The Hindu : Oh, to be British!

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Oh, to be British!

By Hasan Suroor

Once entertained only on the fringes of the far Right, the idea has now been enthusiastically embraced by the Tony Blair Government.

WE HAVE been here before, but this time it is official. The issue is that old chestnut: what it means to be British? Is there such a thing as "Britishness" which one must demonstrate before one is able to claim British citizenship?

Once entertained only on the fringes of the far Right, the idea has now been enthusiastically embraced by the Tony Blair Government in what is clearly a knee-jerk reaction to lurid tabloid headlines about Britain becoming a "soft" touch for immigrants. Unnerved by the creeping rise of racist groups such as the British National Party (BNP), which has won a string of local elections on an anti-immigrant platform, and lacking courage to take them on politically, the Government has decided to follow the simplest trick in the book — if you can't beat them, join them. So, it is now telling prospective citizens that if they want the coveted burgundy U.K. passport, they must behave like the "British" do.

Under new proposals, designed to "integrate" immigrants into British society, they would have to pass a "Britishness test" to qualify for citizenship. This would include a working knowledge of English and a broad understanding of British culture, and its key institutions. According to Britain's Home Secretary, David Blunkett, the aim is to transform "passive citizenship" into an active one and "something to celebrate".

Which is all very well, but the question being asked is: what is "Britishness"? How does one define Britishness in a country, which has no written Constitution and where even the idea of loyalty to the Queen is widely resented despite the seasonal hype over the royal family. Moreover, there are strong regional identities at work. People of Scotland, Wales and Ireland have a greater sense of being Scots, Welsh and Irish than a vague "Britishness" which can mean different things to different people.

"Britishness can be whatever you want it to be," novelist Hanif Kureishi says suggesting that the Government might as well "force people who want to become British citizens to watch soap operas and Carry On films... and read speeches by David Blunkett."

The idea of an overarching British identity is an abstraction and bears no resemblance to Americanism (apparently the inspiration for Mr. Blunkett's brainwave) which has become something of an international brand, thanks to American junk food, American cinema, American English, American celebrity culture, American art — in other words, a distinct American lifestyle. Has anyone heard of British food or British haute couture or a uniquely British lifestyle outside of the tourist brochures? There is English breakfast, Scotch whiskey and a variety of Irish beer, but British wine anyone? Even Britain's cricket and football teams are not called British.

The only thing that can be said to be truly British in the sense of being shared by the entire country is English language. And of course, it is in the immigrants' own interest to learn it if they wish to work and live in an English-speaking country, though it is another matter that the Brits themselves got by rather well without learning either the local language or the culture of the places they occupied.

But is the problem of non-English speaking expatriates really so serious? Much is made of the lack of sufficient English language skills among immigrants from the Indian subcontinent. Yes the first generation of settlers had a problem and there are still old men and women or new arrivals from villages of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh who cannot speak the language but the vast majority are able to manage it rather well.

In fact, the second and third generation Asians speak only English — and speak it with the local "British" accent, too. They were born and brought up in Britain and read the same history and culture books at school that their full-blooded British peers did and yet they feel alienated and vulnerable to racial discrimination and abuse. Mr. Blunkett would need to look beyond English language and citizenship classes if he is serious about addressing the issues that lie at the heart of the problem.

There have been attempts to draw a parallel with America where the process of becoming a naturalised citizen is a "celebration". But commentators argue that there is an important difference: in America, where everyone was once an immigrant, citizenship is not seen as a favour done to an outsider. In Britain, on the other hand, they are aliens who must "qualify" to become British by running a "hurdles" race in the form of a test of "Britishness".

Bernard Crick, chairman of the United Kingdom Advisory Panel, which made the controversial citizenship proposals, has said that the aim is to promote "integration." "We are not trying to define Britishness, we are trying to define what people need to settle in effectively," he says. But does that not beg the question? How can you know "what people need to settle in effectively" if you cannot define that in which you want them to settle in, namely "Britishness"?

Of course, immigrants need to do much more to adapt themselves to their adopted country but will that be achieved by forcing them to memorise the life of Henry the VIII and his wives or the family tree of the Windsors? Think of something better, Mr. Blunkett.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

What next for the WTO?

Reforming `madrassas'

Restricted practice

Part of tradition

Doctors' posting

Calling for interaction

A masterpiece