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.
According to the Qur’an, Islam is a supremacist and separatist ideology. Roughly “Allah has made the Muslims a separate and better nation than all the others”, “Befriend not the unbelievers”, yadayada.
So, no. In my view, secularism is anti-Islam, in the same way that liberalism is anti-Nazism. The two are polar opposites. Your question is like asking in 1940’s Britain: If Britons now hold up Nazi beliefs as a reason not to let Nazis in, then what happens to their professed liberalism?
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?
did all the hindus who were pushed out of bangladesh over the past 50 years naturalized? i mean, they were 25% or something of east pakistan’s population the 50s and now the number in bangladesh is closer to 10%. my family knows for a fact that a large number of prosperous bangladeshi hindus live in bangladesh on “paper,” so that they can retain their property, but actually reside in india (we help them when we have had a close relation with them going back generations, one branch of my family was originally hindu and still is on good terms with their distant hindu relatives).
According to the Qur’an, Islam is a supremacist and separatist ideology. Roughly “Allah has made the Muslims a separate and better nation than all the others”, “Befriend not the unbelievers”, yadayada.
the same sort of thing can be said xtianity and its old testament. also, there are hindu scriptures which make it seem like brahmins are by nature superior to all others. but somehow not all brahmins & christians manifest what their texts might imply. so the question isn’t about the islamic text, it is why muslims appeal to supremacism to not produce anything like indian secularism (turkish laicism still remains strongly prejudiced against heretics [alevis] and non-muslims).
one branch of my family was originally hindu and still is on good terms with their distant hindu relatives
to be clear, obviously most of my ancestors were hindu. by my paternal grandmother’s family converted so recently that she had many hindu second cousins, and the muslim and hindu lineage groups remain in a working relationship. most of the hindus have emigrated to india, but the muslims serve as their proxies in handling property in bangladesh.
Chachaji: You call me a Nazi, so I will call you a freak show. If India, a resource strapped country, is expected to support the material needs of a population that had earlier asserted its “separateness” it has a right to annex the resources needed to support that population. Did Germany invade Poland because Poles were swamping Germany ? Chachaji, you masquerade as an idealist advocating some kind of Union of South Asian states, but you know Pak and Bangladesh will never reciprocate and will only “take”. Which is why, coupled with your many ridiculous statements, you are a Hindu baiter and an India hater.
Yes, razib, completely agree.
You meant “temple and state” dint you? 😉
sorry couldn’t resist 😀
Razib, hope you will elaborate a little on this as time permits. So even the most secular of majority-Islamic countries today is still less secular than India. And that happens even though, both Hinduism and Islam have texts that can be used to justify a supremacist ideology. What is your best understanding of why this is?
And what about history? Weren’t Islamic states in the middle ages that were economically and militarily powerful also quite secular in practice if not theory?
I dont have a strong opinion on the question of insecurity, although I also agree with some that the comments were poorly thought out, (Indian insecurity over immigration is different from the US). Bangladeshi immigration (esp. of muslims) has caused severe problems in the northeast, and is changing the demographic profile. It has also contributed somewhat significantly to magnifying existing ethnic tensions in the Northeast. Immigration in India does have tangible security and law and order consequences, and I think this explains some of the insecurity people have over it.
i would like to second chachaji . the sample cannot possibly be representative (for india). i can bet you that they conducted phone interviews or stuck to the urban areas. so expect huge–and i mean huuuge–selection effects. when in doubt about statistics in india remember these two rules
1) economic statistics are generally well-collected (since most of them are done by those who have access down to the lowest administrative level)
2) public survey statistics (except those conducted by the govt. or in partnership with the govt by desi agencies) are highly suspect
No, there’s big difference between holding up a religious belief and holding up a political model.
No, but some Nepalis have asked for and fought for a separate state in India. See the Gorkhaland Movement, particularly in the mid 1980s. So too the Bodos, Kukis, Mizos, Nagas and others.
The (il)logic of this statement would indicate that you also are “fearful” of the British. The disturbing aspect of your argument is that it justifies the actions and policies of the Indian government (or rather, lack thereof) that the Sachar Report, for example, condemned. Please read some recent history rather than childishly calling Americans clueless.
It’s not an all or nothing issue here. India is going to have to grapple with a substantial Muslim population for the forseeable future. What would be appropriate is searching for ways to stop reducing this issue to one of religion only, but also economics, regional stability, and social rights. India doesn’t have a solution (and clearly neither does the US for its immigration challenges), but I personally believe in both countries capacity to absorb all manner of influences.
. So even the most secular of majority-Islamic countries today is still less secular than India.
1) depends on how you define ‘secular.’ i don’t think that india is really that ‘secular,’ but i use a different definition 😉
2) but yes, in turkey even though there is an anti-islamic streak among the kemalists, they haven’t been able to shake off the prejudice that non-sunnis are by their nature a 5th column and not part of the turkish nation. this applies even to alevis, a quasi-shia group subject to a great deal of oppression and suppression during the ottoman period who actually tend to support kemalism because of its disestablishment of sunnism as the state religion. alevis still complain about prejudice and discrimination at the hands of the turkish state and its officials, and that prejudice is probably simply a part of the historical background of sunni elites who also oppose islamism.
What is your best understanding of why this is?
my best understanding is that the history of islam has strongly shaped the perception of the ummah of how the world should be ordered. i suspect the “1,000 years of muslim domination” of south asia has had a much stronger influence in how muslim elites view non-muslims under their rule than the koran or the hadith, which most of them are not very familiar with unless they consult a religious cleric.
if you want see how muslims can be less supremacist, a study of the history of muslims under russian or chinese rule isn’t bad. the problem though is that both russian and chinese muslims are becoming more like other muslims as they hook into world-wide information networks and receive saudi funding, but in both cases they are constrained by the reality that they are a minority who will not attain power and they have always been a minority which has had to tailor their own beliefs to the majority dispensation (in fact, the history of islamic uprisings in the 19th century shows that they became successful with the muslim reformists began using the same figurative language that was in use in buddhist and daoist secrete societies, the muslim revolt was one of an ethnic group rather than a religious ideology).
oh, and a third thing, about the two rules. there is enormous variation in the quality of even government collected statistics (see dreze and sen, i think their 2000 volume, on this. they have a detailed discussion).
the comparison with the chinese is interesting. on the one hand
1) many east asians are very proud of their societies
2) but they value self-criticism and humility
2 is manifest in personal attitude surveys, they just don’t value self-esteem, rather they don’t want to seem like they stand out and are loud & proud of themselves as individuals. i would have assumed brown people are the same, but is it that brown people are more like westerners in individualism or attitudes toward bragging? chinese are just like indians in asserting that all great things originated in their homeland.
Pakistan and Bangladesh, not to mention the myriad Muslim separatist movements in the world, are manifestations of a political model based on a so-called “religious belief”.
Wary, more like. India could well be an Iraq some day. So learning from history and current events is “illogical” – interesting.
Turkey is always pointed out as an example of Islam’s potential to coexist with secularism and modernity, but it is the exception that proves the rule. In Turkey the government creates stringent laws that keep Islam out of political affairs and the government runs all the mosques and employs all the imams.
Turkey remains secular because it operates under the assumption that Islam if left unchecked will destroy Turkish secularism and modernity. For Turkish secularism to survive Islam needs to be constantly managed and tamed by the government.
i found it a bit odd that only 6 percent of chinese (and 33 percent mostly) the govt. had too much control over their daily lives compared to 30 percent indians (41 percent mostly) and 28 percent americans (37 percent mostly).
Pakistan and Bangladesh, not to mention the myriad Muslim separatist movements in the world, are manifestations of a political model based on a so-called “religious belief”.
i think modern communications is resulting in a homogenization of muslim attitudes toward non-muslims. my reading of the history of chinese muslim thought has reinforced this perception. the chinese muslims have somewhat shifted from being a particular chinese cult to muslims who live in china (they are still very particular, i’m talking of a difference in degree). also, arab ‘dominionism’ has an outsized influence because of gulf money.
Weren’t Islamic states in the middle ages that were economically and militarily powerful also quite secular in practice if not theory?
no, they weren’t secular. not state was really secular in the pre-modern world. the chinese emperor sacrified to heaven and was the axis mundi between the divine and the world. in the india context secular ~ religiously neutral, right? they weren’t secular then. in the america context secular ~ religion is private. well, they weren’t secular then either. in practice muslims and muslim states made many accommodations with the vicissitudes of reality, but they remained muslim states where islam was supreme over non-muslim religions. think of granada, it paid tribute to christian powers, but islam was still the established religion of the state.
“only 6 percent of chinese (and 33 percent mostly) completely agreed that the govt. had too much control over their daily lives.”
i just read the excerpt; now i have strong doubts about nanda’s interpretations. i think the poll has inadvertently conflated conceptual differences and categories in their framing of questions. for example most respondents from africa want curbs on immigration (ranging from 94% for ivory coast to 67% in uganda). but the questions, even within africa mean different things in different countries depending on historical contexts. thus support for restricted immigration is lowest in uganda (still high…apparently if this survey is to be believed). but i’m sure many posters here are aware of the unfortunate political conflicts with asian immigrants, in whose aftermath (including economic effects) we would expect people to be more cautious. similarly within asia the question means different things to different people. thus when you say immigration in japan, i’ll bet you that most japanese mean temporary immigrants and visitors (since gaining japanese citizenship is almost impossible for a non-ethnically japanese; ask the koreans born there); whereas in india they mean permanent settlers.
i would not put too much credence on this survey; it is radically decontextualized,(i think pew has unfortunately presented it within an unified framework) and if not used properly the user ends up looking like an idiot .
Pride in Indian culture doesn’t equate to patriotism. The poll gives a distorted view because it is falling into that trap of assuming a nation shares “a” culture. Of course Indians are proud of “our culture”, because “their culture” is shared by a small subgroup of Indians. They don;t mean “Indian culture”. They literally mean “their own culture”.
And i am actually very sympathetic to nanda’s point of view (including her view of the innumerable maladies of indian society)
Yipes, there goes the US case for “liberating” the Chinese from themselves ;).
i don’t think turkey is as secular as people have held it out to be – islamic influence and laws are still remnant in many laws. yes, comparative to other historically muslim countries, it has evaded a good deal of religion in its laws. but even that is changing these days, given the platform of certain political parties that have come to prominence.
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.
Paging Mark Steyrn!
Muslim hordes after turning Europe into ‘Eurabia’ are now targetting India to turn it into ‘Indarabia’.
Is there Sharia law in BDesh?
Ummm….you do know that there is a recent precedent for this in South Asia, unlike Europe, right ? And that the progressive camp views this as a reasonable demand in Kashmir, right ?
What this poll confirms is that Indians are more akin to Africans in their attitudes than to chinese, japanese or europeans.
Al_Chutiya_for_debauchery: Yes, oh the Islamophobia! Let’s just let them all in again and calmly wait for another Direct Action Day.
Let’s check back on this in 10 years
Ummm….you do know that there is a recent precedent for this in South Asia, unlike Europe, right ? And that the progressive camp views this as a reasonable demand in Kashmir, right
I dont know the progressive camp’s stance on India and to be honest I dont really care about the Kashmir dispute anyway. I think some dire predictions made here about Sharia being imposed in India if the BDesh immigration is not controlled are frankly alarmist and not grounded in reality. BDesh has a population of 150 million and as most Muslim nations have higher standards of living than India, I dont see a Europe like situation emerging in India where tens of millions of Muslims from all over the Muslim world are trying to immigrate. I am sure absorbing another 10-15 million (higher level) of Bengalis no different in profile than Muslim living in Eastern UP/West Bengal/Assam is going to lead to a Iran style theocrcracy in India.
Is there Sharia law in BDesh? Let’s check back on this in 10 years
So there is currently no Sharia Law in BDesh. I thought the Islamists were in power or something. Yes, in 10 years I can actually see more Muslim nations going the Sharia route. Theocracies have not been fully discredited in the Muslim world yet so there is some demand for Sharia in most Muslim nations.
Al_Chutiya_for_debauchery: Yes, oh the Islamophobia! Let’s just let them all in again and calmly wait for another Direct Action Day.
I dont think you are an Islamaphobe. You are an alarmist with a loose grip on reality who seriously lacks the ability of making serious future projections based on current numbers. Hell, as long as you are not a Budget manager for a company, who cares!
What this poll confirms is that Indians are more akin to Africans in their attitudes than to chinese, japanese or europeans.
Birds of the same feather flock together. India is also more similar to Africa in most Human Development Index parameters so the hopes, aspirations and fears might be similar.
Uh – yeah this has already happened before, heard of Pakistan and Bangladesh.
It is also open knowledge that Saudi Arabia is financing projects to Islamicize India.
Notice that very rarely do the “progressives” on this board debate those who offer criticism on the role plays in Islam on the subcontinent.
Usually they slime people the people w/ accusations that have nothing to do with the topic. I’ve been accused of Nazism, oppressing the dalits and wanting to kick poor people out their homes in the slums.
The “progressives” often accuse critics of being like Mark Steyn, being a Hindutva or put some label on them as if that actually refutes their arguments.
Its a way of avoiding the argument while appearing to engage in it.
as i was saying above, this kind of decontextualized statement (which incidentally nanda also indulges in) is bollocks (in the best possible sense). the very idea that something is “akin” to another without looking at meanings that people give to certain concepts is, to put is mildly, extremely naive.
some interesting (if skewed) results in this thing. indians consider being able to say anything in public more important than being free to practice your religion(22 percent, funny, given how religious the survey finds indians to be) and being free from hunger and poverty (22 percent, again this is an urban sample). 41 percent of indians consider being able to say anything in public more important compared to just 18 percent of americans. and they didn’t even offer the religion option on their china survey. and tv seems to have wiped out radio in india as a source of news. surprised to see that 70 percent get their news from tv and only 20 percent from newspapers, considering it’s an urban sample. and 72 percent of this sample said they do not use a computer at their workplace, at school, at home, or anywhere else on at least an occasional basis. much lower than i would have expected. according to this survey, very few urban indians use the internet even occasionally or send/receive e-mail.
These relatively wealthier Muslim countries don’t border Bangladesh last time I checked. I encourage wealthy Arab states to open their doors to Bangladeshis, India can’t take of its own and has a responsibility to repatriate these illegals
They won’t push for sharia you say, maybe you are right. But that they will push for a constitutionally Muslim nation as was the case in the creation of Pakistan. I don’t give a damn that you don’t care about Kashmir….I hope you can see why it might concern Hindus who on one hand see progressives talking about secularism but on the other hand are advocating the establishment of yet another state based on Muslim identity in the subcontinent.
Stephen Cohen in his book, India: Emerging Power makes mention of a perceived proclivity by Indian’s to lecture all and sundry on their greatness, moral and otherwise, and more importantly to have this be recognized by others. However the developmental gap of the Indian state vis-a-vis almost everyone else makes a mockery of this. This disconnect between Indian self-perception and the perception of other’s leads to an accute sense of vulnerability and defensiveness. Naturally enough this very same sense of persecution by others leads to greater and greater delusions.
I recall a recent Times of India editorial by some so-called “strategic thinker” about a similar topic. Essentially he was galled by the fact that according to an international survey, only a low percentage of Chinese surveyed regarded India as a great power. While this is fundamentally true, it was also likewise myopic and self-deceiving in that it omits the survey results from other nations where India generally also ranked last among those surveyed on who was a great power.
Whats the most salient feature of indian culture that sets it apart from all others? The caste system. So what this poll confirms is that almost all indians, including untouchables, agree that the caste system is superior to the social systems of all other nations.
Like 84% of Indians polled apparently :). Alarmists with loose grips on reality or people well-aware of what their country needs to protect itself from is a matter of perception.
“much lower than i would have expected” should have been “much higher than expected”.
Spoken like a true Macaulayite, well brain-washed :).
Other possibilities Indians may feel proud about (rightly or wrongly) when they talk about their own culture: non-violence, vegetarianism, strong family units, strong social cohesion and support, non-aggression against other countries, etc.
interestingly, yalene linked this article in the news tab.
Frankly a lot of us have seen some of this crap at a personal level. My reaction was to fuck working for the man and striking out. I am doing much better than some of the mid-level hacks i worked for earlier. May be it isnt a complex.
Arjun@90 , well put in a few words.
Very true. Cant think of another nation in which the ruling party (the hindu nationalist BJP) would be so idiotically delusional as to boast in its campaign platform: “India is Shining; the world is in awe of us”. Talk about disconnect with reality…..
hehe. i liked this response from indian hotels’ kumar:
“It would be very easy for us to make an open offer [for Orient-Express],” says Kumar. “Except for our own restraint.”
and i think this is the best response: “Indeed, if history is any guide, Indian companies take rebuttal as a challenge.”
Other possibilities Indians may feel proud about (rightly or wrongly) when they talk about their own culture: non-violence
The delusion is pathological!
Non-violence: massive communal slaughter during Partition, massacres of sikhs and muslims, daily murders and rapes of Dalits…..
Vegetarianism: most indians would eat meat every day if they could afford it….
Strong family units: widow shunning, bride burning, female infanticide, discrimination against females in the family unit……
Strong social cohesion and support: this must be an obscene joke. A near complete absence of a safety net marks India’s culture. The numerous poor are left to starve or beg…..
Non-aggression against other countries: Bangladesh….
Pagla @70 . Very succintly put.
ahh, the american nationalists are at it again, quick to pass judgement on inferior “others”…
So here we have Amardeep – indians and bangladeshis are identical – so whats the big fuss if 10 million bangladeshis move to india – but “americans” and mexicans are quite distinct – its appropriate that immigration should be a big issue in the US. Never mind that americans and mexicans are both mostly christian and speak european languages. I would say that from an indian perspective there is almost no difference between these two cultures.
But who cares about that, right? This is a blog from an american perspective after all….
That’s why so many Indians move to Mexico? Or somehow politics and economics isn’t part of culture? Huh?