Hindus, the “Tebbit Test” & Terrorism in London

Norman Tebbitt, former Conservative Party chairman, who now has a lifetime peerage

Norman Tebbitt, former Conservative Party chairman, who now has a lifetime peerage

As the Indian and English cricket teams clash today, it can once again be seen that the overwhelming majority of Indians who live in the UK, including Indians born in Britain, passionately support India over England! This has annoyed some British politicians, who have proposed the “Cricket team test” to test loyalty of immigrants. They have even linked this with terrorism and future civil war! Are they justified in their concern?

It was back in 1990 when former chairman of the British Conservative Party, Lord Tebbit, proposed the “Cricket Team Test”, also known as the “Tebbit Test.” According to Lord Tebbit, ethnic minorities living in Britain should support British teams over those of their country of origin. If they did not, this would pose a problem to British society. His comments were recalled time and time again when it was observed that the vast majority of immigrants from other countries, of which India and Pakistan were the foremost, strongly supported the cricket team of their country of origin over England. Furthermore was the fact that even the overwhelming majority of British-born Indians and Pakistanis passionately supported their country of origin as opposed to England.

It is another matter altogether that when English expatriates go and live in other countries (e.g. Australia, Spain or France) they still support the English cricket and football teams, and people like Tebbit do not see this as a problem, and furthermore if Aussies and Kiwis settle in England it is not considered a problem for them to support Australia or New Zealand – which shows the inherent subtle racism in all of this, whereby it is desirable for non-white immigrants to be subordinated, but at the same time unnecessary to see white people subordinated in this way.

With the recent terrorist attacks in London, and the ongoing debate over immigration and asylum, Tebbit has once again re-affirmed his views and has claimed that if his comments in 1990 had been acted upon then the terrorist attacks in July may have been prevented. The question that we must consider is what relevance or reality do Lord Tebbit’s comments have? Is Tebbit right in claiming that if his views were taken more seriously it may have prevented the 7/7 terrorist attacks?

Tebbit’s views may seem to hold some logic at first, but with a little reflection it can be easily seen that using the “Cricket Team Test” as an indication of whether a community will integrate is a poor idea. His comment that “had his message been heeded it might have stopped the London bombings” is almost laughable. Such ideas serve as red-herrings that prevent our society from genuinely being able to understand the causes of terrorism and how to prevent it. Tebbit also attacked multiculturalism, blaming it for “undermining British society”. In his interview he said: “If you have two cultures in one society then you have two societies. If you have two societies in the same place then you are going to have problems, like the kind we saw on July 7, sooner or later.”

The Hindu community of Britain provides an example that makes a mockery of Tebbit’s views. Most Hindus in the UK (though not all) are ethnic Indians, and come cricket time most of us do a good show of support for the country of our forefathers. Most of us do have a culture that is different in many ways compared with that of mainstream British society. But at the same time, we haven’t had major issues of integration with British society. When the bombs went off on 7/7 most of us felt just as outraged as anybody else.

What people like Tebbit fail to understand is that in the modern age people should have the outlook of being global citizens, and have an affinity for humanity at large compared with an overbearing allegiance to any country. People who think and act as global citizens may have certain loyalties and fondness for their country, or country of origin, or some other grouping of people such as those who share the same mother-tongue. But on the whole, their concern is for a wider sense of justice and for the well being of all. If people have this outlook, it doesn’t matter what cricket team they support, they are inevitably going to be good citizens of any democratic and open society. They will easily be able to live in harmony with other communities that live alongside them, and problems of integration would not arise even while having different cultures. People who think as global citizens will be an asset to whatever country they live in, regardless of what cricket team they support. By contrast a hooligan who is a staunch supporter of the English football team, but manifests this “love of the country” by rioting and who has been on the dole all his life is not an asset but a liability.

cricketA person may have several dimensions to their identity. To us Hindus in Britain there is our religion, our country of origin, the language we speak, the country in which we live. Any one person may attach a greater or lesser importance to each of these. But to most Hindus these do not clash or create conflict, provided that in the forefront of our consciousness there is the universal outlook that our Sages taught us (Vasudaiva kutumbha – the entire world is one family).

Simplifying problems of integration and terrorism to something superficial a like the Cricket Team Test or blaming multiculturalism totally fails to explain why some communities have had problems getting along with British society while others haven’t. It obscures the underlying issue. The reason why many Muslims have had problems with integration is not because they have a different culture, but largely because of an outlook that makes them identify very strongly with other Muslims as a world-wide family, but at the same time see non-Muslims with distrust. It is the widespread perception of an eternal frontier between believers and non-believers, which feeds a persecution complex in impressionable youth. It is rooting out of this kind of attitude from young minds that would go a long way towards solving the problems of terrorism and inter-community relations, and indeed most conflicts that exist today in the world.

(This article was written in 2005)


  1. This article is flawed with regards to accuracy.I don’t think it is reasonable to expect someone who moved to a country in late childhood or adulthood to suddenly support their adopted country over their mother country. However, something is a bit odd if someone is choosing to support a country of the origin of their grandparents that they themselves have often never visited over the country that they and in many cases now their parents were born in.

    You are of course correct that this test should be applied to British origin people living abroad but I think you are inaccurate in your reporting here too. Most Australian born children of British parents do support Australia NOT Britain.

    Racism exists but don’t skew facts and mix stories to try to prove it as it is in effect ‘an own goal’.

    • Hi Katie,

      You say that most Australian born children of British parents support Australian teams over British. From my limited experience that is not the case and it may be handy if you furnish some proof in support of this statement. At any rate, it is seen as quite harmless by Australians and vice versa for Australian immigrants.

      If some immigrant communities cling to supporting teams for a generation longer than it would be considered normal for you in relation to white expats, it may be because of personal memories of small but overt racial abuse and hostility that prolongs a separate identity or affinity. E.g. I was born in England in 1980, and can certainly remember a fair bit of racial abuse growing up, in particular being told I’m not British. Anyway, I don’t really have a grudge, and in many respects I appreciate this country (Britain) and feel I’m lucky to live and work here.

      What I’m trying to say is that cricket teams are a bit of a red herring to more important issues affecting society and national security like what certain people are taught in their private Saturday religious classes.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Trouble is, an Aussie or Kiwi wouldn’t strap a load of explosives to themselves and act upon an urge outside of the theatre of war. What views an honest person who is providing to the community has will only draw banter, whereas someone who holds an opinion who doesn’t support society or the community, will be ridiculed. That’s just the mentality that has evolved through living on an island in the North Sea. Although I’m saying this and know that there are English people that have let the world and us English down. Tony Blair as an example. I think the whole problem lies in perception. If you are perceived to be a terrorist through some dodgy action of your own doing, then you will be treated like one. Here’s an example; If someone turned up to your house stinking of booze, fags, high as a kite in dishevelled clothes, you may think he’s a hobo, you don’t know his story. His kid could have died or something and he’s trying to deal with the loss – what you’ve done is you have been perceptive, this isn’t wrong, it’show a mammal interacts with an environment, you’ve weighed the facts and come up with an explanation, and ultimately it’s wrong in this example – just an example, I hope no ones child has died – I’m also a parent myself, apologies for the extremism. Likewise on the other side of the coin, if you’re perceived to be someone who doesn’t give a jot for the area they live in, has ties to somewhere else, then the perception is going to be you are an outsider and you will meet with distrust and I’m sorry to say, but treated with disdain too. This is just human nature I’m afraid. The only way to resolve this and I agree with you 100% here, is to have one set of global rules. Everyone, no matter who you are or how big or small, colour, creed etc. All get a bit annoyed when someone else can do something and you can’t. Lastly, on the global set of rules, none of them can have roots in Religion – as we all know Religion has killed more people than anything else since the asteroid that wiped the Dinos out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: