Jeopardising Australian Multiculturalism by Amit Singh

Published by the Voice of India on June 10, 2009

The recent onslaught on Indians in Australia has raised the question of authenticity of the Australia's Multicultural policy. Indians rank tenth in the list of immigrant influx to Australia. The first groups of Indians who arrived in Australia were mainly Sikhs and Muslims from the Punjab region in north-western India. From 1860 to 1901, there was an exodus influx of Indians. The Indians who went there basically worked as agricultural labourers, hawkers and domestic help. A number of them also worked in the gold fields. Migration from India was curtailed after the Australian Government introduced the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, but following India's independence in 1947, the number of Anglo-Indians and Indian-born British citizens immigrating to Australia increased. These British citizens decided to settle in Australia in large numbers but were still considered as 'Indian' Nationals in the census. The third wave of Indians entered the country in the 1980s, after the termination of the white Australia policy. After the policy was abolished many Indian teachers and doctors settled in Australia. Another huge influx began with the IT revolution. Large numbers of Indian software professionals arrived in Australia from 1976 onwards. After the successive military coups in Fiji in 1987 and 2000 a significant number of Indo-Fijian migrated to Australia resulting into a presence of large Indo-Fijian population in Australia. Indo-Fijians have significantly impacted the character of the Indian community there. While the earlier Indian migration was comprised primarily of educated professionals, the Indo-Fijian community not only comprised of the professionals but also small business owners and entrepreneurs.

The current wave of Indian migration includes engineers, tool-makers, Gujarati businessmen from East Africa, relatives of settled Indians and students. According to Indian Diaspora Report (2001) Indians are 1.2% of the total Australian population mostly PIO. The percentage includes forty thousand Indo-Fijian and more than ten thousand PIO's from Africa, UK, Malaysia, etc. They are mostly Hindus and Sikhs, while there are also small number of Christians and Muslims.

The recent incidents of racial discrimination are not the first evidence of Australian racial mentality. Several other instances in the past highlight racial hatred of Australians against the overseas communities. Therefore there is a need to examine Australian Multiculturalism. The question arises here, is Australia really a multicultural country? In 1901 the Australian Government introduced the Immigration Restriction Act, later called it as a white Australian policy which intentionally restricted non-white immigration to Australia from 1901 to 1973. Over the time this idea was compounded by the Liberal Party Government under Robert Menzies, with the fear of Asian expansion and Communism. From 1973 onwards, the white Australia policy was for all practical purposes defunct, and in 1975 the Australian government passed the Racial Discrimination Act which made racially-based selection criteria illegal.

The meaning of multiculturalism has changed enormously since its formal introduction to Australia. Originally it was understood by the mainstream population as a need for acceptance that many members of the Australian community originally came from different cultures and still maintain ties with it. However there are also some reverse patterns in this regards because of the election of John Howard's Liberal-National Coalition government in 1996 was a major watershed for Australian multiculturalism. Howard had long been a critic of multiculturalism, releasing his One Australia policy in the late 1980s which called for a reduction in Asian immigration. Shortly after the new government took office, the new independent member Pauline Hanson made her maiden speech in which she was highly critical of multiculturalism, saying that "a multicultural society could never be strong".

Opposition to multiculturalism in Australia is focused on the position of Islamic immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. Prior to the September 11 attacks, the main targets of anti-immigration campaigns were immigrants from southern Europe, and later East Asia. In 2006, The Federal Government Australia proposed to introduce a compulsory citizenship test, which would assess English skills and knowledge of Australian values, the Australian citizenship test commenced in October 2007 for all new citizens between the ages of 18 and 60. In January 2007 the Howard Government also removed the word 'multicultural' from the name of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, changing its name to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship sparked renewed debate over the future of multiculturalism in Australia.

Opinion polls in Australia on Multiculturalism consistently show that approximately 70% of the Australian against immigration and about 1/4 of them hate Asians. If we take the current example of the Haneef Mohd.'s case and recent controversies related to the Indian cricket team in Australia that highlighted the existing mentality that already existed among the Australians towards the different cultures. In the case of Haneef Mohammed, it was noticed that he was maltreated and interrogated because of his religion. While in the Andrew Symonds' case the Australian media left no stone unturned to make mockery of Hindu god Hanuman, posing Andrew Symonds as Hanuman, thereby depicting their lack of respect towards other culture and religious sentiments. Because of all these, there is always a doubt regarding the authenticity of Australia claiming itself as a multicultural nation.

Indians have succeeded comparatively well in Australia especially in the field of IT and Medicine. Gujarati traders are contributing to their economy. Indian restaurants and transport service especially taxi drivers are visible in the streets. A good number of Indian students are enrolled in Australian Universities. The presence of other ethnic groups is similarly visible. There is a need on the part of Australia to accumulate the different ethnic groups and treat them equally to become a multicultural state in real sense, which otherwise they falsely claim. On Indian Government part, India should discontinue all ties to pressurize Australia to normalise the situation. India should mobilise international community against Australian racial mindsets and dastardly acts of racial discrimination. Australia on the other hand should understand that in this globalised world, multicultural policies are obligatory for the overall development of a nation.

The Indian Diaspora as a Factor in India-Malaysia Relations by Amit Singh

Article no. 2349 Date : 7 August 2007 (IPCS)


Amit Singh
Research Scholar,
Jawaharlal Nehru University
e-mail: amitsinghjnu@gmail.com

Published by the Institute of Peace & Conflict Studies, New Delhi on August 07, 2007

The Indian diaspora has emerged as one of the largest in today's globalized world. There are more than 20 million persons of Indian origin (PIOs) and some 6 million Non-Resident Indians (NRI) spread over 136 countries. The Indian diaspora constitutes more than 40 per cent of the population in Fiji, Mauritius, Trinidad, Guyana and Surinam. Every Southeast Asian country has either PIOs or NRIs, but Malaysia occupies an important position in this regard as it houses the largest number of the Indian expatriates in Southeast Asia - 7.3 per cent of its population. Nearly 80 per cent of the Indians are engaged in manual work, both as unskilled and semi-skilled labourers. Only 6 per cent are in the administrative, professional or managerial categories and, according to the Indian Diaspora Report 2001, the Indian population in Malaysia owns only 1.5 per cent of that country's wealth.

Though diasporas have emerged as powerful factors in developing relations between nation-states, it seems to have, worked in the opposite direction in the case of India-Malaysia relations, and several unfortunate incidents have taken place in Malaysia involving the Indian community. Divided along racial lines, reinforced by religion, culture, language, and occupation, Malaysian society faces a constant threat of ethnic violence. Following racial riots in May 1969, nearly 60,000 Indians returned to India during 1969-70.

After the 9 March 2003 incident, when nearly 300 Indian citizens, mostly IT professionals in Kuala Lumpur, were 'maltreated' and 'interrogated' by the Malaysian authorities, the Indian government reacted sharply and warned them that any repeat of such incidents would affect bilateral ties. The Government of India indicated that it would reexamine bilateral agreements and other trade related concessions given to Malaysia. Foreign Regional Registration offices (FRROs), including the one in Bangalore, were ordered to verify the credentials of Malaysian nationals registered here. India also expressed its inability to host Malaysian Health Minister towards the end of March 2003. Earlier in the month, during the visit of the Malaysian Entrepreneur Development Minister, his talks with Indian ministers were confined to the harassment of Indian IT professionals, instead of the proposed agenda. Similarly, the Ministry of Sports in consultation with the External Affairs Ministry ordered a last minute pull-out of the Indian hockey team from the prestigious Azlan Shah Cup hockey tournament that year.

However, the crux of the problem lies in the social and economic conditions of the PIOs in Malaysia. Among Malaysians, Indians lag behind in many socio-economic indicators and remain lumpenized. 40 per cent of the serious crimes in Malaysia are committed by Indians; there are 38 Indian-based gangs with 1,500 active members; Indians also form the highest number of those detained under Emergency Regulations. Further, Indians have the highest suicide rate, and account for 20 per cent of child and wife abuse and 14 per cent of juvenile delinquents. In Kuala Lumpur they comprise 15 per cent of the squatters. Malay-Indians are represented through the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC), which is an important constituent of the United Malay National Organization (UMNO). But there is a need for change in the leadership and attitudes of Indian parties in Malaysia. Factional struggles and disunity among them and within the MIC have harmed the interests of PIOs in Malaysia.

The Indian government has been biased in its approach towards PIOs. It has mostly engaged only the affluent sections of overseas Indians, particularly NRIs. It is believed that the Indian government's strong reactions against the 2003 incident came about because of the involvement of NRIs. Previous cases of discrimination against PIOs have failed to draw the attention of the Indian government. The Indian government has failed to develop a strong economic constituency in Malaysia which could strengthen and expand the bilateral political and economic ties between the two countries.

It is also incumbent upon the Malaysian government to develop strong political and economic relations with India, a growing market, a developing economy and a powerful political friend. The Malaysian government should eradicate the red-tape imposed on ethnic Indians business ventures. Malaysia should also ensure that Indians are entitled to a share equivalent to their share in the population. If the Malaysian government showed greater understanding of the problems of the Indian community, especially in the estate sector and among urban squatters, the circumstances of ethnic Indians would improve. These changes would also allow for improving bilateral relations between Malaysia and India. The Government of India, for its part, should promote cultural linkages between Indians and Malaysia and curb the illegal Indian immigration to Malaysia.