23.Memorandum submitted by Tony McNulty
MP, Harrow East
RESPONSE TO
Q164 OF EVIDENCE
ON "TERRORISM
AND COMMUNITY
RELATIONS" BY
JAGDEESH SINGH
I have just read the above extract from your
Committee's proceedings of the 16th November 2004 on "Terrorism
and Community Relations" and would draw to your attention
the following elements of Mr Singh's response to Q164:
". . . One thing that we would add, and
add very forcefully, is that in this country while the British
Government see fit to do what it has done in terms of anti-terrorism—banning
various organisations and so forth—one thing very puzzlingly
it consistently has done is allow a prominent organisation, the
VHP, to continue to function from North London from a promininent
location ie the Neasden Hindu Temple . . . It functions from premises
and not just any premises but the most prominent Hindu premises
you could find in the whole of London—the Neasden Temple
in London."
I know that it is not the Committee's job to
correct or ascertain the veracity of witness statements, but rather
to publish them verbatim, but these two references to the Swaminarayan
Hindu Temple in Neasden are irresponsible, inflammatory and incorrect.
I hope that your Committee would agree that potentially increasing
rather than understanding any potential for inter-community conflict
should not be one of the outcomes of a study into "Terrorism
and Community Relations". If the above comments stand uncorrected,
I fear that this is exactly what may prevail. I have been involved
with the Swaminarayan Hindu Mission and the Neasden Mandir, in
one way or another since about 1986 and can state categorically
that no organisation other than the Swaminarayan Hindu Mission
and its associated bodies, have ever organised, operated from,
been based at or conducted any action from Neasden. This includes
the VHP and any other such organisation.The impression given in
such an irresponsible way by Mr Singh that either the Neasden
Mandir condones sectarian violence or allows any organisation
to function out of the Mandir is completely and utterly without
foundation.
The Trustees are rightly concerned that the
appearence of the minutes of evidence, unchallenged, on the Committee's
website could, albeit, erroneously, lend credence to such a falsehood—which,
without doubt, could cause some difficulties between communities.
I am writing to you, and your fellow Committee
members, to ask how this factual inaccuracy can be challenged
and corrected. I would ask that this e-mail be taken as part of
your evidence and used to counter Mr Singh's false claim and seek
your advice as to how the wider impression, falsely rendered,
of the work of the Swaminarayan Hindu Mission's work can be contested,
challenged and ultimately corrected.
16 November 2004
|
