Wednesday, October 3, 2012

The Limitations of Free Speech

For those of us working in the field of intercultural dialogue and understanding, it has been a frustrating few weeks.  Just as you think progress is being made between communities, global events peg you back displaying once again the vulnerability of human endeavours in trying to achieve peaceful coexistence and showing the very challenges that need to be overcome in order to ensure that the wheels are kept on the track.
For me this past two weeks has shown two different perspectives on the issue of the Freedom of Speech and how difficult it is to draw acceptable boundaries of such freedoms that people can readily and wholeheartedly agree on.

The first perspective of course has been the production of a so called film that insults the Prophet Muhammed (Peace Be Upon Him - PBUH) which has evoked much heated debate on all sides of the spectrum.   The riots across the globe aimed seemingly at this miniscule inflammatory film, has shown an outrage over the insult of the Prophet and a slight on the entire religion of Islam.    For those on the outside, it is not easy to understand the reverence that Muslims have for the Prophet (PBUH) in particular.   It is hard to explain in words but suffice to  say that any insult on the person or character of the Prophet (or indeed any of the other Prophets before)  goes to very heart of denigrating the very nature and identity of Islam and Muslims. Whilst the overall response was largely civil, groups here and there went on rampages and caused damage to public buildings, burnt flags and in the case of Bengazi in Libya, killed the US Ambassador and 3 other embassy staff. As is to and should always be expected, those small groups ultimately monopolized the media coverage, and it has been portrayed that the entire Arab/Muslim populations went on the rampage and engaged in a violent reaction to the film, when actually the truth was different.  This has been pounced upon by apologists for the film, who use the Freedom of Speech as an excuse, to show that  Muslims are either anti Freedom of Speech, or only supportive of such freedoms unless it affects them. 

The second perspective which perhaps has been missed globally but has certainly occupied headlines here in the UK has been the incidents related to the production of photos of the Duchess of Cambridge sunbathing topless.  Here again there have been small incidents of protest and in fact a quick reaction from the Royal Family who  have been quick to portray this as an invasion of privacy and brought about legal proceedings to end it.

In the wake of the current debate in the UK  on privacy and the role of the media these two seemingly different incidents throw interesting issues to discuss and debate.

The first is the issue of the freedom of speech which has been used in both the cases.  The argument goes is that we are free to say and do whatever (as long as it is not incitement to hatred or violence) and this includes things that we would find distasteful.  However how true is that statement?   In the UK over the last two weeks, there have been  two cases of things being posted on Facebook which have been deemed offensive and insulting resulting in the questioning and the imprisonment of those responsible.  The case with the royal family is about the right to privacy.  So there emerges from this a sense of some moral and ethical boundaries which are put in place by society and cannot be crossed without there being some legal or judicial implications.  So whilst it is deemed ‘proper’ to insult a religion or one of its holiest people / practices in the name of free speech regardless of whether it offends and insults the very private beliefs of its adherents, it is not ‘acceptable’ to publish photos of a topless Duchess or talk in a derogatory manner about the deaths of policewomen or soldiers killed in combat. 

One of the real issues for me that arises from this whole series of sad incidents is the fact that we need to collectively redraw the moral and ethical boundaries of free speech that takes into account the growing role of religion in the public sphere and that society doesn’t feel pushes them into.  Where does religious thought lie?  By insulting the very fabric of faith, do you somehow invade the privacy of people?  Is that acceptable? How can we have a conversation that can criticise without offending people?  How do we address the concept of freedom of speech, when something is done deliberately to insult and provoke?  The film which was a pathetic, poorly produced, cheap and highly insulting piece of work has been unanimously described as far from being an extremely poor production with no relation to art, no artistic or cultural message and has been agreed that the film aimed to insult, offend and maybe even stir problems and bring about violence and riots in the manner that we unfortunately saw.  Whilst the objective of inciting hatred and insulting was undeniable, can it still be defended under the freedom of speech?  What if something that denied the Holocaust was produced in the same lines?

The second issue is perhaps a little bit more subtle and deserves some deeper reflection.  Whilst at the very base level, the protests have reflected real anger at an insult to the Prophet (PBUH) and by extension an insult to Islam, it would also be naive to analyse what happened last week with the same lens and to not consider the concept of context.

 In almost all the countries were the riots took place and where it became violent, one cannot ignore the aspect of power dynamics and issues of governance.  Underlying all of these protests and riots is a deep sense of frustration and tiredness of an oppressed people who have been subjugated to trials and tribulations where their only identity and escape has been their faith and belief.  As Myriam Francois wroteBroken by poverty, threatened by drones, caught in the war between al Qaida and the US, to many ‎Arab Muslims, the film represents an attack on the last shelter of dignity - sacred beliefs - when all ‎else has been desecrated”. 
The protests mirror similar protests held in the early twentieth century in India against British colonial powers when it was felt that the occupying colonial power was denigrating the beliefs and identity of its subjects ( as situation that led to the infamous Indian Mutiny).  Hence in order to understand the reason for the protests, one must not forget the context that has contributed to a mass dehumanisation of a group of people who feel that  an insult to their religion is just another step in their colonial and neo colonial subjugation.

The issue thus becomes that these debates of the freedom of speech has to be considered within the wider and more complex and evolving social and cultural context where class, race and faith are central. Lacking access to a public forum, often these protestors are seeking alternative means to make their voices heard and have their cultural and religious sensibilities recognised in the public sphere as a means of also protesting against the very nature of their current plights.

This was originally published in State of Formation

Friday, August 31, 2012

The Rohingya of Myanmar: Staring Into the Abyss of Uncertainty – Part 2

The recent violence against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar has brought to the fold the hidden tensions within a society long isolated from the international community. This is part two in a series of two articles. Read part 1 here.
An ‘Open’ Myanmar?
Presently leading the anti-Rohingya charge in Myanmar is the Rakhine [Arakan] Nationalities Development Party, which came second in the last general election of November 2010. Statements released by the party have not only called for swift action to segregate the Rohingyas from the Arakanese and eventually resettle them overseas, but also for Myanmar to emulate Israel in the way the latter deals with the Palestinians. However, the party is not alone and other religious figures and veterans of the pro-democracy movement have had a hand in stirring tensions, by using language reminiscent of that which accompanied the Nazi pogroms. Groups like the UK-based Burma Democratic Concern have resorted to wild fear mongering, alleging that the Rohingya have massacred “tens of thousands of Burmese Buddhist Arakanese in the past”, while others argue that Myanmar cannot support a “refugee” population.
This current conflict has also had other less conspicuous effects. Most importantly, it has triggered a dramatic realignment of political allegiances in the country. Many so-called democrats have vilified an entire minority group, employed apartheid-like segregationist measures, and forged reactionary ties with their traditional enemy, the Burmese military. This includes a number of prominent members of Myanmar’s pro-democracy opposition who have begun calling for collaboration between civilians and the military (the very same who spent decades persecuting the political opposition, forcing tens of thousands into prison or exile), in a bid to drive out what they claim are illegal Muslim immigrants who threaten the delicate fabric of Burmese society.
This has put Aung San Suu Kyi in a very awkward position, forcing her to choose between the morally unassailable but politically unpalatable high ground (since defending the Rohingya likely entails losing a large number of votes especially from the Arakan state’s Buddhist population), or a more populist stand that yields to widespread bigotry. Her own party, the National League for Democracy, viewed by the outside world as the driving force for change in Myanmar, itself tiptoes around the subject. One party official told the BBC earlier this year that “even in our organisation, the Rohingya question has not been settled”.
Recently, a foreign journalist asked the Nobel Laureate whether she regarded Rohingyas as citizens of Myanmar. “I do not know,” she prevaricated. “We have to be very clear about what the laws of citizenship are and who are entitled to them”, she replied, thereby choosing to avoid amplifying the situation and speaking vaguely of a need to reform Myanmar’s citizenship law as a way of resolving the conflict.
Ground Realities of Moving Forward
So where does this leave us in the wake of international excitement about the election of Aung San Suu Kyi and Myanmar’s march towards becoming an open democracy? The incidents with the Rohingya show an apparent breakdown in the moral logic of Myanmar’s internationally vaunted opposition force. However, much of the fault also lies on our end rather than solely with them. Have our own perceptions of the pro-democracy movement been slightly over-romanticized, in terms of representing their battles against the junta as some sort of pure quest of good vs. evil? Did we mistake their opposition to the junta to be an acceptance of universal human rights and a commitment to tolerance?
“Once the Burmese opposition no longer was confined to simply opposing (saying the right things), and actually had to suggest policies, what occurred was a sort of ‘return of the real,” Elliott Prasse-Freeman, of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights, wrote in an email. “It became clear that ‘Human Rights’ were just demands against power, and they didn’t mean anything in terms of the kind of politics the opposition actually stood for.”
Or perhaps it is a case for the fact that Myanmar is no democracy and Aung Suu Kyi was perfectly justified in saying that we cannot resolve this problem unless there is democratic government and citizenship rights are decided according to the Constitution.
Regardless though, these have been eye opening times for all. Myanmar’s opposition movement, which won international admiration for its efforts (with many dying or being put in prison for long terms), risks unravelling the delicate transition to democracy, by its hypocrisy regarding the unfolding crisis.
As Myanmar stands ready to open its doors to the outside world, the longstanding fear of outsiders, an effect of decades of isolation – will need to be conquered, especially as the population interacts with far more non-Myanmarese and non-Buddhist communities.
The immediate task before the international community is to stop the violence from taking place and then to push for humanitarian access and rendering of relief. The international community should push both the governments of Myanmar and Bangladesh to allow NGOs and other voluntary agencies to provide humanitarian relief. Eventually, those responsible for the atrocities against the Rohingya should be brought to justice.
There is another important role for the international community to play. Such discriminatory policies against its citizens are a major shadow on Myanmar’s revamped international image, but are largely obscured by the taboo that surrounds their exposure. Observers are loath to broach the subject, given the ramifications that accompany accusations of racism. If Myanmar is to truly join the global community, the floor must be opened to debate. There must be acknowledgement that a malaise exists in Myanmar, which has felt the pain of antipathy and isolation for decades. Taking a sensitive but head-on approach to addressing the problem would be the first step. Britain and America must be part of this international approach as they embrace Myanmar. They must not only welcome Myanmar to the international stage, but also teach about it about universal democratic principles and human rights.
The demand of the Rohingyas to be treated as human beings and given their basic human rights is something that should not stain the conscience of the international community.
History has taught us that if swift action is not taken to stop these senseless acts of violence, then they perpetuate into bigger problems. However, George Bernard Shaw also said: “What experience and history teach is this: that people and governments never have learnt anything from history or acted in principles deduced from it.” This is perhaps the sad irony of “Never Again”.

This originally appeared on Fair Observer

Friday, August 24, 2012

The Rohingya of Myanmar: Staring Into the Abyss of Uncertainty – Part 1

The recent violence against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar has brought to the fold the hidden tensions within a society long isolated from the international community. This is part one in a series of two articles.
The two most repeated words in the English Language are “Never Again”, heard in commemorations of the Holocaust to express the commitment that genocide will never again take place. Yet “Never Again” has also come to symbolise the absolute weakness in the will of the international community to act against genocide. This weakness was exposed in Bosnia and in Rwanda and now it seems that it is being exposed yet again, now in Myanmar with its ethnic Rohingya people, a Muslim minority living in the Arakan region.
As reports of mass killings, mass graves, rape, and torture come out of Myanmar with figures of at least 20,000 Rohingya killed since June 28, it seems that like Rwanda and Bosnia, a group of voiceless people are once again being systematically wiped out. This seems to be sanctioned by their government, under the eyes of the international community. The pictures in circulation (although it is hard to verify their authenticity sometimes) depict the horrific nature and scale of the existing tensions in Myanmar.
Many of the Rohingyas have been forced to flee to Bangladesh by boat with some reportedly travelling for days on end to escape the trauma of the current situation. However, they have been refused entry by the Bangladeshi government which has also suspended aid agencies from working in the camps which harbour Rohingya refugees.
Perhaps what is even more shocking is the complicity of the entire country of Myanmar, from the President down to the grass roots. The President has come on record to tell the UN to “establish refugee camps and allow for the deportation of ethnic Rohingya as the ‘only solution’”, whilst Buddhist monkshave backed calls for the extermination of the race of Rohingyas. This statewide support for the killing of “Kalaras”, which is the pejorative slur that has become a popular and casual way of referring to Muslims of South Asian decent – or the Rohingyas – is once again reminiscent of Rwanda which witnessed an exhortation for mass killings over the public airwaves.
The flood of nationalist sentiment that has followed these incidents will serve to distract the population from ongoing ethnic conflicts in the north, public anger at rising electricity prices, and industrial workers' strikes in Rangoon, all of which have threatened the government's standing in recent months. There is in fact good reason to suspect that government officials may also have a role in whipping up anti Rohingya sentiments. This has been verified by a Human Rights Watch report, which accused security forces of actively persecuting ethnic Rohingya during the most recent bout of violence. There are some who have also suggested that the timing of the latest cycle of violence is related to the growing acceptance of the country within the international community and the rising prospects for investment. Myanmar has untapped natural resources (which could render the country quite prosperous), yet a fair proportion of this is in areas which are now occupied by the Rohingyas. Hence the pogroms perhaps have an economic incentive as well.
The violence has reached an international level and the United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay has called for an independent investigation into claims that security forces are systematically targeting the Rohingya. Yet with the banning of Foreign NGOs from the region by the government of Myanmar, and the prohibitions imposed by the government of Bangladesh, the ground realities are unclear. Whilst the Turkish government has led the way in its response to the humanitarian crisis, it seems that there is still some uncertainty in the international community over how best to respond to the humanitarian and human rights crisis unfolding in Myanmar.
The trigger for this violence was the alleged rape of a Buddhist girl by Muslim boys. Though the exact details of what had happened are unclear, what is clear is that the ethnic (and religious tensions) are so high, particularly in the province of Rakhian, that a strong rumour is enough to spark off riots and killings.
Rumours or not, the violence is a symbol of the underlying tensions that run deep in Myanmar and have to do with the fear of "the other"; a fear that has reared its head sporadically in the anti-Chinese and anti-Indian riots of the past century. However, this fear of the “other” has not been as great as the simmering resentment against the Muslims of Myanmar (and in particular against the citizenship of the ethnic Rohingyas who are all Muslims). This resentment is exploited by politicians pandering to nationalist passions and religious prejudice, and has been largely overlooked in black-and-white depictions of the situation.
Resentment Against Muslims 
Whilst there are at least a dozen “ethnicities” in Myanmar, the Muslims are particularly diverse. There are very few ethnic Burmese Muslims, with most being migrants from different parts of India from when Burma was a part of India. In addition to their Muslim names, these Muslims also have Burmese names. They are known publically by the latter, and in private in their own communities, by the former. For example, a person may have “Chitko O-O” as his Burmese name and “Mohammad Nasiruddin” as his Islamic name.
Accusations that the government has sought to dilute, or "Burmanise", Myanmar's 135 distinct ethnic groups, in particular the Muslims, have existed for decades. These accusations factor in the apparently institutional practice of rape of ethnic women by Myanmar’s troops, as well as the forced teaching of the Burmese language in ethnic schools. Governments have used the premises "illegal migration management" and "control on population growth" to justify the persecution of this group. However this is not consistent, as millions of Chinese who have migrated to Myanmar in recent decades have become powerful players in the economy.
This hostility towards the often darker skinned Muslim groups in Myanmar (or between Muslims and Buddhists) has its roots in colonial history. The same key issue that fuelled the infamous anti-Chinese riots of the late 1960s and 1970s, being that Myanmarese were aggrieved at jobs going to foreigners, had also driven the anti-Indian and anti-Muslim riots in 1930 and 1938. The post-colonial civilian government in the early 1950s expelled the Burma Muslim Congress and made Buddhism the state religion. This was followed in the 1960s by the mass expulsion of Indians (brought in for work by the British), on the rhetoric of anti-Muslim propaganda, and the latter were branded as colonial stooges. Subsequently, anti-Islamic sentiment was used to ban all Muslims from the army. This propaganda has had lingering effects within the country such that Muslims have been deprived of their basic rights to education and employment and are subjected to forced labour, extortion, and other coercive measures.
The ethnic Rohingyas are currently the ones facing the brunt of the ethnic killings and tension. This happens under the claim that they are illegal immigrants or are Bangladeshi (because of similar cultural and physical characteristics that they share with people from Bangladesh).
However, it is not true that the Rohingyas are illegal immigrants. The ancestors of the Rohingya settled in the Arakan region between the 14th and 18th centuries. Muslim sultans ruled the Arakanese city of Mrauk U, which was in its zenith in the 17th century and a key trading hub in Asia. This was long before the main wave of Indian immigrants arrived in Burma after it was conquered by the British Empire during the 19th century. By the 1930s, the new Indian arrivals were a majority in most big Burmese cities, and dominated the commercial sector of the economy. Modern-era Muslim political participation in the Arakan state itself goes back to the 1930s.
The Japanese invasion of Burma during the Second World War drove out most of those Indian immigrants, but the Burmese fear and hatred of “foreigners” in their midst remained, and it then turned against the Rohingya. They were targeted mainly because they were perceived as “foreigners”, but the fact that they were Muslims in an overwhelmingly Buddhist country made them seem even more alien.
The Rohingya of Arakan were poor farmers, just like their Buddhist neighbours, and their right to Burmese citizenship was unquestioned until the Burmese military seized power in 1962. The army attacked the Rohingya community and drove some 200,000 of them across the border into Bangladesh in 1978, in a campaign marked by widespread killings, mass rape, and the destruction of mosques. Another military campaign drove a further 250,000 Rohingyas into Bangladesh in 1990 and 1991.
The military government of Myanmar refused to recognize them as citizens of Myanmar. The military dictator of the day, Ne Win, revoked the citizenship of all Rohingyas in 1982, thereby justifying their expulsion and ill treatment by labelling them "illegal Bengali immigrants". Other newly enacted laws forbade them several rights. Rohingya babies born out of wedlock were placed on blacklists, and barred from attending school and later marrying; Rohingyas were banned from owning land; a Rohingya couple had to apply well in advance before attempting to wed; and newly married couples had to sign a commitment to have no more than two children.
This animosity is shared by senior figures in the government; the current representative to the United Nations (UN), Ye Myint Aung, once described the Rohingya: "as ugly as ogres".
The Northern Arakan state, where the majority of Rohingyas reside, is now virtually an open prison. Foreigners are barred from entering, and the Rohingyas are subject to a system of travel permits that controls their movements.
The Muslims who have crossed into Bangladesh over the past three decades have been living in some of the worst possible conditions in camps along the border. The unofficial refugee camps have no running water, drainage, or health facilities, leaving the Rohingya Muslims in poverty without any aid or intervention. Such is the treatment of the Rohingya that up to 300,000 now reside in Bangladesh, which in turn sees them as illegal immigrants from Myanmar and denies them citizenship. They are the epitome of “stateless”, and spend their lives in unofficial camps where conditions are notoriously poor (only 28,000 are registered by the UN).
The current crisis with the Rohingyas poses a lot of interesting questions and dilemmas on how Myanmar (and the political stakeholders within it) will engage with the international community in the future.

The original appeared on Fair Observer

Monday, August 20, 2012

The UK Riots - One Year On


What a difference a year makes.  Last year at this time, London (and the rest of the England) was in a state of shock as riots (and subsequent looting) held the authorities hostage for about a week or so.  Writing on this subject a year ago, I stressed that if anything what was needed was a collective response from both the government and wider society in dealing with the complex background context that had fermented the riots.  I talked about the need to engage with each other and to start the process of linking to not only understand each other but to strengthen communities, add to social cohesion and contribute to personal and professional development through friendships made and work undertaken across the partnerships. 

However since then, despite assurances of addressing some of the real issues, it seems that not much has really been done.  There have been some compensations paid (but it appears not in the same amounts that were promised), buildings have been rebuilt and people have been jailed.  There has been very little done to address some of the underlying factors that led to the riots.  Several news reports on the anniversary of the  riots spoke to local residents who claimed that the status quo had remained and what change had come about was as a result of the communities coming together despite Government assurances of helping.

It is the community that has taken the first step to collectively move forward from blame to positive action to address the root causes.   One such community forum took place on the 1st of February 2012, which looked specifically at how grassroots organisations responded and should respond to such an incident, taking into account the moral and values-based dimension of the problem.  What was particularly unique about this forum was that it brought some of the principled players, who were involved directly with the riots: either as perpetrators, victims or people who prevented the riots taking place in their own back yard, and allowed them the space for sharing success stories and best practice and to have real engagement between the youth and people who are involved with making real changes within their communities. In the wake of the anniversary of the riots, the report of that forum has been published and makes for some interesting reading.
The views in particular aired by the youth should point us to their frustrations and concerns especially in relationships with the authorities, police stop and search, the quality of education, lack of job opportunities, and the lack of resources to develop facilities for the youth in their areas. The young participants who attended the forum were candid in identifying that some aspects of negative youth culture, misuse of social media, a breakdown of respect within society, and a lack of purpose were important issues to be addressed.  The voices of the youth speak out and tell us precisely where our time should be more productively used, in ensuring that it doesn’t happen again.

What this report tells us is something that was already common knowledge despite the best efforts especially by the Government to paint it otherwise, that the riots that took place in London and other cities in the summer of 2011 cannot be viewed or solved in isolation, without taking into account the wider picture. At the heart of the crisis is the frightening failure of integrity in society and in the words of the former Bishop of Worcester “we need to attune our moral compasses and move away from a ‘system of disregard’ that had emanated from the top of society and had made its way to the bottom”.
In order for us to tackle the roots causes of the riots there is a need for new insights and alternative solutions.  We have to develop values that can counter consumerism that will come not only from an education process but also by developing closer relationships between families and communities. In it is a role for faith communities in particular, to move out of institutional power politics and to provide a narrative and a space in which one can start to explore some of these discussions of ethics, values and morals.    Thus communities must recognise that the solutions to their challenges lie first with themselves and how they focus on the youth who are the drivers of the future with the provision of support, advice and guidance.  This involves tackling real issues of the lack of aspirations and motivation amongst young people and enabling youth to find meaning and purpose in their lives. Throughout Britain, there are seeds of hope.   As the report shows, these are sown by community groups and organizations who out of the bankruptcy of failed regeneration efforts, are stepping into fill the gaps.

In working to change the system of disregard decision makers and figures in authority like the police must increase real engagement with communities through regular consultations with community leaders, groups and schools thereby reducing resentment amongst grass roots communities.  The challenge for all of us, particularly decision makers, would be to facilitate and ensure that such initiatives are sustainable and spread throughout the country at all levels.

There thus needs to be space and confidence established and more importantly sustained for this type of engagement to take place which can lead to the creation of stronger communities that can share best practices but also come up with organic solutions to their problems.

This year London has been seen in an entirely different light.  The Olympics have showcased the city in all its summer glory, warmth and hospitality.  Add to it, the remarkable achievements of Team GB athletes and there is a really strong feel good factor and pride in the nation at the moment.  The anniversary of the riots has been largely overshadowed by the games and some would cynically say that, the games have been a distraction, masking the real issues underlying London and the UK in the midst of a deep recession and other social issues.  Those same news reports on the anniversary of the riots spoke to people from the communities at the heart of the riots last year, who claimed that the Olympics did not touch them nor did they feel ‘inspired’.  This is where the real challenge lies now in the legacy of the Games.  Whilst the motto of London 2012 has been ‘To Inspire a Generation’, it is not just inspiration that is needed.  It is real support; guidance and hand holding that can create a space for the next generation to flourish.

Since inner city communities bore the brunt of the impacts of the riots, they should be the first recipients of this legacy and hence we need to communicate with marginalized communities. To do this, it is vital to identify key ‘gatekeepers’ who have influence within marginalized communities such as teachers, former gang members and religious leaders, who are part of the solution and not the problem. What the Olympics have served to show is that results are borne from hard work, dedication and perseverance.  The achievements of the athletes goes very much against the grain of the markets dominated life, we have allowed ourselves to fall into, where more is better if it is done quickly and without much effort. This is the inspiration that needs to be drawn from the Olympians who now have a responsibility to engage with these at risk youngsters to inspire them to achieve beyond their dreams.

People can be inspired but without access to facilities and an opening up of opportunities, that inspiration fizzles out to disillusionment. Currently there is little scope in the school curriculum to provide young people with a bigger purpose in life and so it is important for ‘out of school’ experiences such as sports and working and serving in the community to be developed. The government will have its part to play in correcting the structural weaknesses in society that lead to social inequity and isolation, however there has to be a bigger role for wider society.  The great sense of pride (and unity) that has swept the nation and allowed them to embrace as the best of British, the multiculturalism of the opening ceremony and the plethora of medals by people who capture the diversity of the UK society, has to be channelled and utilised in order to inspire and offer opportunities for  the next generation.  London 2012 cannot afford to be written off as a party for a few weeks, but in essence, we will have to sustain that spirituality of commonality, which we discovered during the Olympics that will allow us to recognise the common space and substance that will provide the fuel for social change.

In short, we must learn to listen closely to one another, not simply because it is polite, but because it is just possible that we might learn something important about ourselves, become better human beings, and build a better global village in the process.


This was first published here  in Fair Observer

Thursday, August 2, 2012

My thoughts of the Olympics Opening Ceremony


I am a sports fan and love watching the Olympics.  It symbolises all the best in the human sporting excellence and dedication and somehow also represents an opportunity for a pause button (rightly or wrongly) on world affairs as for about two weeks much of the focus is on the athletes.  I see the Olympics as a great opportunity to learn and understand from each other, as athletes engage with people from countries they probably would never engage with (I’m thinking USA and Iran), and a time for reflection as the Olympic Truce is observed for about 100 days.  Finally it is a time for learning as you actually discover countries that you have not even heard of, but realise that life goes on outside of the bubble that you are accustomed to.  Politics, corporate sponsorship, tickets aside, the Olympics is probably one of the more unifying shows around the world.

When the Olympics was awarded to London, I remember the excitement that greeted it, followed by the sudden realisation of reality as the next day, 7/7 took place.  In those 7 years, the Olympic debate and its engagement with communities took a back shelf as security took a higher priority.  For the Muslim community in particular, the scrutiny on radicalisation and constant obsession with identity and affiliation, has meant that they have been fighting fires and seeking justification, which is a shame as a majority of them primarily reside close to the main Olympic parks and thus should be recipients and equal partners in the infrastructural regeneration that has so far taken place and the social regeneration that is anticipated afterwards.

It is tough to articulate the mood of the country in the run up to the Olympics.  The austerity measures have really started to strangle people and last year’s riots shocked the nation into once again questioning the disconnect within society.  Add to this, the coalition government’s attempt, led by the Tories, to artificially construct some sort of British identity and affiliation by somehow negating multiculturalism, as was apparent by David Cameron’s speech last year in Munich, and has meant that for many migrant and Diaspora communities, it has been a period of a few uncertain years.

Now the actual conversation on multiculturalism is a complex one.  Do we talk about multiculturalism in allowing diversity as a lived experience or one that is a set of policies to manage such diversity?  More often than not we find a conflation of the two, where immigration is encouraged so that the experience of a society is transformed by diversity, making it more vibrant and cosmopolitan, but also there are a set of policies which manage diversity by putting people into boxes (defining individual needs and rights) and using those boxes to shape public policy. 
What this means is that conversation takes place in silos where inequalities in social policies are blamed on the immigrants or one section of the community is targeted as being the problem or that tackling sections of the community is only done through a security perspective ignoring underlying social contexts.
The discussion of identity and belonging also cannot take place in a contextual vacuum. If people feel continuously marginalised by social exclusion or perceived discrimination, they will feel reluctant to articulate an identity that says that they belong.

In the last two years, the debate has been magnified with the Royal wedding in 2011 and the Queen’s Jubilee Celebrations earlier on this year, where despite the best efforts to try and carve a ‘British’ identity from them, it was noticeable that amongst the thousands that celebrated publicly in their localities or in London, very few came from immigrant communities or were second / third generation expats. For a large majority of them in particular those coming from former colonial countries such as the West Indies and the Indian Subcontinent, a British identity that has strong resonance, affiliation and link with the Royal family is problematic as it brings into the discussion the painful issues of colonialism and the past suffering.  Many from previous British colonies are only in the UK because of the mess that their countries of heritage are in after post colonial independence.  However to divorce the Royal family from British identity is equally to strip it of one of its fundamental pillars.  So there remains an impasse.

Hence it was always going to be interesting at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in London as to what route would be taken in terms of defining a British identity.  Much has been written about the ceremony both positive and negative.   Much to the dismay of a lot of people, it didn’t acknowledge the well known icons of the UK nor the empire and perhaps it was felt didn’t represent the old values of the UK. People complained that the historical sequences were not representative enough or that the modern day sequences had missed out bits. Equally though there were people who praised it and felt affirmed by what they had seen.  Some of these positive comments came from people who are normally cynical about anything to do with British identity.

From my perspective, what I enjoyed most about the ceremony was that it was about appreciating everyday people who make up the UK and things to do with their everyday lives, be it music, the health service, their kids.  The people represented were of all colours and all faiths, sizes, gender and age.  It celebrated the inventors, artists and scholars and acknowledged the activists.  

This is what I think is the most important aspect of the opening ceremony as it gave a most vivid blueprint for what it means to be British in the modern day.  Granted that much of what Britain stands for are built on empire and history which means there are those who feel apologies should be made for this or that this should be incorporated in articulating an identity.  However I feel that a 21st century British identity is one that is made up individuals who have their own multiple identities. As Amartya Sen says in his book, ‘Identity and Violence’ the key to good citizenship and social cohesion which are components in a cosmopolitan society is the encouragement and retention of multiple identities. People have several enriching identities: nationality, gender, age and parental background, religious or professional affiliation. They identify with different ethnic groups and races, towns or villages they call home, sometimes football teams; they speak different languages, which they hope their children will retain, and love different parts of their countries.
Danny Boyle’s piece left me in no doubt of articulating what Amartya Sen was trying to say. It is the sum of these individual parts that a strong vibrant British identity can be borne that has a multi ethnic choir and some one of Asian Muslim heritage doing the 7/7 memorial dance.

Of course there is much to be done within social policies, education and community cohesion to translate that into practice.  The reality is that there are a lot of challenges facing people from their own contexts and heritage, just trying to break through social inequalities and make a better life for themselves and their families without worrying too much about what it means to be British.  What the Olympics Opening Ceremony did was to affirm and appreciate this in the overall pursuit of the grand vision for the identity. In the end, it has opened another window not only into the discussion of what it means to be British but has set a new paradigm for determining British identity, one that has more resonance with everyday people.


An edited version of this was published in the British Council's Our Shared Future Blog