Meera Nanda has a detailed summary and analysis of the most recent Pew Global Attitudes report from the Indian point of view:
The Pew poll asked people in 47 countries if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others.†Indians topped the list, with a whopping 93 per cent agreeing that our culture was superior to others, with 64 per cent agreeing completely, without any reservations.
Now all people have a soft spot for their own culture. But to see how off-the-charts our vanity is, let us compare ourselves with the other “ancient civilisations†in our neighbourhood. Compared to our 64 per cent, only 18 per cent of the Japanese and only 20 per cent Chinese had no doubt at all that their culture was the best. Indeed, close to one quarter of Japanese and Chinese — as compared to our meagre 5 per cent — disagreed that their ways were the best.
The U.S. — a country universally condemned for its cultural imperialism — comes across as suffering from a severe case of inferiority complex when compared with us. Only 18 per cent Americans had no doubts about the superiority of their culture, compared with our 64 per cent. Nearly a quarter of Americans expressed self-doubts, and 16 per cent completely denied their own superiority. The corresponding numbers from India are five and one per cent. (link)
The obvious question to speculate on (and please, speculate away) is where this discrepancy comes from. I personally don’t know though I’ve definitely seen some evidence of it in the hyper-patriotic way many Indians cheer for the national cricket team.
A bit more:
The strange thing is that for a people who think so highly of our own culture, we are terribly insecure. A startling 92 per cent of Indians — almost exactly the same proportion who think we are the best — think that “our way of life needs to be protected against foreign influences.†Here, too, we beat the Japanese, the Chinese, and the Americans by about 25-30 percentage points. When it comes to feeling embattled and needing protection, we are closer to our Islamic neighbours, Pakistan (82 per cent) and Bangladesh (81 per cent). Indeed, we feel so embattled that 84 per cent of us want to restrict entry of people into the country, compared with only 75 per cent of those asked in the U.S., a country where legal and illegal immigration is of a magnitude higher than anywhere in the world.
So, paradoxically, our vanity is matched only by our persecution complex. (link)
It is kind of surprising that more Indians want immigration controls than Americans, especially considering how hot the immigration issue is in the U.S. right now. (Perhaps India is like Iowa; the fewer immigrants you actually have, the more you worry bout immigration?)
Nanda also summarizes the report’s findings on Indians’ attitudes to the role of government on helping the poor, and the proper role of religion in government (Indians are personally religious, but they also strongly support separation of church and state). The entire report can be found here (PDF) and the Pew Center’s brief summary is here.
Many Indians are concerned about illegal Bangladeshi immigration.
Very sad but I must say the report is not surprising. It’s like the baseball doping stuff flooding the news today. I mean, really, was it that much of a shock?
I am surprised, however by this statement from Ms. Nanda:
Only 75 percent? That’s a lot and it’s shameful.
Amitabh, yes, I’ve seen this in Mumbai and Bengal, and commenters have recently mentioned concerns in Assam. But is it the same in, say, Delhi… or Chennai?
(Perhaps India is like Iowa; the fewer immigrants you actually have, the more you worry bout immigration?)
There are about 20 million or so immigrants from Bangladesh in India.
Many Indians are concerned about illegal Bangladeshi immigration.
The Banglas are willing to do jobs no Indian wants.
I hate it when I call up a service provider on the telephone in India and I have to wait for ….press 1 for Hindi….press 2 for Bengali.
Kush, yes — but that’s still a smaller number per capita than is the estimated 10 million illegal aliens in the U.S.
Also, the ‘foreigners’ in this case have the same complexion as Indians themselves, and speak the same language as a significant number of Indians. That, one would think, would lessen the hostility in some ways.
“I personally don’t know, though I’ve definitely seen some evidence of it in the hyper-patriotic way many Indians cheer for the national cricket team”
amardeep, not sure i understand by what you mean by evidence. could you elaborate? thanks.
In ludhiana they worry about immigrants from bihar and jharkhand.
Wonder what Moornam will say to this.
WGIIA and Amardeep,
the cricket example isn’t very useful because the main and most celebrated contests are the international ones–ICL, county cricket, ranji trophy et all are still sideshows with regards to viewer volume and press–so ‘hyper patriotism’ is not only understandable but endemic to the dominant format. When the relatively hated Aussies come to India their centurions and 50-makers are applauded, as is done for the Indians overseas. Cricket is fairly unique as a bat-and-ball team sport in that individual accomplishments are acknowledged and celebrated by both sides.
amardeep, not sure i understand by what you mean by evidence. could you elaborate? thanks.
Whose God, thinking it over a bit more, it’s just a silly comment. Countries that have good soccer teams are every bit as fanatical about soccer as Indians are about cricket… So please just disregard the comment!
i don’t really see anything that surprising about this poll. india is going through a time of speedy changes in many areas in a relatively short period of time, both unsettling and uplifting (and it depends on who they polled in india, from what backgrounds). people are bound to feel both optimistic, smug and insecure at the same time. the euphoria of IT soon gave way to stories about the positive/ negative effects on the lifestyles/nature of cities where IT is big. security/insecurity go hand in hand. i wonder what the japanese might have felt a few decades ago, especially when they were seen as the be-all and end-all. i remember a professor telling us that most of us would fail and wouldn’t get anywhere close to the achievements of the japanese. now, their “ancient civilization” has had time to cope with 20th century prosperity and they have the luxury of being more jaded/self-critical/mature about it.
Also, the ‘foreigners’ in this case have the same complexion as Indians themselves, and speak the same language as a significant number of Indians. That, one would think, would lessen the hostility in some ways.
That is all true. A good number of the illegal immigrants are Hindus from Bangladesh.
I think it is a complex issue.
Most of the illegal immigrants in India live in shanty towns, doing most menial and dangerous construction jobs – in some sense, like here.
But then some resourceful ones become Indian citizens in 10 minutes. If you can get a ration card, you can prove that you have been Indian citizen all along. Near elections in WB, and Bengal, parties can arrange that in return for promise for vote to their party.
Near elections in WB, and Assam
The “foreign influences” fear is also reflected in the Indian press almost daily — often utilizing the words “infiltration” and “terrorists” from Pakistan and Bangladesh, as well as “encroachment” by Chinese military — when talking about India’s security and sovereignty. Thus, Indians are constantly exposed to the suspicion of foreigners coming into India to do harm, and with security or intelligence issues, the public never really knows what is/was true.
Personally, I’m worried about Bangladeshi Muslim immigration into India more than anything else. It’s dangerous for Indian secularism, population growth (Muslim growth rates are higher even compared to Indian growth rates), demographics and just general future – sorry, but one does not want to see Mughal India version 2 with people of other religions paying the jizya taxes for their continued existence.
From the article:
I often see parallels between such answers and Feynman’s narrative on Brewster’s angle in Brazil. I’d bet that the respondents who answered these questions had read about the benefits of free markets from some source (magazine/journal/blog/etc) and the social benefits of helping the poor from other sources (maybe even their middle school Moral Science classes), and cheerfully threw everything into the blender without critically analyzing the effects of one on the other. I half suspect that this is indicative of yet more rote memorization without reflection on the true meaning.
fsowalla,
Not to mention that India has been historically the target of Islamic expansionism. The facts drive the fears. Let’s not pretend people’s fears are unfounded and based on vague and unjustified “phobias”.
It is kind of surprising that more Indians want immigration controls than Americans, especially considering how hot the immigration issue is in the U.S. right now. (Perhaps India is like Iowa; the fewer immigrants you actually have, the more you worry bout immigration?)
Huh? Fewer Immigrants? Only for the past 5000 years or so buddy…. And many of them stayed and decided to change the culture quite drastically. But it is hard for Americans to understand such a long-term point of view, with the best of you only being able to hold it in contempt and throwing your hands up in the air. Mock it, dispute it, whatever, but Indians’ memories go back a long way. Aryans, Muslims, Mughals, British, whatever. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong or even factually correct. But to say that India hasn’t had any migrants is a very narrow view to take. Invaders, at least of the sort that came to India can be considered ‘Migrants’ and so can ‘Colonisers’. Not everybody needs a visa to set up shop in a foreign land. Therefore it is extremely unsurprising that Indians would hold such a view, and be considered ‘insecure’. I don’t see how not wanting your culture exposed to foreign influences makes you insecure. It just means you like the status quo. I’m not condoning the attitude, just presenting a different argument to your conclusion. Again, considering you are America, it is unsurprising you would view that as insecure, however. This is not meant as a slight in any way. But you have to understand the differences in your background and exposure definitely come into play here. Further, India is not a land based on immigration like America. Nobody said anything about bringing your poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free here. We have enough of our own to worry about, thanks.
BTW, I don’t believe Indian culture to superior to others. But I do believe and agree with the fears about neighboring countries – puhleeze, Pakistan, China, etc are anything but pacifist.
Arjun, my point was not to assess the credibility of the claims, but to point out the daily exposure to the claims themselves and the sensationalism of the Indian media. Let’s not get into which are “facts” — there have been enough staged encounter killings of “terrorists” as well as actual terrorist attacks, enough claims of Chinese border incursions (some true, others not).
And as far as Bangladeshis go, do you really think this impacts the average Indian citizen? In what way? Are you claiming that India is becoming more Muslim as a result, or that Khaleda Zia’s or Sheik Hasina’s or Jamaat’s followers are exerting more influence in India, or that W. Bengal is becoming more “Bangla” somehow? I do think Bangladeshi migration will impact states in the NE of India, but ironically, Indian “culture” is still fairly foreign to the ethnic groups living there.
Perhaps India is like Iowa; the fewer immigrants you actually have, the more you worry bout immigration?
Thats just lazy writing… Do you even know how many immigrants India live in India? How is it even remotely like Iowa?
Like I said, lazy.
Hindu chauvinists talk a lot about Muslim growth rates. But the statistics I’ve seen show only a slight difference between the Muslim growth rate in India and that of the general population. If you carry forward current rates of growth, it will be hundreds, if not thousands, of years before Muslims come remotely close to outnumbering Hindus.
(Of course, if you carry forward current rates of growth, India will have a population of 150 billion+ by the year 2201! Current rates of growth are simply not sustainable…)
And Phoenix, not wanting your culture exposed to foreign influences is the definition of insecure.
as the couplet goes (satire) “cheen-o-arab hamara. hindostan hamara. rahne ko ghar nahin hai. saara jahaan hamara”
Semi-literal interpretation
China is ours and so is Arabia. We are Hindustan. We dont have a roof over our heads But we own the whole world.
fuck me. i will laugh till the tears dry up.
p.s. any idea how canadians rated themselves.
muralimannered, i agree. although i think amardeep has a point in that the indian cricket team does elicit a more obvious patriotism/nationalism now than during my parents’ youth. now you see children, adults, pensioners with faces painted with the indian flag, flags everwhere. there definitely is a lot more aggression in the support. but you also see this amongst pakistani, british, aussie fans etc. so while support for the indian team is highly nationalistic, i think you are correct in saying that for the most part, it’s not a negative aggressive nationalism (beyond the usual sporting hubris of almost all nations and fans and issues tainted with colonialism/racism that pop up once in awhile in cricket and discussions/claims of cultural superiority do creep in, but all fans of all nations do it) funnily enough, given the more nationalistic nature of india-pakistan matches in the past, some fans are now complaining that they are too tame and the teams/fans are too friendly and this is affecting the quality of the matches!!
i see the report says that the samples in india and a few other countries were overwhelmingly urban. i also wonder about the general nature of some of these questions and how different people may have interpreted them. when i read foreign influences, i didn’t think of immigration, i thought of cultural influences like music, clothing, changing mores via tv etc. i wonder if the questioners specified what they meant by some of these terms?
Why are we insecure? Because though we feel culturally superior, we are poor. No one is going to respect us in the global arena unless we become their economic equals.
Btw, I don’t think that feeling your own culture is superior is vanity. What else is vanity then, thinking that, for all its flaws, your country is the best? That, btw is called patriotism, or nationalism.
Amardeep, they may have the same complexion but they are enthusiastic supporters of the Two Nation theory. Should Indians happily concede districts that become majority Bangladeshi? I don’t agree at all with the unreflective attitude of Indians regarding their own culture, but they are right to feel besieged. People talk about Kashmir using all sorts of legalisms but basically it boils down to the “progressive community” believing that Muslims have the right to have a Muslim nation whereever they are in majority. You say that the amount of illegal immigrants is not the same as in the US, but do you really think that the Indian economy is growing at a rate that can provide employment for this huge inflow of Bangladeshis? I don’t see any solutions from your progressive camp….
this is probably a dumb question, but in the case of india, which is more heterogenous than some of the other countries, when they asked them to agree/disagree with “Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others”, did they specify that “our” meant india as a whole and “others” meant outside india, or did the respondents have the leeway to see “our culture” as their particular regional/religious/linguistic/ethnic culture?
Its not surprising really, Indians in general are not a confident people, and despite the rants against muslims of hindu chauvanists, Indian attitudes are closer to that of the arab muslim world than the west.
Looking back to some distant glorious past, when their culture reigned supreme Pride in values, usually obscurantist and unfriendly towards women. Little or no emphasis on individuality. Emphasis on tradition above and beyond anything as trivial(according to the traditionalists that is) as an individual’s happiness. Asking questions is usually not encouraged, one is supposed to bow down before centuries of tradition
(While typing this, I just realized Christian fundamentalists share some of these same characteristics too) Despite this there are many Indians who manage to break free from the shackles of tradition and live on their own terms and think for themselves but it is in spite of our “glorious” culture and not because of it.
With so much pride in Indian culture, the country is also apparently suffering from mass delusion.
“With so much pride in Indian culture, the country is also apparently suffering from mass delusion.”
well, given that the sample is overwhelmingly urban, i don’t think it’s fair to say the country is suffering from mass delusion. also, even if they had asked more people in villages etc, the pride in culture may still have been high or it may have been lower. it all depends on what people understood by the word “culture.” tanzania is the only other country, it seems, with 64 percent feeling that their culture was definitely superior to others. and their sample was both rural and urban, not as skewed as india’s.
I thought the general belief is to always to take only the ‘good’ things from other cultures. What is ‘good’ is most often defined by family.
I have a probelm with the same question being asked to such a diverse sample and expecting everyone to interpret the question exactly the same way.
Example: In L.A. ask anybody “How’s are you doing?” and 99.9999% of the time you would get an “Fine”. In Mumbai you’d get very different answers. Perhaps more honest ones?
Also, perhaps many Americans think of security in a very literal way whereas Indians are looking at the bigger picture out of sheer necessity.
A bit off tangent, but one needs to spent some time in NE India to realize the impact that immigration from Bangladesh has had there. There are many districts which are almost mini Bangladesh now. In Assam at least, one of the biggest reason the militancy started was illegal immigration from Bangladesh. So its a bit insensitive to say that Bangladeshi immigration doesn’t impact India, unless of course you think that NE isn’t “really” India.
On Migrants/Immigrants in the present context in the subcontinent.
there is a bitter truth in that.
i travel to india off and on and there’s a vigor and zip to the society that’s very youthful, very palpable. i find it very refreshing after having lived in a more mature society for so long…
at the same time there is a lot of self-deluding going on. ironically, this mostly reflects on the cricket field. i got crried into the world cricket cup hype (i was in india) and then i looked at the stats. india was not even in the top 3 cricketing nations and to hear the media talk about it, it was actually a crushing disappointment that the country failed to qualify. i mean… get real yaar. you cant live in your head alone. but this may be masking a whole lot of insecurity.
more later
I wouldn’t take the cricket mania as a gauge because cricket has become entertainment in India. On the other hand, i would look at the education mania or something along those lines. Some manias maybe a good thing.
Why is it paradoxical to believe your culture superior and yet also be insecure about the impact of outside influence on that culture? What I mean by that is that the question wasn’t whether Indian culture was the most robust and unassailable–it was whether the culture was “better” than the rest. You’ve imputed your own assumption that better must mean “easily able to counter outside influence”. It could simply mean “more interesting, more enjoyable”. One could, for example, feel that separation of church and state is better than theocracy and thus be worried about the impact of movements that seek to obliterate that barrierâ€â€it wouldn’t necessary be irrational or paradoxical. If anything, it seems logical to argue that if the culture is “better†you’ll want to preserve it against less worthy options.
Also, I’m not sure that the attitude demonstrated is best characterized as a “persecution complexâ€Â. I would think that a “persecution complex†would be more akin to when you believe that you (or your culture) are being actively targeted for destruction-that’s a little bit different that saying, for example, that immigration is undesirable or that foreign influences are having a destabilizing influence on the culture.
I make no comments on whether or not Indian culture is better or at risk–just that I don’t see the “paradox†or “persecution complex†based on the information provided.
Amardeep, thanks for blogging this. I glanced quickly at the main results and read Meera Nanda’s nice summary article also, but not the main report yet.
My first question is about the sample – its composition and size – how could they have asked nuanced questions about the nature of a free market economy (for example) and have had a representative sample which actually understood it. Same with many other questions. Even a slight urban bias in the sample would skew the results, while a truly representative sample would encounter many illiterates, poor people, etc.
But on the whole, there is nothing particularly surprizing about the combination of liberal and illiberal values that Indians seem to simultaneously hold, the contradiction between precept and action, different valuing of public and private goods, etc that the survey uncovers. In fact, you see opinions reflecting this contradictive straddling of the putatively liberal and the illiberal right here on SM all the time.
Take the direction the ‘Bangladeshi immigrant’ discussion is taking right now. Except for a short stretch of the border near Rajshahi, where the Ganges forms the border, there are no real natural barriers on the ground between Bangladesh and India, and nothing to distinguish local economic geography between the countries. The Rio Grande on the other hand, forms the entire border between Texas and Mexico – some 1,300 miles. Never mind that most people saying things like this, here anyway, are immigrants themselves. The simple act of realizing that Bangladesh and India are part of the same big region, until fairly recently fully economically integrated, and soon to return to that level of integration – removes the apparent contradiction. But oh no, the poor ‘illiberal’ ‘Bangladeshis’ are swarming India, the great liberal free market democracy. 20 million is a likely overestimate, but look at all the natural disasters Bangladesh has had recently, and the population flows that they cause. Where else are Bangladeshis going to go anyway, if not to India. And the big contradiction in refusing to take in Bangladeshis while continuing to hold much of the Northeast inside India by force never strikes most Indians. So anyway, this is just an example of a mentality that I had really hoped people would re-examine, especially given their own immigrant status and high level of education. But I continue to be disappointed….
Sure, like Sania mania ? 🙂
On the other hand I would argue that Indian youth have got there thoughts right about the state of the nation. Culture on the other is a subjective issue, I would say it is the best !
They don’t need to outnumber non-Muslims all over India. It can work district by district until renewed demands for exclusive Muslim homelands ruled by Sharia can be raised. We see this not just in the cases of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir etc, but all over the world – see Thailand or Phillipines, two new countries facing Islamic state demands. Also, until I see proof that non-Muslims are not legally mistreated in Islamic countries, and all evidence points to the contrary – current events of Malaysia are the latest example, but look at Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or other Gulf countries and you have daily examples, I’m happy to see these numbers because they mean most Indians are well aware of the new Muslim threat, 50 years after giving in to their demands.
I expect more awareness of Indian history from Sepia Mutineers before they wax self-righteous about unPC attitudes in India.
Also, for the record, I’m not a “Hindu chauvinist” but a secularist who prefers to see India remain a country of diverse cultures and religions rather than see more exclusivist Islamic theocratic/dictatorial states carved out of it.
…more realistic than this mania perhaps? 😉
I wonder what I should be concerned with, Chachaji’s disappointment or the increase of immigrants in a country where unemployment is already a massive issues. My parents came here legally to fill an economic need of the US, I am disappointed that you cant see the difference
If we take in Bangladeshis, we have a right to Bangaldeshi territory to have the resources to support this increase in population. India should begin to annex border regions of Bangladesh
louie, I wouldn’t be too worried about chachaji’s disappointments :). He’s a dreamer of the Andalusian sort.
I would ask people to compare Indians’ discomfort with Tibetan immigration (sympathetically welcomed for the most part) with that of Muslim immigration, and draw their own conclusions about the reasons thereof. Why do Muslims make Indians so fearful? Might history be a guide for the inevitably historically clueless Americans here?
Also, Nepali immigration isn’t immigration so much as exchange. Nepal and India have free flow of people in both directions. Besides, Nepalis have never asked and aren’t expected to ask for their own theocratic country to be carved out of India.
The big difference in Bangladeshi and Pakistani illegal immigration is that these countries demanded separation from India. First they ask for separation and then they illegally immigrate to India. Most Indians are not concerned about Tibetan and Nepali illegal immigration so its unfair to say that this is basic xenophobia. Pakistani and Bangladeshi illegal immigrants are often very anti-India and often regard the land they immigrate to as rightfully belonging to their respective countries.
Every region in which there is a Muslim majority with a Hindu minority has seen substantial reduction in the rights of Hindu (even in Indian Kashmir). It is perfectly sensible for Hindus to worry about illegal immigration that will turn certain parts of India into a Muslim majority.
Where else are Bangladeshis going to go anyway, if not to India.
well, bangladesh has an enormous expat population in the gulf states and bangladeshis also tend to be construction workers in places like singapore and malaysia. and obviously there is a bangladeshi diaspora in england. though i suspect the composition of the different migrant streams an issue here. e.g., for obscure historical reasons the bangladeshis in england are overwhelmingly sylheti. i have a relatively large family and i know the life histories of a fair number of cousins. many have lived in japan, latin america, europe, the arab world, southeast asia and north america. not only has emigrated to india!?!?! i think that’s a function of class, my relatives do visit india, but generally for thinks like eye surgery that is cheaper and better. so the ones going to india are probably relatively poor without the means to pay a recruiter to go work in the gulf or the education or connections to go to a first world country. and they probably come from bordering regions…my family lives in dhaka, comilla and chittagong, rough an axis from the middle of the country to the southeast, bordering regions of india which aren’t example prime agricultural land.
not one has emigrated to india i meant. and re: class, in terms of first degree cousins and what not, i don’t know if any of them are ‘working class.’ most have university degrees (a few have lower level vocational certifications i think). so you get a sense of the skewing of the sample….
Sure, why not time travel back to pre-1940 Europe, where this kind of thing was pretty routine for adherents of a certain ideology. Look, it’s not about annexation, but about making the border itself irrelevant. Secondly it is about reducing the population flows, by increasing economic growth and spreading it out everywhere in South Asia, enabled in part by the free-trade enabled growth spurt. And thirdly, it is about decreasing the relative salience of religious identities in the public sphere, enabled also by higher and more equitable economic growth.
And of course, ‘India’ should have transit rights, but more broadly, that border shouldn’t even be an issue, as in ‘South Asia’. But the implications are both ways. India can hardly expect transit rights if Bangladeshis can’t freely migrate anywhere within South Asia.
Razib, good points. Sure, they can go to the Middle East, and they can go to UK and Europe and the US and Malaysia. So the poorest will go to India, and if anything that’s a statement that for them, India is better than whatever they had in Bangladesh. If Indians now want to hold up their religious belief as a reason not to let them in, then what happens to the professed secularism? Doesn’t it then look like a majoritarian Hinduism?