a bimonthly publication of
progressive south asian politics
Volume 6: Number 1 December 25, 1995
Volume 6: Number 1 December 25, 1995
A 'community' seeks its history in many different ways. The Asian 'community,' through its established bourgeois leadership, commemorates a canonical version of history rooted in the subcontinent. We memorialize Indian Independence Day, Indian Republic Day, Pakistan Independence Day and the holidays of the nation-states from where we claim ancestry. We commemorate Id, Diwali, Holi, Muharram, Easter and the festivals of our faiths. Our eyes turn to an imagined homeland or a sprititual map in order to see a reflection of our 'community.' Apart from national glory, bourgeois leaders also commemorate instances of individual success, such as awards to doctors, lawyers, politicians, successful students, etc. These figures stand-in as the role-models of the entire 'community' as well as representatives of the 'community' to the rest of society.
These historical monuments, however, do not say anything specific about the histories and identities of the people who live and grow in the overdeveloped world. For instance, we do not have within these festivals the history of indenture (wherein over six million subcontinentals were brought on British ships to South America, the Caribbean, Natal, Mauritius, Malaysia, Fiji, etc.). Asians in Queens, New York will quickly disassociate themselves from 'those people,' whose 'caste' and class origins are seen as indeterminate. They do not belong. Nor do those other theys, the working classes, the gays and lesbians, the left-wing radicals of the Ghadr Party and of the Hindustani Socialist Republican Party. Their history is not our history, which itself is framed by the various nationalist narratives. The bourgeois leaders find themselves in a subcontinental history which says little about their own identity, here in the center of unfriendly and heartless capitalism.
What about racism, we might ask? Why was the 20th anniversary of the expulsion of Asians from East Africa not commemorated by all fragments of the overseas 'community' as well as by the Indian and Pakistani governments? Do these events not enter the annals of some sort of history? Can they be left to the national history of Uganda? I want to suggest that the events of 1972 must be a central part of the history of an overseas South Asian 'community.' We might inaugurate such a commemorative day either on 20 April (the 1968 date of Enoch Powell's speech against Asians and West Indians) or on 5 August (the 1972 date of Idi Amin's radio address annoucing the expulsion of Asians from Uganda). In bringing events such as this into the consciousness of overseas Asians, we will be able to recover the implications for the political abdication of the Asian in the overdeveloped world.
The Asian entered the world of international migrant labor in a characteristic form: as indentured labor. By the early 1800s, plantation capital decided against slavery because the slaves had demonstrated their militant unwillingness to work at the whims of the master and because the plantations calculated that the costs of nurturing slaves was too high. In the 1830s, plantation capital struck upon a solution: hire slaves for short-terms, during the most productive time of the worker's life. Indenture, a new system of slavery, was invented and Asian labor was hired for 5 to 10 years to work the plantations of early capitalism. The motto that best describes the indenture system is an emblem for the lives of overseas Asians: we want your labor, but we don't want your lives. During his infamous 5 August 1972 speech on the radio, Idi Amin played on just this idea: "Asians came to Uganda to build the railway," he said, "The railway is finished. They must leave now..." We are prone, as addicts to the Euro-American media, to fault Idi Amin with the tragedy of the 1972 expulsion of 50,000 Asians; what we white-wash is the role of the British and others in promoting a racist system which encourages the view that the Asian (and West Indian) is a temporary resident whose culture prevents him or her from engaging in the lives of other peoples. Listen to Enoch Powell, on the 16th of November 1968, "The West Indian or Asian does not by being born in England become an Englishman. In law he becomes a United Kingdom citizen by birth; in fact, he is a West Indian or Asian still." In the 1968 Immigration Act, the British State made a distinction between a 'British Citizen' and an 'Overseas British Citizen.' The first enjoyed all the rights and privileges offered by the State, while the second was entitled to hold a passport without access to its benefits. The first had to claim ancestry in the British Isles, which translates into 'whiteness.' The second was linked to Britain via Imperialism and so, was recognized, but not welcomed into the heart of the nation. The social being of the non-white is indeed structured by imperialism.
Only in the context of these remarks can we begin to understand the consciousness of the overseas Asian. Whatever the class position, the dominant class instinct of the overseas Asian is petty-bourgeois and this has less to do with any notion of Asian 'culture' and more to do with the history of imperialism which structures the overseas Asian in a subordinate and conservative position. What is this petty-bourgeois consciousness and what are we to do with it? I want to offer a parable from Faust. The overseas Asians who migrate overseas appear to have forged a bargain with their/our neo-colonial host nations in the overdeveloped world. The bargain revolves around the sale of the Asian political soul in exchange for the license to accumulate economic wealth through hard work and guile. Like Faust, the overseas Indians are oblivious to their decline to a realm of pure commerce and they are left politically powerless. Many of us know the typical phrase: "I am here to make money. In a few years, I will return to India to bring up my family in a safe and healthy environment." As merchants and professionals, the overseas Asians conjure up a world which is sundered into two: the outside world, the world of the workplace, is a world of capital which can be exploited as much as possible; and the inside world, the world of the home, is a world of culture which must be protected and cherished. Culture and capital, this Faustian myth declares, are distinct and they can remain so. The sexism of this myth is evident in that the 'home' becomes the preserve of the 'woman' who must uphold tradition.
In Fiji, a version of this consciousness would be termed the 'girmitiya' consciousness: the 'girmit' is the agreement signed by the planatation owner and the indentured worker which allows the 'girmitiya' to leave Fiji after 10 years. Departure is always for the future as the 'girmitya' waits through multiple generations for the epic return to the homeland. 'Home' is over there and this is just an unpleasant place where we work. Our retirement is our liberation.
| Whatever the class position, the dominant class instinct of the overseas Asian is petty-bourgeois and this has less to do with any notion of Asian 'culture' and more to do with the history of imperialism... |
The implication of this is that the 'girmitiya' is unhappy in this abode of wealth. Something is wrong. Rather than do anything to address this kink in the overseas consciousness, the girmitiya flogs the fantasy of retirement more and more. Mephistopheles does not allow our Indian Dr. Faustus to escape his clutches; the tragedy is repeated constantly and at many levels.
When our children get beaten, as some recently did in Providence, Rhode Island and in Philadelphia, we do not know what to say to them. When our brothers beat our sisters, we aquiesce in awe of an 'ancient tradition' which we believe enjoins domestic violence. When our friends say that gays and lesbians fall prey to a 'white disease,' we accept their reading of 'culture.' A notion of an 'ancient culture' deployed by the overseas Asian is identical with the notion of an 'ancient culture' deployed by the multicultural (racist) state. Enoch Powell, Idi Amin and our overseas Asian all believe that 'races' have 'cultures' which are their own and which cannot be molded. Such a racist idea of 'culture' legitimizes the worst excesses against ourselves. I prefer Gandhi's reading of 'culture': "It is good to swim in the waters of tradition, but to sink in them is suicide" (M.K.Gandhi, Navajivan, 28 Jun. 1925). We need to resist the idea of 'culture' as singularity as much as we need to fashion our own culture, born out of our own material circumstances. There is a need to expose the complicity of the ortho- dox and conservative leadership of our bourgeoisie with the racist ideologies of imperialism. We need to craft our own kinds of solidarities, narrate our own histories and be true to the ideals of social justice which are as 'Indian' as they are 'French.'
(Vijay Prashad is Assistant Professor of History at Cornell University.)
