As the Indian diaspora subscribing to Hindu nationalism celebrate Modi’s London visit, rights groups question UK silence over past injustices, environmental destruction, and ongoing human rights violations in India.
LONDON – As with previous visits by Hindu nationalist Indian leaders, the families of three British Muslims killed during the 2002 Gujarat pogrom — Saeed Dawood, Shakil Dawood, and Mohammed Aswat — have once again been left bitterly disappointed. More than two decades on, they are still waiting for justice — and for the basic dignity of having their loved ones’ remains returned.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to London was marked by jubilant scenes from his supporters in the UK, who gathered near his hotel with chants and flowers. But the visit also drew sharp criticism from human rights advocates and civil society groups, who denounced the continued silence of British leaders — particularly Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer — on serious human rights abuses.
The South Asia Solidarity Group (SASG) took to the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to express alarm over Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s UK visit and the political silence surrounding his alleged role in past and ongoing human rights violations.
“Will Starmer raise the issue of Adani’s environmental destruction? Will he question Modi about the ongoing demolition of homes of Muslims, Bengalis, and the poor in India, or their denial of citizenship and forced displacement?” the group asked.
In another pointed remark, SASG questioned whether Modi would stand up for Indian-origin immigrants in the UK—many of whom, they noted, are increasingly branded “outsiders” amid rising nationalist rhetoric. “Or will both leaders continue bonding over their shared complicity in the genocide unfolding in Gaza?” the group added, referencing growing outrage over global inaction on the Middle East crisis.
The highlight of Modi’s visit was the signing of a long-anticipated £4.6 billion (approximately $6 billion) free trade agreement between India and the United Kingdom. The deal, negotiated over three years, also includes a joint initiative to tackle illegal immigration, to be enforced collaboratively by both governments.
Yet the progress on trade failed to overshadow lingering questions about Modi’s controversial human rights record and the UK government’s reluctance to confront it. When asked whether Prime Minister Starmer had raised the issue of the 2002 Gujarat violence or the fate of the British Muslim victims, a spokesperson for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) declined to comment.
Critics see this as yet another instance of prioritising economic interests over ethical responsibilities.
In a joint statement, five advocacy groups—London Mining Network, Cultural Network, Culture Unstrained, Money Rebellion, Indian Labour Solidarity, and the South Asia Solidarity Group—condemned the UK government’s silence on the environmental damage caused by coal mining operations linked to Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, a close ally of Modi.
“Adani’s extractive ventures have wreaked havoc on ecosystems and communities. That the UK government refuses to take a stance against this is shameful,” the statement read.
Controversy around Adani is not new. Environmental activists have long raised concerns about his group’s coal projects, accusing them of destroying indigenous lands, violating environmental norms, and exacerbating climate change. The absence of these issues from high-level discussions further fuelled accusations of complicity.
Meanwhile, for the families of the British Muslims murdered during the 2002 Gujarat violence, the visit was yet another painful reminder that justice remains out of reach.
“The bodies of Saeed, Shakil, and Mohammed have never been returned to us. We are not asking for much—just closure, just recognition of what happened,” said a relative who wished to remain anonymous due to fear of reprisals.
Their grief is compounded by the continued reluctance of successive UK governments to press Modi or Indian authorities for redress or accountability. Human rights observers argue that for Western leaders, the political cost of challenging Modi’s government remains too high.
“It is disheartening to see the UK government ignore its moral obligations. A trade deal cannot come at the cost of burying human rights abuses,” said Priya Gopal, a Cambridge University academic and vocal critic of Hindutva politics.
The 2002 Gujarat violence—widely described as a pogrom—resulted in the deaths of over 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, following a train fire that killed 59 Hindu pilgrims. Independent investigations and witness accounts have pointed to the complicity or inaction of state authorities under then-Chief Minister Modi.
Although Modi has consistently denied wrongdoing and was later cleared by India’s Supreme Court, international human rights bodies and media organisations continue to raise serious concerns about the fairness of those proceedings.
The new trade agreement also drew criticism for its immigration control provisions, with campaigners warning that such efforts may further marginalise vulnerable migrants under the guise of legal enforcement.
“The UK is essentially endorsing India’s discriminatory policies against minorities by choosing trade over justice,” said Amrit Wilson of SASG. “We are deeply concerned about the direction this partnership is taking.”
For many British citizens of Indian and South Asian origin, Modi’s visit has reopened old wounds and reignited longstanding demands for justice, accountability, and transparency—none of which appear to have figured in the Starmer-Modi talks.
As celebrations continue among Modi’s supporters, the silence of the British leadership on fundamental human rights has left many questioning the true cost of this new “strategic partnership.”
