Why it’s time for Indian New Zealanders to Be Prepared

Monday, 19 January 2026

Indian culture has become a familiar feature of New Zealand life, but the community’s visibility - and the political climate - make it an easy target for a return to discrimination, writes K Gurunathan.

K (Guru) Gurunathan is a former Mayor of Kāpiti. He is a regular opinion contributor.

OPINION: As the countdown to the 2026 elections begins, I want to warn the 293,000 Indians resident in Aotearoa New Zealand to “Be Prepared”.

This motto coined by Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the Scout movement at the height of British imperial power in 1907, urges physical, mental and moral preparedness. Qualities that the country’s third-largest ethnic community will need to cope with what is heading their way.

A clear shot in that direction was fired recently by New Zealand First leader and veteran strategist of the art of coalition-party politics, Winston Peters. He has publicly opposed the India-New Zealand free trade agreement.

Touching on its failure to secure full access for NZ’s dairy products, he particularly singled out the creation of a new employment visa for Indian citizens and expanded work rights for Indian students, warning that this willl generate greater Indian migration especially when NZ’s labour market is already tight.

Christopher Luxon and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi embrace during Luxon’s visit to India last year as part of his campaign to secure a free-trade agreement.

The trade agreement, described as a genuine economic game changer for New Zealand, is also a significant victory for the personal leadership of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. Despite this, coalition partner NZ First will trigger the agree-to-disagree clause in its coalition arrangement.

Peters has explicitly framed a major international trading agreement in terms of its immigration consequences— a part of his larger populist strategy to appeal to voters who feel economic insecurity from competition for jobs, fears of cultural change caused by rapid demographic shifts, and appeals to national sovereignty.

Because NZ First’s objection to this particular trade agreement mentions India, Indian workers and Indian students, it provides a tangible campaign “hook”. This political framing inherently connects Indians with perceived threats to New Zealand jobs and its national cultural identity.

While it is important to distinguish between the legitimate policy-focused opposition to specific immigration provisions and explicitly racist campaigning, we also know politicians can be masters of the art of dog whistling. Immigration policy does not need to name race in order to produce racially targeted outcomes. When particular countries, visa classes, or labour streams are singled out — especially those dominated by one ethnic group — political meaning is generated around that group. That meaning easily forms and deepens if there is already an historical prejudice.

New Zealand has been here before. Historians and sociologists have documented how Asians in general, and Indians in particular, have long been racialised in immigration debates.

Jacqueline Leckie’s 2021 book Invisible: New Zealand’s History of Excluding Kiwi-Indians shows that Indian migrants, despite being British subjects, were treated as permanently foreign – tolerated when economically useful, scapegoats when politically convenient.

Air New Zealand chief executive Nikhil Ravishanka attracted online hostility when his appointment as head of the airline was announced, centred on his ethnicity.

Indians in the public eye become easy targets. As a two-term mayor I have seen this first hand. The 2010 controversy surrounding broadcaster Paul Henry’s remarks about Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand was instructive. Satyanand was born in Auckland, educated in New Zealand, and had served at the highest levels of public life. Yet it was publicly questioned as to whether he was “really” a New Zealander. For some his Indianess sat uneasily alongside national identity.

More recently, the racist online reaction to the appointment of Air New Zealand’s new chief executive, Nikhil Ravishankar, a Kiwi citizen, followed the same pattern. Media outlets were forced to disable comment sections as abuse focused not on competence but ethnicity and “Kiwi–ness”. Again formal citizenship proved insufficient to settle the question of belonging.

These incidents show how easily political and social discourse can slide from policy critique into identity suspicion, especially if there is an historically embedded prejudice.

While one can accept that NZ First and Winston Peters will formally argue their immigration policy using policy-type language, the same cannot be said for Shane Jones, known as a political street brawler.

There have been times when his “muscular” style has agitated leaders in the Indian community. His get-out-of-jail card has always been to identify himself as a politician and, therefore, he argues, plain-spoken and robust language comes with the job.

There is nothing inevitable about this style. It’s a choice and it is chosen because it works electorally. He plays a specific role as the party’s “kuri whakaeke”, its attack dog. He is a specialist in getting media attention, community reaction and pushing the party message.

So in coming back to that common colonial heritage India and New Zealand shares through Baden-Powell, we celebrate the very active boy scout and girl guides movements in both Commonwealth countries. And recognise the clarion call to “Be Prepared”. Physically, mentally and morally.