The name Shapurji Saklatvala may not be one that leaps out of the history books to most people. But as with any good tale from the past, the son of cotton merchant – who is a member of India’s supremely wealthy Tata clan – has quite a story.

At every turn, it seems that his life was one of constant struggle, defiance and persistence. He shared neither the surname of his affluent cousins, nor their destiny.

Unlike them, he would not go on to run the Tata Group, which is currently one of the world’s biggest business empires and owns iconic British brands like Jaguar Land Rover and Tetley Tea.

He instead became an outspoken and influential politician who lobbied for India’s freedom in the heart of its coloniser’s empire – the British Parliament – and even clashed with Mahatma Gandhi.

But how did Saklatvala, born into a family of businessmen, pursue a path so different from his kin? And how did he blaze a trail to become one Britain’s first Asian MPs? The answer is as complex as Saklatvala’s relationship with the his own family.

Saklatvala was the son of Dorabji, a cotton merchant, and Jerbai, the youngest daughter of Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata, who founded the Tata Group. When Saklatvala was 14 years old, his family moved into Esplanade House in Bombay to live with Jerbai’s brother (whose name was also Jamsetji) and his family.

Saklatvala’s parents separated when he was young and so, the younger Jamsetji became the main paternal figure in his life.

“Jamsetji always had been especially fond of Shapurji and saw in him from a very early age the possibilities of great potential; he gave him a lot of attention and had great faith in his abilities, both as a boy and as a man,” Saklatvala’s daughter, Sehri, writes in The Fifth Commandment, a biography of her father.

But Jamsetji’s fondness of Saklatvala made his elder son, Dorab, resent his younger cousin.

“As boys and as men, they were always antagonistic towards each other; the breach was never healed,” Sehri writes.

It would eventually lead to Dorab curtailing Saklatvala’s role in the family businesses, motivating him to pursue a different path.

But apart from family dynamics, Saklatvala was also deeply influenced by the devastation caused by the bubonic plague in Bombay in the late 1890s. He saw how the epidemic disproportionately impacted the poor and working classes, while those in the upper echelons of society, including his family, remained relatively unscathed.

During this time, Saklatvala, who was a college student, worked closely with Waldemar Haffkine, a Russian scientist who had to flee his country because of his revolutionist, anti-tsarist politics. Haffkine developed a vaccine to combat the plague and Saklatvala went door-to-door, convincing people to inoculate themselves.

“Their outlooks had much in common; and no doubt this close association between the idealist older scientist and the young, compassionate student, must have helped to form and to crystallise the convictions of Shapurji,” Sehri writes in the book.

Another important influence was his relationship with Sally Marsh, a waitress he would marry in 1907. Marsh was the fourth of 12 children, who lost their father before becoming adults. Life was tough in the Marsh household as everybody had to work hard to make ends meet.

But the well-heeled Saklatvala was drawn towards Marsh and during their courtship, he was exposed to the hardships of Britain’s working class through her life. Sehri writes that her father was also influenced by the selfless lives of the Jesuit priests and nuns under whom he studied during his school and college years.

So, after Saklatvala travelled to the UK in 1905, he immersed himself in politics with an aim to help the poor and the marginalised. He joined the Labour Party in 1909 and 12 years later, the Communist Party. He cared deeply about the rights of the working class, in India and in Britain, and believed that only socialism – and not any imperialist regime – could eradicate poverty and give people a say in governance.

Saklatvala’s speeches were well received and he soon became a popular face. In 1922, he was elected to parliament and would serve as an MP for close to seven years. During this time, he advocated ferociously for India’s freedom. So staunch were his views that a British-Indian MP from the Conservative Party regarded him as a dangerous “radical communist”.

During his time as an MP, he also made trips to India, where he held speeches to urge the working class and young nationalists to assert themselves and pledge their support for the freedom movement. He also helped organise and build the Communist Party of India in the areas he visited.

His strident views on communism often clashed with Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent approach to defeat their common adversary.

“Dear Comrade Gandhi, we are both erratic enough to permit each other to be rude in order to freely express oneself correctly,” he wrote in one of his letters to Gandhi, and proceeded to mince no words about his discomfort with Gandhi’s non-co-operation movement and him allowing people to call him “Mahatma” (a revered person or sage).

Though the two never reached an agreement, they remained cordial with each other and united in their common goal to overthrow British rule.

Saklatvala’s fiery speeches in India perturbed British officials and he was banned from traveling to his homeland in 1927. In 1929, he lost his seat in parliament, but he continued to fight for India’s independence.

Saklatvala remained an important figure in British politics and the Indian nationalist movement until his death in 1936. He was cremated and his ashes were buried next to those of his parents and Jamsetji Tata in a cemetery in London – uniting him once again with the Tata clan and their legacy.

A senior official at one of the UK’s largest trade unions has lost an unfair dismissal claim amid a police investigation into allegations of bribery, fraud and money-laundering at the organisation.

Howard Beckett was assistant general secretary at Unite the Union until his suspension in August 2022, four months after police raided the union’s London headquarters.

In his tribunal judgement, employment judge Richard Nicolle said police searches had also taken place at Mr Beckett’s “flat in London and home on the Wirral on 6 April 2022”.

Mr Beckett argued the claims against him were “baseless”.

His lawyer has told the BBC he is appealing the Employment Tribunal’s judgement, has launched legal action against the union and its general secretary for breach of privacy, and he noted the judge had been critical of Unite.

Mr Beckett was initially told his suspension was due to allegations of “misleading” the union’s ruling executive council in relation to the construction of its vastly over-budget hotel and conference centre in Birmingham.

The project was originally estimated to cost £7m but more than £100m was eventually spent.

An independent valuation later concluded the finished building was worth only £29m.

General secretary Sharon Graham commissioned an inquiry which, the tribunal said, led to the discovery of £14m which did not feature “in the final accounts and it remaining a mystery as to how and when this figure had been assessed and then presumably paid” to a contractor.

Mr Beckett was also told he had been suspended due to “concerns about the probity of awarding contracts for affiliated services”.

A close ally of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, Mr Beckett was off sick for almost 18 months before he resigned from Unite in January 2023.

His lawyer told the tribunal Mr Beckett had not been well enough to participate in a disciplinary hearing and the union’s disciplinary charges were “baseless”.

The employment judge rejected this, and also found Mr Beckett had not been demoted as he had claimed.

The judge did, however, say there were “significant deficiencies” in Unite’s “investigation and disciplinary processes”.

Judge Nicolle wrote: “It would have been extremely surprising in the Tribunal’s view had [Unite] allowed its Head of Legal to return to active employment in circumstances where there were ongoing police investigations into very serious matters to include bribery, money laundering and offences under proceeds of criminality legislation.”

Ms Graham, who succeeded Len McCluskey as Unite general secretary in 2021, did not give evidence to the tribunal.

The BBC has contacted Unite the Union for comment.

Labour declared after the election that “Britain is back” on the world stage after years of Conservative retreat.

But when it comes to China, the government is tiptoeing nervously in the wings.

David Lammy’s trip to China is rare – he is only the second foreign secretary to visit in six years.

He held talks in Beijing with his powerful counterpart, Wang Yi, and Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang, before heading to Shanghai to meet British business leaders on Saturday.

You might think the Foreign Office would want to make a big thing of it, to emphasise the importance of the diplomatic repair job the foreign secretary is bent on.

But instead, the trip is taking place sotto voce.

There is little media access to Mr Lammy. There are no announcements about a new trade agreement, or cooperation on policy.

Whitehall sources tell me this in part the fault of Downing Street which, they say, is increasingly gripped by caution after a febrile few weeks.

No10 officials want to avoid political rows ahead of the Budget later this month. They do not want Labour and Conservative MPs to unite in accusing the government of putting economic gain ahead of human rights and international law.

There is a strong cross-party caucus in Westminster that is China-sceptic; seven MPs and peers remain officially sanctioned by Beijing as a result.

They are already accusing Mr Lammy of backtracking on pre-election promises to push the international courts to declare China’s treatment of the Uighur minority as genocide.

Perhaps the chief reason for the low-key nature of Mr Lammy’s visit is that Labour is still working out its policy towards China.

It is conducting what it calls a cross-Whitehall “audit” of Britain’s relationship with the country, which is not due to complete until next year. It is then that Chancellor Rachel Reeves, and perhaps even Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, may visit China.

For now, the government has a holding position which it sums up in three words: “challenge, compete, cooperate”.

It says it will challenge China on human rights abuses and its support for Russia in Ukraine. It will compete with China over trade. And it will cooperate with China over shared interests, such as global health and climate change.

If this sounds familiar, that is because other western powers use similar language. And the previous Conservative government’s policy was to “protect, align and engage”.

However, both parties have found it difficult to work out where precisely to draw the line.

Does “compete” involve banning Chinese electric vehicles from the UK’s automotive market?

Does “challenge” mean restricting lucrative Chinese students from attending cash-strapped UK universities?

Does “cooperate” involve sharing private medical research to help prevent a future pandemic?

The head of MI5, Ken McCallum, spoke only last week of “a threat that manifests at scale” from China, targeting Britain’s information and democracy.

Mr Lammy’s more prosaic aim on this visit is simply to re-establish some kind of working relationship with Beijing.

Under the Conservatives, UK-China relations blew hot and cold, between the diplomatic warmth of the so-called “golden era” to the hawkish aggression of more recent Conservative leaders.

Last year, then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called China the “greatest threat” to Britain’s economy; then-Foreign Secretary James Cleverly visited Beijing calling for re-engagement; his successor Lord Cameron resolutely ignored the country.

Mr Lammy says he wants to re-establish what he calls a more consistent and pragmatic relationship.

During his talks with Mr Wang, he said he was “struck by the scope for mutually beneficial cooperation on the climate, on energy and nature, of the science and tech, on trade and investment, on health and development.”

He said Beijing and London should “find pragmatic solutions to complex challenges”.

China appears up for that. Mr Wang said China-UK relations were “standing at a new starting point” and spoke of “our boosted confidence in bilateral cooperation”.

He even referred by name to Mr Lammy’s foreign policy slogan – “progressive realism” – which Mr Wang said, “has positive significance”.

So far, so conciliatory.

Of course, Mr Lammy said both countries had “different perspectives” on some issues.

In a statement after the talks, the Foreign Office said he raised concerns about China’s military support for Russia in Ukraine, and how that was damaging China’s relationships in Europe.

The department also said he raised China’s treatment of the Uighurs in the Xinjiang region, “serious concerns” over the implementation of new national security laws in Hong Kong, and called for the release of the British media tycoon Jimmy Lai, who has been arbitrarily detained there.

But it insisted the meeting was “constructive across the full breadth of the bilateral relationship” and both sides committed to “regular discussions” at ministerial level.

For that ultimately is what this trip is all about: re-establishing links with the Chinese government.

The government’s priority is economic growth, and that is hard without a working relationship with its fourth largest trading partner.

But when it comes to China, it still remains unclear where Labour will draw the line between challenging, competing and cooperating.