Talk:British Asians

British Indian/Sikh/Hindu instead of British Asian?

By far the most recognisable names on the list had roots from India as opposed to Bangladesh or Pakistan. Plus the current higher academic aswell as many other hugely successful areas Indians are succeeding in compared to their south asian counterparts makes this right to divide the category into British Indian, this would show recognition for their outstanding hard work. In the State Indians already are classed as Indian Americans why not the same in Britain? Also the fact of toleration too is very important, the riots of 2001 in Bradford and other Northern cities were carried out by muslim/pakistanis and not Indian/sikhs/Hindus. Apart from NF demonstrations in the 70's no predominantly Indian/Sikh/Hindu city or area has undergone rioting or social unrest take for example Southall and Leicester.

Did if ever occur to you that the people responsible for this page had NO intention ever to mention any Pakistani or Bangladeshi? There are plenty of successful people in each community, the fact you people ignore them proves your insecurity and ignorance. There are over 1.05 million people of Indian origin in the United Kingdom (hard to believe, more like 2 million now), compared to only 800,000 Pakistanis and 200,000 Bangladeshis. What success are you talking about? PROFESSIONALS from india have to LEAVE india to find work! Most indians coming to the UK or any other nation for that matter are always professionals. Why are you so proud of the fact YOUR professionals are leaving india and coming abroad to serve another nation? Wheras the majority of all Pakistanis and Bangladeshis abroad are mainly economic migrants, with some or little education. Almost 30 million indians have abandoned india, and your proud of that? By all means brother change the name to British Indian/Sikh/Hindu, hell rename it to British Monkeys for all I care, I've already started a article on British Pakistanis. BK2006 12:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Genius

Not a single Pakistani in the pictures, what a cheap/sad thing to do.

Problems

why is the picture representing british asians of a guy smoking?

I have to say that I have a number of problems with this article: Firstly, I have always objected to the use of the word "Asian" in such a narrow sense, just as Americans and Australians, use it to refer to Orientals, but not Indians etc. This complete nonsense involves form filling where you get the option of "Asian" OR "Chinese". This is completely inaccurate and ungeographical.

Secondly, I am not completely convinced about the "unity" of "British Asians" (sic) for a couple of reasons: a) Scottish Asians (I don't know about Wales) identify as Scottish rather than "British" or more so, and b) there are clear dividing lines between Muslim-Hindu(-Sikh), which sometimes turn very nasty. Pakistani and Indians, and their descendants in the UK, often have certain religious and historical disagreements with each other, which are still evident. Since partition, India and Pakistan have had a series of military encounters, and both have nuclear capabilities. This has resonance in the UK.

Thirdly, again "South Asian" is better than just "Asian", but at the same time, technically speaking, Malaysians/Indonesians/Iranians... and some Arabs fall under "South Asian" too.

The problem you have then, is not just with this article, but British English in general - it's a matter of course that the word "Asian" is nearly always used to refer to Britons who originate from the Indian subcontinent, not Asia in general, and this is reflected culturally and institutionally (e.g. census forms, the BBC Asian Network, etc.). As a Briton of Chinese descent, I would probably cause a deal of puzzlement if I started referring to myself as "Asian", even though that would be geographically accurate, the word has altered meaning in the popular mind.

The article rightly could do with expansion on the differences between British Asians, both between different parts of the UK, and between different ethnic groups and religions - there is no such thing as a homogeneous British Asian community; nevertheless the term is in popular use, both as an umbrella term and as an identity, far more so than the more accurate "South Asian". Qwghlm 18:48, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

"The first British Asian to gain wide popularity in the UK was the late Freddie Mercury, who led the rock band Queen." - what about Cliff Richard? Guettarda 04:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

-Cliff Richard was not a full South Asian. He was a British colonial in India with some Indian origins as well as British origins. The term British Asian refers to people who are of full South Asian descent and Freddie Mercury was of full Parsi descent (Parsis are South Asian Zoroastrians of Persian origins, South Asian Persians, like Afghan Persians, Tajik Persians Iranian Persians..) -User: Afghan Historian

As I understand it Cliff Richard has denied having any Indian ancestry and his Grandparents were all born in England into English families, as such he is not only not British Asian but technically does not count as Anglo-Indian either. Certainly the term British Asian or even Scottish Asian, English Asian, Welsh Asian etc.... are rejected by many and the term Desi which is non-geographical is more commonly used for people from ethnic groups from the Indian Sub-continent, presenter Nikki Bedi who had an Indian Parsis father and an English mother actually describes herself as being Indo-Anglian, ultimately though there has never been a situation in history for any group in which everyone accepts a particular term and indeed many people are from multiple groups--Lord of the Isles 12:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

i tihnk famous iranians should be givin a mention. omid djalili is great and tracy emin is half iranian...

British Asian as a term though was used to describe those in the UK who were of ancestry from the Indian Sub-continent, as a term it actually doesn't make much sense but that is the historical usuage of it like it or not, in fact Tracey Emin actually is of Turkish Cypriot ancestry and English ancestry as I understand it, I've never come across any mention of Iranian ancestry.--Lord of the Isles 12:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As another note regarding South Asian, I think South Asian is a better term and in fact this is the term used by the United Nations to define the area from the North West Frontier (The Khyber Pass marking an edge) across to East Bengal and north to the Chinese Border; Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, The Caucases, Arabia and the Levant to the Suez Canal are classified as South West Asia; Korea, Thailand, Singapore, China etc... are classified as South East Asia; Tadjikistan, Kazakstan, Khrygikistan, Uzbeckistan, Mongolia and southern parts of Asian Russia get classified as Central Asia and the rest of Russian Asia would be what would be Northern Asia notably Siberia of course.--Lord of the Isles 12:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

More Problems

In the History of South Asians in Great Britain section it says workers from Punjab region migrated to the UK. Partly true but not all Punjabis were workers previously. My Grandad was not a worker in Punjab & the demographics were different for each individual.

On the religion divide, it makes me laugh as an asian. We live in a white country that tolerates our beliefs/ cultures but we cannot tolerate each others? No wonder we are immigrants!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.99.224.80 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Sources?

It would be nice to have sources for sweeping statements such as: British Pakistanis originate largely from one region, Azad Kashmir (roughly two thirds). Another 20%, approximately, have links with the Punjab region. zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of Azad Kashmir is Objectionable

The use of word Azad Kashmir is objectionable for an Indian. Azad in Hindi and Urdu means free, which the Pakistan Administered Kashmir is no more than Indian Kashmir. So the phrase must be deleted.

Nope. The phrase 'Azad Kashmir' is politically correct since the region under the control of Pakistan is legally referred to as 'Azad Kashmir', its not for wikipedia to take a poltical stance on such issues, Azad Kashmir might be Pakistan occupied Kashmir to Indians, and Indian held Kashmir might be Indian occupied Kashmiri to Kashmiris and Pakistanis.

It stays.

"Legally referred" to by whom, the Pakistanis? That hardly makes your case for calling it "Azad Kashmir". No other country other than Pakistan refers to Pakistani-controlled Kashmir in that way.

Another thing that annoys me is that Kashmir belongs to niether Pakistan or India. I am not Kashmiri but they should pick there own future. So since sub continent has many races, it means that every region has its own right to pick its own future.

--- im of kashmiri background, mirpur to be exact, and we identify our selfs as british-pakistani, full stop. kashmir alot more azad alot then the indian adminstrated kashmir, that is under constant military strong hold. i can say that there is not one MP (mirpuri) that i have seen that does deny this fact. the indians should stop try claiming us as a part of india, because were not. god bless PAKISTANI KASHMIR! and the save return of our lost J&Kashmir. Indians try so had to spread the propanganda to cause divisions between our nation, but they shall not succeed, as we have been united since birth, PAKISTAN= Punjabi, Afgania, Kashmir, and Bolochistan!

the indians dont even care about the kashmir they have, with a 70-80% muslim population it should be apart of pakistan also, according the agreements made pre1947. hindu gorrillas kill muslims, discriminate them on a regular basis. 5000 muslims were killed in 5 weeks in the gujarat riots, and they want kashmir, laughable. and the rich indian muslims are a disgrace (5%), as they have done nothing for the 95% of the working class, and poor india, discrination still continues in indian, eventhough they all themselfs 'secular', which is so much nonsense.

and the day an pakistani azad kashmiri identifies himself as an indian, that pakistan is destroyed. that shall not happen, as my ancestors have given there lives for us to be apart of pakistan, the punjabis, kashimirs, pathans, afrgania, and bolachitani, will still die for one another, eventhough we have a few tensions these days. to all the indian haters, PAKISTAN ZINDABAD 86.132.108.14 13:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright lads and ladies. Calm down, have a cup of tea and a spliff and exercise those smile muscles. I'm a British-Bangladeshi-atheist and couldn't give a rat's wotsits as to who 'owns' Kashmir, so long as the Kashmiris can lead some sort of decent, civilised existence. And all you Indians and Pakistanis are welcome to come round my place any day for hot chocolate and jaffa cakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.53.161 (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AZAD kashmir is the correct term please low esteemed indians stop vandalising or ill vandalise indian articles. PAKISTAN AND AZAD KASHMIR ZINDABAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.238.214 (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

deletion proposal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#British_.22ethnic.22_categories_again

I disagree strongly with this effort that's being made to wipe out a valid category. If you have opinions on the matter, please make your voice heard. --Peripatetic 07:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury

Why was his Image deleted? He may be a Parsi but his parents were still Indian!

His parents were born in India and so were many of his decsendents but it doesnt matter how long your family has lived in a country ..your RACE/ETHNIC backgroud doesnt change! unless you intermarry...his "ancestry" isnt from what we call Asian in britain..he is Persian..ancestry doesnt change..he never claimed indian ancestry....are all the British people born in the colonial times qualify to be of the Indian(Asian) race..i dont think so..this is about race..not culture. Freddie Mercury 'has been referred to' as "Britain's first Asian pop star, but only "referred to"..which means its not what we would call him in "GENERAL"....since this article is about people of mainly Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi origin...not Persian/Iranian....... Black people have been in the American continant for over 500 years..does that change what their Ethnic group is.?..no...all their descendents are still African, although culturally they are very different to thier Original origins in Africa......same with the Parsees...If someone asks what origin Freddie was..most people will say Persian..not Indian..therefore i think he shouldnt be on this page.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.30.184 (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Er....lets see if I have this right. The anonymous contributer above is saying that Parsees aren't Indian? So, how many centuries does one's ancestors have to live in India before you qualify? It seems that a quite extreme viewpoint is being expressed here. Indisciplined (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Asian British instead of British Asian?

As the adjective is normally the ethnicity/origin and the substantive the nationality. Like: Asian American and African American culture. Sijo Ripa 20:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not how the term has been used though, the term desi is probably a far better term but British Asian is one that has come into common usuage, people talk about English Romani or Scottish Romani or Welsh Romani not Romani English, Romani Welsh or Romani Scottish; although the term Black British does get used to refer as an umbrella term to people of African ancestry in Britain - there are slight differences between American English and Oxford English (which is what is described as being Standard English).--Lord of the Isles 02:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been a similar question about this at Talk:British Chinese, where I have argued in favour of keeping the current name on the grounds that it is the most common usage, and it's the term the group would use themselves. However British Asian is not as clear-cut. The term Desi would be inappropriate as not only is it not commonly used, but it can be offensive (and incorrect) if used by non-Asians. I would suggest that British Asian is traditionally a more common term than Asian British, however the UK census (hence most of the ethnic statistics industry) uses Asian British as the preferred term. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Weaselling

This article's wording seems to carefully dance around to avoid dealing with one of the most prominent current issues, which is that a significant number of non-Muslims of subcontinental origin don't really want to be indiscriminately lumped together with Muslims anymore -- see UK Hindus unhappy with 'Asians' tag etc. AnonMoos 06:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Like Muslims want to be lumped with you! make your seperate tag. So when the Indian Actress was racially abused, why was it called Asian racism. Can you call that racism against Hindus as Muslims are a seperate tag. On another factor most Muslims are physically different to Hindus & White people are aware of this. The only community that can claim this are The Sikhs as they do resemble Muslims.

well if it isnt 'indian hindus' getting offending for being called asian, because they dont want to be associated with Asian Muslims, which apprantly accordding to that article are all terrorists. The police had a 'mistaken identity problem' according to the article after 7/7, because its only the MUSLIMS that should be stopped and searched. WHy dont we make the British Muslims wear arm bands, and segregate them, like the Nazi Germany, then maybe the Hindus wouldnt get "offended". Obviously the 1 million British Muslim popultion should be treated as 3rd class citizens in there own country accordinf to these 'well-educated Hindus' accoriding to this article! Well what about the Muslim Indians? What should they be called? There not British Pakistani there not British Arabs/Persians, and obviously the Hindus dont want them to be called British Indians, hmmmmm, wasnt this the same problem that lead to Jinnah making Pakistan, for protecting the Indian Muslims! And should the British Pakistani Hindus not be called British asians, becuase they are also Hindu but not just British Hindus. Double standards, hypocrisy, typical arrogant points of VIEW. QWERT

Anna Leonowens

Deleted the convoluted paragraph about Anna Leonowens and her great-nephew Boris Karloff. Neither of these celebrities identified themselves as Asian, so they shouldn't be included as examples of British Asian celebrities.199.111.194.169 14:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

PERSIANS

Many Iranians Identify as `Asian' in the census! (fact according to the census!) BUT THEY ARE NOT CLASSED AS `ASIAN' IN SOCIETY!!! This article has 3 images of `Iranis', and only one Indian and one Pakistani at the title!! Indians make up the majority of `Asians' in Britain. GIVE IMAGES OF 3 "INDO- ARYAN" PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In theory Iranians are the mother country of Pakistanis & N Indians so having there pictures up does not bother me.(so you are claiming that rats(iranians) are mothers of Lions(pakistanis), interesting your fantasy world)

....Right, so according to genetic evidence that much of Britain's `white' population has origins from the Iberian peninsular going back thousands of years, should we have Images of Spaniards representing white British people? This would be ironic considering many racist White Brits think of Mediterraneans as swarthy and non-white in the same way that Many Iranians who are racist think of South Asians as being dark mixed race Dravidians!

Firstly Iran is not a million miles away from Pakistan, last I checked it was right next door. With Britain & Spain there is quite a geographical & social difference. You would need historians/scientists to make the link, but with Iran & Pakistan/India you can see the similarities. Of course there has been some mixture with Indigenous peoples, but in the main Pakistanis/N Indians follow & adhere to a culture that came from Iran. Lets not forget that, so having Iranians in there does not really make a difference.

Eerr...OK...by the way the spanish finger prints with the British was only in the small area of the Basque country in the north of spain..so not really identifiable with the whole ibearean peninsula, and the spanish look nothing like the British...lets face it.... So what if the Persians have identifiable history with some parts of Asia...THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT the British asian community, which doesnt include Persians....if some indentify as so..then they are ticking the wrong box..asian is a big continant but this article doesnt include nearby countries to what we call Asians in britian...for me Persians are part of the middle east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spain21 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

arent persians of iran arab desccent, as iran is an arab country. there persian pakistanis so dont label it persians but iranian. its like sayin punjabis are indian or pakistani only, when infact they are both

Much Of Paklistan is on the Iranian Plateau. To say a Baluchi Tribesman from Iran is not Asian and a Baluchi from Pakistan is is ridiculous. If Iranians (who share the same linguistics of the INDO-Iranian family) wish to identify themselves as Asian, then so be it and no-one has the right to be telling them otherwise. My only objection to the imaged at the beginning of this section was that it was unbalanced and it was making out that most British Asians are Iranis where they are mostly Punjabis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.58.18 (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fm2.jpg

Image:Fm2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

put a picture of amir khan on!

Kurds?

Do Kurds count as "British Asian"? I expect that this will be a bigger issue at the next census than it was in 2001. I was just looking at the list of options for ethnicity, and thinking what on Earth a Kurd would come under. British Asian seems to be the closest. Epa101 17:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about putting in some words about how the Kurdish population has grown a lot in recent years. However, the census figures were all from 2001, and most of the Kurds have come over since then. The sources that I can find about the growth of the Kurdish population are usually talking about tensions with other groups in Dewsbury, or in Finsbury Park in London, and I would rather not use such sources on their own, as it might seem to be a bit defamatory towards Kurds. Does anyone have any figures or any more appropriate articles on the Kurdish community in Britain? Epa101 20:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

sport

There should be a section that lists british asian sport personalities, i.e monty, owais shah, amir khan, ravi bopara, etc etc

indians better then bangladeshi and pakistani

why has this article been turned into how the statistics show how british indians are more better then pakistanis and bangladeshis., its a cheap attack and no need for ir hear. if you are going to start talking about stats also show that the british indian generation is alot more older then then pakistani and bangladeshi, and that the british indian pop come from more priviliged backgrounds. if the amount of differences between pakistani/banglalis and indians are put why dont you also write how indians have statistically smaller penis's http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indian_men_dont_measure_up/articleshow/738607.cms

absoulte non-sense of an article

Woah there...easy tiger! I'm British Bangladeshi and I'M not offended by that particular part of the article. No need to start getting personal against the Indians.

POPULATION

This article indicates the Asian population has doubled to close to 5 Million! Please show references to prove this!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.213.21 (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems

I see no one has mentioned the problems in places like leeds etc. or the lack of integration in certain areas of the uk. 157.190.228.23 (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Usage of the Ethnic slur `Paki' in Britain

I notice that the racist slur 'Paki' is used to identify all South Asians from Peshawar to Pondicherry. Not just used for Pakistanis but also Indians, Bangladeshis, Sri Lakans and possibly Afghan Pashtuns. South Asians are very racially ambiguous so that means that Kashmiri Omar Abdullah pictured here:http://www.the-south-asian.com/Nov2001/omar-abdullah1.jpg and Tamil M.I.A. pictured here:http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/blog/images/mia.jpg would both be classed as 'Pakis' due to being of South Asian origin. British Indians make up the largest ethnic minority in Britain so why isn't the term "Indi" used as the universal ethnic slur? Would I be right to assume that Princess Lalla Salma pictured here: http://www.gala.fr/var/gal/storage/images/le_gotha/leurs_bio/du_maroc_lalla_salma/images/lalla_salma_du_maroc/257639-1-fre-FR/lalla_salma_du_maroc_reference.jpg would be called a "N***er" in Britain because she is Moroccan and Morocco is a part of Africa?

Oldham Riots

Does anybody else think it looks a bit ropey having links to pages on the Bradford and Oldham riots right at the top of the "see also" section? I don't wish to state that their inclusion is the work of racists, though I am quite heavily implying it. Anyhow, I will remove. Jamrifis (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on "legacy of British rule"

I don't think it is accurate to describe the British Asian population as "legacy of British rule." There was high immigration after the independence of India and Pakistan. And in general, immigration to UK was akin to USA or Canada wasn'it it, unlike the importing of indentured labor to South Africa, the West Indies, East Africa and Fiji, which can be attributed to colonial rule? Indians emigrated to the UK pre-1947 for mostly economic or educational reasons, like most other immigrants.Vishnava (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ASIAN BRITISH

This article really, really needs renaming to Asian British, it is the correct term used by the British Government and UK National Statistics (this really cannot be argued), plus a search on Google for Asian British produced around 10 times as more results than British Asian did. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree searching for "Asian British" = 146,000 hits, while "British Asian" = 149,000 Pahari Sahib 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Asian British 38,600,000 Hits [1], British Asian 4,330,000 Hits [2]