In September 2002, Home Secretary David Blunkett caused a storm by asserting that immigrant parents should speak English at home in order "to participate in wider modern culture". He continued, "It helps overcome the schizophrenia that bedevils generational relationships". Naturally, he was universally pilloried by ethnic groups claiming that, once again, the Home Secretary was dictating to us. In one bizarre interview, one Asian Man even said that "an Englishman's home is his castle and he should to be able to do whatever he likes within it". This raised a wry smile with me. After all that is exactly the point - "Englishman"? Do British Asians actually believe themselves to be English?

The storm continued for a few weeks until David Blunkett wrote to all Media Editors on 15th October 2002 in a letter that read as follows;

ARE WE IN DANGER OF SHOOTING THE MESSENGER?

Indeed the essay to which he refers 'Integration with Diversity: Globalisation and the Renewal of Democracy and Civil Society', despite having a hideously long title, does help to put the "sensationalised" sentence into context:

"I have never said, or implied, that lack of fluency in English was in any way directly responsible for the disturbances in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham in the summer of 2001. However, speaking English enables parents to converse with their children in English, as well as in the historic mother tongue, at home and to participate in wider modern culture. In helps overcome the schizophrenia which bedevils generational relationships. In as many as 30% of Asian British households, according to recent citizenship survey, English is not spoken at home."

Obviously the removal of the words "as well as in their mother tongue" casts a completely different light on the sentence and quite rightly, Mr Blunkett can claim to have been misquoted. Invoking the devil in the term "bedevils generational relationships" may also have been a little too strong perhaps, but the essay itself is an extremely lucid, well-written and pragmatic perspective from an obviously highly intelligent Minister. To avoid being labelled an abject sycophant I extract these points for you to consider:

"People must be free to choose how to lead their lives, what religion to follow, and so on. Such diversity is not only right: it is desirable. It brings immense social, economic and cultural benefits to our society".

Furthermore, he adds, "Citizenship should be about shared participation, from the neighbourhood to national elections. That is why we must strive to connect people from different backgrounds, tackle segregation and overcome mutual hostility and ignorance. It is vital that the Left doesn't inhibit debate on these issues. We should embrace debate on citizenship, and make change happen in our communities, rather than just the statute book. If the Left fails to offer real solutions to these issues, the Right will step into the gap."

His predictions were correct when a BNP candidate recently won a local seat on Blackburn Council, an area that has a high ethnic minority. It also echoed much of has happened in Europe this year with Jean-Marie Le Pen in France and Pym Fortuyn (who was later assassinated) in the Netherlands.

WHY WERE WE SO ANGRY?

The issue of why Asians became incensed with this single sentence taken from a pro-citizenship treatise has been puzzling me for a while. But the answer is glaringly obvious. Asians in Britain (particularly second and third generation Asians born here) are confused about their identity. They are not English and yet they are not regarded as quite wholly Asian either. Many have never even been to their "mother land". Additionally, the term British is not universally understood when you go abroad. If you say you are from the UK or Britain, the follow-up question is usually "yes, but where are you from originally?". Finding a satisfactory answer is not easy.

And this confused identity is what is worrying most Asians. If, as David Blunkett, quoted "30% of Asian British households do not speak English at home", then simple subtraction shows that 70% of Asians speak English at home. 70% is a staggering statistic.

My own mother tongue is Gujarati, which takes different forms in the written mode (formal) and the spoken mode (colloquial). My grasp of it is so abysmal that I can barely make myself understood. The dilemma is that I can go and learn to read and write, but my conversational Gujarati will only improve by practice with other, more fluent, Gujarati speakers. Indeed, Gujarati mothers who send their children to special classes find that their offspring might be able to read and write the language by their teens, but getting them to speak it is well nigh impossible. Acute embarrassment and self-consciousness are the principal reasons.

So, the importance of the mother tongue is vital for second and third generation British Asians. It is their primary link to their culture. In fact, not speaking the mother language can indeed bedevil generational relationships. Little did David Blunkett realise that his single sentence cut to the heart of Asian parents' worries.

Like most panicked parents we wonder how to keep our culture alive within the family. The answer is in some ways the antithesis of good community relations. We feel that by keeping a good network of mainly Asian friends and contacts, by participating in our own religious and cultural events, having functions where only Asian children meet, by cooking and eating our food, wearing our own type of clothes and speaking our mother tongue as much as possible, is the only way to retain our Asian-ness. The irony is that all of this activity is extremely insular and makes us look within our community and not outside, to mix with other communities. Hardly the basis for community cohesion.

I do sympathise with David Blunkett - his efforts to initiate discussion should be applauded. With some perspicacity he concluded in his essay "given the tendency to collective amnesia in the Britain of the 21st century, where published policy or even immediate action is forgotten within weeks, I certainly don't hold my breath as to whether I should find myself equally subject to the winds of misfortune".

One thing that can be guaranteed is that criticism of citizenship will not be forgotten within a few short weeks among the Asian community. Many within our community feel vulnerable - clinging to their own beliefs whilst asking for tolerance and understanding from other communities. Most see citizenship as a threat to a way of life that is fundamental to their existence. Others living in enclaves of "little India" or "little Pakistan" see no immediate value in much of the citizenship requirements.

As for myself, my pigeon Hinglish (Hindi/English) or should that be Ginglish (Gujarati/English) ain't what it should be, innit!

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

What do you think of David Blunkett's statement. Do you agree with him? Or do you disgree? Do you feel the same dilemma of "Hinglishness" highlighted on our opinion piece. Click here to share your views with others. (Note - you'll need to be a signed up member to contribute. Click here to sign-up now).