Post on 07-Jul-2020
transcript
34
Chapter One
Formations of Diaspora and Identity
This chapter studies the processes of diasporic formations over different periods of time and
at different concentration zones of the world. It looks into their similar characteristics which
assert their claim to the name of ‘diaspora,’ and their differences as groups. The chapter is
divided into three sections for categorical elucidation of the process. The first section sees the
various patterns of diasporic formations all over the world and sees how one differs from the
other conceptually. The second section is divided into two halves. The first half studies the
pattern of South Asian diaspora, the present subject of this study, settled in different parts of
the world. It sees the responses of host lands and the aspects that have made this diaspora
successful at places and unsuccessful at others. The second half of Section II deals mainly
with the South Asian diaspora settled in Britain and shows how the experiences and
aspirations of this group differs from the other diasporic groups settled in the UK. It makes an
introspective study of the relationship of the British South Asian diaspora with the other
British diasporas and its position in the host country. The third chapter gives a brief outline of
the writings that form the backdrop to contemporary South Asian British diasporic writing.
The writers and their writings mentioned are mostly by the sojourners and travellers who had
travelled to England as early as the Victorian Age. However some of the writings are by those
people who had settled and had stayed in Britain and have been recognized as the first British
diasporics. Their writings, though not always very popular, form the groundwork to the
contemporary South Asian diasporic writing in Britain.
35
I. Diasporic Formation across the World
Diaspora is a contested and ever-changing term being a concept in social science. According
to the critic Jenny Robinson:
…the forces which generate diasporas create complex social, political and
economic flows and connections. Diasporic communities simultaneously
connect to their original ‘homes,’ and make connections with members of the
same diaspora within their new locality, as well as linking to diasporic
members in other localities besides their home (Robinson 79-80).
In order to understand the vast range of experiences of people that this word accommodates,
the various attitudes towards the term diaspora have to be understood. Though encompassing
diversity, the concept of diaspora has maintained certain strictness in its premises, so as not to
lose its meaning amidst blurred ideas, or so that too much elasticity does not take it away
from any concrete meaning.
The word diaspora is derived from the Greek verb speiro (to sow) and the preposition dia
(over) (Cohen). The significant diasporic dislocations in history are,
(i) migration and the productive colonization of Asia Minor
(ii) dispersion of the Jews
(iii) dispersion of East and West Africans through slavery
(iv) dispersion of the Palestinians through Israeli expansionism in the late 1940s, and
(v) Armenians through persecution by the Ottomans from the late 19th
century.
Different critics have highlighted different aspects of diasporic dislocations. For example
Robin Cohen observes that William Safran forms his notion of diaspora on the Jewish
experience, but fails to recognize the heterogeneity and the different experiences of the group.
Hence his response is negative, as for him, the Jews’ experience centres on the restoration of
36
an “exclusive homeland.” On the contrary, for Cohen, diffuse connections around the globe
can be developmental benefit. It is not the craving for homeland but “a sense of
identification,” which ties diaspora together. Cohen names the motivations for entering
diaspora as positive and negative. Negative motivation is generally for the first generation
people. The family and kin who follow them are generally guided by positive motivations.
For him diaspora does not form from victimization, but when people seek a better quality of
life outside their homeland. On the other hand, for James Clifford, diasporic existence is not
exile and home, but multiple sites of exile. Geography of diaspora is built around multiple
localities (Clifford).
Different diasporic groups all over the world form several patterns, and one group defines
itself in relation to the other groups or the host country, resting its identity on the basis of
difference. That is why Jenny Robinson feels:
An important aspect of understanding identity is the distinction between what
we might call ‘relationality’ and ‘hybridity’. On the one hand one group’s
identity can be defined by what another group’s is not (i.e. in relation to one
another) and at the same time the two groups can influence one another and
evolve new cultural mixtures (hybridity). As a result we see the emergence of
complex social hierarchies based on perceived and subtle characteristics of
difference (Robinson 92).
As the diasporic groups vary on the basis of their history, background or on the basis of their
acceptance by their present lands of stay, similarly they too vary on the basis of their
generations, for the response to the diaspora changes with generations. Diasporas contribute
to the home economy, as well as influence homeland politics. Governmental policies of the
homeland too show a concern for the diasporic groups settled in different corners of the
world. Diasporas have shattered myths of homogeneity and have created significant rifts in
the socio-political surface of the host countries, as well. As Arjun Appadurai sagaciously
observes, “terms as ‘democracy’ are master-narratives…diaspora across the world, especially
37
since the 19th
century, has loosened the internal coherence that held these terms and images
together in a Euro-American master-narrative and provided instead a loosely structured
synopticon of politics” (Appadurai 36).
William Safran another diasporic critic in his seminal article “Diasporas in Modern Societies:
Myths of Homeland and Return” categorizes various diasporic communities according to their
characteristics. The Armenian diaspora community he professes is based on― (i) common
religion, (ii) language, (iii) collective memory of a nation, (iv) memory of persecution and
genocide (v) influence of Church on them, and, (vi) contribution to the host culture, science
and modernization. The Polish community forms a diaspora by their― (i) national
consciousness (ii) common language, and (iii) culture. Safran writes of the Polish
community― “during World War II...Poland was the largest country in the world: its
government was in London, its army was in Italy, and its population was in Siberia” (Safran
85).
Safran further claims that the Portugese immigrants are diasporic by dint of their diasporic
consciousness, the Turkish community by its hope of return and the Flemish speaking
Belgians by their detachment from particular linguistic centres. However he (Safran) proposes
that the Magyars of Transylvania have no diaspora for they are only politically detached from
their motherland, and not dispersed. He badges the Gypsies as the “truly dispersed people” for
they (i) face political powerlessness, (ii) are subject to persecution, and are (iii)
“metadiaspora” in their economic rootlessness (iv) have no myth of return, and (v) no story of
national sovereignty. The Palestinians on the contrary, have (i) memories of homeland (ii)
collective myth of the homeland (iii) desire to return, etc. The Chinese diaspora has a typical
38
confined structure giving rise to “enclave” economies, which again is the result of the
prejudice of the host countries.
Now coming to the Black diaspora, legalised slavery which began in 1502, had brought more
than 12 million West Africans and Caribbeans to the North and South America, and Britain as
slaves. The history of slavery remains at the core of their life’s struggles and this remains in
the collective memory of the Blacks. The tremendous torture, the abuse, the brutal treatment,
the physical assault of the Black diasporic people is unique to this group. Michael Hanchard
suggests that Black diaspora lends, “a transnational dimension to black identity,” and he
defines the African diaspora as “a human necklace strung together by a thread known as slave
trade, a thread which made its way across a path of America with little regard for national
boundaries” (Hanchard 40). There are (as Jenny Robinson comments regarding Africa) “three
distinct phases of outward movement of people from Sierra Leone and from West Africa
more generally. The first phase is associated with slavery, the second with commonwealth
citizens seeking livelihoods in the colonial ‘motherland’, and the third with a response to the
post-colonial crisis of development.” (Robinson 85).
The official beginning of coloured immigration into Britain is marked by the arrival of
Empire Windrush on the English coast with 492 Jamaicans at Tilbury Docks in 1498. With
this started the steady flow of immigration from the rest of the world. The arrivals came from
the British Commonwealth nations and thus they had British passports which gave them
access to England. The immigrants into Britain can be broadly categorized into three
groups― the Caribbean, people from the Indian subcontinent and people from Africa
(Gilroy). The Caribbeans were denied access to the United States by the McCarran-Walter
Act of 1952 and with the barring of entry to this destination; the English speaking West
39
Indians had access only to Britain. The largest number of West Indian immigrants arrived
from Jamaica, while other countries as Antigua, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, St.
Kitts, St. Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago also contributed to the lot. The 1950s saw the maximum
influx of people from the West Indies to Britain (Patterson).
Unlike the Black diaspora, the South Asian diaspora does not have any history of slavery. On
the other hand this diaspora is to a great extent similar to the Palestinian diaspora. South
Asian diaspora is deeply rooted in the myth of homeland or land of origin by dint of its
culture and an Eastern heritage of spirituality and mysticism, which stands in opposition to the
materialism of the West. The South Asian diasporic people may not always return, but they
never tread very far from their desire to return, even if the desire is mythical. The community
feeling is stronger in case of South Asian diaspora for their history of belonging to the same
nation before India’s independence. Moreover the South Asians form patterns not only on the
ground of nationalistic origin, but on the basis of their religion and language as well. The
Muslim community spreading over Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka, all come
together though they belong to different nations. Likewise the Bengalis, whether from
Bangladesh or West Bengal in India become one in their linguistic pattern and common
culture. Similar is the case with Hindi or Urdu speaking groups in the sub continent. Hence
the South Asian diaspora has several interlinked connections forming a close-knit pattern.
II (a). The South Asian Diaspora across the World
Unlike the black diasporics, South Asian immigrants to Britain were either the lascars or
ayahs or those working as soldiers in the British army. These people share an immigrant
40
history of more than four hundred years. They were primarily bonded labourers who were
freed after the independence of India and the consequent formation of the adjacent countries
as Pakistan and Sri Lanka (Brown). After the announcement of freedom several returned to
their past land, while a considerable number from this group refused to return. These people
form some of the early diasporics of South Asian origin. In rubber, tea and sugar plantations
all over the world, in places as Burma, Malaya, Kenya, Tanzania, Zanzibar, Caribbean
Islands, Fiji and Mauritius, labourers from the Indian subcontinent were hired as girmityas.
These girmityas or the indentured labourers after the expiry of their contracts, mostly decided
to stay back purchasing land and property. However the condition varied as per the local
government policies regarding citizenship and stay in foreign land which altered constantly.
In the case of the South Asians working in the Caribbean Islands, they were given ready
citizenship by the imperialist British government. As Susan Koshy observes of the South
Asian diaspora which she terms as “one of the oldest, largest and most geographically
diverse” (Koshy 2), in the “Introduction” to Transnational South Asians: The Making of a
Neo-Diaspora:
One can contextualize the changing modes of labour migration from South
Asia by looking at the role they played in creating a flexible and expanding
labour pool that helped mediate the shift from mercantile to industrial to
finance capital in the colonial and post-colonial periods. No other diaspora
offers this comprehensive a view of the continuous renovations in forms and
modes of migrant labour because no other diasporic population has been at the
centre of these shifts for such an extended period of time (Koshy 3).
With the Partition of India in 1947 and the formation of Pakistan started an influx of a second
group of immigrants from South Asia to Britain. The South Asian diasporic group or the
travellers from the Indian sub-continent increased largely with the change in configuration of
the sub-continent. The independence of India caused such upheavals that several were forced
to flee and several migrated willingly, for independence had opened avenues for migration.
41
Also, migrating to England was made convenient by the British policy of allowing admittance
and citizenship to the people of the erstwhile colonies.
The 1960s saw a third trend in migration whereby the immigrants were voluntary migrants
and unlike the first group of unskilled labourers like household workers, etc., this group
comprised skilled workers. Beginning from 1960s, till the 1970s showed a change in the lives
of the immigrant South Asians all over the globe. In 1960s after the independence of Kenya,
Uganda and Tanganyika, the South Asians living in these countries were offered British
citizenship and the right to settle anywhere in the United Kingdom. But the huge number of
immigrants coming to Britain spurred the Immigration Act of 1968 which checked the influx
of the South Asians to Britain in case they did not have one parent or grandparent born there.
This led to severe crisis which was made further acute by Idi Amin, the then president of
Uganda, chasing the South Asians out of the state in 1972 (“Light…). Immigrants from Africa
to the United Kingdom can be broadly divided into two groups, blacks and Asians. The blacks
form a small minority group arriving from Nigeria, Ghana and Sierra Leone. The larger group
of immigrants from Africa, includes people shifted after the exodus of Asians from East
Africa, the twice migrants or repeat migrants. These expelled South Asians faced open
confrontation in Britain. Britain was further divided into “green” and “red” zones with low
and high concentration respectively, of already existing South Asian population. The then
entering South Asian groups were directed to the green zones and were prevented from the
red ones (Brah). The immigrants had to undergo several inhuman tests as DNA tests and X-
rays of the children to detect their age and so on.
Colonial forces, indenture labour system, the rift between countries, and upheavals in
societies of newly forming governments, the religious fratricide in Bangladesh, the communal
42
riots during the Partition of India and the ethnic wars in Sri Lanka all had led to severe crisis
in South Asia. This spurred chain migrations and massive shifts which made South Asian
diaspora one of the largest diasporas globally, surpassed only by the African, Chinese,
European and the Jewish who lived outside their homelands (Clarke, C., C. Peach, and S.
Vertovec). Thus people from the Indian subcontinent made their home in several parts of the
world, of which the larger concentration centres are in UK, USA, Canada, the Caribbean
Islands and the Middle East. While the history of migration to the UKs and the Caribbean
Islands saw the first immigration from the Indian subcontinent, the settlers from South Asia
were mainly those working as menial labourers and for lowly paid jobs. The greater number
of immigrants was mainly coolies. Those migrating to Britain too suffered from this
succumbing to jobs of inferior ranks as only few white collar jobs were available to the
immigrants. On the contrary those arriving in USA were mostly those who had come seeking
high paid, white collar jobs. This has become even more prominent after the explosion of the
IT industry and at present the United States is the mecca of professionals and engineers.
S.V.Chindhade, an Indian diasporic critic in his “The Marathi Literary Diaspora in the US and
the UK” writes of the number of professionals immigrating to Britain had been 36,000 every
year. “This affinity for Britain,” he writes, “had resulted from the colonial affinity”
(Chindhade 78). However the recent inflation and the crash of the IT industry has to a certain
level thawed the craze for shift to foreign lands. The 9/ 11 incident has evoked a trauma and
has wiped off the glamour a bit, but still the craze persists. Canada is another place which
alike USA can claim the advent of a big portion of the skilled professionals from all over the
globe and most importantly from the Indian subcontinent.
The United States has ever been a land of immigrants and though now no more a melting pot,
has still remained “a diasporic switching point” (Appadurai 14). Britain does not have any
43
such melting pot background and hence the diasporic experience of the people living in
Britain is significantly different. While the American society is multicultural, the British
society is not. The dominant culture plays a leading role in the society. In Britain, the South
Asians were considered as just immigrants or outsiders, and only of late have acquired the
status of ethnic minority. The pluralistic society of America has prevented the South Asians
from many of the racial attacks they have suffered in Britain. The United States has proved a
much more convenient migrant location for more than one reason. In US the bans and
restrictions on immigration were much lesser than in the case of Britain. In the latter days the
entry requirements to Britain were much restrictive than to the US. Moreover the US passed
the Immigration and Naturalization Act (1965) to enhance the immigration from the Third
World countries. The South Asians, especially Indians, entered into the US and found much
congenial atmosphere than those that had migrated to Britain.
South Asians have also made home in the Middle East, but this diaspora is different from the
other settling lands. Though the salary of the people added to the remittances of the country of
origin, the Middle East failed to prove permanent homes to these South Asians, mostly from
Pakistan and India of whom the majority were Muslims. The governments of the Middle East
countries had been much reluctant to give the right of citizenship to these people. Coming
from different places of South Asia they formed a kinship pattern which led to a single
member bringing in several other members of the family. This continued unabated till the
1960s when the token system was brought in for the labourers and one member of the family
could easily avail tokens for the other family members. Professor Myron Weiner names the
South Asian diaspora in the Middle East as “incipient diaspora.” As Prakash C. Jain develops
upon Weiner’s theory of “incipient” diaspora:
44
…an “incipient” diaspora can be defined as a relatively sizeable group of
foreign workers in industrial and oil-producing economies who are ethnically
distinct from the host population and who are ‘allowed to remain in their host
country only to work’ but are not entitled to become citizens. As such they live
in ‘a state of legal and political ambiguity, economic insecurity and as social
outsiders’ (Jain 103).
Now regarding the indentured labourers who had travelled widely, most indentured South
Asian labourers came from northcentral and northeastern India and only few came from
Southern India, from the Tamil and Telegu speaking states. Most of them were Hindus,
though some were Muslims as well. The influx of South Asian labourers to different parts of
the world concentrated mainly around Trinidad in the Caribbean, Guyana in South America,
and Mauritius off the coast of Africa in the 1840s; and in the 1860s to the British colony of
Natal in South Africa. The 1870s marked the immigration to such regions as the Dutch colony
of Surinam and the 1880s saw the same to Fiji. The indenture system however was abolished
in the 1920s, but the immigration process continued unabated (Kelly).
The South Asians who arrived in Fiji in large numbers in the form of coolies or girmityas
were mainly from eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar in India. In the first phase after the expiry
of the tenure of work, and in the second with the abolition of the indenture system, several
Indians returned to their homeland, but a large portion still preferred to stay back. However
even among those who preferred not to return but to stay back, in no time (a major part of this
group), faced discrimination in the hostland society. Hence they doubly immigrated to such
work areas as Australia and New Zealand under work permit. The 1880s had seen the
restrictions on the migration of non-British immigrants in Fiji, and later formalization of the
same in the 1899 Immigration Restriction Act. This law was however transformed in 1986
and this in turn spurred huge South Asian immigration to New Zealand. Mass migration of the
45
Indo- Fijians to this site created a new pattern in New Zealand’s South Asian diaspora. The
violence by the military coups on the Fijians of Indian origin in Fiji in 1987, after the
independence of Fiji in 1970, and the consequent transformation of the immigration act,
triggered another surge of immigration to the Pacific Rim countries of Australia, New
Zealand, Canada and the United States. However with the Trans- Tasman Travel Agreement
of 1973, which opened avenues of free movement between New Zealand and Australia, the
Indo-Fijians already settled in New Zealand, further managed their way to Australia (Gillion).
The Indian sub-continent even found a suitable home in Mauritius. Though the immigrants
are mostly from India, Mauritius is a powerful site for South Asian immigration as this
diaspora influenced the homeland economy and politics to an even extent. The Gujarati
businessmen and merchants, along with the Tamil and northern Hindus and the South Indian
Muslims claimed a big share over the island’s economy. Moreover during colonial times,
there was a beginning of nationalism in Mauritius which influenced India’s politics greatly.
The other hinterland of South Asian diasporic formation is Canada. South Asian immigration
to Canada began at the beginning of the 20th century, mostly from Punjab. In Canada, most of
the South Asian immigrants worked in the sawmill industry. However the Canadian
government in 1908 barred the immigration of people who entered the country through
continuous voyage via other countries, and not directly from their native countries. This in
turn affected the immigration from South Asia for it was not possible to enter Canada under
certain conditions (Oberoi). Thus immigration remained considerably low till the 1940s. After
World War II restrictions were gradually loosened and immigration legislation in 1962 and
1967 consequently made the restrictions lax. Before 1962 most immigrants from South Asia
were men from Punjab. After 1962 the influx shifted from Sikh men from the Punjab, to both
46
men and women from Punjab. Moreover Hindus from Gujarat, Bombay and Delhi as well as
Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh, Christians from Kerala, Parsis from Bombay, and
Buddhists from Sri Lanka, all came to Canada. On the other hand, the South Asians
transmigrating to Australia were mainly those with scholarships and aspirations for the US.
As Voigt- Graf observes, “For some, Australia has become a stepping stone on a route
eventually reaching the United States, a country which continues to be the ultimate aspired
destination for many Indians” (Voigt- Graf 143).
The South Asian professionals were as well drawn to European countries like Austria and
Germany. Moreover the liberal policies of Germany proved a haven for Tamil refugees
fleeing from the conflict in Sri Lanka. The contract and free labourers of South Asian origin
migrated to Malaya, then a British colony, to tap rubber. In the later part of the 19th
century,
Indians migrated to Myanmar, to work on the plantations. Moreover, another group of
workers from South Asia, mostly from Gujarat, Punjab and Goa, migrated to British East
Africa to build railways, and afterwards stayed back as low ranking civil servants.
Due to the colonial legacy, the South Asians were accepted into the British society as de facto
British citizens. Apart from the sea-men, the others were those who joined the armies during
World War I. Thus the South Asian population immigrating to Britain were mainly, (i) the
Gujaratis from the coastal districts of Saurashtra and around the gulf of Cambay, (ii) Punjabis
from Jullunder, Doab, and some Christians and Hindus around this region, (iii) Punjabi
Muslims from undivided India, in the Barani, in and around the districts of Mirpur, Jhelum,
Rawalpindi and Gujarat and even from Chach, Faisalabad and Lahore, (iv) Bangladeshis from
the district of Sylhet, and (v) Tamils and Sinhala-Buddhists from Sri Lanka. The South Asians
in Britain had entered as a part of the Commonwealth, and had ever enjoyed the right of
47
citizenship. However in spite of the official rights, the immigration acts one after the other,
thwarted the immigration of the ‘blacks,’ while the grim rules attributed the status of second
class citizens to them.
The 1962 Immigration Act restricted the admission to Britain, even to those who had
employment vouchers. This was however applied only to the “blacks”, and though the Irish
immigrant population exceeded the South Asians, the law was directed solely at the latter.
The 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act introduced quota system for labour vouchers. The
quota system for labour vouchers was also introduced in 1965 and this mechanism tightened
immigration further. During this period the National Front, a fascist organization was formed
which aimed at the repatriation of ‘black’ British people. The Commonwealth Immigration
Act of 1968 was passed hurriedly by the Labour Government as a panic measure to check the
influx of Kenyan Asians with British passports from entry into Britain. This act, overtly racist,
was substantiated by Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech. The 1968 Immigration Act
removed the right of entry of British passport holders unless they had a “substantial
connection” with the U.K.― i.e. unless at least one parent or grandparent of the applicant was
born in Britain. Several who had already immigrated, and did not fulfil this basic requirement
as per the Act were forcefully banished from the country. By this act a non-partial
Commonwealth citizen could no longer enter the U. K. for stay, unless he had a work permit
from a specific employer. Also dependants were admitted for the duration of the work permit
only. The Immigration Act of 1971 ended all “primary immigration” and made black
immigration temporary and only for specific jobs. Racial harassment and undue policing of
immigrants were legitimized by law, for example they could deport individuals if it was
“conducive to the public good” (“Roots). Though the Race Relations Act had been passed in
48
1966, which had made racial hatred illegal, this act had failed to tackle racism in employment
and problems in housing. Moreover racism was institutionalized.
In America on the other hand, the scenario became just the reverse. In 1965 the law enforcing
national immigration quotas was scrapped. South Asians along with the Latin Americans
flowed in and the period from 1990s to 2000 saw the largest immigration. The situation in
America was then taken up by most of the First World countries, especially Britain, who had
formerly confronted immigration into the country. This spurred a reaction from the
immigrants and hence this was also the time which saw the development of writing on and by
the South Asians. As Hanif Kureishi remarks, the 1970s as “...politically conscious seventies,
[when] there was, in TV and theatre, a liberal desire to encourage work from unmapped and
emergent areas. They required stories about the new British communities, by cultural
translators, as it were, to interpret one side to the other” (Kureishi xv-xvi).
II (b). The South Asian Diaspora in Britain
After the relaxation in the grim clauses of the Immigration laws, a great number of South
Asians settled in Britain and formed big communities of South Asian people. While most of
them flocked together in the suburbs and ghettoes, several moved up to London attracted by
its multicultural ambience. The South Asians had to fight for their recognition and assert their
claims as rightful citizens in the face of severe confrontation from the natives. Also they had
to assume their separate identities from the Africans and the Afro-Caribbeans, that is the
official Black diaspora, for they too came to be recognized as Blacks in the 1950s. The
confrontation faced by the South Asians was not only from the natives but also from other
49
diasporic groups who were struggling for their share of Britain. Thus the South Asians faced
the dual challenge of having to acculturate with both the natives on the one hand, and the
other diasporic groups settled in the land, on the other.
The population of South Asians arriving in Britain before the 1950s was much more
compared to the Afro-Caribbeans. Only after the 1950s the population of the Caribbeans
increased. The South Asians settled in the Southall area of London; whereas the highest
concentration of Afro-Caribbean settlement could be seen in Lambeth, Camden and North
Kensington. The relationship between the South Asians and the Blacks too repaired after the
riots in 1958. Such organizations as the West Indian Standing Conference (1958) came into
existence from such riots. On parallel ground Black uprisings (of the Asians) began in
Southall in 1979 where Asians opposed a provocative National Front pre-election rally, and in
July 1981, a confrontation broke out. However the Afro Caribbeans were outrightly badged as
criminals in contrast to the Asians (Procter). The Blacks in Britain suffered from greater
unemployment, poorer housing, education and inferior health status. They lived in insecurity
of their lives much more than the Asians. In spite of the co-habitation and the increasing
understanding among them, a big portion of the Asians still strongly opposed their aligning
with the Blacks. In spite of all the hopeful promises of friendship at the social level, the
relationship was not keen or intimate. The sense of fear of an alien culture made the Asians
shirk from the company or even the thought of a Black. On the contrary, both the South
Asians and the Caribbeans were akin to the British in spite of their hatred for the latter. They
were much more familiar to the whites due to the interaction during the colonial period and in
the later ages as a repercussion of it. The type of feminism which the South Asian feminists
follow is more akin to the experience of the white, middle class, heterosexual women rather
50
than Black feminism which has lesbianism and lesbian continuum as its characteristic
features.
In Black Skin, White Masks Frantz Fanon, scholastically portrays how the power of Western
discourse not only created a notion of the “other” that put forward a picture of the East as
other in the eyes of the West but the notion of otherness penetrated deep into the psyche of
the colonized, who in their turn perceived themselves as “other”. This thought process began
from the days of colonization and the British affected the thought process of the colonized
(Fanon). This played a functional role in the Asians and the Blacks’ admiration of the West
and their coming to Britain to enjoy the same status as the British, the ‘goras’. This in turn
formed the consciousness of the migrants, what Frantz Fanon calls, “individuals without an
anchor, without horizon, colourless, stateless, rootless….” (qtd. Braziel and Mannur 237). It
was at the same time self-defeating, and hence several critics trace disillusionment at the root
of the formation of these diasporas.
With the creation of the South Asian British national space, the South-Asians began more
formal organizations than meeting in groups. They accumulated in the concentration areas of
immigrant population. In such casual meetings and formal organizations, apart from
discussing problems, several festivals and rituals as Diwali, Eid, etc. too were held. These
turned out to be political and cultural associations and proved places for social gathering of
the immigrants. In Bradford, Gujarati Indians started a group in 1959 called Bharatiya
Mandala with the aim of forming solidarity within the group, and upholding the culture of the
same (Shukla). The Sikh immigrants had earlier formed the Indian Workers’ Association in
the 1930s to fight for India’s freedom. South-Asian immigrant communities mostly centred at
such locations as Bradford, Southall, Wembley, etc. With the passage of time these groups
51
produced a link among themselves and with the countries of origin. Susan Koshy, the popular
diasporic critic observes that the South Asian diasporic group had a peculiar power of
imbibing different trends and forces of other cultures and naturalizing the discourses of the
white West and other settler groups into South Asian ethos:
South Asians played a crucial role in indigenizing white-settler claims to
national membership in the absence of autochthonous rights, and in
naturalizing diverse discourses of black, Creole, and indigenous nationalisms.
Thus, the South Asian diaspora offers a powerful heuristic for identifying the
interplay of local contexts and global structural forces in producing the social
exclusion of religious and cultural minorities in modernity. It thereby allows us
to access a global history of race, citizenship, and labour during a period of
capitalist expansion when the very meaning of these categories was being
invented (Koshy 4).
The South Asian diaspora in Britain is a huge cultural mix for they have different cultural
backgrounds and historical rooting. Prevalent religious norms are different with different sub
groups. It is not a unified diaspora and groups are often at conflict with each other on grounds
of religious or linguistic difference. The South Asian diaspora is not a cohesive school, rather
ambivalent voices arise. Various sub-groups primarily negotiate their identities as South
Asian and then renegotiate them in relation to other contexts. From the very beginning, the
immigrants had to make several adjustments within the broader term “South Asian”. They had
to compromise several of their cultural traditions and social customs in the face of resistance
of the natives in their day-to-day lives. The Sikhs were prevented from wearing turbans; the
Muslim women prevented from wearing burkhas or veils in their places of work or in the
schools. The Pakistanis were often referred to as smelly, smelling of curries; the Bangladeshis
as living in packed rooms, practicing mystical religions, etc. However the Hindus’
acculturation process was smoother as they lacked apparent cultural markers unlike the Sikh
men or the Muslim women (Vertovec). Moreover the hybridized groups of English speaking
people who had migrated from the cities easily got assimilated into the host country. Thus
52
specific groups had a better scope of assimilation than the others, depending on their
adaptability.
Compared to those in the UK, the South Asian creative writers/artists in the USA enjoy a
comfortable place and a far more visible identity. They are less vulnerable to racialist attacks
in the US for they were initially considered Caucasians and hence whites, comparable to the
South Asians in UK who are considered blacks. This demarcation in the latter case becomes
significant as the South Asian diasporic subjects are used as mediators between the Europeans
and the Caribbeans and at times used as weapons against the Blacks, that is the Africans and
Afro- Caribbeans (Assayag, and Bénéï 6-7). The term “Black” becomes highly political as it
is alternately used to refer to the Afro-Caribbean group with or without encompassing the
South Asians. This differentiation between the Africans and Caribbeans resulted in the term
“South Asian” and hence the same is also highly politicized. Susheila Nasta, a South Asian
diasporic herself, being born in Britain and living for the most part of her life in Germany,
Holland and India, understands the intricacies of the notion of home and the label South Asian
as:
Like ‘home’, the term ‘South Asian’ is, of course, an invented one. Introduced
in Britain in the 1970s as another ‘ethnic’ label to divide and rule, yet another
physical signifier of racial difference which developed a political purchase
following the expulsion of the Ugandan Asians under Idi Amin, it has its own
difficulties. Often used in government censuses as a means of distinguishing
Britain’s black and Asian populations, it inevitably flattens a diverse range of
backgrounds which stem from complex religious, linguistic and regional
histories. In addition, the use of ‘South Asian’ only seems to make sense when
viewed from within a context such as Britain, an environment in which
ethnicity has frequently been falsely homogenized (Nasta 6).
The English perceived the colonized as stereotypes and both the terms “Blacks and South
Asians” are such stereotypes. As Rushdie states, “Meanwhile, the stereotyping goes on.
53
Blacks have rhythm, Asians work hard. I’ve been told by Tory politicians that the
Conservative Party seriously discusses the idea of wooing the Asians and leaving the Afro-
Caribbeans to the Labour Party, because Asians are such good capitalists” (Rushdie 138).
Moreover this process is further abetted as the immigrants themselves conform to these labels
as entry into the First World incites an urge to be accepted into dominant culture.
Its mentioned earlier, people from four countries of the Indian subcontinent namely, India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka form a considerable part of the diaspora in Britain, where
by the year 2000, Indians formed the largest ethnic group and the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis
combined with the Indians constitute the largest ethnic community in Britain and almost 4%
of the total population of that country. Rozina Visram observes that the South Asians’ visit to
Britain dates back to the 1720s, when travellers and princes stepped on the land of the whites
to educate themselves in the latest trends of industrialization or to formally receive education
at the foreign universities. The South Asians landed in Britain as seamen, but later found jobs
with the foremen. They took up menial jobs which were not taken up by the natives, and as
Roger Ballard observes, “…although this was initially regarded as a temporary measure― no
less by migrant workers than by their employers― it set in motion what eventually proved to
be a process of reverse colonization. Imperial transactions had manifestly ceased to be a one-
way process” (Ballard 197).
The major concentration sites of the South Asian diaspora in Britain are Greater London,
West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire. While the Sri Lankans settled in
Greater London, especially Ealing, the Indians concentrated in West Midlands, especially
Wolverhampton, the Pakistanis settled in Bradford, West Yorkshire, and the Bangladeshis in
Tower Hamlets, Greater London. While Indians took up jobs in the Southeast and Midlands
54
region, and are mostly present in the suburbs of London, the migrants from Pakistan found
their centre in the textile town in the north. Pakistanis reside in the industrially declining areas
and have a large majority of skilled, manual workers. On the other hand, the Bangladeshis
comprise the semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Though the South Asians from different
countries settled in fixed zones, the second generation however stepped out of the enclaves
and they now form a major part of the diasporic community in the West. Harold G. Coward,
John R. Hinnells and Raymond Brady Williams in their book The South Asian Religious
Diaspora in Britain, Canada, and the United States, opine, “the broad demographic picture of
the communities of a much younger population than that of the majority white population
…Almost half of British Pakistanis were born in Britain, just under half of British Indians
(41%) were born in Britain, as were 36% of British Bangladeshis” (Coward, Hinnells, and
Williams 85). Monica Ali, while speaking of the growing immigration of the South Asians in
Britain, mentions how her white mother Joyce had got married to Hatem, a Bangladeshi
student. She reminiscences:
Though they (Hatem and Joyce) had little to do with his family after that, the
Alis were content in Dhaka and would have stayed there had the civil war not
broken out… I think when my mum went off to get married, there weren’t
many Asians in the area, and the ones that there were tended to be
professionals― doctors, things like that. But when she came back, eight years
later, there had been a whole wave of immigration, and the social acceptability
stakes had declined dramatically (Lane).
Moreover the political mobilization of the diasporic communities in the West created much
upheaval in the homeland society. Gurharpal Singh cites instance of power lobbying of the
South Asian diasporic groups in the West: “…the well-publicised contributions to President
Clinton’s election campaign by the high-tech US lobby or the controversial dealings of the
Hindujas with New Labour in Great Britain have brought the issues and concerns of the
diaspora to the forefront of everyday politics” (Singh 1). The diaspora highly manoeuvres the
55
lives of the homeland community by dint of the overbearing effect on the economic and
political life. Singh further observes:
…the contemporary fascination with the subject in India arises from the
economic potential of overseas Indians, by way of their ability to radically
transform the fortunes of the ‘homeland’ economy. Since the beginning of
economic liberalization in India (1991), Non- Resident Indians (NRIs) have
played an active role in foreign direct investment in India. Their contribution
has been recognized by the government of India, which has decided to grant
them special economic and legal concessions (Singh 1).
Immigrants from the Third World to the First have been interpreted in various ways at
different points of time. They have been given the relaxation of an insider’s status, the status
of Commonwealth citizens and have been derided from time to time or outrightly chased out
of the country. Thus the South Asian diaspora constantly oscillates between security and
chastisement as per the whim of the government of Britain. Though from time to time the
immigrants are interpreted and named as politically persecuted or refugees the naming is
nothing other than the guile of the superpowers. Ambalavaner Sivanandan reveals this politics
of labelling as he observes:
At first, these politically persecuted refugees were economically “invisible.” In
the 1950s and 1960s, when Britain needed all the workers it could lay its hands
on political refugees and economic migrants were all the same: they were
labour. It did not matter that the Punjabis were fleeing the fallout of partition:
what mattered was that they were needed in the factories of Southall… In other
words, the definition of political refugee and economic migrant became
interchangeable. So that, just four years later, British Asians from Uganda
were deemed acceptable as political refugees because they, unlike the Kenyan
Asians, belonged by-and-large to the entrepreneurial class and could contribute
to Britain’s coffers. “British,” “alien,” “political,” “economic,” “bogus,”
“bona-fide” ― governments choose their terminology as suits their larger
economic or political purpose (Sivanandan).
56
III. South Asian Writers in Britain
While the South Asian dias poric group in Britain has a history of more than four hundred
years, South Asian diasporic writing in Britain has a history of no less than two hundred and
fifty years. Rozina Visram observed in her Ayahs, Lascars and Princes that by 1880s the
Indians had been in British Isles for hundred and fifty years, a history which was almost as
long as British colonialism in India (Visram Ayahs). However the early writings by the
people of South Asian origin in Britain were mostly non-fictional writings. Some of the works
attributed to this phase were also the works written or compiled during their stay in their
homelands which were later published from England as the writers came to Britain. The first
works were mostly travelogues and memoirs written by the sojourners and travellers mostly
during their brief stay in Britain. The writers from the Indian subcontinent who scripted their
accounts of the West during their stay either as students or scholars of the eighteenth century,
as Itesa Modeen, Mir Muhammad Husain, Abu Talib Khan, et al, or as Western educated elite
of the nineteenth century as G. P. Pillai, B.M. Malabari and several others, form an important
part of the creative writing that forms the backdrop to the later works which followed. As
Visram writes in another seminal work on the history of “Asians in Britain” in the text
bearing the same title:
…it was between 1886, the year of the Colonial and Indian Exhibition, and
1911, the coronation of George V, that there was a flowering of travel accounts
in English by Indian visitors, some of which had first been written as articles
and letters in newspapers and magazines, or delivered as lectures, and later
converted into books to inform and interpret Britain for their countrymen and
would-be travellers. Not all were literary men in the accepted sense of the term
and the quality of their writing is variable. But there is a rich seam, witty,
satirical and informative, revealing a keen eye and shrewd, perspective
impressions of Britain, London, the chief city of the empire— and by
extension, of the empire itself (Visram, Asians 105-6).
57
Apart from these visitors or sojourners who documented their travel accounts, there were
another group of South Asians in Britain as Sake Deen Mahomed, J. M. Tambimuttu and
others who stayed in Britain and were involved in professional works in the country and wrote
about the land and even worked on other fictional genres. Many other writers as Noor-Un-
Nisa Inayat Khan who handled the Indian legends of the Jataka tales, Ananda Coomaraswamy
who focused on Indian art and sculpture, and Savitri Chowdhury who wrote on “Indian
Cooking” also prevailed the sphere of South Asian British diasporic creative writing. Mulk
Raj Anand, one of the Big Threes in Indian English fiction, too had brought out two of his
novels from Britain. Some of Mulk Raj Anand the novelist and critic’s early novels, including
Across the Black Waters (1940) and The Untouchable were written and published in Britain.
His other works include Letters on India (1942) and ‘A Lascar Writes Home,’ (1941)
published in Our Time, vol.1, no.2. South Asian British diasporic writing thus form quite a
profound backdrop ranging over a big span of two and half century before the overflow of
South Asian British diasporic fiction from the middle/late of the twentieth century.
Sake Deen Mahomed, after arriving in Britain, had set up his own The Indian Vapour Bath
and Shampooing establishments in Brighton. His popular recognition as dealing in oriental
and romantic profession provided him the appointment as Shampooing Surgeon to King
George IV, which continued under William IV. His book The Travels of Dean Mohamet,
published in 1794 in Cork, Ireland was written as a series of letters to an imaginary friend.
Written in the genre of eighteenth century travel writing, it is the first book to be written and
published in English by an Indian. Mahomed’s Travels, apart from the accounts of the
Europeans and of the physical landscape of India, portrayed the Indian society in the cities
and towns and even the Muslim society from the perspective of an Indian. His profession as a
shampooing surgeon, made scope for another work, namely Shampooing, or Benefits
58
Resulting From the Use of The Indian Medicated Vapour Bath, As Introduced Into This
Country, by S. D. Mahomed (A Native of India), first published in 1822. Though not much is
heard of his descendants, his grandson Arthur George Suleiman, a medical student at Guy’s
and later a doctor at Bournemouth had authored The Treatment at the Bournemouth Mont
Dore. Published in 1889, the book was an important text in the British Medical Association.
Another Asian to have left a wide account of his life in Britain is Albert J. Mahomet. This
first British-born Indian photographer was also a preacher and teacher by profession. His first
work From Street Arab to Pastor is a worthy work of social history. Published in 1894, the
book describes the life of the poor in London’s East End, the workhouses of London and
Norfolk, and brief delineation of life in general in Victorian England. Goerge Edalji, the
victim of the notorious Edalji Case, which had made him prey to unfair charges against him,
with overtones of racism, also contributed to this phase. A brilliant student of law he was the
author of Railway Law for the ‘Man in the Train’ published by Effigham Wilson in 1901. The
next contributor to this field is Agnes Janaki Mazumdar, the youngest daughter of Womesh
Chandra Bonnerjee, an Indian lawyer and a Western-educated Indian nationalist. Born in
Calcutta in 1886, her family memoir, Pramila, provides a glimpse of the life of the family
members in Britain. In her memoir she gives a brief picture of the racial prejudices of the
natives of Britain and the numerous insults that were hurled at them. However Mazumdar’s
record is mainly a record of family events and of friends and relatives, and was privately
published in London. The year of publication remains unrecorded.
Another writer of Asian origin in Britain was Cornelia Sorabji. The first woman ever to study
law at a British University in 1889, she was also a social reformer and barrister. Between the
Twilights (1908) and The Purdahnashin (1917) reveal her concern for women and her work as
59
a social reformer. Among her books are the two autobiographies, India Calling (1934) and
India Recalled (1936). She also wrote fiction and other works on India. Her Queen Mary’s
Book of India was written to raise funds for the Indian Comforts Fund during the Second
World War.
Prince Ranjitsinghji, popularly known as Ranji, was an important figure in the history of
English cricket. A cricketing genius and an owner of a huge property in Connemara, he
confronted the stereotype of a black ‘native’ and instead shared an almost equal platform with
his British counterparts. The pride of the people of the Indian diaspora, he had been an icon
during the heights of Victorian Imperialism. The diary of his tour, With Stoddart in Australia,
published in 1898, established him as an author of his times.
A big number of the South Asian travellers and sojourners who had been to London in the
Eighteenth and Nineteenth century and had published accounts of their travels and lives in
London were Muslim scholars. A recognized Muslim scholar, Mirza Abu Talib Khan’s travel
accounts from 1799-1803 appeared in two volumes in English translation by Charles Stewart
in Britain in 1810, as The Travels of Mirza Abu Talib Khan, in Asia, Africa and Europe.
Mirza Itesa Modeen’s Excellent Intelligence Concerning Europe from 1765 appeared in an
abridged version, accompanied by an Urdu version, in 1827. However other works which
followed were the Persian texts of other visitors as Munshi Ismail and Mir Muhammad
Husain.
Another major group that contributed to Asian writing in Britain comprised the nineteenth
century travellers and other professionals who were people of different religious and cultural
groups. Some of the nineteenth century’s contributions include Diary of an Overland Journey
60
from Bombay to England by the marine engineer, Ardaseer Cursetjee, published in London in
1840; followed by the Journal of a Residence of Two Years and a Half in Great Britain by the
two ship-builders Nowrojee and Merwanjee, published in 1841. Several works by Indian
princes also made their way as E. W. West edited Diary of the Late Rajah of Kolhapoor
During His Visit to Europe in 1870, published in 1872. Other works include S.
Satthianadhan’s Four Years in an English University, published in Madras in 1893; Rakhal
Das Haldar’s The English Diary of an Indian Student, 1861-62, published in 1903 in Dacca;
and Mary Bhore’s “Some Impressions of England,” published in Indian Magazine and Review
in 1900.
The different scholars wrote in their works their reception in the Western society and how
they accepted the West. Modeen commented on how the Western eyes gazed at him with the
curiosity of watching a spectacle. Khan in his Travels wrote elaborately of the houses, parks,
streets, clubs, of the Oxford which ‘resembled in form some Hindoo temples,’ the free mixing
of the women, etc. Jhinda Ram’s My Trip to Europe, published in 1893, T. N. Mukherjee’s A
Visit to Europe, published in 1889 in Calcutta, speak of similar wonder in the eyes of the west
for an Eastern visitor. P. C. Mozoomdar in his Sketches of a Tour Round the World, published
in 1884, G. N. Nadkarani’s Journal of a Visit to Europe in 1896, published in 1903; and
Mehdi Hassan Khan’s “London Sketches by an Indian Pen,” compiled in Indian Magazine
and Review (March 1890) all provide descriptions of Victorian England and the
idiosyncrasies of the British people.
Another important writer, poet, journalist and social reformer, B. M. Malabari had visited
England in 1890 to campaign against child marriage and enforced widowhood. In his The
Indian Eye on English Life, Malabari rejects the pretensions and patronizing of the West:
61
…the patronizing Englishman does us as much harm as he who disparages and
decries our merits…we should be treated exactly as equals, if we deserve to be.
You must not give us less than our due— equal justice and no more (Malabari
65).
Another visitor to Britain, the traveller Hajee Sullaiman Shah Mahomed noted several
characteristics of the Western society as gender division in separate reading tables in the
library in his Journal of My Tours Round the World 1886-1887 and 1893-1895, published in
1895. Other works include Reminiscences English and Australasian (1893) by N. L. Doss;
Reminiscences England and American Pt II, England and India (1888) by A. L. Roy; England
and India (1893) by Lala Baijnath; England to an Indian Eye (1897) by T. B. Pandian;
London and Paris Through Indian Spectacles (1897) by G. P. Pillai and some other works as
well.
Apart from the travellers, and sojourners, another group of South Asian people who had lived
at one or other time in Britain had also contributed to the literary field in Britain. J. M.
Tambimuttu, a Tamil from Sri Lanka was the founder editor of Poetry London. Krishnarao
Shelvankar, writer and journalist for the Hindu newspaper from 1942-68, authored The
Problem of India. A critique of colonialism, the book was published as a Penguin Special in
1940 but was banned in India. Kaikhosru Sorabji, composer and pianist, was also a significant
writer and critic. Apart from his two-volume collected essays, Around Music and Mi Contra
Fa, he has written several reviews, essays, letters and articles. On the other hand, living and
working in Britain, Savitri Chowdhury’s insights into the new land and home is scripted in I
Made My Home In England and Indian Cooking, both popular books at the time.
Another writer Noor-Un-Nisa Inayat Khan became well-known for her children’s stories, and
was also a musician and the founder and teacher of the Sufi movement in the West. While her
62
children’s stories are compiled in Le Figaro, her Twenty Jataka Tales Retold focuses on the
Buddhist fables; Ananda Coomarswamy’s Dance of Shiva brings together Indian mythology,
and art and sculpture in a single work. Dadabhai Naoroji, involved in British national politics
and member of the Liberal Party had also authored Poverty of India, as an economic critique
of colonialism. The Parliamentary Leper, a pioneering study of the race relations in Britain in
the 1960s was written by Dr Dhani Prem, the Labour Councillor in Birmingham, and
published in Aligarh in 1965. Apart from these works, several other writers have also made
significant contributions to the literature of South Asian British diaspora, which remain
beyond the purview of the limited corpus of this research work. These works from the early
days of South Asian immigration into Britain mark the diaspora’s beginning of creative
response in multiple genres.
These different literary accounts of the travellers, sojourners and the adapted citizens to
Britain in their experiences have represented centuries of encounter. The responses evoked as
a result of the same bring in curious sentiments of admiration and repulsion at once. This
feeling which spurs what goes in the name of diasporic angst had thus begun much earlier
than the pronouncement of the term. Antoinette Burton in the seminal text on Asians in
Britain At the Heart of the Empire studies the contribution of Pandita Ramabai at Cheltham
and Wantage, Cornelia Sorabji at Oxford and Behramji Malabari in London. According to
her:
The accounts that these three left of their experiences in the British Isles in the
1880s and the 1890s suggest that the United Kingdom could be as much of a
“contact zone” as the colonies themselves…Their experiences also provide
historical evidence of how imperial power was staged at home and how it was
contested by colonial “natives” at the heart of the empire itself. By investing
Indians’ negotiations of colonialism in metropolitan localities, students of
Victorian culture can more fully understand how Britain itself has historically
been an imperial terrain— a site productive not just of imperial policy or
attitudes directed outward, but of colonial encounters within (Burton 1).
63
Having looked into the processes of diaspora formation in this chapter, and also at the early
writing on the same that emerged out of Britain in particular, an attempt will be made in the
next chapter to examine the theories that propose to define diaspora and the allied areas
connected to the same. In this process it would also be seen how far the theories evince
practical truths.
64
Works Cited
Appadurai, Arjun. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. Print.
Assayag, Jackie, and Véronique Bénéï, eds. At Home in Diaspora: South Asian Scholars and
the West. Permanent Black: New Delhi, 2003. Print.
Ballard, Roger. “The South Asian presence in Britain and its Transnational connections.”
Culture and Economy in the Indian Diaspora. Ed. Bikhu Parekh, Gurharpal Singh,
and Steven Vertovec. London and New York: Routledge, 2003. 197-222. Print.
Brah, Avtar. Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge,
1996. Print.
Braziel, Jana Evans, and Anita Mannur, eds. Theorizing Diaspora: A Reader. Malden, U.S.A.;
Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003. Print.
Brown, Judith M. Global South Asians: Introducing the Modern Diaspora. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print.
Burton, Antoinette. At the Heart of the Empire: Indians and the Colonial Encounter in Late-
Victorian Britain. California: University of California Press, 1998. Print.
Chindhade, S.V. “The Marathi Literary Diaspora in the US and the UK.” Interpreting Indian
Diasporic Experience. Ed. Adesh Pal and Tapas Chakraborti. New Delhi: Creative
Books, 2004. 77-83. Print.
Clarke, C., C. Peach, and S. Vertovec, eds. South Asian Overseas: Migration and Ethnicity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Print.
Clifford, James. “Diasporas.” Cultural Anthropology 9:3 (1994): 302-38. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.
Cohen, R. Global Diasporas: An Introduction. London: UCL Press, 1997. Print.
Coward, Harold G., John R. Hinnells, and Raymond Brady Williams. The South Asian
Religious Diaspora in Britain, Canada, and the United States. New York: University
of New York Press, 2000. Print.
Fanon, Frantz. Black Skins, White Masks. London: Pluto Press, 1986. Print.
Gillion, K. L. The Fiji Indians: Challenge to European Dominance 1920-1946. Canberra:
Australian National University Press, 1977. Print.
Gilroy, Paul. There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack. London: Unwin Hyman Limited, 1987.
Print.
65
Hanchard, Michael. “Identity, meaning and the African-American.” Social Text. 24. 31-42.
Print.
Jain, Prakash C. “Culture and economy in an ‘incipient’ diaspora: Indians in the Persian Gulf
region.” Culture and Economy in the Indian Diaspora. Ed. Bikhu Parekh, Gurharpal
Singh, and Steven Vertovec. London and New York: Routledge, 2003. 102-122. Print.
Kelly, John D. “‘They Cannot Represent Themselves’: Threats to Difference and So-Called
Community Politics in Fiji from 1936 to 1947.” Community, Empire and Migration:
South Asians in Diaspora. 2001. Ed. Crispin Bates. New York: Orient Longman
Private Ltd, 2003. Print.
Koshy, Susan. “Introduction”. Transnational South Asians: The Making of a Neo-Diaspora.
Ed. Susan Koshy and R. Radhakrishnan. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2008.
1-41. Print.
Kureishi, Hanif. Outskirts and Other Plays. London: Faber and Faber, 1992. Print.
Lane, Harriet. “Ali’s in Wonderland.” guardian.co.uk. The Observer, 1 June 2003. Web. 13
Sep 2009.
“Light on South Asian Diaspora.” Boloji.com. N.p, 31 Dec 2006. Web. 7 Sep 2009.
Malabari, B. M. The Indian Eye on English Life. 1893. Bombay: Apollo Printing Works,
1895. Print.
Nasta, Susheila. Home Truths: Fictions of the South Asian Diaspora in Britain. New York:
Palgrave, 2002. Print.
Oberoi, Harjot. “Imagining Indian diasporas in Canada: An epic without a text?” Culture and
Economy in the Indian Diaspora. Ed. Bikhu Parekh, Gurharpal Singh, and Steven
Vertovec. London and New York: Routledge, 2003. 183-196. Print.
Patterson, Sheila. Immigration and Race Relations in Britain, 1960-67. London & New York:
Institute of Race Reations, 1969. Print.
Procter, James. Writing Black Britain 1948-1998: An Interdisciplinary Anthology. Manchester
and New York: Manchester University Press, 2000. Print.
Robinson, Jenny, ed. Development and Displacement. Oxford: OUP, 2002. Print.
“Roots of the Future: Ethnic diversity in the making of Britain.” Council for Racial Equality.
Channel Four Television Corporation, 1996. Web. 12 July 2009.
Rushdie, Salman. “The New Empire Within Britain.” Imaginary Homelands: Essays and
Criticism 1981-1991. London: Penguin, 1992. 129-38. Print.
66
Safran, William. “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return.”
Diaspora 1.1 (Spring, 1991): 83-99. Print.
Shukla, Sandhya. India Abroad: Diasporic Cultures of Postwar America and England. New
Delhi: Orient Longman Private Ltd, 2003. Print.
Singh, Gurharpal. “Introduction”. Culture and Economy in the Indian Diaspora. Ed. Bikhu
Parekh, Gurharpal Singh, and Steven Vertovec. London and New York: Routledge,
2003. Print.
Sivanandan, Ambalavaner. “The Casualties of Globalism.” Common Dreams.org. Guardian
Newspapers Limited, 8 Aug 2000. Web. 11 Aug 2009.
Vertovec, Steven. The Hindu Diaspora: Comparative Patterns. London & New York:
Routledge, 2000. Print.
Visram, Rozina. Ayahs, Lascars and Princes: The History of Indians in Britain, 1700-1947.
London: Pluto Press, 1986. Print.
―――. Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History. London: Pluto Press, 2002. Print.
Voigt-Graf, Carmen. “Indians at home in the Antipodes.” Culture and Economy in the Indian
Diaspora. Ed. Bikhu Parekh, Gurharpal Singh, and Steven Vertovec. London and New
York: Routledge, 2003. 142-164. Print.