Government and multiculturalism
There are many definitions of "multiculturalism", that include a population with different cultural
traditions. As government policy for people in Australia, that means equity regardless of ethnic
backgrounds, gender or religion (Castles, 1990).
The concept of `multiculturalism' in Australia seems to have changed over time. The principles of
multiculturalism drawn up in 1977 by the Australian Ethnic Affairs Council and the Australian
Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs refer to social cohesion, cultural identity, equality of
opportunity and access; and equal responsibility for, commitment to, and participation in society
(Castles, 1990). A later version of multiculturalism by the Australian Government Office of
Multicultural Affairs in 1989 defines it with new elements such as encouraging the maintenance of
cultural identity, the achievement of social justice for all residents, and economic efficiency for the
nation ( ,2002). It is important to
note that Australia has adopted different social policies throughout its immigration history, moving
from the policy of assimilation after the Second World War to integration in the 1960's, and now to
multiculturalism. The Commonwealth Government’s Access and Equity (A&E) Program provided
services appropriate to the needs of people of non-English speaking background (NESB) in 1985.
In 1989 this was extended to include all groups who may face barriers in accessing services
arising from race, religion, language or culture, including Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders
(, 2002). This emphasis on
helping people from ethnic communities to maintain their cultural practices aims to encourage
Australians to understand each other better and to share the diverse heritage. All state and
territory governments have adopted multicultural policies which promote an understanding of and
respect for cultural heritage and the need to communicate across cultural lines
( ,1999).
Issues in multiculturalism
The policy of multiculturalism is itself a key element in community relations ( Castles, 1990). In
the last twenty years Federal, State and local governments have developed programs to foster
community relations. Recently where adverse situations have developed involving particular
ethnic groups, it is clearly appropriate for government to develop initiatives to avoid the
stigmatizing of certain ethnic populated areas as problem neighborhoods. For example
‘Chinatown’ has been known for gang conflict in relation to particular ethnic groups. Strategies
need to be targeted at certain groups with special needs, such as those who suffer more
discrimination and problems of unemployment or social isolation, for example, ‘Asians’ (Castles,
1990).
The areas where social justice is applied are contentious because of the assumption that social
cohesion requires uniformity or conformity (Cox, 1991). Therefore, in areas where
multiculturalism policy is applied, it tends to limit ethnic groups, such as in family relationships.
Equality is available at some levels of power or in some geographical areas, or in some areas of
life. In this way the affected minorities or powerless people are under pressure to conform and
adopt local norms (Cox, 1991).
Access is also another issue for a culturally diversified society (Cox, 1991). There are many
barriers such as cultural, financial, geographical, language or psychological to access. The
implementation of programs is also threatened by under utilization of services by a minority group
(Cox, 1991).
Equity is linked with the problem of access (Cox, 1991). Delivery of programs and equity services
requires non-discriminatory attitudes from workers. To maintain quality of service in across
cultural situation requires commitment of staff to accommodate cultural awareness and apply
professional expertise.
The variations in the migration experience itself affects the value directly and indirectly of the
assimilation process ( Hartley, 1995) The varying size of the migrant population, the motivation
for settling in Australia, and the demographic profiles are the influencing factors in deciding on
strategies to resolve issues in multicultural society (Hartley, 1995).
Chettiar community
The ‘Chettiars’ are known as ‘Nattukottai’ or ‘Nagarathar’. Nattukottai Chettiar refers to the
community’s affluence from the beginning of the 20th century when in India their overseas
financial operations proved a great success (Alagappan, P, (year unknown)).Those Chettiars who
accumulated huge fortunes as a result of their business enterprise in Burma, built huge homes in
their ancestral village homes in India. Hence, ‘Nattukottai’ means mansions , which literally
means ‘country forts’. The other name Nagarathar means those who belong to a trading
community.The image of the ‘Chettiars’ as a community of religious, honest and frugal people
also derives from their close association with the temples. The rules governing the ‘Chettiar’
community of economic interest, language, worship, caste association and descent, have divided
them from others ( Narayanaswamy, (year unknown)).
The Chettiar community forms a small part of the Australian population are first wave immigrants
(Response from interview- RFI). This community is an influential, wealthy Indian community from
India. Their cultural and traditional values, expectations, social norms and family structure have
preserved the community as whole. Mostly migrants in Australia from the ‘Chettiar’ community
are skilled professionals and students. A Majority of Australian residents of Indian background are
from Sri Lanka and Fiji and more likely ‘refugee’ rather than skilled professionals or students.
Therefore issues concerning the major groups are identified by the government and welfare
authorities.
The first wave of the Chettiar community immigrants has maintained their traditions strongly for
variety of reasons such as their relatively short time in Australia, return visits to India, and their
expected roles linked the caste. I always felt that they are ‘prisoners of their role’ and this would
be a problem for them in trying to fit into the society as a whole. This would also isolate them in
socializing with other groups. I began analyzing my case study with the two assumptions.
Successful settlement requires a person to fit into the ‘normal’ Australian way of life(Wooden,
Holton, Hugo & Sloan, 1994).This process is called ‘assimilation ‘ which is learning to belong to
the host society. There are various factors affecting the person’s assimilation such as culture,
religion, social class, cultural values, ethnicity, limitation through roles, limitation through being
normal & limitations through biology (Sergent, 1994).
To facilitate the focus of this paper, it attempts to explore the traditional living arrangements, the
traditional gender roles and traditional relationships between adolescents and parents, which
impact on the assimilation process of the Chettiar community.
Traditional living arrangements
The distinct feature of the Chettiar community is extended family. An extended family consists of
parents, children, grandparents possibly one more unmarried uncles or aunts ( Narayanaswamy,
(year unknown)).This type of family structure provides mutual assistance, support and
conviviality. There are also some Chettiar families in Australia that could be typically described as
nuclear family. In such a case they make frequent return visits to India to strengthen ties and to
retain their traditional values. However the retention of traditional values is a subjective matter
and challenged in Australia and India by the influence of western popular culture (RFI). A growing
‘individualism’ previously constrained by the expectations and traditions of the family and
community, is the most challenging issue for Chettiar families, particularly among the second
generation in Australia (RFI).
Traditional gender roles
Traditional Chettiar families are patriarchal, where men hold traditional entrenched positions of
authority (Narayanaswamy, (year unknown)).But the migrant Chettiar group in Australia is
changing to the Australian norm of egalitarianism (RFI). This particular concept was a challenge
to my belief. I come from a multicultural diversified society, but a Chettiar community of three to
four generations in Singapore strictly preserves the patriarchal values. However, this egalitarian
transition marks a high level of power sharing between husband and wife. This expresses and
determines the family values.
In all families women play a key role, as a mother, grandmother, daughter-in-law and wife. They
help to maintain unity, care for the children, the sick and elderly and carry out the domestic cores
(RFI). At the same time Chettiar women who have migrated have excelled in fields of computers,
engineering and medical (RFI). Therefore, the role of working Chettiar women in Australia has
impact the patriarchal values (RFI). Whereas, in Singapore the first generation women was left
behind in India to assume their traditional stereotype activities. The second generation who
accompanied the males had a low level of education which was more important for males than
females. Subsequently they had less work opportunities in the society. I belong to the third
generation who benefited from the Singapore government emphasis on education for both sexes
which has influenced our female status in the workforce.
The prevailing ‘dowry’ practice for the groom is the norm of the community (Narayanswamy, (year
unkwnon)). ‘Dowry’ is given in the form of cash, property, cattle, and other kind to a girl by her
father during marriage. ‘Bride sale’ in the matrimonial market through the dowry system appears
to be one of the reasons for preference for boys in the Chettiar community(RFI) The traditional
preference for boys continues in a more muted and ambivalent form in Australia (RFI).
Traditional relationships between adolescents and parents
A host of traditional values underpin the upbringing of children in Chettiar families. In the
patriarchal tradition, the males are not expected to help in the house but there is great pressure
on females to help out with household duties and care for their young siblings (RFI).They are
more strictly supervised than boys and are expected to be virgins when they marry and are not
permitted to show their bodies (RFI). The fears that underline these traditional values are loss of
virginity, shame to the family and reducing prospects of marriage (RFI). In the case of Chettiar
males in Australia, fears are being expressed that sons would get involved with Australian girls or
involved in drug use (RFI).This suggests that there is inequality of freedom for young females
compared to males in the Chettiar community in Australia. It reveals that some Chettiar
adolescent have conflicts between traditional family values and peer pressure (RFI). The
common parental solution particularly in a female’s case is sending her to India and getting her
married to preserve traditions. In a male’s case by sending him to a hostel in India or placing him
under the care of relatives in India to reinforce the traditional Chettiar values (RFI).
The common parental injunction to children is obedience to elders at all stages of life, remaining
close to families, upholding the traditions, performing religious and cast related social duties,
marrying within the caste keep to keep the family in good standing (RFI).This represents the
ideal traditional Chettiar values. In Australia the impact of modernization and western culture are
eroding such values. Therefore, many parents are making an effort to forge compromises
between their values and the prevailing Australian mores.
In conclusion, Chettiar families in Australia vary in terms of the length of time they have to live in
Australia. The Chettiar family in second generation is becoming Chettiar and Australian, blending
into a new image related to youth culture and roles in the family and community. It is through the
family that culture and practices are evolving with a new meaning for Chettiar Australians.
Research is greatly needed to identify the issues and concerns of the emerging skilled
population;and for young people in families who migrate and who face conflicts about specific
cultural beliefs.
2017 words
Bibliography
Alagappan, P. (year unknown). Why are we known as Nattukottai Chettiars and Nagarathars?[Available] [Accessed on 24 May 2003].
Castles, S. (1990).– Issues for a community relations strategy. Wollongong : Office of Multicultural affairs.
Cox, D. (1991) Social justice and service delivery. In D. Goodman, D.J.O’Hearn, & C.Wallace-Crabbe (Eds.), Multicultural Australia: The challenges of change (pp.192-222) Newham, Vic.:Scribe.
Hartley, R. (1995). Families and cultural diversity in Australia. Crows Nest : Allen & Unwin
Narayanaswamy, I (year unknown). The Temples and the Social Organizations of the Chettiars (Part 2). Available : [Accessed on 24 May 2003].
National Multicultural Advisory Council – May 1999 report – Australian Multiculturalism for a new century: Towards Inclusiveness : 1 Evolution of multicultural policy. Available: [Accessed on 24 May 2003].
Personal Interview with Mr and Mrs XYZ of Chettiar community (Response from Interview – RFI)
Sargent, M. (1994). Learning to belong: freed and fettered. In The new sociology for Australians (3rd.ed.,pp.74 – 103). Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Wooden, M., Holton, R.,Hugo, G., & Sloan, J. (1994). Australian immigration: A survey of the issues (pp. 312 – 333). Canberra :AGPS.
Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous affairs - Australian Multiculturalism:The evolution of multicultural policy: key official policy reports – summaries, 2002. Available: ( [Accessed on 24 May 2003].
