Report twisted, says Bhikhu Parekh

By Hasan Suroor

LONDON, OCT. 14. Prof. Bhikhu Parekh is a distinguished political theorist, emeritus professor of political theory at Hull University, but what has pushed him to the centre-stage of a raging controversy here is the other hat that he wears - that of a Labour peer and chairman of the Labour-backed Commission on the future of Multi-Ethnic Britain whose report on racial equality has sparked a heated controversy on the very nature of British society.

The debate in the past week has focussed entirely on the report's view that the term ``British'' has a racial connotation as it is often defined in terms which exclude ethnic minorities, and the communities in Scotland which after the devolution have their own distinct national identity. Barring a few liberal voices, the debate has generally run against the commission's formulation with even the Home Secretary, Mr. Jack Straw publicly distancing himself from it and declaring - lest anybody was left in doubt - that he was proud to be British. This was of course music to the ears of the Tories and The Daily Telegraph which famously denounced the report as ``sub-marxist gibberish''.

For someone who has been at the wrong end of the media attention for much of the week, Prof. Parekh is surprisingly unruffled and sounds no more excited than he would after a lecture which hasn't quite sunk in with his students. Speaking to The Hindu, in his first interview to an Indian newspaper since the controversy erupted, he said he was not surprised by the reaction but that he did not expect it would be so shrill and that the entire report would be overshadowed by what was no more than a passing reference. ``Yes, I admit that we in the commission were probably politically innocent in not anticipating this'', he said. Prof. Parekh said the report had been deliberately twisted by ``right- wing circles'' to embarrass the Labour Government, and the Home Secretary's statement was no more than an attempt to fend off the attack from the Right. ``I had a long chat with him and I am sure the Government would look at the whole report seriously,'' he said cautioning against reading too much into Mr. Straw's public statement.

In support of his charge that the report had been twisted out of context, Prof. Parekh said there was only one sentence on Britishness in the 400-page document and yet it had been singled out to damn the entire report. It was being made out as though there was nothing else in it. He denied the commission suggested that Britain should stop using the term ``British''. ``It would be foolish to do. After all, there is a country called Britain and its people call them British. Who can quarrel with that. What we are saying is that when Asians and Africans feel discriminated in British society then we need to think of ways to make them feel at home. We are arguing for a long-term view of a multi- cultural Britain, and making it a society that is at ease with its diversity,'' he explained.

Prof. Parekh, however, stood by the report's contention that the term ``British'' was ``racially coded'' because in certain circles there was a tendency to define it in a manner that seemed exclusivist. The fact, he argued, remained that unlike the Dutch and the French, the British had not come to terms with the empire and still uncomfortable discussing it. A history whose reference point was still the empire needed to be changed to reflect the new circumstances. National identity, whether British or India, was not a constant - it was not given once and for all - and was shaped by new influences and ideas.

Prof. Parekh was equally critical of the tendencies in India which attempted to equate Indianness with the majority community. There would be huge problems if they were not checked, he warned. Yet, he thought, India had done better as a pluralistic society than Britain. ``In India, the Muslim Personal Law is recognised and there is State support for other religious and cultural groups'', he pointed out.

Asked if the race scene would worsen if the Tories returned to power, Prof. Parekh said he wasn't sure but certainly it was safer in Labour hands. The important thing, he said, was the administrative structure. While at the policy level, good sensible decisions were taken they were not always translated into action at the administrative level. Did he think the commission had played into the hands of its critics by raising the issue of Britishness? ``No, I don't think so and the point is that we never said what is being attributed to us,'' he said, adding that the commission's attempt to offer an intellectual framework had been turned on its head in certain circles. And that, he thought, was not fair.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : International
Previous : Musharraf was unhappy with Jabbar's performance