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.
huge generalizations on all sides, endowing whole populations with hegalian (singular humanoid) minds and thoughts (i.e. indians “think” this and that, “feel proud” of this and that, “like” to lecture, etc.),no nuance or context (where are you chachaji and razib?); this thread is in danger of descending into inrrationality….
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.
Where did I say that? Why are you putting words in my mouth?
In my earlier comments, I merely questioned the demonization of Bangladeshis by nationalistic Indians — just as I would question the demonization of Mexicans by nationalistic Americans.
When I speculated on how the illegal immigrant situation in India might be different than it is in the U.S., I wasn’t proposing that India should simply look the other way and allow unlimited immigration. In fact, it does make sense for India to control its borders.
Amardeep:
By making this comparison, you were trying to belittle the concern of Indians. We are talking about migration from a country that made a conscious decision to have a separate existence from India, not some unwarranted Iowan discomfort over “furreners”. I don’t think there is a misunderstanding here. Let’s be honest, you would find any effort to repatriate these illegal immigrants to be “demonization” (not a practical necessity in a Third World country)
Manju @ 95: the ruling party isn’t the BJP (though it’s influential), on a national level it’s Congress/INC. Can we at least get things factually correct here? (Is that what you were saying, or were you quoting something?)
sigh!: you’re generalizing this thread.
And seriously, the BJP doesn’t speak for all Indians, it doesn’t speak for an entire ‘deluded nation.’ Indians are probably proud of the progress they’re making, which is understandable, but I think it’s exaggerated both in Western & Indian media.
Nala–Manju obv. meant when BJP was in power.
Oh, oops! I see what you were doing now, I missed Akshay’s post.
nala, i was quoting Akshay. if you click the hyperlink, that’s my response to him…ie, my somewhat theatrical glib way of saying the BJP has a point, even if they overstated it. in any case, when they said that stuff they were the ruling party, so i’d let akshay’s error slide, but i’m not known to care too much about details.
wooh. 104-109. blog convo time warp
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’m not going to comment on the rest of this, but I thought I would offer some observations here. In the case of Kolkata, in my experience and from what I’ve heard, the answer is absolutely, yes. The advantages of visiting India with wide intervals in between is that changes become very clear and obvious, and more obvious all the development and technology and construction was the large number of mosques that had gone up–sometimes two in a block—and the number of women in Burqas, which I don’t think I’d ever seen before in Kolkata. Friends of mine who are actual Kolkatans and know the city well reported seeing OBL posters cropping up in parts of town they’d never have dreamt of seeing them in. The effect might be concentrated in the big cities, and numerically be tiny per capita, but in normal countries (not pathologically centered-on-the-heartland ones) the cultural zeitgeist is set in the cities. I leave any discussion of the significance of this upto you, but it is a clearly felt shift in the landscape in at least one major city.
Big shots visit Africa too looking for money making opportunities. The EU just had a summit with Africa. China had a huge one a short while earlier. Despite a smaller population Africa’s trade figures with China, the EU etc far exceed India’s. Does this mean that the “world is in awe of Africa”? Get real.
In reality both Africa and India are at the bottom of the heap by most every developmental measure. When it comes to the basics like hunger and malnutrition, sanitation, access to clean drinking water etc Africa actually does better than India.
If I’m not wrong, Chachaji has a rather weird stance on immigration issues: Indians, etc. to the US — tends to be more on the “Illiberal” side Bangladeshis, etc. to India— Liberal
It seems to me that the above stance can only arise when one basically thinks like this deep inside: “I made it to the US. Now, they should shut all doors from US to India so that I will be special, and now they should also let India be open to everyone because it wont matter to me anyway “
randy@113: I’ve never said anything even remotely resembling that with regard to India-US immigration flows. You hedged your comment by saying ‘if you’re not wrong’. Sorry, you are wrong.
With regard to Bangladesh, it’s a two-way deal. They open up, India opens up. The border becomes meaningless on the ground, trade and transit freely occur, and in course of time, with economic development, large-scale population flows decrease.
I think Bengali Leftist intellectuals and Bangladeshi politicians should hammer this out in the Sunderbans. I would even organize night time capture the flag and mangrove swimming events. In the meantime, I wait with bated breath for this new flow of humanity and novel ideas into India
What about HuJI ?
akshay, i’m not necessarily arguing the world should be in awe of india, only that they are (for reasons i’m sure you’re aware of but choose not to address) as the nytimes description of her as a “stirring giant” demonstrates.
now you may quibble with their descriptions, but take it up with them, or Goldman Sachs…they’ve been wrong before.
Arjun: I expect more awareness of Indian history from Sepia Mutineers before they wax self-righteous about unPC attitudes in India.
You’re possibly the only person that makes any kind of sense on this thread.
Non-aggression against other countries: Bangladesh….
I’m sorry but what exactly did we do to Bangladesh? Other than give up our sons for their freedom?
Manju @ 117:
Just in case: As will become apparent, I’m not the Akshay that has been posting in this thread, I’m the grrr Institutional Racism Akshay.
I agree with you here. Perceived growth rates in specific areas, despite terrible infrastructural issues, are what is causing most of the interest in India from those parties.
Also, to the other Akshay: Can we please talk about Africa as a continent, and compare India to specific countries, or at least Unions/Alliances? As far as discussing malnutrition, etc. averages of the continent vs. that of one country makes for a strange and not particularly specific discussion.
Prashant – are you expecting a debate based on facts here!!! You must have an agenda. Give it up dude. Shoot from the hip, like the blogger himself.
wow this is pretty serious. I was in Calcutta for a few weeks more than a decade ago and I dont believe I ever saw a burqa clad woman. Is this happening in Behala -Chowrastha / Salt Lake ( two places I am familiar with).
oh, i was wondering. You sounded different. Probably this akshay is prema, our favorite cross-dressing kimchi hater.
Re. immigration from B’desh..critical issue in the NE, they have disrupted law and order so much that in some places local youth have taken it upon themselves to weed them out of their villages. Of course, the local havaldars and inspectors have known about the immigration problem, but kept mum (bribes). These immigrants seem to forcibly marry local women after which they usurp land (strength in numbers). Since the locals for the most part are agrarian, the violent takeover seems not only senseless, but fearsome. From a few sporadic episodes back in the 90’s, it is a full blown problem now. The issue is simply this, the NE folks dont look like mainstream desis, the value systems are different, probably more similar to Burmese than Indian, and the rest of the populace hasnt really cared about this offshoot of India since 1947. The few problems that they faced post-independence, were wiped under the carpet, started to fester and are now a full blown crisis. For proof, just look up any Nagamese, Mizo papers online.
Arjun:
Are you new here?. The general idea here is that people who would like to differentiate between India and Pakistan/Bangladesh or question the Islamic BS are “upper caste” “Hindu chauvinists” who regularly kill and mistreat Dalits. 🙂
We are talking about migration from a country that made a conscious decision to have a separate existence from India, not some unwarranted Iowan discomfort over “furreners”.
Aztlan Reconquistaaaaaaa!
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.
With the type of number projections being considered here, Mark Steyrn and his Euabia numbers look like an exercise in conservatism.
well, i’m an islamophobe and tend to think that anyone who wants to keep the number of muslims in their country down has their priorities right (or at least the same priorities as me). but Al_Chutiya_for_debauchery is right in criticizing the population projections people like mark steyn and the idea of an islamic india. it’s a joke for anyone who can do basic math and has a sense of history. in other words, very few people 😉
think about it, after 500 years of muslim domination (about 1250 to 1750), east bengal remained about 30% hindu in 1947. india is right now probably around 15% muslim (i’ve seen debates about who is counting what, but i think 15% is a good moderate number and takes into account illegals from bangladesh). additionally, the islamicization of the indian subcontinent was one of elite emulation and the propagation of the religion to those least impacted by hinduism (e.g., barely hindu tribes in east bengal, areas of the punjab where buddhism had a strong presence on the ground when the muslims first invaded). the muslims who are immigrating into india come to sh*t work, the last time they came as a military caste who had access to horses, gunpowder weaponry and international contacts. there’s a big difference. this does not mean that the islamicization of districts bordering bangladesh has no local salience, but it is important to keep things in perspective. quick back of the envelope calculations seem to suggest that assuming growth rates of hindus & muslims in india that the muslims will outnumber hindus in the middle of the 22nd century, when india will have something like 3 billion people. so that’s the time frame. migration can alter the parameters a bit, but we’re talking a dynamic of generations.
note: used the 1991-2001 census growth rates. and btw, using those numbers ‘animists’ will be #1 by 2100! projections are fun (i know, i know, animist growth was a classification artifact).
Amardeep,
The journalist you makes a stupid, blatantly incorrect statement.
Not only is swallowed whole, hook line and sinker, it is also endorsed
It took pretty little time to point out this was false (the very first comment!). Not surprising, since it is estimated that India has India has 2 – 5 times the number of illegal immigrants as America
Amardeep, why not just say you blew this one and note that Nanda’s ‘Analysis’ blows in the main article? Otherwise making sweeping statements based on something you know is incorrect (at least now) seems suspiciously like trolling you own blog.
It would have also prevented you from fudging, and making blatantly contradictory statements like
The next time you rely on ‘Analysis’ from Indian mainstream media apply at least the same standards to it as you would to something turned in by one of your standards.
The Hindu used to be somewhat decent, but since N. Ram took over, it has become another lousy, biased, left leaning rag, just like most of other indian papers.
The basis of this entire “persecution complex” idea seems to be that Indians feel that their culture is superior and that it is under threat.
How come no one, in 130 comments so far, has suggested that the attitudes could be explained by the massive socio-economic and cultural upheaval seen in India the in the last 15 years.
Krugman talks of the attitudes towards cuture in mainstream America in the sixties. The simialrity in attitudes towards cultural change / need to protect culture etc seems a lot like what the pew polls findings on Indians. The simialarily seems uncanny until we realize that the pace of societal changes in America today can be seen in today’s India.
@130
Sorry, typo that should be “The journalist you cite makes stupid, blatantly incorrect statements such as “
Because DizzyDesi not everyone has missed the control variable as you have. China has/is experiencing the same phenomenon you describe and to a greater extent than India. Yet as Nanda points out while 64% of Indians surveyed completely agree to their own superiority without reservations, only 20% of Chinese do. Likewise while 92% of Indians surveyed feel their way of life needs to be protected, only ~60% of Chinese do.
It took pretty little time to point out this was false (the very first comment!). Not surprising, since it is estimated that India has India has 2 – 5 times the number of illegal immigrants as America
Amardeep, why not just say you blew this one and note that Nanda’s ‘Analysis’ blows in the main article? Otherwise making sweeping statements based on something you know is incorrect (at least now) seems suspiciously like trolling you own blog.
Nanda’s statement isn’t false. She says an “order of magnitude” — she’s clearly talking about per capita illegal immigrants, not absolutely numbers. And there is no contradiction or fudging in my statements.
It might be worth pointing out at this point that no one really knows how many Bangladeshis are in India. There are various estimates (10-20 million), but it’s unclear how they’ve been put together. So to start a shouting match when no one has any actual hard data is pretty silly.
You would think that people would be appreciative of Nanda (and possibly, by extension, myself) for sharing a wealth of data relating to India that hadn’t previously been looked at by the media. Instead, most of this thread has consisted of people dissecting my facetious, throwaway comments (i.e., Iowa), lambasting Bangladeshis, and, most absurdly of all, defending Indian “secularism” by “keeping the Muslims out.” (If that’s “secularism” I’d rather be “pseudo,” any day.)
The attention to my comments is misplaced. My own analysis in the post above is limited to two or three sentences — I’m really just relaying information. We would have had a much more interesting discussion if more people had taken the time to look at the Pew Global Attitudes study itself.
Just as any nation/culture is not free of deficiencies, India has a lot of room of improvement but if feeling of whatever superiority means a negation of the ability to be self-critical and progressive then obviously that is not good. As others have pointed out long periods of Islamic and British subjugation has contributed to the insecurity including the realization that a lot of problems in India is just missed opportunities, lost potential and mismanagement by its very own people in the past and in the present.
Btw there is a relevant (?) quote by Gandhi – ” I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides, and my windows be closed. I want the cultures of all lands to be blown freely about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any “
Because DizzyDesi not everyone has missed the control variable as you have. China has/is experiencing the same phenomenon you describe and to a greater extent than India. Yet as Nanda points out while 64% of Indians surveyed completely agree to their own superiority without reservations, only 20% of Chinese do. Likewise while 92% of Indians surveyed feel their way of life needs to be protected, only ~60% of Chinese do.
It’s also helpful in comparing Indians and Chinese attitudes to note that India and China have had very different histories and political systems. And yes, you have to wonder if its xenophobia or something a lot more sane, when you compare the immigration of tibetan refugees and how well they are received in India. Of course I also think that the number of Tibetan immigrants/refugees could be much smaller than Bangladeshis.
I just don’t get this analysis — it’s interesting but it seems to miss so many important points – others have pointed out the different socioeconomic conditions of the US and India – which country is more readily able to absorb a large population of illegal immigrants, most of whom live in poverty and also of course the drastic change that is occurring in India, the relative youth of its statehood compared to the US — w/o pointing out these things, I don’t think this analysis is very perspicatious. Thanks to the many people, like dizzydesi who has pointed out these many variables that needs to be taken into consideration.
china cannot be a “control” (in the actual sense of the term) since among other things (possibly tens of differences)the questions don’t necessarily mean the same things in both countries (as i point out in #69). “control” can only be a metaphor; though you might justifiably say that “control” in its true scientific sense is always a metaphor in the social sciences. but its much better to use attributes of the same population as control(and define the population carefully). for this reason i think time series data lend themselves to much better “control” (but of course there are a host of other problems).
can u tell me what this means – but its much better to use attributes of the same population as control(and define the population carefully). for this reason i think time series data lend themselves to much better “control” (but of course there are a host of other problems). – particularly “time series” –
china has also gone through these changes much earlier and for longer than india and are in a position of relative strength now. also, geopolitically, they have little reason to feel under siege in the manner that india does – real and perceived. the sample for china is also disproportionately urban. there aren’t bombings/major communal clashes in major chinese cities, china got back hong kong in a peaceful handover, the chinese govt. manages cultural/political information (yahoo etc), religion. and the mindsets of indians/chinese are probably different, and the question of “foreign influence”, “culture” , “way of life” and what people value may mean different things to the people answering the questions.
and while i think the survey does give some insight, it also cannot be taken as a true measure given the skewed sample and small number of people questioned in a country of over a billion:
Sample size: 2,043 Margin of Error: 2% Representative: Disproportionately urban (the sample is 73% urban, India’s population is 29% urban). Eight states were surveyed representing roughly 61% of the population – Uttar Pradesh and National Capital Territory of Delhi in the north, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh in the south, West Bengal and Bihar in the east, and Gujarat and Maharashtra in the west. Towns and villages were under-represented.
i think the states in which the people were interviewed also matters. sigh! is right. equating people’s thinking in say, UP, to people in shanghai is dicey.
The great respect that many Indians have for their own traditions and culture is one of the country’s strengths. But the capacity for constructive self-criticism is a complementary aspect of a mature culture. The second may need strengthening.
Amardeep,
Re: “order of magnitude”
I should have elaborated why this statement of Nanda’s should have been flayed, even assuming it was per capita.
Statements made in the past by George Fernandes (Cabinet Min of NDA Govt) puts #of bangladesh’s illegal migrants in India is 20 million. As per Joginder Singh (CBI director appointed by Dewe Gowda) it is 50 M. They belong to the opposite ends of the political spectrum. (sources in pervious comment)
Taking a conservative minimum of 15M and a speculative maximum of 50M, India has 1.5 to 5 times the # of illegals Since the Indian pop is approximately 3 times the US pop, the magnitude of the Indian illegals problem is 0.5 to 2.3 times America’s.
So the question is, given that there isn’t any clearly better data available, how the #$%^&* (I knew reading asterisks would come in handy one day), does Nanda claim
“US, 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”
This is patently absurd. As pointed out by PS there are several other factors. To the best of my knowlege The US has only had three terrorist sucessful acts where foreginers were involved (the 2 WTC attacks and the killing of the CIA agent in Langely). I kinda stopped keeping track of the corresponding number for India a while back.
Re: Attention to Pew sources. Have no gripes with it. It is the biased ‘Analysis’ that I have a problem with. I also seriously doubt that calling post “our vanity is matched only by our persecution complex” and posting Nanda’s insulting pseudo-analysis helps anyone focus on the pew survey itself.
I hope you will be striking the Iowa comment like you did with the cricket one and start adding caveats to Nanda’s biased,ill informed, commentry masquerading as analysis.
Amardeep, are you suggesting that we should have to read the report (all 144 pages) in order to be able to respond to your comments? Are all of your comments facetious (i.e. do you believe that it is “paradoxical” that Indians both believe their culture is “superior” are most insecure about foreign influences or are you just making a throwaway comment?)? Some clarification would likely help people respond in the manner in which you desire. I’m not sure if all your comments were intended to be facetious or “throwaway”, but if so, it seems somewhat analgous to yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre and then being upset that people don’t “get” the joke.
Nevertheless, I took your admonishing somewhat to heart. I scanned some of that report (certain sections didn’t seem germane to the issues you raised). At page 27 the report says”..opinions about immmigration are closely linked to perceptions about threats to a country’s culture. in 46 of 47 countries, those who favour stricter immigration controls are also more likely to believe their way of life needs to be protected against foreign influence. In every region, this relationship is generally strong and consistent. In Western European nations, Canada and the United States the pattern is especially clear“.
So, that leads me to believe that India is not all “paradoxical” in its approach. According to the report, people who fear that their culture will be threatened by foreign influence favour stricter immigration controls, especially if the people in question are from Western Europe, Canada and the U.S. India seems to be following the leaders here. Given that so many Indians believe their culture is “superior to others”, and given the foregoing relationship, it doesn’t seem irrational that Indians would want to protect their superior culture from foreign influence and thus would want to control immigration. If there’s any “persecution complex” on this point (and I disagree with that assessment), it seems to be suffered by Western Europeans, Canadians and Americans.
A couple of other points. I found no definition of “superior” or “culture” in the report–thus people could read into it whatever they wanted. As anyone who has been through the Quebec referendum process knows, the degree of precision and clarity in wording can make a great deal of difference in the results you obtain. In fact different “cultures” could interpret “culture” differently. I also note that the sample size of respondents for Britain (pop approx 60 million) was around 1000 people and the sample size for India (pop approx 1 billion) was around 2000. I’m not a statistician, but perhaps those who are can comment on whether it’s still valid to say that the results from different countires would be equally valid given the difference between sample size/population ratios. Finally, I found the question that was actually asked was whether “we should restrict and control entry of people into our country more than we do now”. Somehow that was extrapolated into a commentary on immigration. U.S. Homeland Security is all about restricting and controlling entry, and that restriction and control isn’t always about immigration. So, quite frankly, I find the report sloppy in some of its conclusions. I don’t see how they could make the extrapolations they have made given the questions they appear to have asked. That leads me to be somewhat wary of the report’s actual utility.
Hope this is moving the discussion in the manner which you wanted.
Sorry, I made an error. I did not realize that the “our vanity is only matched by our persecution complex” was nested as part of the third party intepretation. I sincerly apologize for attributing those comments to you Amardeep rather than realizing that you were merly passing them on.. However, I do believe my response to the comments is valid. Given the information in the report, I find nothing “paradoxical” about the attitude, and “persecution complex” seems to be an unreasonable stretch of the term.
Ente – Many thanks!
Ente, I appreciate your taking the time to look at the study. Those are valid objections; I might have more to say when I have more time.
it means that if you want to study the effects of any event or development on attitudes and opinions it is better to compare the same people/population over time rather than studying an equivalent population with putatively similar attributes/values on all relevant variables/factors at the same time. so the question of whether economic development or “culture” explains the attitudes can be better determined by comparing the attitudes of indians on the same or similar questions in say three time periods (say 1947-1971, 1971-1989, 1989-2007) and this should cause us to lend relatively more credence to the comparison (since the ceteris paribus, or ,all other things equal condition is more likely to be approximated in this latter case; note though i said merely approximated, and that too not too well). note that this is only an example; i happen to believe that about 99% of extant “cultural” explanations are circular/tautological (its like saying indians believe a,b,c,d because they do; you can see this by carefully examining the definition of “culture” used in these explanations).
People can spin this type of reports in whatever way they want. I don’t know much about Meera Nanda. looks like she is part of the “progressive” crowd.
While she compares India with America on the immigration issue (negatively) here she compares with China and Japan.
For America the number is 57, that is a majority of Americans believe atheists cannot be moral. Moreover if you look at the rate of decline, in 2002, the number is 81% for India and in 2007 it is 66%. I can’t explain what changed between 2002 and 2007 so that 15% Indians stopped believing God is needed for good morals.
sigh!, thanks for the explanation…I agree with that.
Pooniyan, I consider myself a progressive too, but this analysis just doesn’t hold up and seems more like indian-bashing to me.
the sample size (above a certain number) theoretically should not matter if the samples are truly random. the central limit theorem takes care of that. but i can bet a lot of money that the india samples are not random (in addition to all the other problems you point out).