One of the most interesting reactions from my last
post about the new British Prime Minister, Mr. Rishi Sunak, came from my former
editor at Arab News, Mr. Khaled Almaeena. He forwarded me a WhatsApp message,
which made the point that Mr. Sunak is not the first leader of a Western
country to be of Indian-origin. The current Prime Minister of Portugal, Mr.
Antonio Costa and the current deputy Prime Minister of Ireland (who was previously
Prime Minister and at the time of writing looks set to taking back his old job),
Mr. Leo Varadkar, are both of Indian-Origin. Unlike Mr. Sunak, both men have won
elections in their respective nations, yet neither of them captured the
imagination of the global Indian community in the way that Mr. Sunak did. The
message suggested that their failure to capture the imagination of the global
Indian community could be because neither are Hindu.
Given that I am of limited intelligence (I earn less
that half a million Singapore dollars a year), I shall leave the deeper debate
to those with more brain. One could say that the reason is simple, Mr. Sunak
does have an Indian connection through his wife, Ms. Akshata Murthy, daughter
of Mr. Narayan Murthy, which neither Mr. Costa or Mr. Varadkar have.
However, the point that someone has equated being
Indian with being Hindu should be discussed. Automatically equating a nationality
with an ethnicity or religion isn’t something new and unfortunately its
something that has seen a resurgence on a national level in many places. Ethnic
or religious majorities are making the point that they are majorities and
therefore entitled to set national agenda. It’s even true in Singapore, which
is officially “regardless of race, language or religion” still makes the point
that the public is “not ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister.”
At its most reasonable, the call for dominance by ethnic
and religious majorities was once best expressed by India’s BJP, which argues
that as Hindu’s are the majority, India is a Hindu nation that allows the
existence of religious minorities just as the UK is a Christian nation (there
is an official church) that allows religious minorities to practice their religions
freely.
I’ve always found this argument to be unnecessary in
as much as majority cultural dominance is pretty much a reality on the ground.
Take Singapore as an example. We are officially multiracial and multicultural.
However, by virtue of being in the majority, the Chinese, specifically those of
Hokkien origins rule the roost. Whatever the PAP government tells you, the
language on the streets is the Hokkien Dialect and its not uncommon to find those
of Tamil origins speaking fluent Hokkien, even if they don’t speak Tamil. It goes
without saying that you don’t find Singaporean Chinese learning Tamil. The reason
is simple, the minority learns to speak like the majority in order to get by.
There is no need for the majority to adapt to the minority.
However, whilst that is the case on the grounds, is it
something that nation builders and intellectuals should be promoting? I like to
think that people should look beyond race and religion as a unifying factor. If
anything, I believe that using race and religion as unifying factors are
damaging to society in that it produces “group think” and inbreeding, which stifles
just about everything that creates prosperity. People who can only operate with
their “own kind” set themselves up for being sacrificial lambs. I think of my
favourite “Brexit” voter who was so determined to kick out links with the
French without relaising that his entire living was dependent on the free movement
of goods and people between France and the UK (he was brining in cheap French
cigarettes into the UK, which was perfectly legal under EU law).
To put it crudely, ethnic and religious majorities can
lose their position. Demographic changes can affect national identity if those
are the only things holding a nation together. This was one of the major points
in dealing with Northern Ireland, where the point that Catholics would
eventually outnumber Protestants.
So, its always best to find things beyond race and religion
to unite people. One should find ways of getting people to share experiences.
For me, I credit national service as being one of those experiences that has
helped unify Singaporeans. I think of a function I went to where one of the attendees
was asked “Are you Singaporeans?” The reply was “are you asking if I have served
national service – yes, I have.” National Services, as they say, is something that
every Singaporean guy can share whenever they meet. More can be done in
Singapore and the rest of the world to create greater unity among people.
So, whilst race and religion will always play an
important role in people’s lives, one needs to look at things beyond that if they
want to create stronger societies where people are united by shared experiences
regardless of religious or racial affiliations.
No comments
Post a Comment