Mihir Bose’s article published last month in British newspaper The Guardian, is felt by some to be that rare example of British journalism that is free of anti-Indian, anti-Hindu bias, racism, or any attempt to divide the Indian diaspora against itself. I disagree. The article also peddles factual inaccuracies about the Indian diaspora and falsely claims that Rishi Sunak divides the diaspora when he has had clearly the opposite effect.

Mihir Bose is a great and poetic writer, therefore it is startling to see his name against such an article. I will come to the factual inaccuracies in a para-by-para analysis below. First, the tone and style of this article is important to note – tone of speech, either directly or through the media, can unify or divide a group or a nation.

In the infancy of this PM’s tenure, there was room for an article appreciative of the man and his background. However, as we read, at no point do we feel love or respect flowing towards Mr Sunak, no sense of the great character and intellect that led this man to become the youngest PM in Britain’s recent history, and who stabilised the country at one of its lowest ever points of economic turmoil. There is no true warmth felt, either, for the Indian Hindu diaspora that gave birth to such a man, a people that has maintained its dignity, professional integrity, and civilisational values, despite the burden of racism, which latter point alone is mentioned.

That style of penmanship would at the very least maintain a respectful and reasonable balance, and at its best would throw a warm verbal embrace around this cherished son of the nation, a man so brilliant he has managed to rise high enough to unite us all – Indians, whites, blacks, even Pakistan wants to claim him for their own; it would swell the reader’s heart with a warm sense of human unity and national pride. It might remind us of that famous refrain in Kipling’s Ballad of East and West, which observes that while East and West are culturally different, men (and women) who rise high enough in their humanity find unity with one another rather than division.

…But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth, When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!

Rishi Sunak’s achievement is as great as that of Barak Obama. However, such an observation, and a style of rhetoric befitting of such an achievement seems reserved for favourites of the media establishment. Today, that establishment is a group that is anti-India, anti-Indian and particularly anti-Hindu. Rishi Sunak is a Hindu and an Indian, so no matter how great he is, no matter how high his achievement, fine literary content about him will not be forthcoming from Britain’s mainstream media.

Racism and division will. And this article is full of racism and divisiveness. Mihir Bose claims Mr Sunak does not represent British Indians because of our diversity of physical backgrounds historically, yet he roundly contradicts this point by reduce-unifying India to ‘Asia’ and Indians to ‘Asians’ throughout his article.

Just as when we point at something, three fingers point back at ourselves, it is in fact Bose who fails to accurately represent Indians, not Mr Sunak. Mr Sunak has united us all.

A paragraph-by-paragraph analysis to illustrate my points:

Paragraph 1:

‘brown man’ – an ugly epithet. ‘Man of colour’ is more elegant and respectful.

‘Asian migration’ – inaccurate! Asia is a massive region. The people Bose is referring to are those who hail, ethnically, from the Indian subcontinent.

‘alarm bells’, ‘hated Hindus’ – in a paragraph that contains no positive phrases to balance it, these words and phrases taint it with the irrational fear characteristic of prejudice.

Paragraph 2:

‘hatred for Hindus’ – as just noted above: with no positives to balance it, we are simply told about hating Hindus. This is thinly veiled hate speech.

The hate-filled quote from Churchill – takes up the rest of this paragraph. Once again, without positive ideas to balance the ideas of hate, this paragraph is a vehicle for prejudice.

Paragraph 3:

“wooed the Indian prime minister while speaking a few words in Gujarati, while his wife, Samantha, wore a sari” – a mocking, cartoon-like observation which conveys no sense of mutual respect or meaningful partnership.

Paragraph 4:

‘Asian migration’ – again, the use of the word Asian rather than Indian. South Asian would be closer in accuracy. “Asian” is a word disseminated by certain powerful forces of the political Left in order to strip India and Indians of their sense of national identity.

“the complexity of Asian migration” – missed out, here, is a key group of Hindu Indians who came to Britain not as economic migrants but to serve the NHS. These men and women were inspired by the idea of a governmentally-backed health system that enabled access to healthcare for even the poorest. These were medical students from stable homes who came, some against their families wishes, to build the NHS.

“Rishi Sunak does not represent all Asians” – this statement is inaccurate and a cleverly veiled attempt to undermine the new PM’s achievement and divide the community against itself and him. The facts are that Rishi Sunak is representing the British nation, and he is of Indian ethnicity. He is not PM to represent Indians and he is not ‘Asian’. Indians are proud at his achievement, which is natural, but they do not see Rishi as representing them. To say that the Indian community believe that is an insult to the intelligence of the Indian community.

Paragraph 5:

“Sunak is part of a very different wave of Asians….historically had more reason to be grateful to the Tories than to Labour” – No. Just no to this. He has united us all. Even the Pakistanis want to claim him as their own. I appreciate Rishi Sunak even though my father was from the group of Indian migrants not mentioned in this article: professional medical personnel directly from India. I have friends of Indian ethnicity who hail from various physical backgrounds. Our parents’ physical backgrounds make no difference to our friendship. We all have in common a love of Indian culture’s core humanitarian values and a respect for wisdom.

Paragraph 6:

“Those Asians faced well documented racism and hardship” – all Indian origin people have faced prejudice and racism. No British government has tried to put a stop to it.

Paragraph 8:

“In 1969, when I worked in a factory in Leicester during the summer holidays, I would have dismissed as fantasy the idea of Asians owning businesses”. Again, this ignores the existence of Indian doctors and the fact that, for a long time, the majority of NHS doctors were Indian. Additionally, some of these doctors established their own practices.

Paragraph 9:

“Labour…sees the Asian community as a homogenous one, when, as Sunak’s rise shows, it is much more complex.” Again, an attempt to undermine the sense of unity among people of Indian ethnicity. While it is true that Indian ethnicity does not equate to a single shared type or history of physical background, Sunak’s rise shows the unity of Indians in their diversity. His rise is remarkable in that regard. It is also a symbol of what India has achieved more effectively throughout her millennia long history than younger countries do in far less than half that time. Only people ignorant of India’s massive diversity – a country where from state to state you will experience different cuisines, languages, cultural and religious approaches; you will see people of different skin colours and facial features; you will find the ancestors of persecuted people like the Jews and Parsis, also the Buddhists, and you will find Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Muslims, and Hindus – only people ignorant of this magnificent and intriguing history can peddle and swallow the lie that India is a country of divisions rather than one founded on the wisdom of unity in diversity.

Advertisement