sUela Braverman has been reappointed as the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom in the newly formed Rishi Sunak cabinet. She was recently in the news for speaking on the issue of Indian diaspora. She said: “Look at migration in this country – the largest group of people who spend the most time are Indian expatriates.” Although it is too early to comment or predict the immigration policy of the Sunak government, by reappointing Braverman, the UK PM has certainly given a Signal That he wants to rein in immigration numbers.
This could be bad news for potential immigrants coming to the UK from South Asia, especially from India and Pakistan, as they will suffer the most if the UK brings in a policy to control immigration and restrict the issuance of visas. Will happen.
Before Sunak came to power, former home secretary Priti Patel had attempted to restrict migration by implementing a “Pushback Police”y”, which planned to force people back to France in small boats. This policy was abandoned as Boris Johnson feared a backlash from the judiciary. As far as immigration is concerned, Patel like Braverman Sunak, Patel and Braverman – all three are considered strong Brexiters.
Another and quite interesting similarity between the three is that they all have parents of Indian origin on either side. Rishi Sanak’s ancestors migrated from undivided India and settled in Kenya. His parents moved to Britain in the 60s. Braverman’s father was from Goa and had come to Britain via Kenya. His mother, also of Indian origin, had come to Britain from another African country, Mauritius. Both of them moved to the UK in the 60s. Patel’s parents of Indian origin also immigrated from Uganda in the same decade.
Sociologically, all these can be classified as ‘twice migrants’. Although they are placed in the broader South Asian diaspora category, East African Asians in the UK are distinct and distinct from other South Asian migrants in many ways. I would like to understand their hatred of the ‘new immigrants’, not as their individual traits, but as a social fact.
Indian migration to Africa
Indian migration to African countries took place in several phases. The initial migration was in the form of indentured laborers who were taken by European imperialists to various colonies, mostly to the sugar plantations. Mauritius and Natal in present-day South Africa were the sites for this phase of migration. Many of these laborers later decided to stay, while some of them were forced to stay back. Interestingly, it is not the Indian or Asian group from Africa who migrated to Britain and America in large numbers in the 60s and 70s.
The great migration of Asians, mostly Indians, in the 60s and 70s took place from East African countries such as Kenya, Uganda, Malawi and Tanzania.
Indians, mostly from Gujarat and Punjab, started settling in East African countries, especially where the British were ruling. The first batch of migrants went there as railway workers. Later, professionals such as lawyers, accountants, doctors, clerks and small traders migrated to these countries and mostly settled in cities and towns. Most of them held British passports at that time.
In the 1960s, as anti-colonial struggles began to erupt in these countries, the comparatively prosperous Indians came to be seen as imperialist allies. in that paper title Indian diversity in the UK: an overview of a complex and diverse population, Leonard Williams argues that “South Asians had long held an ambiguous position in these societies, somewhere between British rulers and African natives. Asians often held government and bureaucratic positions, as well as some There were also businessmen who had a great monopoly on industry in these countries.” Such was their position in the society that they became the target of the freedom movement in these countries.
When these countries gained independence, ‘Africanization’ policies began to be established. The newly formed governments tried to ensure that power structures, occupations and other influential positions were filled by native Africans, while the colonists and their Asian allies were gone. New Land Ownership Acts were promulgated. These moves and the general anger of the local public made life difficult for the Indians, forcing many of them to leave. The process was gradual and slow in Kenya and Tanzania and quite brutal in Uganda, where, in 1972, General Idi Amin Dada set a deadline for all Asians to leave the country or face the consequences.
Read also: For Indians who please Rishi Sunak, here are some cautions: Lineage and loyalty are not the same
Indian response
They were not on the day of PIO (Person of Indian Origin) card and Pravasi Bharatiya Divas. The Indian community was in crisis, but they were not welcome in India. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was aggressively pursuing a policy of non-alignment and South-South cooperation and was trying to position himself and India as the leader of the newly-colonized countries. With respect to the diaspora, he followed a policy of study apathy and non-interference. Gretchen Heuberger, a scholar at the University of Colorado Boulder, sees this as a major setback for the Indian diaspora in Africa. He writing“Because of the concerns of the new foreign policy, which focused on the rights of native Africans and less political access to Indians abroad, the government of independent India was less preoccupied with the diaspora than its colonial counterpart. Loss of support from India Because of this, Indians living abroad turned away from India.
This is the background in which the Sunak, Patel and Braverman families immigrated to Britain.
One thing to be noted is that unlike many direct migrants, the community of ‘twice migrants’ was comparatively prosperous, educated and well-connected. They benefited from the fact that they were close to the colonists and many of them were part of the administration and public service. Vaughan Robinson, Professor at King’s College, London, in his paper Marching in the Middle Classes: The Long Term Settlement of East African Asians in the UK studied this phenomenon and concluded that this group adjusted easily to the new situation. Many of them have family and caste ties in the UK, which helped them settle down in their jobs and businesses. Soon, they became one of the most prosperous communities in Britain. Unlike many direct immigrants, East African Indians came with families that helped them with new challenges. As the British government was helping them settle, it became easier for them to reproduce their privileges and donations.
Another important difference is that many direct immigrants have cords intact with villages or cities in India. Many of them still have what is called their ‘ghar’ or village in India and some spend a part of their income on their families and relatives in India. On the other hand, South African Indian immigrants mostly left India three, four or five generations ago, and they lack a strong orientation to India or, as some scholars say, the concept of a “myth of return”. They are fully invested in improving their lives in the UK.
Blessed with such gifts and privileges, politicians and public intellectuals of East African Indian immigrants only want to be recognized as British. In this quest to prove themselves more British, they may become more aggressive in resisting new immigrants. Please keep an eye on the immigration policies of the Sunak government.
Dilip Mandal is the former Managing Editor of India Today Hindi magazine and has written books on Media and Sociology. He tweeted @Profdilipmandal. Thoughts are personal.
(Edited by Likes)