BRITAIN feels deeply divided. The sense of a more fragmented, fractious society than any of us find comfortable has, ironically, become at least one thing we can all agree on. There is a public appetite for shared moments that can bring us together – and a concern that they seem few and far between.
The First World War centenary commemorations did succeed in transcending these divides. They took place across five years of unprecedented political volatility, yet broad public approval of the tone and content of the centenary, and significant public participation in it, spanned the nations of the UK.
The inclusion of a major arts programme for the centenary, the 14-18 NOW programme, helped the centenary to reach people who might engage less with traditional approaches to commemoration, bridging the cities and the towns, reaching across generations and ethnic groups.
A major conference this week, Now the Future, brought together leading policy-makers and artists to consider the legacy and future lessons from this programme. A new British Future report, Crossing Divides, published at the conference, made recommendations for the future that were informed by research with artists and cultural institutions in each of the four national capitals of the UK, and group discussions with the public across the country.
In Leicester, England’s most ethnically diverse city, we discussed work including Xenos, Akram Khan’s dance production about Indian soldiers. British Asian and white participants shared a view that cultural activity could play an important role in exploring identity today, also seeing this as a way to increase social contact and to discover common ground.
The enormous Commonwealth contribution to the First World War became not a minor tributary but a major theme of the centenary. This was the area in which public understanding grew most, in British Future’s broader research tracking public responses to the centenary. Seven out of ten people now know that Indian soliders fought in the First World War – while only four in ten had been aware of this before 2014.
This partly reflected a subtle shift of thinking, over the last five years, about who this story was relevant to. There was a strong initial focus on minority inclusion: engaging South Asian communities on this theme would help to ensure that they saw the centenary as relevant to them.
There has been enormous pride in the Sikh contribution among British Sikhs, while increased awareness of the 400,000 Muslims who fought for Britain a century ago can challenge prejudices today. There was an increasing understanding that the story of the Indian Army is not Indian history, relevant to south Asians in Britain, but one important chapter in the shared history of Britain, which should belong to us all.
That journey offers broader lessons for arts policy. Taking ethnic diversity seriously has become an increasing area of focus since the 1990s, though Arts Council England’s strategic vision for the 2020s acknowledges the challenges of achieving that vision,
reporting “although awareness of the issue is greater than it used to be, there remains a persistent and widespread lack of diversity across the creative industries and in publicly funded cultural institutions”.
That slow pace of change is a source of frustration among black British and Asian artists, but not the only one. There is a tension between seeking opportunities to tell ‘untold’ stories as the authentic ethnic minority voice of this missing perspective and only being asked to tell these stories. British Asian artists often speak of narrow expectations
from commissioners and producers, so that only the most established names getting the chance to take on more universal stories too.
A new 10-year Arts Council England strategy is a timely opportunity to rethink arts policy towards equality and diversity. Moving beyond the ‘deficit’ approach to diversity will require faster progress within the cultural workforce. Paying as much attention to leadership and governance as to visible diversity on stage and screen may help to square this circle of how to reflect Britain’s growing diversity without slotting it into pigeon-holes. Firmer, timetabled commitments to more diverse boards are needed unless the arts and heritage sectors would be content to have less ambitious strategies than the expectations now placed on
FTSE 100 boardrooms by recent governing reviews.
Strategies for equality can best respond to these polarised times by rejecting a ‘competing grievances’ frame which asks whether ethnic minority inclusion or the white working-class merit priority. Most ethnic minority Britons are in social grades C2DE, but ethnic diversity and social class outreach have mostly run on parallel tracks.
Major institutions should certainly be expected to reflect the growing diversity of British society today – alongside a new emphasis on showing how some of their work seeks to build common ground across ethnic, faith, class and other social divides.
Sunder Katwala is director of British Future. The new report Crossing Divides can be read at www.britishfuture.org
So who was prime minister Sir Keir Starmer trying to sound like on immigration? Not Enoch Powell, surely, though independent former Labour MP Zarah Sultana alleged the ‘rivers of blood’ speech was quoted with intent. Downing Street scrambled to declare any faint echo unintentional. Briefing that Starmer was really summoning the spirit of Roy Jenkins instead - since Labour's most liberal multiculturalist home secretary did not want unlimited immigration - did not reflect his tone.
The prime minister’s language was deliberately tough - much tougher than the white paper he was recommending. Its principles - controlling migration, to bring the record numbers down, while welcoming contributors, managing impacts and promoting cohesion - could resonate across a Labour electoral coalition which includes migration sceptics, liberals and many ‘balancers’ in between.
Yet, Starmer polarised opinion within his own party by using language that is not his own to parrot arguments he cannot fully believe. Starmer began by co-opting Vote Leave’s slogan “take back control”. “Everyone knows what that slogan meant for immigration”, he said.
Yet on Brexit Day in 2020, Starmer was telling his party members he could respect the referendum result, while bringing back free movement (though he later made the opposite pledge to the general public). Starmer’s foreword citing the ‘incalculable damage’ of high immigration felt like clunky plagiarism of former Conservative home secretary Suella Braverman’s warnings about societal collapse. If Starmer believes that too, his white paper should go further towards eliminating net migration, not merely reducing it.
Starmer knows that he did not inherit an ‘open borders’ policy - since the chaotic asylum backlog he inherits was the product of ceasing to process claims. The prime minister could have spoken for this white paper using social democratic arguments that he does believe. At Labour’s last conference, Starmer defended ‘legitimate concerns’ on migration and the need to bring numbers down. Nobody called that Powellite, as it was fused with a repudiation of racism and a clear statement it was ‘toxic’ to blame the migrants who had come to Britain for policy failures of the government.
A measured critique this week from 25 leaders across faith, asking Starmer to lower the temperature noted that the language of ‘incalculable damage’ risks failing this test. A calmer Starmer narrative could still be scathing about the last government saying one thing and doing the opposite. He could be more specific about the promises he can keep to reduce immigration. He was well placed to commit to halving net migration within his first two years in office. A public bruised by broken promises might only believe it when they see it. 460,000 fewer visas in 2024 means the Office of National Statistics will this week report the significant start in cutting net migration within the first six months.
Labour previously opposed a net migration target, so Starmer should offer a Labour argument about why the rate of inflow matters. His most coherent point would be that he wants housing supply to outpace population change comfortably. That is impossible when annual net migration soars above one per cent of the population - but possible if this government committed to keeping that rate below 0.5 per cent - half of the level inherited - while managing it down further where consistent with its growth, training, NHS, climate and education missions. That two-thirds of the public support a new UK-EU youth mobility deal shows the pragmatic permission for managed migration too.
This calmer Starmer should reject the failed tactic of plucking numbers from the air for immigration in five years’ time - and promise instead to report back every year to parliament on numbers, impacts and future policy. That could challenge rivals with slogans about lower levels to make their numbers add up, too. That is how the real-world pragmatists might take back control of the politics of immigration.
Instead, we are debating Powell. Starmer’s contentious “island of strangers” soundbite worried out loud about wanting integration, which Powell declared impossible. But his white paper lacks a coherent agenda on integration. It proposes more migrants - outside graduate jobs - should be guest-workers. More temporary migration sounds like a recipe for more ‘strangers’ as neighbours.
The government proposes that some people who will settle permanently should wait twice as long before becoming British - but offers no evidence about why that would promote integration, not impede it. The distracting guessing game about immigration echoes from past speeches was the symptom of a vacuum in this government’s voice and thinking.
After five years as a party leader, Starmer has yet to offer a substantial public argument about diversity or integration. The conversation about his government’s future is dominated by political tactics - slicing and dicing which voter segments to engage in four years time. Yet the core challenge for the prime minister of this modern Britain is to find his own voice to speak to us all, together, at the same time.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
Earlier this year, I wrote about how Akshay Kumar and Ajay Devgn have collectively damaged Bollywood by flooding audiences with a stream of largely terrible films – most of which flop. That trend continued with Devgn’s sequel Raid 2, which underperformed at the box office. Now, Akshay Kumar looks set to carry the baton on 6 June with the dreadful-looking Housefull 5 – a mindless franchise film packed with a cast well past their prime.
Ajay Devgn
BIG FOOD FAIL ACTRESS Chhaya Kadam recently came under fire after reportedly claiming to have eaten the meat of protected wildlife species in India – including mouse deer, wild boar, monitor lizard and porcupine. The Plant and Animal Welfare Society has called for her prosecution. The star of award-winning films such as All We Imagine As Light and Laapataa Ladies will now likely think twice before making any more bizarre confessions.
Chhaya Kadam
ANOTHER DUTT DISASTER
Though he has found some success playing antagonists in regional films, Sanjay Dutt has continued his disastrous run of Bollywood flops with the recently released comedy horror The Bhootnii. The 65-year-old once again proved he cannot spot a strong Hindi project – with another film rejected by both critics and audiences. Like many older stars, he needs to rethink his choices and pursue age-appropriate roles in well-written productions – or consider retiring gracefully. He will next appear in a smaller supporting part in the mindless-looking comedy Housefull 5.
Sanjay Dutt
DILJIT’S CHOICE DILEMMA Diljit Dosanjh has been unstoppable – delivering stunning success in music and standout performances in diverse films. That remarkable rise was reflected in his debut appearance at the Met Gala, where he wore a regal outfit that turned heads. With the Punjabi superstar at an all-time high, now is the time to make smart choices – and avoid projects like the forthcoming comedy No Entry 2, where he will star alongside Bollywood actors Arjun Kapoor and Varun Dhawan, both of whom have struggled at the box office and will likely be given more attention. Diljit must recognise his immense value and opt for stronger projects – like his newly released single Buck, a collaboration with global K-pop sensation Jackson Wang. He should continue pursuing global platforms such as the Met Gala – and steer clear of silly film choices.
Diljit Dosanjh at the Met Gala
CINEMA GREAT HAS DIED Indian film director and cinematographer Shaji N Karun has died at his home in Thiruvananthapuram, aged 73. He made a significant impact on Malayalam cinema with acclaimed films such as Piravi (1988), Swaham (1994) and Vanaprastham (1999). Although the gifted filmmaker may not have received the recognition he truly deserved, his rich and diverse body of work stands as a lasting legacy.
Shaji N Karun
AN EMMY NOD Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy has added to her impressive list of international honours with a nomination at the upcoming 46th Annual News and Documentary Emmy Awards for Diane von Furstenberg: Woman in Charge, co-directed with Trish Dalton.The film, which focuses on the iconic fashion designer and was made by an all-female crew, is nominated in the outstanding business and economic documentary category. The two-time Academy Award-winning Pakistani filmmaker has more exciting work ahead – including a film set in the Star Wars universe.
Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy with Diane von Furstenberg
KING KHAN IS BIG WINNER
Most ageing Bollywood actors over 50 have seen a sharp decline in recent years – except Shah Rukh Khan. While Aamir Khan, Salman Khan, Akshay Kumar, Hrithik Roshan and Ajay Devgn have struggled to recapture their past glory, Shah Rukh remains in high demand after a string of recent successes.
He made global headlines after walking the red carpet at this year’s Met Gala in a striking outfit, and there are unconfirmed reports that Hollywood is keen to bring him into the Marvel universe.
The others may land the occasional minor hit, but none currently match Shah Rukh’s enduring star power.
Like Amitabh Bachchan before him, he now seems poised to enter an exciting new phase of meaningful projects – and if he finally steps into Hollywood, it would only strengthen his extraordinary legacy.
Shah Rukh Khan at the Met Gala
BROWN GIRL DUO DELIGHTI recently watched a work-in-progress version of Brown Girls Do It Too: Mama Told Me Not To Come – and it was spectacularly funny. Even as a rough cut, the popular podcast duo Poppy and Rubina drew a large (predominantly female) crowd, who roared with laughter at the bold, unapologetic material. That is why the upcoming previews of their fully developed show at Soho Theatre in London – running from 10–14 June – are highly recommended ahead of its scheduled Edinburgh Fringe run.
Brown Girls Do It Too: Mama Told Me Not To Come
SOORAJ’S LAST CHANCE SALOO After three flop films – Hero (2015), Satellite Shankar (2019) and Time To Dance (2021) – actor Sooraj Pancholi will be hoping to make it fourth time lucky with his new release Kesari Veer. Unfortunately for him, the historical action drama has generated little buzz and appears headed for yet another costly Bollywood failure. Rather than marking a fresh start for the actor – recently acquitted in the long-running Jiah Khan suicide case – this may signal the end of any meaningful film career.
Kesari Veer
HISTORY GIRL HUSAIN
The new series Who Do You Think You Are? includes an extraordinary episode featuring Mishal Husain.
The popular broadcaster embarks on a global journey, tracing her family ancestry to a royal court in 19th-century India – before an unexpected turn takes her to America.
There, she uncovers a surprising link to forefathers who played a key role in the American Revolution, which helped the country gain independence. Not only is it a rare episode of the BBC show to spotlight someone of South Asian heritage, it also offers a fascinating glimpse into history and tells a powerful story.
It would be remarkable to see a similar programme in India or Pakistan, with well-known South Asian figures exploring their family roots.
Mishal Husain
Keep ReadingShow less
Paresh Rawal made a murky admission that left fans speechless
Some celebrity confessions make you love them more. Others make you reconsider watching their films during dinner. The latter was the case recently when veteran actor Paresh Rawal made a murky admission that left fans speechless.
Known for his impeccable comic timing and thunderous screen presence, the much-respected star undid decades of admiration by revealing that he willingly drank his own urine for a prolonged period – and is proud of it.
Yes, you read that right. This was not a survival hack or an unfortunate accident. Rawal said he followed the practice for weeks. The revelation came while recounting a serious knee injury he sustained during the filming of Ghatak. According to the actor, late action director Veeru Devgan recommended he drink the first urine of the day upon waking – something he claimed all fighters did for quicker healing. Taking the advice of Ajay Devgn’s father, Rawal followed through for 15 days, sipping it like “an enjoyable alcoholic beverage”. Rather than question whether the injury was truly serious, he insisted it miraculously helped – and said it “worked like magic”. That prompted some to speculate he might have continued the habit ever since.
While honesty is usually admirable, this is perhaps one revelation that should have remained buried, like a naughty person’s internet browser history. Social media users wasted no time unleashing a storm of memes, jokes and mockery. One user even suggested that the forthcoming Phir Hera Pheri sequel should be retitled Pee Hera Pheri.
Medical experts were quick to refute any health benefits. Doctors urged people not to follow Rawal’s example, warning that urine contains waste products and could cause infections rather than healing. They advised sticking to prescribed medication instead of unconventional – and unsanitary – practices.
Unbelievably, Rawal is not alone in this. Akshay Kumar once claimed to be drinking cow urine daily. During the Covid pandemic, certain right-wing politicians promoted similar ideas, suggesting cow urine could cure coronavirus. (Other stars may have disturbing remedies of their own – thankfully, they have kept them hidden.)
Perhaps Rawal thought he was sharing a quirky tale from his early days that would boost fan admiration. But now, many might never look at him the same way. The next time he delivers a line, including fellow cast members, some might wonder, “did he gargle before this take?” (If you are finding this out for the first time, apologies. Spare a thought for those who have had to kiss him.)
The entire episode is a reminder: celebrities should think twice before making dark confessions like this.
Also, while Ajay Devgn is known for his mischievous pranks dating back to the early ’90s, one has to ask – did his strict father Veeru pull off the ultimate one with this bizarre suggestion? (And just in case it needs repeating – the NHS absolutely does not, under any circumstances, recommend drinking your own wee.)
THE best thing that happened to Vaibhav Suryavanshi is that he was out for 0 in the innings that followed his sensational 35-ball century in the Indian Premier League (IPL).
Batting for Rajasthan Royals against Gujarat Titans last week, the 14-year-old took down some of the world’s best bowlers in a 38-ball innings that included 11 sixes and seven fours.
In his very next innings, he was out for a two-ball duck against Mumbai Indians. Then he got 4 against Kolkata Knight Riders.
Such is cricket, the great leveller.
Rajasthan’s bowling coach, Shane Bond, revealed that the team management was being cautious with the teenage talent.
“The coaching staff haven’t tried to complicate things too much with Vaibhav. He’s sort of got a bit of a licence to go out and just play. He’s done an amazing job so far, really, for a 14-year-old. He missed out in the last game, but you don’t really want to panic with someone so young,” Bond said at a prematch press conference.
“I know Vikram (Rathour) talks about his game plans and the type of bowlers that he’s going to come up against and he’ll do that again. But outside of that, he’s a pretty young kid, so I’m happy for him to get out there and keep swinging.”
Bond emphasised the importance of patience when nurturing a player so young.
“He’s obviously a seriously talented player, but he’s also still a kid. So, he’s sort of learning on the go, we’re going to be really patient with him because you have to be. And the other part of it is just all the off-field stuff, the travel, you can’t expect a 14-year-old to be a professional. I’ve got a 16-year-old son. He’s (Suryavanshi) a teenager, so we’re just trying to educate him on the things around and look after him, shield him a little bit from the social media stuff and all the trappings that come with the way he started, but he’s a lovely kid.”
Nigel Farage
Reuters
Born in Samastipur, a small district in the state of Bihar, he quickly showed promise. His father, Sanjeev Suryavanshi, himself a clublevel cricketer, saw a spark in his son. But there were no proper academies in the district, so he started training at home from the age of five.
Failure might help the boy to mature. I remember interviewing Sachin Tendulkar in Mumbai when he was 16, but the sports editor of the Sunday Times – the paper for which I then worked – wouldn’t carry the piece “because we are a national newspaper and we don’t publish stories about little schoolboys”.
All that changed, of course, when Sachin hit his first Test century against England at the age of 17. He went on to make 100 international hundreds – he scored 15,921 runs in Tests, with 51 centuries; and 18,426 runs in ODIs with 49 tons.
Sachin went into cricket because he loved the game. What has changed is that fathers now push their sons (and sometimes daughters, too) into cricket as a way to make the family fortune. Ads featuring cricketers are ubiquitous. It seems like they are more businessmen who also play cricket.
In a curious way, Reform’s success in the local government elections – it triumphed in the Runcorn and Helsby byelection by just six votes and also won 677 council seats – may, in hindsight, prove to be the worst thing to have happened politically to the party’s leader, Nigel Farage.
It’s one thing to make promises in opposition, quite another to be exposed as being ineffective in government. The economic and many other problems that Britain has, including the people who arrive by boat, defy easy solutions. Migrants, legal and illegal, find it easy to get work which local people are no longer willing to do. Farage is trying to ape Donald Trump in America, but he hasn’t said how he is going to encourage the unwilling back to work.
The rise of Reform does pose a dilemma for British Asian voters, especially British Indians, who are seeking a political home. There are some Conservative politicians who say the party should move to the right and form an alliance with Reform. But the Tories cannot win a general election by abandoning the centre ground of British politics.
The prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, it has been suggested by some commentators, might also move to the right to meet the challenge of Reform. He is apparently considering a reshuffle to give his cabinet a fresh look. Of course, he won’t do what is necessary – move Rachel Reeves.
It is useless for anyone to pretend the chancellor has been a success. Far from raising money for state school teachers, her VAT raid on the private sector has been counterproductive. Every few days a private school closes.
Governors at St Anselm’s prep school near Bakewell in Derbyshire, in the heart of the Peak District – it was founded in 1888 have concluded it is unsustainable in light of government tax changes and falling pupil numbers.
The prime minister won’t move the chancellor, because that would undermine his own credibility. It would have been better if the British electorate had voted in a Labour government, but not with a landslide majority.
Keep ReadingShow less
Illegal migrants are brought into Dover port on board a Border Force vessel on May 12, 2025 in Dover, England
The title, “Restoring Control of the Immigration System”, makes 'control' the core message of the immigration white paper. “Take Back Control” was the opening riff of prime minister Sir Keir Starmer’s launch speech, contrasting the slogan that won the Brexit referendum with the soaring immigration that followed. Home secretary Yvette Cooper alliterates control, contribution and cohesion as her key principles.Control means different things to different people. Key questions remain about how this white paper will apply it in principle and practice.
Does control primarily mean choosing or reducing immigration? If we select the immigration that reflects Britain’s interests – and, hopefully, our values too – how far is the key test how low the numbers go?
Starmer and Cooper are pledging significantly lower numbers, seeing that as what the public most want to hear. The biggest secret in Britain is how much immigration already fell in the last year. Ten days after the white paper, the Office of National Statistics will confirm that net migration is a few hundred thousand below the 728,000 final score of the last government.
Net migration “must come down” more to be “sustainable”, says this white paper, hinting that the precedented range of 200,000 to 300,000 is where ‘normal’ might begin, testing Labour’s refusal to set a target.Half of the public want overall numbers down - but selectively. There is no public majority to reduce any of a dozen work and study roles, according to new Focaldata research for British Future.
Most ‘reducers’ prioritise regaining control over small boats. A quarter think overall numbers matter most. The dilemmas of control – how to balance the pressures of a rising population with the gains from immigration – have been intensely debated over the past two months. But it was largely a private debate inside government. The Home Office expected special pleading from every sector, so left it to government departments to make the case for external stakeholders.
Universities feared fatal damage to fragile finances from a drive to cut international student numbers. A more modest tweak to post-study work visas – now 18 months, instead of 24 – keeps this selling point in the UK’s pitch to Indian students. The Treasury will explore a levy on international student fees in the budget.
Health secretary Wes Streeting backed the unexpected decision to scrap the bespoke care visa. Most people do not define contribution by salary alone. Care workers are, after nurses and doctors, among the most popular migrants in Britain. Twice as many people would increase rather than reduce the numbers. Care visas accounted for much of the pre-2023 surge and 2024 collapse of the visa numbers. But oversight of when it was used legitimately or fraudulently, exploitatively or outside its purpose, was weak. The public will need reassurance that the government has a workforce plan. Existing care workers can extend to 2028. The care sector might, like any other sector, negotiate some shortage visas during the transition too.
This white paper talks about integration in principle, but its proposals may impede it in practice. New standards for English language could help, with practical back-up. A new ‘earned settlement’ message underpins a three-tier system. The numbers focus means inviting fewer people to stay. That may deliver more ‘churn’ of migration without, by design, trying to enhance the integration of guest-workers. Some people will qualify for settlement in five years, but others in ten. Giving new arrivals more clarity about temporary schemes versus settlement routes may be fair. Making those already here wait five more years would have risks for child poverty and ethnic disparities. A wide review of citizenship policy should identify both the necessary requirements and unnecessary impediments to people becoming British.
Small boats are the big control challenge. Despite Starmer’s rhetoric about the “open borders experiment” of his predecessors, he inherits asylum chaos from a botched experiment in trying to close the borders to asylum. Passing law after law pledging to remove anybody who arrived without permission was a bluff without a real-world plan. Cutting the visas that government does control will not distract from a continued lack of control in the Channel. The best shot at an orderly, humane system is to talk with France and Europe about making managed humanitarian routes, along with enforcement and returns, tools for regaining border control.
Most people are balancers on immigration – if we do not confuse Reform leader Nigel Farage’s core vote with a guide to how most people think. The control challenge is not who can talk toughest, or pitch the lowest number, with or without any plan to deliver. Fusing control and contribution with compassion would resonate with Britain, if the citizenship agenda which came with it was more proactive than punitive.The public want competence too - but have ceased to expect it. Making promises that can be kept could be the key to taking back control of the immigration politics too.
Sunder Katwala
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.