On 1st of February Christian Network Against Caste Discrimination and Voice of Dalit International, UK organised a debate on the upcoming UK Caste consultation at the Houses of Parliament, which was hosted by Lord David Alton. The event attempted to add to discussions on the need for anti-caste based discrimination legislation in the UK. DSN-UK Director, Meena Varma, attended the event and contributed to the discussions. We would like to invite you to read an overview of the event on Lord David Alton’s blog, dated 1st February under the title “Dalits- meeting Feb 1st 2017 Room 3 House of Lords, 5:30pm – remarks by Lord Alton of Liverpool” (please scroll down for the article).
On 18 January 2017 BBC Asian Network’s host of the Big Debate, Nomia Iqbal, led a live debate on the caste legislation in the UK. Satpal Muman, Chair of CasteWatch UK and Satish Sharma, from the National Council of Hindu Temples, were in the studio and DSN-UK Director, Meena Varma called in. On 2 September 2016 the UK government announced it would conduct a public consultation on “the issue of caste and the Equality Act 2010”. Although no timetable or conditions of the consultation were announced yet, opposing groups started discussing caste-based discrimination in the UK and the potential impact, the proposed legislation outlawing caste discrimination, might have on the affected communities. The BBC Asian Network debate started with an audio documentary prepared by Vishva Samani, which included two cases of caste-based discrimination in the UK, as well as views that caste did not play any role in the lives of people in the UK. It was followed by a live discussion in the studio, on a phone and through social media. To the arguments that caste legislation would divide communities and fuel caste-based discrimination in the UK Satpal Muman answered: “We are not talking about those to whom caste is not important we are talking about those to whom caste is important. Look at the case of racial discrimination. Does the law against racial discrimination fuel more racism – I don’t think so. It allows victims of racism find remedy and protection”. In response to Satish Sharma’s assertion that the legislation was an attack on Hinduism; DSN-UK Director, Meena Varma, said: ‘the campaign to see the caste discrimination law introduced does not target any religion. It is not anti-Hindu – it is a campaign for human rights and equality’. It seems that whilst the government is yet to announce the consultation’s timetable communities are eager to engage in discussions on the caste legislation. The full programme is available here. The documentary followed by the live discussion starts at 2:00 hours into the recording.
On 24 and 25 November 2016, DSN-UK Director Meena Varma, currently also Acting Executive for International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN), was in Geneva, at the Forum on Minority Issues (the Forum), which provides space for a constructive dialogue for a range of stakeholders, but most importantly placing civil society representatives at the centre of the discussions. This year the Forum’s theme analysed the situation of minorities in humanitarian crises. The issue that was highlighted by IDSN in its report published in 2013 “Equality in Aid: addressing caste discrimination in humanitarian response”. At the beginning of the session the UN Special Rapporteur (SR) on Minority Issues, Rita Izsák-Ndiaye, presented her findings stating that minorities are disproportionately affected during disasters and conflicts, and in the aftermath of a natural or manmade crisis. She outlined some examples where minorities have been disproportionately affected by crisis situations, including in Sri Lanka, Nigeria, USA, Yemen and South Asia. She noted that ‘an analysis of emergency responses to natural disasters in South Asia, including in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal, has demonstrated that Dalits, for example, have suffered from acute discrimination throughout all the phases of disaster response, from rescue to rehabilitation’. The Forum’s participants were invited to make statements adding to the draft recommendations, prepared in advance, to improve the situation of minorities in humanitarian crisis worldwide. Three statements by civil society representatives explicitly focused on caste-based discrimination of Dalit communities, who are disproportionately affected by humanitarian crises. Bhakta Bishwakarma, representing IDSN and Nepal National Dalit Social Welfare Organization outlined that ‘disaster policies and programs have not been inclusive and sensitive enough towards the most marginalised – Dalit, women, children, people with disabilities, senior citizens etc’ and ‘the survivors of devastating earthquake in Nepal are eagerly waiting for just and sustainable recovery for one and half year’. Pirbhu Lal Satyani, member of National Lobbying Delegation on minorities and a coordinator at Pakistan Dalit Solidarity Network stated that ‘hundreds of thousands of Dalits were affected by the floods in Pakistan in 2010, and many of them were denied access to relief camps’, had to ‘live and sleep in the open air’, and lacked access to basic goods such as food, water and blankets. Deepak Nikarthil from the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, also representing Asia Dalit Rights Forum and IDSN, made an oral statement outlining that ‘South Asia region is one of the most disaster prone regions in the world, and Dalits are one of the most vulnerable groups to disaster in India and South Asia’. He recommended to ‘explicitly recognise the discrimination based on work, descent and caste based discrimination as an exclusionary variable in Disaster management as well as disaster risk reduction’. The final recommendations of the Forum, covering all stages of humanitarian crisis, will be presented by the SR to the Human Rights Council in March 2017.
On 23 November 2016, DSN-UK Director, Meena Varma, attended the consultation with civil society under the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). The consultation aimed to reflect on the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination achievements in combating racial discrimination and to seek civil society’s views on how to improve and enhance CERD engagement with civil society for greater impact on the ground. Many NGOs attended having been sent an invitation to attend by the CERD secretariat, which is a normal practice for many of the OHCHR events to make all welcome. DSN-UK, International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN) and Nepal National Dalit Social Welfare Organization (NNDSWO) submitted a joint response to CERD questions: What are the key challenges and issues of racial discrimination in your country/region today and how do you work to address them? What has been your experience, as civil society, of engaging with CERD to date? How can the CERD improve and enhance its engagement with civil society, and its work on racial discrimination for greater impact on the ground? The joint submission outlined the organisations’ experiences in their engagement with CERD, main challenges in their advocacy work and suggestions for improvement. At the start of the meeting a Committee member, Verene Albertha Shepherd, noted a number of challenges that civil society organisations around the globe face in eliminating racial discrimination. It included a denial of racial discrimination, lack of access to public and political participation for discriminated groups, and the lack of data and national laws prohibiting racial discrimination. Among the discriminated groups the member mentioned people of African descent, Dalits, Roma people, immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Civil society organisations were invited to make their statements, which was taken by a number to raise specific issues. Among those was Deepak Nikarthil from the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, also representing IDSN. He was recommended on his statement by a key member of the CERD Committee and emphasised that racial discrimination is often practiced in a form of exclusion and thus should include caste-based discrimination. He expressed his concerns about the lack of global recognition of CERD General Recommendation 29, and whilst a number of countries have embedded protection against caste-based discrimination in its constitutions, law implementation was often weak. Deepak also emphasised that Dalit women face multi-structural discrimination in India. As Meena declined to make a statement in favor of her Dalit colleagues from National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights and NNDSWO, we were delighted that Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance highlighted that despite CERD recommendations to the UK the country still lacks legal protection against caste-based discrimination, and the recently announced public consultation on caste legislation and Equality Act 2010 was worrying as it seeks to establish whether the law was needed at all. One of the panelist of the meeting, Claire Thomas from Minority Rights Group International, among her five specific suggestions to the CERD, recommended to mobilise efforts to ensure that ethnicity is not dropped out of the SDGs’ indicators, which would also include caste-based discrimination. Bakhta Bishwakarma from NNDSWO, also representing IDSN, was given an opportunity to speak about caste-based discrimination in Nepal. He outlined that Nepal had failed to submit a number of state reports covering the period of 2002-2016, which created a gap in the interactions between the civil society of Nepal and CERD. He suggested that CERD should consider new ways of engagement with the civil society organisations, independent of state reports and encourage states to develop and implement national actions plans addressing racial discrimination. The meeting ended by the CERD Chairperson, Anastasia Crickley, thanking all participants for their statements and suggestions, and ensuring that they take into serious consideration the inputs from the consultation to strengthen its partnership with civil society to combat racial discrimination. The UN summary of the event can be found here.
This week DSN-UK Director Meena Varma was featured on the BBC Asian Network Lunchtime programme. Meena emphasised the need for caste legislation and expressed her concerns about the upcoming consultation. Yet, those opposing the legislation stated that “caste system” does not exist. To listen to the programme please click here (minute 5:25- 9:00, broadcasted on 10/10/2016).
On 15 September 2016 the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, Urmila Bhoola, presented her annual report to the Human Rights Council. This year her report focused on global trends of debt bondage, reflecting the information received from a range of stakeholders who completed the SR’s questionnaire on bonded labour. The report outlined that ‘debt bondage, also known as bonded labour, is one of the four practices similar to slavery’ and are closely related to different forms of exploitation, including forced labour, trafficking and child labour. The SR noted that a global trend of debt bondage ‘can be seen whereby vulnerable people, including those belonging to minority groups, indigenous people, women, children, people determined as being of low caste, and migrant workers, are disproportionately impacted by debt bondage’. The report highlights that debt bondage practice is widespread in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal ‘despite the specific prohibition on such practices within the legal frameworks of these countries’ and those trapped in bonded labour are ‘reportedly predominantly Dalits, persons of “low” caste’. In February 2016 DSN-UK and READ (Rights Education and Development Centre) jointly completed the SR’s questionnaire, sharing their first-hand knowledge of debt bondage in India, Tamil Nadu, under the sumangali scheme. In 2013 Dalit Solidarity Network UK funded by TRAID (Textile Recycling for Aid and Development) started working in partnership with Rights Education and Development Centre (READ) to End the sumangali Scheme in South India, where textile and garment products are made for big brands and retailers by girls and young women from low caste backgrounds under exploitative conditions. Girls and young women are recruited by brokers to join the so-called ‘Sumangali Thittam’ or ‘Marriage Scheme’, promised they would receive a considerable amount of money at the end of three to five years of employment. In the western and central parts of Tamil Nadu, a high number of adolescent girls reportedly work as bonded labourers under the sumangali scheme in textile mills and garment factories, which is a major hub in the global knitwear sector that supplies international brands. The majority of these workers are reported to belong to Dalit communities and are aged between 14 and 18 years. Debt bondage is also reported in power loom workshops located in the Tirupur region of Tamil Nadu, which produce woven cloth both for domestic manufacturers and for global suppliers. Those affected by debt bondage in this region are reported to include members of Dalit communities and other poor communities and to include both men and women. Furthermore, some non-agricultural industries in which debt bondage among children is reported to exist include carpet weaving, beedi making, silk production, silk sari production, the brick kilns and stone quarries. Urmila concluded her report by stating that bonded labour is ‘a complex and multidimensional form of contemporary slavery that impacts on individuals across the world’, particularly people belonging to minority groups, including women, children, indigenous people, people of “low” caste and migrant workers, in numerous sectors of the economy. She indicated that debt bondage prevails due to governments’ failure to ‘implement effective legislation on debt bondage’ and included three pages of recommendations to eradicate the practice. IDSN advocates for Dalit rights internationally and monitors a number of mechanisms referring to caste-based discrimination. Conveniently IDSN compiled all of the references to caste discrimination at the UN, including mentions in statements at the 33rd session of the Human Rights Council and the UN treaty bodies.
Dalit Solidarity Network UK challenges UK government on the non-implementation of promised legislation to outlaw caste discrimination. In July 2016, Dalit Solidarity Network UK instructed well known solicitors Mishcon de Reya to write a pre-action letter to the Minister for Equalities and Women and the Secretary of State for Education, Justine Greening. This was a significant milestone for Dalit Solidarity Network UK leading a consortium of organisations, including Anti Caste Discriminations Alliance, CasteWatch UK and the National Secular Society who seek to challenge the UK government over the non-implementation of the promised legislation to outlaw caste discrimination in the UK. Well known solicitors, Mishcon de Reya’s Employment team, acting on a pro bono basis for Dalit Solidarity Network UK challenged the UK government on this matter with Diya Sen Gupta and Daniel Cashman of Blackstone Chambers, also acting pro bono. The response to the letter from the government, and the Minister for Equalities, Justine Greening, was to confirm that it will undertake a public consultation on the legislation – to take place for 12 weeks at the end of this year. Under the caste system, which is practised most commonly on the South Asian continent, individuals are born into a lifelong hierarchical status. As the former Secretary of State for International Development, Justine Greening MP will be more than well aware of the human and labour rights abuses suffered by Dalits in South Asian countries as a result of caste discrimination. She has met Dalit groups on her visits. There is clear evidence of caste discrimination amongst the South Asian diaspora in the UK, affecting Christians, Hindus, Muslim and Sikh communities. Dalits have campaigned since 2007 for the inclusion of ‘caste’ as a protected characteristic (like race and gender) in the Equality Act 2010. By an amendment effected by section 97 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, the ability for caste to become an aspect of race then became an obligation for the Government to so legislate. In July 2013, the government introduced a timetable that set out a series of steps, including a public consultation, intended to lead to the enactment of this caste legislation in the summer of 2015. Key deadlines in this timetable have not been met, and to date the government remains silent on whether it will make an Order under section 9(5) of the Equality Act 2010 so as to provide for caste to be an aspect of race. So what of this recently announced consultation? The goalposts have been moved. We were told in 2013 the consultation would focus on ‘how to implement the legislation. It now appears that the focus will be on ‘whether to implement the legislation’ CasteWatch UK is preparing to mobilise the many thousands of Dalits to protest outside Parliament if the terms of the consultation are not fair and equal. The Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance have stated in their press release: ‘The Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance is deeply concerned that the UK Government has decided to consult on the need for the law already agreed by Parliament in April 2013. The Government is blatantly ignoring the will of Parliament and UN CERD’s recommendation that the law be brought into force without further delay. The National Secular Society has raised the issue at the United Nations Human Rights Council saying It (UK Government) has just announced a public consultation on “whether additional measures are needed [on] … caste discrimination … under the 2010 Equality Act”. This in effect invites the opinions of the public, including those of ‘so-called higher’ caste and those wishing to discriminate on grounds of caste, to oppose the legislation recommended by the UN in accordance with the UK’s “international human rights obligations”, and required by Parliament. Theresa May has pledged; “The government I lead will be driven, not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours. We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives.” Will she stand by this pledge and give protection to the many thousands of potential victims of caste discrimination rather than listen to the rich lobby that insists there is no caste discrimination in Britain – well not much anyway!
Disappointment again as the UK Government fails to advance the implementation of the caste discrimination legislation – despite the duty placed in it to do so by Parliament 4 and 5 August 2016, Palais de Wilson, United Nations, Geneva Every two years all state parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) are required to submit reports on the implementation of the treaty. In March 2015 the United Kingdom (UK) submitted three combined reports and was reviewed by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) on 4th and 5th of August 2016. Before the review in Geneva thirteen NGOs and two national human rights institutions prepared shadow reports, including precise recommendations and highlighting areas of concern. Four organisations – DSN-UK joint with IDSN, Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) P.83 and Recommendation 9, Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance (ACDA) and the Runnymede Trust P.23 outlined their concerns in relation to caste-based discrimination in the UK and the government’s failure to implement the CERD recommendation number 30 from 2011. All 4 submissions urged the UK Government to perform its duty as required by Parliament and the rule of law and to amend the Act to add ‘caste as an aspect of race’. In Geneva, alongside several UK NGOs and National Human Rights Institutions, DSN-UK Director, Meena Varma, made a formal presentation to the CERD Committee and other NGOs. She highlighted the importance of the caste legislation and the frustration with the delays in implementing it. The UK was going against the will of Parliament and to continue to use the Tirkey v Chandok case as a delaying mechanism to the decision is just plain wrong. Although the review proceedings concentrated on institutional and individual racism against BME communities and the rise in hate crime post Brexit referendum, the rapporteur on the UK, Mr Gün Kut, asked for an explanation of what “careful consideration of court judgements in Tirkey v Chandok case” meant. The UK delegation repeated the government’s position expressed previously that caste could be already covered under the ‘ethnic origin’ and since there is no clear definition of caste the government was uncertain of which characteristics would be protected under ‘caste’. Once again we heard the refrain ‘we are considering the need for legislation in light of the Tirkey v Chandok case’ At the end of the review the Chair of the CERD committee stated she was still unclear to why the UK delegation is delaying to enact a law against caste discrimination but the UK representatives chose to ignore it. DSN-UK and other NGOs campaigning for caste legislation were disappointed with the UK government’s lack of interest in making any progress with the legislation but remain hopeful that the concluding recommendations will once again propose to ‘invoke section 9(5)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 to provide for “caste to be an aspect of race” – and finally provide the necessary and much needed protection in the eyes of the law. A summary of the CERD review of the UK is now available here.
Parliament debates failure of the UK Government to implement anti-caste based discrimination legislation
Following an event held at the House of Lords by the APPG for Dalits and the APPG for Human Rights called “Dalit rights are Human Rights” in May 2016, Lord Harries called for a debate on 11 July 2016 in the House of Lords asking Her Majesty’s Government on the planed steps to implement anti-caste based discrimination legislation. Lord Harries started the debate by clarifying that: ‘First, what we are concerned about is discrimination in the public sphere. The law is concerned with what happens in public. It exists to ensure that there is no discrimination in the areas of employment, education and the provision of public goods and services. Secondly, we are concerned with caste as a social phenomenon, which has affected all religions from the Indian subcontinent, including Christianity and Islam’. He went on to summarise the steps since 2013 with regard to the caste discrimination legislation: ‘In July 2013 the Government introduced a timetable which set out a series of steps, including a public consultation, which was to lead to the implementation of this Act in the summer of 2015. As part of the process Ministers approved a feasibility study to be conducted into if and how it might be possible to estimate the extent of caste-based discrimination in Britain. A consortium conducted the research in the autumn of 2014. The consortium’s report was due in November 2014, but it is yet to be published. My first question to the Minister therefore is: why has this research not been published? The question posed by the Government was clear enough. Is it or is it not possible to estimate the extent of caste-based discrimination in the UK? If it is possible, why has this not been carried out? If it is not possible, or if there is a downside to doing so, we need to hear the reason for that. In either case, there is no good reason to stop the process <…>. When we have raised these issues in the past, the Government have repeatedly cited the Tirkey v Chandhok employment tribunal case as a reason for non-implementation of the legislation so far. In that case the tribunal noted that caste-based discrimination can constitute unlawful race discrimination in certain contexts and that caste should be an aspect of race as defined by Section 9(1) of the Equality Act 2010. However, the judge made it clear that he was dealing only with the facts of that case and was not making any more general point about caste and the law. I think the Minister, as well as the whole country would find it quite intolerable if issues of discrimination on the basis of gender, race or religion were left simply to employments tribunals with no statute law to back them up. May I ask the minister why discrimination on the grounds of caste should be regarded as different?’ Lord Cashman stated he found ‘the most worrying <…> [the government’s] casual disregard of the United Nations and our international treaty obligations. The 2012 UN Human Rights Council’s recommendation could not be clearer. It states: “Put in practice a national strategy to eliminate discrimination against caste, through the immediate adoption of the Equality Law of 2010 that prohibits such discrimination, in conformity with its international human rights obligations, including”, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’s, “General Recommendation 29 and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism”’. Lord Lester QC ended his speech stating: ‘The current state of the law lacks legal certainty. There is no binding and authoritative legal precedent. That legal uncertainty violates the rule of law, and the government’s continuing inaction violates Parliamentary sovereignty’. He called ‘on the Minister to inform the House in her reply whether or not the government will now perform the duty cast upon it by Parliament, and, if not, what is their justification for refusing to do so’. Both Lord Desai and Baroness Flather, Hindu Peers, spoke strongly and passionately on the need for legislation. Lord Desai was clear: ‘It has been explained what the law is and what the Government ought to do. So why do they not do it? Obviously, there is a very strong lobby—let us call it the caste Hindu lobby—which is very powerful, prosperous and persistent. They have abandoned me but I know they would love to get me on their side.’ And from Baroness Flather: ‘Naturally, they are not going to say, “Oh, there is caste discrimination”. They are a powerful group of people. There are a lot of Hindu organisations and they have a lot of connections in Parliament, possibly in the House of Lords as well. We have to be aware that they have quite a lot of pull in this matter.’ Apart from the Minister, who did not give an opinion one way or the other, the only Peer to speak out against the legislation was the Conservative Hindu Peer, Lord Popat, who even went as far asking for the amendment to be repealed: ‘I urge the Government to bring forward legislation to repeal the amendment to the Equality Act 2010. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement. It is unnecessary, given that there is little hard evidence of caste discrimination. The amendment supports out-of-date notions of caste that belong in a different continent,’ Speaking on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, Baroness Thornton did not mince her words: ‘We have seen the opposite of strong and swift. “Flabby and slow motion” would better describe the lack of activity since 2013. This lack of activity, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and others have said, shows a contempt for Parliament that is really unacceptable.’ The UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission in their briefing for the debate stated quite clearly – without any room for doubt. ‘In our view, it is both necessary and desirable for the Government to implement section 9(5) of the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), in order to clarify that the Act’s prohibition of race discrimination and harassment includes protection against discrimination and harassment based on “caste”. ….We therefore consider that it remains necessary for Government to implement section 9(5) of the Act in order to provide legal clarity.’ Lord Deben outlined that: ‘In her first statement, she (Theresa May) reminded the Conservative Party that her first principle was to ensure that all people had a fair do in life. Can one possibly say that and yet exclude from the fair do in life those who happen to be Dalits? This is the first chance that a new Government have got to stand up and tell this House that they intend to obey the law’. Baroness Williams of Trafford on behalf of the Government ended the debate saying: ‘I agree that this is an issue which the new Administration, led by the new Prime Minister, who herself was Minister for Women and Equalities in 2010-12, will need to consider afresh, and I am sure that they will. A full transcript of the debate can be found here.
APPG for Dalits and the Parliamentary Human Rights Group on the 24th of May 2016 hosted a successful event at the Houses of Parliament titled “Dalit Rights are Human Rights”
message in which he stated that he is sad to step down from the APPG for Dalits Chair’s role but happy to pass it on to Yasmin Qureshi, and will continue supporting Dalits’ campaign. Diya Sen Gupta gave an overview of anti-caste discrimination legislation progress and British case law. She highlighted that Equality Act 2010 prohibits direct and indirect discrimination and harassment. 2013 amendment added a statutory duty to include caste under race, yet no timeline was set. In 2014 the Equality and Human Rights Commission carried a public consultation, yet no publication of the consultation was made. Mr. Justice Langstaff, the judge in Tirkey v Chandok caste was clear that his ‘focus has been on the appeal in this particular case, in its particular circumstances <..> not to resolve academic disputes, and establish more general propositions, of no direct relevance to the case in hand’. Therefore, the case is not a precedent for other caste-based discrimination cases, and as this type of process is expensive and discouraging, anti-caste discrimination legislation is very much needed. On the future of the legislation Ms Gupta added that government has no immediate plans to implement the legislation and it may not be exercised before April 2018, when the Sunset clause could come into play and the law may be repealed due to anti-legislation lobbying. Kate Green MP stated that the reluctance to adopt the anti-caste discrimination legislation is politically driven and influenced by allies outside the UK. HMG has not honoured the timetable it introduced in 2013 despite efforts from Peers and MPs and responses to the PQs asked: How to respond to this ‘aggressive inertia’? She suggested to: (1) point out to the government its disregard of this as a human rights issue, thus weakening the government’s reputation; (2) making it very clear to ordinary families affected by caste what it would mean for them and emphasising that their culture and family life would not be affected; and (3) advance the argument for anti-caste based discrimination legislation by going back to the moral principle (statement) that this form of discrimination is not acceptable and statute is extremely helpful to secure human rights and protect people against discrimination. Human rights should not be subordinate to short term political gain. She suggested that the campaign should focus on specific strategies and become louder. A statement from the audience (Keith Porteous Wood) highlighted that under the last Universal Periodic Review (UPR) the UN recommendations included words like “obligation” in relation to the anti-caste discrimination legislation and the UK representatives agreed to it. Hence now within the UN the UK looks bad. Satpal Muman said he was representing the community’s perspective and expressed his disappointment with the lack of HMG’s interest and stated he is losing his confidence in the government. He ensured that he continues to campaign and write to government officials but sees no light at the end of the tunnel. In his view the opposition to caste legislation undermines community cohesion and concluded by saying that there should be no room for caste-based discrimination in this country where we have “better rights”. Santosh Dass stated that Indians coming to the UK bring their culture and practices with them hence there is a need for legal protection against caste-based discrimination to protect Dalits in the UK. Baroness Flather suggested that the issue is out of people’s sight and everyone should speak to their MPs and create Dalit specific organisations. She has recirculated the EHRC reports which do have very specific pro-legislation recommendations. We need to marshal friends in both Houses – Hindu organisations have been well organised and mobilised – now is the time to agitate. Look at the Sikh Gurudwaras that have been built on caste lines. Jin Kalkat spoke about his journey and caste discrimination he experienced in the UK. As a result of caste-based discrimination he described feeling upset, hurt and less than a human, no longer safe. He also said he started feeling as an outsider and felt this might lead to radicalisation of an individual. He concluded by asking a question: if there is no respect for human rights in the UK how can we promote it elsewhere? The second part of the event looked at caste discrimination globally. Clive Baldwin highlighted that CERD is an international law prohibiting discrimination and recently celebrated its 50 years anniversary. He stated that India has good laws in place, including prohibition of manual scavenging, yet this inhumane practice still exists. Nepal has also made an extreme transition over the past decade, yet there is a political dismissal of discrimination. He concluded that whilst there is good evidence of international law being translated into domestic laws an issue of implementation remains. Rania El Rajji spoke about caste discrimination in Yemen and the situation of Muhamasheen (“marginalised ones”) people, also known as Al Akhdam, who are at the bottom of the caste system. She highlighted that in March 2015 when the conflict erupted in Yemen, the Muhamasheen ended up at the front of the conflict; yet with very restricted access to humanitarian assistance. She concluded that although normally war brings communities together, the MRG report “Even war discriminates” highlights that Muhamasheen in Yemen are by-passed and discriminated against during the conflict in accessing even the basic goods. Aidan McQuade started by saying that a failure to recognise caste in the UK is a sign of weak leadership. He highlighted that those enslaved come from discriminated groups. As Ambedkar pointed out, caste restricts opportunities, and instead offers division of labour and economic injustice. Aidan reiterated that law can counteract prejudice. He finished by saying that for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights are no longer a priority but trade deals are, which leaves very little incentive for other states, like Nepal or India, to change. To address human rights violations and discrimination politicians have to be prepared to be unpopular. The audience was invited to suggest steps to take in moving forward. Those included submitting shadow reports for the UK review in August 2016 under the CERD, using the EHRC’s reports as a reference, educating people on caste-based discrimination and arranging a follow up APPG meeting. As a result of this meeting Lord Harries of Pentregarth later proposed a debate on caste-based discrimination at the House of Lords, which took place on the 11th of July 2016.