The argument you use is the same argument used to justify “single party democracies”, yet multi-party democracies do not break down just because people feel they are participating in different projects.

You might say that the over-arching project must be of nation to which political parties are sub-projects, however what of the Scottish Nationalist Party which sees itself engaged in a separate national project within UK political institutions? What of left parties which consider themselves merely local political expressions of a Socialist International? Pan-Africanist parties? Pan-Arab parties? The Natural Law Party?

In India and Pakistan this kind of complex identity and variety of projects is probably more obvious than in the UK. Entire communities live in those countries without sharing the same basic goals, or being aware of the others’ goals. It is asking something new of them to be part of a nation, and that might be part of the reason why nation-building tends to be such a difficult and bloody process. And maybe those blood and tears put me off the whole enterprise a bit.

The other argument – that there are privileges involved in being accepted as a citizen of a rich and powerful country which has some safeguards against despotism – is the one I understand better. That kind of nationhood is what I see as requiring my participation in political institutions, to campaign for human rights to be protected, to try to influence more ethical policies and so on, including trying to influence political institutions to allow people to live by different values, speaking different languages and setting up their own social structures.

If the UK rejects me because of my politics, I might well regret it. I am very uncomfortable about this blackmail which says that I should be made to suffer if I try to protect others who are said belong to a different nation.

if you’re here, and i’m here, and we all just happen to be here, then there’s no project, and we all stay out of each other’s way

but its rare for a nation to concieve of itself that way. i think asking to live in a nation but not share in its national project is something that institutionally is rare. i wonder if its been done before in history. within a nation i’m sure there are people who don’t feel part of the national project, but to say that entire communities can live within a nation and not be part of the same basic goals, that to me is asking for something new

on another level, in the UK you have such a good thing going. all in all you’re being offered the chance to have a first world standard of living, the right to travel almost anywhere in the world, and the price of membership seems fairly low; britain seems like a great deal, i can’t think of too many better places all in all. you might regret it if you reject it or it rejects you

The inherent benefit is that if you feel part of the country, then you want to take ownership and therefore want to make your presence felt. To me it is about empowerment. The youth have to feel part of the country so they feel they have a stake and can take part in society. Otherwise they become too removed.

It is not a cop-out that I don’t care if people call me British or not – that is their ideology of whose views count and whose do not – it’s not mine, so why pretend that I share a sense of the importance of claiming a British identity.

I don’t mind saying I am British, in the political sense referring to the administrative structures where I find myself. I am not proud of it, or pleased by it, I just accept this is it and see good and bad aspects to it.

And so, there is not big hurdle, just that I don’t believe I or anyone else should have a particular identity in order to be accepted as having equal political rights. What does it mean to “acknowledge that you are part of the country”? Why should it carry any benefits?

That might be the case, but there will always be some people who will try to marginalise the Asian community. I don’t have to follow their agenda.

The problem is that the cultural issue does not go away – we are still expected to engage politically in ways which show we are part of a cultural mainstream, in which case it is far easier to just say – fine, I’m won’t try to be British,

I think thats a cop-out. We have to re-claim the British moniker and then we can play them at their own game. If someone accuses me of not being British, I’d like to ask them how they came to that conclusion and what gives them the right to proclaim I’m not British.

If I have to prove my Britishness to be part of the debate, that’s just one more arbitrary obstacle I will have to deal with. It doesn’t help me at all.

You don’t have to be British to be part of the debate, but it helps if you feel part of the country you are arguing for or against. The same way that I’m excluded from some debates because I don’t call myself Muslim, acknowledging that you are part of the country should carry some benefits. And I don’t see what the big hurdle is… you are already part of this country. Yuu’re def more British than you are Pakistani and you care about the same issue most Britons do

The problem is that the cultural issue does not go away – we are still expected to engage politically in ways which show we are part of a cultural mainstream, in which case it is far easier to just say – fine, I’m won’t try to be British, I’m just standing up for justice or human rights or self-determination, or whatever. Not being considered “British” by someone else should be no great loss.

It is just part of a political culture, one more tool to marginalise inconvenient campaigns – I don’t think you would say UK politicians standing “shoulder to shoulder with the US”, or putting “Britain at the heart of Europe”, or saying “globalisation is inevitable” need to be more British.

They are playing rhetorical games which I am glad don’t effect me. Maybe you are sad how “community leaders” play rhetorical games which do have an effect on me or others. But it is nothing to panic about. Our identities don’t have to be the same for us to get on with each other, or to be part of political debates. If I have to prove my Britishness to be part of the debate, that’s just one more arbitrary obstacle I will have to deal with. It doesn’t help me at all.

So, al Islami al inglizi, min fadlaq (amongst other things).

I know a few British uncleji stories. Ha ha, talk about artificial conflicts and barriers! E.g. western boyfriends and girlfriends disappearing when uncleji is around, LOL.

Arif is so British in his post above, if I may say so as a non-true-born Brit. When does he become prime minister?

Britain belongs to us immigrants too. Lots of culture, no apologies, no BS, and delusionary tea for uncleji if that really is best, but otherwise it’s time he heard the truth.

And Arif, you’re an exceptional case. If we had more people like you, the world would be completely different

LOL, that’s a good line. Having seen the American in your face identity installation process (starts in kindergarten, lots of flags and none too subtle doses of God in the public and allegedly secular domain)

and the British one, where the Home Office had no real clue as to who I was when I applied for citizenship (hi Lunar House! love your name!) and all I had to do was sign some form at a dusty notary’s office

I like Britain better on identity

The problems begin from there, from clueless Home Offices to the potential consequences if extremists have a good identity story to sell in the absence of compelling alternatives.

But I think the original article is a bit confused. I can take part in political institutions around me without buying into all the nationalistic myths and hypocritical oaths that other people might feel are important to their British identity. I reckon a lot of people whose loyalty is never questioned would also laugh at the idea of loyalty to the crown.

Learning English is a red herring – after all it is the youth who speak English likel natives, have expectations of equal treatment and a confidence of their rights who are more likely to get angry than unclejis who are just glad to be here and fearful of upsetting their hosts. Sure, it is good to help people learn different language just to communicate, but as an exercise in social engineering it’ll bite you. When you understand how other people see you, it can be a nasty shock. “What, that lovely Lady Winterton said that!!!”

It is more important to have some sort of respect for one another regardless of language, culture and flag-waving habits. Getting people to follow particular codes isn’t what makes Indian cultures live side by side, it is just acceptance that all cultures and languages have a right to co-exist and, when it works best, a willingness to learn how to get along. You can call that a code, but I think it is a less constraining moral ethic than what Sunny is suggesting.

I think this ghetto thing has more to do with wealth and class then anything else. You don’t see me rioting do you nooo cos me merc would get scratched.

We Yanks do have John Walker, the American Taliban, a confused youngster captured in miserable conditions at Mazar al Sharif.

He’s doing 20 years, and so is worse off than a lot of the Guantanamo folks, who don’t get trials but do get out long before Mr Walker, even though many of them were surely worse Talibs than John. America, it’s a bitch.

Then there’s the dirty bomb man, Jose Padilla, a gangster turned Talib convert, who is now in a South Carolina brig.

Radical Islam gets around, like Uncle Sam.

“re-claiming St. George”

Aye, and Krishna, Allah, Jesus, and many more.

I don’t want ethnic minorities living in their own psychological ghettoes (if not physical or economical ghettoes) where they feel like they are not really part of this country. I guess you could call it the “re-claiming the St. George” syndrome, but I’m not suggesting we start tattooing the union jack on our arms or wearing union-jack t-shirts.

A common politically British thread means we all live side-by-side and practice whatever cultural or religion we want, yet feel proud of living here…. despite the foreign policy if necessary.

In a way it happens in India. You have 25 (or more) very different states where people eat different foods and speak different languages and are in different castes, but still identify themselves as Indian. Ok they might be all mostly Hindus but that doesn’t mean much when Hinduism is such a diverse religion with all the castes and sub-castes etc. And then there is the American example too – different identities living under the American flag.

The Americans still haven’t had a locally born terrorist or have had a single American-Muslim caught in another country (as far as I know) trying to blow people up.

Good suggestions, I couldn’t agree with you more.

Do you think the air of mutual suspicion that has existed between white and Asian communities, which has been around from the very early days of mass immigration to the UK, will start to disipate of its own accord after, say, another generation?

Firstly, I’m all for teaching english classes to the older generation. They have to fully involve themselves into society.

Secondly, recent immigrants should be taught about their rights in Britain, what this country can offer and why Britain is great (freedom of religion, liberty etc).

I want a bit of flag-waving and patriotism. Why should we be afraid of talking about being British?

Also, get rid of the silly community leaders who want to play down the British-ness because they want to hang on to their indian or pakistani identity.

More support from the govt – less of the “prove that you’re british” rhetoric and more ways to give access to minorities to power.