August 19, 2006
Malkani on desis in multicultural BritainIssues
Gautam Malkani, the author of Londonstani, has an Op-Ed in today’s New York Times that contrasts the atmosphere at the recent London Mela — a Brit-desi music festival — with the narrative of British South Asians as disgruntled and uninterested in assimilation. Malkani describes a desi culture that is truly British, and the improvements in understanding and exchange between Brit-desis and non-desi Brits — points that are often made here by members of the Sepia Mutiny UK massive like Jai, Bong Breaker, Red Snapper, Midwestern Eastender, and esteemed visitors like Sunny from Pickled Politics.
You’ll want to read the whole article: it’s short, well-written and chock full of observations and interpretations that I am sure will provoke many reactions. Here are some of the key paragraphs:
… When I was growing up in Hounslow in the 1980s, these festivals used to be parochial, ethnically exclusive events. But in recent years they have become racially diverse. More important, they are no longer really festivals of South Asian culture; they celebrate British South Asian culture.
Those who stayed at home, however, were given a very different view of the state of multicultural Britain. The weekend newspapers were crammed with apocalyptic warnings about Britains failure to integrate its South Asian youth into mainstream society a failure that, in light of the recent foiled terrorist plot, again appears to have left young, British-born South Asian men so disenfranchised that they are prepared to carry out mass murder against their fellow citizens.
Since the London bombings of July 7, 2005, conventional wisdom has held that when it comes to racial integration, Britain has botched it, and that our long-standing policy of promoting multiculturalism has kept us from sustaining a common, over-arching culture and national identity toward which different races and religions can feel loyal. Today it is widely accepted that there has been a trade-off between the promotion of diversity and the nations social cohesiveness.
Its a pity that so few of these columnists ever attended a summer mela or have any feel for our thriving desi beats scene.
It may seem absurd to focus on British South Asian hip-hop artists in the context of the threat of planes being blown out of the sky, and there are of course differences between the experiences of British Pakistani youth and British Indian youth. But because our policy of multiculturalism sometimes appears to have failed so spectacularly, we need to recognize the underappreciated and underreported ways in which it has succeeded.
Again, do read the whole piece. It’s an important perspective to put forward, not least for Americans who are just now tuning into the dynamics of South Asians in Britain and doing so through the lens of “homegrown terrorism” and media reports on extremist imams and alienated youth. I will be curious to read the reactions from our UK contingent to this article, as well as from everyone else.
siddhartha on August 19, 2006 12:24 AM in Issues · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Since the London bombings of July 7, 2005, conventional wisdom has held that when it comes to racial integration, Britain has botched it, and that our long-standing policy of promoting multiculturalism has kept us from sustaining a common, over-arching culture and national identity toward which different races and religions can feel loyal. Today it is widely accepted that there has been a trade-off between the promotion of diversity and the nations social cohesiveness.
Over-arching culture? Diversity will never work, at least not for long. People will sooner or later come to adopt a monoculture. It just does not work very well. With me, it is always family and tribe first. Talk about cohesiveness! If the tribe on which the nation-state was founded is not that to which tribe I belong, I cannot feel terribly much loyalty toward it. Speaking of national identity, I do not feel particularly "American", but rather much more like the "Other". But this isn't a real problem for me, as I am not demanding that I be loved, only tolerated. I have no affiliative feeling toward other Americans, especially toward those whose ancestors fought for independence or those who support this land with unblinking patriotism. This is how I feel toward my fellow americans in general; not loyal but rather indifferent. And it would take much more of a threat than average to get me to actually raise a trigger finger for Amerikka. I am certainly not a very "cohesive" element in the land. Cool?
apples & oranges. i think juxtaposing 7/7 with the emergent brown macroculture in the arts is trivializing the former and devaluing the specific contributions of the latter as art rather than part of some broader theme. one can assert that the assimilation of british muslims, or at least the pacification (civilization?) of british muslims has been an abject failure (i count something like 7/7 as evidence of abject failure), while noting that broad diverse strands of hybrid and multilayered cultural complexes arise. and yes, one must not forget to distinguish between the more low-key and less tense integration of non-muslim asians vs. muslim ones. this is a real divergence which sheds light on the subtlies inherent in the "multicultural dilemna."
low-key and less tense integration of non-muslim asians vs. muslim ones.
razib, do you know what the intermarriage rates are (i.e., intermarriage w/ ethnic english, whites, etc) for non-moslem asians vs. moslem ones? Any available stats on UK intermarriage in general?
razib, do you know what the intermarriage rates are (i.e., intermarriage w/ ethnic english, whites, etc) for non-moslem asians vs. moslem ones? Any available stats on UK intermarriage in general?
1) not offhand
2) but yes, the UK census site has them. i recall that banlgadeshis and pakistanis had VERY low intermarriage rates. black males had high ones. hindus & sikhs were low, though not as low as bangladehis and pakistanis. but this is a qualitative sense (except i recall that more than half of black males were married or cohabitating with white females).
Surveys after surveys have shown that Indian Hindus are much more integrated in British Society than Pakistani Muslims by a large distance.
Anyone know how significant a portion of the UK Pakistani population are actually ethnic Pukhtuns, not Punjabis, Sindhis, etc. I don't even know what the figures are for American Pakistanis. Were any of the recent plot suspects Pakhtuns for sure?
Razib
I too recall reading somehwere that black males had 50% intermarriage rates with whites. But for a black man, it is about being socially upward, the cliched ultimate status symbol - a white girlfriend or wife.
For desis, it is something else...Here in the US, the rates of marriage is increasing , especially about desis born and brought up here.
razib, thanks for that info. These blacks with high intermarriage rates are caribbean islanders, not people like Nigerians or Somalian blacks, I am going to assume.
But for a black man, it is about being socially upward, the cliched ultimate status symbol - a white girlfriend or wife
I think it's more about UK white women being "hot", as it were, for afro-caribbean males.
Here in the US, the rates of marriage is increasing , especially about desis born and brought up here.
estimates vary from 20-40% depending on who you listen to for those born & raised in the USA (or 1.5). sex ratio is balanced (that is brown is hittin' and *cringe* being hit).
prope//er, how do know the incident was "racist"? It may not have been.
Also. "South Asian" is a convenient description; no need to be more specific. For example, when I hear E Asian, I think pacific rim nations and so on; when I hear "South Asian", I know what communities are being referred to, etc.
Please don't bother responding to propellars commments since they will be deleted anyway. Thanks.
The "Post 9/11 blues" song mentioned in the article is available on YouTube, very funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKTsJpfC0IQ&eurl
I think the writer makes some assumptions about younger desis' motivations regarding their "aggressive" behaviour, although it may be true in some quarters. I'm 33 so obviously I can't speak for British desis a decade younger than me, of course, and my own experiences are defined by my own (South) Asian social circles, which these days are pretty far removed from any kind of bhangramuffin stereotype.
This is probably the most important point. What constitutes "British Asian" culture in 2006 is dominated by the (Indian) Punjabi influence, obviously fused with Western (especially American) influences. Although the (Indian) Punjabi factor has always been dominant ever since a homegrown 2nd-generation Brit desi culture developed (taking off from the early 90s onwards), Pakistanis tended to enthusiastically join in too, except for the most conservative types. I would say that the gulf (to some extent) between the two groups has escalated post-9/11. It seems to be a growing problem, although of course there are plenty of younger Pakistanis here who are more westernised/liberal and integrated than their more orthodox co-religionists.
I can't quote specific figures but the percentage of Pakhtuns is comparatively small.
Sikhs too, obviously. The majority of British Indian Punjabis are Sikhs, although there is a sizeable minority of Hindu Punjabis here too.
**********************
R.K. Khan's mindset, as indicated by post #1 on this thread, is a fundamental cause of the problem in the UK. It's endemic amongst older desis here of all religious backgrounds, but since Muslims are the most conservative group, it's particularly pronounced amongst them and contributes to the problems they have integrating successfully into British society. When 2nd-generation British Pakistanis are continuously exposed to that attitude from elders etc and consciously/subconsciously emulate it, it's a major contributor to the problems we see today and causes both alienation and disdain (some would even say "disgust") towards the mainstream society and culture, especially in issues regarding "morality".
I am a mixed South Asian-American (White/Sri Lankan Tamil) who has been living in London for the past year and I attended the London Mela last weekend. I am certainly not qualified to speak on the assimilation/integration of Muslim/non-Muslim South Asians in the UK, etc, but I just wanted to add a personal comment.
Attending the Mela was one of the most positive experiences I have had in London, and, more broadly, within South Asian communities in the West. In the States--in situations ranging from years of Bharata Natyam lessons to attempts at participation in Desi student groups--I have consistently felt alienated, ignored, and, at worst, downright unwelcome. At the Mela, while it was certainly dominated by an Indian/Punjabi influence as Jai noted, I felt, for once, included within the Desi youth culture. The Mela was attended by a wide variety South Asians (Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, inter-racial families, etc) and where else would someone of Sri Lankan heritage (Nihal) be of the most popular DJs of desi beats, cheered on by British Asians of all possible ethnic/national ancestry and immigration status?
RK Khan
I took a look at your blog and the first thing I read made me think that you are a parody of a certain kind of attitude and mindset. Rooting around and looking at your contributions here, I begin to think you're not. So I re-read your post, this one:
You see, I detest you, and people like you, for your viciousness, backwardness, sadism, hatred, bigotry, misogyny, violence. You represent the worst of all things.
Gautam Malkani, however, represents the best of all things from amongst the British Desi people. Young, articulate, successful, magnanimous, socially aware, with a desire to tell tales and stories.
One of the more vibrant parts of the British desi culture is the musical talents that were on display at the London mela. Not just bhangra, but all sorts of genres and styles, from experimental stuff, to 'Asian Underground' to Nitin Sawhney, to Cornershop, it's all so diverse and great. They also represent the best in the spirit of British Desis, exciting, a desire to create a culture and space for themselves, something unique and tolerant and non tribal and inclusive and celebratory.
Razib, you make some good points in post # 2. But at the same time, there is no harm in pointing out the positive spontaneous cultural representations of Asian life in Britain.
The gap between Indians and Pakistanis in terms of integration and acculturation in the wider society is worrying though. Even on an anecdotal grassroots level, there is an embrace of the possibilities of British society amongst Hindus and Sikhs that is less noticeable, although not invisible, amongst Pakistanis. Most of the British desi musicians are from Hindu or Sikh backgrounds, for example. These are generalisations, but there is some truth in the anecdotal observation.
Looks like with R. K. Khan we have the muslim relative of SpoorLam. His comments and blog demonstrate a straightforward islamist agenda, cloaked within the convenient use of terms like "equality", "justice" etc.
So I am not going to waste any time on him. I am puzzled by the use of "south asian" in this article. While I realize that immigrants from the indian sub-continent share some challenges integrating into the UK, I dont believe it is "south asians" who are blowing up trains, obsessed about israel etc. I am afraid this is yet another example of PC-ness run amok.
Ban RK Khan. We don't need backward, ignorant, hateful, medieval people like him. Better still, put him in a burqa and order 1000 lashes.
Much has been made of the culturally alienated British Pakistanis, especially post-9/11. I don't know how assimilated they really were in Britain pre-9/11. Perhaps 9/11 and Islamic fundamentalism have nothing to do with the cultural insularity of Pakistani immigrants.
Pakistani immigrants, at least in the US and perhaps in Britain as well, come from much more diverse economic and sociocultural backgrounds than do Indians. In other words, it is harder for a poor and uneducated cab driving immigrant to become mainstreamed in his new country than it is for an IIT-alumnus working for Microsoft. If you go to the South Asian ghettos in the major North American cities, you will find culturally alienated Hindus as well, and living next door to culturally alienated Pakistanis. What is common between them is not religion obviously but their socioeconomic backgrounds.
Speaking of South Asians' ability to integrate with the western culture, I am told that history is on the side of the muslims. With fewer religious and dietary taboos than Hindus, and of course certain religious commonalities with Christianity and Judaism, they had a higher comfort level with the white colonizers than did the Hindus. Of course, the new fundamentalism in Islam recognizes no such commonality, but what percentage of South Asian muslims living in Britain and UK can be fairly labeled fundamentalists?
I am as Hindu as the next guy standing in line for "aarti" at the temple, but I find the muslim diaspora very inadequately researched by so-called journalists. Journalism has to sell itself like any enterprise. It is easier to sell a story on 22 muslims planning a terrorist attack than 10,000 muslims going about their usual business of going to work, making mortgage payments, worrying about their children's education and hoping for that year-end bonus. And obviously, it is intellectually easier to explain everything about the muslim diaspora through the default of Islamic fundamentalism rather than search for other possible socio-cultural explanations.
Good article by Malkani. Thanks Siddhartha. So how do we account for this kind of successful multiculturalism in a society that has arguably been more segregated (all desi neighbourhoods)? Malkani says
Isn't this how one would describe desi culture in the US? It's voguish, not integrated into the mainstream, wouldn't you say?
Here is another fun vignette that shows how desis are included in a sense of national identity at such moments. Compare macaca or rather, don't
betraying his Pakistani blood, he carried himself with a desi swagger that ultimately earned him their respect.
As long as RK Khan doesn't leave any more garbage on THIS site we won't ban him. The blogosphere is about free speech. What a person does or says on their own blog doesn't concern us (unless it relates to us). What they say in this space is what matters to us. Despite what some people assume we don't make a decision to ban a person lightly.
Floridian, for the journalists and media, good news is no news, as the saying goes!
The administrator is to be applauded for not banning RK Khan. RK's comments, on this site, were not objectionable.
Chandi, I like your use of the term "voguish" to describe desi culture. To a great extent, ethnicity by its definition means alternative, non-mainstreamed and voguish - even in India. The Bengali community in Delhi, the Tamils in Bengal, the Gujaratis in Bihar - all examples of ethnicity.
I agree with you about the need to not view Muslims solely through the prism of fundamentalism 100%. Muslim's feel helpless precisely because the fundamentalists have set the agenda and taken control of their narrative. If there were not extremists in England, the Muslim community would still have issues, but on the whole, the picture would not be so bad, and the voices of progressive Muslim achievment would have been more visible.
But in the matter of the actual fundamentalists, 'other possible socio-cultural explanations' always hit roadblocks. The depth of fundamentalism amongst middle class, prosperous, rich and educated individuals is noticeable by looking at the background of those involved in jihadi activity. The fact that socio-economic factors amongst mainstream Muslims and other non white Britons who face similar issues of discrimination does not lead them to organised far-right violent militancy is another. Ultimately, it is part of the same story. When 99% of Muslims just struggle hard to pay the mortgage and contribute to society despite whatever they face, ceding ground to the fundamentalists is another example of denying mainstream Muslims control of their narrative.
"The fact that socio-economic factors amongst mainstream Muslims and other non white Britons who face similar issues of discrimination does not lead them to organised far-right violent militancy is another."
There are a lot of historical and current parallels to the Islamic fundamentalism story. Remember the history of the Mafia? The uneducated Italian youth, discriminated by the WASP society, finds refuge in gangs and before you know it, an underground society called the Mafia is formed. Whether the sactuary is called "Our Thing" or jihad matters little. The root cause is not the Koran, nor the misinterpretation of Koran, but socio-economic factors. I recently read an article in Time attempting to explain why the muslims in the US are far less violence prone than muslims in Europe. The reasons offered were the greater inclusiveness of the US society, better economic opportunities and so on.
What concerns me about the Islamic universe is not so much fundamentalism per se but the social factors that would always incubate fundamentalism, regardless of geography or religion. Of course there is always the "chicken or the egg" dilemma, and if the writer of "The Trouble with Islam" is to be believed, there is indeed something in Islam that fosters fundamentalism. But didn't we use to say the same thing about Communism? There was something in their agenda that made them want to go out and communize other countries. As it turned out, that except for the guys in the Kremlin, there really were no communists in the former USSR - only a few hundred million people subsisting on potato, rotting meat and vodka.
I think one thing that doesn't get enough attention (or accolade) is that this whole 'desi beats' or 'UK bhangra' scene is largely the product and cultural expression of British-born Sikhs, period. Although there have been (minor) contributions from other groups (and of course the fans of this scene hail from all groups), the British Sikhs have created a thriving culture of their own in the UK that dates back to the late 70s/early 80s, when bands that became popular performing at weddings started releasing albums and developed a fan following. This culture is rooted in village Punjab, with loads of influence from urban UK (including hip-hop and Caribbean influences). It is a reflection of the British Sikh identity. And the best part it that it has almost no active connection to India, it is almost entirely homegrown in the UK (of course the Punjabi language and the musical traditions/folk songs/instrumentation, etc that it is based on do come from India originally). Literally thousands of young Sikhs have been involved in creating this musical and cultural scene over the past 2 decades. Somehow, social/demographic factors were aligned just right in the UK to allow this to happen...because the equally large Punjabi community in Canada has not displayed even close to this level of creativity (it could be because they rely on importing product from the UK to fill their cultural needs; and I must say, the best bhangra dancing often comes from Canada). As for the melas, there has been a steady cycle of summertime melas through all the major desi communities in the UK for a long time now. Although they can be viewed as Malkani has interpreted them, I see them more as an expression of Punjabi culture and traditions, transplanted into a new environment and expressed through a new generation.
Floridian:
The origins of the mafia date back to Sicily centuries ago; some mafia elements were among those who migrated to America, and they gradually developed their criminal enterprises here as well. Discrimination from WASP society may have helped fuel its growth.
My comment about banning was made in jest as the comment that followed signalled (burqa etc). I support free speech too, and in any case, it's your blog.
I noticed this from the article,
while
that underscores
Floridian said:
I dont agree with that. The reason why American muslims of Pakistani decent do well is because a large part of them are also highly educated coming into the US due to the immigration policy of US, unlike the UK where entire Mirpuri villages live in their "biradari" system as the British readers had pointed out right after 7/7.
Strangely enough, I have just finished reading a book about the Mafia by Peter Robb, and the reality of the mafia is that it was the complete opposite of the romanticised brigands of Sicilian Robin Hood's that you depict it as. They always were oppressive agents of Sicilian feudal lords and the persecuters of the poor and the peasentry. They were instrumental in the killing of communists and leftists in Sicily and in the diaspora they were criminal thugs who preyed in the first instance on the blood of their own community.
Taken like this, the comparison becomes more clear, and despite the defficiencies, regarding the extremists in this rosy eyed light is deeply dangerous and egregious.
The direct root causes of the fundamentalist violence is the ideology of extremism that has directly traceable ideological roots, political goals, ideologies, rooted in the philosophies of Sayid Qutb, Maududi etc etc. I understand the impulse to paint them in the Che Guevara light, but it is ultimately deeply egregious and wrong to do so. Well, only as right to do so as to paint for example violent and extreme right wing Hindutvadi fundamentalists in that light, or extreme right wing Neo Nazi skinheads in that light. In their own world of blame, cause and effect, and self romanticising notions, they are the perpetually oppressed, the righteous and sinned against. It's a shame that this is given so much purchase, especially when cleaving to their self value insults, marginalises, deprives mainstream Muslims of the ground beneath their feet. As an analysis it is deeply inadequate, and consistently slaps those Muslims and other people in those societies who progress without recourse to this violent hateful ideology in the face. It also ignores simple FACTS - that the proponents of jihad in the UK are not poverty stricken or marginalised but come from relatively prosperous and highly educated backgrounds.
Part of the Left has a massive blindspot on this issue.
Amitabh
Bhangra is the bread and butter of British Asian music, for sure, but in London especially there is a thriving scene of more experimental music which was heralded by artists like Talvin Singh and Nitin Sawhney which focuses around clubland. But the 'scenes' are quite intertwined. You have hardcore bhangra clubs and listeners, who only listen to that, and that's fine, but if you listen to some of the DJ sets on radio or at clubs there isnt so much snobbery - you'll get an Asian underground track played beside a bhangra track next to a Hip Hop track by a DJ like Nihal. It's quite mixed up like that which is good - everyone influences each other.
That Londonstani book was the biggest piece of shi# ever. Maybe it gets better but my body rejected anymore of it, I couldnt force myself to read anymore of it much like your body not letting you suffocate yourself to death.
Hi Red Snapper:
I was neither romanticizing nor condoning the Mafia, jihadists and similar criminals of any ilk. I was merely alluding to certain factors that usually fuel such extremism. In fact, the extremists are the ones who are quick to characterize themselves as the oppressed because it is good for their "business."
Speaking of culture-vulture, here's another cross-over Indian (in more ways than one)artist who is in today's NYTimes. Someone needs to blog about this. British-based desi artist about to do an installation in New York.
nice that the tone has remained high minded as i wake up in the morning. bravo!
now,
jai, said:
When 2nd-generation British Pakistanis are continuously exposed to that attitude from elders etc and consciously/subconsciously emulate it,
i think we need to add one issue here: there is a transmutation of the 'islam' which is practiced by the 2nd generation of briton muslims. to simplify, one could say it is a transformation of a more quietist barlevi sunni faith to a more strident deobandi sectarianism, but this is simplifying. the issue here is the generation of a new violent identity, unrooted, within the west, but not of it. the point is that the new islamic violence which manifests itself in the west is a hybrid culture, arising from the intersection of the tensions imposed by traditional islam, which can not be transferred to a new geographical locale, and the spread of a transnationalist ideology which can fill that vacuum. one point about radical transnationalist islamists is that they tend to be wanderers who are cosmopolitan. many of the 9/11 bombers had long sojourns in europe.
What is common between them is not religion obviously but their socioeconomic backgrounds.
the link between poverty and terrorism has been debunked. neither the 9/11 or 7/7 bombers were personally poor or destitute, and terrorism and radicalism violence do not necessarily (usually) emerge from those backgrounds. the profile of palestinian suicide bombers for example tends to be middle class, with prospects. the link between poverty and terrorism is intuitively appealing, and never seems to be able to be debunked because of its cultural and introspective supports, but it is just not correct (see scott atran, marc sageman or robert pape's work). one can easily see that poverty and terrorism do not have a tight correlation in that many immigrant groups are poor, but that does not lead to terrorism in all circumstances (e.g., why is it that the pakistani british community produced the 7/7 bombers, and not the turkish community in germany? are the latter much more affluent? we must look to other causative factors).
Speaking of South Asians' ability to integrate with the western culture, I am told that history is on the side of the muslims. With fewer religious and dietary taboos than Hindus, and of course certain religious commonalities with Christianity and Judaism, they had a higher comfort level with the white colonizers than did the Hindus.
i think it is not really plausible in most circumstances that point-by-point theological differences translate into inevitable assimilation. after all, black americans in the USA tend to share the evangelical christianity of their white neighbors (the baptist religion), but that does not imply amity. the kalmyks of the upper volga are refugee mongols who traditionally practice a form of lamaist buddhism. and yet i see no evidence that they are less assimilated into the russian state than their tatar muslim neighbors. the kalmyks have been resident in russia for 250 years, so there has been plenty of time. there are fewer dietary taboo differences between islam and judaism than between judaism and christianity, but i see no historical evidence that the jews of islam were more assimilated than the jews of christianity over time (do not confuse al-andalus for the norm in the dar-al-islam, maimonides fled persecution to the court of egypt from muslim regimes in spain and north africa).
The uneducated Italian youth, discriminated by the WASP society, finds refuge in gangs and before you know it, an underground society called the Mafia is formed.
this is a misreading of history, as another commenter pointed out. the mafia exists in sicily, it was transferred to the united states. one can't place the locus of all cultural developments in a reaction to the WASP power structure, as if immigrants are passive elements whose destinities have nothing to do with what they bring to the table. there were many groups who faced oppression in the united states, but the italian american mafia has been particular robust and resilient. one might posit that this is due to the previous cultural habits and experiences that the italian, as opposed to the irish, jewish, etc. mafias has been particular persistent despite italian american assimilation.
The root cause is not the Koran, nor the misinterpretation of Koran, but socio-economic factors. I recently read an article in Time attempting to explain why the muslims in the US are far less violence prone than muslims in Europe. The reasons offered were the greater inclusiveness of the US society, better economic opportunities and so on.
it is important to go beyond one "root cause," and perceive the issue as a nexus of interlocking necessary and sufficient conditions. i do not think there is fundamentally koranic that results in violence, but the reality is that there have been real problems assimilating muslims and not non-muslims in much of europe over the past generation. the key here might be socioeconomic in that muslims were drawn from lower strata with fewer skills. in the USA one reason muslims are not radical is that their relatively high educational levels guarantees a level of integration because professional level occuptations demand that, and also imply a high level of necessary mobility and interaction on a day to day level with those outside the community. additionally, muslims in the USA are ethnically diverse, so one unitary correlated identity of muslim-pakistani can not evolve because being muslim means being black, white, pakistani, arab, malaysian, etc. my understanding is that the sikhs were not derived from a much higher SES layer than the immigrants from mirpur, but seem to have integrated to a greater extent. i am curious as to more data in this area. the focus on socioeconomics is i think not unwarranted, in that it is a necessary precondition (affluent communities, as opposed to individuals, do not seem to produce terrorists), but it needs to be modulated by the reality that the terrorists themselves are often rather prosperous (e.g., atta was an engineering graduate student, some of the 7/7 bombers had a lot of money in the bank), and, not all communities which are poor seem to make recourse to terrorism. many of the black african communities in europe are not affluent, but there is no terrorism, many of the latino communities in the USA are not affluent, but there is no terrorism.
i will try to offer what i think are a list of factors
1) social anomie produced by the immigrant -> 2nd gen transition, or, cosmopolitanism in general (many radicals have backgrounds as expats at some point in their life, like bin laden and the core of al qaeda)
2) communal poverty in concert with personal prosperity, or at least personal freedom (that is, the community you identify with is powerless, but you are not)
3) an appropriate ideology which you find appealing (affluent white secular europeans were attracted to leftist radicalism in the 1960s)
4) tacit community acceptance of the "baby steps" toward radicalism. i think the reality is that many muslims come from cultures where some level of political-social violence is accepted as the norm
in regards to islam, though i do not think there is anything fundamental about any religion which is violent or pacifist, the historical record gives plenty of support for acting with violence in the name of the faith. this is probably a factor too, but perhaps not necessary or sufficient.
Assimilation need not mean synthesising a culture or entirely giving up one's own in favor of the host nation's. It could also mean simply following the laws of the land - extremely important in a country lik the US which is above all a land of laws. whether it derives from English common law or Scots law or is based on pragmatic statements such as found in the Code Napolean a community that assimilates ensures that nothing it does runs foul of these laws. It is not about song and dance or food.
The situation is reversed now. Hindus -- at least 2nd-Generation guys & gals -- are the most Westernised desi group in the UK. The vast majority drink alcohol and eat meat (except possibly for Jains -- who drink but may be vegetarian -- or the Swaminarayan types). Broadly-speaking, they also tend to be the most liberal in terms of certain aspects of dating behaviour etc.
Also remember that there's been a massive change in Western (ie. white) attitudes regarding female dress, sexual freedom, women's freedom, and general interaction between the sexes since colonial times. This issue, in particular, is another reason for the self-imposed segregation of many 1st and 2nd Generation British Pakistanis, and their disdain towards what they perceive to be mainstream British/Western culture and society. There are other issues too, of course, but matters like these mean that the people concerned a) don't want to fully integrate into British/Western society, and b) are unable to integrate sufficiently.
2nd-Gen Hindus and Sikhs have perhaps found it easier to embrace such "normal" aspects of Western life because, from their perspective, there are less stringent religion-based restrictions on such matters (although they tend to be less strictly religious here anyway).
My experiences with UK born desis was always friendly. Ofcourse, I met them all in the states, but there was marked difference in attitudes between the ones who were born there and ones who are born here.
Floridian
My apologies if I misread you. But you're right, there is a whole self-mytologizing that takes place around these groups, and that is the larger point I was trying to make, especially how dangerous it is to accept them at face value and then allow them to characterise Muslims in toto with their actions.
regards
Oooh, I'm esteemed now? Woohoo! I was expecting you guys to pick this up to be honest, Gautam sent me the article before for a quick perspective and I agreed with him. So I'm happy to defend criticisms.
Someone above said
i think juxtaposing 7/7 with the emergent brown macroculture in the arts is trivializing the former and devaluing the specific contributions of the latter as art rather than part of some broader theme.
I think the broader point here is about identity. The 7/7 lot and the celebration of brown culture are both identity issues that continue to manifest themselves in different ways. I think there is still a reluctance in many parts, especially with young Muslims, to identity themselves as British/English. That plays into a lot of issues. When people "blame" multi-culturalism for England's ills, they refer not just to 7/7 but also government funding of events such as the London Mela. The theory being that the more we are allowed to develop our own sub-culture, the more segregated we remain.
Razib wrote "the link between poverty and terrorism has been debunked."
Poverty may be one of the components of the backward sociocultural conditions that foster fundamentalism but it doesn't have to be. Perhaps I am misusing the term "sociocultural" but to me the term describes a complex matrix of income, education, values, aspirations, tradition and so on, much like Gen X or Baby Boomers. If this definition of sociocultural is acceptable, then one could say that groups that socioculturally remain disenfranchised and marginalized in their respective societies eventually form their own cliques, and worse, own jihads. Their actual income is not the issue.
I can only envision the Pakistani enclaves of Britain based on similar "colonies" in inner city US. Regardless of what each family may be earning, their existence is insular and on the fringes of mainstream. In that environment, regressing into some religious fanaticism seems very plausible. My point about the Mafia was the same. The old Mustache Petes in Sicily did not export the Mafia to the US. The Mafia was indigenously bred in places such as Hell's Kitchen of New York.
I admit my views are too macro to explain any one episode.
Right. The 7/7 bombers blew themselves up because they had identity issues?
Razib is right. At a certain point it becomes almost hilariously ridiculous to put Jay Sean and Juggy D (happy shiny bright multiculturalism!) in the same lobster pot as suicide bombers. And they can both be joined together by the accident of skin colour and the fact that they are both 'manifestations' of issues of identity? How elastic is your intellectualising? When does that elastic snap out of tendentiousness?
Macaca, pleeez....
Right. The 7/7 bombers blew themselves up because they had identity issues?
Yes. Well, it is a variety of factors but identity problems are definitely part of them.
I do think people mistake the importance of identity issues for people like the 7/7 bombers. Of course they wouldn't have thought it their motivation to do what they did in that way -'Oh I'm alienated from my sense of identity, let's go blow up a bus...'
but it's definitely an underlying factor.
What I' surprised people haven't picked up on is the sexist and shallow nature of the desi male youth culture that Malkani is celebrating. Is it really a sign of success that instead of singin' about black pimps and ho's they're singing about brown ones?
I know that he also referred to braver cultural experiements like the post 9/11 blues song. But saying that it's okay to be obsessed with fast cars and fast girls is kind of a cop out.
You are right. This is the lamest proof of multiculturalism I have ever come across either in print or electronic versions.
What I' surprised people haven't picked up on is the sexist and shallow nature of the desi male youth culture that Malkani is celebrating.
This is what I have come to think of as the poisoning of the diaspora community -- well among some and to some extent.
Is it really a sign of success that instead of singin' about black pimps and ho's they're singing about brown ones?
This is an excellent question, tashie. There's no morality, no intelligence in any of this "pimp" nonsense. It is downright destructive to the young and impressionable, male and female, and especially to the modest of IQ. I think most here would agree with you on this point. Fast cars, "Pimps", "Pimpshortiez" and Naked Women are not what freedom is about, and it was not the motivating factor that brought our south Asian forefathers here. IMO, it is a hallmark of a trashed culture where this kind of anything goes situation occurs.
RKK:
are you for real? Where's a SpoorLam where ya need one...
I'm not standing up for the misogny but the depraved Western culture vs. our forefathers thing? That's almost as pathetic as the Brown Sahib thing.
Overall I think it was a good piece and think that Malkani like me hopes that the initial black-culture emulation of fast cars and fast girls will give way to a more original desi cultural movement. Because creating a new youth culture that replaces racism with sexism isn't something that anyone wants.
R.K. Khan, dude, you are a hate mongerer. I just checked out your blog and noticed that you say you live in the U.S. In your perfect world, would everyone be Muslim? Is that what you are hoping for? Everyone would live by the sharia, is that it? Did you grow up in the U.S.? If you did, I am really afraid, mostly because I can't imagine that you and I could be clumped together in the same group in any way.
are you for real?
Why not? I thought I was agreeing with you.
R.K. Khan, dude, you are a hate mongerer.
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but, no, I don't see myself as a "hate mongerer".
R.K. Khan's blog is... how can I put this??? Very weird!!! What is it your business if desi women are involved in porn? Are we desis all supposed to fit into one little model minority box. Also, I would have some compassion for those poor folks b/c the porn industry exploits desperate, young teens/women... or haven't you heard this?
Though he doesn't munch on Cucumber sandwiches in public, citing Monty Panesar as an example of someone not "selling out" is absolutely premature. Monty's career is at a promising, but nascent, stage. As a slow left-arm orthodox spinner, in order to stamp the seal of originality on his career and preventing it from slipping into the mainstream stereotype, he needs a mystery ball. In the recent past, South Asian right-arm spinners have introduced the "doosra" and made it their own. However, no left-arm spinner in world cricket has a credible "wrong un"; most just have the arm-ball for surprise.
Monty must look upon this as an opportunity and he must work hard and invent a left-arm spinner's "doosra" which, to avoid selling out can be Christened Sikhed the "theesra". Also, Monty needs to ensure that his batting does not improve any further; any more, and he would be turning his back on generations of South Asian spinners who have seen batting as a distractive prelude to the important business of bowling. Fortunately, his fielding is definitely entwined in strong and unyielding South Asian roots and looks set to become a unique aspect of his cultural identity. Without the "theesra", Madhsudhen Singh Panesar will be remembered by his South Asian peers as yet another Saps, Ponce, or Batty.
One last thing; our Harbajan will whip your Monty any day;)
Peace!
Malkani does not CELEBRATE it - he represents it. It's real, it exists - guess what? Teenage boy-men are often sexist, homophobic and overtly macho, of all backgrounds.
But I'm just trying to stop myself laughing at RK Khan's self declared arbitration of righteous morality in the light of this, his mendacious false dichotomy between his horrific version of desi manhood and psychotic ascription of western culture as rancid and trashed, the vicious sadist who declares the need for hitting women and keeping them on leashes and in burqa's. What an abject psychology.
What I' surprised people haven't picked up on is the sexist and shallow nature of the desi male youth culture that Malkani is celebrating.
Well actually, the book deconstructs this. This, from when I interviewed him:
"Ultimately the book is about a certain group of boys trying to become men. But I was interested in the way that ethnicity is used as a proxy for masculinity. They play on their ethnicity to be more macho, more virile," he says.
There is a reason for this line of thinking he says. At Cambridge university he wanted to study Asian sub-culture for his final year project. His tutor suggested that rather than follow a group of boys and interpret his findings through a race perspective, it would be more interesting to examine how gender plays a part.
The book was partly based on that research.
"I could be looking at the aggressive Asian rude-boy scene as a response to racism," he says, "and it partly is - I don't want to downplay that. But the gender lines are interesting because if you think about racism, it makes people feel emasculated."
"It's not simply about a bunch of Asian boys fighting back. They're fighting back against their domineering mothers as much as they're fighting against the system. My main aim was to do it as an entertaining ride. I had so many more sociological insights I could have included but they just weren't entertaining. That means you can't take it too seriously or not seriously enough," he adds.
http://www.asiansinmedia.org/news/article.php/publishing/1342
So I wouldn't say he is entirely unaware of the sexism inherent in this sub-culture. But he sees it, as I do, as a natural reaction to the emasculation of racism. In time this will change. In fact we, as second/third generation British Asians have to change this ourselves.
Ok the HTML came out a bit wrong. The last paragraph is mine. The few paragraphs before that are quoted from the interview.
Are there any eighteen year old boy-men from London of any racial background who when they get in a gang with their friends, don't enagage in banter about girls and pass the occasional homophobic comment? Being that age is all about being aggressive and asserting masculinity, especially in a tough city like London. When you grow up, settle down, your aggro ends too.
This is what it is like for all young British men, Asian, white and black. If anything, I thought Malkani dwelt on it too much, and turned it into racial anthropology, when all it is, was boy-men acting tough in a tough city.
Maybe in that light you can read his work as a kind of morality play and deduce from it that he is putting forward a recipe like this:
When you read Londonstani as celebrating or suggesting "it's okay to be obsessed with fast cars and fast girls", you sort of miss the point, as if a novel should be a set of instructions or a design for life.
Sure. Everything comes down to 'identity issues' at some point. How helpful it is to categorise this particular extreme malfunction (blowing yourself up on a train) in the context of 'Asian identity issues' of the most benign kind is open to question.
RC:
What's so amusing about that? Obviously the touristic spots in London or the places that well-heeled desis would visit are not 'tough' but the neighborhoods where many Sikh and Muslim youth grow up are quite tough (albeit not as bad as parts of Brooklyn or the Bronx).
Tashie:
The lyrics of most bhangra songs are not only as you describe but also casteist and encouraging of alcoholism as well. So what? I'd rather have that than have the kids lose their culture, language, and identity and become more 'sensitive' but completely de-ethnicized. More to the point - these are working class kids, not very well educated, and I don't think anyone is going to get them to stop celebrating this culture. What matters to me is that the language used is still very pure Punjabi.
Whats amusing is that I am surprised that why would people all over the world be lining up to immigrate to a "tough city" like London. I am not aware of people lining up to immigrate to Delhi.
A lot of people have a romanticised view of how "tough" their life was, so that it can be shown that they have overcome adversity. Bill Orielly tried that by claiming to have come from a "tough" part of the city he grew up, which apparently was a fabrication. When Al Fraken pointed it out, they had a high-school-esq confrontation which was televised live on C-span.
Anyways, "tough" is exteremly relative term and people just throw it around very easily. Ask your lower middle class cousins or relatives in any Indian city what tough is.
RC:
You're right, there are different kinds of 'tough', and it's all relative in any case. I'm aware that urban India can be a very tough place too, especially for lower SES groups. Village India can be very rough and tumble too, with fights breaking out all the time. People moved to London for economic opportunity, period.
RC
Life is tough in parts of London. Racial tension, gang violence, crime. Life is tough in other places too. One does not preclude the other.
RC,
London is a fantastic city to live in if you are a highly-educated professional (or generally well-off, one way or another).
London is necessarily so nice if you are undereducated, underemployed, and have an overly ghettoised mindset that will prevent you from being able to achieve success in the mainstream society.
Major typo in my post #63 (Admin -- please remove previous post, at your discretion) :
Correct version:
RC,
London is a fantastic city to live in if you are a highly-educated professional (or generally well-off, one way or another).
London is not necessarily so nice if you are undereducated, underemployed, from an ethnic minority, and have an overly ghettoised mindset that will prevent you from being able to achieve success in the mainstream society.
Amitabh,
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you this time. As far as I'm concerned, being a better human being should be the priority, not necessarily being "as Punjabi/Indian/etc as possible".
If the people concerned manage to simultaneously maintain the positive aspects of their background (and eject the negative stuff), that's the icing on the cake and a nice bonus.
"Culture" isn't the be-all-and-end-all of life. Being a decent human being, however, is.
jai,
amen!
R.K. Khan's blog is... how can I put this??? Very weird!!! What is it your business if desi women are involved in porn? Are we desis all supposed to fit into one little model minority box. Also, I would have some compassion for those poor folks b/c the porn industry exploits desperate, young teens/women... or haven't you heard this?
.. .. Because i feel that it is depraved and blackening, not only to them but to myself. South Asians just do not behave in such manners, or so it was my belief.
Also, it is correct that the porn industry is exploiting the vulnerable, but, as I've read, in all too many cases women see this as acceptable behavior. Also note that this porn industry is very enmeshed with american and other western business interests. You will often notice that western males are the honchoes behind this strain contamination. i remember reading on this from 2002 or so, so I don't remember the addresses or anything.
"Culture" isn't the be-all-and-end-all of life. Being a decent human being, however, is.
and I very much concur with you there sir, but all too often it is the culture that is responsible for human indecency. Sometimes culture makes being a decent human being an impossiblity, or a desperate struggle.
Certainly the sadistic culture that exclaims the need to whip women and keep them chained to the home and forced to wear a burqa and have to bow and scrape to every whim of their male relatives springs to mind in relation to your statement.
Someone who would say things like this:
Jai:
You're right, I can't disagree with you there. Being a good human being is far more important than adhering to a particular culture. That's a lesson that kids' parents, schools, as well as religious and community organisations have got to get across to them (and which has been neglected). I do however feel that Punjabi (more accurately Sikh) kids in the UK have managed to do what NO other ethnic group (to my knowledge) has managed to do...keep their ancestral musical culture (and associated language) alive and vibrant into the 2nd and even 3rd generation. Keeping their inherited indentity relevant to their lives. I remember being at a desi mela in New Jersey a few years ago. There was a Bangladeshi DJ from Paterson (a town with a large population of Bangladeshis). He was playing a lot of hip-hop, there were many desi kids including a large number of Bangladeshis, all dressed (and talking) like young urban black kids, with doo rags, etc. dancing to rap music. It was clear that African American urban culture had become these kids identity, at least to a significant extent. Then at a certain point, he started playing bhangra (from the UK), and all these Punjabi kids moved into the main dance area, dancing bhangra moves, singing along with the lyrics of the songs, etc. I felt that, in comparison to the Bangladeshis, these Punjabi kids really had something of their own going on, and to celebrate, not just a borrowed hip-hop culture. To me that is quite an achievement and to be lauded. I agree that sexism, racism, casteism, alcoholism, etc. are bad in any context.
keep their ancestral musical culture (and associated language) alive and vibrant into the 2nd and even 3rd generation
a lot of black music does probably have origins from the west african milieu. more in places like haiti than the USA, where scot-irish celtic influences were important in creating a synthetic poor black/"white trash" musical culture which gave rise to various genres (e.g., blues, jazz, rock, rock-a-billy, country, etc.)
and i point out the black example because they kept their musical tradition through slavery and the lash and lynchings. props to punjabis and their MCes, but a little perspective :)
Razib:
As a fan of blues music in my younger days, I am well aware of the saga of 'African survivals' in African-American music through the ages...and I know that there was active suppression of African musical forms by white society for generations...most of the overt African stuff (especially the famous western African drumming styles) had no choice but to disappear, and re-emerge as subtle rhythmic and melodic elements in new hybrid musical forms. The blues scale, as well as the call and response form of much African American music, derives from African traditions. In Jazz, the African touches are just as strong but even more subtle. I have full respect for this phenomenon. However, I don't think it's very comparable to what the Punjabis in the UK have done (in different centuries, different circumstances, and with different histories and different technologies available for cultural dissemination). Granted, no one was suppressing Punjabi culture, and they had full freedom to maintain and develop their own British-Punjabi hybrid culture. My point is simply that many other immigrant groups who have had that opportunity, have nonetheless failed to do so. Part of that is because their original ancestral culture did not have the fun appeal or the strength to remain attractive to the new transplanted generations.
Part of that is because their original ancestral culture did not have the fun appeal or the strength to remain attractive to the new transplanted generations.
LOL. dude, i know what you're saying, but it but sounds patronizing and jackassish to say it that way :) "our culture is just funner!."
Razib:
It may sound patronising (or jackassish) but I think there's truth to it. Most people will rather do something fun and what they feel to be 'cool' than something they find stilted and boring (or corny). Why did 'disco-dandia' never really take off amongst the Gujarati youth in the West the way that Bollywood and Bhangra did? Why does rock music have way more fans than classical music? Which is not to say that highly-developed art forms, such as Bharatnatyam, or Odissi dance, or western classical music as typified by Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach, should not be studied and preserved. They are on a much higher level than hip hop, rock, and for that matter bhangra. But they are certainly not for everybody.
Certainly the sadistic culture that exclaims the need to whip women and keep them chained to the home and forced to wear a burqa and have to bow and scrape to every whim of their male relatives springs to mind in relation to your statement.
you are not getting anything out of the wild exageration of my position. Are you a radical feminist or something? I have observed in many a discussion that these are tactics and positions typical.
Amitabh,
i don't know enough about brown music to evaluate your claim. i don't disagree with it, cuz i don't know it. i just am noting the way you are stating it is kind of arrogant sounding :) i mean, i think you could say the same stuff in a more clinical academic way, or, limit it to empirical anecdotes like you did about paterson, NJ. the only reason i bring this up is that there are a lot of chauvanists on these boards and they'll jump on dat shiz to start a ruckus.
Razib:
Point noted.
jai # 37:
umm, whats a swaminarayan type??
My interpretation of this statement is that you are against the sexist desi male culture. If so, your viewpoints (RRK) on your blog have me a bit puzzled.
Here you say (sorry, each indiv post is not linkable):
Then, you talk about "5,000 lashes" as someone quoted above. Under your 13Aug comments, you state
I don't really recall ever seeing any bellydancers wearing full burkha - makes viewing the "belly" a bit difficult, no? As far as the burkhas go, I've always wondered that if men are so worried about "their" women being looked at, isn't it normal to think that the women might be concerned about the men being admired as well? Shouldn't that require a male burkha as well, you know, to "even" everything out?
Asking equal rights for women does not a radical feminist make...Incidentally, you seem quite "unsatisfied" in your "dating" endeavors:
Might I conjecture that your views are perhaps turning these women off?
Amitabh,
I know what you're saying but this isn't quite accurate, at least with regards to the UK. One of the major reasons why there are so many problems within the British Pakistani population is because they have excessively adhered to all of the above (okay, not the music, but in terms of other inherited behaviours and customs etc).
In terms of other immigrant groups here, they too get involved in various aspects of their inherited culture, but it's less noticeable because there are numerically less of them and they are less noisy about it. 2nd-Generation Africans here tend to dive into the Western black culture -- since it's already very high-profile and long-established -- although they do maintain certain aspects of their background too, but not to the extent that desis do. Remember that they also tend to be less conservative about certain matters and this makes it easier for them to integrate into mainstream Western culture. All this also applies to the large numbers of people here originating in the Caribbean.
There is a smaller sprinkling of Chinese people in the UK too; from what I've seen, the parents tend to be quite traditional, but their children are almost completely Westernised in their general behaviour (certain more so than desis are).
With regards to the US, I was under the impression that non-Sikh/non-Punjabi Indians over there are more enthusiastic about maintaing Indian dances and music (both "Bollywood" and classical) -- for example, the very large turnouts at "Boogie Woogie"-type dance competitions there, which are also sometimes profiled on Asian Variety Show on Sony. There are plenty of Hindus in the UK too, but such large competitions and events do not occur on some a wide scale, at least not so enthusiastically. However, annual garbas during Navratri here are of course very popular and have huge numbers of participants.
You are correct, though, about the fact that non-Punjabi Indians here are far less interested in music and other cultural matters from their own background (comparatively-speaking). The greater proportion of Hindus here are Gujarati, and -- garbas aside -- I am aware that they also have their own, less-publicised varieties of folk music and singing which is all but invisible amongst 2nd-Gen Gujjus here.
It's not very politically-correct to say so, but I do think you're right about this. I would also tentatively propose that there are certain ideals that Punjabi culture is strongly influenced by (significantly, although not exclusively, due to the Sikh input), so a) that gives a greater incentive for people to maintain the positive aspects of their culture and not reject their identity -- because they feel it's a positive environment, and is generally quite upbeat, friendly, dynamic etc -- and b) certain aspects of the history involved means there's a greater pride in these matters. People are not trying to get the hell away from being Punjabi, for example.
It's an interesting point. Before "British desi" culture really exploded into the public eye, amongst Indians it was mainly Sikhs who were not embarrassed about being Indian. I think that, again because of the heroic history involved, being "Indian" perhaps had different connotations for Sikhs compared to desis from some other backgrounds. The warrior element does also place a different spin on things, of course, in terms of role models (religious and/or historical) and general attitudes to life; this is quite important if a person/group is in a society which may have historically been quite hostile, or at least patronising, towards them (racism, the colonial baggage, and so on).
Personally, I think that similar developments would have occurred if, for example, British Indians were predominantly Rajasthanis instead of Punjabis. The whole Rajput thing does have a certain glamour too (along with, let's admit it, machismo); if you ask any 2nd-Gen Rajasthanis in the US, I'm sure they'll grin and confirm this ;)
Bro, until British desi culture really exploded (predominantly, although again not exclusively, due to bhangra), South Asians here from all backgrounds were exactly like this too, including Punjabis :) To some extent they still are, at least amongst the younger crowd.
Desis were practically invisible in the mainstream British media until the early/mid-90s, so the only non-white role models everyone had were American black actors and rappers/singers (apart from the limited influence of Bollywood). There was essentially a ready-made, assertive, vibrant non-white culture which, by default, younger desis latched onto. Spike Lee, Do The Right Thing, Malcolm X, New Jack City, Boyz 'N The Hood, Public Enemy, Ice-T, NWA, along with smooooth soul music etc etc were absolutely huge amongst younger South Asians here. It was only after the rise of bhangra, GGM etc that people really started doing their own thing, although the black influence was still there to some extent -- but the latter's obviously become mainstream these days too.
Dingchak,
It's a sect of Hinduism which has many adherents amongst Gujaratis. The biggest Hindu temple in the UK is owned by the Swaminarayans (very nice place, about 10 years old, built in the traditional north Indian Hindu style, lots of marble, very peaceful).
Amitabh,
re: post #75
It's because all that is more macho, basically. Applies to bhangra too -- if something's loud, upbeat, and (yes) fun, then younger people will of course be more likely, and more willing, to hold onto it/participate in it. Especially if one's community is numerically in a minority and perhaps in a semi-hostile mainstream environment (historically-speaking, if less so these days, although this does perhaps still apply to the condescending attitude towards desis there in the US).
Yes I do know this is slightly contradicted by the fact that ghazals are very popular amongst many younger desis here too, but if you think about the analogy that ghazals are to old-school soul/r'n'b compared to what bhangra is to hip-hop, then it does make sense.
All this applies to certain other aspects of culture too, of course, not just music. This takes us back to what I was previously saying about more assertive and upbeat attitudes amongst Punjabis compared to Indians from other backgrounds (very broadly-speaking). Even the Khalsa ethos translated effectively into the African-American gangsta/hip-hop influence which was so, well, influential amongst younger Sikhs here a while back -- "brothers" sticking together in what was perceived to be a hostile wider environment, people looking out for each other, not taking any crap etc.
Ironically, I think the latter's a major driver towards the increasing conservativism of younger British Pakistani Muslims too, along with (in the more extreme cases) radicalisation etc. The difference, perhaps, is that although the warrior thing is ideologically and historically prevalent in Sikhism as well as in Islam, broadly-speaking there have been significant disparaties in terms of when the warlike traits have been executed, the principles behind them, and the general attitude towards people from a different background (in both "peacetime" and war)*. Controversial to say this, but perhaps something to ponder.
*I'm referring to pre-colonial times, not the horrific events of 1947.
PS Can I just "bump" a superb article posted on the News tab by Kush Tandon. It's from the NY Times and discusses how Pakistanis seem to find the US an "easier fit" than the UK. Please do read this: article here.
Either way, there's been a huge increase in the number of (Muslim) beards and - especially - burkhas visible amongst younger desis in the UK during the past couple of years. It wasn't even remotely like this when I was younger, not even when I was at university (early-late 90s), apart from the cases of a very small minority of really hardcore "armchair jihadi/khilafat" types (guys not women). At the time, it was very difficult to distinguish physically between desis according to religious affiliation -- apart from Sikhs -- even though there were already huge numbers of 2nd-Generation desis of all backgrounds at university and in the workplace (especially London and the Midlands).
Jai,
The NY Times piece is good and, if it's possible to extract one determining variable with respect to Pakistani immigration in the US compared to the UK, it