POWERS OF TRANSFORMATION
Leicester City Council once took out advertisements in the Ugandan Press in an
attempt to deter the country's dispossessed Asians from settling in their town.
Still they came.The city simply has not been the same since, writes SALIL
TRIPATHI.
Picture yourself on a Grey morning in an alien land, with the sky overcast and
the rain falling silently, as you emerge bleary-eyed, holding a suitcase in one
hand, a precious British passport in the other hand. You have left behind a
warm, tropical city called Kampala, with its lush countryside and brilliant sun.
You have also left behind everything your family had owned, after building a
business over two generations. It isn’t easy being robbed of all possessions
and kicked out of one country and landing up on another shore, the passport
being the sole, tenuous link.
The British officials are sour and the bureaucrats are cheerless, letting you in
reluctantly. They give you ham sandwiches, not aware that you might be a Muslim,
or a chaste vegetarian Hindu or Jain. And they tell you not to go to Leicester.
“There are no jobs there, no houses either. We cannot help you if you go to
Leicester.”
They fear the hordes of other Asians that will follow you from the woodworks of
former colonies, flashing British passports, turning up at the doorstep of a
once-mighty colonial empire, seeking equal status as citizens. The mood is
sullen: the empire has shrunk; the Jewel in the Crown, India, is gone; the Suez
debacle has humiliated Britain; and African colonies are becoming independent,
one-by-one.
Jafar Kapasi was one of some 30,000 Asians who left Uganda for Stansted Airport
in November, 1972. He had £55 with him in his pocket, the sum total of his
remaining wealth, but he also had fierce determination. Uganda had been his
home; India was where his parents came from, and the British passport was going
to be the key with which he would unlock his potential and create a new, even
better life for his children than what he had enjoyed in Uganda.
His nightmare began with a coup which brought General Idi Amin to power in
Uganda. Within months he began berating Indians: You had come to build the
railways for the British. The British have gone. Now you, too, must go, and
leave behind the wealth you have milked from Uganda.
Indians did control almost all business in Uganda in those days. Amin saw
Indians as parasites prospering while Africans toiled; he called them
“bloodsuckers.” In August 1972 Amin informed Indians they had 90 days to
leave the country. There were over 80,000 of them, and surely the general must
have been joking, many thought in their clubs and gymkhanas, over tea and
kanda-na-bhajias (onion bhaji).
To be sure, Indians did keep to themselves. Few married Africans and many were
cunning traders, of the kind that emerge in Paul Theroux’s early novel, “Fong
and the Indians”. As Amin’s deadline neared, their treatment worsened;
some sold their property at distress prices, others found their businesses
confiscated. Many were robbed on their way to the airport.
Kapasi and his family left their home, daring roadblocks to get to Entebbe
Airport. Abandoning everything but what they could fit into a van, they trundled
towards Kampala, being looted by Ugandan soldiers at every stop. They managed to
get to the airport alive only because an officer who used to shop at their store
helped them. Kapasi refuses to forget what he had been through, but says: “I
was determined to get back the high standard of living that we had lost. It
provided me with the motivation to succeed.”
It is important for such experiences not to be forgotten because nostalgia can
perform its familiar trick, of allowing us to remember the past, but not the
pain. For example, last year, as Britain celebrated the 30th
anniversary of the arrival of British Asians in the UK, a collective amnesia
seemed to grip the country. Edward Heath’s Conservative Government got the
credit for opening the door for the British Asians when nobody would accept
them. But declassified cabinet papers show that Britain tried hard to fob them
off elsewhere. India was a natural option, but it was the first to refuse,
reminding Britain correctly that the Ugandan Asians had British passports; and
pointing out that the poor country was already burdened with refugees from East
Pakistan, which had become Bangladesh less than a year ago. Heath then
considered sending them to an island, maybe Solomon Islands in the Pacific, or
even Falklands Islands, but in the end, accepted them in Britain.
Leicester officials were alarmed when they heard that Asians wanted to come to
their city. Leicester was a declining city then, with businesses closing and
city services stretched. The Leicester City Council placed ads in Ugandan
newspapers, warning the Indians: “In your own interests and those of your
family you should accept the advice of the Uganda Settlement Board and not come
to Leicester.”
Bloody foreigners, Leicester’s leaders must have thought, presaging arguments
about “bogus asylum seekers” today. Indians would be scroungers who wanted
benefits without contributing to the State, they assumed. These worries found an
echo at the highest levels. In 1974, after Labour returned to power, Prime
Minister Harold Wilson’s government feared further immigration from Kenya,
where President Jomo Kenyatta had passed a law requiring foreigners to have work
permits. Indians, stung by the Ugandan experience, feared this was the precursor
of another expulsion. Anticipating another influx, Home Secretary James
Callaghan changed laws which effectively ended the freedom of entry of Asians,
but not the white settlers, from East Africa. Even after acknowledging that the
idea of creating a new class of citizenship and restricting the right of some
British citizens to settle in Britain would run counter not only to
international legal standards, but also to a liberal, inclusive ideology which
Labour claimed to possess, the cabinet went ahead, spuriously claiming that the
distinction it was drawing up between two classes of British nationals was
geographical, not racial. Those who could trace UK ancestors were exempt -- and
few, other than whites, could trace UK ancestors. Callaghan protested: “I
repudiate emphatically the suggestion that it is racialist in origin or in
conception or in the manner in which it is being carried out.”
Recounting a recently declassified memo in an article in the New Statesman,
Mark Lattimer reveals Callaghan noting: “It is sometimes argued that we can
take a less serious view of the scale of immigration and settlement in this
country because it could be more than offset by total emigration. This view
overlooks the important point that emigration is largely by white persons…
while immigration and settlement are largely by colored persons. The exchange,
thus, aggravates rather than alleviates the problem. When we decided to
legislate to slow down Asian immigration from East Africa, we took our stand
partly on the ground that a sudden influx of this kind …. imposed an
intolerable strain on the social services.” Today’s red-tops would approve
such a message; they’d find a pithier way of saying it.
Callaghan’s legislative changes came on top of the thunderous “rivers of
blood” speech Enoch Powell made in Birmingham in the late 1960s, warning
Britain of the kind of bloody warfare that lay ahead, if citizens of former
colonies were allowed into Britain without any control. What was deemed a fringe
view was now becoming a government policy. Graffiti like “wogs go home”, and
abbreviations like “KBW” (Keep Britain White) began sprouting like weeds in
an unattended backyard in summer. Columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who was a
child when she arrived from Uganda, told the BBC last year she remembered
“people standing at airports with placards telling us ‘to get back to where
you came from’.”
Today Kapasi can afford to laugh at this as a bad dream. Much has changed in his
life. Not only is he a leading financial consultant, he is also a proud
recipient of an OBE, runs local charities and is regarded as a community leader.
And the community has grown, in size and wealth. Educationally, Indians are
outperformed only by the Chinese, and according to the Sunday Times’s ratings
of the richest people in the UK, Indians from East Africa, such as Manubhai
Madhvani and Jasminder Singh figure. According to an analysis by Garavi Gujarat,
a leading Gujarati publication in Britain, some 65% of Indians earn more than £30,000
a year. The average Indian earns £460 a week, when compared with Pakistani (£270),
black (£260) and white (£334).
To understand Indian wealth in Leicester, step out of Kapasi’s office and turn
right, heading for Belgrave Road, once marked for demolition, but today it is
known as Leicester’s Golden Mile. Belgrave Road used to be a motley collection
of run-down buildings but today Asian business presence has transformed the
place. The Diwali celebrations in Leicester, heralding the Hindu New Year, are
believed to be the biggest outside India. Today more jewelry is sold, it is
said, in Belgrave Road than anywhere else in Europe.
Belgrave Road is the high street of Indian Leicester, and Leicester is the most
Indian city in Britain. By 2011, it is believed, the majority of Leicester’s
population will be of Asian origin, making Leicester the first city of its size
where the white community will be a minority.
In a dramatic reversal, Leicester is not alarmed by it; rather, it celebrates
it. Last year, the City Council apologized for those advertisements it had
placed in Ugandan newspapers in 1972, urging Indians not to move to Leicester.
Ross Wilmot, the Leader of the Council last year, told the BBC: “It was
clearly a mistake. Of course there are people in our society who still have very
strong, negative and racist views. But I know in Leicester the experience of
living in a multicultural city has helped educate people to live together in
peace and harmony.”
Today, Indians are as important to Leicester as the Jews, fleeing Tsarist
pogroms, were to Manchester, or the Huguenots, fleeing French Catholic
vengeance, were to Spitalfields. Remarkably, the textile trade played an
interesting role. Huguenots in the East End traded in silk; Mancunian Jews
focused on waterproof clothing, and Leicester had its hosiery and knitwear
trade, a business Indians understood intimately. The arrival of Indians
transformed Leicester.
The writer Nathan Franklin, who grew up in Leicester, noted recently: “In the
1970s and 1980s, Leicester suffered the same decline as any number of
post-industrial towns in the Midlands and the north of England. But whereas
other towns become more alike in success, their progress counted in branches of
McDonald's and Gap - each declines in its own way. Partly because the recovery
of the city and its satellite estates is not quite complete, Leicester’s
individuality remains palpable.”
What makes Leicester unique are Belgrave Road’s glittering shops selling gold
jewelry and a veritable basement bazaar (T.F. Cash and Carry), a no-nonsense
7,000 square ft shop selling everything from incense, idols, Indian music, even
cooking vessels made of stainless steel. There are vast sari shops and busy
vegetarian restaurants, a lively handicrafts store and the tasteful art gallery
of Maz Mashru, an internationally-renowned photographer, whose clients include
Sir Trevor McDonald and former Speaker of the House of Commons, Betty Boothroyd.
“Jai Shri Krishna”, Leicester’s Gujaratis greet each other, as they go
about buying clothes and foodstuff in this perpetual oriental bazaar, stepping
into Mirch Masala restaurant for a Jain bhel (no onions, garlic or potatoes),
buy audiotapes from Jeram Music Centre, drown sorrows in Club Mumbai Blues, and
try out salwar-kameez outfits at the trendy shop, Indi-Kal. Many of these
shops are owned and run by Ugandan- or Kenyan-Indians. Arriving with nothing,
they quickly set about trying to rebuild the luxurious lives they had lived in
East Africa. “They never seem to retire,” says Professor Richard Bonney of
Leicester University, who has studied the community.
It is easy to find Ugandan Asian success stories elsewhere as well. In politics
Shailesh Vara is now vice-chairman of the Conservative Party while Lata Patel
was Mayor of Brent. Asif Din was an accomplished Warwickshire cricketer, while
Tarique Ghaffur is the deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
Manubhai Madhvani’s business empire, with its interests in sugar, brewing and
tourism, is estimated at $245 million.
Today, Indians account for some 25% of Leicester’s population, and 15 of the
56 councilors are Asians. The community’s success has not aroused resentment
or envy, but there are some rumblings.
Internally, community elders complain about rising divorce rates. Over snacks at
a restaurant, several of the old men complained of “our girls” wanting to
marry boys they meet in pubs. One man complains that he saw somebody’s
daughter hugging and kissing “a foreigner” (which could mean a Muslim, a
black, or a white) at a bus stop in broad daylight. While the City Council has
embraced the Diwali celebrations, and pays for dandiya ras, a folk dance
performed with sticks, the city’s non-discriminatory policies mean
Leicester’s Hindus cannot prohibit others, particularly Muslims, from
participating. “Then those boys meet our girls, and trouble starts,” one man
laments. Another man recounts how he saw an Indian teenager smoking, and asked
him not to smoke, but the teenager shot back: Mind your own business. “Arre,
even Idi Amin was better. He only took away our assets. This country is taking
away our children!” he sighs.
One peculiar issue has emerged, galvanizing some Indians into action. Some
Hindus feel strongly about their right to immerse the ashes of their dead
relatives in the river around Leicester, an Avon tributary. Britain allows such
immersions in three rivers, and Leicester’s Asians would like to add a fourth
one.
Such discussions exasperate Ramnik Kavia, who will take over as Leicester’s
Lord Mayor in May, the third Asian to hold that august office in its 300 year
history. Kavia says: “There are alternatives available, such as sending the
ashes to India, where a priest will perform the proper ceremony in the holy
Ganga. What is the need for insisting upon doing it here?” Pravin Ruparelia of
the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, a voluntary Hindu organization affiliated to the
controversial Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Voluntary Force) of India,
agrees. “Hindus need to emerge from this blind faith over rituals. Is the
immersion of ashes really the most important issue affecting Hindus?”
He is right. A more important issue affecting all Asians is the glass ceiling.
While many admirers praise Asian entrepreneurs and point out how Indian-owned
cornershops, Bangladeshi restaurants, and Indian-owned pharmacies have
transformed British retail industry, Shailesh Solanki, executive editor of Garvi
Gujarat, points out: “Asians are successful in these businesses not because
they have a special aptitude for it, but because they found it difficult to
succeed in mainstream companies.” At a discussion forum organized by the
Centre for Social Markets in Leicester, one entrepreneur points out how he was
persistently overlooked for promotions by a blue chip British company, which
kept sending him to training courses instead. “I got fed up improving my
qualifications, as though I was perpetually the one requiring training.”
British Asians look at the astonishing success of Indian professionals in the
United States, where Indian-Americans run many of America’s top corporate
icons. Rajat Gupta runs McKinsey and Co., Vinod Khosla co-founded Sun
Microsystems, Victor Menezis is one of the seniormost executives at Citicorp,
Arun Netravali heads Bell Labs, Fareed Zakaria edits Newsweek magazine, and
Indra Nooyi is President of Pepsi, the highest-ranked Indian woman executive in
the US. There aren’t any similar Asian corporate achievers in the UK among
similar, iconic British companies.
Result: Many Indians have formed their own businesses. And now, some have formed
the British Asian Uganda Trust which raises money for British charities. The
trust’s logo shows an hourglass in which the Ugandan flag turns into the Union
Jack. Madhvani, who chairs the trust, said last year: “We came here 25 years
ago full of anxiety in an unknown land. The British people extended a welcoming
hand, enabling us to make this country our home. Very few people tend to say
thank you. We intend to be different.”
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has also appealed to the Asians to consider
investing in Uganda. “Amin was wrong; don’t punish your home,” he said in
an emotional speech at the impressive Swaminarayana Temple in Neasden a few
years ago. “You may not forget what happened, but can you forgive?” Museveni
asked plaintively. Some British Asians have made investments in Uganda since
that visit.
*
After the riots in the North last year, which engulfed Burnley, Oldham and
Bradford, many analysts feared Leicester might be next. Disaffected and jobless
Asian youths had gone on a rampage targeting white areas, and white youth, in
turn, tried tormenting Asians. It was a long, hot summer. The British National
Party put up candidates in the troubled cities and won some support, including a
handful of seats. The Leicester Council has commissioned a study to identify the
city’s strengths which have prevented such violence in Leicester.
Kavia believes Leicester’s dynamism will prevent the situation from turning
ugly. “The BNP won’t have a leg to stand on if it comes here,” he says.
“They thrive in depressed areas, and Leicester is not depressed,” he
continues. There is another element, too, one that is politically-incorrect to
state.
Unlike Bradford and Burnley, the majority of Leicester’s Asians are not
Kashmiris, Bangladeshis or Pakistanis, but Indians. And while there are Muslims
among the Indians, many of them are from the Gujarati community of Bohras, who
are traders first. Disaggregating the Asian community in this manner may run
counter to multicultural cliches about communities, but it helps identifies and
clarifies issues. As Britain becomes a more multicultural society, and that
multiculturalism spreads beyond M25 to other parts of the country, clearer
understanding of communities is vital. To do that, multiculturalism will have to
be divorced from political correctness. It is nobody’s case, except paranoid
right-wingers who still fear Powellian rivers of blood, that migration is
fundamentally bad for Britain. Societies which remain open to migrants -- the
United States is the foremost example, but others like Canada, Australia and
Singapore too have relatively open borders -- are able to maintain vitality and
dynamism which make other societies appear sclerotic. The success of the Ugandan
Asians in overcoming the catastrophic consequences of expulsion is the soundest
argument against restrictions on immigration. Asians from East Africa
proved that far from being a drain on the resources of host countries,
immigrants often become creators of wealth and employment. This is a lesson the
US has known for more than two centuries.
Australia-born and bred Patricia Hewitt, a minister in the Blair cabinet and a
Member of Parliament from Leicester West, wrote last year: “We should remember
that our diversity brings not only cultural richness, but also economic and
competitive advantage. In this global economy, the globe is at home in Britain.
The new generation of British Asian, Caribbean and African professionals and
entrepreneurs not only grow businesses here, they also create trade and
investment links abroad.”
Britain took about 30,000 immigrants from East Africa. Today, in Leicester,
which once so opposed the arrival of the Asians, an estimated 30,000 jobs have
been created through the rise of Ugandan Asian businesses. The debt, then, has
been repaid.