Community leaders became gatekeepers and 'askaris'

How to lead by default

East African Asian communities often chose their leaders by using highly original selection criteria. Any person had a good potential for becoming an Asian leader as long as :

• They had visible wealth to sustain their power base. It did not matter if the money came from their businesses- for no one ever looked into company accounts to see if they were in debt to the hilt. The Asian was a good leadership prospect as long as they drove the latest model of a gleaming black Mercedes Benz, even if they did not own it and even if it could be claimed by bailiffs at any time.
• They had the historical links with the caste of the majority community. This was paramount as the caste system was imported from India to help maintain inherited power and status. Power was not acquired on merit.
• They had the ability to speak reasonably good English. Their command of the English language put them in the front of the race as long as they were successful in nurturing the British. The Asian old guard was largely loyal to the colonial masters and were hungry for recognition by them.
• They were married to a rich man's daughter. Financial status was an automatic prequalification for leadership even if the money belonged to the wife's father. You had to be seen in 'posh' circles of society.
• They were doctors or dentists. No one had any time for a veterinary surgeon, entomologist or weather forecaster. These professions reflected low esteem and were a waste of time. Doctors had power for obvious reasons; they kept you fit and well.
• They were office bearers of service clubs such as the Rotary and Lions. This type of affiliation confirmed their popularity and ability to lead.
• They could speak on a public platform reasonably well. " It gives me great pleasures, to welcomes yous to our celebrations" said one leader in a welcome speech to a dignitary. His sense was that the multiple and overwhelming pleasure of welcoming the visitor had to be communicated very openly. Respect for the visitor had to be evident. The use of the word 'you' was harsh and disrespectful. 'Yous' had a connotation of 'thou' or 'more than one'. I learnt many years later that some Indian maharajahs liked to be counted not as one for each maharajah, but as 1.25 or 'sawai' which made one larger than life of the ordinary mortals they were supposed to lead. I am sure someone else will have a better explanation or can help express this with more contextual authority.

The outcome of such leadership selection criteria was that they did not understand community priorities; did not take risks to speak on behalf of the community they led, did not show enterprise and innovation and denied that there were any problems in their communities. One of the key strategies was denial.

They maintained that the social ills that occured in other societies did not 'happen' in the Asian communities. There was no domestic violence, wife beating, child abuse, abuse of servants, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness and even high blood pressure. These were the conditions and diseases of the highly irresponsible and decadent people in other communities. They were a reflection of social decay which had never taken root in Asian communities. After all, the Asian family was well known for its sound value systems, they took care of their elderly parents and never mistreated the 'servants'.

Such was the unshakeable belief in the Asian community that younger Asians who acquired university education in East Africa and who challenged the old guard were automatically sidelined. Question: Did these leaders migrate to the west, expecting to continue to be the leaders of the Asian communities in the new lands?