IT IS for a psychiatrist such as Dr Raj Persaud to analyse whether the late American president Richard Nixon suffered from sexual problems – which US president doesn’t? – but he had particular difficulty in dealing with Indira Gandhi, the Indian prime minister who was then one of the few women leaders in the world.
When the Pakistan army invaded East Pakistan in 1971 and conducted a campaign of genocide, the US backed Pakistan against India which was regarded as being too close to the Soviet Union. Bangladesh was born, soaked in blood, after Pakistan was defeated in a brief war with India in December that year.
On November 4, 1971, after Mrs Gandhi had met Nixon, he told his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, how Indian women disgusted him. “To me, they turn me off. How the hell do they turn other people on, Henry? Tell me. They turn me off. They are repulsive and it’s just easy to be tough with them.”
A few days later, on November 12, in the middle of a discussion about India-Pakistan tensions with Kissinger and secretary of state William P Rogers, after the latter suggested reprimanding Mrs Gandhi, the president blurted: “I don’t know how they reproduce!”
In June 1971, Nixon had told HR Haldeman, the White House chief of staff: “Undoubtedly the most unattractive women in the world are the Indian women.”
“Undoubtedly,” he repeated, venomously.
All this was revealed last week in the New York Times in an article by Gary J Bass, professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton. “I documented the violent birth of Bangladesh and the disgraceful White House diplomacy around it in my book The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger and a Forgotten Genocide published in 2013,” Bass says in the article.
Headed “The Terrible Cost of Presidential Racism”, the article’s standfirst summed up: “Recently declassified White House tapes reveal how president Nixon’s racism and misogyny led him to ignore the genocidal violence of the Pakistani military in what is today Bangladesh.”
Bass writes: “As Americans grapple with problems of racism and power, a newly declassified trove of White House tapes provides startling evidence of the bigotry voiced by president Richard M Nixon and Henry Kissinger, his national security adviser.
“The full content of these tapes reveal how US policy toward South Asia under Mr Nixon was influenced by his hatred of, and sexual repulsion toward, Indians.
“These new tapes are about one of the grimmest episodes of the Cold War, which brought ruin to Bangladesh in 1971. At that time, India tilted heavily toward the Soviet Union while a military dictatorship in Pakistan backed the United States.
“In March 1971, after Bengali nationalists won a democratic election in Pakistan, the junta began a devastating crackdown on its own Bengali citizens. Mr Nixon and Mr Kissinger staunchly supported the military regime in Pakistan as it killed hundreds of thousands of Bengalis, with 10 million refugees fleeing into neighbouring India. New Delhi secretly trained and armed Bengali guerrillas. The crisis culminated in December 1971 when India defeated Pakistan in a short war that resulted in the creation of an independent Bangladesh.”
Alas, for Nixon, he is the only president in US history who has had to resign to avoid being impeached for ordering the cover up of the burglary at the Watergate building in Washington where the rival Democrats had their election campaign headquarters.
He is depicted as the villain in two memorable movies, All the President’s Men (1976), starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as two investigative reporters at the Washington Post, and Steven Spielberg’s The Post (2017).
That film features Meryl Streep as Katharine Graham, the first female publisher of a major American newspaper, and Tom Hanks as Ben Bradlee, the long-time executive editor of the Washington Post.
For all her faults and despite the emergency she declared in 1975, Mrs Gandhi is remembered as a heroine in India. Meanwhile, foul-mouthed “Tricky Dicky” has gone down as one of the biggest crooks in American history.
HERE’S a list of Asian women politicians who have got into trouble in recent years for one reason or another – Rushanara Ali, Tulip Siddiq, Suella Braverman, Priti Patel, Baroness Pola Uddin and Rupa Huq.
Is it that they are held to higher standards than others? Or do some allow their greed to get the better of themselves, especially when it comes to expenses?
If there is a lesson, it is that Asian women going into politics have to be like Caesar’s wife. The Latin version is sometimes loosely quoted as Uxorem Caesaris tam suspicione quam crimine carere oportet. The phrase originates from an incident involving Julius Caesar and his wife, Pompeia. When allegations of an affair arose, even though Caesar claimed to know nothing of any wrongdoing, he divorced Pompeia, stating, “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.” The idiom is used to highlight that those in positions of public trust must be beyond reproach and that their actions, and even the perception of their actions, can have significant consequences.
Rushanara Ali
Rushanara Ali resigned last Thursday (7) as parliamentary under-secretary of state for homelessness and rough sleeping after being “accused of hypocrisy over the way she handled rent increases on a house she owns in east London”. Laura Jackson, one of her former tenants, said she and three others collectively paid £3,300 in rent. Weeks after she and her fellow tenants had left – apparently because the property was going to be sold – “the self-employed restaurant owner said she saw the house re-listed with a rent of around £4,000”.
Rushanara, born in Sylhet on March 14, 1975, and PPE graduate from St John’s College, Oxford, has been a Labour MP since 2010, first for Bethnal Green and Bow, and then, after boundary changes in 2024, for Bethnal Green and Stepney.
Suella Braverman
Her career is damaged as is that of Bangladeshiorigin Tulip Siddiq, who resigned on January 14, 2025, as economic secretary to the treasury. She was targeted by the regime in Dhaka after her aunt, Sheikh Hasina Wazed, the country’s prime minister, had to flee to India. Much of the mud thrown at Tulip is probably concocted. What was harder to understand was the way she either owned or rented various properties in London. She remains MP for Hampstead and Highgate where she was successor to the late Glenda Jackson, the double Oscar winning actress. The prime minister’s standards adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, said he had “not identified evidence of improprieties” but it was “regrettable” that Tulip had not been more alert to the “potential reputational risks” of the ties to her aunt. It has to be said the new lot in Dhaka are not an improvement on Hasina.
Baroness Pola Uddin
Goan-origin Sue-Ellen Cassiana (“Suella”) Braverman (née Fernandes) has the distinction of twice having to quit as home secretary. She resigned as home secretary on October 19, 2022, from Liz Truss’s cabinet “following public claims that she had broken the ministerial code by sending a cabinet document using her personal email address. Six days later, she was reinstated as home secretary by Truss’s successor, Rishi Sunak. She was dismissed from her post by Sunak in the November 2023 British cabinet reshuffle.” She then sought vengeance by doing her best to bring down the Sunak government. She will probably join Reform if Nigel Farage promises her the job of home secretary should he win the next election.
Priti Patel resigned as international development secretary on November 8, 2017, amid controversy over her unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials. She was ordered back from an official trip in Africa by Theresa May, then prime minister, and summoned to Downing Street over the row. In her resignation letter, Priti acknowledged her actions “fell below the standards of transparency and openness that I have promoted and advocated”. Priti, born in the UK of Gujarati parents who came from Uganda, has undergone reincarnation as shadow foreign secretary under Kemi Badenoch. One of the Israelis she met in 2017 happened to be Benjamin Netanyahu, now prime minister. Priti is also a strong supporter of Narendra Modi.
Priti Patel
Another Bangladeshi, Baroness Pola Uddin, was suspended in October 2010 following the findings of the parliamentary expenses committee. They found that from 2005 to 2010, Pola, then with Labour, named a flat in Kent as her main residence while living in a housing association property in Wapping. She returned to the Lords in May 2012 after repaying £125,349, the “largest amount of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal”.
In May 2023, Rupa Huq, Labour MP for Ealing Central and Acton since 2015, was stripped of the party whip after disparaging Ghanaian-origin Kwasi Kwarteng, chancellor under Truss: “He’s superficially, he’s, a black man but again he’s got more in common... he went to Eton, he went to a very expensive prep school, all the way through top schools in the country. If you hear him on the Today programme you wouldn’t know he’s black.”
Rupa and her TV presenter young sister, Konnie – both went to Cambridge University – were born in Britain of parents who came from East Pakistan (Bangladesh after 1971) in 1962.Rupa had her whip restored after five months, apologised for her remarks and indicated she did penance by undertaking “anti-racism and bias training”.
Asian women are to be commended for having the courage to go into politics but they should realise people look up to them as role models. Views in this column do not necessarily reflect those of the newspaper.
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.
THE headline in the Daily Telegraph read: “Kemi Badenoch: I no longer identify as Nigerian.”
The Tory leader, Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke, was born in Wimbledon on January 2, 1980. But her parents returned to Nigeria where she grew up until she was 16. She returned to the UK and is now married to Hamish Badenoch and the couple have two daughters and a son.
Speaking on the Rosebud podcast with Gyles Brandreth, she said: “I have not renewed my Nigerian passport, I think, not since the early 2000s. I don’t identify with it anymore, most of my life has been in the UK and I’ve just never felt the need to. I’m Nigerian through ancestry, by birth despite not being born there because of my parents, but by identity I’m not really. I know the country very well, I have a lot of family there, and I’m very interested in what happens there. But home is where my now family is, and my now family is my children, it’s my husband and my brother and his children, in-laws. The Conservative party is very much part of my family, my extended family, I call it.”
Her comments have been widely reported. I would have thought her identity is not unidimensional but a real potpourri – Nigerian (it’s hard not to be since she spent her formative years in Nigeria), British, wife, mother, the first black woman to be Tory party leader and would be prime minister.
It is important not to twist her words or misrepresent her, but she almost appears to be saying: “I am distancing myself from my Nigerian roots. Although I may look like a black woman, inside I am culturally white.”
The question to ask is: why is Kemi Badenoch saying what she is saying?
Is she a little confused and in need of a session with Raj Persaud? Is she to be applauded for asserting, “I’m black and British” (which she could have said but didn’t), or is she scared of Nigel Farage?
Not so long ago, Rishi Sunak said: “Of course I’m English, born here, brought up here, yeah, of course I’m English.”
But he was also happy to light Diwali diyas in Downing Street and visit Hindu temples and didn’t feel the need to say, “I no longer identify as Indian.”
Lord Swraj Paul has long used a mathematical impossibility: “I am 100 per cent British and I am 100 per cent Indian.”
Keep ReadingShow less
Demonstrators from Stand Up To Racism challenge a far-right march calling for mass deportations in Manchester last Saturday (2)
SIX days of violent rage last summer finally ended after a call for a racist pogrom where nobody came. That week showed how much small groups of people could shift national narratives.
The violence which flashed across thirty locations saw fewer than 5,000 rioters nationwide. Hundreds came out for clean-up campaigns, sending a different message about what their towns stood for.
The online list hoping to incite violence targeting forty migration centres and law firms was a violent fantasy – yet the fear and panic it generated were real. Around 15,000 people went out to show practical solidarity. But millions more were glad that they did. For one day, the front-pages of the right-wing Daily Mail – “The Night Anti-Hate Marchers Faced Down the Thugs” – and the left-wing Daily Mirror were hard to tell apart.
That brief outbreak of unity feels like a distant memory now. Asylum dominates politics again. The police must contain those seeking to intimidate asylum seekers by facilitating only lawful protests. The anniversary of the counter-protests is marked too by a “Welcome Weekend” to ensure those who support refugees can make their voices heard too.
British Asian views of asylum are not so different from those of the white British. The balance of pretty sympathetic, more sceptical and downright xenophobic views shifts dramatically by age, education and political perspective among Asians as it does among the broader public too. Those who see their own families reflecting the positive contribution of migration to British society can find that a distinction between legal and illegal immigration resonates. Black British views tend to be more sympathetic to asylum seekers. Sharper scepticism about the Home Office was reinforced again by the Windrush scandal.
A wide range of views about immigration numbers, its pressures and gains, and how to make integration work can be found across minority and majority groups. One useful litmus test of a legitimate argument about immigration is whether it can appeal across white, black and Asian Britons – or only speaks to one group.
Politicians constantly emphasise that they recognise ‘legitimate concerns’ about immigration – but a crucial half of the argument has gone missing this summer. Any meaningful description of which arguments and debates are legitimate in a democracy depends on rejecting arguments rooted in violence, xenophobia and racial prejudice. But how often, when a politician talks about recognising legitimate concerns in 2025, is anything said about what needs to be excluded as illegitimate too?
This anniversary of the counter-protests should be a chance to rebalance the argument. It is time to ensure that the legitimate concerns of ethnic minorities in Britain – about a concerted effort to dissolve foundational social norms against racism, and to deny our status as equal citizens – are heard too There is an attempt to mainstream the idea of ‘remigration’ – a far right code for kicking out all of the migrants and ethnic minorities too. The last three years have seen the de facto legalisation of racial abuse in online space. Elon Musk has turned Twitter/X into one of the most powerful amplifiers of racism we have ever seen. Government departments are reluctant to even review whether they should still use, as a key channel of public communication, a site which ethnic minorities can barely use without facing everyday racism from antisemites, racists and open Nazis.
New TV channels appear unwilling to draw a line between political debate and sweeping prejudice too. GB News platformed a guest essay to argue that anti-Muslim prejudice is rational not irrational - and since Islam does not “belong here”, anybody wishing to uphold that faith should leave Britain for a “Muslim country”.
Rupert Lowe is campaigning for negative net migration. He confirmed that he now wants to deport “a large share of legal and settled migrants” so net migration is negative. Yet Opposition Leader Kemi Badenoch seems to lack the authority to prevent Tory MPs joining Lowe’s Restore Britain campaign for mass deportations.
Former soldier and TV celebrity Ant Middleton, who was part of Nigel Farage’s Reform delegation to Trump’s inauguration, now proposes banning people from public office until their ancestors have been here for four generations. He would not just make Sadiq Khan and Kemi Badenoch ineligible for office - but even their children too.
These absurd racist fantasies of disenfranchising or deporting Rishi Sunak, Kemi Badenoch and Sadiq Khan will fail but they toxify the experience of public life. British-born minorities do have some birthright, nativist privilege when racist troglodytes reveal their maximalist remigration agenda. It is a bigger challenge to protect asylum seekers from dehumanising rhetoric and action. Our leaders should be able to address the legitimate concerns of minority and majority groups at once. Only those seeking to pander to illegitimate xenophobic views too should fear that it is a zero-sum game. If politicians want to be trusted, they need to address the legitimate concerns of ethnic minorities about keeping racism out of British public life.
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
Keir Starmer and Narendra Modi at Chequers during talks on the UK–India trade agreement
THE free trade agreement (FTA), which was signed at Chequers last week, has been well received in India.
But it is worth remembering India has also entered into FTAs with several other countries and blocs. These include the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA), Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, South Korea, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), Mauritius, UAE, and Australia.
Additionally, India is currently negotiating FTAs with the US – this will be the big one – plus the European Union, another crucial one, Oman, Peru and Israel.
Politically, the FTA with the UK will not have very many consequences for the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, who will turn 75 on September 17 this year. The speculation is more about succession, though my guess is he will carry on if he wins the next election in 2029, which he might well do. But what we saw of him at Chequers indicates he is fit and agile.
In Britain, though, the story is a little different. The British prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, stands to gain politically from the FTA, although it will take some time for it to come into force. It could be that many British Indian voters, who found the Tories – under David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak – reflected their aspirations, might consider switching their allegiance to Starmer at the next general election, also in 2029.
One reason is that under Kemi Badenoch (who has boasted she blocked the FTA on the spurious migration question when she was trade secretary under Rishi) the Conservative party has been moving to the far right, with many of its MPs favouring an electoral pact with the Reform leader Nigel Farage.
Governments in London and Delhi have to be pragmatic and deal with whichever party is in power. Starmer has said that the FTA with India is the biggest such deal since Brexit. He has built on the negotiations conducted under Boris and Rishi but history will judge the deal was concluded when he was prime minister. And the UK economy could well be transformed if it rides piggy back on the India growth story.
To secure the support of more Indian origin voters and prove himself a very successful and “pragmatic” prime minister , Starmer needs to do four things – find a way of “promoting” Rachel Reeves to another job; reverse the VAT raid on private schools (it’s not working, anyway, because school after school is shutting); change the inheritance tax and non-dom rules so as to get back the Dubai Indians; and pay an official visit to India sooner rather than later. He could well win the next election providing Reeves is not his chancellor.
Keep ReadingShow less
Concern grows in Britain over anti-immigrant protests and the risk of renewed unrest this summer
‘I predict a riot’ sang the Kaiser Chiefs two decades ago. That has become a popular past-time this summer too.
It is exactly a year since the terrible murders of three girls in Southport triggered shock and grief nationwide - along with racist efforts to stoke violent retribution against Muslims and asylum seekers with no connection to that evil crime. Few of the conditions of last summer’s disorder have gone away, as the recent State of Us report sets out. The febrile tinderbox of social media can put events or even rumours to incendiary purposes. Yet there is a crucial difference between vigilance and alarmism – between identifying risks to mitigate them, or seeking to stoke them into reality.
Epping became a protest epicentre after an asylum seeker was charged with sexual assault. Most protesters were peaceful, expressing concerns for community safety. Some chanted to send all asylum seekers back. Others sought violence – assaulting the police for protecting asylum seekers. The protests became a Rorschach Test of parallel perceptions. Right-ofcentre commentators decried stigmatising concerned local mums as far right, while progressives noted how often the organisers speaking into the microphones were far right agitators hoping to extend ‘remigration’ to all migrants and ethnic minorities.
Claims about a nationwide surge of protest were exaggerated. Half a dozen scrappy anti-asylum protests struggled to muster a thousand people nationwide. Many were football lads, at a loose end in the close season. Fifty times as many people took to the streets for trans rights as protested asylum hotels last weekend.
But if larger protests seem less newsworthy without a sense that it might all kick off, does that mean that broadcaster’s ‘news values’ risk inadvertently incentivising disorder over democratic voice?
The idea of ‘legitimate concerns’ matters. It is a mistake to dismiss the concept as dog whistling or pandering to prejudice. Yet the key to getting that boundary right risks getting overlooked. Any contentful concept of ‘legitimate concerns’ depends on defining which are illegitimate too. Much more attention is needed, especially, to how to challenge the fusion of asylum with anti-Muslim tropes in driving both casual prejudices and those most open to being socialised towards violence.
Keir Starmer spoke articulately about both legitimate concerns and the illegitimacy of racist violence in his post-riots party c o n f e r e n c e speech. His government risked leaving out half of that argument last week. Ministers were so concerned to (rightly) defend democratic protest and criticism of asylum policy that they seemed (wrongly) mute in challenging extreme racist agitators too. An implausibly inauthentic version of Keir Starmer’s public voice can be found on his X, where somebody tweets in the prime minister’s name, invariably about asylum, as robustly as possible. ‘The problem is, it doesn’t sound like him at all,’ one usually loyal backbencher told me.
This simulacrum of the prime minister would doubtless triple down on the ‘island of strangers’ comments that the real Keir Starmer chose to retract, albeit blurring the boundaries of precisely what he would rather have said.
Home secretary Yvette Cooper maintains a more measured voice, emphasising that the government will be judged on practical outcomes, not the polarised shouting matches of protests and counter-protests. Net migration has halved from exceptional levels – but few will notice those numbers coming down while the lack of control over asylum is so visible. The number of asylum seekers in hotels has halved too – but the 30,000 who remain are much more visible than the shrinking numbers. The events of the last month should catalyse practical ideas about how to clear the asylum backlog faster and close down the use of hotels for asylum.
A new social cohesion task force is beavering away inside Downing Street to identify the missing strategy foundations, though it began too late this Spring for the government to develop a long-term policy before this anniversary. An interim update to Cabinet from deputy prime minister Angela Rayner emphasised the role of socio-economic deprivation, and the government’s commitment to invest in neighbourhoods. That is undoubtedly one important part of the jigsaw, though the centre-left does tend to persistently underestimate the role of identity and culture. The latest IpsosMori Issues Index shows the salience of immigration is pretty even across deprived and affluent areas, peaking in the second most affluent quintile: places like leafy Epping.
How Essex police handled protest and counter-protest this weekend - protecting lawful protest with no tolerance for intimidation and disruption - is a good model to maximise the chance that riotous prophecies fail.
The simple insistence that all face-masks are removed could be the key to deterring violence this summer, despite the febrile atmosphere. But avoiding riots should be nobody’s test of cohesion. A strategy to get tough on the causes of disorder remains embryonic. That it would take the sustained work of a generation is all the more reason to make a start soon.
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.