Friday 18 April 2008

Forty Years On

This article of mine appears in The Brussels Journal:

Forty years ago, Enoch Powell delivered his Rivers of Blood speech. Powell knew and loved the Indian sub-continent, where he observed that all politics was communal. One party was Hindu, one Muslim, one Sikh, one Untouchable, and so forth. As a result – and this is the crucial point – people who lost elections or other votes did not accept the result and get on with things. They rioted, or worse. Sometimes a very great deal worse.

Powell believed that mass immigration from the former British India would import this communal style of politics, and everything that went with it. But he was wrong. Wasn’t he?

Late last month, 300 Labour members in Derby defected to the Tories on an Indian communal basis. The only surprise in any of this is that those in question would want to join the Tories. They had just welcomed a Tower Hamlets Councillor who found the local Respect operation too Trotskyist rather than, as he preferred, Islamist. And they are affiliated to the European People's Party, as is Turkey’s ruling AKP, the leaders of which are in no sense “former Islamists” and would not have been elected if they were.

Apart from that, this sort of thing is entirely predictable, and set to become increasingly common. The Tories’ vehicles toured Ealing Southall proclaiming in various South Asian languages that Muslim, Hindu and Sikh festivals were to be made public holidays by the Tories. Then that party's "Quality of Life Commission" (don't laugh, it's real) published a report advocating that "local communities" be given the power to designate three public holidays in their respective localities.

In other words, the Tories are going to go around Asian areas at the next Election making this same promise all over again, adjusted according to how Muslim, Hindu or Sikh the particular constituency, ward or addressee happens to be.

After this, what else are these unspecified "local communities" going to decide? Who are they, exactly? I think we all know that they are the great and the good of the local mosque, mandir or gurdwara. Getting to decide this, and then a whole lot more, is to be their price for getting out the vote, sometimes consisting of nothing more than reminding their mates to fill in postal ballot papers the right way on behalf of their entire households.

These situations will easily perpetuate themselves, since people will move - not just from around the country, but from around the world - to live in Cameron’s little Caliphates, Hindutvas and Khalistans.

I can only exclaim: “Enoch Powell, thou shouldst be living at this hour!”

David Lindsay is a visibly mixed-race English-speaking Christian and social-democrat

So I am.

9 comments:

  1. I was at university with you - knew who you were, saw you give various speeches, but didn't know you well - and I never had any idea you were mixed race. Happy to accept that you are, but "visibly"? Not on your life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You'd see it if you met me again after having read this. If I had every penny that I'd seen drop after I've mentioned some aspect of my background or introduced people to certain of my relatives, then I'd be a rich man.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No... still not dropped. I believe you about your background... but "visibly"? No.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As I said, you'd have to see me, knowing what you know now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I got an old university friend to email me a photo with you in it. Still can't see it, even knowing what I know now.

    You're no more "visibly mixed-race" than that other Durham old-boy, Mark Clarke (remember him?) - now a Tory candidate, incidentally. In fact, he's probably more visibly mixed-race than you, which isn't saying much, and I had no idea until he was flagged up as one of their ethnic minority candidates.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hello David - I've been reading your blog a little bit recently and have been very interested (and agreed) with a lot you've been saying. I do find it a bit disappointing though that you seem to be a touch rigid in some of your views. It seems a shame as it would be great if some of this thinking could be injected into political discourse, without being dismissed as dogmatic.

    So for instance your thoughts here; also what seems like a slight dismissiveness (I hope I'm not being unfair here) of the philsophies and values which have arisen from non-European "civilisations". As someone with a Hindu background, I feel I'm being put in a box and, frankly, excluded. And your comments don't describe a reality I recognise. Even my family votes nothing like a block. My mother is a liberal Hindu with views quite similar to your own: anti-New-Labour (especially Blair), anti-Cameron, pro-life, pro-family, and pro what she would define as "workers" (here she might part company with you - she has right-wing views on the benefits system). My religious views are probably closest to Hinduism (have you read any Swami Vivekananda? A very interesting man) but not quite: politically until recently I'd have described as myself as a left-liberal but am disillusioned now with the traditional categories now and think politics needs to be rethought in terms of the underlying morality (i.e. our duties to each other). My sister is an atheist of the angry variety, and a Green. So you see, we don't really fit in a box.

    I'm not looking for a rebuttal from you...but it would be nice if you'd think about what I've said though I've not expressed it very clearly. Especially if one day you are involved in the running of the country!

    ReplyDelete
  7. You mother would be very welcome as aprt of our project. As would you, of course. But imported communal politics are a real and growing problem in Britain. Surely you would not deny that?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry for my late reply - have been preoccupied with personal matters. To be honest, I do not know enough about communal politics in Britain, and this exchange makes me think I should find out more. So thank you for pointing this out to me.

    I am not sure you are addressing my point though, as I was neither denying nor arguing for the existence of communal politics. I am glad that you are extending your welcome (and did not see you as "exclusivist" in that sense). My concern is more that there might be a lack of recognition that values you hold might arise out of other cultural/religious backgrounds. So for instance, there is an admirable strain of liberalism, tolerance and concern for the sanctity of life in Hinduism, although of course there are plenty from Hindu backgrounds who fail, miserably, in upholding these values. It is not so deterministic - and I suspect on a proper investigation that the resort to communal politics would prove to be much more complex an affair than could be explained purely by the religion(s) of the country of origin.

    You are entitled to your view that Christianity is the best structure to uphold these values - though I might disagree, perhaps you are empirically correct. But would an openness to the opinions of those who hold the same values but different "groundings" to them be a bad thing? I think that's what I'm trying to say, long-windedly.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not, it would be exactly how to win elections. Which is what we are going to do.

    ReplyDelete