The name is absent

The chapter described the fragmented Anglo-Indian community-
in 1990. There were various competing groups and
associations. This impeded educational, social and
economic progress. A seductive argument would be to put
the blame on the poverty in the community, or on the
by-products of racism. That would however, minimize the
role the Anglo-Indians themselves play with in-group
consciousness and closed ranks.

The chapter described the significance of the size data.
This would enable educational policy makers to implement
and select strategies and tactics for Anglo-Indian schools.
There were no opportunities for a discussion about group
belongingness. The associations had closed ranks.

The chapter explored the wide range of issues connected
with ethnicity and size. Respondents accepted that if
Anglo-Indians found it difficult to accept one another as
members of the community, non Anglo-Indians would find even
greater difficulty to accept a minority community divided
within itself. The community were still

. . . squabbling and wrangling over an issue
which was resolved by law in 1935. (55)

At this point the thesis is suggesting that, solidarity is
a complex political problem. Clearly, since 1947 the
social distribution of resources and the structure of
educational interest groups changed independently of one
another. The Meghalayan and Keralite Anglo-Indians had
altered their bargaining positions by accepting the
backward∕tribal status.

Both groups now receive positive discrimination from the
Indian government for education and jobs in government.
Both groups are successful bilingual Anglo-Indians. The
chapter is arguing that although they are Anglo-Indians
albeit by another name, there are no doubts about the

237

<<   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   >>

More intriguing information