Just in case you were unaware of it, Kiran Chetry, the CNN anchor, is half-Nepali, and was born in Kathmandu. 
In an interview in Nepal Monitor recently posted on our News Tab, Kiran is asked, predictably perhaps, a number of questions relating to her background. For me, her most interesting response came following a question about her “South Asian” identity:
Question: And this is about being a “South Asian.†Because you don’t really seem like a South Asian unless somebody does some research on you! There are very few South Asians actually doing major shows on cable television in the US. What does being a “South Asian†mean to you?
Kiran Chetry: I define it in a more narrow term. I feel that being half-Nepalese is my heritage, something I have always grown up being proud of and living with. It’s never been something that I dwell on a lot; I think that it’s just my life, it’s who my family is, it’s who my father is. My cousins, many of them that are my age, are here in the US, either studying or now have jobs here. And that is just a part of our culture. And I have lived straddling both.
Fair enough — much of what she said there should resonate with many SM readers. Even if your family isn’t bi-cultural, growing up in the U.S. forces you to always in some sense “straddle both” cultures. But it’s when Chetry gets to terminology beyond “helf-Nepali” (or as she says, “Nepalese”) that she starts to hedge:
But you are right, when people look at me they don’t necessarily say, “Wow, Kiran must be Asian†or “Kiran must be from Nepal.†But I think that when you get to really know me and you spend any time with my family, you see what an influence it is. Since my father is from Nepal and that is what I grew up around. It’s just me.
And there are not a lot of South Asians, if you want to put it that way, that are represented in the news. However, there are a lot more at CNN, which is interesting. We have our special correspondent Sanjay Gupta, also Betty Nguyen, who is on our air and Alina Cho, one of our American Morning correspondents. All of them are Asian, or South Asian. So I think it is wonderful to be able to see more faces of diversity. And, I am one of them, even though I may not look like I am! I think I understand what being part of the Asian culture is like, not to put everybody into one big generalization. But I definitely understand a perspective because it is part of how I grew up. (link)
She seems a bit uncomfortable with the term “South Asian,” preferring the more narrowly national “Nepali” or the more general term, “Asian.” And while she mentions Dr. Sanjay Gupta, she’s also quick to mention Alina Cho and Betty Nguyen.
While most desis I know do define “South Asian” as a subset of “Asian,” I’ve never met anyone who wanted to deemphasize (or reject) the “South” in favor of a more generalized “Asian” identity — to be defined as just Asian, and not South Asian.
What might be behind Chetry’s terminological discomfort? (Unfortunately, we kind of have to speculate here, since I don’t think Kiran Chetry has done any other interviews where she’s discussed these kinds of identity issues.)
In addition, Hyderabad was its own princely state, never under British rule as part of Madras Presidency, never even part of independent India’s Madras Presidency. So to describe a Hyderabadi, or an Andhra from many parts of Telangana, as a Madrasi, or even an ex-Madrasi would be quite inaccurate…for your information.
I met several Graduate students who had not heard the name of the city INDORE (it is in Central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh). I even met one guy who didnt know what/who “Parsi” was. All of these people now have gradute degrees.
No kidding
With the separate Telangana movement, above statement is starting to become archaic. An Andhra is beginning to be (or has it always been that way?) defined as someone from Kostha (coastal) part of Andhra Pradesh. I am not sure how someone from Rayalaseema feels about the ‘Andhra’ bucket.
Probably the best way to refer to someone from Telangana/Rayalaseema/Kostha-Andhra (the three regions that make up current Andhra Pradesh) is to call them a ‘Telugu’ (or Gult/Gulti, if you don’t feel like being too straight-laced).
rar, ds: I agree that the term is inaccurate. For better or worse, it acquired currency in Hindi as a synonym for ‘southerner’ during the British Raj. I understand southerners trying to get people to use the term ‘South Indian’ instead, even in Hindi. My only point was that the old term is simply inaccurate and outdated, there’s nothing ‘racist’ or ‘disgustingly abusive’ or ‘offensive’ about it in any way, shape or form. And getting people to use newer terms isn’t going to erase any prejudices, it’s just going to make them use more accurate labels.
Madrasi please.
154 · Arjun said:
I’ll answer this erroneous statement with a quote from an article about the Brian Friel play Translations, which I referred to in another thread today:
[Link]
Harbeer, I don’t get it. There hasn’t been any colonized-coloniser relationship between North and South India, afaik. What we’re talking about here is very similar to all Europeans in India being referred to as ‘Angries’ (English). It’s simply a misnomer.
Some folks don’t particularly like that either. Their main point being don’t try and come up with a catch-all term, but acknowledge the existence of multiple, disparate peoples living south of Vindhyas.
One could argue that there were attempts at some flavor of such relationship in the recent past, with the mis-guided efforts to get folks to speak Hindi.
Many nuances to this “Madrasi” issue that people from upper part of the country are simply unaware of, for obvious reasons.
Arjun, I hope I’m not confusing this thread with the about Language-Based States, but it seems like colonial place names are the topic of the day. Nonetheless, your comment implied that there’s no connection between language and thought. “Getting people to use newer terms isn’t going to erase any prejudices.” I think that’s wrong. Getting people to use newer terms will in fact get them to think in new ways.
I also agree with Gruhasthu in #159, except I’d say that Hindi colonizers are even trying to root out Punjabi in the north, and they are aided in their efforts by Punjabi youth who tend to view their language as a language of gawaar (hicks).
Well, that usage is definitely incorrect, isn’t it? Similar to how the term/phrase ‘Madrasi/South-Indian’ completely ignores the 4 distinct cultures.
I have a funny anecdote on thinking about all white-folk with the label ‘Angrez’. When I first ventured out of brownland that many years ago, I ran into a Finn and got into discussion with him about how India’s progress stagnated over the last several centuries. I said, half in jest, ‘y’all screwed us up’ in reference to the British rule. He was so confused and taken aback – all he could mutter was ‘that’s really the brits’. But I could read in his face ‘you think all white people are the same’.
Harbeer:
Wrong.
Possibly Right.
I am refering to my own posts pretty generously today, but I have one more layer to add to this discussion.
I think there is an undercurrent of fear among the non-Tamil folks down South (at least among Telugus) that given a chance, Tamils will dominate/subsume everyone else’s identity. This may also be playing into the strong resistance to the label ‘Madrasi/South Indian’.
I definitely don’t intend to start a flame war with this note or offend my Tamil friends, but I think the ‘Madrasi’ discussion will be incomplete without this point.
Also, I think it is pretty cool how all the issues related to the moniker ‘South Asian’ also apply at a conceptual level to the term/phrase ‘Madrasi/South Indian’.
That’s it for today!
i was having a beer with a friend of mine who just got out of prison, and he informed me that the n-word is like “bro”, completely innocuous and commonly used by all races be they prisoners or guards. i said the history of the term is still too connected to racism and i’m not going to start using it just because its common parlance in prison.
he replied, “that’s because you’re a classist.”
My dear HMF, first of all, scroll up just one paragraph from the link you have provided. Next, please town down your condescension when ostensibly placating those who criticize your classist terminology: “(oh my god can I say it??, I’ll say it softly).” You ain’t cute.
I did see Camille’s response, notice that, however your lackluster mother joke (but hey, the WGA is on strike, you might have a shot) only goes to prove my point.
SM Intern or whoever, I need to know, are mother jokes within acceptable content (even poor ones), cuz I’ve just been biting my tongue for way too long.
the map i was shown by your friend as proof that i was madrasi, and to whom the comment was directed did not include hyderabad.
Folks, can we dispense with the personal attacks?
Don’t get me started on gau mata jokes, now.
i’m sorry but i am not happy whenever the term “madrasi” is used, and what is worse, when someone tries to justify it.
it is a reminder of enslavement—madras presidency (as the others) encompassed the huge geographical area with several languages, an unwieldy administrative unit, mainly because, well, from the british point of view, slaves only needed be kept in line, not administered like citizens. why distinguish between one slave and another? the same usage by the central government officials in the north immediately after independence meant, and strongly implied the attitudes never changed. the story continued of course, with the violence perpetuated by the shiv sena goons of mumbai in the 70’s and 80’s.
and hell, madras is not even a tamil word, it is an english word. it was the name of a newly developed city then that invoked (at that time) no connotations of tamil culture—not an accidental choice by any stretch by the british. so it isn’t the same as being mistaken for tamils that is the issue here, it is the deliberate use of colonial language.
things are different today in india, of course. a majority does not think this way. but there are many who do, and guess what is the dead giveaway in most cases? this term. of course, there may be people who are not malicious but just plain stupid when they use this term. but would anyone accept the same argument if someone used other equivalent terms—“negro” (which just means black)—that evoke the past?
it is the burden of whoever uses these terms to find out, after all in the case of south india—these places make up 1/2 the land area with 1/2 the population of india. and it is the burden of people in the south, and those with any common sense, to drill this lesson into the heads of those who use “madrasi” as if it were innocent.
bytewords, you’re free to see purpose behind people’s use of the word.
Indian administrations continued to use the word because the provinces weren’t reconstructed into new states for 20 odd years!
The lengths people go to justify their ridiculous grievances is amusing. Why don’t you stop using the word ‘India’ too because each and every thing you’ve mentioned applies to that word too. India is basically an arbitrary grouping of diverse nationalities and cultures created by the British for administrative purposes. Does that remind you of enslavement too? And do you jump on every person who uses it? If not, why not?
Face it, the British were in India and they did rule for 150 odd years. I completely reject the notion that words or groupings they introduced are in any way reminders of enslavement. While we’re on it, do you play cricket? Stop it. Do you use English? You shouldn’t. Because all of these are symbols of just how enslaved you really are even today ;).
I should also add that foreign invasions and foreign rule are a completely common feature in human history. The British themselves were ruled by Romans, French, others at various times in history, for centuries at a time. They too absorbed foreign influences. For example, there was a time when French was the official language in England, used feudally by the royal elite and officialdom, in a very similar way that English is used in India today. I don’t see the British crying about the French or Roman influences on their culture, or about how they’re reminders of “enslavement”.
Amardeep, I can see how that makes sense too.
Part of the ease in labeling oneself “Asian” as opposed to “South Asian” might be the ease with which the larger population might be able to absorb the info. The rest of the American population (to whom this interview was addressed), can probably recognize “Asian” much more readily than “South Asian.” I suspect that’s why Chetry jumped at the classification — as a way of explaining her background to the “masses.”
I am sorry I haven’t completely read all the threads on this post so maybe the issue was discussed already.
i can see this in an AP vs. TN way (though I don’t know it as personally as you, since most of the telugus i know stayed in TN). i might also say that this is the case in the karnataka vs. TN situation, or at least in bangalore, where there is some level of resentment against the influx of tamilians (on top of the whole kaveri issue). but be assured that the competent TN ministers seek more to secede from/dominate the evil hindi-wale, rather than subsume their southern neighbours. but in any case, would it really be so bad to have rajnikanth temples and madras coffee predominate through the south? i could think of far worse fates 😉
People really look to phenotype even when grouping dogmas. Hence to the unschooled Buddhism and Taoism are grouped together as very similar “Asian religions” but India is somehow not Asian despite being the incubator of Buddhism. I look at Thailand and it is clear to me why historians refer to it as an Indianized culture. Unschooled people look at physical features and arrive at other conclusions. And some Westerners will shift the boundaries of the West to suit their theories. Stalin was an Asiatic despot (a Georgian rather than Russian), Christianity is Western but Islam is Eastern. The code of Hammurabi is the basis of Western civil institutions but the Iraqis whose ancestor authored it misbehave because they are Middle Eastern.
arjun, the british ruled you. not us, at least not directly. look at your map again—don’t make your history to be the history of everyone. and re: usage of the word india—should i remind you that madras presidency no longer exists, and “the madrasis” no longer keep that name for themselves? who are you to use a name they didn’t pick for themselves?
and don’t bring ridiculous analogies—no one owns a language. i use my mother tongue as much as english—i use english professionally. in case you didn’t realize, english has its spread and importance today since the US is dominant for now. not many care for your queen, and her english is just a spelling mistake, her accent a quaint accent for sitcoms as far as most people are concerned.
anyway, you are either one of the incorrigible racists or just dense. either case, there isn’t any point wasting time on this thread any longer. if you cannot see the problem with all this, i couldn’t care less. some day it will become your problem.
“Tamils will dominate/subsume everyone else’s identity.” “but in any case, would it really be so bad to have rajnikanth temples and madras coffee predominate through the south?”
Since when Rajnikanth a Tamilian?
We Tamilians are like the Borg. The Kannadiga thespian resisted heroically but now he is well integrated into the Tamilian hive mind
as was the case with the other big star, jayalalitha. 🙂 rajnikanth is marathi by origin, kannadiga by upbringing.
i’ve come across many good natured north indian folks who used the term madrasi innocently without any condescencion or malice. even if one concedes that it is not necessarily a disgusting form of abuse, it is definitely an innaccuate way to identify people from karnataka, most of AP, and half of kerala. its akin to calling all eastern europeans russian. it strikes me as a bit naive. in more cultured hindustani speaking contexts ive always heard the term “dakhni” to describe india south of the vindhyas.
you are right, but i am very sure people commenting on this thread are not one of those. the reason is this: if you have had any contact with a south indian, you know this term is not taken well—and if one chooses to persist despite being in constant contact with some of them, it is not probably good natured any more.
the only exception is if you know the person well.
Yup, as I’ve mentioned repeatedly in my posts :). I see I’m not getting through to some madrasis though.. oh well ;).
or may be you are wrong with your assertions/views. I am starting to getting pissed off with people insisting on using ‘Madrasi’. If you insist on using it, then I’ll just say “Aavakaya up your ass”
Probably no one cares about this thread anymore, but here goes anyway…
But all three regions in actual fact lie within the entity of “Andhra Pradesh” and referring to people from there as “Andhras” should be okay. Should we refer no longer refer to all members of groups that wish to secede from India as “Indians” merely because they don’t want to be Indian? (Well, you could make an argument that we should I suppose). My Rayalseema quarter doesn’t feel at odds with my Andhra quarter when I am referred to as an Andhra, nor do I feel like I am denying my Hyderabadi heritage.
Bytewords, I referenced your comment only to agree with it, and add that Hyderabad was not part of Madras, either. So I’m a little confused by your response.
I guess the answer to this question really depends on how passionate folks from Telangana are at the given moment about separate Telangana.
Read this news article from The Hindu. Gives you a pretty good understanding of Telugu vs. Andhra usage from a separate-Telangana-demand perspective.
Gruhasthu, so that’s going back to historical distinctions between Andhra and Telangana–okay, I concede the usefulness and inoffensiveness of the term Telugu, but not being a sympathizer of the Telangana movement I will have to rely on my innate desire for political correctness over factual accuracy to use it 🙂
I don’t know if the factual accuracy you refer to is ever set in stone. It will always flow with the political times and tides.
Before independance, one could call all residents of Madras Presidency Madrasis irrespective of whether the were Telugu, Tamil, Kannadiga or Malayali. We bristle at the idea of using that term these days.
If a separate Telangana state were to be formed, someone from that new state would get upset if you called him an Andhra, even though that term is ‘factually accurate’ currently under the existing structure of Andhra Pradesh.
And bringing it all back to the main topic of the thread, if all countries in the subcontinent were to form a united political entity (a la EU) under the name of South Asia, Kiran Chetry wouldn’t probably have as big of a hurdle in identifying with that entity as she currently does.
i was using him (too subtly?) as an example of the all-consuming tamil culture – a maharashtrian karnataka-raised shivaji rao has now become synonymous with tamil cinema. though i do protest categorizing the man as a non-tamilian – just because he wasn’t born into the culture doesn’t mean he cannot also be a tamilian, as well as a maharashtrian and a kannadiga. in any case, even if he isn’t (originally) tamil, the temples-for-rajni is ‘romba’ tamil.
As a Canadian from Nepali descent, I understand why some North American Nepalis will not identify with South Asian–mainly because of its very strong association with India. I recently visited Nepal and there is a strong ambivalence towards India–religiously and politically. Growing up in the US, I didn’t really identify with the Indian American kids (my parents weren’t half as religious as members of the Indian community and we rarely went to the Hindu temple). Also, sometimes it just gets frustrating when people lump Nepal together with India, which is something people do all the time. So we kind of try our best to distinguish ourselves from it.
As for Kiran, she can identify herself with whatever label she chooses. To me, South Asian vs. Asian doesn’t really make that much of a difference.
In which case, since all political boundaries are transient, we should refer to everyone as “human” only, and be done with it.
With regard to the comment by Chevalier: “I think this is like my cousins and me – we’re from Andhra Pradesh, a state in the south of India, but hate calling ourselves ‘South Indians’. We’re Indian, yes. Or we’re Telugu. Not all of us are religious, pious, soft-spoken, idli-dosa eating, mathematics geniuses, non-physically active, non-aggressive, etc etc”.
I agree in more ways than one – We are Tamilians and Indians but would not want to be called anything else while being called “South Indian”. I would hope being a Tamilian would account for certain amount of intellectualism and all the other things that Chevalier does not want to be associated with, except for the non-physically active part(I don’t know too many tennis players from Telugu land.. HA HA..)
umm… Sania Mirza?
except for the non-physically active part(I don’t know too many tennis players from Telugu land.. HA HA..) umm… Sania Mirza?
In any case, the larger point I was making was– being a Tamilian signifies something–a strife for excellence, being good in math, not cutting corners while you get your degree, a doctor who is good etc,etc..
I hope you meant striving for excellence. As a Tamilian, I am offended that you think that there is any strife involved in that pursuit.
You also forgot to mention other things we should be proud of – our hagiography of film stars and their elevation to supreme leaders in the hope that they will emulate their reel heroics in modern life, our taste for, let’s put it politely, voluptuous fair-skinned heroines, and various other trivialities such as rampant female infanticide, nepotism in politics, and so on.
Vaazhga Thamizhagam!
This describes Telugus too– just look at NTR, Ramyakrishna, the story that was covered on SM about a man in AP who left his granddaughter by the roadside, and how YSR’s distant relatives suddenly struck gold once he became CM. Hell it describes all of India.
Though I’m not sure what’s to be ashamed of when it comes to more ‘voluptuous’ taste in heroines? 🙂
I personally think Tamilnadu is an order of magnitude worse than many other states though, MGR, Karunanidhi, Jayalalitha (nepotism too involved here) all became popular through movies, Vijayakanth is now doing well politically after rustling up a party, and so on. There was a huge clamor for Rajinikanth about 8 or 10 years ago, but he demurred and instead played kingmaker with dramatic speeches on television and thinly veiled attacks on Jayalalitha in his movies.
Sorry I wasn’t clear, I don’t think there’s anything to be ashamed of – taste is taste. I was using it as an example of something often used by people outside Tamilnadu to mock Tamilians, as a counterpoint to that list of wonderful things Tamilians are expected to be associated with. (and the specific point I wanted to make with “fair-skinned” was the preference for North Indian heroines, usually those who don’t make it in Bollywood, even if they are mediocre actors who can’t even speak the language)
That’s funny, many of the ‘fair-skinned’ heroines in Telugu films are either northies or Tamilians (Trisha comes to mind). I know that at least in Telugu films there’s one woman who dubs for every single actress though, so yeah, it’s a sad state of affairs.
Again, not that I personally care – apart from the fact that poor acting might compromise the quality of the movie, such as it is 🙂 But it is at odds with this expressed pride in all things Tamil.
At least you have Mani Ratnam.
Oh Ratnam Saar, how much of a hack are thee? Let me count the ways. (I am not a fan).
What can I say, my tastes, having origins in Gult-land, simply ‘strife’ harder for excellence than do those of those from Tamizh-land.