Thoughts from London

Strange it might seem but it is true that the United Kingdom does not have what is called a "National Day." For a nation that once had an empire that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific there is not a single day that could be called a national holiday when some major event in its history is celebrated as most other countries in the world do. We ourselves celebrate February 4 when Ceylon, as it was then called, gained independence from Great Britain, as our national day. All our neighbours celebrate some significant day, particularly when they gained independence, as a national holiday. In addition India also celebrates the day it became a republic as a national holiday. But somehow the UK does not have such a national holiday. The one other country that apparently does not have one is the Democratic Republic of the Congo and I would like to be enlightened further on why this is so, if that in indeed the case.

Earlier this year Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer, had raised the issue at a conference of the Fabian Society saying that the closest Britain has to a national holiday is Armistice Day on November 11 and Remembrance Sunday both events connected with the Great War or World War 1. November 11 is when the war ended and Remembrance Day is the Sunday closest to November 11 when all the dead in the two word wars are remembered.

With the influx of migrants in the early years and more recently asylum seekers from conflict-ridden countries and economic migrants riding on the backs of genuine refugees to seek a better life here, there have been concerns expressed in political, academic and other circles that Britain is losing its "Britishness", that new arrivals to this country are not appreciating and absorbing British cultural, social and political values.The argument has been and is increasingly being made, that while living and making a living here, they remain wedded to their own cultural values and some even to their or their parents country of origin. Even after a generation or two some of these sons, daughters and grand children are, if not assimilated, not even British in a national sense.

This sense of difference, and in some cases cultural alienation, has been aggravated by the July 7 suicide bombings in London where home grown individuals and therefore British, who were of the Islamic faith, were responsible for the atrocities.

The problems for the local Muslim community numbering some two million, began in earnest after the 9/11 bombings in the United States. The subsequent invasion of Iraq in which Prime Minister Tony Blair's government played a pivotal role and the suspicions cast on local Muslims further alienated the community, though the vast majority live here peaceably enough.

Unfortunately this train of events that began with 9/11, if we are looking for a bench mark, has not only led to a whole community being looked at with suspicion but also some Muslims being the victims of racial violence and abuse.

At the same time these events also led to the radicalisation of some Muslim youth.

Last year the government introduced a "Britishness" test for those seeking naturalisation and a British passport.

It seeks to test the knowledge of those applying for British citizenship by posing questions on history and general knowledge that one needs to pass before naturalisation is granted.

But it was subject to some ridicule when the media posed the same or similar questions to members of the public, several of them ethnic British, who could not answer many of the questions or had not heard of some matters raised.

So here was a rather awkward situation. There were ethnic English, Irish, Welsh or Scottish citizens of Britain who, though they had an ancestral history linked to the United Kingdom could not answer most or several questions that those seeking naturalisation were expected to answer. Did the inability of those British citizens to answer the questions make them less British, less loyal to their country of origin? Does the inability of some seeking British citizenship to answer several questions likely to make them less loyal and owe less allegiance to Britain?

These are not questions that could be decided by tests of this nature. All that the test will establish is your knowledge or your ability to retain some inert facts not your allegiance to your new country.It is equally true that some from ethnic minorities that have lived in the UK for decades and are in many ways British, would still support their country of origin at sporting events. When Pakistan or India play test cricket it is not uncommon for persons of Indian or Pakistani origin to loudly applaud the team from the subcontinent and even hope it wins.

These are sociological, perhaps anthropological, issues that need to be studied when pursuing goals of multiculturalism and national loyalty.

Our own experience in Sri Lanka shows how we gradually alienated a vital minority with policies that lacked insight and prescience and eventually brought on our heads the costly tragedy the public continues to endure.

Our politicians blinded themselves to the genuine grievances of a minority and now others are paying for the folly of our leaders.Britain has to remember that its own Caucasian population is growing very slowly, if at all. On the other hand the minorities are producing faster. It might not change the demographic balance in the next decade. But eventually there is going to be a perceptible shift that British policy makers will not be able to contain with such logistical efforts as citizenship tests.

But it is not only ethnic minorities who are culturally and religiously different who feel a nationalistic pull. There are others in the United Kingdom who wish to be seen as Irish, Welsh and Scottish. They certainly do when they play rugby or football against England, wearing their national jerseys.

Lets us not forget that there have been nationalist rumblings in parts of the United Kingdom even erupting in violence in Northern Ireland that was a costly and indeed a traumatic experience for Britain.

The lack of a British national day prompted the BBC to ask the public. Of the 5000 polled 27% voted for June 15 when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215.

The Magna Carta is an important historical document that paved for the rule of law and some individual rights and freedoms. But most of the 63 clauses in it deal with feudal issues and the grievances resolved could only be understood in the context of that period. So how relevant would it be to today's generation and youth who are not aware of much more recent history.

Moreover the Magna Carta was signed about 500 years before the Treaty of Union that gave birth to Great Britain, which by the way, is then only 299 years old as a nation.

The Magna Carta is undoubtedly a vital document for historians and legal academics who would certainly record it as an important cornerstone in the development of the law.

But as a national day that conveys Britishness and a British identity how acceptable would it be to a public that hardly knows its significance or could personally identify with it.