Empire’s entrenched racial hierarchies. General Sir Claude Auchinleck, commander-in-chief of the Indian Army, said in 1945 that ‘every Indian officer worth his salt today is a nationalist’. Their crucial role in defeating Japan was one final proof that India was as ready for self-government as Canada or Australia.
And ,the plaque honouring those who fought in the Battle of Kohima
On the second anniversary of VJ Day, Jawaharlal Nehru was already declaring India’s independence. The speed with which the British finally quit India left veterans forming the new armies of India and Pakistan struggling to mitigate the bloody tragedy of Partition.
So this shared endeavour in defeating Japan is a crucial bridge in the arc of both British and Indian history, but rarely recognised in either country’s national narrative in the decades after 1945.
As the world wars slip beyond living memory, many anticipate that the meanings of 1945 will fade. Yet we should be ever more proactive – between now and the 2039-2045 centenary of the second world war – in ensuring everybody understands its foundational part in our national story.
It matters that the next generation understand that the armies that fought and won two world wars resemble the Britain of 2025 much more than that of 1945 or 1915 in their ethnic and faith demographics. The scale of the Hindu, Sikh and Muslim contribution to the Commonwealth effort, and joining the dots between wartime service and the post-war arrival of the Windrush are keys to understanding the making of modern Britain. British Future, Eastern Eye and the Royal British Legion will launch an exciting new project this autumn to honour and raise awareness of south Asian service in the world wars.
Let us never duck the controversies of the complex and contested history of empire. But understanding how it shaped the society that we are today should include recognising all of those who contributed to protecting the democratic freedoms that we share today.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
Demonstrators from Stand Up To Racism challenge a far-right march calling for mass deportations in Manchester last Saturday (2)
SIX days of violent rage last summer finally ended after a call for a racist pogrom where nobody came. That week showed how much small groups of people could shift national narratives.
The violence which flashed across thirty locations saw fewer than 5,000 rioters nationwide. Hundreds came out for clean-up campaigns, sending a different message about what their towns stood for.
The online list hoping to incite violence targeting forty migration centres and law firms was a violent fantasy – yet the fear and panic it generated were real. Around 15,000 people went out to show practical solidarity. But millions more were glad that they did. For one day, the front-pages of the right-wing Daily Mail – “The Night Anti-Hate Marchers Faced Down the Thugs” – and the left-wing Daily Mirror were hard to tell apart.
That brief outbreak of unity feels like a distant memory now. Asylum dominates politics again. The police must contain those seeking to intimidate asylum seekers by facilitating only lawful protests. The anniversary of the counter-protests is marked too by a “Welcome Weekend” to ensure those who support refugees can make their voices heard too.
British Asian views of asylum are not so different from those of the white British. The balance of pretty sympathetic, more sceptical and downright xenophobic views shifts dramatically by age, education and political perspective among Asians as it does among the broader public too. Those who see their own families reflecting the positive contribution of migration to British society can find that a distinction between legal and illegal immigration resonates. Black British views tend to be more sympathetic to asylum seekers. Sharper scepticism about the Home Office was reinforced again by the Windrush scandal.
A wide range of views about immigration numbers, its pressures and gains, and how to make integration work can be found across minority and majority groups. One useful litmus test of a legitimate argument about immigration is whether it can appeal across white, black and Asian Britons – or only speaks to one group.
Politicians constantly emphasise that they recognise ‘legitimate concerns’ about immigration – but a crucial half of the argument has gone missing this summer. Any meaningful description of which arguments and debates are legitimate in a democracy depends on rejecting arguments rooted in violence, xenophobia and racial prejudice. But how often, when a politician talks about recognising legitimate concerns in 2025, is anything said about what needs to be excluded as illegitimate too?
This anniversary of the counter-protests should be a chance to rebalance the argument. It is time to ensure that the legitimate concerns of ethnic minorities in Britain – about a concerted effort to dissolve foundational social norms against racism, and to deny our status as equal citizens – are heard too There is an attempt to mainstream the idea of ‘remigration’ – a far right code for kicking out all of the migrants and ethnic minorities too. The last three years have seen the de facto legalisation of racial abuse in online space. Elon Musk has turned Twitter/X into one of the most powerful amplifiers of racism we have ever seen. Government departments are reluctant to even review whether they should still use, as a key channel of public communication, a site which ethnic minorities can barely use without facing everyday racism from antisemites, racists and open Nazis.
New TV channels appear unwilling to draw a line between political debate and sweeping prejudice too. GB News platformed a guest essay to argue that anti-Muslim prejudice is rational not irrational - and since Islam does not “belong here”, anybody wishing to uphold that faith should leave Britain for a “Muslim country”.
Rupert Lowe is campaigning for negative net migration. He confirmed that he now wants to deport “a large share of legal and settled migrants” so net migration is negative. Yet Opposition Leader Kemi Badenoch seems to lack the authority to prevent Tory MPs joining Lowe’s Restore Britain campaign for mass deportations.
Former soldier and TV celebrity Ant Middleton, who was part of Nigel Farage’s Reform delegation to Trump’s inauguration, now proposes banning people from public office until their ancestors have been here for four generations. He would not just make Sadiq Khan and Kemi Badenoch ineligible for office - but even their children too.
These absurd racist fantasies of disenfranchising or deporting Rishi Sunak, Kemi Badenoch and Sadiq Khan will fail but they toxify the experience of public life. British-born minorities do have some birthright, nativist privilege when racist troglodytes reveal their maximalist remigration agenda. It is a bigger challenge to protect asylum seekers from dehumanising rhetoric and action. Our leaders should be able to address the legitimate concerns of minority and majority groups at once. Only those seeking to pander to illegitimate xenophobic views too should fear that it is a zero-sum game. If politicians want to be trusted, they need to address the legitimate concerns of ethnic minorities about keeping racism out of British public life.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
Keep ReadingShow less
Keir Starmer and Narendra Modi at Chequers during talks on the UK–India trade agreement
THE free trade agreement (FTA), which was signed at Chequers last week, has been well received in India.
But it is worth remembering India has also entered into FTAs with several other countries and blocs. These include the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA), Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, South Korea, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), Mauritius, UAE, and Australia.
Additionally, India is currently negotiating FTAs with the US – this will be the big one – plus the European Union, another crucial one, Oman, Peru and Israel.
Politically, the FTA with the UK will not have very many consequences for the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, who will turn 75 on September 17 this year. The speculation is more about succession, though my guess is he will carry on if he wins the next election in 2029, which he might well do. But what we saw of him at Chequers indicates he is fit and agile.
In Britain, though, the story is a little different. The British prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, stands to gain politically from the FTA, although it will take some time for it to come into force. It could be that many British Indian voters, who found the Tories – under David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak – reflected their aspirations, might consider switching their allegiance to Starmer at the next general election, also in 2029.
One reason is that under Kemi Badenoch (who has boasted she blocked the FTA on the spurious migration question when she was trade secretary under Rishi) the Conservative party has been moving to the far right, with many of its MPs favouring an electoral pact with the Reform leader Nigel Farage.
Governments in London and Delhi have to be pragmatic and deal with whichever party is in power. Starmer has said that the FTA with India is the biggest such deal since Brexit. He has built on the negotiations conducted under Boris and Rishi but history will judge the deal was concluded when he was prime minister. And the UK economy could well be transformed if it rides piggy back on the India growth story.
To secure the support of more Indian origin voters and prove himself a very successful and “pragmatic” prime minister , Starmer needs to do four things – find a way of “promoting” Rachel Reeves to another job; reverse the VAT raid on private schools (it’s not working, anyway, because school after school is shutting); change the inheritance tax and non-dom rules so as to get back the Dubai Indians; and pay an official visit to India sooner rather than later. He could well win the next election providing Reeves is not his chancellor.
Keep ReadingShow less
Concern grows in Britain over anti-immigrant protests and the risk of renewed unrest this summer
‘I predict a riot’ sang the Kaiser Chiefs two decades ago. That has become a popular past-time this summer too.
It is exactly a year since the terrible murders of three girls in Southport triggered shock and grief nationwide - along with racist efforts to stoke violent retribution against Muslims and asylum seekers with no connection to that evil crime. Few of the conditions of last summer’s disorder have gone away, as the recent State of Us report sets out. The febrile tinderbox of social media can put events or even rumours to incendiary purposes. Yet there is a crucial difference between vigilance and alarmism – between identifying risks to mitigate them, or seeking to stoke them into reality.
Epping became a protest epicentre after an asylum seeker was charged with sexual assault. Most protesters were peaceful, expressing concerns for community safety. Some chanted to send all asylum seekers back. Others sought violence – assaulting the police for protecting asylum seekers. The protests became a Rorschach Test of parallel perceptions. Right-ofcentre commentators decried stigmatising concerned local mums as far right, while progressives noted how often the organisers speaking into the microphones were far right agitators hoping to extend ‘remigration’ to all migrants and ethnic minorities.
Claims about a nationwide surge of protest were exaggerated. Half a dozen scrappy anti-asylum protests struggled to muster a thousand people nationwide. Many were football lads, at a loose end in the close season. Fifty times as many people took to the streets for trans rights as protested asylum hotels last weekend.
But if larger protests seem less newsworthy without a sense that it might all kick off, does that mean that broadcaster’s ‘news values’ risk inadvertently incentivising disorder over democratic voice?
The idea of ‘legitimate concerns’ matters. It is a mistake to dismiss the concept as dog whistling or pandering to prejudice. Yet the key to getting that boundary right risks getting overlooked. Any contentful concept of ‘legitimate concerns’ depends on defining which are illegitimate too. Much more attention is needed, especially, to how to challenge the fusion of asylum with anti-Muslim tropes in driving both casual prejudices and those most open to being socialised towards violence.
Keir Starmer spoke articulately about both legitimate concerns and the illegitimacy of racist violence in his post-riots party c o n f e r e n c e speech. His government risked leaving out half of that argument last week. Ministers were so concerned to (rightly) defend democratic protest and criticism of asylum policy that they seemed (wrongly) mute in challenging extreme racist agitators too. An implausibly inauthentic version of Keir Starmer’s public voice can be found on his X, where somebody tweets in the prime minister’s name, invariably about asylum, as robustly as possible. ‘The problem is, it doesn’t sound like him at all,’ one usually loyal backbencher told me.
This simulacrum of the prime minister would doubtless triple down on the ‘island of strangers’ comments that the real Keir Starmer chose to retract, albeit blurring the boundaries of precisely what he would rather have said.
Home secretary Yvette Cooper maintains a more measured voice, emphasising that the government will be judged on practical outcomes, not the polarised shouting matches of protests and counter-protests. Net migration has halved from exceptional levels – but few will notice those numbers coming down while the lack of control over asylum is so visible. The number of asylum seekers in hotels has halved too – but the 30,000 who remain are much more visible than the shrinking numbers. The events of the last month should catalyse practical ideas about how to clear the asylum backlog faster and close down the use of hotels for asylum.
A new social cohesion task force is beavering away inside Downing Street to identify the missing strategy foundations, though it began too late this Spring for the government to develop a long-term policy before this anniversary. An interim update to Cabinet from deputy prime minister Angela Rayner emphasised the role of socio-economic deprivation, and the government’s commitment to invest in neighbourhoods. That is undoubtedly one important part of the jigsaw, though the centre-left does tend to persistently underestimate the role of identity and culture. The latest IpsosMori Issues Index shows the salience of immigration is pretty even across deprived and affluent areas, peaking in the second most affluent quintile: places like leafy Epping.
How Essex police handled protest and counter-protest this weekend - protecting lawful protest with no tolerance for intimidation and disruption - is a good model to maximise the chance that riotous prophecies fail.
The simple insistence that all face-masks are removed could be the key to deterring violence this summer, despite the febrile atmosphere. But avoiding riots should be nobody’s test of cohesion. A strategy to get tough on the causes of disorder remains embryonic. That it would take the sustained work of a generation is all the more reason to make a start soon.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
Keep ReadingShow less
Prime minister Keir Starmer and his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi pose with children practising cricket at the ground in Chequers on Thursday (24)
What’s it like to be in the British prime minister’s country residence tucked away deep in the idyllic Buckinghamshire countryside?
The British and Indian prime ministers, Sir Keir Starmer and Narendra Modi, presided over a “historic” occasion when the two countries signed a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, known informally as a Free Trade Agreement.
It was certainly very special for me as this was my first time at Chequers. It was also a privilege to witness “the first draft of history”.
Modi arrives at Chequers
Lord Swraj Paul, the Indian steel tycoon, has a 250-acre estate in Buckinghamshire called The Grange not too far away (where I have interviewed him on many occasions). When Gordon Brown was prime minister, he was accused of being too close to the wealthy Paul. To wind up such critics, Paul used to joke that “there is a tunnel connecting The Grange with Chequers”.
Understandably, on Thursday (24) the place was bristling with security, possibly to make sure neither Jeremy Corbyn nor Diane Abbott sneaked in to spoil Starmer’s big day. An armed police officer very politely asked us to open the boot of our car, perhaps to make sure neither Rahul Gandhi nor Mamata Banerjee were similarly intent on ruining Modi’s big moment.
Modi and Starmer at the Norton Motorcyles stand set up in a tent in the grounds of Chequers
Ok, ok, ok, just joking.
The police were all very polite but one did do a camera sweep under our car. A helicopter noisily passed overhead but it was reconnoitring the countryside for Chequers is set in more than 1,000 acres of rural England.
There was a sense of anticipation in the air but there was a calm interlude to take in the atmosphere of the Grade I listed house which has been the British prime minister’s country residence since 1917. I foresee more people from Eastern Eye’s Rich List buying such properties in the years to come.
Chequers, country residence of the British prime minister since 1917
Chequers dates back to 1565 when it was built by a landowner called William Hawtrey, from possibly the reconstruction of an earlier building. There is a drawing room named after Hawtrey where Starmer and Modi made their initial opening statements. Shailesh Solanki and I were later set up to interview Starmer in The Great Hall but he wanted somewhere quieter and more relaxed so we ended up back in the Hawtrey Room.
Another helicopter, which landed in a nearby field, heralded the arrival of the Indian prime minister and his retinue. He was driven to one of the arched entrances and walked alone to where Starmer was waiting to receive his guest. I must say Modi’s crisp white clothes stood out in contrast to the summer green of the trees and the grass. He walked confidently in a straight line for the now familiar embrace. Leaders like the French president, Emmanel Macron, are better at this kind of greeting. Starmer reciprocated manfully but the former director of public prosecutions is not naturally a touchy, feely sort of guy.
Starmer and Modi at Sainsbury's stand
Starmer asked Modi if he had been to Chequers before. Modi replied he had. That was on 13 November 2015 when David Cameron was prime minister and escorted the Indian prime minister, who had been elected the previous year, to his famous meeting at a packed Wembley Stadium.
A decade on, Modi has flown the Indian flag all over the world. This is his fourth prime ministerial visit to Britain. Neither prime minister took questions from the gathered media but Modi came across as someone in command of the nitty gritty of the trade deal. My impression is that if there is one country that can help rescue the sluggish British economy, it is India, given the growing size of its dynamic middle class and also the scale of Indian investment into the UK.
Starmer and Modi watch school children playing cricket Getty Images
The formal signing of documents between Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, and his Indian counterpart, Piyush Goyal, the commerce and industry minister, took place in The Great Hall. They appear to be good mates, not least because Reynolds bought Goyal an icecream some weeks ago when they were walking and talking in Hyde Park in London. Portraits from Britain’s imperial past, of lords and ladies and aristocrats, looked down on the assembled gathering – and Indians and their former colonial masters parleying on equal terms. Starmer did say the deal was between the world’s fifth and sixth biggest economies but he didn’t say which was which.
The prime ministers visit the Purejewels stand
There were plenty of pictures, first of Reynolds and Goyal as they did the formal exchange of documents. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, looked happy as she got a hug from Goyal. Soon, the line up for the “family photograph”, from left to right, included Seema Malhotra (UK immigration minister), Ajit Doval (Indian national security adviser, so the two sides must have talked about terrorism and defence), Rachel Reeves, Goyal, Reynolds, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar (India’s external affairs minister), and Jonathan Powell (the UK’s national security adviser – I noticed he had to persuade the police to allow him to jump the queue when he arrived at Chequers, with his demeanour faintly suggesting, ‘Don’t you know who I am?’)
"Family photograph" in The Great Hall - (from left ) Seema Malhotra, Ajit Doval, Rachel Reeves, Piyush Goyal, Jonathan Reynolds, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and Jonathan Powell
Later, I spotted the health secretary, Wes Streeting, and told him he looked relaxed despite the doctors’ strike. He hasn’t yet seen Nye at the National Theatre, which I urged him to do, and also read the classic 1937 novel, A J Cronin’s The Citadel, which has “been credited with laying the foundation in Britain for the introduction of the NHS a decade later”. Streeting, only 42 and tipped by many as a future prime minister, made a note of it on his phone. His constituency, Ilford North, has many Indian voters. Significantly, he appears to understand that the Labour party needs to repair its relationship with the new generation of politicians in India. Also, Indian doctors are a key factor in the NHS, and the Free Trade Agreement might mean there will be increasing medical collaboration between the two countries.
Starmer and Modi at the English Premier League stand
After lunch, Modi left to see King Charles at Sandringham. It was clearly an historic and enjoyable day for those of us who have not been to Chequers before. There will be quite a few moments to remember, especially Akhil Patel’s cheeky remark, “From one chaiwalla to another!”, as the Indian prime minister was handed a cup of masala chai. Modi put the encounter on his social media post.