[MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION]
I don't know why the previous posts got deleted, but that was an insightful account of the reasons behind the lack of integration of British Pakistanis compared to their American counterparts.
As a British Pakistani, you are more knowledge on this issue than I am, which is why I said based on my 'limited knowledge' in my original post, but I do feel that you have taken an extreme view on this subject, especially from the perspective of the present and the future. Simply put, I found the historical aspect of your post a lot more convincing than the reasons why they have failed to integrate today or will not be able to integrate in the future.
Other British Pakistanis like the OP tends to be in disagreement with you, so where do you think the discrepancy lies and what can be done in the future to ensure that British Pakistanis are better integrated? In other words, how do you see the future generations integrating? Let me apologize in advance because these are a lot of questions, but it is an intriguing topic and I want to educate myself.
OK, let me see if I can give my personal opinions as to what can or cannot be done and to what extent.
(It might be helpful to also look at post #178 to see where I'm coming from.
Just one thing further to add before I proceed. Whilst I too grew up in a Northern industrial town, I was fortunate in that my parents managed to break out into the half-decent suburbs with decent schools, which gave myself and my siblings to the opportunities to obtain good grades and all of us attend various different Russell Group universities.
However, I have not lived in the typical 'Pakistani Community' areas for many years now, so it's fair to say I may be slightly out of touch in that regards. Conversely however, I have lived and worked in the Middle East, in various European countries, in the USA as well as various parts of the UK, both in London and the prosperous South East as well as the North. So you could say I'm well travelled (not as a tourist, but as having actually worked and lived for significant periods in the various places mentioned).
So come back to the points you mentioned, in my opinion there are numerous different factors which sets the British Community apart from most of the others communities, whether that be Pakistanis in the USA or Hindus/Sikhs in the UK.
I've previously detailed the differences vis-a-vis the history of the social and economic backgrounds between the Pakistanis in the UK and those in the USA. But then the question arises, "But the Indians in the UK have similar histories to those of the Pakistanis in the UK, so why still the differences in levels of education, prosperity etc.?"
The factors are threefold.
1. The vast majority of Indians settled in an around London, and those towns and cities which were not dependant to the same extent upon industries, such as the cotton and woollen mills, which went into massive decline, and effectively ceased to exist in the UK. Meaning, by luck or design, by and large they ended up in regions of the country which didn't suffer the industrial decline to the same extent, and recovered and prospered far quicker. You can see this even today between the prosperous and non-prosperous regions of the UK, and how Indians are concentrated in the prosperous parts of the country relative to the British Pakistanis who are concentrated in the economically less performing parts of the country.
For example, Sikhs are concentrated around Heathrow and West London, one of the most prosperous parts of the UK.
2. Other than the Sikhs (who benefited from 1. above), unlike the Pakistanis, the majority of Indians were not uneducated/poorly educated from the rural villages, but tended to come from the towns and cities. Whereas in the late 50's and 60's Pakistanis were recruited to work as labourers, many Indians were recruited to work in the newly formed National Health Service - meaning they were educated.
3. Religion. The mere fact that Muslims are far stricter in their eating & drinking habits (from a religious point of view), especially when it comes to alcohol, and the fact that in yesteryear British social life revolved around pub culture, the fact that having a drink when socialising is very much ingrained into British society, all meant that Muslims found it difficult to integrate and much easier to keep themselves to themselves. Indians (especially Hindus) did not have such constraints.
The fact that Muslim women, especially from conservative rural backgrounds, were not able to (allowed by their husbands to) mix socially where men were present added to the inability to integrate. This can be seen even in the far lower numbers of British Pakistani women who work versus those of Indian descent.
And that's why it was easier for them to integrate.
As far as the future is concerned, yes, bit by bit, British Pakistanis are starting to perform better, integrate more. But they are currently trying to do so from way back down the line versus those from the Indian communities.
One last thing to add, which I feel is significant.
Whilst British Indians are proud of their heritage and are fiercely loyal to India,
the vast majority are not Indian citizens because India does not allow dual Nationality. Being a PIO (A Person of Indian Origin) is not Indian nationality - it simply means someone having Indian origins or ancestry but who is not a citizen of India and is the citizen of another country.
In contrast, the vast majority of British Pakistanis have dual nationality, both Pakistani and British.
Whether anyone agrees or not, in my opinion this does make a difference both in terms of Pakistanis not regarding themselves as being 'British', and Britain being their 'home', as well as (some) employers (sensitive defence industries for example) not regarding British Pakistanis with dual nationality as being fully fledged British citizens.
