Multiculturalism is as phoney as British curry

"Chicken tikka masala is now Britain's true national dish, not only because it is the most popular, but because it is a perfect illustration of the way Britain absorbs and adapts external influences.

Chicken tikka is an Indian dish. The masala sauce was added to satisfy the desire of British people to have their meat served in gravy" Robin Cook

FROM Tebbit's "cricket test" to Robin Cook's chicken tikka masala: apparently, the fantasy concoction of Indian restaurants is now Britain's favourite dish. We are told this is an indication that we are heading towards multicultural bliss. The facts prove otherwise.

To begin with, what is chicken tikka masala? According to the Foreign Secretary it is "a perfect illustration of the way Britain absorbs and adopts external influences". But the boot is on the other foot. It is not Britain that has adopted chicken tikka masala; rather, we have seen the ingenuity of countless Indian restaurants in deliciously manipulating their cultural repertoire to find a niche in British life.

The popularity of this made-in-Britain dish arose from the willingness of Indian restaurants to be open all hours, and to serve the drunken dregs as they left the pubs. The notion of a multicultural Britain is as fake as chicken tikka masala itself.

The rise and rise of Indian food has been a process of reinvention by the Asian community. From red flock wallpaper to balti and brasseries, the Indian restaurant provides us with a history of a community's achievements despite the absence of plurality in British society.

When Indian restaurants first emerged in significant numbers during the Fifties and Sixties, they were firmly set in a colonial tradition.

Everything they served was "Indian": Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan; Punjabi, Mughal and South Indian; vegetarian and non-vegetarian - everything was "curry". All this confirmed that the Asian community and Indian restaurants were at the bottom of the league.

It was the rediscovery of Indian exoticism by Thatcher's yuppie generation that enabled the Indian restaurant to move upmarket. It has now reinvented itself a number of times. Chicken tikka rose to fame in the "tandoori" era.

Since then we have passed through the "karahi"and "balti" and are now in the Soho Spice and Cinnamon Club era.

Entrepreneurship there certainly was. It belonged to the Indian restaurant.

It raised the profile and visibility of the Asian community, but left them outside the circle of power. What the history of Indian restaurants shows is that despite the ingenuity, hard work and economic contribution of the Asian community, it is still marginalised. Robin Cook is right to say that multiculturalism is not about race. But he neglects to say that it is all about power.

Britain's notion of multiculturalism is still dominated by the myth of the Anglo-Saxon. As the Scot Robin Cook knows only too well, the Anglo-Saxons displaced, dominated and dispossessed the Celts.

Anglo-Saxon has always been a code name in British politics for an hierarchical, elitist vision, a label wielded to exclude the masses from power. A representative Britain that looks and sounds like all its people has to share power equitably among all its people. There are only nine black and Asian MPs (1.4 per cent); only 1.7 per cent ethnic minority councillors; two out of 25 GLA members. With 20 non- white peers, the non-representative House of Lords is more representative than any other section of government.

Labour and Tories cultivate the ethnic vote. Neither select ethnic candidates for winnable seats.

Multiculturalism is more than Mr Cook's welcoming words or a genuine taste for chicken tikka masala. It's all about empowering the cooks - and not just Robin.

Ziauddin Sardar is a writer and cultural critic.

Copyright 2001
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.