Tag Archives: democracy

Queering The Superficial Multiculturalism Of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Posted on by
4

Last week the New Zealand Parliament passed a landmark bill paving way for a law enabling marriage between homosexuals. Yay! For all the problematic issues within NZ society this bill is forward looking and seeking to create equality for all. Irrespective of colour, religion and ethnicity. The bill was passed 80-40. It could have been a larger majority if all the Asian MPs had voted for it. Yes, it was a conscience vote and without directive from the parties so ideally it should not matter how the Asia MPs voted. They did what they thought was right. Or was it?

The New Zealand Parliament has five Asian members. Raymond Huo and Rajen Prasad from Labour and Melissa Lee, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi and Jian Yang from National. All list MPs that the Mixed Member Proportional system allows.

All list MPs. Without mandate from any constituency except as imagined by party bosses and projected by the above faithful.

And the imagined constituents are us ethnics.

Now I don’t know the exact process of how Asians get on that coveted list but anecdote is that they are thus placed depending upon their ability to bring together high numbers of ethnics to meet and greet with their party honchos. All very democratic.

So, how did they vote? Melissa, Kanwaljit and Jian all voted against the bill, Rajen Prasad voted for it and Raymond Huo abstained. I emailed all to ask why they did what they did. Melissa and Jian have not bothered to respond. Kanwaljit replied ” I made my position clear publically before the vote in Parliament through social media, noting that I did not support the bill and will be voting against it.” I asked him to share with me his supposedly very public views and whether they were on Twitter or his Facebook page, he did not respond. For all my own research I could not find any opinion by this honourable in the public domain. HEARSAY: Apparently this discussion was had on a private forum for the Sikh community where Kanwaljit insisted that the Guru Granth Sahib forbids same sex relations/marriage but could not produce the exact reference when asked by other members.   

Raymond emailed back “Both sides (those who are for or against) had lobbied me, with each presenting what appeared to be a convincing case. However, I was told that the majority of Kiwi Asians would have been opposed to the Bill. The vote on the Bill’s first reading took place before the consultation could be completed. So abstention (not to vote) was the most appropriate option.” So if there is going to be consultation process may I suggest a very publicly reported discourse that is conducted in English to let ‘all Asians’ participate and not just the Chinese who air their views on Skykiwi and Mandarin talkback radio? Otherwise that goes against the idea of multiculturalism right? To expect mainstream discourse to be translated into ethnic languages but not take ethnic issues into the mainstream domain? It is a two way street after all. Everyone has a right to know why Raymond’s constituents are for or against gay marriage. If there are death threats and violence then that is a problem in itself and we need to know why. This cannot be kept  only in the confines of the Chinese community.
Rajen Prasad replied ” (a). I see it as a question of human rights that, as a former Hunan Rights Commissioner for New Zealand, I am required to uphold. (b). This Bill takes no rights away from any individual and does not change the status of any marriage or relationship that already exists. (c). This Bill is not an opportunity to re-litigate the status of gay relationships. New Zealand made that law change in 1986,” Thanks for that.

I also asked them what they thought their role was in Parliament irrespective of ideology. Raymond said “Given the representative nature of MMP – although list MPs – I believe we are, to some extent, still held answerable to the constituency.” Kanwaljit’s reply, “… to ensure that the growing ethnic population in New Zealand enjoys the same rights and privileges offered to all New Zealanders. We support these communities to settle well, and we work with them to ensure that their best interests are represented in Parliament. I believe that as an elected Member of Parliament it is my duty to represent the view of my greater constituency in conscience votes.” COMMENT: First of all he is not an elected member of Parliament, secondly don’t gay Asians have the same right as all New Zealanders and thirdly how do you quantify the view of the greater constituency? Is this based on numbers or opinion? Rajen Prasad replied, “First, the role of an Asian MP is the same as any MP in Parliament, i.e. to make laws for all New Zealanders that are fair, just, and workable. Secondly, it is to advocate for individual citizens and groups of citizens on issues that they have not been able to resolve through the usual channels. You ask me to state my views on my role “irrespective of ideology”. I wonder if that is ever possible. We are members of our political Parties and have signed up to uphold the values and principles of our Parties. All the votes we cast in Parliament and the public positions we take are our Parties’ positions. We shape them off course but we do that over time and through the policy processes of the Party.”

Pretty blah eh? Is that why we haven’t seen a single Asian MP make any articulate, coherent statement in the house? The one time Melissa Lee spoke she made a complete boo-boo and I have mentioned Rajen Prasad’s wanna-be-Obama turn before the 2008 elections. Still waiting for that open dialogue about ‘Indian culture’ rather than celebrations or promoting Hindutva. Just voting for gay marriage is not enough.

I can give three reasons why there are Asian MPs. 1) Asian members add colour and exoticism to the New Zealand parliament. 2) Political parties use them to make ignorant ethnic masses feel good about representation. Asian migrants don’t actively engage with civil society or with the politics of the country but to see people like them in parliament makes them happy. 3) They showcase the successful diasporic peoples of India, China, South Korea and Fiji (?!), so the pathway to Free Trade Deals become smoother. Pardon the cynicism.

When there is a minority representative in the house, who does this person represent? The dominant, patriarchal elite within the minorities OR the ‘fringe dwellers’ as well? When you are a coloured migrant and you have to fight your way, every single day, then you know what discrimination is but you don’t try to wipe out that bigotry within your community because for the outside world (Pakeha and Maori) it does not matter. The Asian community by and large denies the existence of ‘queers’ (as one Indian-pillar-of-the-community called them) because they muddy the waters of our model minority. But they do exist. You don’t know them because they have have not told you, because they don’t trust you enough.

Do any of the Asian MPs think of this unfairness within? The religious, patriarchal Asian elements are happy to talk about the racism by mainstream New Zealand, they lobby the Asian MPs for the same and for individual issues yet will not acknowledge that they too have the fear and hatred of the ‘other’, those that are ‘different’.

Homosexuals within the Asian communities are the minority within the minorities. Have a conversation with any Asian gay man and he will tell you of the discrimination. By gay white men and by the Asian communities. Ask an Asian lesbian and she will repeat the stories of discrimination. By white lesbians and by the Asian communities; of agendas driven by white feminists that crush ideas of culture and religion and any ‘other’. Now the Asian gay and lesbian community can tell one more story. Of discrimination by their own representatives in Parliament. (This is their blog.)

How can the ‘mainstream’ in the Asian communities talk about injustice, intolerance and prejudice by Pakeha New Zealand on one hand, demand representation and visibility (for a certain kind of Asian) while at the same time deny legitimacy to the various strata within? Multiculturalism but of a homogeneous sort for the consumption of non-ethnic New Zealand. The zealots practice their hatred in safe spaces, in their language. Inside the communities, away from the eye of the world. So are any Asian MPs leading to explore and represent that complexity to mainstream New Zealand? Wouldn’t that be fair, equal and just? Human rights for all? How the Asian MPs voted for this bill speaks more about their ability to engage with the wider Asian community and their processes rather than just conscience voting. Why not bring the democratic process to the communities and encourage them to engage cross-culturally? Why hobnob only with community elite who lobby to maintain old hierarchies and power structures? Last year I interviewed Phil Goff and asked him whether he thought multiculturalism was ‘so twentieth century’ and his reply, where he says that ethnic people have a right to keep their language and their culture, shows to me, the archaic, superficial concept of multiculturalism that is practised in New Zealand today. There is a difference between cultural maintenance and multiculturalism. I have written about it here, continued here and also here.

Ethnic minorities are not about food, festivals and exotic dress to be showcased annually. Neither are they just about contributing to the economy. Legislation and laws affect them too. So does Te Tiriti O Waitangi, so do asset sales, mining, fracking, failed breast cancer screening programmes, subsidised medicines, university fees…gay marriage…they don’t live in silos and should not be encouraged to either. And practising their culture does not mean they can self-govern their communities without acknowledging, addressing and resolving conflicts within. Otherwise the Indian caste system could be perpetuated here couldn’t it? (BTW it is-because the current form of multiculturalism allows it to.)

So Asian MPs can no longer get away with talking to ethnic media or in the inner circles of their communities. It is time for an Asian MP Watch. It is time for intelligent, articulate leaders who care about the whole community and can make coherent discourse to the entire country. Not just look pretty or be arrogant.

*I have copy-pasted the replies without changing any typos or other spelling/grammatical errors.

Passive Performance As Multiculturalism. (In New Zealand.) Part 1

Posted on by
3

This blog I have put together from a presentation I did at a Symposium in Dunedin ‘Interrogating Multiculturalism in New Zealand: An Asian Studies Perspective’ jointly organised by Otago University and Victoria University. It is still rough and there are some gaps to fully support my argument but I prefer to post it rather than write a longer academic article (and it is still in two parts). A friend advised me to read Foucault and Derrida but I do not have the time to digest such heavy reading. You can either agree or disagree.

The title comes from my documentary film DANCE BABY DANCE naach gaana hum aur tum that I made to examine the representation of the Indian community in New Zealand via the Bollywood dance competition at the Diwali Mela organised by Auckland City Council and Asia:NZ Foundation. The questions I asked myself and put to the viewer were ‘What does it mean to be Indian in New Zealand?’ ‘Who are the people that decide?’

When I first came to New Zealand and discovered that Diwali is celebrated as a publicly funded* festival through the organisations above, I was happy and excited. It was a way of sharing my culture with mainstream New Zealand. But the more I saw this festival the more uncomfortable it made me. Is this how multiculturalism is officially expressed in New Zealand? An annual festival that brings in footfalls and local Indians but to what end? How does this help in integration? How does it create a platform for querying your space and identity in New Zealand? What is the discourse around it? Is there a critical discourse? If not why not? The only way I could find out was by making a film. I interviewed the organisers and followed five different kinds of participants as they rehearsed for the Bollywood dance competition (since this was the ‘showstopper’ and heavily promoted and also the most problematic) . What did I infer at the end?

I needed academic backup to support my conclusion. My arguments come from the point of view of being an ‘ethnic’ media practitioner in the mainstream media of New Zealand who is on the fringe of the community and the mainstream by virtue of being neither or both and hence requiring me to be think in a critical manner. Outside/inside or inside/outside.

To begin, I referred to an article by Henry Johnson and Guil Figgins: Diwali Downunder-Transforming And Performing Tradition In Aotearoa New Zealand. This paper
a) Examines the re-contextualization and transformation of Diwali in New Zealand with emphasis on performance
b) Explores the role that various organisations have
c) The ways in which performances are expressions of self-identity and part of a process of place-making.

I’d like to argue that all three are limited and shaped by neo-liberal ideas of multiculturalism that converts migrant/ethnic cultures into soft, non-threatening consumable exotica to maintain the position of the ‘other’ rather than allow for integration. This then (a) Creates a space for passive participation (b) Continues to ghettoise the community (c) Sweeps social issues to the fringe or under the carpet because those are not part of this form of multiculturalism. Cultural differences are celebrated and accepted but rigidly maintained and not allowed to ‘spill over into an effort to have equality of a form that would run counter to the economic norms the regime is expected in the global context to protect.’  I quote Milton Fisk, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Indiana University who wrote about Multiculturalism and Neoliberalism. “…in the liberalism and the neoliberalism that associate closely with a positive view of the economic market, the notions of equal worth and equal dignity do not imply a right to economic equality but only a right to recognition. Here recognition implies…no more than an acceptance of others with their difference and of the task of maintaining that difference when they desire that their difference be maintained.”

Recognition of diversity is not the same as equality. It is a diversion from normalising and engaging with migrants and their lives and stories in New Zealand. Negotiating multiple identities and existence in New Zealand-they get lost in this ‘recognition and endorsement’ of popular Indian culture (Bollywood) and its economic hegemony. This recognition is like the carrot, it leads to the mirage of freedom and equity. But for the Indian community in New Zealand this multiculturalism continues to underscore and locate representation in food, clothes and performances rather than an exploration of their inherent complexities and space in New Zealand or creating a platform for democratic participation and open, critical discourse. Eventually failing to translate into wider cultural engagement or integration because it is always the ‘other’.

——————————————————————end of part 1——————

*The Diwali Mela is funded through various private sponsors, the Lion Foundation and advertisers but the primary organisations are government bodies who ‘raise’ the money, hence I use the term publicly funded.

Frogs In A Pond-1

Posted on by
Reply

Raj Thakeray has done it again! We, the Marathi people, dither between agreeing with the ‘Mumbai-being-taken-over-by-the-North-Indians’ idea and abhorring the methodology of getting rid of them. Before I pontificate there are a few things to clear. My current city of residence is Auckland, New Zealand. I choose to live here. My hometown is Bombay/Mumbai. I am a daughter-of-the-soil. Hardcore. My grandfather was born in Bombay in 1899. He was a municipal corporator in the Bombay Municipal Corporation in the first post-independence elections. There is a street junction named after him. My father was involved with the Sanyukta Maharashtra movement. I was born in Bombay/Mumbai and have lived almost all my life in the family home at Girgaum (where my grandfather lived since 1928). I also spent some years in Dadar. Both Maharashtrian enclaves. Most of my family and friends live in Bombay/Mumbai. Serious, white collar middle-class. Yes. Mee Marathi. I belong to the state of Maharashtra; I am a Bombayite, Mumbaikar. But it is only one part of my identity; of who I am. In this post-globalised world, where mobility and migration are taken for granted, I am many things; I have multiple identities.

Unfortunately, like all fundamentalists, Raj Thakeray believes in the concept of a singular identity. He also believes in fanning the insecurity of his own people to enable his rise to power. How visionary is that? To generate fear in your own people; to take them backwards and create hatred for other people because they are ‘taking over’? Why just him, the government of Maharashtra has abdicated its responsibility towards its people in the name of populism and with an eye on the next state and Lok Sabha (general) elections. Raj wants power, the government wants to get back into power, they both want to eliminate Uddhav Thakeray from the race…so why not sacrifice Mumbai Aai, Mother Mumbai? She does not have a voice anyway. I am intimate with many of those bang in the middle of this madness. All sons and daughters of Maharashtra. The lone voice of sanity I spoke to and who can possibly take action is also relatively helpless because there are forces she cannot control. Such an emotive issue this is. If I was in Girgaum at this moment the discussion would be all about the bhaiyyas who ran away back to North India. Jai Maharashtra!

Instead I am going to try and analyse the problem. Purely from the point of view if being a migrant, from being a Bombayite and a generally opinionated person 🙂 It is very complex from my p-o-v and not just about North Indian migrants. It is about the Indian democracy, the bureaucracy, the attitude of the Indian public to democracy; it is about caste, community, culture, aspirational values, money and the Indian politicians.

In a crazy, chaotic, multilingual, multicultural democracy like India where Indians can travel to and live in any part of the country it becomes more complicated. There are bound to be tensions and problems within the diversity and between people of different states. Such is the structure of India.

Those North Indians that come to Bombay are ready to do any job and work any number of hours and anywhere in the city. They come because there is absolute poverty in their states. Maharashtrians on the other hand rarely travel outside Maharashtra. I generalise here because even within Maharashtra there are regional differences. The Kokanis, those from Vidarabha, from Pune-side etc etc.  But we Maharashtrians are relativey unambitious, unadventurous, keeping our heads down, nine-five kind of people. Many of us are lazy too. And we complain a lot. On the positive side we have great wit, humour, theatrical traditions and we are a progressive, socialist kind of people who treat women well. Of course there will be friction.

Then there is the lack of infrasctructure in Bombay. The state ignored her, the centre ignored her and the people-the locals-the sons and daughters of the soil showed no sense of ownership. That Bombay has problems of gigantic proportions is not new. How much can one milk a strip of land made from seven islands along the Arabian Sea? There is no place for expansion, there is the Land Ceiling Act (now repealed) and greedy politicians who don’t love the city. Rarely have the people of Mumbai protested against all this. Oh there have been bandhs and rail rokos and other kinds of mob protests against the ruling government (and mostly instigated by Shiv Sena) but not a civil discussion about how things can change/should be changed. Democracy in India is about ‘civil disobedience’ and this civil disobedience is about riots and vandalism; about beating up people. We lack a sense of history and heritage as well.

That money rules Mumbai is also not new. How many Maharashtrians can afford a place in their own city? How many Maharashtrian ‘developers’ exist? (That Raj Thakeray and Manohar Joshi are developing the Kohinoor Mill Compound in Dadar is interesting-wonder who many ‘marathi mansa’ will be able to afford flats there?) Besides the city has always been built ad hoc. None of the old textile mill compounds now being developed have allowed for green spaces or to accomodate redundant textile mill workers and their families-who incidentally are part of the mobs that Raj incites. They look at the highrises and resent the outsiders. It is human nature. Even I get irritated at the Marwaris that are now buying the chawls in Girgaum and converting them to ‘vegetarian only’ building societies. Only because they have the money to buy prime South Bombay land.

Also we Mumbaikars have rarely tried to own our city. It is always someone else’s fault. The bhaiyyas now sell fresh fish door to door because the native fisherfolk of Mumbai don’t do it any more. Their young ones are now at university. That is just how the social order changes with time. When the Shiv Sena was ruling the state after the 1992-93 riots, ‘the boys’ were given licences and permits to run their street food stalls. Pav Bhaji, Vada Pav, Chai…the staple diet of the man on the street and employment for ‘the boys’-the locals. All Mumbaikars know and I have it from the mouth of those-that-pay-obeisance-to-the-Thakerays ‘the boys’ rented these food stalls to others (South and North Indians) and are back to being unemployed. That is how the social order is maintained ya? Through laziness. So that ‘the boys’ can hang out at the galli nakas and be ready to beat up anyone at the drop of a hat. Now that is hard work!

Because Indian democracy is crazy the way it is and the bureaucracy and politicians deliberately maintain the divide between them and the ‘common man’, the regular citizen is unable to engage with the powers-that-be. On the other hand we common citizens merely vote and leave the rest to the government thinking it is the government’s job to make things happen. It is a bad situation. And then we have those that are the frogs in a pond. Those who never get the bigger picture because all they want is power and money. Like all Indian politicians.

(There’s more to come in another blog.)

LOVING INDIA-4 In the heart of democracy.

Posted on by
Reply

Back to Bombay from Delhi. What a whirlwind trip! I stayed in Varanasi for a night. It is an addictive place. I will go again and again and take some friends. More about that in my next blog though. I know some of you are eager for me to share my experience about Kashi but this blog is about an absolutely rivetting experience in the heart of democracy.

It is not easy to govern a country like India. So complex so layered and so crazy. Historian Ramchandra Guha compares it to the European Union except that there are more languages and more people than EU. And it is a young democracy that is daily negotiating its identity and place in ‘glocally’. So how do elected representatives look after the people and make sense of it all?

One night in Delhi I was a fly on the wall during an interesting meeting of elected members of Parliament (Lok Sabha members), nominated members of Parliament (Rajya Sabha members), journalists, social workers, government officials and celebrities. They all wanted to bring to the attention of modern India the burning issue of malnutrition. One in in every two children in India is malnourished. It is a complex issue (as is everything in India) but what fascinated me was the camaraderie between opposing parties and the fact that this was a voluntary group cutting across political ideologies. They all knew the issue needed attention, they all knew that sixty years after independence malnutrition should have been eradicated from the country. Yet…

And then 29 February 2008 was one of the most memorable days of my life. I was in Parliament House, in the public gallery as the Finance Minister of India PC Chidambaram read the budget for 2008-09. I was there in the heart of the Indian Republic and democracy.

Parliament House is a huge circular building; an impressive colonial structure in which happen all things that affect India. http://www.indiasite.com/delhi/places/parliamenthouse.html

http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/

After passing through very tight security (they really do grope every body part) I was seated in the public gallery with a view worth a million dollars. Right in front of me was the Speaker Somnath Chatterjee. To my right were the Opposition benches and to my left was the Government. PM Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee, Sonia Gandhi, Sharad Pawar, PC Chidamabaram…they all came in one by one. The Baba Log (young MPs) sauntered in. Sachin Pilot, Jyotiraditya Scindia, Naveen Jindal…the senior members Kapil Sibal, Sushil Kumar Shinde…leader of the Opposition LK Advani…all dressed to the gills and very swishy swadeshi. (Of course the film star MPs did not turn up.) Then walked in the entertainer Laloo Prasad Yadav. I know the man has history but I really wanted to see him read the Railway Budget. Unfortunately I did not get a pass.

It was interesting to see the difference between the Opposition and the ruling party MPs. The latter were confident and a trifle arrogant and full of veteren parliamentarians. Most of the young MPs in the Opposition were badly dressed and seemed totally down market. I know one cannot judge a book by its cover but one would have thought that being in Parliament since 2004 might have instilled a sense of occassion in them.

So PC read the budget. Money to education, relief to women, some crores for this and some for that…and then came his googly. A total waiver of debt for farmers across India. Everyone knows about farmer suicides in India. It is a sad story. India is an agrarian society at heart and farmers the lifeblood. PC first spoke about small farmers. Before he could carry on pandemomium broke loose. ‘A pharmer iz a pharmer’, someone from the Opposition yelled. Then more of them got up and started shouting. So the governing benches got up shouted back. The Speaker kept requesting the Opposition to sit down and listen to the rest of the Budget. So on and so forth. Laloo got up. Arre baitha baitha, (sit down) he gestured to his colleagues. PN Sangma (NCP MP from Meghalaya, part of the UPA Government) came across from his sit and asked his colleagues to sit. The PM and LK Advani were silent. They must have seen this a zillion times before. I had not.

India can have a maximum 552 MPs including the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. From across the length and breadth of the country. Such a huge, diverse country with so many people. Some things work, some don’t. There are those who try their best and there are those enamoured of power. Then there are the cynical types and those who think they have not done anything worth speaking of. Rajya Sabha member and world renowned Indian film director Shyam Benegal said at a dinner table conversation that as a member of Parliament he has not yet done anything worthwhile for the country and that he still has the capacity to be shocked. Isn’t that a good thing , I asked him. Then you don’t get apathetic about anything. The level of cynicism is high he said.

Still the work has to go on. Policies are made but implementation is a problem. There is energy but it does not trickle down. Or if it is at the grassroots level it takes time to flow upwards.

That day in Parliament and the meeting before reiterated that noble intentions abound. Never mind that the Budget was populist and indicates early general elections and never mind as civilians most of us don’t realise that a good country is not about good government only. It requires participation from people.