Yes, I know. That is probably an unnecessarily provocative title. Still, it is a provocative issue I am about to broach. Dave Sidhu at DNSI highlights a new report by UK Migration Watch (which seems like a conservative independent think tank) that more politely asks the same question as the title of this post. Here are the first two points from their summary:
1. International arranged marriages are a major factor in the formation of ghettoes in Britain. Even in the second generation, a high proportion of immigrants from certain countries enter arranged marriages with spouses from their county of origin. This sets back integration by a generation. The flow of spouses and fiancé(e)s from the Indian Sub Continent (ISC) doubled between 1996 and 2001. Now nearly half of ethnic Indian and three quarters of ethnic Pakistani and Bangladeshi children aged 0-4 have a mother born in her country of origin. 30% of all children born in Bradford are born to foreign mothers; in Tower Hamlets the figure is 68%. And the Pakistani population of Manchester, Birmingham and Bradford increased by about 50% between 1991 and 2001.2. It is now essential that immigration policy should discourage international arranged marriage which has become a means of immigration. The present regulations should be tightened and a “family connection test” should be introduced, similar to that in force in Denmark. Where a UK resident wishes to marry a spouse from the country in which he or she (or either parent) was born, entry clearance to Britain should not be granted until both parties have reached the age of 24. The test would not apply to citizens of the EU who have a treaty right of entry nor to citizens of countries whose primary official language is English and thus do not pose an integration problem.
<
p>An article from the Sept. 25th edition of the Times which summarized the report seems to more narrowly classify the “arranged marriages” in the report as “forced” arranged marriages (as opposed to voluntary). Nowhere in the report however, do I find UK Migration Watch specifically referring to “forced” marriages. I wonder if this is a bit of editorializing by the Times since I can’t think of why the findings of the study wouldn’t be equally applicable to arranged marriages of choice??
The report reveals that the number of spouses and fiancés from the Indian subcontinent doubled between 1996 and 2001, when 22,000 were granted entry into Britain.
It is estimated that 60% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi marriages in Bradford in 2001 involved a spouse from the subcontinent. Almost a third of all children born in Bradford now have foreign mothers. In the London borough of Tower Hamlets the figure is 68%.
Last week Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, warned of “walls going up” around some Asian and black communities living in ghettos, which he defined as districts where two-thirds of residents belong to a single ethnic minority.
Phillips said the number of people of Pakistani origin living in ghettos had trebled between 1991 and 2001. [Link]
<
p>The report also points to Denmark as an example of proactive immigration policy that will help break the chain that leads to ethnic ghettoes (and by inference terrorism):
18. Denmark and the Netherlands have already recognised the problems caused by chain migration through marriage and have taken effective steps to restrict migration by this route. In Denmark “the proportion of newly wed immigrants and descendants from non- Western countries who have married a person living abroad has declined significantly in connection with the tighter rules of the Aliens Act.” (It fell from 62.7% in 2001 to 43.2% in 2003.)
I reflexively question any findings about immigration by a conservative group and yet I find myself agreeing with many of their conclusions. If you leave your country to make a better life for yourself in another, the statistics shouldn’t so strongly indicate that you are trying to pull your entire old society with you. Of course, this happened in the late 1800s and 1900s in America, but the difference there was that there was a wide open expanse of land waiting to be explored and settled to the west. In many cases this incentivized the break-up of concentrated ethnic communities as they moved to pursue better opportunities. Such an open frontier no longer exists in the world, and there is thus no place to drain or means to dilute ethnic ghettoes. Perhaps the time has come for harsher steps through tougher immigration policy.
UK Migration Watch is out for lunch. Ghettos are formed due to poverty, lack of incentives (economic opportunities) to interact with rest of the community and absense of secular ideas.
As Jai Singh pointed out earlier in a different thread, reverse racism is serious problem too and that should be dealt with but not in this way.
That is how semi-educated think tanks work – simplistic solution to complex problems. Forced marriage and honor killing should be dealt with but unnecessarily messing with a community’s culture and tradition* just adds fuel to the problem of alienation.
Same is the case with Turkish immigrants in Germany.
*Personally, I am not the gate-keeper of any traditions but am opposed to arrogant solutions.
This is a complex issue. As someone who actually lives here in the UK, perhaps I can offer a couple of quick thoughts based on my own highly subjective perspective:
Whether marrying spouses from the subcontinent actually encourages a terrorist mindset is going to depend on how conservative the UK-based person’s family is, especially his/her parents. If someone has grown up in an environment where they have heard anti-Western/anti-Caucasian sentiments their entire life, along with similar comments about the alleged superiority of their own hereditary culture/religion in comparison with the indigenous Western community, it’s common sense that this is going to contribute towards a) an “Us and Them” mentality, b) A feeling of moral superiority over — and distaste towards — the rest of the majority population, c) Greater psychological affinity towards people and cultures based thousands of miles away (ie. they’ll feel a sense of detachment towards the West and will not really feel a part of it).
This will also depend on what kind of person the spouse is and what his/her family is like back in Pakistan (or wherever).
It’s also going to depend on where in the UK they live and how much they mix with people from other communities in their daily lives, especially local Caucasians.
At present the whole terrorism issue obviously focuses on Muslims, but I think we all know that there are plenty of Indian Hindus and Sikhs from the 1st-Generation who would very strongly prefer their sons to marry someone from “back home” in order to prevent the alleged “dilution of Indian culture, values etc” — again, it often comes down to notions of moral superiority over the local population and culture and a wish to keep things “pure”.
I think Kush took the words out of my keyboard.
How does this “think” tank define integration? Does it believe that integration is not possible until we all f@ck each others and become the same color, religion, race?
All such simplistic “solutions” that require people to conform to a set of standards needs to be rejected with the contempt they deserve.
M. Nam
1. Why, statistically, are men marrying more from the subcontient, than women?
2. Is this ethnic ghetto thing really a problem in England?? Waiting to get a qualitative opinion from BongBreaker.
Probably very true. If you look at the percentage of Indian men marrying from abroad – 38%, that’s pretty high. Not as high as predominantly muslim Bangladeshi (60%) and Pakistan (48), but still pretty surprising.
ironic isn’t it! The reason most right-wing conservatives (does that term mean much anymore!) are against immigration in the first place is their fear that their native culture is being replaced by a dangerous potpourri called multiculturalism.
Abhi: “If you leave your country to make a better life for yourself in another, the statistics shouldnÂ’t so strongly indicate that you are trying to pull your entire old society with you.”
Why shouldn’t they? Precisely because most immigrants are economic, i.e. most did not and do not emigrate because they have an especial attachemnt to the ideologies underlying the American and British nation-states, this stat makes sense to me. These people have no intention of changing their lifestyles, they just wish to be more prosperous maintaing whatever lifestyle it is that they are maintaining. (In time, the lifestyle of their descendants is likely to be different no matter what they want, as East Asian, Jewish, Irish and other immigrants to the USA learned soon enough).
I have a title for this post: ‘friday frivolous bloggig’.
Jai Singh,
As a first gen immimgrant, I have an addendum to your comment. More than keeping things “pure”, not being with the mainstream has do with adjustment/adaptation. Language and cultural barriers, which may be different but not necessarily antagonistic, produces a discomfort in causual environments that one would not feel if they restrict themselves to their own communities.
I, however, agree your “us and them” theory.
Would it be wise to say that we would get similar findings in India? To my knowledge, and experience, many Muslim families live in ‘ghettoes’ like environment to date. Not to mention seperate civil, judicial and other bodies that run parallel to the government.
Jai Singh,
Very interesting arguments. I totally buy your perspective.
IMO, this is due to the romanticization of that far away culture, by different parties such as overly conservative parents to preachers etc..
Does eating curry contribute to terrorism?
International curry is a major factor in the formation of ghettoes in Britain. Even in the second generation, a high proportion of immigrants from certain countries eat curry made by spouses from their county of origin. This sets back integration by a generation. Now nearly half of ethnic Indian and three quarters of ethnic Pakistani and Bangladeshi children aged 0-4 eat curry made by a mother born in her country of origin.
M. Nam
I don’t geddit.
Why are Indians even included in this report? It doesnt seem like their ghettoization (assuming they’re as equally ghettoized as Bangladeshis and Pakistanis) has particularly harmed either them or the wider British community. The report quoted disturbing employment statistics only for Bangladeshi and Pakistani immigrants.
Sounds like a case of searching for blame in someone else’s backyard…the 7/7 terrorists are British born? – the problem must then lie with their foreign-born mothers! (those sneaky foreign-born types)
Abhi – I found your last paragraph a little unintelligible. What exactly do you find sympathetic about this report?
Here’s one very easy way in which Britain could’ve vastly curtailed the spread of terrorist ideas – lock up mullahs who preach hatred.
Quite true. Most Indians are terrorists. And most Irish are saints. Brilliant job as always Sepia guys.
“Would it be wise to say that we would get similar findings in India? To my knowledge, and experience, many Muslim families live in ‘ghettoes’ like environment to date. Not to mention seperate civil, judicial and other bodies that run parallel to the government.”
It would be relevant to consider economic conditions too– since wealthy Muslims don’t appear to live in ghettos in India. Then there is the issue of safety: news reports suggest that in Ahmedabas some even affluent Muslims are moving to Muslim majority areas because they don’t feel safe after the 2002 pogroms.
As for separate “civil, judicial and other” bodies,what are you referring to? If the Muslim Personal Law, is incorporated into the Indian legal system, and is administered by ordinary courts and judges, irrespective of religion (the same judges also interpret and implement cases arising under the Hindu Code, as well as other more limited bodies of law applicable to various communities). Some have argued for legal recognition to Shariah courts (which currently lack such legal sanction, and hardly constitute anything like a large % of civil litigation involving Muslims). What other “civil” or “other” bodies are you talking about?
Many Indian cities feature areas and buildings where (for e.g.) non-vegetarians are unwelcome, or non-[fill in the community] are non welcome. I recall the Shiv Sena in Bombay getting very upset because it felt fish-eating Maharashtrians were being excluded from “Gujarati’-only” buildings; why single Muslims out?
Ang,
I’ll let BongBreaker answer your question himself whenever he gets round to logging on, but the brief answer is Yes. Remember that, unlike the US, South Asians are the biggest non-white ethnic minority group in the UK. Which shouldn’t normally be a problem apart from the usual desi culture-clash issues; unfortunately, things get a lot worse if there are enough people who have a mindset sufficiently antagonistic towards the indigenous population and culture, especially if they find enough of an incentive to actually organise themselves and do something about it. Hence 7/7, along with other issues that have arisen.
It sort of is but also it sort of is not. Since non-Muslims are completely unlikely to commit acts of terrorism, if they live in their own ethnic ghettoes it is not going to result in acts of terrorism. But on the other hand, we can’t be sure about the Muslims who live in ghettoes…
Abhi said: “Perhaps the time has come for harsher steps through tougher immigration policy.”
Tougher immigration policy? Are you saying you are, or are tending towards anti-immigration? ThatÂ’s quite a statement to be made by a 2nd generation immigrant who probably has most of his family in the US. ItÂ’s like ‘ I crossed the line, letÂ’s close the gate, screw the rest of em behind me’.
Maybe this is not what you implied, in which case its a fairly irresponsible statement to make especially in a time where immigration policy is a very sensitive issue and can potentially affect the lives of millions.
Incredible! The report spouts all these numbers and stats at you, and has such a simplistic view of the real problem. Marrying someone from one’s homeland doesn’t set back integration. Psssh!! This would depend largely on the people involved, opportunities that are made available to them, discrimination in it’s many forms etc. As Kush said in his comments there are a lot of economic reasons invloved here. I agree,The UK migration watch is probably out for lunch and should stay out.
The lifeline of US/ UK’s progress is constant, fresh immigration– be it cab drivers, hotel owners, short-order cooks, construction workers, doctors, and engineers.
The moment US/ UK goes for tougher immigration policy they will become like “Old Europe” (as Rummy calls it) – Demand for all the benefits but little effort for earnings. Come to think of it, even Old Europe has quite a bit of immigration.
I oppose forced cultural/ personal policing in any society.
??!! You must be kidding. What would you suggest next? Maybe only muslims from the subcontinents should be forced to marry someone from “indigenous Western community”.
Umair Muhajir,
I certainly am not referring to “all Muslims” when I mentioned ‘ghetto’.
“fish-eating Maharashtrians were being excluded from “Gujarati’-only””.
As a strict vegetarian (not Gujju), I can tell you that I would also prefer to live in a “veggie” community. Gujjus will do the same to other non-veg communities also, as you said. Why should Muslims or other communities take it offensively?
“Other” secluded Muslim bodies are Madraasa (they number in thousands across India) and political parties like Muslim league. Muslims also remain very secluded and dont go mainstream (I dont know why in India – again not every Muslim).
I assume you considered that the ‘move’ happened other way around also.
Just a side note BUT,there is no such thing as a 2nd generation immigrant. I thought only caucasians mistakenly assumed if you aren’t white you must be an immigrant, but apparently desi’s have the same perception. Aaargh!!!
I was born in the country, where I am residing, so I am NOT an immigrant. I also happen to be 2nd generation. Having never born or lived elsewhere, it’s silly to suggest that I am an immigrant. I could write a book about why this is important, but it would be too much of a tangent to current discussion. You may continue now…..
I can’t condone such anti-immigration policies – It doesn’t solve the real problems behind terrorism AT ALL.
Sikhs and Hindus seem to be fitting in well to British society without too much difficulty and they are certainly not antagonistic towards it In fact they are integrating well, contributing to the economy and society. It is the Pakistani and Bangladeshi Mulsim community from which hate filled suicide bombing extremists emerge. Look towards the extremist Islam being preached and look towards the marriages to first cousins in Mirpur and Sylhet – that is where the problem comes from.
“”Other” secluded Muslim bodies are Madraasa (they number in thousands across India) and political parties like Muslim league. Muslims also remain very secluded and dont go mainstream (I dont know why in India – again not every Muslim).”
A madrassa is a religious school, and is thus no different from a seminary or a school pertaining to any other religion; by definition a Muslim religious school would only feature Muslims I would assume. Unless you are arguing for their being no religious institutions in India, I don’t see how one can avoid a situation where only Muslims go to mosques, only Sikhs to gurdwaras, only Hindus to mandirs, and only Christians to churches.
As for the Muslim League, personally I think such a party has no place in a secular polity. But given that this party has a meaningful existence only in Kerala, it’s a little unfair to use this to cite to general Muslim “separateness”. By that logic, one could use the Bajrang Dal and the VHP as examples of organizations that I doubt feature too many Muslims.
And for the record, I don’t take offense to being excluded from veg-only communities; that was a response to your comment about Muslims; my point was that many many Indians (and not just Muslims) feel more comfortable living around people “like” them, so why single Muslims out?
And this goes to a wider point too: in India one has Dalit organizations, Christian organizations, Sikh organizations, Brahmin organizations, Thakur organizations, Rajput organizations, Sunni Muslim organizations, and Shiite Muslim organizations, and many many others. It isn’t principled to only single the Muslims out.
“I assume you considered that the ‘move’ happened other way around also.”
Yes, of course– but I wasn’t the one saying Hindus had a separateness problem vis-a-vis Muslims, it was you saying that the converse was true of Muslims.
Abhi, while I hate to admit it, Moornam has a point here 🙂 The conclusions that the Times draws are a classic case of ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc‘. As Steven Levitt might tell you, the higher ratio in arranged marriages might merely be correlated to higher risk of breeding terrorism. But, correlation does not imply causality. I believe that second gen. UK South Asians who are more fundamentalist in their religious beliefs are likely to both marry from ‘the motherland’ (possibly out of hatred for their skirt wearing second-gen peers who might talk back to them and violate their modesty by exposing ankles) and be sympathetic to the Jehadi cause. This would an instance where two correlated events depend causally on the third and hence falsely appear to have a cause-effect relationship between themselves.
Moornam’s satirical curry correlation is a similar example of PHEPH.
How about the legal-eagles on SM? Maisnon?
Umair said:
Yes but as a citizen of a country I have the right to want to discourage people with that philosophy from entering my country, no?
SMR said:
What was unitelligible? I thought it was quite clear. I reject most conservative immigration policy briefs but their were some elements in this one that made me think, “ok, I can see that point.
OBBB said:
Whoa, that’s quite a leap isn’t it? I often feel that SM readers sometimes love to play “let’s pile on the ABCD” since the poor guy is confused and doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Look, bottom line is I am always hearing from Punjabi Boy, and Jai Singh, and sometimes BB that things are messed up in England and that people are burying their heads in the sand instead of facing the problem. I wrote this post, which I knew would be controversial, in order to start exploring one of the issues. I often play devil’s advocate on purpose to see where it may lead.
Judas
The problem in the UK is most urgently a Muslim one though – because Sikhs and Hindus and Dalits are not blowing themselves up on trains and buses. Whatever problems Sikhs and Hindus and African immigrant communities are being contested and changing and need attention – but they are not of the order, magnitude, seriousness and deadly nature of the extremism and terrorist violence being directed by Muslims against commuters on buses and trains in London – Muslim men who were born and raised in England.
Unless we get to grips with that or avoid the issue for fear of singling out one group we will never get anywahere. Muslims are the only group in England who are literally murdering people because of their hatred for the society. No other religious or ethnic group is doing that. Until we face up to this fact nothing gets solved.
“Muslims also remain very secluded and dont go mainstream”
What is “mainstream” in a country like India? This sort of argument used to be made about Brahmins by the Dravidian movements in Tamil Nadu, and I reject that too. The idea there was similar, as the Dravidianist ideologues claimed that Brahmins maintained themselves apart from the society around them, etc. If the point is that Muslims should become “like” everyone else (defined statistically) and have no visible markers of religious difference, then that would implicate Sikhs too. And who is the everyone that one is to be like?
At bottom, I think there is a difference in the conception of Indian nationshood between the two of us: I see your view as the one adopted by (for e.g.) France or Turkey, where assimilation to a single ideal is accepted as the norm. That is not, as I see it, the view prevalent in India, whether the question is of religion or language. By your argument one could just as easily say that Tamilians are secluded from the national mainstream, and so are Bengalis, etc.
Ang,
“Just a side note BUT,there is no such thing as a 2nd generation immigrant. I thought only caucasians mistakenly assumed if you aren’t white you must be an immigrant, but apparently desi’s have the same perception. Aaargh!!!”
I can vouch even European-Americans or East Asian-Americans calling themselves as 2nd generation or 3rd or Mayflower generation American. Commonly, one does hear somebody telling that their grandfather and grandmother came off the boat from Slovakia or their Slovak grandfather married a quaker girl from Oklahoma.
Please, nobody is questioning or doubting or undermining your origins – However, modern North America was formed through immigration and does get called on from time to time .
My last post was directed to Umair Muhajir
Abhi: Yes you do have that right, though one might also consider that it implies a certain view of nationality and assimilation (see the last paar of my comment no. 28).
Ang: Just one of the millions of documents out there using the words ‘2nd generation immigrant’
Judas: Neither are Indian Muslims. My comments were all in response to hammer and sickel’s comment linking the UK phenomenon to Indian Muslims. I fail to see why Indians who happen to be Muslim maintaining their traditional habits and practices has anything to do with the sort of Islamist fascists the UK and other European countries seem to produce in large numbers. I think SMR’s point on this was elegant in its simplicity.
Conservative??
Migration watch are a bunch of fuckwits (apologies for my french) dressed up in suits under the banner of a ‘think-tank’. They are the thinking man’s BNP IMHO.
I hate them so much I’m setting up an organisation specifically to tackle these monkeys.
They basically emply a demographer to go through migration and other Office of National Statiscs (ONS) data and derive it in a way to present their hypothesis that migration is bad.
Infact their whole reason in life (I’m prone to exaggeration) is to hammer home the point that immigration is bad.
as you can probably tell, I really really don’t like them 🙂
Tomorrow I’m gonna post something that is supposedly embargoed by the Conservative party, long the target audience by Migration watch, that will hopefully overhaul the whole tory party policy on immigration. The convervative policy pushed the anti-immigration agenda as much as they could during the election earlier this year and failed. Now they will change direction and hopefully Migrationwatch will be ignored more.
Disclaimer: I make little sense when I’ve had a few beers and am about to go out to party… but I hope the above contributed to the debate.
hmm..that don’t sound right. For people who have no intention of changing their lifestyle?
I can’t believeyou just tried to make a point by referring to quantity of citatings rather than quality. Do you ever question the correctness of the documents you read, or do you take them as fact? I’m not sorry, but the number of documents citing 2nd generation immigrants are not correct. I am not an immigrant in any sense of the word, regardless of what Katie Richardson, presumably a caucasian, writes.
Here is the definition:
Ignorant people may refer to you as an immigrant even if you were born in the same country, to exclude you from the rights they have, or to simply single you out. Don’t fall into that trap. And don’t try to defend the definition any further. I have enough uncle ji’s to argue over dumb shit with. Linguistically, it has negative implications – it is wrong and we should rightfully correct it. Don’t give me any more b.s. examples or studies: I know what’s right with my own heart, soul, and mind. END.
That being said, I do feel strongly for immigrant rights and am against policing of any kind.
Aaargh, Here’s the definition again:
im·mi·grant (ĭm’ĭ-grənt) pronunciation n.
adj.
Of or relating to immigrants or the act of immigrating.
Kush, but no where do you write immigrant. There’s an ugly motivation behind calling people who are not white, immigrants, even if they’re 3 or 4 generations removed. Think about it!!! Gawd! #@$#
Umair Muhajir
Yes, point taken, you are right, it is wrong to link the two – it doesnt help with the specific situation in the UK to compare it to India at all.
Abhi said:
Well that was the general connotation of your message. A call for tougher immigration policy in light of increased terrorist threats can imply more sceerning to let the ‘good’ in and keep the ‘bad’ out. But what is one to make of a call for tougher immigration policy on social grounds, if it is not anti-immigration?
Whats ABCD, and confused got to do with this??? Is this a Goyal toil?
“There’s an ugly motivation behind calling people who are not white, immigrants, even if they’re 3 or 4 generations removed. Think about it!!! Gawd! #@$#”
I empathize with your view and pain. There is. Even the descendants of Chinese-Americans who came here as railroad workers in 1800s have to prove themselves, time and time again.
As Razib had earlier pointed out on another thread, sometimes such ugly singling out even occured to German origins during WWs. [Please note I am not underming your view.]
Peace.
“pile on the ABCD”????
Abhi: evidently you’ve forgotten all the “desi guys suck” threads… 🙂
Glad to see I beat some sense into y’all. Please think twice… next time I won’t be so nice. I know karate – lol.
Peace.
There is something like “newly convert syndrome”. It is as bizarre as Jai Singh’s concept “my ancestoral land is virginal and pure”.
I am not implying anyone here suffering from them. However, we all seen them from time to time.
Henri Miller was quite humorous about Indian-Americans who would tell him how great things were and he would argue with endlessly, and they would feel upset. Also, about Gandhians in NYC going crazy in brothels.
Ang, alrighht…take a chill pill here, the burdens on Abhi, not you. If you dont like those word, I am more than happy to comply. So its 2nd generation
immigrant. Done But tell me something – is there another word for ‘immigrant’? I mean it seems to have such a unkewl and derogatry vibe to it, that I figure we completely reword it – for the sake of the real immigrants– so that they get some respekt, ya know.Just don’t karate me 🙂
I think you are confusing my views with the views of the Conservative UK Migration watch. That is probably because I didn’t separate my position from the begining. As I stated I often play devil’s advocate. I agree with them that when the rates of people bringing in wives from the old country is so high it will lead to sustaining the old world mentality in the new. I personally disagree with that way living. I also believe that if you bring the old world to the new you are more likely to remain segregated from the general population. I also disagree with that way of living. The final logical leap that leads from there to terrorism isn’t as clear. As Kush, Moornam, and DesiDudeinAustin have pointed out, that jump is more complicated. I agree with them. As far as my views on immigration they are generally very liberal. However, I am intrigued by Denmark’s approach (I’d like to know more) and I think that maybe something more drastic has to happen to break up the ethnic ghettos.
Marrying someone from your parent’s home country will often retard the assimiliation of your children. To the extent that assimiliation and integration lower the likelihood of bombing your countrymen, then yes — arranged marriages contribute to terrorism.
But plenty of well integrated people bomb their countrymen. The Sikh terrorists that bombed Air India Flight 182 (Kanishka) were killing their fellow Indo-Canadians. The Muslim 7/7 bombers were plenty well integrated — the birthplace of your mother is a minor factor in your potential murderousness. Other things are more important.
(As a personal matter, I think arranged marriages are horrible and an arranged marriage to someone from your parent’s country is more horrible. But I’m not sure that there is a public policy interest in the issue. Denmark be damned.)
Ikram
Irish terrosist killed 3000 of their own countrymen in the last thirty years over the Northern Ireland issue. It does not get to the heart of the problem to pat ourselves on the back and say, yes, it has happened in the past with other people – so we dont have to worry now.
WE DO HAVE TO WORRY when people start strapping bombs to their bodies and slaughtering dozens of people in the cause of a global Islamist Jihad that sees no boundaries and knows no end. It is only fair and correct that we ask very serious questions of those Muslims (not all) in England who espouse, harbour, evnagelise for this Jihadi suicide terrorist culture that thrives in some Muslim ghettoes in cities across the UK.
Various groups are at various stages of integration in the UK – Indians are more integrated than Pakistanis, Jews are the most integrated minority group, etc etc etc
A root and branch approach to the specific problem of Islamic Jihad philosophy in the Muslim ghettoes has to be found – and fast.
Umair Muhajir and Judas,
I’m in disagreement with you on why we cant draw any parallels between Islamic radicals in rest of the world and those in India. (Please dont take my arguments offensively as I dont intend to do so – just want to make some frank communincation).
Hasnt India seen many 9/11, 7/7 type attacks? In fact, they are forgotten time and again. Starting from Kashmir to attacks on parliament, temples.
Moreover, some of the radical views are appeased and entertained for political mileage. Like what better way get elected than having a Osama bin laden look alike as an election ‘campaign star’? (Paswan’s star campainer – Mr Khaleed Noor.)
There are numerous places in India where Pakistani flag is hoisted on August 14. Diwali like crackers go off in muhallas – not during Diwali but when India looses to Pakistan in a cricket match.
I may be sounding harsh, but I just to clear my thoughts on what do these constitute to? Seclusion? radical behaviour?
On a second hand note: