It seemed as if the London taxi driver was eyeing me suspiciously in the mirror. He had good reason to, I felt, with the spotlight focused on three prominent Indians.
Since it was dinned into us in the fifties that Jawaharlal Nehru expected every Indian abroad to look on himself (or herself) as an ambassador of India, I cannot help but wonder what Swraj Paul (pictured) and Amirali Bhatia feel they have done to the old country’s reputation. They and Bangladesh-born Pola Uddin are the only three members of the House of Lords to face lengthy suspensions from Parliament.
Lord Strathclyde, one of 90 hereditary peers elected to the upper chamber where he is the leader, says he is shocked and appalled by the trio. “The penalties recommended would be the toughest handed out,” he warns.
Their case has been somewhat overshadowed lately by what is called Axe Wednesday, the unprecedented savage spending cuts across the board that George Osborne, Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced this week. But economic distress and the threatened loss of jobs, pensions and other welfare facilities make it seem even more outrageous that leaders of society, themselves worth millions of pounds, should be economical with the truth to make a few pounds at the taxpayer’s expense.
The particular shame for Indians in Britain is that these three peers who have been castigated are from South Asia, to use the new-fangled politically correct term for geographical India. We are proud when an Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi is honoured in the West. Similarly, we must hang our heads in shame when one of us is disgraced by foreigners.
It’s a question of izzat, as in the revelations that preceded the Commonwealth Games and which permitted all and sundry, every Canadian runner or Nigerian swimmer, publicly to discuss whether Indians have the same sense of punctuality and cleanliness as others. Now, thanks to Lords Paul and Bhatia and Baroness Uddin, the world might wonder if honesty means the same thing in India as in Europe and America.
In “damning judgments”, to quote The Times, the House of Lords Privileges and Conduct Committee ruled that the three peers should pay back nearly £200,000. Lord Paul comes off slightly better than the others. Though an initial investigation decided he, too, had acted “not in good faith”, that slur was removed on appeal. He had been negligent but not dishonest and has already returned £41,982. Lord Bhatia, an Ismaili Muslim with business connections in Tanzania whom Tony Blair ennobled in 2001, has also repaid £27,446.
However, these repayments were made only after Paul and Bhatia were caught out designating unused or little used properties outside London as their “main homes” to claim travel and overnight allowances. Lady Uddin, who also claimed a fictitious home outside London, reportedly owes £125,349 and faces the most stringent punishment, is also one of us. How can an Indian shrug off responsibility for a Sylheti woman when Bangladeshis in Singapore cheerfully celebrate Durga Puja?
Perhaps, being accustomed to India’s sectarian nomenclature, I am being over-sensitive to the South Asian origin of these culprits. I wonder if Lord Strathclyde sees a race link between them and also connects them with Aden-born Goan Keith Vaz, Britain’s first elected Asian minister, whose career has been dogged by accusations of financial wrongdoing and who was suspended from Parliament for a month. Some of my English friends say there are so many people of so many ethnicities in Britain that it’s impossible to think of them as anything other than just people. A British diplomat with a Malaysian Chinese wife says his grown-up children don’t think of themselves as English, Malaysian or Chinese but as Londoners, which is a composite identity transcending colour and creed.
But there’s too much evidence of individuals being targeted for discrimination for this inclusiveness to be universal. Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians are all “Pakis” for some Brits. Indeed, one commentator sees significance in these three South Asians being singled out for blame. They are by no means the most greedy and grasping of the 1,394 members of two Houses of Parliament, he says. They may not even be the most venal of the 744 peers of the realm.
But they fibbed and despite their British passports, are Indians in all but name. The disgrace they have brought on themselves disgraces the rest of us in the subcontinent.
My cabbie is probably wondering whether I’ll open the door at the next traffic lights and leap out to disappear in the crowd without paying his fare.
