It’s not the Sepia Mutiny model to just post news items without comment, but sometimes the material doesn’t leave us with much to add. With that said, here are the latest developments in Bombay dining:
NAVI MUMBAI: A new restaurant at Kharghar has actually been named as Hitler’s Cross and it was inaugurated by the who’s who of Navi Mumbai on Friday evening.
A huge poster of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler was put at the inauguration function of the restaurant in sector 4 of Kharghar, much to the surprise of the invitees.
Actor Murli Sharma, who has featured in films like Apharan and Teesri Ankh, was one of the guests present at the inauguration. “I found the huge posters of Hitler at the restaurant amusing. That’s all I can say,” he told TOI over phone.
When asked if he felt disturbed by the name of the restaurant, Sharma said: “I am not really agitated as I have not read much about the man (Hitler). However, from what I know about Hitler, I find this name rather amusing.”
Important dignitaries such as Navi Mumbai mayor Manisha Bhoir and former mayor Sanjeev Naik were also invited as chief guests to the restaurant by one Sablok Builders group, who are reportedly behind the management of Hitlers Cross.
A Reuters report picked up by DNA has more:
“We wanted to be different. This is one name that will stay in people’s minds,” owner Punit Shablok said.
“We are not promoting Hitler. But we want to tell people we are different in the way he was different.“…
“This place is not about wars or crimes, but where people come to relax and enjoy a meal,” said restaurant manager Fatima Kabani, adding that they were planning to turn the eatery’s name into a brand with more branches in Mumbai.”
Someone in Mumbai is going to have to do the investigating on this. A field report from Manish, perhaps?
ok, to be clear, many Americans are united, but count me out.
How about “it’s your history because you live in this world”? Halo? Since when has one’s history been circumscribed by the little pond in which one lives? You must not have read any history to say that Eastern and Western histories are exclusive. That is what they are precisely not. World Wars affect everyone. American politics has affected people all over the world. Trade has always had global ramifications. What’s all this about Bengali history and my country’s history? I’ve never read any history like that.
Religous kinship (you gave examples of Jews), and being part of history are entirely different things.
i used the jews for a specific reason kush. the jews, like the french, make a powerful effort to make you assume as if the metaphorical was the physical. that is, if you convert to judaism, you are to assume that your ancestors were at mt. sinai when moses brought the ten commandments. not just in spirit, but that those are now your ancestors.
i believe citizenship within a republic is a contract that the present makes with the past and the future. i don’t shrug off what this republic did to the indigenous peoples and breaking treaties just because my ancestors weren’t here at the time. by entering into the contract of citizenship the history, for good or bad, of the republic because part of my history. on a personal level my assertion may seem absurd, but as i note above, this is the norm throughout human history. the roman republic grew through the accretion of citizens who gave up their “barbarian” past and become romans of rome, whose forbears were traced back to the mythology of romulus and remus. polybius pointed to this assimilationist capacity in the roman republic as one of its great strengths, and contrasted it with the norm in greek city-states where birth by blood was the preeminent criterion for whether you were an athenian or a spartan, a metic or helot.
They belong to South Asia and have full ownership over its history.
I don’t feel I have full ownership, as you put it, over South Asia’s history, even being south Asian. Much in South Asia has not a thing to do with me or my ancestors.
As a naturalized citizen, you cannot even claim birth in this land. so in popular perceptions I would argue youre still considered a foreigner by the great majority. and please, popular perceptions matter.
you are also constitutionally constrained, you can’t become President, so you’re less of a citizen than the born Ams. pragmatically no sand n***can become President, but still, the constraint is real. My experience has been that the perception of foreignness varies from place to place. Places which have very few “foreigners” might consider a South Asian a foreigner. On the coasts, and I can speak for California, I think these perceptions are far less, but it also depends on the individual to some extent. In fact, I would argue that perceptions of “foreigness” is far less in the Bay Area and New York than in most parts of the world.
I believe that there are only two restrictions on a naturalized versus a citizen by birth : one is that you cannot become President. The other is that you cannot become Vice President. Since there is a greater probability of my being run over by a bright red Ford Mustang with alloy wheels and a cassette deck, but not a CD player, than becoming President or Vice-President, it is, in my opinion, not a serious restriction.
razib:
No, but they were AMERICAN during this and that war, they shared something very important (they lived and participated in the same society during the same time) with those who did fight and that is what makes them part ofthe history of the country at that time.
We need to define exactly what history is – the most simple definition is a sequence of past events. The closest tie we have with the past is through our ancestors. So surely a statement like ‘my history’ can only mean the events and occurrences experienced by those I have the closest link to the past with, i.e. my ancestors.
For example, I consider myself to be a muslim, I share the beliefs of Saladin – but does that make the Crusades a part of my personal history? Hell no! Most of my ancestors would have been in South Asia at that time and had very little to do with the Crusades – so how can I possibly claim it as mine?
Chandi:
That’s a naive and highly simplistic view. I adore British history from the 300 A.D to 1900 timeframe – that doesn’t make British history my history just because I live in this world. I know, this kind of discussion is uncomfortable, as it eventually leads to the ‘my history is better than your history’ debate. But come on, who are we kidding by selectively choosing what is or is not ‘our’ history?
stop wrote:
If you must be pedantic please make sure first.
“The Re-Branding of Hitler”
I have to admit that when I read the original post, I found myself mildly amused. I promptly heaped scorn upon myself. However, once I investigated the source of my amusement, I discovered that as far as I was concerned, as an idea for farce it’s all right to find the cafe funny, even hilarious. Sounds a bit Monty Python/Vonnegut-esque to me. The problem is that I think farce works only in the parallel universe realm of artifice and creates a sort of sinister cosmic clash when it’s tricked out as anything other than what it is. It’s like “Life is Beautiful” which I did not like because the way I saw it, what the film makers had on their hands was poorly-disguised farce trying its best to be earnest. Farce cannot be earnest. Farce is only good for being itself, essentially ridiculous, supremely artificial and thoroughly aware of both. That’s the last thing the restaurant is.
I also thought of the South Park “AIDS is funny” episode. Can the idea of Hitler/the Nazis etc be funny? Yes, just watch Mr. Fawlty. Is the cafe funny? No, because they forgot the farce.
Just because it may not affect you, it doesn’t mean that it is not a serious restriction. This restriction declares that there are two types of citizens – to me, that is pretty serious. If our friend Mr razib wants to become the President or Vice President, he can’t because he is essentially a 2nd class citizen.
Just because it may not affect you, it doesn’t mean that it is not a serious restriction. This restriction declares that there are two types of citizens – to me, that is pretty serious. If our friend Mr razib wants to become the President or Vice President, he can’t because he is essentially a 2nd class citizen.
Not being a citizen by birth is, in my opinion, not a very significant source of disenfranchisement in the sense of the person being a part of the political process. My point is that becoming the POTUS or VPOTUS is a very, very low probability event for everybody, not just me.
Your being disenfranchised due to race or class is a far higher probability event (not even comparable to the POTUS probability), and a much more serious problem. It is one thing to have to say that you cannot be President or VP (and I don’t for a minute say that this makes any sense at all), but it is quite another to have to say that you do not even have a chance to vote, or to, at all, be a significant part of the political process. In this context, if you look at the rates of incarceration of people based on race and class, you find a much more serious issue of disenfranchisement. The more the conviction rate of a certain race or class, the less they are able to use their political power to help remedy the social factors that lead to crime.
Damn, you gotta wonder how much MB/GB this site is allocated. Dedicated host? Some long comments threads. It is slowing my computer lol.
I wonder what drugs the people who named this restaurant were on. Is it possible for anyone to be so idiotic?
ADIA,
There are some very subtle differences between American-born (natural), and naturalized citizen….is the eye on the prize. POTUS is the ultimate prize.
I will give you some very simple examples:
During Manhattan Project, there were some incredibly talent naturalized American scientists – quite a few of them were Hungarian Jews, however, the project was headed by an American-born scientist, Robert Oppenheimer (very talented himself, no doubt and an American born Jew). I do not think they were not going to give stewardship for such a secret project to a newly minted American. It was Einstein and Szilard who wrote the letter to Roosevelt to start the whole thing.
Sure, last US Chief of Staff was a naturalized citizen, but he was the first. So was Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State, later Ms. Albright. Z. Brenzinki, Carter’s NSA was Polish-born. This tells you that I can count them on my finger.
In 1988, a friend of mine told me, “Do you somebody like Dukakis name can be a President? So phoren“. He was American-born but did not have an Anglo-Saxon name.
Some of the security clearances for certain parts of Defense/ DOE/ DOD labs become more difficult if you are naturalized American citizen, and more so if you were born in Iran, Pakistan, even China and India.
I agree with you on defranchisement of certain races.
I too agree with ADDIA regarding disenfranchisement of certain races, but I don’t see how it is relevant to the restriction of non-US born citizens to become POTUS or VPOTUS. To me, this restriction signifies something rather distasteful, i.e. that they OPENLY do not trust a certain class of citizen.
This isn’t about East vs. West. This is about humanity. Auschwitz may be far from Delhi, but the bottom line is that this sort of thing can happen to anyone. You should care about the Holocaust, because you are human. As you should about Rwanda, Cambodia, Soviet Russia, etc. to name a few examples. How can you expect the West to even begin to care about India if you can’t even bring up the basic respect for the unfortunate victims of these genocides? That is incredibly narrow-minded thinking.
RK Khan
By the power of Greyskull you are really deploying amazing arguments and showing these brown AmeriKKKan lickspittles what it means to be righteous in the face of this Zionist controlled excremental Nazi States of AmeriKKKa!
Mujahid Edward Said is cheering you from his grave. You are surely the most ‘other’ ‘brother’ of all time! So oppressed and marginalised. All we need now is to form some crews of other ‘brothers’ who are also ‘other’ in order to whip every brown slut we find showing her face to anyone not her brother or mother or father. The way that this society has corrupted our pure women is an example of how the yahoodis are destroying Islam and all that is pure in the world. These sluts need to be taught a lesson.
Every day I tread in infidel Earth, the poor oppressed slave ‘other’. The Zionists should stop complaining about the Nazi restaurant in America. Ahmedinijad has proved it never happened.
Oh the oppression.
Death to the Yahood!
Kill the sluts who show their faces and tempt pure angels like you and me to lust after their shaved armpits and naked succulent breasts and pert nipples and bottoms and……astarifigullah! AmeriKKKa and the Zionists are corrupting me again and making me lust after sluts and making me into the ‘other’!
They are destroying us!
I’m getting an erection — the Zionists are causing me to have an erection!
Hail Al-Mogambo!
Yep. The bottom line, to use a cliche, is “two wrongs do not make a right”. Just because certain people in certain parts of the West may not know about pre-colonial Indian history (or, indeed, cannot locate the country on a map), it does not mean that is an excuse for Indians to act in a similarly ignorant way, especially if they are affluent. It’s been quite some time since India was culturally or literally isolated from the rest of the planet. Information is freely available these days. And another party’s supposed ignorance or misdeeds should not be the reference point used as justification for one’s own ignorance and insensitivity in the matter — using another party’s flaws to excuse one’s own, tit-for-tat style.
If India is serious about the whole “saara jahaan se achcha” thing, and people there really do wish to have the moral “superiority” (especially over the West) which so many claim to have (individually and in terms of “Indian culture”), then there needs to be a greater degree of maturity all-round. Having the moral high ground isn’t about the skimpiness of the clothes women may wear (or not wear), it’s about how one treats one’s fellow human beings and the sensitivity one has to their suffering, especially if the latter has occurred at the hands of others. A stupid analogy, but you get my point.
Someone should remind her of the horrors that Muslims were on the receiving end of during the break-up of Yugoslavia about a decade ago. Perhaps reflecting on that will place her own mindset and actions into perspective.
Wasn’t there a scandal last year about some call-centre in Bangalore (I think it was for ICICI Bank, not sure) where the sales sttaff had a “jihad” theme, with posters of Osama Bin Laden everywhere ?
Outrageous. I hope Bombayites will have the good sense to boycott this stupid gimmicky restaurant and not give it more publicity or business than it deserves. I don’t buy the argument that Hitler is somehow more benign in Indian eyes than elsewhere, we were taught to think of him as evil incarnate and the baddie of the century just as schoolchildren in the West were, though without the same level of immediacy. Anyone here remember the play Ek aur ek gyarah from the ICSE Hindi syllabus?
SatyaP: I wasn’t equating Che with Hitler….sorry to take the thread off on a tangent.
I disagree the idea behind communism is a benign one and the problem lies only in the implementation. I always make a little joke that communism reminds me off my relationship with my ex: I had the ability to work and he had the need to sit around and use my money. Tends to put a girl off revolutions……I am paraphrasing a certain Marx quote, btw.
What a bunch of ignorant MORONS…..but lunacy regarding India and the Nazis has a history…..
Savitri Devi Mukherji
“Hitler” is a member of my family.
Yes, that’s his actual name: Hitler Fernandes. And no, I’m not making this up. Hitler Uncle was born in 1950.
I think the name had something to do with his parents being anti-British.
solid post by vivek on this same topic. unlike me, he had some interesting analysis to add to the story, plus he’s actually reporting from desh:
read the whole thing.
Root cause of this is lack of awareness about the holocaust, plain and simple. Hitler is seen as a megalomaniac dictator at worst by much of the population. There is some naive admiration for Hitler among some people, but it is quite a shallow admiration that has its roots in ignorance. Our history books, regardless of what SP said, do not do any kind of justice to the holocaust. This is compounded by the fact that every state frames its own syllabus. I grew up in Orissa, and if I relied solely on whatever history I read in school, I wouldn’t even remember that the holocaust actually happened.
There is also this sneaking admiration for all kinds of dictators/tyrants, and as pointed out, there are plenty of people with names like Stalin, Lenin, Tito (yes!) in India. The communist parties of India always have huge portraits of mass murderers like Stalin and Mao at their conventions. Many people don’t know/don’t care.
Btw, in Melbourne, there are restaurants called Post Mao and Post Deng (both owned by the same gentleman, I think), and the menu describes the some of the fare as being “Chairman Mao’s favourite” etc., and there are pictures of Mao/Deng looking relaxed, with their grand kids etc. If there’s anyone from Oz here, I would recommend Gong Bao chicken at Post Deng 🙂
Could it be because there was another holocaust in India right after the European one, anyone ??? 1947 ??? There are passing references to the horrors of the 1947 murderous events where I believe more people were killed.
Kush, There are some very subtle differences between American-born (natural), and naturalized citizen….is the eye on the prize. POTUS is the ultimate prize.
I will give you some very simple examples:
During Manhattan Project, there …
True, there are other differences in terms of opportunities between naturalized and non-naturalized citizens. My point is that politically speaking, there are only two restrictions. Contrast these relatively mild restrictions with the restrictions in, say, Malaysia with the boomiputra laws or in the Middle East with no path to naturalization. This law hardly makes any difference as far as the American system goes.
When you naturalize, you agree as part of the contract that you owe greater allegiance to America than to the other country, and so you agree to take ownership of the entire system, warts and all. For instance, if the system brought people over by force, then you agree to make any restitution that needs to be made.
I am not for a minute saying that the POTUS/VPOTUS law makes any sense – it is one of the bizarre little leftovers from the days of the Revolutionary War. To the detriment of the voter. The perception of “foreigners” does play a significant role in politics. Dukakis, yes. Even Barack Obama mentioned it.
Should it matter to the voter whether you are naturalized or whether your ancestors came over on the Mayflower? Absolutely. I would say that, in any given election, all other things being equal, you are better off voting for a naturalized citizen (legal citizen, especially if under the “exceptional” category) than voting for somebody who is legacy. As always, the example of Bush.
talking about ignorance of history, how many educated people in the west know about the biggest human displacement ever that was caused due to 1947 partition??? perspective .. !!!
True, there are other differences in terms of opportunities between naturalized and non-naturalized citizens. My point is that politically speaking, there are only two restrictions.
I think the hierarchical distinction was raised in response to razib’s mystical embrace of the republic. Even many born browns, I dare say, would view such idealism about citizenship with skepticism. OTOH, Mr. Khan’s attitude towards his citizenship is – ahem – disturbing.
The problem is also that most Indians do not read ANY history beyond school level. I’m not familiar with the US or European education system, and I’m not sure if most people continue to study history at the high school level and beyond. History as taught at the school level is pretty shallow and skips over many inconvenient or particularly horrific events/periods. It then falls upon each individual to get a better perspective. Many don’t bother. Most schools are not affliated to ICSE/CBSE, and I’m not sure if ICSE/CBSE history dealt with this topic to a greater extent.
You believe more people died in partition that in the gas chambers?
Nobody has actual numbers of partition deaths. But it caused biggest human displacement in the history till that day. (in 1947). More pertinent question is how many of the westerners of non-desi background even know about it?
RC, you are quite right about the contemptous treatment of partition, and I think it is typical of our history books. All difficult events are swept under the carpet, and I suspect this treatment of partition has more to do with the inability/unwillingness, often out of political correctness, to confront awkward truths that is so prevalent in India. Another example that comes readily to mind is how communism is portrayed. It is common knowledge that our history books have had a particularly socialist slant, and even know kids read about the Panchasheel treaty and other such rubbish.
As for awareness of Indian history in the west, I totally agree with you. I do think though, that it’s important for Indians to know about the holocaust.
here are more idiots who want to spread hate..
RC,
As far as I know, the death toll during Partition, though horrific, was significantly less than the 6 million+ killed by the Nazis.
I can’t speak for the United States, but this is common knowledge amongst the majority population here in the UK, at least amongst the “educated people” you mention.
Our history books, regardless of what SP said, do not do any kind of justice to the holocaust. With due respect, I disagree. I think this might have to do with a more humanistic bias in India.
You may think IÂ’m overreacting but there is a seemingly innocent fascination with Hitler and the Holocaust which is quite visible here in India, and itÂ’s not just I think these are two quite different political agendas here : one, the Hindu nationalists and the other is the “the sympathy for Palestine regardless of anything” brigade. There are plenty of people in India today who are sympathetic to the Palestinians, just as there are those who are sympathetic to the victims of the Holocaust. Eugene Volokh’s argument that Holocaust is not morally unique summed up
Red Snapper,
I think almost close was the number of people killed was during the birth of Bangladesh nation. When Hindus in Bangladesh and a lot of Muslims who were for independence were brutally murdered. That near Holocause type event had a fitting response from west …. Kissinger told US Ambassador in Dhaka, that Gen. Yahya is ‘our guy’ ” (Basically let Gen. Yahya (Pak dictator) kill as many Bangladeshis as he wishes)
RC, if you’re talking about perspective, and get the numbers so thoroughly wrong, you’re on shaky ground to begin with. Either way, I think Razib had a point earlier when he said to you:
i really don’t know what your problem is. you’re pissed cuz we’re shitting on some guy promoting hitler?
Link to Eugene Volokh’s post : http://www.volokh.com/2004_02_01_volokh_archive.html#107603361824110192
More pertinent question is how many of the westerners of non-desi background even know about it?
Most people in the West cannot even spell Gandhi correctly.
I am trying to point out the double standard of world politics. Where a brown/black life is considered 1/100 th that of European life. As a desi in the west, if I dont point that out, who will (It starts somewhere)
I hate Hitler just as much as I hate Idi Amin and all the other mass murderers. I cant even imagine any good thing about Hitler.
I think these are two quite different political agendas here :
Oops, hit Enter too soon. Siddhartha’s is quite right. There is certainly a somewhat “innocent fascination” with the Holocaust, but I also think that we have two quite different political agendas here : one, the Hindu nationalists and the other is the “the sympathy for Palestine regardless of anything” brigade. There are plenty of people in India today who are sympathetic to the Palestinians, just as there are those who are sympathetic to the victims of the Holocaust. The business proposition for this particular wack-idea is not only from the Hindu nationalist front, but also from “the sympathy for Palestine” front.
Sorry, folks. Did not come out right there either. I meant “Siddhartha is quite right. There is certainly a somewhat “innocent fascination” with Hitler“.
RC, I hear you, and all said, I think the guy who came up with the idea is likely just a dumbass. I don’t think there is large scale insensitivity among Indians to the holocaust, as there isn’t much awareness. As for awareness about partition in the West, I really don’t know, but I can absolutely believe what you think and wouldn’t surprise me at all. Could be different in the UK.
Ishtiak Ahmed (University of Stockholm) puts the death toll of partition at 2 million
Jai says:
Thats because UK’s history is so connected to Indian subcontinents. and UK may have a bit of a role in the whole thing to begin with 🙂 But I am sure that’s not the case in the US.
As for any fascination that the RSS might have with Hitler, more people have actually heard about Hitler/Holocaust than Golwalkar. In my opinion, Golwalkar’s views have had very limited influence. RSS itself cannot be said to have a mass base outside a few pockets.
I’ve gotta go, but my point is that it does not reflect some sort of systemic bias on part of the textbook folks in India or the educational system there. Let us not blame the textbooks for this.
actually people point it out here on these comment threads many times each day, in the most appropriate and inappropriate settings. it gets tired after a while, and it loses its analytic value.
blog comment conversations are all about double standards, mainly because people are much more interested in criticizing other people, preferably in gross generalizations and over dishonestly reductive interpretations of facts, rather than perform any introspection of their own.
conversations go as follow:
A: X sucks. B: oh yeah? well i certainly don’t see you complaining about Y!
in endless variations of the same. we got some major specialists of this epistemological approach here, but then again, any blog with active comment threads does.
the late ustad bismillah khan said something with universal value in the interview that i linked to with shekhar gupta of the indian express:
the world is divided between people who believe solutions start with others, and people who believe solutions start with themselves.
peace
RC,
You are indeed partially correct, although I am assuming you know about the efforts in the US to discuss the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade and the legacy & consequences of slavery within North America. Unless someone here on SM is going to tell me that these matters are discreetly ignored in the American educational syllabus along with mainstream social and media discussions on the era.
Europeans place a lot of emphasis on the Holocaust because it was something Europeans did to each other. Bear in mind also that the slaughter was to a great extent on a highly-organised, systematic, industrial scale, and that it was in the context of a global war with massive fighting and casualties on the European mainland. All these things mean that it resonates strongly in the private and public consciousness of people from that background, especially the fact that supposedly civilised people could descend into such barbarism and methodically kill those from an ostensibly different background on such a huge scale, sponsored and supported by their own government (in the case of German Jews).
It’s not a competition between the West and India in terms of “who had the worse holocaust(s)”.
If someone hands you a loaded gun, the primary blame lies with you if you subsequently decide to point it at your “enemy” and pull the trigger.
ADIA, I disagree (in case you’re still here). I did not say there was any bias wrt the treatment of the holocaust in our history books. I just said, from my own experience as well as that of friends/colleagues, that it’s not adequate. A colleague of mine watched Schindler’s List a couple of years back and then did some Googling to find out more. He’d never known about it before. He grew up in rural Maharashtra and is highly educated and smart. I don’t have any statistics to justify my opinions, but this has been my observation.
Jai, You actually put the finger on my whole arguments by
I agree with you that it was on a higher scale and more worrysome and brutal because it was organized (organization is a european strong skill after all). All I was trying to say that since Holocaust occured in Europe, Europeans are more sensitive to it, and rightfully so. I just want to say that one cant expect that concern from Indian citizen. Its just not comparable. One can ask Indian citizen to be sensitive about the Holocaust that happened in their sorroundings. Thats all. I never intended my arguments to be a pissing match.
Yeah, I remember my first year geography prof telling the class that Bangladesh got its independence from India, in the midst of a discussion about colonialism. I nitpicked.
Lest we also forget the Japanese activities from 1937 to 1945. They estimate 35 million casualties during this period.
Actually, what loses analytic value is cherry picking one group’s suffering, and mentioning it and highlighting it disproportionately. Growing up in the US, I was 10 years old when I found out who Hitler was (watching Sound of Music in school), I was 12 years old when I read the book Ordinary Men, as a school assignment. Compare that to age 23 when I learned of the Nanjing activities.
Does it make me less of a human to point out this discrepancy?