New Definition of Extremism by UK Government Versus Founding Principles of Democracy
When RSS General Secretary, Dattatreya Hosabale, asserts that all citizens of India are Hindu through nationality (report by Ishita Mishra), one wonders how such ridiculous suggestions affect and even provoke Indian minorities in India and the diaspora. One fails to see the connection between a religious group and citizenship of a country. If one has to be a Hindu to be a citizen of India, then independent religions like Sikhi would react by pointing to the political alternative towards which they would be forced if they disagree. One wonders if RSS and Hindutva nationalist affiliated groups in the diaspora, preaching such extreme ideology, are risking a ban under the revised definition of extremism in the UK discussed later.
At the G20 Summit in September 2023, PM Rishi Sunak said in response to a question by ANI (quote): we are working very closely with the Indian government to particularly tackle PKE Pro-Khalistan Extremism&hellip&hellip We have working groups together to share intelligence and information so that we can root out this kind of violent extremism.
Indeed, violent extremism will always be unlawful. However, in view of the context of the media question, the PM response seemed to make association with a particular movement sound extremist when legally that is not the case in a democracy like the UK. Reporters heard what they wished to hear and rushed out to make headlines about sharing intelligence between countries etc about that particular movement.
And then, as recently mis-reported, on to bank account closures of a particular Sikh movement in the UK when, in fact, the UK government intention is to cut ties or funding to any groups deemed to have crossed the (extremist) line.
Clearly, PM Sunak, received warmly while publicising his own proud Hindu identity, could have shown more neutral political maturity when responding to such leading questions, bearing in mind that public accountability will be sought by British Sikhs.
Next, about the revised definition of extremism in the UK. According to BBC News, the new extremism definition will apply to groups which promote an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance. Such groups will be blocked from government funding and meeting officials.
In the novel 1984 by George Orwell, Thought Police, had the powers to arrest people based on supposed and suspected thoughts they may or may not have ever expressed. I was reminded about such thought policing in the UK after reading some comments against the new definition of extremism. For example, Jonathan Hall, independent reviewer of terrorism legislation of the government, told the BBC recently: (quote) Every attempt to the definition of extremism has failed because it is never clear what you are trying to prevent by defining extremism&hellipWhat we see&hellip is a move away from people who are doing bad things, towards people who think bad things or have a bad ideology. (underlining is mine)
A new unit, the Counter-Extremism Centre of Excellence, has been set up to gather intelligence and identify extremist groups. This is quite a remarkable step for a government in trouble before a general election.
Not surprisingly, Civil liberties and community groups, and MPs have criticised the definition and process. While Archbishops have urged caution on extremism redefinition, ex-Home Secretaries have warned against politicising extremism.
Quite rightly, Jonathan Hall, quoted above, has warned that the new policy could undermine UK reputation as a democracy.
Gurmukh Singh OBE
Principal Civil Servant retd (UK)