“Asian” is the term used to indicate the Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in UK. The history of the Indians in United Kingdom started with beginning of the colonial era. Many people from un-partitioned India settled in that country. And all of them were known as Indians during that time. India was partitioned. And the Indian Diaspora in UK were also divided as Indians and Pakistanis. In 1971, one more country was created – Bangladesh. And the Indian community in UK was divided one more time and a new category was created named Bangladeshis. So, now there are three categories of people who were previously known as Indians. In the absence of a single word to identify all of them ,the Britons star calling them Asians. Actually the term South Asian would have been a more accurate word. But in a world, where everybody is looking forward to short cut, the word “Asian” prevailed. But is it the right word? Besides, we the Indians, Pakistanis and the Bangladeshis are not homogeneous people. Is it right to keep them in the single category? The term “Asian” can also be confusing. Because in USA, the word “Asian” is used to indicate the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and other people with oriental looks. I am looking forward to opinions from my NRI brothers and sisters in UK
Classification of NRIs Karan, Further to your analysis I would make the following comments. NRIs in the UK are further differentiated as those who were born here (like me) and those settling in recent years from India for economic reasons. The latter group are true NRIs as defined by law as they were born in India. People like me are technically PIOs (Person of Indian Origin) with similar legal rights in India as NRIs. Then you have the large communities of Indians from Africa here. Firstly those from Kenya who settled there mainly to work on the railways with the British. And you have the Ugandan Indians who came here all at once in 1972 after being expelled by Idi Amin. Let's also not forget the Indian communities from countries like South Africa, Guyana, Mauritius, Trinidad, Fiji, etc. They were part of the indentured labor thrown onto ships on false pretenses to outposts with heavy British interests. The British needed a ready supply of very cheap *and effectively forced) labor after the abolition of slavery.
Specification is needed There’s a whole lot of difference between Asians and Indians. Most foreigners refer to anyone coming in and around India as Asians. Bangladeshis and Pakistanis were Indians before the division. While it doesn’t matter at lower levels, when it comes to nationalism we are far different from the Pakistanis and Chinese and other countries and would not like to be in the same category.
I agree that every national from Pakistan, India or Bangladesh is still termed as Indians in UK as they were a part of India before partition. Although, all the three nations have their own identity, yet they are grouped under one name Indian of Asian. However, calling them Asian is right because each of these nations are a part of Asia continent but calling the people from Pakistan and Bangladesh as Indians is not very acceptable.
