Don't Call Us Brit-Asian

We can either be British Asians or British Indians, British Pakistanis, but we can't be both, writes Nabanita Sircar.

It has been a time of mixed events. While the demise of Pope John Paul II has dominated all attention, Prince Charles has been forced to postpone his wedding by a day. Now Prime Minister Tony Blair has formally announced May 5 as the Election Day, which in all likelihood he is set to win. The win of course will make him the only Labour leader to do so for three consecutive times. But in Blighty it's also a bright time for us Indians, achieving some first time records. As expected, LN Mittal has left everyone behind to become the richest man in this country. Indeed, he is the first Indian to be in that position in this country. Not just that, his valuation of £14,800 million is the highest ever achieved by any one in the 17-year history of the popular Sunday Times Rich List.

Interestingly, among the top ten richest Asians, Indians dominate. The achievement of Indians in this country is no mean feat. And one has to admire the community's resilience and determination to make a mark in most fields, not just measured by wealth, but talent and grit. Yes, I am stressing on the term Indians for a reason. It is time we are either termed as British or Indians, not Asians. I have mentioned this earlier in one of my columns and I find most Indians I know, are increasingly demanding this distinction. And I have a recent case in point - that of the six 'Asian' Labour councillors from Birmingham involved in the postal vote rigging scandal. Sorry, all six are Muslims mostly of Pakistani origin, a country with no reputation for fare democratic elections.

The entire saga to control areas of Birmingham involved allegations of death threats, intimidation and bribery. But all the six have been termed Asians. This has become a nagging problem for many. I have had a few phone calls since the news of the vote rigging was flashed, questioning why we get termed as Asians, when no Indians are involved.

For instance, for various research published about academic performances by students, there are clear distinctions made in terms of Chinese, Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani. And thankfully so! Given the excellent performance of Chinese and Indian students, if they were to be clubbed together as Asians, their effort would go quite unnoticed.

Even while publishing statistics of sexual behaviour of people in Britain, communities are specifically mentioned. So why, in other cases are we all packaged in a box called Asians? We can either be British Asians or British Indians, British Pakistanis, British Chinese, but we can't be both. It seems, when it is convenient we become British Asians or at other times become British Indians. Importantly, this is an issue the media has to understand and be sensitive about. In this age of political correctness, the media needs to create that awareness. If Europeans are specified by their countries, why people from Asia, a continent larger than and more racially and culturally varied are not given the same respect. This difference in approach and lack of basic understanding continues to surprise me.

Now with the elections round the corner and campaign getting into full swing, I am sure electoral advisors and masterminds for every party will sit and feverishly count votes, and the swing of different ethnic groups towards different parties. With the anti-Iraq war opinion among Muslims, parties will work hard on capturing the Pakistani or Bangladeshi votes. Indians will not be in their league in the same context. So why not accept this reality and make it a part of the British multi-cultural society.

Basere se dur, please call us British Indians!