An act of discrimination perpetrated in concealed and subtle method is often referred to as "racism", while the same act performed openly using the euphemism of being "more selective" is called "immigration system". While there isn't even a remotely substantiated theory to justify that Indians may pose risk to the UK if they travelled to what they would want to perhaps call a "white" country, there is nothing that stops Brits from believing that it is a just measure.
Let us get the gist of this newly instituted rule that smugly screams a discriminatory act of arbitrary nature. Come November 2013, people wanting to visit the UK from India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Ghana will have to pay the sum of £3,000 (₹2.7 lakh) in what has been called a "cash bond" which will be forfeited if they overstay there - a measure aimed at being "more selective" while welcoming people who pose "the most significant risk of abuse".
The perceived "risk of abuse" from a country like India comes a little over 60 years after Britain left the nation having exploited the country every way possible, and there seems to be a growing concern that a vengeance of sorts is perhaps on its way from India. Why would Britain be afraid of "risk of abuse" from Indians whom they subjected to colonial rule for centuries? Or it is only wise to say that this is politics and that it justifies discrimination?
Why would the rule, most importantly, be targeted to non-white commonwealth countries as part of the Tory-led government to cut down on immigration levels? Who would recommend the British government to try and implement the same rule to Canada and Australia too? But the glitch is that they are white countries unlike India and the rest aforementioned. But as Thomas Jefferson has aptly put it: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
It is no secret to anyone that what reads between the lines of British Home Secretary Teresa May's statement is an abject reference to discriminatory immigration rule: "This is the next step in making sure our immigration system is more selective, bringing down net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands while still welcoming the brightest and the best to Britain ... In the long run, we are interested in a system of bonds that deters overstaying and recovers costs if a foreign national has used our public services." And it is interesting to see how this doesn't seem to hold true to immigrants from Eastern Europe who flock to the country in thousands on a near-daily basis.
Reading the controversial news on the Press TV website, a commentator pertinently puts it: "No problem, as long as long as the Brits visiting pay £6,000 to enter any Asian and/or African country. As for new Brits asking for residency, which is to plunder your countries, one way or another, give them Hell!!!"
"What is Great Britain doing to Africans and Indians? Through them, Britain earned her greatness, and the eastern Europeans who contributed nothing to Britain can come in millions without restrictions. What racism and double standard. Who isn't an immigrant anyway? Starting with the Queen who has a German root, William with an Indian DNA, Boris Johnson with a Turkish ancestry....we are all Immigrants someway somehow" another angry reader, Raymond wrote.
What the British government seems to be oblivious about is that there was a time when none of the so called "white" countries had any European dwellers and countries like America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so forth were primarily discovered and usurped by Europeans. The aborigines were ambushed and killed, while Africans were taken for labour in order to build wealth and feed open their greed. Centuries later, while the world has geared itself to be increasingly globalized in what could actually be seen as an unconscious growing desire for solidarity, the British government doesn't want to share.
