Beaten up, beaten down

Bret Lee throws a bouncer every ball because Bhajji irritates him. This is because, Bhajji earlier had a verbal argument with Bret’s friend Andrew. Andrew is an aborigin by origin. Andrew complains that Bhajji called him Monkey – a racial slur – while Bhajji insisted he was misinterpreted. He only called Andrew as ‘Maa-ki’ (means ‘Mother’s…’ - An Indian slur, not racial, something like ‘son-of-a-….’). Now Bhajji is really scared of Bret because he has to face another bouncer which may break his head.

Well, these fighting people, even if they don’t want to, have to face each other. Their encounters fetch all some good money. They travel to each other’s countries, play cricket and are loved by people in both. They are their stars.

We know Bhajji, like Bret or Andrew on the other side, loves his motherland. So he stays where he belongs. But his friends are not as successful or famous like him. Although the friend belongs to a well-to-do and an ambitious society, he exercises his option to travel to migrate to countries where he can earn more, and live better. One such place Australia, he meets Bret’s and Andrews friends. Some are unemployed, and have to go to job-centers to look for work. Bhajjis migrant friend may have to go there too. Plus, they meet at many other places, like marketplace, pubs, streets and so on. Most are unable to make good friends, because their different upbringing and thereupon, the culture makes them different people. Similar to Bangladeshis and Africans, who come to Bhajji’s country looking for work. Oh, how can I forget, Bhajji’s own country has its own internal migrants too.

There are small skirmishes and fist fights between these culturally different people. Some fights flare up as big ones, some bigger ones into protests.

And, critics and writers get some material to write.

The poor poor-man

Country ‘A’ has many types of people – hindus, harijans, rich, middle class, gujaratis etc.. As far as I know, ‘B’ has caucasians, aborigines and new settlers. ‘C’ has rich, pashtuns and others. ‘D’ has locals, rich-migrants and slaves.

Recently, A is in conflict with B, because the not-so-poor of A got into a bad sustaining brawl with the poor of B in the latter’s backyard. The poor of B, they complained, “hey, you took away our jobs, mate!” and also used some nanchas and knives. So, the not-so-poor from A, but living poor in B take to the streets and protest before their rich, also hoping to attract attention of their rich in A as well. In response because of some responsibility, the rich representatives of A take the earliest flight to talk to their not-so-poor and also the government of B. Both the governments of A and B when asked, say they are monitoring the situation and are trying their best to get it under control.

The same A is also in some senseless conflict with C which doesn't has any true basis. And also avoids discussing its true relationship with D. So, these rich representatives of A return back from B and get into a more time consuming work of organising high level peace talks with the rich of C, or organising protocol events for the guest from D who loves the exodus of poor from A so he can turn them into local slaves when they move to D.

All these variables, from 'A' to 'D' are interrelated in some form or other. Everything is about the poor man, but it seems the cause is just lost somewhere, somewhere in rhetoric.

Australia – the destination

Actually, I don’t feel like writing about this at all. But, will have to. Because? Probably, because, the voices talking about the issue, either of critics or observers, are a little off tangent.

So, I join too.

To an Indian from India, racism hurts, not because he is at the receiving end of it, but because he is not used to it at all. When we don’t communicate by talking, it is only the eyes that see. Colour becomes visible. And this Indian doesn’t take the issue of colour seriously. He is used to other form of discrimination in his own country, much unnoticed- such as religion, region, caste, and sex. Therefore, when the situation, coupled by individual incidents and persistent institutional prejudice, goes out of control and comprehension, mass protests show up.

I don’t agree with a few who say that it is the fault of very Indians who chose to go to Australia after all. First of all let us accept that migration is a normal human activity and the man has moved places to places since he evolved. Australia calls itself a multi-racial country, but is far away from proving it. Towards this, Australia is now thinking about effecting a 'hate law', which itself can be seen as a manifestation of hate. It is well known that the law only impacts the lowest in the society. But this is what ‘subjection’ offers. And, Indians, Aborigines, Caucasians - after all, they all come from somewhere! They must be tamed.

Western countries do fear Indians taking over internally, and like it or not, most don’t like it. Conversely, think, why is Sonia Gandhi regularly dubbed a foreigner?

So, like an infant, with the genes of a great civilization, India is again destined to be in the forefront. In no doubts I will assert that the Indian government is now only recently learning to protect the rights of its own people in different countries, who are like everywhere on the globe. Remember Amit and how he was treated? It will be interesting to see what India (Government and people alike) do to protect the humanity. So far no strong statements is a good sign. But again, at whose cost?