Singapore Sting

Remember the time every Indian politician promised that India would be like Singapore? Remember how its former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was idolised for the very things that Indians cannot do – be disciplined? Remember the shoppers glowingly talk about walking down Orchard Street, which had a better ring to it than London’s Oxford Street, teeming with its migrants?

Migrants. Yes. There is not much noise about the report that Indians are finding it increasingly difficult to rent houses in that country.

If you are an Indian in Singapore and looking for a house on rent, it is highly likely that you won't get one. Most Singaporean landlords don't rent their house to Indians and people from mainland China. According to local media reports, many landlords are open about it. The moment they realize that the tenant is an Indian, they say sorry and slam the door. According to a report by the BBC, a quick glance at online rental listings shows many that include the words 'no Indians, no PRCs (People's Republic of China)', sometimes followed by the word "sorry".

Such discrimination is not legally permissible. As this report says, Singapore is only about migrants. So, choosing to segregate one or two groups is racist in the extreme and shows how certain nationalities are seen as better or superior.

Among the reasons cited are smelly curries and lack of hygiene. Were one to accept these as flaws if viewed from another cultural perspective, then all ethnic groups can have similar problems. Besides, these are properties to be rented, not shared. The landlord can always add a clause that after the lease period the property should be returned in the condition it was rented out in.


I have visited several parts of Singapore and there are different smells and sights, some of which I found revolting. The residents might feel the same. ‘Little India’ is not a ghetto, but a hub of activity. And there is a growing clientele for smelly curries. I did not see much hygiene in other areas, too.

Except for the main boulevards, and their antiseptic streets and obedient flowerbeds, there are patches of a grim controlled environment, with drab beige buildings where the majority of the middle-class lives. The markets are piled with natural cures in the form of walking and flying little creatures. At dinner one night at the famed Harbour Front, a congregation of restaurants from different regions, all I recall was a woman throwing up, her indulgence a murky pool on the pavement.

I know this has nothing to do with segregation; I just wanted to recount what memories can do. Should I judge a person’s nationality by a natural occurrence such as vomiting?

As almost everyone is a migrant there is no pressure to be nationalistic in the narrow sense. I read that Indians are identified as a race, too. The product of cultural synergy would be properly referred to with a hybrid term, e.g. the child of an Indian and a Chinese would be a Chindian.

Does this complicate issues for renting out houses? Would a Chindian be turned away twice, because of the Indian and the Chinese connection, both ‘not allowed’? And would a Eurasian be more acceptable, because the ‘euro’ factor would take away the curry smell?

There are indeed some Indians who have done well for themselves, and many are second and third generation. Their legacy includes contributing to the country. But, then, can any society survive without its labour and its white collar workers? They may not live in homes where the spluttering seeds in oil reach out, but each day they keep the wheels lubricated for things to function. Denying them space merely for their origin does not reveal a modern attitude that Singapore prides itself in.

This is a silent sort of discrimination, its impact no less damning than the violent ones in other countries.

© Farzana Versey

Dressing up for Modi?

In what has been referred to as "Narendra Modi's rally" in Jaipur today, the “diktat" over the dress code is the major news. As happens often, the minutiae has taken over the discourse. According to a report:

BJP's minority cell has asked people from the Muslim community to come dressed in a specific attire. Men have been asked to wear sherwanis and topis and females have been asked to wear burqas. Whether this is Modi's attempt to reach out to the Muslim community is anyone's guess.

Are the men attending a wedding or a special function that they'd dress up in sherwanis? Why is it assumed that all women would be amenable to wearing a burqa? How different is such a dress code from extremists issuing edicts? Will those who do not fall into the stereotype qualify as Muslim enough?

Some other reports have mentioned the presence of clerics from the Ajmer Dargah. They are residents, and would wear what they usually do. We get to see saffron kurtas and bandanas quite regularly. Are those people told what to wear? Does anybody object or applaud them for it? [In the picture that accompanies this post, Modi looks like he is dressed up for a purpose. Or is it the usual entertainment quotient he provides for all BJP functions as “showstopper"?]

One viewpoint is that this appeal was sent by the BJP's minority cell. It would be impossible for the cell to take such a decision on its own. Modi and party must have been kept in the loop.

Besides, how does this qualify as an attempt to reach out to Muslims? If they do indeed wear "Islamic clothes", what else is there to do? This is in no way about wooing the community. In fact, it would help in easily identifying the members and keeping a check on them to see how they react, and then 'profiling' them.

Vote-bank politics is less about appeasement and more about creating ghettos to use and abuse.

© Farzana Versey

Reservations, Minorityism and the UID Threat

Do not expect the UID (Unique Identity) scheme to track absconders and the corrupt. It will see to it that the backward remain where they are with a mid-day meal and an occasional trip to the local Disneyland ensured.

Reservations, Minorityism and the UID Threat
by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, March 17

Who is really exploiting the reservation policy? If this is the constant fear, then there is more going on than we know. If politicians back certain groups for electoral ends, then those groups are not to be blamed. It was indeed shocking to read the Times of India editorial pick on the Gujjar and Jat communities that have demanded reservations and pass a blanket verdict:

“Today, reservation has ended up creating ‘creamy layers’ in targeted sections. The Supreme Court’s 50% ceiling on quota has been breached as well, as in Tamil Nadu. Quotas were meant to facilitate upward mobility in terms of jobs, livelihoods or status.”

What about sectors where the real 50 per cent are not considered? This has not happened because of more reservations, but due to the nature of nepotism and promoting one’s own, and it starts at the lowest level of bureaucracy to the highest power centres. On what grounds can it be stated that quotas are about upward mobility when public visibility ensures that they are recognised as the downtrodden? How many top positions have been filled with this reservation policy? How many candidates standing for elections are given this opportunity, unless it is to woo the constituency, and this is done by all sections – the Brahmins, the Rajputs, the Muslims, the Christians in their respective majority areas?

The editorial goes on to say that “six decades ago, it was thought that ostracised and marginalised groups needed reservation only as a time-bound instrument of socio-economic levelling. India has come a long way since then”. If that were the case then there would be no need for other groups to downplay their status, not in a country where recognised as heirs and designated with labels is so very important. There was much media attention paid to an over-the-top wedding of the children of two Gujjar politicians in Haryana. It does not reveal prosperity of the community as a whole, although it does make the upper castes uncomfortable to see their ostentation mimicked. It therefore acts as a convenient stick to beat the issue with:

“Clearly, if we’re to have reservation, it must be based on the economic criterion. More important, quota-based positive discrimination must make way for affirmative action in the form of efficient services delivery to the poor across the social board.”

While economically-backward people from all communities must benefit in terms of opportunity, how will such action be carried out? In the unorganised sector where daily wage is the mode of earning, there is no talk of reservation. Those are among the poorest people irrespective of their caste. Where has this great economic leap reached them? The definition of welfare does not have to be relegated only to paper.


It is pathetic to see the media playing the role of government spokespersons. The UPA gets a pat on the back for its food, health and “need” based schemes:

“Whereas quotas create social friction by building coddled niches, welfare-for-all has unifying potential, and hence can help bridge caste divides. The midday meal scheme in schools – encouraging community eating at a young age – is a case in point.”

Why is there always a problem regarding coddled niches where the SC/ST groups are concerned and not when the fat cats are? How does school children sitting and eating together result in a feeling of community? How many schools do not discriminate in matters of admission and, more importantly, attitude? What mid-day meal schemes are there in the rural areas?

These are camouflages that only serve those in power and probably let the middle-men make some money on the food-packets. Also, eating in a Dalit house does not unify anyone when we know who is eating where.

The worst part of the debate is regarding “fasttracked” development. This will work at the level of lining the roads with potted plants when a foreign dignitary visits. There is a rather vile motive and that is to promote the government’s UID scheme.

“The underprivileged have a sense of powerlessness and low self-esteem precisely because they’ve been treated as a faceless collective to be swayed by political populism, rather than as individual citizens with distinct identities and entitlements. Here’s where UID and financial inclusion come in. By giving the poor identity, financial agency and provable claim to social benefits, such projects can do more good than quotas ever could.”

Okay, so now that they have a face and a card, instead of a broom trailing behind them to clear the path for the others, will they get equal benefits? Or will their identity, stamped and marked, exclude them from certain areas while keeping up the pretence of welfare in others? Won’t their recognised identities help even small politicians trace them and use them for populist reasons, all at the click of a button? Is it not possible that were the younger lot to progress on their own and seek positions they will be tracked and prevented because those wonderful opportunities have been reserved for years for the privileged? Will not such a government-sanctioned identity, where everything from their source of food to their birth control methods are on record, not in fact work as a process of elimination quietly in the background?

Do not expect the UID (Unique Identity) scheme to track absconders and the corrupt. It will see to it that the backward remain where they are with a mid-day meal and an occasional trip to the local Disneyland ensured. India’s economic policy is a showcase, not an internal buffering system. It is about Forbes not welfare.


In this fairytale version of progress, one of the sops that has been thrown in is to give a well-settled institution like the Jamia Millia Islamia minority status. One might well ask where all the talk of welfare is now. In an article Najeeb Jung, the vice-chancellor, mentions that when it became a central university in 1988 with all the relevant faculties working, it had about 50 per cent Muslim students. In 2011, it has the same number. Unfortunately, he sees the positive aspects in what is clearly negative demarcation.

“First, over the last 90 years Muslims have had a sense of ownership and a fierce attachment with Jamia. They believe it is an institution of higher learning set up by their forefathers, to further in essence the cause of Muslim education, and declaring it a minority institution makes them secure in this feeling. Two, with the introduction of reservations for OBCs, the level of reservations in the university would go beyond 50% and therefore over time Muslim numbers will decline.”

Jamia is seen as a secular institution and promoting it as a minority one defeats the purpose. Citing the example of Christian-run colleges does not quite work because most of them have a missionary background and yet a ‘convent’ education is considered prized. The Christian community did not feel any ownership and having studied in such institutes one can say that except for the occasional superficial religious dimension, it was the elite students who felt more of a sense of belonging irrespective of their caste or religion. What the government has done is to make Jamia work as a double OBC unit, in a way.

On the subject of women’s education, Jung writes:

“Today, one of the glorious achievements of the university is that within its campus one frequently sees groups where girls in hijab mix easily with all others.” 

He is playing into a stereotype. Delhi has Muslim students in other universities who go without the hijab. Why does he assume that Muslims do not mix otherwise? The criticism that this could well be a ghetto, as much as is the UID scheme, is valid. And it is proved when he declares:

“While this is a huge affirmative action on the part of the government that the Muslim community must accept with grace and gratitude, I believe the government has put an onus on the Muslims to prove that they can look beyond common perceptions of ghettoisation, fundamentalism and so on and understand that imbedded in this initiative is the challenge to be tested at the altar of competence, professionalism and, above all, commitment to fierce nationalism and secularism that has been the bedrock of Jamia for the past 90 years.”

Technically, the Jamia is anyway entitled to 50 per cent quota for Muslims, so giving it the minority tag is a trap and it is easy to fall into it. Why should there be an onus on one community to prove not only its capability to be professionally qualified but committed to fierce nationalism, which incidentally is at the core of contemporary disparities and communalism?

The devious double dhamaka of minority certified as minority is to push a group into the corner. It is not surprising that an established institution has been chosen for this ‘honour’. It will be used as an example to throw more crumbs at lesser people, be they minorities or the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, all in the name of welfare and unification. The fact is their every footprint is being marked to make certain that they can only walk thus far and no further.

(c) Farzana Versey