Connecting British Hindus… to?
Hindus living in Britain do not want to be described as “Asian”, according to a big study of the community. Instead, they want to be known as British Indian, Hindu — or even Desi, a Hindi word growing in popularity with the young that means being rooted in one’s home country. At the time of the 2001 Census the Hindu population in Britain had reached nearly 550,000.
The report, Connecting British Hindus, to be published in the Commons today, was funded by the Government and carried out by the Runnymede Trust and the Hindu Forum. It found concern about a ‘general assumption’ that any brown-skinned Asian person was Muslim and shows that Hindus feel neglected, marginalised and misunderstood. [The Times]
This was out today. But I think there is more to this than meets the eye.
The report, which can be downloaded from here, should be called ‘Connecting the Hindu Forum to the Government’, because it seems little more than an exercise by the organisation to make some noise and get noticed.
Why do I say this you may ask. Good question. For a start I have no problems with people identifying themselves only as British Indians or British Hindus and rejecting the British Asian tag. That is up to them.
Being Hindu or Indian is an aspect to some people’s identities in a way that I continue to support the Indian team against England in cricket. Religion is important to many people and some of them are Hindus.
It is also true that since 9/11 and especially 7/7 the British government and media has become obsessed with Muslims to the extent that Hindus and Sikhs are almost ignored (I’m somewhat guilty of that too). Most people think all brown people are Muslim.
The problem is not that we need a seperation that states: “Look, I’m a Hindu/Sikh - he’s a Muslim and a potential suicide bomber!” I don’t support slogans that make this point. Rather it is that of practicality.
One example is their funeral traditions. One Hindu says in the report: “Our rituals take two hours and crematoria do not have the time, facilities or space for these rituals. We are trying to build a crematorium, but the planning permission needs to be given.”Another example was the large number of hospitals that will provide halal but not vegetarian Hindu food.
Being vegetarian, I think this country is miles ahead of Europe but these are fair points.
But the report looks little more than political posturing.
Why? For a start have a look at their methodology. The survey was carried out through people in focus groups that the Hindu Forum personally invited and an online survey only promoted through their website. The report does not acknowledge there might be a bias towards more religious Hindus than simply cultural Hindus because of this.
Not only that, the survey doesn’t actually ask if respondents prefer a Hindu identity over an Asian identity. It asks vaguely interconnected questions and does not pose the question - Do you prefer being described as Hindu or Asian?
The Hindu Forum has an obvious interest in promoting this viewpoint because, like the MCB and other religious organisations, they want people to be identified by religion rather than race. That would mean more government/media attention (and money) would go to faith than race groups.
Of course, being ‘Asian’ is a very, very vague label that totally ignores the diversity of Asians. But that is a good thing in my opinion because it means less people can speak on our behalf. In fact why not just refer to us as Britons and do away with “community leaders”?
But then I’m repeating myself… again 
These things should be criticised. The Hindu Forum is aping the Muslim Council of Britain’s tactics to a certain extent.
However, you cannot ignore the fact that many Hindus, and also Sikhs, feel marginalised in British society. These are real feelings and it’s better to engage with them then ignore or mock them. They feel doubly marginalised, not only as ‘Asians’, but because of the presumption, even amongst educated people, that being ‘Asian’ is synonymous with being Muslim. I was listening to a debate on Muslim alienation on Radio 4 and Clare Fox kept saying how British society needs to engage with ‘Asian’ youth. But she was using the word when she was talking about Muslim youth. It totally slaps you in the face - it makes you invisible and says “You are irrelevant you dont matter you do not exist”
There are one million Hindus, Sikhs, Christian, Buddhist non Muslim Asians in Britain. Surely it is important to recognise this and not marginalise them twice over. These things are annoying and make you feel irrelevant and at an extreme end are offensive. I remember seeing in the Times newspaper a gurdwara was described as a mosque. This is wrong.
Bollocks.
I think we should all be proud of the word Asian because it’s an exclusively British term that suggests people originating from the subcontinent.
Go to America or any other country for that matter, and Asian means oriental.
It’s only in this country that you can have a radio station called BBC Asian Network and no one expects to hear Chinese chants.
We made that happen.
Every Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic who gives a shit that they came from somewhere else but concentrates on being here should fly the British Asian flag.
Worked for Afro-Caribbeans. Works for us.
Anyone who says otherwise is seperatist scum
The trouble is Kismet Hardy that when Hindus or Sikhs or whoever say this, they are doing it in reaction to Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who have been priveliging their Islamic identity and rejecting being associated with Hindus and Sikhs for a long time now, over the last ten or 15 years. That’s a fact that you cant deny.
Its true that the term Asian is used interchangeably with Muslim, and this does cause the Hindu and Sikh communities to feel invisible. The main recent example was the ‘Asian’ riots in Oldham/Bradford etc, but I have countless day to day examples as well.
Its not racist to want to maintain your identity rather then be lumped under a blanket generalisation.
“Its true that the term Asian is used interchangeably with Muslim”
I’m afraid I disagree. The bad press and irate public all round the world are honing in on the word ‘Muslim’, which, more and more, is beginning to mean dude with beard or babe in headdress.
I can see why Sikhs can get irritated what with the beard and turban association, but Hindus should be having a party or something. And not a polican one, but those ones with colours and food and stuff
“Its not racist to want to maintain your identity rather then be lumped under a blanket generalisation.”
It’s not racist. But I find it ludicrous that someone has to hold on to a religion to establish their own identity
That’s what’s causing all the problems in the world
My tuppence anyhoo
in the current climate i’m sure a lot of Muslims wish they didn’t have the focus on them that they do. Of course if someone else wants to take over that role -and share the ’spotlight’.. i’m sure the more the merrier ..;-)
Whether you disagree or not about the British Asian-Muslim tag being used interchangeably, it is true.
As for British-Hindu/Indian, there is nothing wrong with being wanting to be called that rather then Brit-Asian.
Just out of curiosity - the report refers to ‘vegetarian hindu’ food. Can anyone tell me if this is distinct from normal vegetarian food? If not, my experience has always been that vegetarian options are widely available.
Sahib, I can only comment on Sri Lankan vegetarian food. I used to work on top of one and would steal into the fridge at night and get diaorrhea every time. They have this squeaky yellow shoot type thing in vats of oil and I don’t like it.
Neil, Hindu, like Muslim and Asian, are globals term. British Asian is just for us. You can ask to be called Second-generation-Hindu-with-a-Maharashtri-dad-born-in-kenya- and-a-bharatanatyam-mum-from-uganda-moved-to-Britain, but I’m just gonna call you Neil
Kismet Hardy you should be saying this to the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis that say we are Muslim first. You know there are so many of them that say we are Muslims first and foremost and we dont want to be associated with Hindus and Sikhs. It’s prevalent, the ummah brotherhood. Look how much Muslims assert their Islamic identity over their kinship with Hindus and Sikhs. You need to speak to them first and foremost.
And while we’re on the subject, why would anyone want to be called Desi? I can understand American Asians wanting that term because Indian means native American and Asian means oriental, but people living here don’t have that excuse
Desi, crudely translated, means ‘from the land’
How can you live here and say you belong to another one? What sort of ‘identity’ is that supposed to be?
I’m going to do a Jonz and say fuck off back there then if you don’t want to be here
“You need to speak to them first and foremost”
Well Sanj, I’d speak to all the Bangladeshi and Pakistani Muslims about this subject, in fact I’d put it on my list of priorities, but I’m off to the Glade Festival tomorrow and I’m going to take a lot of drugs for several days in a row
I’ll be sure to honour your request during my comedown…
No i disagree, because when you have white people at work talking about those ‘Asians’ causing trouble up north, or blowing themselves up on the tube, then why should I not point out that Asian is perhaps the incorrect term, because they are not Hindu or Sikh, but Muslim.
sanj- ” It’s prevalent, the ummah brotherhood.” yeah, about as prevalent as the folks in the Hindu forum who might think they want their hinduness put forward… i think you’re generalizing about the vast no.’s of bangladeshis and pakistanis around..
ummah brotherhood my bloody foot - i’ve never noticed it really contributing to the warm feelings between pakistanis and bangladeshis. oh yes..
I think this is another example of the Hindu Forum kicking up a fuss over nothing (rather like last year when they made a fuss about the Royal Mail introducing stamps with a Hindu religious symbol on it).
Most Hindus probably do not not feel marginalised and are probably “not too fussed” about being referred to as being of “Asian” origin.
They probably ARE concerned about being mistaken for muslims - especially at airports and railway stations. If I were a “brown non muslim” girl, I would be sure to wear western clothing at such locations (jeans, T-shirts etc) so that my physical appearance was as “un Islamic” as possible. But that would be for the very practical reason that I would not not want to get hassled or stopped (and also because I would have preferred to dress that way).
But there is a world of difference between “not wanting to appear muslim” and objecting to being described as “Asian” which I think is rather petty.
So this to do with distancing and disassociation from the catch-all “Asians” nametag because of its connotation with Muslims, no?
Most likely - and hardly surprising! given how “we” are all supposed to be terrorists, don’t ya know..
Well the Behzti disturbance weren’t referred to as ‘Asians protesting’ or those protesting againsnt the Mohammed cartoon weren’t referred to as ‘Asians’. Why not just be more accurate and say British-Hindus or whatever ?
The term “Asian” is a racial identity - referring to people who originate from a certain geographical locations (it should of course refer to Chinese, Korean or Vietnamese origin too).
Someone of Indian origin trying to object to being described as Asian would be like someone of Swedish origin objecting to being described as European.
how funny..ive just seen on the net that zidane is now supposed to be a ‘terrorist’. given how everyone in the world cup behaved equally badly ( i suppose rooney is one too at this rate..) its all pretty amusing.
in fact why don’t we stop with the whole category thing and say it was john mandy and zakir who were protesting - after all..
i don’t like being categorized as anything other than Sonia ;-)..though i am frequently categorized as all sorts of things. some more exciting than others.
sonia, denying that it’s the way it is, and that Muslims do privelige their religious identity over their ethnic identity is a real phenomenon. Having a go at Hindus or Sikhs who react to that is missing the point, if it means so much to you, you should criticise that.
Neale when the MF Husain painting affair happened it was all neatly described as Hindu or not ‘Asian’.
Gibs I’m not objecting to the term Asian, that is correct. Indeed a Swede would be wrong to deny the label ‘European’ but if theres loads of Swedes in this country and there are riots in Margate due to French people, if the news reports called it the ‘European’ riots then I’m sure the Swedes would gently point out that it should be called the French riots rather then European !
Someone of Indian origin trying to object to being described as Asian would be like someone of Swedish origin objecting to being described as European.
Yeah, but the point is that when you are marginalised by that designation it ceases to be an accurate marker of who you are in the context of British society.
sanj - some muslims - not all - you’re starting to generalize and lump people in one category - precisely the reason why you see people trying to jump out of the ‘asian’ category!
really the significant thing about this is precisely how people are unhappy with categories and generalization at the end of the day. perhaps the move should be towards individualization - rather than re-categorization and re-re-categorization..
there’s no such thing as an accurate marker - that’s the problem.
One of the main problems that these blanket terms have is that, in many cases, people will be assumed to fit some form of stereoptype just because they have the skin colour associated with that group.
All Hindus don’t think alike any more than all Muslims. All white people don’t think alike either!
I think this is a dangerous publication as it attempts to identify people by their culture, religion or skin colour and all three of those categories fail on several points. For example, how many Hindus do you know who eat beef? How many who go to the cinema? It’s just nonsense to group people like this.
The Muslim ‘community’ is being focused upon because of the dangerous element that is eroding our civil liberties by influencing our government’s policies. Hindus and Sikhs should strive to remain as they are: a loved part of England’s cultural make-up. To ape Islam’s notoriety will require unpleasant activities and there’s nothing, at all, to be gained from this attention anyway.
Just on the Hindu vs. Asian front, Asia is far too diverse to accurately describe the origins of Sikhs and Hindus (and Muslims) especially as Hindus can come from places outside of Asia (I’m thinking of Mauritius and let’s not forget now-non-Asian immigrants in England) and there are atheist Chinese, Islamic Iranians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indonesians (to pick four) and Hindu Indians and Nepalese (to pick two).
Most ‘Hindus’ I have met do not describe themselves in any way and, actually, have been politically incorrect about it all.
Er Sunny:
I think this country is miles ahead of Europe
I see you’re one of those Brits who believe that the UK is outside Europe, then?
“All Hindus don’t think alike any more than all Muslims. All white people don’t think alike either!”
very sensible Gavin.
Neil,
They probably WOULD object to those rioters as being described as being “European rioters”. However they would not object to themselves as being described as being of European origin (or of Swedish origin for that matter).
The point i made is that they would not object to EITHER term being used - although they would definitely not like to be described as “French” given the circumstances.
Continental Europe then, pedantics.
Ok i’m freaked out now 7 fucking bomb blasts here… passions are running high… i’ve a feeling Shiv Sainiks are gonna take the bait..
I find it ludicrous that someone has to hold on to a religion to establish their own identity.
Well you are allowed to feel that way, and can opt to find the Asian one more important. But what are you going to do shove it down the religious people’s throat? They have every right to hold religion most important to them.
I dont think it matters that the Hindu Forum surveyed religious people, there must be plenty of them, and if they want a body to represent them to call for better services for them, then I wish them all the best.
I dont think people outright reject the general blanket identity of being Asian; I see it at school, university, city councils and in most walks of life in Britain - because we share common cultural norms. But at the same time, there are distinct differences between the religions and regions, and these must be recognised when the state is providing services, or deciding how to tackle problems. The more organisations there are representing different subsets, the clearer picture everyone will have on wants and needs of the communities.
Now the name tag, British-Hindu - if they really want it why not, its nice for society to learn about the different origins of its make-up. You will be surprised how clue-less some people are. I remember a few years ago on Eid, when I called for a taxi, the operator told me its ‘The Asian Christmas’ so all the drivers are away. I found the analogy she tried to use quite poor, but was wondering whether she tried to explain Eid to be like that because she thought thats the easiest way for me to understand or because thats how she understood it.
Someone should draw a Venn diagram covering the terms british, american, anglo, desi, hindu, muslim, pakistani, bangladeshi, etc, to show which ones overlap and which ones, if any, don’t.
I expect it would be quite complicated.
soru - your thinking along the lines of venn diagrams is not far off - it’s interesting thinking about identities as overlapping circles.
thoughts with everyone in mumbai..
anyhow people can/should be able to refer to themselves any old how. kind of the idea behind the ‘jedi’ drive during the last census
As someone who is quite happy to describe myself as Singaporean Indian (a label that encompasses hindus, muslims,christians, atheists)I’d be very, very wary of any “Hindu” group that wants to divide us down by religious affiliation - no matter what their reasoning. Luckily this is NOT happening where I live, a fact I am increasingly grateful for.
The ethnic description I can live with - it is shorthand for broadly common origins and shared culture- even if it is imprecise. The religious tag is divisive and quite frankly, scary. I am sorry that the UK Hindu Forum - who elected them to speak for all Brit Hindus anyway- has started down this path.
Btw, doesn’t the anyone feel sorry for chinese Brits who’ve been left out of the Brit Asian tag? Couldn’t have happened anywhere else in the world…
they tend to refer to themselves as BBC’s - British Born Chinese..
but yeah - someone’s always left out! for example in the states when i would say im asian, people would say no you’re not - you#re not chinese/japanese. erm. yeah whatever - asia is a big continent..but never mind.
Hmm. A bit of confusion in the above me thinks.
It is one thing to differentiate a group based on their religion i.e. Hindu, but another to group them based on nationality i.e Indian. You can be Indian and yet be a Christian for example. Just thought I’d point this out as it came across as a little confusing in the article itself and in some of the comments above.
It is important to recognise that in the same way Muslim and Christians have different traditions which seem to be profiled or at the very least acknowledged in the press, the same can be said for Hindus but little is covered in mainstream media.
Categorizing everyone in to ‘Asians’ works on a geographically level, but when linked to faiths, is soooo wrong.
British Indian will do, this incorporates Hindu too.
I tell everyone loud and clear I am British Indian. However, more press and coverage needs to be meted out to the mass media about what Hindus and Sikhs are, as alot of ignorance is out there. Whites do not know much difference between South Asian religions/cultures.
Vikrant - stay indoors - and keep safe.
Justforfun
>>Categorizing everyone in to ‘Asians’ works on a geographically level, but when linked to faiths, is soooo wrong.
On the assumption that everyone from the subcontinent has to have a faith. Very many, esp within the ‘hindu’ subgroup don’t. Muslim and Christian are umbrella terms - in that much diversity exists within these groups already- but still broadly recognisable. Hindu is not easy to define, just try it and you’ll be rather surprised at the complexities that crop up.
>>for example in the states when i would say im asian, people would say no you’re not - you#re not chinese/japanese.
I don’t let them get away with that - no one but no one gets to take away my Asian identity. It helps that I claim Chinese and Malay culture as part of my heritage too.
Mirax,
‘The religious tag is divisive and quite frankly, scary’
Absolutely. But so much easier for the government to buy into. Intellectual laziness and moral cowardice. Humanists tend not to shout, don’t play the ‘deeply held belief’ card, don’t have ‘representatives’ who can deliver block votes, and are suckers for appeals to reason and understanding.
So, anyway, you are now part of the Hindu community and some bloke in a beard will tell us what you want.
And one of the things you want is some bloke in a beard telling us what you want. We know this because some bloke in a beard said so.
“Whites do not know much difference between South Asian religions/cultures.”
Sweeping generalisation award of the year goes to…
LOL at “Whites”
“So, anyway, you are now part of the Hindu community and some bloke in a beard will tell us what you want.
And one of the things you want is some bloke in a beard telling us what you want. We know this because some bloke in a beard said so.”
speaking of generalizations….some bloke in a beard????
Ah, the formidable bearded community. Don’t want to mess with them.
whatever the religion, it is always a guy in a dress and a long beard. Wonder why that is?
Oh sorry, no beards for buddhists monks or jain priests - but the dress rule stands.
oops very very sorry. no dress for some jain monks. In fact no clothes at all.I think we all would prefer the dress no?
‘In fact no clothes at all’
It’s all about emphasising the masculinity. Some of us are more secure than that.
And aren’t those big hats just a tiny bit phallic?
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saints10.gif
“whatever the religion, it is always a guy in a dress and a long beard. Wonder why that is?”
Not always. None of the Buddhist monks I know have beards. None of the Hindu temple pundits I know have beards, although other sadhus and swamis do. And don’t forget all the unbearded women religious leaders
As someone who has a beard….. lazyness is the real reason and don’t believe anyone who tells you differently. The length of the beard is directly related ones tolerance to creepy crawlys.
As someone who hasn’t worn a dress in 20 years … my bum is too big for current fahions.
Justforfun
‘women religious leaders’
Now that’s a serious demographic.
None of the Hindu temple pundits I know have beards, although other sadhus and swamis do. And don’t forget all the unbearded women religious leaders
But who listens to a temple pandit? It is the swamis and gurus who are the real godmen. Those mofos have as a rule never cut or clean their hair or nails.:-)
That Amma lady, did I spy a stray hair or two on her chin?
[women religious leaders’
Now that’s a serious demographic.]
Well, the seriousness of that demographic varies from place to place and even from sect to sect within a religion.
Vik, staying in the apartment is not gonna be safe enough. Bombs on trains have killed over 130 in Mumbai, the shit is going to hit the fan - so get out to another part of India. The Sainiks now have more reason, than a crummy old statue, to go bonkers over.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,1817999,00.html
“It is the swamis and gurus who are the real godmen. Those mofos have as a rule never cut or clean their hair or nails.:-)”
Now, now. Don’t confuse swamis with some sadhus.:)
.. rule never cut or clean their hair or nails.:-)
mere students … when will they grow up and get a proper job.
Justforfun
‘That Amma lady, did I spy a stray hair or two on her chin? ‘
Meeow.
Vik,
Seriously, stay safe. Don’t get all investigative, but we’d value your impressions.
seriously, that Amma lady is on to a good thing - she is rich and famous because she’s discovered the constituency that will line up for hours for a 2-second hug. I was thinking of moving into the religious business myself along similar lines - am in the process of doing the market research right now. I don’t do warm and cuddly, though I think I’d be able to manage a handshake, with gloves mind you.
Is there a segment of the human race that will line up for a 2-second slap from me? I don’t mind throwing in an expletive as a freebie?
Whaddya think? Afterall it is gonna take more out of me in terms of the sheer physical effort…
Keep safe Vikrant.
‘Is there a segment of the human race that will line up for a 2-second slap from me? ‘
On this blog? Are you kidding?
Vikrant, take great care.
glad ur alright young vic
This post is interesting, because back in November 2005, I was doing research on the politics of Hinduism in the US. I was looking at the Hindu Students Council (HSC) which has chapters all over North America. And on the HSC website, I came across an article called “Hindus in the UK” by Divananda Shah, published on 03/11/2005, which is no longer available online (I tried to retrieve it so as to provide the link here). Excerpts from my printed out copy:
-”Today, the Hindu community in the UK is in its 3rd generation, forming around 1-2% of the population, and has assimilated well into the British culture. Hindus achieve highly in education, have diversified into many professions and have very low crime rates”.
-”There are a number of key challenges, however, that still need to be overcome. One major issue is that of identity. For a long time Hinuds have been labeled ‘Asians’ by the media - the term referring to anyone from the Indian subcontinent. This generalization has had negative impacts”.
“For example, in 2001 there were major riots in parts of North England between Pakistani/Bangladeshi and white communities. This incident was described by the media as ‘Asian’ vs white, although there were no Hindus involved. Many Hindus have now rejected the term ‘Asian’ but that leaves a question as to what our identity is….To resolve this [problem] there has been an assertion of a new term- British Hindu, which National Hindu Students Forum (NHSF) is actively promoting - the theme of the 2002 Annual Conference being ‘Be British, Be Hindu’”.
-”Hindus make a large contribution economically and culturally to British life - e.g. 2 of the top 20 richest people in the UK in 2004 are Hindu, but we lack on the political front…This results in the Hindu community not having a voice in public affairs. But even when an opportunity is given to express an opinion, the Hindu community is divided - when the UK went to war with Iraq, every community except Hindus had given their viewpoint. This lack of unity between Hindus is quite common and does not exist among other faiths in the UK such as in the Muslim and Jewish communities”.
–From: “Hindus in the UK” by Divananda Shah, published on 03/11/2005
Hi Desi, interesting this… will get back to you on the identity thing.
“Asian” is a term concocted by Britian’s elites to fudge differences and to avoid facing a couple of unpleasant realities.
It is the British equivalent of France’s “Youths”.
The causes, thus, of so many of the present troubles lay in the fact that some people are “youths” and/or “Asians”.
See how helpful it is?
These are greedy, coward-coined terms designed to facilitate denial, to maintain the myth of social harmony and, ultimately, to protect the interests of the bottom line.
Of course, the longer this keeps up, the more violent and ruthless the inevitable reality-check becomes.
I see nothing wrong with Hindus and Sikhs wanting to be distinguished from that other group of South Asians. They want Britian to acknowledge that their mental cassette is different, more productive, useful and integrated, rather than merely seeing the same skin colour, which is racist.
To boot, such a move would allow suthorities to better target and profile the real trouble-makers.
When Buddhist nuns commit armed robbery you never target Catholic priests.
John,
“Asian” is a term concocted by Britian’s elites to fudge differences and to avoid facing a couple of unpleasant realities.
It is the British equivalent of France’s “Youths”.
I see the point you are making, but I can’t agree. The term ‘asian’ has been in use for decades, long before the current situation, and has been used as a descriptor for a relatively recently arrived population with (very broadly) similar traditions, values and issues - not least of which was racism, which of course saw no need to differentiate.
Whether that descriptor is no longer useful or appropriate is more or less the topic being discussed and several different but valid views have been put forward. Is it really progress to assign people, de haut en bas, to a group defined by a religious belief they are assumed to hold? During the eight or so years I spent living in largely Islamic countries I was generally assumed to be a Christian and seldom bothered to correct that impression, but that is rather different to being told as a resident I was part of the Christian community and would be thus spoken for by Christian community leaders.
Besides, are the elites (and I think you may be credditing them with rather more machiavelian cunning than they possess) really trying to fudge the difference? Isn’t the opposite the case? That the government actively encourages narrow definitions, a series of discrete ‘communities’ with a little group of spokesmen who tell the answers they want to hear?
I don’t think the best way forward is to distinguish Hindus and Sikhs from ‘that other group of South Asians’ (just to claify, we’re not talking about Jains here, right?). There are probably better lines to draw.
Good point(s), well made Don.
I think the usage of the term ‘Asian’ should be made more precise, hence ‘South Asian’, or better still, ‘Southasian’. And by way of qualification, I refer to Kanak Dixit’s stylistic reasons:
What about West Indian Hindus or Muslims from countries like Guyana and Trinidad? They are not South Asian. Are they classified as Asian or West Indian?
They were Indians who travelled to the West Indies mostly as indentured labourers, I think. They are almost exclusively of Southasian stock.
[They were Indians who travelled to the West Indies mostly as indentured labourers, I think. They are almost exclusively of Southasian stock.]
Oh, I know that. What I meant was, is it fair to consider them Asian or South Asian or would they prefer to be seen as West Indians? Or perhaps there are some who would rather be seen as Asian and others who would rather be lumped along with the other West Indians, namely the African-origin ones. Otherwise, are African-origin West Indians called Africans in Britain (being of African stock) or West Indian?
From what I’ve been told by West Indian “Indian” friends, all of those terms are applicable rather than square-pegging themselves into one self-restrictive racial moniker - which would imply an equally self-restrictive identity.
[From what I’ve been told by West Indian “Indian” friends, all of those terms are applicable rather than square-pegging themselves into one self-restrictive racial moniker - which would imply an equally self-restrictive identity.]
Thanks. I was just curious.
Asian does not equal Muslim.
Muslim does not equal riotous/terrorist/backward/bad.
I think the Hindu forum are being divisive - we all look like ‘Pakis’ to a racist anyway.
Nice of ITV to show Muslims men and women crying after the bomb blast instead of the Hindus.
BBC Asian Network today played the lovely ‘Subhan Allha’ song from the film ‘Fanna’ which was about Kashmir terrorism in midst of their coverage of the bombings.
Very timely and very tastefully done for the Hindus as usual at their hour of grief.
Leicester Mercury the local paper in Leicester (where the majority Hindus live and have contributed and loved and made it their own)the paper choose not to make India their front page story.
I wonder why the Hindus want their own identity recognised at political level?
Sunny:
“Hi Desi, interesting this… will get back to you on the identity thing.”
The “identity” thing in post # 71 is clear: this UK organization is obviously trying to build an image of Hindus as the “model minority” in the UK, a move not too far off from the “Hindu Americans” are doing here.
Sunray, Sanj et al - the problem is that there has been a growth in political Islam - a very loud, vocal type of political Islam in the UK and elsewhere. This has not developed in a vacuum, its appeal is a direct result of economic deprivation.
The problem in the UK is that up until the 1980’s there were a lot more ‘Asian’, ‘Black’ or ‘Indian’, ‘Pakistani’ etc organisations, most of them were community funded.
But over the years groups based on religious identity - such as the MCB have taken over that mantel. They privilege religion over everything else and there is a new generation of young Muslims growing up who describe themselves as Muslims above all and put the ‘Ummah’ above any other loyalties.
The government has stupidly encouraged this by going to religious groups - mosques, gurdwaras etc as a means of communicating with ‘minorities’ and we’ve seen the decline of secular ethnic groups and the growth of relgious based organisations as funding is organised around religious identity rather than ethnic background.
Not only has this led to a seperation of Muslims from other Asians (which I believe has happened, at least at the rhetorical level by ‘community leaders’) but also a seperation of Asians and Blacks - where once there were strong anti-racist coalition groups involving people of Afro-Carribean and Asian backgrounds, it is now rare for an Asian person to describe himself as Black or for an Afro-Carribean to take the description seriously. More and more minorities are keen to assert their differences at the expense of a wider shared experience of racism. It’s understandable - as our communities feel less threatened by the host community we are less likely to feel the need to stick together, and as our communities get bigger we find more people who are closer to us - in religion, language, ethnicity - for us to form micro-communities with.
However, I believe we need to be very careful with where we are going with this.
I agree that ‘Asian’ is a hugely broad term and there are of course lots of different religions, ethnicities etc within the term. However, what concerns me is that any desire for distinction should not be based on the need to show that ‘We Hindus are the nice law-abiding, economically contributing Asians - and these Muslims are all lunatic suicide bombers.’ It’s easy to forget that quite apart from the not too distant atrocities in Gujrat, Muslims do encounter discrimination and prejudice in India (even here in the UK I know of one Hindu family who refuses to eat food that has been touched by a Muslim).
Yes, the government has been wrong to focus on Muslims and neglect others and yes, the media is obsessed with Muslims (although if I was Hindu I wouldn’t envy the kind of attention Muslims get these days) and these are serious issues which are clearly dividing communities.
But the attack in Bombay may or may not have been motivated as an attack on Hindus. Whatever the case, the result is casualties of all religions, who are all Indian. In a country where Muslims are an economically deprived minority, with a shocking history of communal violence from both relgions, we need to be careful not to allow these kind of dreadful acts of terrorism to be used to divide ordinary people, otherwise the terrorists have won.
And just a couple more things - Desi Italiana - spot on as are Mirax (as always) and Don.
And good point about the Chinese - if I was South-East Asian I would be getting quite miffed at all these ‘Asians’ and their ‘issues’.
Hi Fatwadodger!
Good to see you back here.
Go on Cif and read Faisal Bodi, who is pretty much in support of the religious tagging - no surprise there. As a rule, if FB is in support of a position, sane observers would do well to move to a point that is 180 degrees of that position.
>>And good point about the Chinese - if I was South-East Asian I would be getting quite miffed at all these ‘Asians’ and their ‘issues’.
It was thus with the oldham riots. It was on the telly and news and some of us over here were thinking “Asians in pitched battles with police in the UK? What the fuck was going on?” It was a bit of a shock to see the asian tag being used since so many of us identified with it but the rioters were quite alien to us.
I believe similar sentiments are behind this move by SOME hindus to dissociate themselves from the asian label, slyly abetted by a government that seems keen to deal with ‘faith-based communities’ and cheered on by the likes of Bodi. I don’t know if this move will succeed but hope at the worst, Brit hindus, Sikhs settle for the “indian” identity tag which is an ethnic rather than religious marker
Sikhs settle for the “indian” identity tag
Heh, don’t be so sure. You think Sikh orgs are not playing this game for a piece of the pie?
>>Heh, don’t be so sure. You think Sikh orgs are not playing this game for a piece of the pie.
Probably but I hope that good sense prevails.
I enjoyed watching nearly the entire group of CiF commenters taking the piss out of FB. He almost seems to relish the punishment doesn’t he?
His crack about your “Babu-English” verged on the racist - can you imagine a white journalist writing that and getting away with it?
Here is what I make of the article that I quoted. Note, I am only making claims based on the phrases, and it is entirely possible that I may be reading things into it that might not even be there. This is because I am most familiar with Hindu politics in the US, within the US context, and so I tend to situate it as such. Anybody could put their 2 cents in here, since most of ya’ll are British and would know better than I do.
–”has assimilated well into the British culture. Hindus achieve highly in education, have diversified into many professions and have very low crime rates”.
This here points out that Hindus are “well assimilated” into British culture, are highly educated, and have low crime rates (in contrast to which other immigrants and/or minorities??????)*
= Hindus are a model minority.
–“For example, in 2001 there were major riots in parts of North England between Pakistani/Bangladeshi and white communities. This incident was described by the media as ‘Asian’ vs white, although there were no Hindus involved.”
Hindus are different from Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities (who were entangled in riots with whites–maybe because they are not well assimilated and highly educated???)*, but are lumped in with them under the umbrella term of “Asian”.
–”Hindus make a large contribution economically and culturally to British life”
=model minority
–”This lack of unity between Hindus is quite common and does not exist among other faiths in the UK such as in the Muslim and Jewish communities”.
This theme of disunity– and in their mind, in stark contrast to Muslims and Jews– is an obsession of the Hindus here in America. Most all compare themselves to how Muslims and Jews PRESUMABLY have a united, single political voice. They would like to emulate this. And it is interesting that this article was on the webiste of the HSC, a North American set up. This piece was in tandem with a series of articles that claimed that Hindus, because they are “disunited, pluralistic, and tolerant peoples”, have suffered and been the victims and prey of others worldwide. Thus, they need to step up and create both a global Hindu community and a network of transnational alliances (I am being serious, some articles actually stated this).
Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the writer of the piece that I quoted had wanted to say this. But that was the whole atmosphere around the time that I pulled this up (circa Oct/Nov 2005) and have been pulled off the website the last time I checked for some mysterious reason (actually, entire section of articles written by “popular writers” [sic] is no longer available.)
*multiple question marks, ie “????”, indicates an inquisitive assertion** that may not be relevant or accurate.
** “inquisitive assertion”??
There seem to be a number of competing reasons for promoting particular identities:
- to avoid being associated with other people
- in order to be associated with other people
- to engender pride in your social/religious group (which can then be mobilised to good as well as bad ends)
- to engender solidarity with others in a social/religious group as numbers can provide more power to lobby and for mutual aid.
- to make it easier for other people to understand why you have different habits, rules and preoccupations.
I don’t think any of them can be presumed as always good or bad, so rather than get bogged down in judging them, I’d focus on the different ways we assert identities, e.g., in conflict, in competition, or irrelevant to other identities.
I’d say Hindu identities should complement, not displace Asian or British or other identities. I think PP writers often assert that we have multiple identities and we should not be made to choose between them to serve someone else’s political agenda. This solves our social theory problem, but not the problem of media representation.
The question for me then becomes in what contexts we should talk about Hindu and about Asian and other identities to explain what is happening. Using the Hindu Forum’s example, I think that if the media reports “Asian people rioting”, then that is unfair if the protestors actually do not see themselves as being in solidarity as Asian people in the context of the riots. If they feel solidarity because of a more specific common ethnicity, or as local residents who happen to be Asian, or as members of a particular religion, then it should be reported in that way.
If we do not know the basis of their solidarity, it should not be assumed. The media should undertake some journalism, or report its speculation as being speculation. The description of activities suggests something about the identity dynamics of the riot - so it should be an identity which the rioters themselves would assert in their conflict rather than one that just looks right.
Even this is not specific enough, because what of people who consider themselves to share their identity but not solidarity with the rioters? We’d want a description that is limited to the group that shares this solidarity. This might be too much to expect of journalists to know, so this is probably why they like polls so much. Once they have seen past the apparent identity, to find the asserted identity, people can then research the limits of solidarity within the asserted identity (though I don’t trust this to be nuanced enough to be very meaningful).
This won’t settle any arguments, but we might take a few breaths while trying to understand social dynamics slightly better.
Fabulous post Arif
Think you’re right on the money Desi Italiana.
Good post Desi Italiana.
I complained to the BBC about that word after the murder of the Black teenager Isaiah Young-Sam in Birmingham.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4992966.stm
They said they would pass on the complaint to someone else to deal with. Probably a box standard reply, i don’t know.
There was a time when ‘black’ was an umbrella term for Asians, Africans, and even some Europeans. I think it makes more sense to define communities by their culture/ethnic background than by religion, race or region.
That is why I welcome the term “British Indian” as opposed to Asian, Hindu, Muslim, etc. Over these 50 years, Pakistan and India have matured their own identities, and it’s about time we reflect that here.
I agree with both sides of the arguments and they both make sense, but the bottom line is, the world is changing and Indians are responding to that change.
This may be new to some of you folks but ‘Ignoring the Hindus’ trend started a few years ago in our very own backyard by our very own people.
At the BBC ASIAN NETWORK RADIO.
Oh dear.
Do I hear “Here he goes again”.
Tough!
To be honest before they started ignoring Hindus, I didn’t even care, but they just kept ignoring and ignoring and ignoring and ignoring over other religions namely Sikhs and Muslims.
Again it simple things like not getting headlines on the front page of the Newspaper is such a petty demand or complaint to make in light of all the dead and destruction.
But looking at it politically the need for this headline is important in that it shows that the West do have feeling.
So little thing like this builds up. When we ask for recognitions we get slammed for being petty by Muslims would you believe!! Its so funny listening to those hypocrites on the radio. Anitas chat show last Mondays on this identity issue.
Even with simple things like getting employment where the trend after 2001 was to employ Muslims above all other even if they were not suitable. I don’t have figures or direct proof but judging by where I work and the people targeted by my employer and finally employed, it was certainly clear what they meant by recruiting more Asians.
Some of you may remember the Civil Service also wanted more Asians as long they were Muslims.
If you want to favour Muslims then by all means do it, but just don’t do it in he name of Asians and then ignore Hindus and Sikhs.
Little events like these are happening and Hindus are responding to that change.
Another petty example. Lets take the release of Krrish. So how did they ignore Indians. Well on the day of release of Krrish there was very little coverage on the Asian Network in the morning. This is a special film in light of it being a first REAL superhero Indian film. Weve had Mr India and Mr Sahensha but both were rubbish in terms of being called Superheroes.
Off course this week Superman is released and wow, gets great coverage yesterday, today and even became a News item on its programmes!! It will no doubt get more coverage discussion competitions etc tomorrow.
Any other film I don’t give damn but in light of all the pre hype of both Krrish and Superman going head to head in India, certainly deserved the recognition from day one.
Its funny they only decide to interview Roshan today!!!
Why? Sympathy after the bombings?
Its too late BBC.
So my argument about the BBC Asian being biased goes on and I don’t really care if you people mock it don’t agree with it or whatever.
Im not the only Indian saying this either.
The only way Hindus will get recognition is to demand for it.
They certainly wont get it on a plate as do Jews and Muslims.
Will the BBC Asian Network make any efforts to cover the world renowned (amongst the Hindu community)
and very popular Hindu teacher of today.
He is due in Leicester tomorrow.
I wonder if they know who it is at all.
I wait and see how much coverage he gets. If any.
Sunray, calm down a bit. Do you seriously think that a lack of hype over a bollywood film like Krrish helps you make a coherent argument about marginalisation?
All my examples are petty I said.
But these little petty things build up over time.
Sunray - Your arguments about employment are pretty lame too. Hindus have a much higher rate of employment than Muslims, that is a fact mate, not just some anecdotal evidence from where you work.
And you think Muslims are given job preferences over others? Based on what? That is not what others have found:
http://www.asiansinmedia.org/news/article.php/radio/507
Again, most of your arguments are born out of a victim mentality rather than real figures.
Muslims may be getting a raw deal but that survey proved there is racism against Asians as it did not give percentage of Hindus Sikhs rejected. My comments are based on observation around me and in my own employment. Yes Muslims were picked over other Asians. It’s a fact hard to chew but its happened. I also said my research is not conclusive of what may go on overall across the country.
Lets not suddenly turn a blind eye to Hindus and Sikhs who are also getting a raw deal. Yes Hindus and Sikhs overall are better employed because of their qualifications and not because of favouritism.
You media people like to twist thing to suit your own stories. No wonder Hindus want to be identified.
No not identified but recognised that they exist and that they too have problems.
Its not all rosy cosy for us.
“They certainly wont get it on a plate as do Jews and Muslims.”
Incorrect, the BBC is blatantly anti-Israeli and anti-Christian as well.
The coverage of Israel is so biased. I don’t agree with what Israel does BUT the BBC has a duty to respond in a NON-BIASED manner. This is clearly not the case.
This is an extract of a speech Given by David Cameron last Friday at the Morari Bapu Katha.
FULL SPEECH @
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=131074&speeches=1
………………………………………………………….The lessons of the Ramayana are timeless and go far beyond the sub-continent of India.
It offers something for all of us to learn - devotion to duty, integrity and the pursuit of truth.
And of course, every year at Diwali, Hindus in Britain and throughout the world celebrate the triumph of good over evil.
Hindus - a successful and vital part of Britain
Being here today not only reminds me of the lessons offered by Hinduism as a faith, but also of the example set by British Hindus themselves.
It’s hardly surprising that British Hindus have been such a successful part of our nation.
After all, the values you brought with you when you arrived here are those traditionally associated with Britain: tolerance, honesty, enterprise, and respect for the law.
Indeed, in your desire to live independently of the Government while never shirking from contributing to the community, you embody the British ideal of balancing freedoms with duties.
You have also helped to strengthen some values which have at times seemed to be in decline, such as commitment to the family.
It is a commitment at the heart of my approach to politics.
But the Hindu community isn’t just a part of this country in a strictly demographic sense.
It’s much more important than that.
You’re a vital part of the Britain that we’re building together.
I believe that we’re a dynamic nation with a famous past and a brilliant future.
Who can look at the next generation and not feel optimism and pride?
Problems
Of course, life is never perfect and, as we build, I know there are things that worry you.
Too often, politicians seem to believe that British Hindus have no problems or concerns, and can therefore be ignored.
In a sense, you’re victims of your own success.
Everyone knows that British Hindus are good citizens.
In your everyday lives - within the family, at work and in the community - you’re making real those famous words of Gandhi: “We must be the change we want to see in the world.”
……………………………………………………….
British Hindus are truly British, but have achieved this without giving up their religious and cultural traditions.
And if you prefer to be referred to as British Hindus or British Indians rather than as simply Asians, we should welcome that as a positive thing.
……………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………..
As we bring Britain together so we can start to bring the world together, united in our common humanity.
That is something that Bapu understands better than almost anyone.
And so I’m grateful that you have allowed me to be with you for a short time this morning. I wish you well for the remainder of the Festival.”
FULL SPEECH SEE
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=131074&speeches=1