Jagdeesh Singh
The Sikh Community Action Network based in Slough, UK has been relentlessly engaging the UK government’s Office of National Statistics for inclusion of Sikhs as a separate Racial group having a distinct ethnic identity. As the British government and its statistical arm is obfuscating facts and prevaricating on the issue, Jagdeesh Singh writes a scathing review of the government’s approach.
As such an effort has implications in many other parts of the world, the World Sikh News presents these arguments for a wider debate on the subject.
The issue of whether 'race' or 'ethnic' should be used, is already resolved and settled by law. It is not a matter for bureaucrats at the Office of National Statistics or for behind the scenes government policy-makers to change the definitions that the law places on these terms for the purposes of public administration.
Under Section 3 of the Race Relations Act 1976, 'Racial groups' is the key legal phrase. Under this statute:
"Meaning of “racial grounds", “racial group" etc.
— (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
“racial grounds" means any of the following grounds, namely colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins;
“racial group" means a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, and references to a person’s racial group refer to any racial group into which he falls.
(2) The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group for the purposes of this Act."
The landmark Mandla v Dowell Lee case, which massively clarified English law on the subject of 'racial group', determined that Sikhs are a full-fledged and distinct ethnic group; and, therefore, automatically by that reason, a distinct 'racial group' in UK law. It declared that Sikhs are "more than just a religion" and a distinct 'ethnic' community, by reason of several substantive factors - common history, common religion, common social values, common lifestyle, common geographical origins, common experiences, leading to a profound sense of community amongst them.
This primary legislation has been interpreted, clarified and applied by judicial case law, time and time again, the lead case being that of Mandla v Dowell Lee adjudicated upon by the House of Lords in 1983. Since then, there have been a string of legal judgements with respect to 'racial groups' and 'ethnic', applying public law with regard to Sikhs, Jews, Gypsies, Rastafarians, Pathans, Scottish, English and more.
The Office of National Statistics mandated to carry out the Census and the Government is duty bound by the same law, as the rest of us are in the UK. They don't have some special bureaucratic exemption, or special policy opt-out. Unless of course, if they want to supercede all this existing law by a brand new piece of legislation which matches their current muddled and confusing practice.
As the definition confirms, colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, are the key aspects to determining whether a human group is a 'racial group' in society. Not individual lay or bureaucratic perceptions.
'Racial group', in UK law, has a distinctly different meaning to the common, lay understanding associated with biological difference. Needless to say, it is the law that is supreme and applicable in public administration, and not the perceptions or conceptions of bureaucrats and government policy makers. Government policy, unless expressed through direct and substantive overriding legislation, is subject to lawful adjudication. This is vividly demonstrated in High Court judicial reviews. The judicial overturning of the Government discriminatory policy on Gurkha settlement in the UK is a recent case in point.
The landmark Mandla v Dowell Lee case, which massively clarified English law on the subject of 'racial group', determined that Sikhs are a full-fledged and distinct ethnic group; and, therefore, automatically by that reason, a distinct 'racial group' in UK law. It declared that Sikhs are "more than just a religion" and a distinct 'ethnic' community, by reason of several substantive factors - common history, common religion, common social values, common lifestyle, common geographical origins, common experiences, leading to a profound sense of community amongst them. Mandla v Dowell Lee is a fabulously well reasoned and coherent piece of judicial judgement, which clarified a great deal without political partisanship. It establishes a stable and rational definition of 'ethnic', which all social groups, not just Sikhs, can ably draw upon.
The muddling of 'racial' and 'ethnic' by the British Office of National Statistics is plainly irrational and unprofessional. It reveals a deliberate ignorance on their part or a hidden but deliberate desire to obstruct the Sikh case.
The muddling of 'racial' and 'ethnic' by the British Office of National Statistics is plainly irrational and unprofessional. It reveals a deliberate ignorance on their part or a hidden but deliberate desire to obstruct the Sikh case. It serves no public good and simply serves the internal interests of the bureaucratic mind-sets who want to keep their 'one size fits all' methodology intact and unaltered.
When the ONS says “proportion of ethnic (they mean racial) Sikhs who may have identified as having no religion is likely to be very low”. How do they arrive at this opinion? Can they explain? The less than 300,000 quantity of Sikhs identified in the 2001 census, is a highly likely misrepresentation of the actual number of Sikhs in the UK. The single 'religion' question is an administrative distraction (as well as suspicious political ploy) in the process of determining the number of ethnic Sikhs.
The current usage of 'ethnic' in public administration is wholly dysfunctional, unrepresentative and distorted. It does not confirm with lawful criteria. A judicial review of this whole area would expose this public administration fiasco.
There is a series of case-law on the subject of 'ethnic' and 'racial group', of which the Mandla v Dowell Lee remains the prime starting point. This set of case law, would discount groups like Chinese, Afghan, Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani and other such politically constructed categories, from being recognised as 'ethnic' as they lack the core defining ingredients set out in Mandla v Dowell Lee: common geographical origin, common social values, common religion, common history and common feeling of community. It is precisely for this reason that a number of groups, like 'Muslims' and 'Rastafarians', have been discounted in UK judicial law as not qualifying as an 'ethnic' group. For example, another case law had held that Scots are not an ethnic group, but instead a 'nationality'.
The battle for Sikh ethnic recognition, triggered by the Mandla v Dowell Lee case in 1983, has been long and hard for the Sikhs in Britain. Successive governments have continued to ignore the Sikhs as an official, distinct part of the population; inspite of their massive contribution to the UK and their more than obvious visible presence in significant numbers.
Like the Gurkhas, we feel gravely let down, by the government of a country we have given so much to. I wonder whether we would have been treated so dismissively by individuals like Sir Winston Churchill and Gladstone, who had much more positive regard for Sikhs than the current leaders.
The law is distinctly on the side of the Sikh argument, that, they, as all other ethnic groups like them (Kurdish, Polish, Greek) should be accorded due recognition in public administration. The Sikhs have undergone multiple knock-backs to their legally-founded case. The continuum of muddled and whimsical official responses is both cruel and demonstrative of a very sinister and politically entrenched policy of non-recognition of Sikhs. Whatever positive arguments the Sikhs put forward, including the mammoth contribution of Sikh groups to the ONS consultation some years ago, it is plain that the current Government is set on a hardened policy of ignoring the Sikhs on this issues, as well as others.
The current attitude of the ONS as can be understood from their correspondence is full of confused and muddled arguments which Sikhs have been receiving from the government and its arms, for the last 15 years. It represents direct and indirect racial discrimination against the Sikh community, and does very little to persuade the Sikh community that the ONS or the government is genuine about this issue. It's obstinate and irrational refusal to change position, is hugely alienating to Sikhs.
Like the Gurkhas, we feel gravely let down, by the government of a country we have given so much to. I wonder whether we would have been treated so dismissively by individuals like Sir Winston Churchill and Gladstone, who had much more positive regard for Sikhs than the current leaders.
There is a conscious government avoidance of according the Sikhs the status of an 'ethnic' group, as that creates profound difficulties for its relations with the Indian government as were noted after the Mandla v Dowell Lee ruling.
It will be interesting to witness the 2011 Census when it does take place. I for one will not be participating in a dysfunctional and discriminatory public exercise. How can any Census be meaningful and properly representative in its information gathering, when it excludes and denies whole sections of the population by design? Such a Census is not fit for the purpose it was meant to achieve and amounts to grievous waste of public resources and deliberate mis-accounting of the population. It is plain maladministration.
Jagdeesh Singh of Sikh Community Action Network may be contacted at animalspirit2002@yahoo.co.uk
21 April 2009
.jpg)
