Growing up in Kabul I lived in a
neighborhood with a significant number of Hindus and Sikhs but the numbers
started to dissipate after the government collapsed in 1992 and by 2001, before
the American led invasion, there was a few hundreds left. That same year the
Taliban issued a Fatwa; the ruling by a council of prominent Islamic clerics
required all non-Muslims to wear distinguishing symbol. Under the plan all
non-Muslims must wear a piece of yellow cloth whenever they venture
outdoors.
Many Hindus and Sikhs did not see this as unjust;
I remember some rationalising the distinguishing badge as a safeguard for
Hindus and Sikhs from Taliban religious police who enforced a strict line of
Islamic practice through tough punishment including imprisonment and on the
spot beating. The victim adopts methods
to cope with injustice, this is certainly true in other cases of the tyranny of
majority. The Gladiator who died or killed for the pleasure of the audience
fostered and lived with a culture of chivalry and honour that reinforced the
tradition.
What about the modern Western democracy? Is
it still OK to oppress some by the demand of majority? Does it still have that
segregating impact where the oppressed adopts mannerism and culture to cope
with the injustice.
The Western democracies claim that social
injustice has been addressed by the provision of Human Rights that is enshrined
at the core of legal and political system. But we all know that is a load of
hotair; the oppression of the minority and the emptiness of Human Rights claim is
demonstrated clearest in the issue of immigration. The UK Home Office has
appointed an obnoxious anti-immigration minister Nick Harper who has
launched a crusade against people of certain national origins that is supported
by claim of responding to popular demand for fierce restrictions on immigration.
The official policy line of the Home Office is to “control” the number of
immigrants from low-GDP countries in response to concern expressed by British
people through democratic processes.
The Home Office has put in place new rules
and regulations in order to make it difficult for people of “low GDP countries”
to secure an extension to their stay. Lets consider a family with a house, a
business, children born and raised in the UK, social connections, cultural and
educational ties with the UK; the family has lived here legally for a decade or
so and one day out of the blue the Home Office changes the rules without
notification. Under the new rules recruitment of people from low GDP countries
will be a violation of visa term; (if you think that is a wild rule I invite
you to read the immigration website) this family is now advised by the Home
Office that their visa application is refused and they should be leaving the
UK.
Popular demand is questionable in the way
it objectifies the minority but also the legitimacy of claim to popular support
is questionable too. A closer look will show that it is not the majority but a
very boisterous minority with vested interested and power that drives such
agendas. The most popular tool of such a coward policy is “Framing”. Lets
consider this in the case of immigration; a YouGov poll asked 2,056 people
whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “People should be free to
live and work wherever they wish, and enjoy all the same rights as all other
residents.”
·
54 percent of them either
agreed (35 percent) or “strongly agreed” (19 percent)
·
31 percent either didn’t know (8
percent) or “neither agreed nor disagreed” (23 percent)
·
Only 16 percent
disagreed (12 percent) or “strongly disagreed” (4 percent)
Contrary to Home Office claim most people
recognise the right of people to live and work at the place of their choice but
people respond differently by how the argument is framed. The sample was then
split in two the first Group was asked “whether they should be free to live and
work in a foreign country” and the second group was asked “whether foreigners
should be free to live and work in Britain.” Both groups replied in favour –
although the first group majority (72 percent) was much bigger than the second
group (46 percent). A constructive debate about immigration will aim to find a
decent solution that is based on Human Rights and legal precedence with the
support of rational majority. The current approach of inflammatory language and
dehumanization of immigrants is a framing attempt by the anti immigration lobby
that uses fear and shock to continue its oppressive policies.
Its certainly helpful to recognise depth
and extent of personal issues such as anger, hate and imprudence while trying
to make heads of ghettos, terrorism and disillusionment. However personalities
thrive within a subculture or a group mentality and government policies of
neglect, scapegoating and oppression of minorities have contributed to the
formation of those undercultures.
No comments:
Post a Comment