Devil's Advocate: Sir Michael Arthur

TRUE COLOUR: Britain is not a racist country, says British High Commissioner Sir Michael Arthur.

      

Other stories in the section:

Pak terror reminder: 12 dead in Lal Masjid blast

Thousands had gathered to observe one-year anniversary of military crackdown.

• Supporters of Clinton less likely to vote for Obama

Featured Blog

Abhishek Patni

MAULANA MULAYAM AND PERILS OF NUCLEAR DEAL

Featured Slideshows

Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil’s Advocate. Is Britain a racist country or is that an unfair conclusion of the Shilpa Shetty story? That’s the key issue I shall raise in an exclusive interview with the British High Commissioner, Sir Michael Arthur.

High Commissioner, let me start with a simple question. After all that we have seen of the treatment of Shilpa Shetty on Celebrity Big Brother, how damaged is Britain’s image in India today?

Michael Arthur: Good evening, Karan. I think this will be a very interesting and, in some way, a rather healthy debate that we have been having in Britain, that has come out of the Celebrity Big Brother show. So, and clearly, there has been a big impact across India and it is interesting quite how much of this issue has been picked up in the press.

Karan Thapar: A damaging impact?

Michael Arthur: No, a big impact of course and, I hope, the conclusion more or less will be in India that here in Britain we have in fact a very lively and open society that is debating this and coming to a conclusion and that we are not a racist country.

Karan Thapar: I want very much to talk about what the view from Britain is. But first, for a moment, let’s talk about whether there has been damage to Britain’s image in India or not. On the very day that Gordon Brown, who is most likely going to be your next prime minister, said he wanted Britain to be recognised for its fairness and its tolerance, you ended up coming across as an intolerant, cruel, racist country. Surely, that has damaged the image.

Michael Arthur: I beg to differ on that. I was with him during that visit – an extremely successful visit and very warmly received by everybody here. And we felt it was a very important visit, which moved the relationship forward. And, of course, this came up in all the press. But I was quite struck at how, if you look at the coverage during the visit, the Shilpa Shetty issue was one of the issues but by no means a dominant one.

Karan Thapar: You talk about the coverage. Let me quote from British newspapers. The Sun says, “This was a defining moment in the way Britain is seen by the rest of the world,” and then added, “Britain is humiliated”. The Independent said, “We are all ashamed.” Clearly, British newspapers accept that damage has been done to Britain’s image in India. Why can’t you accept it?

Michael Arthur: Because you just saw it from what’s happening in India that what’s happening in Britain. I think, in Britain, it has been rather a different story. This has really ignited a big public debate and I said just now, I think this has been a rather healthy episode because as you see in the reaction from the British public – 40,000 people have now coordinated complaints about the comments that were made. There is a very strong sense in Britain that the offensive remarks made by Jade Goody were actually intolerable and that is not something that we as a modern society nowadays stand for.

Karan Thapar: Well you say they are intolerable and you say this is not something that Britain as a modern society stands for. The key question that people are asking, both in Britain and in India, is a very simple one but perhaps an offensive one. Is Britain a racist society? How would you, as a British High Commissioner, answer that question in India today?

Michael Arthur: I think, you just stand back and see the very radical transformation that’s been happening in the British society for the last generation – the last 15-20 years. We become a very diverse and multicultural society. I mean a huge number of different ethnic minority communities come in to the UK. Some of them, particularly Indian ethnic minority, are extremely successful in our society and our economy. And there is a process of adjustment, which is going on inside British society over this last generation, of which this is part of the public debate.

Karan Thapar: Is it a process of adjustment? Because you see it is not just Big Brother, now in fact Exeter Crown Court judges have began, it seems, to condole racism. Earlier this month, Judge Paul Dahlo refused to accept that when a White man said to an Asian doctor and I am quoting, “F*#% off you Pak*. I want an English doctor not a f*#@ing Pak*,” that wasn’t racism. Is the system in denial?

Michael Arthur: Well, that’s a sort of language I, of course, find completely intolerable. The law will take its due process. We have very strict laws in my country about these sort of accusations. And indeed public sector broadcasting you have Ofcom, which is now making enquiries in this case.

Karan Thapar: But a judge ruled that this is not racism. In fact the judge went further. He says, “I cannot see that it caused him any distress or hurt.” It’s such comments by judges, such television programmes that lead people to the conclusion that Britain has something racist and disquieting about itself.

Michael Arthur: No. I think I don’t know the details of the case which you just recorded, as I say that law has to take its due process in this country. But it seems you are picking one or two headlines from that, try and generalise from that in a way in which the volume of information and statistics are showing exactly the opposite. Here we have a very open society and a very open Press, as you well know. In our country the issues are quite rightly debated and the conclusion that the British public is coming to is that we are not a racist society.

Karan Thapar: You talked about the conclusion that great British public is coming to. In fact, I want to draw your attention to things that have been said by British people. Germin Greous said, “This is a racist country”. Marin Jacks writing in the Gurdian said, “If the truth is told, we are a society that is dripping in racism.”

Michael Arthur: I think across any society, particularly the society going through this sort of social and economic change that we have been, you are bound to find two or three things. First of all, individuals do have unacceptable but racist, if you want to call it that, views. We see that occasionally, which get picked up in the Press. There are other epithets that people used to critisise cultures and groups that they did not believe in. I mean you find gender discrimination and religious discrimination. We have laws against all that, but we can’t stop individuals from having their say. The issue is whether the majority opinion goes with that.

Karan Thapar: Except High Commissioner, it’s not just individuals that I am quoting to you. Great British institutions today are beginning to express concern about what they consider as racism that is latent in the country. The Observer, a 200-year-old newspaper, says that, “In fact, what Big Brother did was to hold up a mirror to British society”. The Arch Bishop of York has spoken of the ugly underbelly of British society. The Chairman of your Commission for Equality and Human Right says, “We have now seen contemporary racism.” Are all these institutions and individuals wrong?

Michael Arthur: I understand why they say that about individual comments which are made by people who have come into prominence in this affair and other ones. You have not quoted any of the things that have been said in the House of Commons by political leaders and editorials in many of the newspapers, which strongly condemn the few comments that you have picked up. It seems to me these people also represent majority opinion in a society that has changed very much. And the margins are the people, flotsam and jetsam of society, who have driven into positions where they are making these unacceptable comments. It’s not the majority.

Karan Thapar: All right. You said two important things. One that Britain is a society that’s changing a lot and secondly that, in fact, this is not racism, this is not institutionalised racism. In that case, if it’s not racism, how would you explain the following facts, which have come from the annual report of the Commission for the Racial Equality, as well as the annual report of the 1990 Trust? The reports break out that Blacks are two-and-a-half times more likely to be unemployed than Whites in Britain, three times more likely to be homeless, five times more likely to be incarcerated in jail and six times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police. Doesn’t that indicate that Blacks are treated differently because of their colour and that’s racism?

Michael Arthur: These are socio-economic figures which you are looking at and judgments are based on the categories used.

Karan Thapar: But all from British sources.

Michael Arthur: Let me give you another British source, which says that Chinese children have the best GCSE results across Britain ahead of White British children. Indian British boys and girls have better GCSE results than White British boys and girls. I mean you can pick and chose your figures as you like. We are a multi-cultural society and it is a fact, those who are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder tend to fall into categories that you may decide.

Karan Thapar: But I am only bringing up the subject because if you say Britain is not a racial society, then how would you as High Commissioner explain these facts that Blacks are discriminated on grounds of colour across a range of figures and facts that I have quoted?

Michael Arthur: In our multi-cultural society, there are groups who of course are much more disadvantaged than others. And the key issue we as a society and as a government have to do is to make sure that the disadvantaged are given the helping hand they can to join the mainstream of the economy and society. And there is a lot of work that goes into trying to provide these to minorities.

Karan Thapar: Okay, let me then try to sum up at this point of time the two important things you said. You do not accept, despite the fact that people in India and your own newspapers in Britain are saying that there has been any damage in Britain’s image in India. You simply don’t accept that.

Michael Arthur: No. What I am trying to get across to you is that we are a very pluralist multicultural society where the majority of opinion are vehemently opposed to racism in our society and jump on it when there are signs of it.

Karan Thapar: But has damage happened to your image in India?

Michael Arthur: That’s the message I am trying to get across to you. Has damage happened to our image in India? My hope is very much not because we are working very closely with each other.

Karan Thapar: And the reality?

Michael Arthur: I think, you, the Indian public have to judge that not me.

Karan Thapar: So that sounds as if damage could have happened but you would rather not have it pointed out because that might be a problem.

Michael Arthur: No, I don’t think so. In your own show few nights ago on television you had a very interesting discussion where two of your main Indian participants came to the conclusion that was opposite of what you are asking me about.

Karan Thapar: Let me quote from the Guardian of the January 20, “The test of our behaviour of how racist we are is no longer what White British people think. The test now in this instance is what Indians think, how they perceive us.” Do you agree with that sentiment?

Michael Arthur: But the Guardian there is talking about our own Indians, the people of Indian origin who live in Britain and other many minorities…

Karan Thapar: Well the Guardian didn’t make that distinction but you are welcome to make it on their behalf.

Michael Arthur: But the implication is what they want to say.

Karan Thapar: No, I don’t think so. I think the implication here is what people in India think of Britain.

Michael Arthur: I mean if the consensus in India were to be that Britain was racist I would be very worried about that. I actually happen to think it is not the case. But, of course, if that is the perception here, that is of concern. Because we have a very modern and improving relationship between Britain and India, very deep and true relationship in this 21st century, and it will be very damaging to us if such is the perception here.

Karan Thapar:All right. In that case, if it is not racism, how do explain to Indian people the nature of language and the nature of behaviour that they have seen on Celebrity Big Brother?

Michael Arthur: Well, it’s a fair point. I think, you have to look at the different morays of our two societies, where there are many examples I can give you, where things that have happened or are said or are done in modern British society are not comfortable for the majority of people in India. I think a lot of issues about how young men and women live and work together, how they treat each other, what they wear, pre-marital sex, a whole range of issues were in Britain are there, it’s including the Asian population of Britain the morays are different to what they are in India.

Karan Thapar: So, this is a clash of culture rather than racism?

Michael Arthur: It is the aspect of our changing culture. I am not at all trying to defend the language that might be used, that is racist and offensive and I condemn that, absolutely. I am just trying to say that some of the language used in public debate in Britain, swear words, were not used even when I was a child. I mean the society has just got more liberal about it.

Karan Thapar: Two quick questions. Is it in fact reflection of, perhaps the quick reflection of British working-class culture, which people in India don’t understand and are they, therefore, misperceiving it as racism? Is that in a sense what you are saying?

Michael Arthur: Class is a very complex and sensitive issue in any society, within our society too. And a lot of the debate that you see in the British media has been about whether this is more of a class-based debate then anything else.

Karan Thapar: Is that how you see Big Brother, as a class conflict rather than a racist conflict?

Michael Arthur: I myself don’t see it that way but I think that’s the way some of the debate in UK has been. How do you define class? By class, Britain as I said is a very changing society and there are regional differentials, there are big economic differentials and social differentials between individual groups.

Karan Thapar: But let’s not go into definition of class because that’s becoming sociological. Do you see Big Brother as class conflict, rather than a racist conflict? Are you telling the Indian people that that’s how they should see it?

Michael Arthur: Well, I think Big Brother is a very artificial forum in which you test people under rather stressful condition because it makes good television material and it clearly sells well because people like it. I mean it seems to me a rather artificial way of debating any issue in the confines of the house set up by Big Brother.

Karan Thapar: So, you are saying, in fact, don’t take it seriously, dismiss it as a TV programme and no more?

Michael Arthur: Well, I don’t want to dismiss since there is a serious issue. I won’t tackle it head on. We as a society need to do that. I said this in the opening that one of the strengths of the last two weeks has precisely been that we had the debate. But I think we should put it in context. People think it’s good television but I personally don’t. But you can see if you want it.

Karan Thapar: High Commissioner, let’s come to whether the Shilpa Shetty’s Celebrity Big Brother incident has affected the Indo-British relations at the government-to-government level. Kamal Nath says that he has taken up the matter directly to Gordon Brown. Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi asked Pranab Mukherjee to take it up as Foreign Office to Foreign Office and Anand Sharma threatened what he called appropriate action. How do you respond and react to all of them?

Michael Arthur: When you got big television headlines like this and when you got British minister visiting at the time, it’s inevitable that Indian ministers will feel the need to raise this issue with him. And which they did and we are handling that. Ofcom is, of course, pursuing the case against the television broadcasting authority to make sure that nothing wrong has been done.

Karan Thapar: At the government-to-government level, has the Indian Government lodged a formal protest?

Michael Arthur: It depends what you mean by that. They have raised it exactly the way you have described and have asked us questions about this. We will do everything to make sure that the rule of law has applied. But keep this in perspective that here is a television programme that popped up out of the headlines because actually headline is what the producers of television programmes and all the people there want. And of course the governments need to handle this because there is a public debate out there concerning us.

Karan Thapar: You say the Indian Government has asked questions but have they actually lodged a protest or is it going a step too far?

Michael Arthur: It’s going a step too far.

Karan Thapar: So, no protest whatsoever have been lodged either in Delhi or in London?

Michael Arthur: We have exchanged views about the fact that we as a society and government need to make sure that the due process of law is followed and which will be.

Karan Thapar: There is a certain quantum of Indian opinion that believes that the Indian politicians are being prickly, that they are over-reacting and are forgetting that this is simply a TV programme. Do you agree with that view?

Michael Arthur: I think politicians have to react to public debates. I mean I am just not going to criticise or comment on how the politicians handled this.

Karan Thapar: What about the threat of appropriate action leveled by Anand Sharma? Was that one step too far?

Michael Arthur: Anand I know very well. I discussed it with him myself. He just wanted to check that we are doing the right thing, which we are. And we assured him and it’s not an issue.

Karan Thapar: And this question of appropriate action has since then been dropped.

Michael Arthur: It’s dropped.

Karan Thapar: There has been a rather good two years spell for Indo-British relations, particularly after you took over as High Commisssioner. Has that been damaged or set back by this?

Michael Arthur: I don’t think it has. I hope it has not. Of course, it’s for Indians to judge that, not me. I don’t think we have even seen such an exciting period in Indo-British relationships as the last two-three years. Look at the volume of business between us, the flow of people between us and the integration of the Indian community into Britain.

Karan Thapar: And that’s not been set back by this?

Michael Arthur: No not at all. I mean if you got the Indian community in Britain producing the 5 per cent of our GDP – 2 per cent of the population, 5 per cent of the GDP, how is that a setback? It is very successful.

Karan Thapar: Are you scared that tourism that between 2004 and 2005 grew by over 17 per cent could now suffer? People like Burner Doner, the representative of ‘Visit Britain’ campaign, are concerned that Shilpa Shetty episode could damage tourism from India. Are you as High Commissioner scared of that?

Michael Arthur: Not at all. I think if anything, this has shown the affection there in Britain for Shilpa Shetty even though she is not widely known in Britain. There has been overwhelming votes of confidence by the British public for Shetty. If anything, it could attract more people.

Karan Thapar: According to the newspapers, Jade Goody has announced that she has applied for a visa to come to India. She wants to visit this country, perhaps in the near future. As High Commissioner, do you think it is advisable for her to come at this moment?

Michael Arthur: It’s up to her. We have 6,00,000 British visitors coming to India every year. We are the biggest supplier of tourism. If Jade Goody wants to come as a visitor here, maybe she will learn a lot about India.

Karan Thapar: Do you think that her presence in this country could excite the emotions and perhaps protest that you would rather have forgotten about? Do you think it could revive memories that you would rather have been forgotten about?

Michael Arthur: I doubt. She said she is coming to India to learn about India leaving behind the unfortunate comments.

Karan Thapar: So you have no problem with her coming?

Michael Arthur: It’s up to her and you.

Karan Thapar: You are then fairly confident that the whole Shilpa Shetty Celebrity Big Brother episode is going to blow away without really leaving any lasting damage.

Michael Arthur: More than that, actually I am fairly comfortable about that in terms of our bilateral relationship. But I do think it’s another sign of our vitality about public debate in Britain, which we ought to be proud of. I am not at all proud of individual people making offensive remarks but I am proud of the fact that this rather diverse and changing society tackles these sorts of issues head on in an ongoing debate. I think that is right and healthy in a pluralist democracy.

Karan Thapar: The debate that it has provoked is a good thing, a positive thing?

Michael Arthur: It’s indeed.

Karan Thapar: Societies need to talk about racism and the more they talk about it, the more likely they are to act on it.

Michael Arthur: Absolutely.

Karan Thapar: High Commissioner, a pleasure talking to you in Devil’s Advocate.

Michael Arthur: Thank you very much.