HINDU FORUM CONDEMNS ATTACK ON RAMESH KALLIDAI
(12 June 2007)

The Hindu Forum of Britain has condemned the Evening Standard’s article, written by Andrew Gilligan, which accuses Ramesh Kallidai, the organisation’s secretary general, for having ‘close associations with violent extremists’. The HFB states "this is absolutely not the case and is simply untrue. In fact, Mr Kallidai has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of thousands of Hindus in the UK and built good relations with various faith communities."

Ishwer Tailor, President of the Hindu Forum of Britain states in a letter to the newspaper, "rather than celebrate the many positive steps that Mr Kallidai and the HFB have taken to create an environment where people from all faiths can happily co-exist in today’s multicultural UK, Mr Gilligan and his backers have decided to destroy a reputation because of petty jealousies.

This article, which is full of fundamental factual inaccuracies and unsubstantiated accusations, aims to do nothing more than destroy the reputation of a man who has given so much selfless service in the interfaith arena, all of which has been performed without any thought of reward or personal benefit.

The Evening Standard has attributed quotes to Mr Kallidai which are inaccurate and completely out of context. It also implies the HFB’s (and Mr Kallidai’s) guilt by association, rather than any valid argument and evidence, of involvement in illegal activities.

The paper gave Mr Kallidai, the Hindu Forum of Britain and Hindu Aid a matter of hours – on a Sunday – to respond to these serious allegations and despite requests to allow adequate time to respond, published the article, without hearing from us."

Mr Tailor, also questioned the use of a family photograph in the article. "The agenda of the author of the article is called into question by simply looking at the fact that his family’s picture need not have been published, drawing complete bystanders into the debate unnecessarily. The publication of the photo of Mr Kallidai, his young son, his wife and his mother is a clear intrusion into the private life that this family ought to enjoy." The Hindu Forum states that it will raise the matter with the Press Complaints Comission (PCC) if the Evening Standard newspaper fails to respond.

Below are the full HFB responses to Andrew Gilligan's questions as published by the HFB.

1. At an RSS/HSS event in Wembley, on April 12, according to the organisation’s official newspaper, Mr Kallidai paid homage to M.S.Golwalkar. Is this correct? I note that Mr Kallidai refused to deny it when we spoke on the phone just now.

The quotes attributed to Mr Kallidai were wrong and out of context. He requested the organisers of the conference correct the quote as it did not reflect what he said. While he did refer to the RSS, he did not refer to its ideology as ‘exemplary’ and he did not praise the expansion of its ideology. Mr Kallidai attended the event, at the request of members of the HFB, which was attended by most of the national and regional organisations for Hindus in the UK including the National Council of Hindu Temples UK, the Hindu Council UK, Hindu Council of Brent, Hindu Council of Harrow, Swaminarayan Temple Stanmore, ISKCON and others. Representatives from these organisations also spoke at the event. Mr Kallidai did not answer Andrew’s questions at the time because he was in a car.

2. Is Mr Golwalkar an appropriate model for Mr Kallidai as a UK government commissioner for integration and cohesion?

No, Mr Kallidai has always spoken out against racism, xenophobia and terrorism of any kind, and has made several statements asking for communities to forget their differences and come together to tackle these issues. The HFB condemns violence and extremism in all its forms and will be happy to work together with other faith communities to reduce their impact.

The HFB is an ecumenical organisation and does not represent any one tradition or ideology within Hinduism. Officers of the HFB attend several events and conferences organised by other Hindu and non-Hindu organisations. Our presence at these events does not mean that we agree with the ideology of the host organisation or consider them an appropriate model, but that we believe in talking to people and organisations from diverse backgrounds.

3. Why did Mr Kallidai defend the VHP before a House of Commons committee?

Mr Kallidai was invited by the House of Commons select committee to speak on behalf of the HFB on a number of issues concerning Hindus and other organisations, including the Swaminarayan Temple. The point in your question refers to an accusation that the VHP(UK) and Swaminarayan organisation was linked to terrorism in the UK and Mr Kallidai’s response was that both organisations, including VHP (UK), are cultural organisations with no links to extremism or terrorism.

4. What is the relationship between the HFB and the VHP?

HFB and VHP (UK) are both completely separate organisations, with different constitutions, memberships and terms of reference. They have no formal relationship. On occasions, the HFB has joined forces with other organisations on joint initiatives. Your example of the Hindu Charter is one such case. The charter was produced by a number of organisations to encourage Hindus to vote during the last general election.

Another instance is the joint round table discussions which were part of the Commission for Integration and Cohesion’s consultation process for producing its report. The Commission has spoken to many organisations from all faith groups, which we suggest is perfectly reasonable when the findings could have a considerable impact on all of the communities in this country.

5. Forced conversions

The HFB has never given an estimate of the number of Hindus or Sikhs that have been converted to Islam. The statements attributed to Mr Kallidai in the Metro about the number of Hindus were wrongly attributed to him. The point the HFB made was that, while having meetings around the country, officers have observed a high level of resentment from leaders of the Hindu communities about perceived aggressive conversion techniques. We have maintained that the resentment level is factual, and detrimental to community relations, but that we do not know the scope and extent of the problem.

Therefore, during our discussions with the Police and others we have requested a formal study to understand the extent of the problem, and either bust myths to reassure the community if the problem is not real, or to deal with it if it is.

When explaining to the reporter Mr Kallidai and our media spokesperson also refered to a news story that appeared in Luton, several years ago, about a flyer that had been produced encouraging the conversion of Sikhs. Even though these comments were not from Mr Kallidai, several of these were attributed to him.

At the Hindu security conference three examples were given and, in fact, there was a story in the press last week of a Sikh girl in Birmingham who is now in police protection amid claims she has been forced to convert to Islam. And, prior to the conference, a reporter was given a case study but decided against using it.

6. Attacks on temples

There is considerable evidence of attacks on Hindu Temples across the UK. Information gathered by the National Council of Hindu Temples UK, suggests 28 recorded incidents in the 1990’s. The HFB only listed a few (six) as typical examples, and did not provide a complete list. Many other incidents affecting Hindu temples go unreported for various reasons.

7. Hindu Aid

Mr Kallidai provides voluntary support to many organisations and charities.

With limited budgets, it is reasonable to share space and infrastructure. Additionally, one of the benefactors of both organisations has kindly donated the facilities. Those offering their support to Hindu Aid do so on a purely voluntary basis. Mr Kallidai has a considerable amount of experience and his support is invaluable in furthering the aims of Hindu Aid.

Hindu Aid is a company limited by guarantee until charitable status is approved by the Charity Commission. Hindu Aid was formed to coordinate and facilitate the aid and development work of Hindu organisations in the United Kingdom. It aims to increase the effect of aid and relief reaching the people who use it the most by coordinating the efforts of Hindu organisations engaged in development work

The Disaster Task Force was established following the Tsunami in South Asia in 2004, as an adhoc group, purely to coordinate fund raising activities to maximise income from people across the UK, to mount an effective humanitarian response following this major disaster. This is no different to the Disasters Emergencies Committee which coordinates and delivers effective and timely relief to people most in need. Sewa was investigated by the Charity Commission and, following an exhaustive enquiry, fully exonerated of any accusations of wrongdoing.

Hindu Aid has received a grant from the Dept of International Development, being given over a two year period. To date the organisation has received around £40,000, which has been used for administration and the delivery of development education training. Hindu Aid accounts are audited and, upon request, representatives will happily go through the details of expenditure.

8. The HFB has been described to us by Lord Desai, a prominent British Hindu, as a "dangerous" and "fascist" organisation. What is your response?

We live in a democracy where we value freedom of speech. Lord Desai is free to have and express his own opinions. However, we feel that Lord Desai is making these comments without understanding or seeking to understand the work of the HFB. We invite Lord Desai to meet with HFB members so we can provide an insight into the work of the Organisation.

The HFB is not affiliated to any political organisation or doctrine except the practice of the Hindu Dharma according to sacred scriptures. As an umbrella and ecumenical organisation, comprising over 280 Hindu organisations, the HFB represents Hindus at a national political and decision making level. Membership is not based on adherence to any political stance.

Had those people and organisations mentioned in Mr Gilligan’s article been given time to properly respond to the concerns raised - which they were not – then Mr Gilligan would at least have been able to write a more balanced report rather than to merely ‘sensationalise’ and discredit a legitimate organisation and its highly respected members of society.