The Council of Sikhs in Law committee claimed that the review conducted by independent faith engagement adviser Colin Bloom was “not independent and impartial”.
By: Shubham Ghosh
A BRITISH Sikh group on Wednesday (19) came up with a report in the UK Parliament complex to criticise a recent independent faith review that warned about the actions of some pro-Khalistani activists on the country’s soil.
The Council of Sikhs in Law committee, led by professor Satvinder Singh Juss, claimed that the review conducted by independent faith engagement adviser Colin Bloom was “not independent and impartial”. It also argued that the review damaged the relationship between the Sikh community and the British government owing to flawed assumptions and a lack of understanding about the Sikh community.
The review was submitted to the government’s department for levelling up, housing and communities in April.
“The Bloom Review has damaged the hitherto excellent relationship between the Sikh community and the British government, and risks continuing doing so, if it is not set aside by the British government,” the report claimed.
In his review titled ‘Does Government ‘do God’?: An independent review into how government engages with faith,’ Bloom highlighted the presence of a small, vocal, and aggressive minority of British Sikhs who advocate for Khalistan, promoting an ethno-nationalist agenda.
Lord Indrajit Singh, director of the Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO), acknowledged the issues raised by Bloom but stressed that Sikhs must address the fringe elements in their community who tarnish the broader British Sikh community’s reputation with their questionable behaviour.
The Bloom Review specifically urged the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for British Sikhs, chaired by Preet Kaur Gill, Britain’s first woman Sikh MP, and Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, first turbaned Sikh MP — both from the Labour Party, to review organisations exerting influence in parliamentary affairs.
Recently, Lord Ranbir Singh Suri, a British Sikh peer, resigned from the APPG, expressing concerns about the entities involved. Gill has been approached for a statement regarding Lord Suri’s exit but has not yet responded.
(With agency inputs)