For Indians, the striking image of the elections in the United Kingdom was of Keith Starmer, the Labour leader visiting the Swami Narayan Temple and denouncing campaigns of Hinduphobia in his country. Starmer’s visit was followed by one by Rishi Sunak, the first British Prime Minister of Indian origin and Hindu faith, who, though, was trounced in the election results that came out on 6th July 2024.

That the Labour supremo was visiting a Hindu temple on the eve of the contest against the first British Hindu PM might not be much news for Britons other than an attempt at wooing a dominant community, incidentally the largest single ethnic group after the White majority. The Indian community had grown so much in stature and strength in the Kingdom to the extent that one of them was elevated to the premiership as a popular choice, even if only for a short period that proved to be an ignominious one for the Tories.

The historic defeat of the Conservative party after a 14-year uninterrupted reign may not be immediately attributed to the Hindu PM being at the helm of a predominantly protestant Christian nation. Notwithstanding Sunak having to brave racist slurs in the final days of the campaign, the trouncing of the Tories may not be outwardly attributed to the White population’s rejection of a minority community leader’s stewardship over British Conservatism.

Yet, the undercurrents were evident in the large-scale movement of votes from the Conservative landscape into not just the Labour’s catchment area, but also to the Liberal Democrats and UK Reform Party which are likely to emerge as formidable alternatives if the Tories fail to recoup from this historic drubbing. For, it was only twice in the Tony Blair era that the Tories had to succumb to such trouncing defeats at the hands of the Labour which had gained 400+ seats – 418 (1997) and 412 (2007) – in post-War Britain.

It might have been the bane for the Indian community that Rishi Sunak had to helm a declining party which was headed to the nadir after 14 years in office and four premiers seeking to navigate the stormy political waters over everything from the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis to Brexit and COVID. The consistent disruptions caused by these events to the British socio-economic systems – be it through the spiralling costs of living, the crumbling of the legendary NHS edifice, immigration blues including the small boats arriving from across the English Channel and the Rwanda plan or the failed process of disconnecting from Europe – were too colossal for any ruling party or its leader to handle without massive fallouts.

Though Sunak’s promising tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer during the pandemic days led to his eventual elevation to 10 Downing, he and his ethnic Tory compatriots, be it Priti Patel or Suella Braverman, despite their grand loyalist posturing and anti-immigration stances, found it too hard to handle the demands, on the one hand, of British conservatism, which had natural White and Englishmen legacies, and, on the other, struggling to balance between centrist and rightist policies in order to enable a post-pandemic economic revival.

Why UK elections still matter to India

The sun had long set on the empire and Britain is hardly an imperial power of consequence in world affairs today beyond what it can achieve by piggybacking on the US or NATO. Yet, the United Kingdom continues to be among the foremost destinations for Indian immigrants, both legal and illegal.

On the other hand, the Indian community, estimated at over 1.9 million strength, and much higher when counted with South Asians and Asians as ethnic demographies, happens to be the second largest ethnic grouping in the UK after the Whites. While the 2011 census recorded it as 1.4 million, it came to 1.8 in 2021 and is still expanding thanks to the country being the top destination for Indian students, many of whom manage to settle down across the Kingdom.

Over 43 per cent of the British Indians are those who were born in the country implying second and third generations of Indians identifying more with the British culture than their Indian origins. It is these generations which are largely finding greater representation in British politics and playing notable roles in governance irrespective of their political hues.

A record 107 British Indians were in the fray this time with 33 from the Labour, 30 from the Conservative Party 13 each from the Green Party and Reform UK and 11 from Liberal Democrats. Despite this impressive number, around 29 of them, again a record, make it to the House of Commons with Labour having the most with 19 persons of Indian origin (PIO).

How is the largest PIO representation in the UK parliament likely to influence India-UK relations, particularly on tricky issues like immigration and trade relations?

The answer may not necessarily lie in the Keir Starmer cabinet not because he has absorbed only one person of Indian origin in his government (as well as one from PoK), but because greater PIO representation in the British Cabinet or even having an Indian-origin PM itself, for that matter, has not worked any wonders for India-Britain bonhomie, as was evident in the last few years of Conservative rule from Boris Johnson onwards.

Albeit Sunak as PM had proudly worn his Hindu identity on his sleeve, much to the satisfaction of India’s ruling party and the Hindutva brigade, the same enthusiasm for Indian roots was not exhibited by his cabinet colleagues including Priti Patel and Suella Braverman, both of whom, as Home Secretary, were seen to be espousing their Britishness by denouncing immigration and targeting Indian immigrants.

Braverman’s lament about over-staying Indians was, in fact, seen to be among the key reasons for the much-vaunted India-UK trade deal being put on the back burner, despite even short-term PM Liz Truss's keenness to seal a deal by Diwali in 2022. Braverman, as well as Patel, had reportedly objected to Indian demands for more visas to be included in the trade deal as well. Even Priti Patel, as Home Secretary, advocated de-aggregating immigration deals from the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India contending that Indians are the largest group of skilled workers and students coming to the UK. 

That even Sunak as prime minister, and a votary of anti-immigration policies like the Rwanda Plan, was not able to push the trade deal despite omitting hardliners like Patel and Braverman in his cabinet, could be a testament to the fact that immigration remained a key irritant for India-UK relations irrespective of the deep influence Indians having in the British parliamentary and governance structures.

Will Starmer reverse Labour’s India aversion?

While the Swami Narayan temple visit and the denouncement of Hinduphobia are all the right messages for the Indian community in the UK as well as towards India, the presence of just one minister from the Indian community in the Starmer cabinet may be seen as not a sound start towards this end.

Lisa Nandy, the only PIO in the Starmer cabinet, despite having played many roles in Labour’s shadow cabinets, including as Foreign Secretary, has been relegated to the role of Secretary of State for culture, media and sport. As someone who had competed with Starmer in party leadership roles, Nandy was demoted in 2023 as the shadow minister for international development after Starmer took charge of the party leadership from Jeremy Corbyn.

While it is not clear whether internal party rivalry might be behind a less consequential posting for Nandy in PM Starmer’s cabinet, the sole post for the PIO does not come as solace for the Indian community also because a proclaimed anti-Indian Labour leader, Shabana Mahmood, whose family hails from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), has retained her shadow cabinet position by being appointed as Justice Secretary in the Starmer cabinet.

Mahmood, known to be a close friend of former Pakistan PM Imran Khan, was at the forefront of protests, along with fellow Labour MPs of Pakistani origin, outside the Indian High Commission in London in 2019. Known to be a staunch supporter of self-determination in Kashmir, she was signatory to a letter asking the Boris Johnson government to condemn the Narendra Modi government’s decision to revoke Article 370 governing Jammu and Kashmir.

Interestingly, Nandy, despite being the sole minister of Indian origin, also has a history of attacking the Indian government for its Kashmir policies to the extent that the Overseas Friends of BJP had branded her as ‘anti-India’. Similarly, Preet Kaur Gill, who was international development secretary in the shadow cabinet but was not retained in the Starmer government, is known for targeting the Indian government for what she claims as “transnational repression of UK Sikhs,’ and, along with Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, is seen as among the Labour MPs supporting Sikh causes and alleged sympathies for Khalistan activism.

The Labour Party, like the American Democrats, has a long history of confrontations with successive Indian governments, particularly on issues like the Kashmir dispute and the India-Pakistan conflict. This reached a peak in 1997 when Queen Elizabeth, during a stop-over at Islamabad for her South Asian tour, had referred to the Kashmir dispute much to New Delhi’s chagrin. The Queen’s reference was topped up by an offer by the British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, to mediate on the dispute, prompting then Indian PM, I.K. Gujral, an avowed pacifist, to describe Britain as a third-rate power.

While successive British governments have since sought to stay clear of the Kashmir dispute, Labour’s alleged anti-Indian positioning was reinforced when the party, under Jeremy Corbyn, at this September 2019 convention passed a resolution calling for “international intervention in Kashmir and a call for UN led-referendum.” The resolution condemned the “recent actions of the Government of India to revoke Article 370 and 35 A of the Indian Constitution and the special status,” and called upon the “Labour Party, the government in waiting, to clearly and vocally support the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination and for international observers to be sent to the region immediately.”

The Indian government, while rejecting the Labour resolution terming it as “vote-bank politics,” implying the pro-Pakistani slant of the party, pointed out that it conflicted with the British government’s policy of treating India-Pakistan disputes as a bilateral matter.

Much has changed in the Labour Party since then with Corbyn ousted from the party and Strammer realigning Labour’s policies, including its approach to India much like how the Democrats in the US moderated their views on India after the initiation of the strategic partnership. However, the realignment in Labour politics could largely be attributed to Starmer’s efforts to reorient from the traditional ‘democratic socialism’ approach towards a more centrist line of thinking that may reinforce Tony Blair’s “New Labour” or Ed Miliband’s “responsible capitalism” under the “One Nation Labour” concept.  

 Yet, Starmer has been categorical about Kashmir being an issue to be resolved between India and Pakistan. “Any constitutional issues in India are a matter for the Indian Parliament, and Kashmir is a bilateral issue for India and Pakistan to resolve peacefully,” Starmer reportedly stated at a meeting of the Labour Friends of India on 30th April 2024, but also affirming that “Labour is an internationalist party and stands for the defence of human rights everywhere.” The Labour leader had also then declared that he would not allow the issues of the subcontinent to divide communities here, probably alluding to the recent clashes along religious lines among South Asian groups in the country.

Things are no different on the Khalistan spectrum as well. Even the Sunak government drew New Delhi’s ire for failing to give protection to the Indian High Commission in London, which was vandalised by Khalistani protestors in March 2023. Even as protests by various Sikh groups continued throughout last year, the movements found support from Labour MPs like Gill and Dhesi.

Labour's positioning on the Sikh cause, for long, was as radical as its support to Kashmiri separatists. While many Labour leaders have openly identified with Khalistani elements and continue to do so, the high point of Labour support was after Operation Bluestar when the party promised in its manifesto to hold an independent probe into Britain’s role in the operation.

While Starmer has not articulated his position on the Khalistani issue, the trends amply point to continuity of government policy on these aspects, like in the Kashmir issue. The UK Minister of State for Security in the Conservative government, Tom Tugendhat, had announced efforts, including greater funds, to enhance India-UK cooperation to tackle UK-based Khalistan extremism. This came after PM Boris Johnson made it clear that the British government had no sympathies for the Khalistani cause. 

That the Labour government under Starmer is likely to continue these policies was not just evident in Gill’s omission from the government after being demoted from the front bench to the back in the shadow cabinet reshuffle by Starmer. In May this year, the Labour Party investigated allegations against a Sikh councillor from the party, Parbinder Kaur, for her pro-Khalistani posts on social media pages and for praising Babbar Khalsa, blamed for the Kanishka bombing.

While the Labour government under Starmer is expected to continue with the approach of his Tory predecessors on these touchy issues, the real challenge from his government for India could be in other some areas.

Keith may bite where it hurts

The speeches (at Labour Friends of India) and photo-ops (at Swami Narayan temple) all point to a Starmer-Modi bonhomie in the making and a likely effort to leave behind the bitter past of Labour legacies. Mandarins in Delhi are sounding optimism of a potential breakthrough in the FTA talks with Starmer committing in his poll manifesto a “new strategic partnership with India,” with focus on trade agreements and cooperation in technology, security, education and environmental issues.

Yet, it is evident that the potential areas of divergence might be exactly on these same areas where Starmer’s ‘progressive realism’ may find limits. 

While Starmer has already announced in his inaugural conversations with PM Modi his intention to continue the talks on the FTA deal, it would be the finer details in this agreement, particularly those covering immigration, education channels, and even environmental commitments to match the Climate Change pacts, which are likely to be the stumbling blocks towards fructification.

For, the Labour manifesto has already sounded out its intent to stringently curb immigration and bring down foreign labour to the country. For instance, the Labour manifesto declares the plan to “reduce net migration with workforce and training plans to end the long-term reliance on overseas workers in sectors such as health and construction.”

The pronouncement of health as a priority sector to reduce dependence on overseas workers may not be music to the ears of many aspirant workers in the health sector who sees UK and its NHS system as a promising destination for higher wages, prosperity and a decent life. Those the manifesto part covering NHS talks about expanding the workforce, the fact that training plans are being mooted to augment the workforce and reduce overseas reliance is enough signal that the government might seek for options at home or closer home than relying on trained healthcare workers from afar.

Similarly, the Labour manifesto talks about “reforming the points-based immigration system and ban employers who break employment laws to hire foreign workers.” While this implies tightening of the immigration system with emphasis on greater exclusions, it could potentially affect the prospects of many Indian students who aspire for a career and life in the UK after their education in the country. With numerous reports of Indian students struggling to find jobs in Canada, the tightening of immigration rules in UK will be a great setback for the current generation of educated youth, who are increasingly seeking immigration to the developed world as the key route to success and secure lives.

The pursuit of these manifesto promises has the potential to slow down if not totally derail the efforts for a India-UK FTA, particularly since India has been pushing for greater number of job visas and immigration channels for its citizens in return for greater access for British companies and products to the world’s largest middle-class market.

It will be interesting to know whether Stramer will reinforce the negativities surrounding Indian immigrants as sounded by the like of Suella Braverman and Priti Patel or whether he will look at attracting the best talents and skill sets from India in order to complement his economic revival plans.  

With all the positive vibes already sounded, the test of how the India-UK relationship will flourish under the Stramer-Modi combine will depend on how both leaders negotiate these tricky waters with the same sensitivity with which Britain seeks to address the small boats crossing the choppy waters of the English Channel.