London Letters: UK Sikhs upset over “extremism” remark in Bloom’s faith review

The 165-page review, after collecting evidence from over 21k respondents has made 22 recommendations to the government. It talks about a range of issues such as the need of faith literacy in government, faith education in schools, prisons, armed forces, faith-based extremism, faith-based exploitation and forced marriages, across eight chapters.

Interestingly, in spite of reference to various faiths and related extremism, with a brief paragraph on Hindu and Buddhist nationalism, the review has dedicated as many as 10 pages to Sikh extremism and pro-Khalistan extremism (PKE).

The mention to British Sikhs starts with the contribution of the community to the country, its history, intra-faith power dynamics before going on to the “areas of concern”.

According to the review: “The first area of concern is the power struggle within some areas of British Sikh communities over who will represent them at official levels and be recognised as the preeminent Sikh body in the UK…The second concern is the division between some British Sikh communities which is caused by an extremist fringe ideology within the pro-Khalistan movement…It is important to note that the promotion of Khalistan ideals is not itself subversive, but the subversive, aggressive and sectarian actions of some pro-Khalistan activists and the subsequent negative effect on wider Sikh communities should not be tolerated.

“The third area of concern is the activities of some individuals and organisations that are demonstrably fuelling sectarianism and anti-Muslim sentiments, as well as legitimising discriminatory and misogynistic behaviour,” it states.

Taking to Twitter, academician and author Dr Sujinder Singh Sangha said, “The UK Sikhs will question the stereotypical conflation of the terms Sikh and extremism in Bloom review chapter sub-titles. Terms nationalists and nationalism have been used with Black, Hindu and Buddhist communities. Sikh community in history describe themselves as Sikh Panth or Sikh Quom.” He told The Indian Express that the stereotypical labelling of the Sikh community would negatively impact community’s public image.

Associate Professor Sikh Studies, and Director, Centre for Sikh and Punjabi Studies at University of Wolverhampton Dr Opinderjit Takhar tweeted a scathing response to the review. “This report is an absolutely appalling representation of the Sikh community. We’re the ideal faith community when it comes to feeding the masses- Sikh and non-Sikh—but a bunch of bullies and misogynists otherwise! What utter rubbish have you based your 4 years of findings on?” she said.

“How can it be an independent review when a Conservative party supporter and government’s adviser on faith is conducting this review? I am told he even stood as a Tory candidate,” said a Sikh activist who is looking at all legal aspects of the review and if it can be challenged in the court of law.

Community activist and Sikh Network podcaster Mankamal Singh said, “I find it strange that Bloom Review makes no reference or inclusion of the ‘Sikh Radicalisation in Britain’ report funded by @crest_research, @ukhomeoffice and @ESRC. The findings of this 2017 report present a very different narrative to what Bloom has presented.” He added that it was driven by foreign policy and commercial interests, masquerading as a review of domestic faith politics.

Another Twitter-user Sat Thiara said, “The Bloom Review is the biggest pile of crap I’ve ever seen. If tax payer’s money has been spent on this, we need a refund. Who can take this review seriously when it’s using Wikipedia as a reference point?”

The review, in one of its recommendations, states that: “Government should clearly define and investigate extremist activity and identify where this exists within the Sikh community, taking steps to develop a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of subversive and sectarian Sikh extremist activity.

“Government should ensure that unacceptable and extremist behaviours are not inadvertently legitimised by government or parliamentary engagement. The reconsideration of previous decisions regarding the activity and legality of certain groups should be included. This will require improving faith literacy across government and the parliamentary estate, particularly on intrafaith issues, so government can be more discerning regarding engagement and representation within British Sikh communities.”

…………………………………………..

Bloom Review: Non-Sikh faith groups welcome it with caution

The UK government’s “Does government ‘do God?’: An independent review into how government engages with faith” has received a mixed response from different faith and non-faith groups since its publication on Wednesday.

The recommendation that the government should take steps to ensure that everyone on the public payroll, including civil servants in Whitehall and local councils, NHS and public health staff are faith literate, that schools should consider methods for improving the teaching of faith literacy and RE, that ‘out-of-school settings’ which include faith-based settings operating below the current minimum threshold for registration as independent schools, are properly registered and regulated, have been welcomed by all faith communities.

The review which has recommended that the government should accelerate proposals to introduce Sharia-compliant student loans on equalities grounds and faith-sensitive student finance should be made available from the beginning of academic year 2024-25, has been welcomed by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). However, the MCB states, “Any follow-up of the Review must take care not to discriminate one faith community over another. The Review recommends expanding the role of the Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief to include the UK. Yet, the Envoy’s current focus abroad is on the persecution of Christian minorities, which is laudable, but often at risk of ignoring other faith groups.

“The Bloom Review has a troubling focus on the problem areas of non-Christian faith minorities, and the anxieties that exist of such groups because of fear and suspicion. Despite abundant evidence, we are concerned that the Review gave less attention to extremism in some faith communities over others,” it adds.

On the contrary, the MCB has expressed reservations about another review recommendation that the government should redouble its efforts to reinforce the distinctions between extremist Islamism and Islam and between Islamist extremists and Muslims. It states, “the Review is at risk of uncritically adopting the framing set by these divisive voices. The Review attempts to draw a distinction between Islam and ‘Islamism’, an ill-defined term widely used not only to describe the violent extremists that we all oppose but also to cast aspersions on those Muslims who are exercising their democratic right to disagree with the government of the day.”

Meanwhile, Humanists UK said, “For the first time ever, a government-sponsored report has recommended the legal recognition of humanist marriages in England and Wales. This is fantastic news and we have praised this part…We’ve welcomed 9 out of 22 recommendations…The report is also a missed opportunity. Any review of religion and government should have taken into account discrimination most people face by state-funded religious schools or compulsory Christian worship in all schools of no religious character.”

The Evangelical Alliance has welcomed the findings of the review. “The report also calls for the extension of the special envoy on freedom of religion or belief to consider UK matters as well as international concerns. This is important as the report recognises that 68% of Christians thought their freedom to practice their beliefs was under threat.”

In his tweet, Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis said, “It is welcome and important that the Bloom Review highlights the vital role the faith communities play within society as well as in the lives of people of faith, which is often overlooked…It is now crucial that wide-ranging work in undertaken together with faith communities to digest the recommendations made by the review and explore their implementation.”

(The writer is a freelance journalist based in London contributing content to digital, print, radio and TV platforms)