Snatching Diwali, giving sex-gang tag: Indians abroad reject South-Asian label
Last month, Insight UK, which describes itself as a "social movement of British Hindus and Indians", raised a similar objection on its social media platforms. It also explained why many Indians are uncomfortable being lumped together with others under the term South Asian."Broader terms like 'Asian or Asian British' do not distinguish between Indian and other backgrounds as they can group together very different communities, each with distinct histories, cultures, and experiences," Manu from Insight UK told India Today Digital.The term "South Asian" is increasingly seen by many Indians as a reductive label that erases India's distinct cultural and civilisational identity.advertisementThere are over 1.8 million Indians in the UK and around 4.8 million in the US."Our identity is not defined just by land, it's a civilisational and cultural space that has existed for millennia. There is no confusion about who Indians are. But there is a deliberate effort to blur that clarity, to negate and dilute the distinctiveness of Indian identity," Pushpita Prasad for the Coalition of Hindus of North America (CoHNA) told India Today Digital.From festivals like Diwali and Holi, which are being termed South Asian, to racial profiling that isn't benefitting Indians, there's more to why Indians are questioning and rejecting the label.CALLING INDIANS SOUTH ASIANS BLURS CRITICAL DISTINCTIONThe term "South Asian" may sound neutral, but in practice, it often blurs critical distinctions between communities."For example, British Indians and British Pakistanis have different migration histories, religious demographics, and contributions to the UK," Insight UK explained."Labelling them together as 'Asian' or 'South Asian' obscures key differences, whether in workforce representation, health outcomes, or social experiences—making it harder to address specific needs or tackle inequalities."This broad-brush approach has real-world consequences.It begins with cultural incorporation, which is more than just assimilation."Indian festivals like Diwali and Holi are increasingly being rebranded as 'South Asian' — a move that erases their Hindu roots and appropriates them into a vague regional identity," says Prasad from CoHNA.advertisement"Even the New York Times recently did a piece on mithais and called them 'South Asian', when most of those sweets are unmistakably Indian in origin and cultural context."WHY SOUTH ASIAN LABEL IS DANGEROUS FOR INDIANSThe consequences aren't just cultural—they extend to how communities are perceived during moments of crisis."When negative events are reported in broad ethnic terms, reputational damage spreads unfairly," Insight UK notes."Hindus are significantly under-represented in UK prisons — making up just 0.4% of the prison population. Most Hindus in the UK are Indian. By contrast, as of March 2024, 18.1% of the prison population in England and Wales identified as Muslim," it adds."Given that most British Muslims are of South Asian origin and a large portion of them are Pakistani, it's reasonable to infer that a significant share of this group is of Pakistani background."The distinction becomes especially critical in the context of group-based child sexual exploitation.In Rotherham, Pakistani men were found responsible for 64% of child sexual exploitation cases and 62% of convictions under Operation Stovewood.advertisementTake, for example, the infamous grooming gang crime in the UK on which PM Keir Starmer has now ordered a national probe.The euphemistic term "Asian grooming gangs" in use, has not only diluted the specificity but also unfairly stigmatises the broader Asian community, including Indians. The perpetrators of the organised sexual abuse of underage white girls are primarily Muslim men from Pakistan.This distinction was also highlighted by Tesla boss Elon Musk in a tweet in January.British Hindus and Indians point out that when sweeping labels like "South Asian" are used, they risk being unfairly stigmatised for crimes they had no role in. At the same time, positive achievements by Indians and Hindus in the UK often go uncredited or are diffused under the broader label.This has led to growing calls for a more accurate and nuanced recognition of Indian and Hindu identities, distinct from other South Asian communities.WHO IS THIS GENERALISATION BENEFITTING?Categorising British Hindus and Indians this way also denies recognition to their achievements and what they have brought to the UK. For example, ayurveda, yoga and meditation – essentially Indian – would otherwise be labelled "South Asian".The term, many argue, not only obscures difference but also whitewashes both achievement and accountability. For British Indians, the consequences of being mislabelled run deep, impacting how they are seen in policy discussions, media narratives, and even statistical reporting.advertisementIn response, Indian community groups in the UK are preparing to push back more formally.The term itself emerged during 19th-century British colonial rule, initially used by colonial administrations as a label for people from the subcontinent.Interestingly, at times, it was deployed as a derogatory term, especially to describe individuals of mixed ancestry or those considered racially 'other' by colonial authorities. Over time, 'South Asian' became a more neutral and widely accepted descriptor for people from this region and their descendants living in the UK.Many in the diaspora oppose the usage of the word 'South Asian'."The Indian diaspora reject the use of the term 'South Asian,' which is frequently employed by Western academics and media. They argue that this label, intended as a convenient regional grouping, tends to obscure India's unique cultural identity rather than celebrate it," Manu from Insight UK told India Today Digital.The pushback against the term "South Asian" is not about semantics, it's about identity, representation, and fairness. For many Indians in the diaspora, being called South Asian feels like erasure. As calls grow for more precise recognition, it's clear: labels should reflect, not flatten, the rich diversity of those they claim to represent.- Ends
advertisement
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
18 minutes ago
- India Today
The thick red line: Why India shouldn't agree with US on agri
July 9, Donald Trump's tariff deadline, is fast approaching. He's expecting a "very big deal". Indian officials camping in Washington, DC, have extended their stay, with External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar rushing to the US capital to meet his counterpart, Marco Rubio. Amid all this diplomatic hustle and heat, New Delhi's goal is clear — secure a favourable interim deal for India before Trump's threatened high tariffs, up to 26%, on Indian exports, kick in. But there's an impasse in the talks. India has a "big red line", on which it will find difficult to negotiate. Team Trump is reportedly seeking concessions from India in the agriculture and dairy sectors. There are big reasons why India shouldn't agree to the US demands on agri and Delhi has dug in its heels, and is determined to safeguard India's domestic agricultural sector, and the dairy domain. Millions of Indians, about 40% of the population, are employed in the sector, even though it's not as heavily subsidised as farming in the US, whose government is driving a hard bargain to ensure American agricultural products don't face steep import tariffs in the US tries to project it as an attempt at creating a level playing field, the situation is heavily tilted in its favour. A mere quid pro quo tariff regime will not address the mismatch created by the US by providing massive subsidies to its farmers vis-a-vis farmers in India. While farmers in the US get over $61,000 in subsidies annually, their counterparts in India get just $282 a India rightly called the agriculture and dairy sectors a "big red line", it, in all likelihood and fairness, shouldn't give in to Trump's demands because doing so could jeopardise the livelihoods of nearly half the country's workforce dependent on agriculture, say the data and could expose the Indian market to heavily subsidised US farm dumping, undermine food security standards, some tied to religious and cultural practices, fear experts and reportedly the Indian government and a think tank."As far as the import of genetically modified (GM) soybean, maize and dairy products from the US is concerned, the government does not seem to be ready for it at all," agricultural expert Om Prakash tells India Today there are risks of cross-pollination from GM crops that could harm India's native seed varieties. There's also the matter of dietary sensitivities and consumer trust, especially in dairy, where feeding cattle animal remains clashes with Indian cultural and religious values."India is protective of its farmers, which is why they have relatively high tariffs compared to anywhere in the world," agricultural trade expert Sharon Bomer Lauritsen told Politoco."They're going to protect their farmers," added the former negotiator of the US Trade ROLE IN EMPLOYMENT: INDIA-US CONTRASTadvertisementFirst, let's look at the numbers. They will highlight how agriculture produces, employment, and their demand and supply vastly differ between India and the US, and why trade negotiations must acknowledge these realities with of 2020, around 196.64 million people were employed in agriculture in India, compared to just 2.11 million in the US. Agriculture accounts for 41% of total employment in India, while in the US, it is merely 1%. At 14.6%, agriculture is one of the biggest components of India's GDP, while it contributes 0.92% to the American it comes to average farm size, the difference is average farm holding in the US is about 180 hectares, while in India, it is just 1.08 in the US also receive significantly more government support, with an average of $61,286 per farmer (2016), compared to $282 per farmer in India (2018–19), according to World Trade Organisation (WTO) data, accessed from Kisan Tak, India Today Digital's sister portal on agriculture, farmer welfare and expert Om Prakash says that India has been constrained by the WTO's discriminatory policies since the Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) came into effect on January 1, 1995. He argues, "India's farm subsidy is significantly lower, even more so when adjusted per farmer, yet the WTO continues to pressure India to reduce it even further".advertisementKisanTak's Prakash ties them directly to the WTO's flawed subsidy accounting WTO's subsidy accounting method is flawed because it doesn't look at how many farmers India has. It just counts the total money given to them. On the other hand, the US, with fewer farmers, gives more money, and each farmer gets a much bigger sum. But in India, where millions of farmers get little help, it looks like India is giving more than it should, even when it's IF INDIA LOWERS TARIFFS ON US FARM AND DAIRY GOODS?To ring-fence its farmers and the agriculture sector, India is forced to charge much higher import tariffs on agricultural products compared to the average, India puts a 39% tax on farm goods coming from other countries. But for the items that are imported the most, the tax goes up to 65%. This shows how strongly India protects its farmers by making imported farm goods more expensive. In contrast, the US keeps its agricultural import taxes lower, with a simple average of just 5% and a trade-weighted rate of 4%, according to data from the New Delhi-based think-tank Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) has warned that reducing import tariffs on subsidised US agricultural products, particularly grains, could harm Indian farmers and destabilise food prices in India. Lowering tariffs could allow cheap, subsidised US grains to flood the Indian market, especially when global prices are would potentially undercut local farmers and disrupt the domestic food supply in staples like frozen shrimp, basmati rice, and spices still lead India's export basket, there's been a notable surge in shipments of processed cereals and other value-added food products. On the import side, India continues to source premium items from the US, with almonds, pistachios, and walnuts making up a significant AAYOG BACKED GM IMPORTS, CONGRESS PROTESTEDA March NITI Aayog discussion paper titled Promoting India-US Agricultural Trade Under the New US Trade Regime highlighted stark productivity gaps between the two noted that "India's average soybean yield has stagnated around "one tonne per hectare", whereas in the US, it is "3.4 tonnes per hectare". Similarly, "maize yields in India are just 3.5 tonnes per hectare," compared to "11.1 tonnes per hectare in the US".advertisementThese differences, the now-withdrawn paper says, show there is "a clear scope for improvement" in India's agricultural paper, whose withdrawal attracted Congress MP Jairam Ramesh's attack on the Centre, argued that beyond strategic trade management, "India must undertake medium-term structural reforms to improve the global competitiveness of its farm sector". These reforms should focus on "bridging the productivity gap with developed nations by embracing appropriate technologies", while also "nudging states to undertake long-pending reforms".It further called for "liberalising private sector participation", enhancing logistics, and developing "competitive value chains" to strengthen India's agricultural exports. The Centre's move to do the same suffered backlash during the farm protests of is the world's biggest buyer of edible oil, and the US has a lot of soyabean oil to export, which comes from genetically modified crops. The NITI Aayog paper said India could allow some imports of this oil to reduce the trade imbalance with the US, without hurting local farmers."Except for cotton, no other GM crop is allowed to be cultivated in India. In such a scenario, the question of importing GM soybean and maize from the US for consumption simply does not arise. In essence, the US-India trade deal poses a trial by fire for the Indian government, to safeguard the interests of farmers, agriculture, and the faith of the country's vegetarian population," Om Prakash tells India Today NITI Aayog paper also said India should try to get better access to the US market for top exports like shrimp, fish, spices, rice, tea, coffee, and rubber. India earns about $5.75 billion every year from farm exports to the US, and this could grow if India negotiates for lower duties or special trade leader Jairam Ramesh, on June 30, pointed out that the NITI Aayog working paper had been withdrawn from the think-tank's website. India Today Digital also could not access it. Ramesh alleged that the paper recommended duty-free import of GM maize and soyabean from the US. He added, "For the Modi sarkar, the interests of Midwestern American farmers and large Multinational Corporation traders are bigger than that of the maize farmers of Bihar and soyabean farmers of MP, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan".Lowering tariffs could also disrupt India's food security."In today's geopolitically unstable world, food security must remain sovereign," GTRI Founder Ajay Srivastava was quoted as saying by news agency Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, in a June interview with the Financial Express, said that New Delhi will not compromise on areas that affect vulnerable domestic said that agricultural and dairy sectors remain "very big red lines" in the HOLDS FIRM ON BAN OVER ANIMAL-FED COW MILK PRODUCTSThen there are dietary, cultural and religious sensitivities that complicate the issue of dairy imports from the US, especially when it comes to genetically modified products or items derived from animals not raised according to the norms of several Indian communities. These concerns are deeply rooted and can't be dismissed as mere trade hurdles, as they touch upon dietary restrictions, traditional practices, and firmly maintains its ban on importing dairy products from cows fed animal-derived feed, according to the USRT's National Trade Estimate (NTE) Report, according to news agency ANI."Imagine eating butter made from the milk of a cow that was fed meat and blood from another cow. India may never allow that," GTRI's Srivastava wouldn't like to compromise with milk and dairy products as they are used in religious rituals are several reasons why the big red line exists when it comes to food imports. Cultural beliefs, employment, the agricultural markets, and concerns over the long-term impact are some of them. GM crops' impact on health and the environment is another concern. These are not just policy preferences but emotional and political red zones trade is deeply sensitive in India too. These developments follow the massive farmer protests in 2020-21 and again in 2024. The policy shift revamping agricultural trade triggered protests and resistance, enough for the Centre to a way forward may be there. Sure, it'll take time, persuasion, trust-building, and change, which could be in favour of one of the two parties. But why not both?- EndsTune InMust Watch
NDTV
28 minutes ago
- NDTV
72 Hours After MNS Workers Slap Mumbai Shopkeeper, Cops To Question Accused
Mumbai: Over 72 hours after a Mumbai shopkeeper was assaulted for not speaking in Marathi - his ordeal filmed and circulated online by the assailants - and over 24 hours after the FIR was filed, the police will finally record the statements of the accused, sources told NDTV Thursday morning. The seven men - members of Raj Thackeray's Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, which has refused to apologise for the assault - will be deposed at the Deputy Commissioner of Police's office. It is unclear if they will be taken into custody after their statements are recorded. Action against the accused - the first concrete step in what has been dubbed the 'MNS slapgate' case - comes after sustained pressure by NDTV, and demands for justice for 48-year-old Babulal Khimji Chaudhary, the owner of the 'Jodhpur Sweet Shop' in Mumbai's Mira Road suburb. The video of the awful assault, which took place past 10.30 pm Sunday and has been widely shared online - showed the MNS goons surrounding Chaudhary and threatening him with worse action, including forcibly shutting down his business, if his staff and he don't speak in Marathi. Bagharam, a migrant worker from Rajasthan, spoke to NDTV after the assault. He said the MNS thugs wanted to buy bottles of water but when he spoke to them in Hindi, they demanded he speak in Marathi. "I said we speak all languages, so they threatened to beat me up..." The thugs then accosted Chaudhary and attacked him. READ | "Said Have To Speak In Marathi": Man Threatened By Raj Thackeray Party Workers As horrific as the assault was, the matter was compounded after the MNS - ironically leading a protest against the 'imposition of Hindi' in the state - refused to apologise to Chaudhary. The party accused Chaudhary of being 'arrogant'. It said he had provoked his attackers by stating that all languages are spoken in Maharashtra, a statement that is correct. Experts have pointed out every Indian has the right to speak the language of their choice, a right primarily protected by Article 19 of the Constitution, which esures freedom of speech and expression. The party has also complained because seven men were named in the FIR names, while the video shows only three hitting Chaudhary. Meanwhile, Babulal Chaudhary, whose business has been flourishing on Mira Road for the past two decades, told NDTV he would fight to ensure the MNS goons are held to account. "Mumbai is my 'karmabhoomi'... but now I am living in fear. I want safety, I want to feel safe," he said. Chaudhary - who intends to hold a protest march despite an ominous 'warning' from the MNS - has been backed by fellow traders, many of whom shut shops for the day to signal their support.
India.com
42 minutes ago
- India.com
Blocked, Unblocked, Blocked Again: Why Were Pakistani Cricketers' And Actors Social Media Accounts Unblocked Briefly Before Being Taken Down Again?
Several Pakistani actors and ex-cricketers found their social media accounts briefly accessible to Indian users on Wednesday, only to be blocked again hours later. According to a report cited by NDTV, the temporary visibility was due to 'technical reasons.' However, there has been no official explanation from Indian authorities regarding the sudden re-blocking. The netizens flooded the timeline with #BanPakistanContent urging Indian Authority to continue the ban imposed. YouTube channels belonging to former Pakistan cricketers Shahid Afridi and Shoaib Akhtar also reappeared for a short time before being restricted again. As the channel came into India's eyes for a short period, the difference in number of likes before the ban and after the ban was highlighted on Internt. For example - Before the Ban, These channels used to fetch views in lakhs and after ban they even struggle to get past 10-20 thousand. Instagram accounts of well-known Pakistani stars like Mawra Hocane, Saba Qamar, Ahad Raza Mir, Yumna Zaidi, and Danish Taimoor were briefly unblocked on July 2, but have since become inaccessible once more from Indian IP addresses. Despite this short window of visibility, many other prominent accounts including those of Mahira Khan, Fawad Khan, and Hania Aamir remained blocked throughout. Fans trying to access these profiles in India are still met with the message: 'Account not available in India. This is because we complied with a legal request to restrict this content.' Swift Reaction from AICWA The brief reappearance of these accounts prompted a strong response from the All Indian Cine Workers Association (AICWA), which issued an urgent appeal to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday. The organisation demanded an 'immediate and irreversible digital blackout' of all Pakistani influencers and entertainers across Indian media and online platforms. In a letter addressed to the Prime Minister, AICWA wrote: 'It is an insult to the sacrifice of our martyred soldiers and an emotional assault on every Indian who lost a loved one in terror attacks perpetrated by Pakistan.' Citing the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the Pulwama bombing, and most recently the Pahalgam assault, the organisation reinforced its call for a hardline stance against any form of Pakistani media presence in India. AICWA described Pakistan as a 'terrorist nation' and alleged that 'instead of showing remorse, several Pakistani artists have shamelessly spoken against India.' AICWA's Three Key Demands: 1. A complete ban on all Pakistani-run social and digital media accounts in India. 2. A prohibition on any future collaborations with Pakistani nationals in film, advertising, or promotional content. 3. A long-term cultural disconnect from Pakistan as a symbolic tribute to India's armed forces and the families of martyrs. The Bigger Picture: Indo-Pak Tensions After Pahalgam Attack This digital blackout debate comes amid rising Indo-Pak tensions, especially following the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, which killed 26 people, including 24 Indian tourists, a Nepali national, and a local resident. The Resistance Front, believed to be linked to Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), claimed responsibility. India responded by suspending the Indus Waters Treaty a major bilateral agreement from 1960 and launching Operation Sindoor, which reportedly destroyed nine terrorist infrastructure sites across the border. While the Ministry of External Affairs has not released a formal statement on the renewed bans, the timeline suggests a continuation of government efforts to restrict digital content from foreign entities perceived as threats to national interest. Amidst the escalating tensions, ACC is all set to announce Asia Cup 2025 schedule with Both India and Pakistan participating in the T20 based tournament.
