Segregated Britain. Farhaan Wali

because their engagement shaped the future patterns of social development in the area.

      Early Narratives of Muslim Experiences in the East End of London

      According to Melanie Philips (2006), the evolution of the East End Muslim enclave has been a growing problem, as she asserts it continues to alter the social and physical landscape. Yet, she seemingly ignores that this so-called problem cannot be easily divorced from experiences of early Bangladeshi immigrants. Historically, government policy has viewed so-called enclaves as an ‘inner-city’ problem, and consequently, social clustering is a natural by-product of segregation and the economic condition (Husband et al., 2016). This approach frames the formation of enclaves within the restrictive scope of urban housing. Early immigrants in the East End were denied access to public housing, forcing them to look within the private sector. However, the formation of the East End Muslim community did not exclusively occur due to its inner-city proximity. Early studies conducted in the East End of London during the late 1970s, for example, concluded that ethnic clustering had rapidly increased during the decade (Scanlon et al., 2014). The spike in immigration to the area explained this increase, but this clustering of different ethnic groups is not straightforward. For instance, demographic studies could not explain why some ethnic groups were drawn to enclaves while others were not (Pattillo, 2013). This chapter, which documents the narratives of early Bangladeshi immigrants, identifies three historical causes for the formation of a Muslim enclave in the East End of London. Firstly, ethnic familiarity pulled newer immigrants together, as they wanted to live near people similar to themselves. This desire gave rise to the creation of an ethnic immigrant enclave in the East End. However, ethnic ties began to erode when the early immigrants were joined by their wives and children, triggering a shift towards national-religious familiarity. Secondly, ←38 | 39→the experience of racial discrimination by early immigrants pushed them away from British society, reinforcing the need for a separate ethno-religious space. Thirdly, as the community grew, economic exploitation by established immigrants created a power imbalance, forcing newer immigrants to become socially and economically reliant on the enclave. In theory, this process helped consolidate their segregation, as it deepened dependency on the social networks located in the East End enclave.

      Before I try to delve into these three specific concerns, I want to explore some background issues that help understand the social world from which the early Bangladeshi immigrants emerged. The vast majority of first-generation immigrants I spoke to in the East End came from rural Sylhet in Bangladesh. When they first arrived, they collectively struggled to adjust to the new urban environment. According to Hoque (2015), this is a natural by-product of the migration process. Early Bangladeshi immigrants grew up and lived in small rural villages. In this respect, even if the men had migrated to a major city in Bangladesh, they would have struggled to adapt to urban life. Migration to the East End of London only exacerbated the sense of dislocation and upheaval the early immigrants experienced. As Bodrul, who migrated in 1972 from Bangladesh, narrated, ‘life in my village was very simple, we worked in field, my wife also worked … there was no electricity, no gas, no water, no car or machines. We’d just work with our hands. My village was like my family, it was one family’ (translated from Bengali). The rural village described by Bodrul is a small inter-connected social system, combining kin and neighbours. This interconnectedness forms the local village; it is custom and family ties that bind the people together. In this regard, the social interactions between individual family units create an extended communal village. Trying to understand the context of village life in rural Bangladesh is very important, as it will reveal insight into the ideals and customs imported by the early Bangladeshi immigrants. As Bodrul mentioned, farming and social life was not dependent on technology; instead, it was exclusively reliant on human labour. In essence, the male members of the village were expected to work the fields in order to provide for their family.

      From the narratives I collected several early immigrants provided insight into the social life of the village, making it possible to identify various ←39 | 40→common characteristics. Firstly, the vast majority of villages were essentially peasant farming communities. The Bangladeshi men emerged from pre-modern agricultural farms that were feudalistic, and thus the farmers had to pay tax, as free tenants, to a landlord. As Ashraf explained, ‘it was difficult, we owned nothing; while, the landowner took everything’. The Bangladeshi landscape was dominated by impoverished farmers struggling to provide for their families, due to natural disasters, drought and increasing land taxation (Sen, 1983). Secondly, there were limited links beyond the local villages and extended community, which restricted the knowledge base of the village. According to Ashraf, who migrated in 1971, ‘we never went outside our village, to come here [UK]; I went to the big city for the first time in Bangladesh’ (translated from Bengali). Thirdly, due to limited access to the outside world, religious and cultural traditionalism were embedded within the social structure of the village. As Bodrul explained, ‘in our village, we had izzat [honour] and we had good values’ (translated from Bengali). In essence, the village preserved primordial wisdom, which was a combination of religious and cultural ideals that were constructed around the unique reality of the distinct village. These preserved ideals became the source of religious and social life. As a result, the village gave more significant emphasis on ritual, mysticism, and superstition. These ideals served as the basis of social practice within the village, uniting individual villager by providing them with a coherent worldview. This worldview provided continuity between the local and the historical context; yet, beyond the village, these localised traditions may not make sense to people living outside the context in which they were formed. This makes the process of incorporating these localised village ideals highly problematic in the new setting.

      The traditional ideals used to bind the local village were imported as a means to organise social life in the UK and unite the dispersed Bangladeshi rural worker while outside his country of origin. Despite the localism of tradition, it was felt broader religious and cultural traditions could provide continuity to immigrants during the labour migration to the East End, which was initially seen as a temporary endeavour. Religious-traditionalism provided those in the UK with a set of ideals that could repeal the contradictions of the host culture. As a result, the early immigrants were quick to establish communal spaces to perform rituals, as these would reinforce the ←40 | 41→ethno-religious identity of the immigrant while living away from home. These ideals and practices provided a focus to daily activity, providing workers with a common bond, helping them to settle in a foreign environment without their family. The early immigrants encountered a new social reality, exposing them to the host culture, which geographically left them physically and emotionally displaced from their country of origin. As Iqbal explained, ‘I came from my village to London. All I saw was white faces; everything here was different from Bangladesh. I do not think we [immigrants] were ever welcomed, but we did the jobs they did not want to do … living with them [native population] never was an option we wanted to protect our culture, our religion, and our children’ (translated from Bangladeshi). It seems apparent this realisation forged the foundation for new ethnic enclaves in the UK. By opting to form a distinct ethnic community in the East End of London, the early Bangladeshi immigrants sought to establish an ethno-religious base that could allow them to preserve their identity. Added to this, as Geaves (1996, p. 43) notes, immigrant communities often form as ‘close-knit inner city’ dwellings designed to shield the immigrant population from the hostility of the white English majority.

      The Enclave: Ethnic Familiarity

      The high demand for a cheap workforce created by the post-war shortage of labour facilitated the mass immigration of unskilled workers from the ex-colonies. According to Hiro (1991, p. 261), ‘there were more unfilled vacancies than unemployed workers, the excess being 174,000 in June 1956’. Despite the economic need for supplementing the employment shortfall, most newly arriving economic immigrants were immediately confronted with extreme prejudice and hostility from the white English population (Hiro, 1991). This hostile reaction triggered the early tendencies towards forming separate communities.

      This somewhat evasive resistance to integration can be understood by exploring the early narratives of Muslim settlers. When, in 1971, Mr Miah ←41 | 42→arrived in the East End of London from Bangladesh he tried to get a job and secure a place to live. Nevertheless, as he quickly discovered the reality of life in the East End was far removed from his initial expectations.