Our Leader in Digital Edition May 15, 2025
The failure of the New Zealand Parliament (On May 6, 2025) to unanimously pass a motion unequivocally condemning the horrific terrorist attacks in the Baisaran Valley of Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir represents not just a procedural misstep, but a profound moral failing.
At a time when clarity and solidarity were paramount, the inability of our elected representatives to speak with one voice against an act of brutal violence casts a long shadow, raising serious questions about our nation’s commitment to universal values and the integrity of our foreign relations.
Striking at Tolerance
To suggest, as some have, that semantic disagreements should outweigh the fundamental need to denounce terrorism in its ugliest form is an exercise in misplaced intellectualism that borders on the callous.
The attacks, on April 22, 2025, themselves were not abstract acts of violence; they were targeted acts of terror against individuals, most of whom belonged to the Hindu community. To ignore this crucial dimension is to wilfully blind oneself to the insidious nature of religiously motivated extremism.
Terrorism, in all its manifestations, seeks to sow discord, fear, and hatred. When it specifically targets individuals based on their faith, it strikes at the very heart of pluralism and tolerance – values that New Zealand, as a diverse and inclusive society, ostensibly holds dear. For our Parliament to hesitate to acknowledge this religious targeting is not only insensitive to the victims and their families but also emboldens the perpetrators and their hateful ideology.
The Motion and Afterwards
On May 5, 2025, ACT Party MP Dr Parmjeet Parmar proposed a motion in Parliament to adopt that encapsulated three key points: condemn the terror attack, offer condolences to the victims and recognise the distress it caused Indian New Zealanders.
The Green Party did not agree with the wording. As per the rules, a motion can be adopted only if every Member of Parliament agrees; which means that a single Party could block a motion.
Radio New Zealand said in a report that Green Party Whip Ricardo Menéndez March later told The Indian Weekender that ACT’s draft was not in line with a standing order that requires motions to “include only such material as may be necessary to identify the facts or matter to which the motion relates.”
“We would have been entirely supportive of a statement of that kind on the tragic Kashmir attack, consistent with the types of Motions without Notice that are regularly used in the House,” he said.
An inconsistent Move
In 2019, the Green Party had supported a similar motion without notice titled, “Condolences – Acts of Terrorism, Sri Lanka and San Diego,” moved by the then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.
The motion passed on April 30, 2019, read, “I seek leave to move a motion without notice that this House condemn the Easter Sunday bomb attacks in Sri Lanka on 21 April and the shooting at a synagogue in San Diego, USA on 28 April.”
Supporting that motion, Marama Davidson – then the Co-Leader of The Green Party had said, “The Green Party too absolutely stands with this House in condemning both the attack against Christians worshipping on 21 April in Sri Lanka and also those worshipping on 28 April at the Chabad of Poway synagogue in San Diego.
“I am pleased to stand here with the Green Party and with all the members of this House to once again condemn acts of terrorism against communities and religions.”
The Indian Weekender also reached out to Te Pati Maori to understand its view on the Pahalgam terror attack motion. Their spokesperson indicated they would not have blocked the ACT Party’s original motion if it were made in the House.
“Te Pāti Māori did not ask for the wording to be changed; we agreed with alternate wording provided by the Green Party as a fair compromise for cross-party support,” the spokesperson said.
“We do not wish to politicise pain and suffering, or fuel tensions in these heightened times. We condemn all forms of violence. Our condolences to those who lost their loved ones to these senseless killings.”
A Weighty Responsibility
Parliament, as the supreme legislative body of our nation, holds a unique and weighty responsibility.
It is the forum where the collective will of the people should be articulated, where our shared values are enshrined, and where we stand united against threats to humanity, regardless of where they occur. In failing to achieve unanimity on this motion, Parliament missed a crucial opportunity to project an image of national solidarity, a unified front against the scourge of terrorism. Instead, the debate became mired in procedural wrangling and semantic nitpicking, leaving an impression of division and equivocation where resolute condemnation was desperately needed.
The argument that the specific wording of the motion presented obstacles to its unanimous passage is a weak shield against the undeniable truth: there was a fundamental lack of consensus on the urgency and importance of unequivocally labelling the attacks as terrorism and acknowledging the religious dimension of the targeting. While parliamentary standing orders and the nuances of diplomatic language are important considerations, they should never be allowed to overshadow the moral imperative to condemn acts of barbarity, especially when those acts are clearly intended to terrorize and are directed at a specific community.
Sanitising Terror and its Perpetrators
The alternative wording proposed, which reportedly omitted the term “terrorist attack” and the reference to the Indian New Zealanders, is deeply troubling. To shy away from the term “terrorism” when describing an act of violence clearly intended to instil fear and cause widespread death and injury is an act of self-deception.
It sanitises the horror and diminishes the suffering of the victims. Furthermore, to remove the reference to the Indian New Zealand community, who understandably felt a profound connection to this tragedy, is to disregard their pain and their legitimate expectation that their Parliament would stand in solidarity with them in condemning such violence.
We believe that this unfortunate development could impact the bilateral relations between New Zealand and India and may create a new roadblock to a Free Trade Agreement.
India, a nation that has long grappled with the menace of cross-border terrorism, will undoubtedly view the failure of the New Zealand Parliament to unequivocally condemn this attack with dismay and disappointment. The nuances of Parliamentary procedure, while perhaps understandable to those within the system, are unlikely to resonate with a nation that has borne the brunt of such violence.
The Diaspora’s anguish
The relationship between New Zealand and India is built on shared democratic values, growing economic ties, and increasing people-to-people links. The vibrant Indian diaspora in New Zealand makes significant contributions to our society, enriching our culture and strengthening our economy. For their adopted homeland to appear hesitant in condemning an act of terror that directly impacts their community and their ancestral land risks alienating a significant segment of our population and undermining the goodwill that has been carefully cultivated over the years.
Beyond the diplomatic implications, the failure to unanimously condemn this terrorist attack sends a dangerous message both domestically and internationally. It suggests that New Zealand’s commitment to unequivocally opposing terrorism may be contingent on political considerations or semantic preferences. This weakens our moral authority on the global stage and could be interpreted as a lack of empathy for the victims of terrorism worldwide.
A troubling precedent
Furthermore, it creates a troubling precedent. If our Parliament can be divided on the condemnation of such a blatant act of terror, what message does that send about our ability to stand united against other forms of violence and extremism? It risks emboldening those who seek to divide us and undermines the very principles of peace and justice that we claim to uphold.
The time for equivocation is over. Our Parliament must reflect on this grave misstep and understand the profound disappointment it has caused. A swift and unambiguous reaffirmation of our condemnation of terrorism, in all its forms and against all communities, is urgently needed to repair the damage done. This should not be a matter of political point-scoring or procedural manoeuvring. It should be a matter of principle, a demonstration of our unwavering commitment to human dignity and our resolute opposition to those who seek to destroy it through violence and terror.
The victims of the Pahalgam attack deserve our unequivocal condemnation of the violence they endured. The Indian New Zealand community deserves to know that their Parliament stands with them in their grief and outrage. And the world deserves to see New Zealand as a nation united in its opposition to terrorism, regardless of its origin or the faith of its victims. The failure to achieve unanimous agreement on this motion is a stain on our conscience, one that must be addressed with urgency and clarity to restore faith in our Parliament’s moral compass and our nation’s commitment to a just and peaceful world.
We implore our elected representatives to rise above partisan politics and speak with the unified voice that this moment demands. The integrity of our values and the strength of our international relationships depend on it.
