A Question of Identity

In Britain there is now a new "class" of Asians and blacks, almost as xenophobic and intolerant as the white racists who once intimidated their parents and grandparents.

A SIGNIFICANTLY large and influential section of Britain's Indian community has got itself worked up on an issue that many believe is potentially divisive and could undermine years of pan-Asian solidarity. The issue is: whether it is right and "fair" for the British Government and the media to "lump" all expatriate communities from the Indian subcontinent under the catch-all generic description "Asians", irrespective of their national origins, and their distinct social and cultural identities? And the way the question is invariably posed, it is meant to get only one answer: No.

At a gathering of Indians in London recently, there was an agitated discussion and the overwhelming opinion was that it was not only misleading but embarrassing for the vast majority of upwardly mobile and law-abiding British Indians to be clubbed together with the more controversial and deprived communities from the subcontinent. Though no community was named, everyone round the table understood that the allusion was to Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.

Arguably, the Indian community in Britain is on a fast track with considerably higher levels of educational and professional attainments than those found among Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or Sri Lankans. It is not that Indians only fancy themselves as a cut above the rest. They are. They are better educated, more affluent, better equipped to handle the pressures of a competitive society — and generally they stay out of trouble. No wonder, then, that they resent being "lumped" — a term repeatedly used at the London gathering — with other "Asian" communities.

What they find especially misleading is the way the British media reports crime figures and social trends in Asian communities. They get upset when they see screaming headlines such as "Crime Rate Soars Among Asians" or "Honour Killings on the Rise among Asians," giving the impression that somehow all Asians have descended into collective lawlessness. The fact that non-Indians account for much of the rise in the crime rate among Asian expatriates or that "honour killings" are rare among Indians is breezily dismissed in the small print.

"It is unfair, it is clearly misleading," protests an Indian diplomat echoing the view among Indians that they should be regarded as a distinct group to avoid confusion. The preferred label is "British Indians" to distinguish them from other subcontinental communities. Indians also insist that in the interest of greater clarity a community involved in a race riot or a criminal incident must be identified in police briefings and media reports so that every Asian group is not assumed to be guilty. They point out that the race riots in Bradford three years ago were portrayed as an "Asian thing" though the only Asians involved were Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. "Wasn't this unfair to those Asian groups who had nothing to do with it," asks an Indian academic. He suggests that the Indian High Commissioner in London needs to take up the issue with the British Government. "If the Chinese, the Thais, the Malaysians and the Koreans can be described as separate groups why should Indians be lumped with everyone else from the subcontinent?"

But critics warn that a demand of this sort can easily become divisive. For implicit in this is the idea that because of their improved social and economic status Indians are now in a class of their own and should be recognised as a separate group to distinguish them from less privileged fellow-Asians. The sub-text is: we are now on our way up the ladder, and goodbye to those still stuck on the first step.

There are fears that apart from creating another class of Asians, such a move could divide the Indian community itself in the long run. For, just as within the larger Asian community there are groups that are educationally and economically backward and therefore seen as an embarrassment by their more affluent and educated peers, there is also a significant segment in the Indian diaspora which is not part of the success story. And, given the make-up of Britain's million-strong Indian community, there is a danger that the demand might assume sectional or communal overtones.

Hindus and Sikhs account for the majority of the Indians and they are also the more prosperous. Muslims and Christians are comparatively less well-off. Muslims, in particular, are way down the chain — concentrated mostly in deprived inner cities with leaping school dropout rates and widespread unemployment.

What will happen if, at some point in the future, the movers and shakers of the Indian community start to feel embarrassed by their poorer (mostly non-Hindu, non-Sikh) fellow Indians? Will they, then, demand a further reclassification — this time to distinguish the "respectable" Indians from their less savvy and less presentable compatriots? Might it not generate similar demands from other groups? Where will it all end? And what effect will this have on pan-Asian organisations that campaign on issues that cut across the Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan divide? Will the sense of unity and common purpose demonstrated by Asians over such issues as race and gender, that affect them all, become a thing of the past?

This may sound like an alarmist scenario but given the logic of the original argument, nothing can be ruled out. The move reflects a generational change in attitudes — a far cry from the days when the first generation of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent arrived in Britain nearly half a century ago. That generation saw itself as part of the extended Asian family rather than as Indians, Pakistanis or Sri Lankans. In the early days of their struggle in an alien and hostile environment they formed a common bond which, despite occasional strains, largely remained unaffected by political tensions between their countries back home. Even during the two India-Pakistan wars, neither Indians nor Pakistanis in Britain ever resented being "lumped" together as Asians.

Clearly, times have changed — and the new aggressive assertion of sectional identities is not confined to the "Asian" communities alone. Some rather disturbing developments are happening among black immigrant groups as well — as reported by Darcus Howe, one of Britain's most respected black Left-wing academics and commentators, in a Channel Four documentary, "Who You Callin' A Nigger?" When Mr. Howe, a Caribbean, came to Britain 40 years ago he was horrified by the levels of racism the immigrants then faced.

But there was one silver lining: all immigrants, irrespective of where they had come from, felt united in a common struggle and it was with a deep sense of camaraderie that they battled the odds.

Forty years later, Mr. Howe decided to revisit his old haunts for the documentary — and this time he was horrified by the levels of racism he found within the immigrant communities. He met violent Pakistani youths who abused and attacked blacks; he met violent black youths who abused and attacked other black — mostly Somali — asylum-seekers; and he met a "Punjabi small businessman" who saw "enemies everywhere" and hurled the "most lurid abuse he [could] muster." A West Indian teenager, who was attacked by a gang of newly-arrived Somalis, told Mr. Howe that Somalis were "not a civilised people."

"They are black but a different kind of black... To me they are like dirt... '' he said while, in an echo of the abuses normally associated with white racists, a middle-aged black woman said: "I hate Somalis. They should go back to where they came from."

A shocked Mr. Howe noted that she "did not bat an eyelid" as she launched into a tirade against Somalis. "It was very difficult listening to all this throughout the filming," he said of his experience while making the film. Some of the racial abuses he heard immigrant groups hurl at each other were the "same kind of racial abuse we suffered in the period of early migration."

A new "class" of Asians and blacks, almost as xenophobic and intolerant as the white racists who once intimidated their parents and grandparents because of the colour of their skin, has taken over, and history is threatening to repeat itself — but this time both the oppressors and the victims are the same colour. Is it a tragedy? Or a farce?