 |
||
|
||
|
||
Lord Meghnad Desai, director of the Centre for the Study of Global
Governance at the London School of Economics, was in Mumbai
recently to attend a seminar. Lord Desai, who supports
globalisation, said, "I am still a Marxist even though some people
think otherwise." A graduate of Mumbai University, Lord Desai went
to the London School of Economics in 1965. He was chairman of the
local Labour Party from put it, "for me contribution to economics,
partly as a Labour Party leader and partly as an Indian," In this
interview with Ashley D'Mello, he discussed race relations and
their development since the sixties, Excerpts:
What stage have race relations in Great Britain reached today,
compared with the sixties when Paki- bashing made news?
Race relations have come a long way since the early sixties when
Enoch Powell was prominent and there was a section of British
society that was unrelenting about discrimination. The
Conservative Party did not allow the extreme right wing to take
over. There is still a lot of racism in British society. But in
understanding where racism makes an impact, you have to look at
class.
Middle class South Asians - I mean Gujaratis and Punjabis - some
Punjabis from Pakistan and a smattering of Bangladeshis are
comfortably ensconced in British society. They do not mingle much
with the British, but are comfortably off and are not discriminated
against much. They are well educated and are self-employed or have
jobs.
There is now talk of emulating the Jewish method of integrating
into British society. The Jews in Britain kept their separate
ethnic identity but have a collaborative rather than
confrontationist way of integrating. In the census office, they
were talking of the Jewish way and the Irish way. The Irish way is
the negative way for immigrants. Getting into the poverty trap and
so on. Both are happening in the South Asian community. There are a
lot of poorer immigrants, Indian and Bangladeshi, in the East End
of London. There are textile workers who came from Pakistan and
settled in Manchester. These people have poorer accommodation.
They have the rough edge of low level day-to-day racism. It
sometimes gets nasty. But I think Afro- Caribbeans face it much
more than South Asians.
One must also remember that the people who feel most resentful
about immigrants are the poor white people. They are having a bad
time. Unemployment is high. The local Asians are not taking jobs
away from them, but the anger exists. Yes, there is racism but the
middle class South Asians escape most of it.
Does this mean that the days of Paki-bashing by youths are over?
It is sort of over. What one does hear about is the trouble in the
inner city areas. Occasionally you have flare-ups. You hear of
families getting hate mail. The Paki- bashing no longer makes
headlines, partly because the younger Asians are much more
integrated with the other youth. They have their own identity,
their own Pop Bhangra and their own art forms. They do not follow
the cultural and art forms of their parents nor follow the whites.
They mix it all up. They are much more integrated. To the extent
that poverty in society is reduced it will also mean a reduction in
racism.
Inspite of strict immigration laws, why do Indians still aspire to
enter Britain? Is it because the media image of Asians doing well?
In a sense, it is like rural-urban migration in India. People come
looking for their pot of gold. But first let me explain that there
is not much migration allowed into Britain nowadays. Apart from
strictly defined dependants, it is difficult to get in. Maybe if
you are technically qualified you might be allowed in. This
applies not only to Asians and blacks; Canadians are also treated
along the same lines. There are a lot of unnecessary hassles to
get through. People always exaggerate the rate of success of
Asians. But nobody would have thought that in 1997 the prime
minister would be entertained by rich Asians. I would not have
thought it probable that four of us would be in the House of Lords.
If Labour comes to power, will there be some degree of annoyance in
Indo-British relations over the Kashmir issue?
If the Labour Party comes to power, things will change. The Labour
Party will not follow a 'do nothing' policy on Kashmir. I have
talked about these things to my friends in New Delhi. They know
about it. There is no denying that in a few constituencies there
are very pro-Pakistan MPs; there are also a few pro-India MPs. The
concern with subcontinental issues felt by the British South Asian
is more an index of their isolation than of integration. They
should be worried about the economic policy of the British
government and unemployment, which affects their lives, rather than
Kashmir. They should be bothered about a single European currency.
Kashmir is not going to affect their lives.
According to some press reports, a considerable section of the
population in the London area will be coloured by the turn of the
century.
That's quite likely. Immigrant populations are concentrated in
inner cities. The richer Indians and Pakistans have moved to the
suburbs, forming smaller communities. They have started behaving
like the local population. Class and race issues are connected in
the Asian mind. Poor Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians are still
not integrated.
Are rich and middle class Asians now trying to integrate with white
society, disassociating themselves from the poor Asians?
The rich Asian and the poor Asian live in different worlds. The
world of Wembley is different from Southall or Newark. The rich do
not like the poor agitating. White racism is very poor-oriented.
The boys who live in Southark and Euston have to face racism. They
have formed groups and are talking of whites and blacks fighting
racism. But this is a different world from the Asian middle class
or the Asian rich. There is a lot more poverty in Britain than
there used to be in the seventies; inspite of this, you don't have
Paki-bashing. This shows that on the whole British society has come
to terms with the non-white population.
|
||
|
||
|
||