LONDON   - Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Tuesday an official investigation had shown Britain did advise India on planning a deadly attack against Sikh separatists in the Golden Temple at Amritsar in 1984, but said its advice had limited impact.
Prime Minister David Cameron ordered a review into the matter last month after newly released official papers suggested that Margaret Thatcher, then prime minister, had sent an officer from the elite SAS special air service to advise the Indians on the raid.
“The nature of the UK’s assistance was purely advisory, limited and provided to the Indian government at an early stage,” Hague told parliament. “It had limited impact on the tragic events that unfolded at the temple three months later.”
There had been no link between the provision of this advice and British defence sales to India, Hague added, and there was no record of Britain receiving advance notice of the attack. Hague’s words are likely to upset Sikh groups and could damage India’s dynastic ruling Congress party, which faces an uphill struggle to be re-elected in national polls due by May. It was in power at the time of the raid.
The storming of the Golden Temple in the city of Amritsar was intended to flush out Sikh separatists.
Official figures put the death toll at 575, but Mr Hague said other reports suggested “as many as 3,000 people were killed including pilgrims caught in the crossfire”. “This loss of life was an utter tragedy,” he said. “Understandably members of the Sikh community around the world still feel the pain and suffering caused by these events.”
The investigation, carried out by Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, involved searching 200 files and 23,000 documents.
In conclusion, Mr Hague said: “The cabinet secretary’s report finds that the nature of the UK’s assistance was purely advisory, limited and provided to the Indian government at an early stage; that it had limited impact on the tragic events that unfolded at the temple three months later; that there was no link between the provision of this advice and defence sales and there is no record of the (British) government receiving advance notice of the operation.”
Retired Lt Gen Kuldeep Singh Brar, who led Operation Blue Star, maintains he had no advice or support from Britain. “If some things went around months earlier or weeks earlier with other agencies, intelligence agencies, I am not aware of them,” he told the BBC.
“From the time I was given command of Operation Blue Star ‘til I planned it and executed it, let me emphatically tell you that there was no involvement whatsoever as far as the British are concerned.”
The scope of the government review drew criticism from UK Sikh groups who said it should have looked not only at June 1984, but also the events that followed.
In October 1984 Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in what was thought to be a revenge attack for the Golden Temple attack. A month later, more than 3,000 people were killed in anti-Sikh riots across India.
The investigation, carried out by Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, involved searching 200 files and 23,000 documents.
In conclusion, Mr Hague said: “The cabinet secretary’s report finds that the nature of the UK’s assistance was purely advisory, limited and provided to the Indian government at an early stage; that it had limited impact on the tragic events that unfolded at the temple three months later; that there was no link between the provision of this advice and defence sales and there is no record of the (British) government receiving advance notice of the operation.”
Retired Lt Gen Kuldeep Singh Brar, who led Operation Blue Star, maintains he had no advice or support from Britain. “If some things went around months earlier or weeks earlier with other agencies, intelligence agencies, I am not aware of them,” he told the BBC.
“From the time I was given command of Operation Blue Star ‘til I planned it and executed it, let me emphatically tell you that there was no involvement whatsoever as far as the British are concerned.”
The scope of the government review drew criticism from UK Sikh groups who said it should have looked not only at June 1984, but also the events that followed.