ANOTHER phrase that has not yet joined my banned list, which includes “woke” and “othering”, but is in danger of doing so is “the new normal” – as in, going to half-empty offices, finding deserted town centres, getting calls from GPs instead of being able to see doctors in person and universities holding lectures online all represent “the new normal”.
But use of “woke” is becoming the refuge of those unable to argue their case. The lead letters in one national newspaper on Monday (31), were grouped together under “The problem is that the BBC can’t recognise that it is being ‘woke’.”
The Guardian is one of several newspapers to report moves to set up a rival to the BBC: “Efforts are under way to launch a Fox News-style opinionated current affairs TV station in Britain to counter the BBC.
“One group is promising a news channel ‘distinctly different from the out-of-touch incumbents’ and has already been awarded a licence to broadcast by the media regulator, Ofcom, under the name ‘GB News’. Its founder has said the BBC is a ‘disgrace’ that ‘is bad for Britain on so many levels’ and ‘needs to be broken up’.
“A rival project is being devised in the headquarters of Rupert Murdoch’s British media empire by former Fox News executive David Rhodes, although it is unclear whether it will result in a traditional TV channel or be online-only.
“Both are pitching to a perceived gap in the market for opinionated video output fuelled by growing distrust of the BBC among some parts of its audience, especially on the political right over culture war issues such as Brexit and whether Rule, Britannia! should be sung at the Last Night of the Proms.”
Rule, Britannia! does have the line that many Black Lives Matter supporters find offensive – “Britons never, never, never shall be slaves” – implying that it is perfectly acceptable for others to be slaves.
But it is impossible to rewrite history and, in any case, most people today do not subscribe to these sentiments. So the BBC should allow people to sing Rule, Britannia! if they really want to, though the conductor Sir Simon Rattle revealed he has never been keen on it.
On the more substantive point of setting up a rival network, the BBC need not worry. Despite all its shortcomings, it is still respected worldwide and is far too well established to be concerned about a British-style Fox News.
This is mere posturing by those who have personal grudges against the BBC. I speak in a sense as a child of the BBC because my father came to this country to work for the BBC’s Bengali service at Bush House before returning after five years to newspapers in India. In India, the BBC still counts for something.
Finding romance today feels like trying to align stars in a night sky that refuses to stay still
When was the last time you stumbled into a conversation that made your heart skip? Or exchanged a sweet beginning to a love story - organically, without the buffer of screens, swipes, or curated profiles? In 2025, those moments feel rarer, swallowed up by the quickening pace of life.
We are living faster than ever before. Cities hum with noise and neon, people race between commitments, and ambition seems to be the rhythm we all march to. In the process, the simple art of connection - eye contact, lingering conversations, the gentle patience of getting to know someone - feels like it is slipping through our fingers.
Whether you’re single, searching, or settled, the landscape is shifting. Some turn to apps for convenience; others look for love in cafés, gyms, workplaces or community spaces. But the challenge remains the same: how do we connect deeply in a world designed to move at lightning speed?
We’ve become fluent in productivity, in chasing careers, in cultivating polished identities. Yet are we forgetting how to be fluent in intimacy? When was the last time you sat across from someone and truly listened - without checking your phone, without planning the next step, without treating time like a currency to be spent?
It’s a strange paradox: we have more access to people than ever before, yet many feel more isolated. Fun is always available - dinners, drinks, nights out, fleeting encounters - but fulfilment is harder to grasp. Are we mistaking access for intimacy? Are we human, or are we slowly adapting into versions of ourselves stripped of those raw, humanistic qualities - vulnerability, patience, tenderness - that once defined love?
Perhaps we’ve grown comfortable with the fast exit. It’s easier to ghost than to explain. Easier to keep moving than to pause. But what does that cost us? What do we lose when romance becomes a checkbox on an already overstuffed to-do list?
The truth is - the heart doesn’t move at the pace of technology or ambition. It moves slowly, awkwardly, with a rhythm that resists acceleration. Maybe that’s the point. Love has always lived in the messy spaces - hesitant pauses, nervous laughter, words spoken without rehearsal.
So the real question for 2025 is not “Have we gone too far?” but “Can we afford to slow down?” Can we still allow ourselves the sweetness of beginnings - the chance encounters, the unplanned moments, the quiet courage to be open?
Because in the end, connection is not about speed or access—it’s about presence. In a world that won’t stop moving, choosing to be present might be the bravest act of love we have left.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
Shabana Mahmood, US homeland security secretary Kristi Noem, Canada’s public safety minister Gary Anandasangaree, Australia’s home affairs minister Tony Burke and New Zealand’s attorney general Judith Collins at the Five Eyes security alliance summit on Monday (8)
PRIME MINISTER Keir Starmer’s government is not working. That is the public verdict, one year in. So, he used his deputy Angela Rayner’s resignation to hit the reset button.
It signals a shift in his own theory of change. Starmer wanted his mission-led government to avoid frequent shuffles of his pack, so that ministers knew their briefs. Such a dramatic reshuffle shows that the prime minister has had enough of subject expertise for now, gambling instead that fresh eyes may bring bold new energy to intractable challenges on welfare and asylum.
“Can Shabana Mahmood save Keir Starmer?” is the question being asked in Westminster. Small boats are increasingly talked about as an existential risk to the government. It will not be the only issue at the next general election – the economy and public services will matter, too – but Labour fear being unable to get heard on anything else without visible progress in the Channel.
The new home secretary has been asked to “think the unthinkable”. Ministers and MPs should be eager to try anything that might work – but might heed the lessons of six years of failure to stop the boats as they do. It is hardly as if former Conservative home secretaries Priti Patel and Suella Braverman were unwilling to brainstorm the unthinkable, nor indeed to legislate the unworkable. If performative gestures – asylum seekers on barges – could stop the boats, it would have been all quiet in the Channel long ago.
As justice secretary, Mahmood’s voice was tough on crime, reflecting her communitarianism. Yet her policy involved a liberalism of necessity. With the prisons overflowing, shortening sentences and seeking public consent for alternative forms of punishment was unavoidable. Number 10 media briefings about being willing to make Labour MPs ‘queasy’ on asylum could – ironically – be a form of comfort zone politics; a distraction from tougher choices that might actually work. Hotel use for asylum could end in 2026 – not 2029 – if ministers both streamlined appeals and gave asylum seekers from high-risk countries limited leave to remain – with the right to work and the responsibility to house themselves. It could save billions, if the government can navigate the political risks. Labour’s challenge is to show how it can deliver an orderly and humane system by cooperating with allies, not ripping up treaties.
Migrants in a dinghy crossing the English Channel
As Mahmood becomes the most prominent British Asian and British Muslim in public life, others project contradictory ideas of what they imagine her politics, faith and personality mean. It is curious that Maurice Glasman could declare her the new leader of his Blue Labour faction (though Mahmood does not share the baron’s misplaced enthusiasm for US president Donald Trump) while Reform donor Aaron Banks declared that a Muslim lawyer as home secretary would immediately ‘open the floodgates’ to refugees from Gaza, exemplifying more about his presumptions and prejudices, than her politics.
There is no novelty in a British Asian home secretary now. Sajid Javid broke that ceiling in the Conservative government of 2018, yet Mahmood is already the fifth visible minority politician to hold that office. However, overt racism towards her goes unchecked on X/Twitter – where radicalised site owner and US businessman Elon Musk is infinitely more likely to retweet than to suspend racist voices who say no Muslim should ever be home secretary. That is Tommy Robinson’s view – yet Musk champions his London march on Saturday (13), where ex-soldier and minor TV celebrity Ant Middleton will pitch a London mayoral campaign founded on the absurdly racist proposition that Sadiq Khan, Mahmood and Conservatives opposition leader Kemi Badenoch should be barred from high office if their grandparents were not British-born.
This is the curious paradox of multi-ethnic Britain today: British Asian faces in high places have never been more common. Yet a vocal minority challenges the equal status of ethnic and faith minorities more aggressively than for a generation. It is not just the government that must show more leadership by speaking up to defend our multi-ethnic society. Every civic institution can contribute to how we respect differences and strengthen our common ground.
Knowing our history better is one vital foundation. Everyone is aware of this country’s pride in defeating fascism matters – but fewer know that the armies that won the war look more like our modern Britain of 2025 than that of 1945. Half of the public do know that Indian soldiers took part. Not so many understand that Hindu, Sikh and Muslim soldiers fought alongside British officers in the largest volunteer army the world has ever seen. The My Family Legacy campaign from British Future, the Royal British Legion and Eastern Eye will help British Asian families find and tell their stories. Writing this vital chapter fully into our national history remains work in progress – but can show why national symbols, like the poppy, belong to us all and can help to bring this diverse society together.
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.
Keep ReadingShow less
Indian infantrymen on the march in France in October 1914 during World War I. (Photo: Getty Images)
This country should never forget what we all owe to those who won the second world war against fascism. So the 80th anniversary of VE Day and VJ Day this year have had a special poignancy in bringing to life how the historic events that most of us know from grainy black and white photographs or newsreel footage are still living memories for a dwindling few.
People do sometimes wonder if the meaning of these great historic events will fade in an increasingly diverse Britain. If we knew our history better, we would understand why that should not be the case.
For the armies that fought and won both world wars look more like the Britain of 2025 in their ethnic and faith mix than the Britain of 1945 or 1918. The South Asian soldiers were the largest volunteer army in history, yet ensuring that their enormous contribution is fully recognised in our national story remains an important work in progress.
About half of the public do know that Indian soldiers took part. It is better known among British Asians - with almost 6 out of 10 aware of the contribution. Yet while that means that more than three million British Asians have heard something about this, that suggests too that a couple of million of Asians in Britain today remain unaware of the South Asian contribution to the war effort.
It is less well understood that Hindu, Sikh and Muslim soldiers fought alongside British officers in the largest volunteer army that the world has ever seen. About four in ten report being aware that there were Hindu and Sikh soldiers in the Indian Army - while just under a third are aware of the Muslim contribution. Yet there is an appetite to learn more. Three-quarters of the public believe that learning more about this history could help social cohesion in Britain. It is a view held as strongly by the white British and by British Asians.
So the My Family Legacy project from British Future, the Royal British Legion and Eastern Eye seeks to make a contribution to doing that. It aims to raise awareness of the South Asian contribution in the world wars, among South Asian communities and people from all backgrounds in Britain today. It asks British Asian families to share stories and pictures of ancestors who served, creating an archive for future generations.
When we talk about the Indian Army, we are talking about the army drawn from the India of the 1940s. This was pre-independence India – so it included modern day India and Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The Indian Army grew from 195,000 men in the Autumn of 1939 to over 2 million by the end of the war. A fledgling Indian Air Force went from 285 men to 29,000. This made the Indian army of the Second World War the largest volunteer army in history.
It may sound strange to our modern ears: that Indian soldiers would volunteer for the army of the British imperial power. Yet those who volunteered often saw the German and Japanese regimes as an existential threat as well as believing that India should govern itself after the war. So the Indian Army volunteers outnumbered – by a 50:1 ratio – the 43,000 rebels who heeded the call to form a rebel army for the Germans and Japanese.
We should not shy away from the complexity and controversies of understanding that we are a post-imperial society. But this country’s role in winning the Second World War should always endure as a source of shared pride.
It matters because we should honour the past properly: we should recognise the service and commemorate the sacrifice of all who contributed, especially when the liberties of all of us today are their legacy.
Yet this matters too because of how it can help us to look forward as well as back and help us to bind together our society today. To have a story of how our past, present and future are linked, is an important part of what it means to be a nation. Understanding the diversity of the war effort is a crucial way to join the dots in the making of modern post-war Britain.
That becomes all the more important in times like these, when a vocal, visible and toxic minority are making their most aggressive attempt for a generation to all into question the equal status and very presence of ethnic minorities in Britain.
Yet the toxic and racist far right fringe have always been deeply ignorant of the history of which they claim to be so proud. What could be more absurd than neo-fascists trying to wrap themselves in the very flag under which we defeated fascism - especially when that victory over fascism was achieved by multi-ethnic and multi-faith armies just as diverse as the modern Britain which honours today the victory which made this democratic and diverse society possible.
So this new effort to help people to find, document and tell their family stories of courage and contribution, service and sacrifice can make a difference. It can help show how our national symbols and traditions of Remembrance can bring today's modern, diverse Britain together ever more powerfully when we commemorate all of those who served.
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.
How noticing the changes in my father taught me the importance of early action, patience, and love
I don’t understand people who don’t talk or see their parents often. Unless they have done something to ruin your lives or you had a traumatic childhood, there is no reason you shouldn’t be checking in with them at least every few days if you don’t live with them.
Earlier this year, I had the privilege of looking after my parents – they lived with me while their old house was being sold, and their new house was being renovated.
Within this time, I noticed things happening to my dad (Chamanlal Mulji), an 81-year-old retired joiner. Dad was known as Simba when he lived in Zanzibar, East Africa because he was like a lion. A man in fairly good health, despite being an ex-smoker, he’d only had heart surgery back in 2017. In the last few years, he was having some health issues, but certain things, like his walking and driving becoming slow, and his memory failing, we just put down to old age. Now, my dad was older than my friend’s dad. Many of whom in their 70’s, dad, at 81 was an older dad, not common back in the seventies when he married my mum.
It was only when I spent extended time around my parents that I started noticing that certain things weren’t just due to old age. Some physical symptoms were more serious, but certain things like forgetting that the front door wasn’t the bathroom door, and talking about old memories thinking that they had recently happened rang alarm bells for me and I suspected that he might have dementia.
Dementia generally happens in old age when the brain starts to shrink. Someone described it to me as a person’s brain being like a bookshelf. The books at the top of the shelf are the new memories and the books at the bottom are the new memories. The books at the top have fallen off, leaving only the old memories being remembered. People with dementia are also highly likely to suffer from strokes.
Sadly, my dad was one of the few that suffered a stroke and passed away on 28th June 2025. If you have a parent, family member or anyone you know and you suspect that they might have dementia, please talk to your GP straight away. Waiting lists within the NHS are extremely LONG so the quicker people with dementia are treated, the better. Sadly, the illness cannot be reversed but medication can help it from getting worse.
One thing I would also advise is to have patience. Those suffering with dementia can be agitated and often become aggressive, but that’s only because they’re frustrated that they cannot do things the way they used to.
The disease might hide the person underneath, but there’s still a person in there who needs your love and attention.” - Jamie Calandriello
NAGA MUNCHETTY should feel secretly pleased that after Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, she has become the number one hate figure in the media, especially for white women feature writers who earn less than her £360,000.
Naga apparently gets cross with junior staff who don’t do her toast right – it apparently has to be burnt the way she likes it.
Naga, a presenter on BBC Breakfast, is accused, among other things, of bullying staff. If her critics have their way, she will soon be toast herself.
Last week, following the resignation of Rushanara Ali as a junior housing minister, I drew attention to other Asian women politicians – among them Tulip Siddiq, Suella Braverman, Priti Patel, Baroness Pola Uddin and Rupa Huq – who have got into trouble for one reason or another.
Is something similar happening in the media?
Samira Ahmed
Apart from Naga, I can think of other Asian women journalists in television or radio who have not seen eye to eye with the employers.
I will come to the others – Mishal Husain, Sangita Myska, Ritula Shah and Lisa Aziz – but Naga first.
Annabel Denham, columnist and deputy comment editor in the Daily Telegraph, had a piece, “It’s not easy to defend Naga Munchetty, but workplace wokery is out of control”, which said: “This generously paid cultural arbiter once called Boris Johnson a ‘useless tosser’, liked disparaging tweets about Robert Jenrick and bizarrely scolded Kemi Badenoch for failing to watch that tendentious Adolescence series – prompting the Tory leader to reply, rather neatly: ‘In the same way that I don’t need to watch Casualty to know what’s going on in the NHS, I don’t need to watch a Netflix drama to understand what’s going on.’
” Her colleague, Liam Kelly, wrote: “Her on-air behaviour has also occasionally caused controversy. She was censured in 2019 for criticising Donald Trump for telling a group of non-white Democrat congresswomen to ‘go back’ to their ‘crime-infested’ countries. ‘Every time I have been told, as a woman of colour, to go back to where I came from, that was embedded in racism,’ she said live on BBC Breakfast, before later adding that she was ‘absolutely furious’ about the US president’s comments.
“The Corporation partially upheld a complaint that her remarks had breached editorial guidelines before Tony Hall, then the directorgeneral, intervened to reverse that decision. Some two years later, Munchetty apologised after liking ‘offensive’ tweets that disparaged Robert Jenrick, then the housing secretary, for being interviewed on Breakfast with a large Union Flag and a portrait of the late Queen behind him.”
Pointing out she tied for 11th place on the BBC’s high pay list, Kelly added: “It is a far cry from her childhood growing up in Streatham, south London. Her Indian mother, Muthu, and Mauritian father, David, moved to Britain in the 1970s and worked as nurses while they brought up Munchetty and her younger sister, Mimi.”
Mishal Husain left the BBC earlier this year for Bloomberg TV after 11 years as a presenter on Radio 4’s flagship Today programme.This was after Andrew Marr was replaced by Laura Kuenssberg as presenter of the Sunday morning politics slot.
Sangita Myska
Last year, LBC removed Sangita Myska as a presenter after she was a little too robust in questioning the Israeli government spokesman, Avi Hyman.
In 2000, Samira Ahmed took the BBC to an employment tribunal, after protesting she was paid £440 for Newswatch, which is shown on the BBC News Channel and BBC Breakfast. But Jeremy Vine was getting £3,000 per episode for the similar BBC One’s Points of View. The tribunal agreed with Samira: “The difference in pay in this case is striking. Jeremy Vine was paid more than six times what the claimant was paid for doing the same work as her.”
In 2023, Ritula Shah left the BBC after 35 years, having been lead presenter of the World Tonight on Radio 4 since 2013. She said she was upset to discover she was being paid tens of thousands of pounds fewer than her male colleagues. She now has a late night slot on Classic FM, but misses the urgency of current affairs: “It’s a really painful episode in my life and I still can’t quite get over it, even though it’s now behind me.”
Liza Aziz, once the glamour girl among TV presenters, joined ITV in 2006 after 10 years with Sky News. But after four years she fell out with ITV West in Bristol after her employers accused her of financial irregularities and she considered taking legal action for race, sex and age discrimination. Lisa left after a settlement was reached.
Each case is different, and I am not taking sides. But Asian women with high profile jobs in the media have to be extra careful about not giving offence. Quite often in order to fit in, they have to buy a bottle of wine to share with their male white colleagues after work. In the workplace culture, they have to go with the flow.
Ritula Shah
Sheela Banerjee, author of What’s in a Name? Friendship, Identity and History in Modern Multicultural Britain, told Eastern Eye a couple years ago when her book came out: “I gave up TV. As a state school educated, nonOxbridge, brown woman, it is hard. There are not that many of us. If you were trying to make documentaries, it was virtually impossible. We’d get shunted off into light entertainment and stuff like that. Which is fine. But that’s not what I wanted to do. And also, it’s just rife with discrimination. That’s the problem. And it’s really stressful. It’s still the same.”
She quoted some diversity figures from television. “The number of black, Asian and minority ethnic directors in factual television in 2018 – not that long ago – was like three per cent. I mean it’s absurd. And most of the productions are in London or Manchester, hugely diverse cities. And most programmes are now made by independent production companies, even for the BBC. If you go on to their websites and then ‘meet the team’ pages, there’s a sea of Hannahs and Lucys and Elsas and Charlottes. It makes me so angry. There are lots of industries that are exactly the same – for example, academia and publishing. But television is still really important because lots of people watch it and get their information from it.”