T C A Srinivasa-Raghavan: The piety of the impious

LINE & LENGTH

Anti-racist laws in western countries exist side by side with somewhat racist policies. This has confused everyone.

The happenings in Australia during and after the Sydney Test have once focused attention on racism after a long time. Specifically, four issues need discussion in regard to it.

The first is what precisely constitutes racism. Second, who makes the rules in regard to it and administers them? Third, how are these rules to be viewed? And, four, what is the interface between government policies and individual responses to these rules or laws?

Post 9/11, the governments of most "white" countries have been following a policy of overt discrimination, especially on immigration. They have sought to cover this up in a variety of ways, but the basic fact remains: if you are a non-white, with very few exceptions, you are likely to be treated differently, even if not necessarily badly.

However, in order to mask this, they have become very aggressively anti-racist when it comes to the behaviour of their own citizens in their own countries. All kinds of laws have, therefore, been passed to prevent their citizens from behaving in a racist manner and punishments prescribed. In a sense, the political correctness has been made a legal requirement when it comes to racist behaviour by all except agents of the State. The police and others are largely free to be as racist as they like as long as they don't call you a black pig or something along those lines.

This has sent out contrary signals, inasmuch as the people in those countries are being told, largely through signalling via immigration laws, to leave discrimination to the government while they themselves have to behave properly. The message is this: once a coloured person has been let in by us, you have to be nice to him. But to make sure that this does not tax you too much, we will prevent too many from being let in. There is also what one might call flexibility, especially since the laws require that a charge of racism be proved in a court of law. That needs hard, solid evidence and sometimes even that is not sufficient.

In consequence, there seems to be a great deal of confusion in the minds of the people of those countries. The educated are especially hard-hit. They find it hard to understand when non-whites say that their governments are following racist policies. This becomes very evident when you discuss the actual provisions of the law with them, on which they are naturally not very well-informed. If you examine these provisions in detail, you will not only find ambiguity, which leaves room for discretion and varied or inconsistent interpretations "" that too largely at the lower bureaucratic levels "" you will also find a gradual ratcheting up of requirements for entry. The UK, for example, has just approved such rules.

To get back very briefly to the Sydney Test, this is perhaps the correct way to explain what has happened. If confusing signals emanate from the government, what else would you expect from a poor sports personality who actually believes that he is being a good citizen? The issue therefore is not so much of cultural differences alone. It is also of genuine perplexity in the minds of sports personalities.

As to the second issue of who makes the rules about racism and administers them, this is really a question of mandates. For example, who has given the ICC the mandate to define, judge and punish? And the ICC is not alone. There are hundreds of bodies "" in sport and in other areas "" that make rules and laws without any legal mandate and accountability. This leads to contradictory situations which confuse people even further.

It is necessary to appreciate, in this context, that these are really what used to be called Self-Regulating Organisations (SROs). The Bombay Stock Exchange was one, as was Lloyds of London. But their numbers have been reducing as governments have assumed jurisdiction, either directly or through regulatory agencies with legislated mandates. These agencies have taken over the larger functions of SROs, when they are allowed to exist. The American NBA is a good example of this.

The third issue is how the rules made by these SROs are to be viewed. Consider the ICC again. Do its rules really have any force in law? If not, how are they to be seen? Indeed, is it liable to be taken to court for libel? If Harbhajan Singh is found not "guilty" by the appeals commissioner, he would be perfectly justified in taking some Australian papers and TV channels to court. But can he take the ICC to court? Legally, I don't see why not.

The fourth issue, about the interface between policies and rules/laws, is the trickiest. As mentioned earlier, it allows the individual to escape responsibility for the racist policies of their governments. The beauty of this approach is that policies don't always need laws, which are open to challenge; they only need instructions to the bureaucracy. In other words, it is what Henry Kissinger used to call "" in a totally different context "" plausible deniability.