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, I've already started a article on British Pakistanis. BK2006 12:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

your indian parliament has admitted that it was all an internet HOAX!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/India-rising-in-US-Govt-falls-victim-to-net-hoax/articleshow/2856295.cms

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).

That's not the definition of "immigrant" - but I understand where you are coming from in. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 28 December 2008 (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)

Subheading - Influence, please provide a relevant source for the claim about representation of British Asians in the media, if there's a breakdown covering types of media/programming, that would be even better. --WillJ (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2009 (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)

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

We don't take into consideration what the Hindus or Muslims identify themselves as. They are Asian. If the Hindus or Muslims don't like to be "lumped together" then why do they share the same ancestry? It's double standard racism. If Hindus find themselves not to be Asian then that is their idenity crisis. We go by the book not by the word of mouth. Those Hindus are racist in that article of yours, it's complete nonsense. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

On population, in the box at the top right-hand corner the figures simply do not add up - the total number of south asians is given as c.700K more than the total of the individual figures. If a figure included in the total has been omitted could someone rectify this? Otherwise the total ought to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.107.2 (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure I'll check out the refs and add some to see if they do add up or don't. Anyway what's wrong with 5 million? LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 28 December 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], also most British Asian pages are about British rule in Asia (during the British Empire), fact cannot be denied

These Google searches are picking up all sorts of other hits, not just ones about this particular group. A more refined search or better evidence is needed if you want to change it. Cop 663 (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Right this is a simple logisitical problem. People who are born in Britain are British if they are Asian they are called British Asian. Because That's what they are first: Britons. Also search engine hits are rarely taken into account when renaming articles. Your argument is very weak. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Mixed Race

Just want to know if somebody who was born British and had only ONE Indian parent would be classified as British Asian in this articles sense.--Judas james (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question, the simple answer would be yes as many people mentioned and pictured in this article and it's sub categories have only a single Asian parent, an example from this article being Mark Ramprakash. However, 'British Asian' is an ethnicity indicator in the UK and this would would mean that such people fall into the 'Mixed - white and Asian' category or the British_Mixed-Race category for racial classification. Khokhar (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Renanaming

I'm going to rename the article. and then add a redirect stating "Asian British and British Asian redirects here..."--23prootie (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did you rename this article? "British Asian" is a commonly used term in the UK and people don't say "South Asians in the United Kingdom." It should be changed back. AyanP (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Ayan

"most of whom settled down and took local white British wives"

Shouldn't this be white people and United Kingdom? The article White British is about a census group, which did not exist when this was taking place. Also, 14/88.--Lightsin (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Images of Middle Easterners

Since numerous Persians, Afghans, Turks and Iraqis have Identified themselves as "Other Asia". Their images should also be included on the image board

British Muslim and british christian asian to differentiate from british hindu/sikh asian

i dont think any muslim wants to be included in the same group as hindus/sikhs. i suggest we have british muslim and british christian asian to differentiate from british hindu/sikh asian. since hindus and sikhs belong in the same group, they can have their page. muslims and christian asians can have their page as well.