|
Sikhs and UK Census 2011
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
|
Read Also