Outsourcing to outliers: Muslim Scot, British Hindu leaders show chequered path from imperialism to democracy

History is strange. Politics is stranger. What is right today may not be tomorrow. The peculiar thing in both history and politics is that few people pause to notice the ironies and strange twists in both. 

As news emerged this week of the Scottish National Party electing Humza Yousaf as its leader, I was quick to note that the Urdu-speaking Yousaf, son of Pakistani immigrants, now heads the party that advocates an independent Scotland, free from the United Kingdom. That, I noted, is the perfect foil for Indian-origin Hindu Rishi Sunak, the British prime minister. 

"Partition Karma haunts Britain, oceans away from the subcontinent," I said in a tweet. Except that what Indians call the Partition of India, the British refer to as the "formation" of Pakistan and India in 1947. 

The UK and India have no doubt intertwined histories, but there are so many nuances lost in a simplistic reading of history that we often mistake the cause for effect. 

When the Indian subcontinent was ruled by the British, nationalism as an idea itself was of European origin. That is probably why the British found it difficult to imagine the idea of a sprawling "India that is Bharat" with its roots in ancient civilisation being a nation-state in a modern sense despite vast differences in ecologies, cultures, religion and language. So they left the place in a political mess leaving the former natives to sort themselves out. 

But here's an interesting twist: The East India Company that gave way to British government rule was essentially a plundering imperialist extension of a monarchy but caused events that transported contemporary European ideas of a multi-party democracy thanks to extensive interactions between British and Indian people and institutions that the British set up to govern India. India ushered in democracy under the Nehru-Gandhi family's elected rule but the family's own leadership style was often imperious. Britain is and was officially a monarchy but its political culture is decidedly liberal democratic. 

Thus, Scottish folks like Yousaf are not called separatists the way Kashmiri hardliners are referred to in India. 

One is also tempted to ask: Was Brexit an act of separatism of the UK from the European Union? Bharat is now officially called the Union of India but any political dissent of the Scottish kind would be viewed in India as something akin to sedition or treason, punishable by law. 

We have the irony of modern India retaining colonial/imperial ideas within a robust democratic republic but the UK is not exactly cracking down on Scots who may want to separate from the UK. 

What stands out for me, however, is the astonishing manner in which substantial parts of Europe and the US are welcoming South Asian-origin leaders into the higher echelons of national politics. 

Leo Varadkar (Ireland), Antonio Costa (Portugal), and Rishi Sunak (UK) have gone on to become elected prime ministers of at least partially Indian descent. Kamala Harris, whose mother went to the same Delhi school as I did, is the US vice-president. Vivek Ramaswamy, of southern Indian origin, is now being promoted as a Republican candidate for the American presidency. 

WATCH | Humza Yousaf becomes first Minority Ethnic Leader of the Scottish National Party 

Democratic meritocracy apart ( As in "May The Best Candidate Win"), I also note that outsiders sometimes put in that extra effort to win respect in their adopted homelands. You may call it the Outlier Effect after Malcolm Gladwell's book (Outliers) that talks of how outsiders may have hidden advantages and cultural traits that encourage them to learn, work, and understand the world in a way that sets them apart for success in a culture. Here's where the South Asian footprint may be helping leaders of subcontinental descent in Europe or the US. 

What we need to emphasise is that outliers as individuals making it big in a democracy should not be confused with colonial rulers using crafty conspiracies, biased laws and brute force to win power. 

Hindu right-wing thinker Rajiv Malhotra refers to the British East India Company as "perhaps the first large-scale outsourcing company" under which many Indian princely states left governance in the hands of foreigners --- much like Fortune 500 companies of the US leaving technology management to Indian software service companies. 

The British Raj was about the exercise of strongman authority and military power on the Indian people they called natives. Indian -origin PMs in Europe are those led into their hot seats in a wave of popular votes by fellow citizens. 

Outlier individuals are not outsourcing experts. Democrats are not imperialists. But yesterday's imperialist countries are now advocating democracy all over. 

Perhaps we need to ponder why Pakistan suffered under military rule and India struggled with democratic dynasties long after the British left the shores. 

Is this because the British patronised monarchs in India or were patronised by them while they went the democratic way in their home country? 

Is it possible that American multiculturalism has influenced Europe the way British citizens helped India evolve into a modern democracy? 

No easy answers there. But I do know that Humza Yousaf cannot be a devout alcohol-banning Muslim in the land of Scotch. Just as Rishi Sunak, a devout Hindu, cannot ban beef in the UK. Adapting to a new culture, and ruling over another are two different things. 

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.) 

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.