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.
1.chachaji, that is an indeed an observation that needed to pointed out here. thanks.
2.sigh!, nice emphasis on the flawed survey design, especially the phrasing of the questions, and impossibility of comparison across countries/subsets of persons given that these questions cannot be interpreted homogeneously among respondents.
i’d like to know the exact nature of objections to bangladeshi immigration. radicalization of indian muslims? more public displays of conservatism? lack of absorptive capacity of the indian economy and infrastructure? all of the above? suppose that the bangladeshis who moved to india were educated, liberal, and all for the separation of church and state: would you then feel okay with more emigration from bangladesh? i know many mumbaikars who resent the ‘bhaiya’ influx into the city. do you all condone that? personally, i understand the perspective of those who see crime, unplanned development, and fear cultural dilution in their cities; but on balance, i can’t fully empathize with it. human migration will continue to exist as long as we have enormous disparities of opportunity in the world (will the free-market set please stand up :)). we can fume about it, but in the long run, it’s better to deal with it wisely and prevent alienation and ghettoization. (cf., my son the fanatic)
for those who miss the glory days of our wholesome vedic ancestors, desi domination and indian cultural imperialism can be achieved again if we somehow manage to breed shahrukh ‘bollywood ka badshah’ khan with aishwarya ‘tree-hugger‘ rai-bacchanal. this child would conquer the world in his valmikimobile, charm the pants off women, and scare the bad guys with his awesome astras. as they say, walk softly and carry a big bramhaastra.
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.
there are 140 million people in bangladesh. so are there 50 bangladeshis aside from those living in india? or are 50 million bangladeshis out of 140 million living in india? (that is, nearly 1/3 of the nation’s population?) there are 70 million speaking bengali in india according to the projections (based on census, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_languages_by_total_speakers). so are 50 million out of those 70 million bangladeshis and not west bengalis? are there only 20 million legitimate west bengalis?
look, if you imply that amardeep is credulous you really need to look in the mirror.
also, i do think playing up america illegal immigration in terms of magnitude isn’t empirically precise. there are many nations with a far larger proportion of resident aliens, legal and illegal. e.g., ivory coast until recently off the top of my head.
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
I hope the people from Cair don’t see this, otherwise they might come after this website.
I hope the people from Cair don’t see this, otherwise they might come after this website.
no worries, this isn’t kanada 😉
there are many nations with a far larger proportion of resident aliens, legal and illegal.
The list is topped by United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi in particular.
Portmanteau The exact nature of objection to Bangladeshi immigration: 1. It is illegal, i.e. does not follow the legal procedures of the land 2. It is from a nation that chose to cede from India 60 years ago on the sole basis of religious identity 3.It is not too popular with the legal residents of the place where the immigrants want to settle – a very legitimate objection 4.There is sufficient intelligence data to prove that many of the immigrants have links with fundamentalist militant organisations eg HUJI which are responsible for terrorist activities inside the Indian mainland 5.The unfortunate and unscrupulous legitimisation of these immigrants has led to an artificial demographic change in the lands where they have settled.A very valid objection. Comment no 04 was very juvenile and desperate. Keep up the good work! In this thread there is much gnashing of teeth about a very subjective and unquantifiable quality, i.e. culture. To give a metaphorical anology,I might believe that my mother’s cooking is the best in the world. There might be famous chefs who have more recipes in their repertoire, but for me her cooking is the best for a very different and personal reason. Akshay @97 “Vegetarianism: most indians would eat meat every day if they could afford it..” I can think of a thousand intelligent responses to that but the comment is bullshit, excuse my French, and you probably know it behind your hidden agenda
portmanteau, what an interesting comment @ 151. I think you went right to the root of the insecurity motivating so much of the commentary here. And talking of Brahmastras, there is this, which I dearly hope is never used. Also – ‘Rai Bachhanal’ – very nice 🙂
WgiiA, thanks for pulling out the sample size and other details from the main report, and Razib, thanks for putting the numbers in some perspective. As I said upthread, even 20 million looks like a significant overestimate. And if you add up numbers across South Asia, there are roughly 0.5 billion Muslims in a population of about 1.6 billion, today. India’s Uttar Pradesh state alone has more people than Pakistan, and more than Bangladesh, and is projected to remain ahead of both through 2050. Any two Indian states in the next 5 (#2-#6) by population have more people than P or B, and any three Indian states within the next 5 (#7-#11) also outnumber P or B. So who then should really fear whose demographics? Of course the weakest link in the argument is the blanket essentialization of an entire religion and its adherents, which I simply don’t buy. To me, the whole thing is a storm in a teacup.
there are 140 million people in bangladesh. so are there 50 bangladeshis aside from those living in india? or are 50 million bangladeshis out of 140 million living in india? (that is, nearly 1/3 of the nation’s population?) there are 70 million speaking bengali in india according to the projections (based on census, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_languages_by_total_speakers). so are 50 million out of those 70 million bangladeshis and not west bengalis? are there only 20 million legitimate west bengalis?
I do not know whether 20 million is a robust estimate for illegal immigrants in India, or is it 10 million, or 50 million.
However, you are missing a central point.
Once, a Bangladeshi illegal immigrant is in India, that person is not counted any where. That person does not live in Bangladesh, and is not part of their census effort. In India, that person for fear of being deported, never participates in any census/ counting/ tagging venture of any kind. That person is not any numbers you quoted for most part.
Also, census in India is very, very different from US of A (where everyone gets a 10 page questionaire every 10 years or so tagged by their social security number, and administered by US Federal Government through USPS). In India (for that matter I am sure in Bangladesh too), it is the government census worker goes house to house, village to village, dwelling to dwelling, filling questionaire through a verbal interview – like a housewife would tell the worker about the information of her family. If you live in shanty town, and your legal status is in question, you make yourself unavailable for interview that day or so or plainly lie.
In the process employed , statistics becomes quite shakey to begin with. Even though, ISI (Indian Statistical Institute) that is responsible for all the number keeping in India is considered world class, and is an unique institution amongst developing countries.
Razib
The figures are not mine and I have given my sources and links.
Besides … My opinion of the maximum number is clear:
“Taking a conservative minimum of 15M and a speculative maximum of 50M”
The question is are you a just a sloppy reader or do you just delibrately ignore anything that does not help you in slandering others.
A lot of number of statistics/ census/ tagging in India is done through ration card.
Ration card address and number is used by ISI/ census workers for contacting and field work.
If you do not have a ration card, you are invisible in India. Therefore, illegals in India will never be part of any data collection effort, like here with no social security number.
Actually, Kush, some of the Bangladeshis seem to be getting themselves ration cards through political intervention and so on. Of course that is nothing different from someone moving from one part of the country to another and doing the same thing. But while I agree nobody can give precise estimates of ‘illegals’, you can cetainly reality-check any numbers that are offered as estimates. 50 million is a very large number, relative to both actual Bangladesh numbers and total number of Bengali speakers in India as Razib pointed out. So it’s way too high to be credible, even as a speculative and deliberate overestimate.
Actually, Kush, some of the Bangladeshis seem to be getting themselves ration cards through political intervention and so on
Those become Indians in 10 minutes as soon as they get their ration card, as I said earlier in the thread, and they will (I will bet anything) once interviewed by ISI/ census worker will lie to the teeth about their past history for fear of being deported/ caught. They will never identify themselves as Bengladeshi in any census effort. Since they do not live in Bengladesh, they will not be counted there in their every 10 year effort or so. They have erased their past identity.
Neither India (I do not know if Bangladesh has one) has a mandatory birth registration/ social security number like tagging system that puts you in a computer data base for ever, and provides a robust denominator.
As I said earlier, all the numbers of Bengala speaking, and Bengladeshis do not include illegals. Bengala speaking number comes through a census worker interview, provided you want to be interviewed in the first place.
Illegals or legal through faux ration card for most part are invisible, or are providing incomplete information.
Chachaji,
In an earlier comment, I also said:
I do not know whether 20 million is a robust estimate for illegal immigrants in India, or is it 10 million, or 50 million
Kush, some people claim there’s a deficit in the Bangladeshi side that is showing up in their numbers. I don’t know how true that is. For example if the 1991 actual numbers are compared with actual 2001 numbers in Bangladesh, and compared further with reasonable projections of the 1991 numbers, then some people claim there’s a deficit in 2001, which may not be publicized, but which can only be accounted for by out-migration. I don’t know any primary sources for this, and haven’t looked, but just theoretically, you can do cross checks and reality checks, though they will also be uncertain to the extent that nobody can make exact futute projections for comparison with actuals.
no worries, this isn’t kanada 😉
It not that bad in Canada yet, but in the future you never know.
Parmhansa: the fact that poor, religious immigrants are prone to extremism is hardly news~ (The movie Syriana does a decent job of giving an account of radicalization). My questions were meant to elicit thoughts on the question below. This is especially pertinent to this blog (IMO) because of its intimate connection with issues related to immigration and the south asian diaspora.
“What kinds of groups are encouraged to immigrate to societies and why? Who is unwelcome? For what reasons?”
What I was hinting at with the Bangladeshi migration problem is that despite the huge risks associated with illegal immigration,(loss of life, property, family ties, and the chance of incarceration, deportation, bonded labor, discrimination) people still will go to any lengths to cross borders. People will do desperate things to survive (examples are numerous, say Salvadorans/Mexicans/Dominicans in the US, Iraqis now in Syria, Palestinians throughout the Muslim Middle East, African refugees, and yes, Bangladeshis in India).
To ignore the conditions that lead to migrations is just obtuse. To say that illegal immigrants ought to be punished because they broke the law is a lame argument. Immigration laws, generally, have requirements which are meant to exclude these very populations from coming into wealthier countries.^ Look at the strict immigration laws for the US, Canada, Germany, the Scandinavian countries etc. You have to have certain educational and economic qualifications to be able to take the legal route to greener pastures. Or a very compelling reason to get political asylum.
The problem is that the normative basis of immigration requirements (and I claim to have no scholarly expertise in this area), usually rests on factors on which individuals have little control and/or those which depend on luck. It is not so bad to have immigrants who look like you, or those who share the same religion as you (eg Israel’s citizenship requirements). Or it is not that bad to have immigrants who become model minorities, becoming dutiful post-docs and cheery corporate troopers. But if they dress funny, speak your language badly, and flaunt their religion in public, it’s time to panic. And this at least appears somewhat anachronistic in the world we live in now, especially when a lot of institutional actors, such as govts. and corporations have ideological commitments that align them with free movement of goods and capital. Why not free movement of labor too? The political reasons are obvious to someone who will give a cursory examination to this issue.
The interesting question is: When should people in a country be worried about immigrants changing demographics? Should we even be worried about changing demographics? (I know Samuel Huntington thinks differently!) When Marwaris control business in Bengal? Too many Biharis in Delhi? Too many post-docs of Asian origin in US labs? Too many South Asians controlling a lot of capital in Silicon Valley? Too many Mexicans who drive wages down for menial jobs? Too many students from Northeast India in Delhi colleges? Too many ‘bhaiyas’ in Bombay? How many is too many? Should we question the normative basis of exclusion? Or is the status-quo satisfactory?
~ for obvious reasons, incarceration rates, poor health status, low-paying jobs, criminal activity, teen pregnancy and a host of other socioeconomic misfortunes tend to track poverty. so does radicalization. no huge insight there. *In a federal system, of course, states can give out certain kinds of privileges to their residents, but they can’t demand visas for entrants. The normative justification of this may come from the fact that state residents pay some taxes to their governments and should receive services in return; or that we have a federal structure on order to promote and preserve diversity etc (btw, the Indian Constitution is one of those rare constitutions that delineates and recognizes “cultural rights.”) ^There are, however, a significant number of immigrants who often try to defraud welfare systems in developed countries.
Let’s be very clear that the partition was not voluntarily chosen by huge swathes of people on both sides of the border for whom the two-nation theory was nothing but a political construct that had little to do with their everyday experiences. My own family moved from Karachi, not because India was some shining, progressive beacon but there was no other option. Conversely, a lot of ‘muhajirs’ moved to Pakistan because of similar political fears. And the part of Bengal that became East Pakistan, was much shafted by Pakistan, so I doubt they were enthusiastically embracing Punjabi domination (which was an expected fallout of partition).
Second, how long can we hold historical grudges? This is actually an excellent and very provocative question. How long should children of blacks in South Africa resent future generations of white children? Should I automatically blame the British guy I work with for not donating to charities in India because a lot of British’s post-industrial-revolution was predicated on colonial exploitation? What sorts of historical disadvantages can be fairly mitigated/compensated, and when does the ‘statute of limitations’ run out? There may be good reasons for us to be humanely limiting or carefully absorbing Bangladeshi migration (none of which are to be found in your ‘analysis’) in India, but to be prejudiced against a Bangladeshi rickshaw-wallah because of some politically-motivated Nawab of Dhaka is downright silly.
perhaps, the word you were searching for was ‘onology.’ and to extend your comparison, the good folks here were trying to hash out whether the person who appreciates their mum’s cooking, recognizes that it is best for her, not a globally applicable assertion. so the question is, “do Indians tend to appreciate their culture in that personally affectionate way or do they do so in a strident, jingoist, hyper-nationalist way?” which seems to be a nice and perfectly acceptable topic for reflection. or teeth-gnashing.
portmaneua@116,117 well written…
Assuming you haven’t already read it,you will find this recent book interesting – Great Partition by the British historian Yasmin Khan
But if all “present/future” clashes are clash of civilizations or culture. Then do you think backlash against immigrants in any country is a spin-off of this clash ?
Oops I meant portmanteau @166,167 in 168
Cultural chauvanism amongst Indians will only get worse. I think it was MoorNam who said that diaspora Indians were just now ‘waking up’ to their Hindu-ness.
Well, our family has religious figures passing through continuously. During one lecture here, a swami noted that Hindu rites and rituals were being performed in numbers, never before seen.
If we take what he is saying to be correct, then we’d somehow correlate an improvement in material condition to an increase in religious and cultural sentiment. Something to do with people now being able to afford to pour gallons and gallons of milk on a little stone?
Since we’re talking cricket, I thought I’d bring up an incident which highlights the kind of concerns the Pew study is trying to get at. A black cricket player on the Aussie team (Andrew Symonds) was taunted by crowed in India who gestured like monkeys. Of course, the media home and abroad jumped on this and each match saw the behavior being carried out by other fans in the stands.
I’ve never seen anything like that in sports. I’ve HEARD of soccer fans in Europe throwing bananas at black soccer players (on their OWN teams, no less) and this kind of behavior seems to close to that.
Don’t get me wrong, I hate the Australian cricket team. They can push brownies off podiums and laugh it off as ‘innocent’, but this incident was plastered all over the Sydney Morning Herald as an example of the racism within Indians.
Racism against blacks in Europe stems from a xenophobia and fear of economic competition. What feeling does it stem from in India?
This study has rightly put the finger on the pulse of cultural chauvanism–whatever qualms you may have about sampling, methodology, etc.
@170
I am skeptical about taunting Andrew Symmonds as racism by Indians. If Indians were indeed racists why wasn’t this a bigger issue when West Indies toured India??
Australian team is known for its antics in sledging and taunting foreign teams. Heck, if South Asians cried ‘racism’ for everything Aussies did, it could make a quite a long list. Wasn’t Muralitharan from Sri Lanka targeted by Aussies when he played well? Andrew Symmonds did perform very well in the recent tour to India.So, how is it surprising if Australian antics are directed at their own players?
Note that I am not saying it is correct thing to do. But I won’t be so quick to follow Australian Newspapers, they are guilty of being unfair previously.
I am not suprised that Indians rate themselves highly as being ‘culturally superior’. This has been long observed and western authors in books(written as early as 80s) about India are often suprised about this (sorry for not being able to provide exact references, I did this lit review in 2003). In my opinion, this is an offshoot of nationalism promoted from mid 19th century. Indian nationalism was tied up with the promotion of our cultural superiority to motivate Indians for freedom fight.
If this attitude wasn’t obviously prevalent in Indians, how can a comedy show (Goodness Gracious Me) could capture this? (episode on ‘Everything is Indian’). I don’t think we need a poll to recognize this issue, however biased the sample can be.
But I do view that it is unfair to compared the ratios with other countries. Chinese and Japanese have dramatic break from their ancient cultures (with revolution and WW II, respectively) with a specific event.
But which specific event changed Indian culture significantly? If anything, Indian independence reinforced our cultural superiority complex. I think buying into cultural superiority has its own advantages and disadvantages.
Second, how long can we hold historical grudges? This is actually an excellent and very provocative question.
No. Actually, it is an irrelevant question in this case. If they want access to India, Bangladesh should advocate a free trade movement at the least.Actually scratch that, they should be asking for a closer political union as we can see in Europe. The folks who want access to India should be clamoring for re-unification. Instead Bangladesh has been anti- Indian (through democracies as well as dictatorships) even to extent of denying mere transit rights (which would generate a load of moolah for Bangladesh) to the northeast.
Also, India has a duty to push the interests of its citizens. This might involve anything from incentives to Bangladesh or old fashioned gunboat diplomacy. Having a potential Bangladeshi 5th column in the country is a huge hinderance in this.
This in a country that leads the world in child malnutrition! Is this a culture to be so inordinately proud of or is this a culture that needs to be changed?
They were probably aping the racist soccer hooligans in Europe who make monkey noises at their black players. What these desi hooligan-wannabes dont get is that the average indians and sri lankans are also seen as blacks by the euros: the only desi player to play World Cup football, Dhorasoo of France, is also greeted by monkey noises.
PS,
There are progressives and then there are “progressives”. JGandhi puts it nicely in #82.
You cant think of a single intelligent response which is why you are resorting to bullshit like the above. The majority of indians are not vegetarians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_in_specific_countries#India
“According to the 2006 Hindu-CNN-IBN State of the Nation Survey, 31% of Indians are vegetarians, while another 9% consumes eggs. Among the various communities, vegetarianism was most common among Jains, Brahmins at 55%, and less frequent among Muslims (3%), Christians (8%) and residents of coastal states respectively. Other surveys cited by FAO [2], and USDA [3][4] estimate 20%-42% of the Indian population as being vegetarian.”
This blatant disregard for reality is one of the reasons why India lags behind most of the world. Imagine indian govt officials absurdly claiming that there 50 million illegal bangladeshis in India! And we have ‘educated’ posters here who buy into such patent nonsense and get all excited about it.
re: #175. you initially said “vegetarianism: most indians would eat meat if they could afford it.” now you’re citing statistics to show that most indians are not vegetarians. those are two different things. most indians are already eating meat. the statistics you cite show that indians who are vegetarian are more likely to be found amongst jain, brahmin etc. communities. it’s likely that people from these communities wouldn’t eat meat even though/if they can afford it. the fact that most indians do eat meat doesn’t preclude someone else from seeing that as a feature of their own culture/way of life – if indeed that was in their mind when they answered the question.
Portmanteau, you track the trend towards free movement of goods and capital and then suggest that it should be applied towards free movement of labour. You also mention that the Bangladesh creation was not the choice of most ordinary citizens, and it doesn’t seem fair that people who had no real choice in the matter should be restricted from moving to where opportunities are better. I note that in the report (and I’m making a big assumption here that the report is valid) the substantial majority of people interviewed were NOT happy about globalization and saw it as a threat, not an opportunity. Similarly in almost all countries surveyed (if I recall correctly S. Korea was a notable exception) the majority (whether a slim majority or a substantial majority) want the government to do more to restrict access and entry to their own countires . You yourself note that it is governments and corporations that want the free flow of goods and capital (i.e–it is not necessarily the ordinary citizen). So, given that it doesn’t seem fair to hold the citizens hostage to old decisions by their leadership (political and economic), couldn’t it also be seen as unfair to force citizens to take on burdens that they don’t want to take? They are already hampered, in their view, by the manner in which international trade agreements have been drafted. Now if the issue is that the citizens just don’t know any better and they should trust in the wisdom of governments and corporations to protect their interest, well then presumably they should trust in the wisdom of that decision 60 years ago to have two separate nations and societies.
If I’m understanding you correctly, the suggestion is that migration is going to happen anyway as long as the reasons behind it exist, so people might as well stop fighting against it. I agree that historically there have been mass migrations of people–however I do not think that historically they were always peaceful and consequence free migrations. There was tremendous social dislocation and often economic dislocation, not to mention violence. As an example, the waves of Irish migration into the U.S. as a result of British policy (including the resulting famine) caused tremendous pressures on the free black population in the North. The Irish who had just emigrated from Ireland were soon taking employment opportunities from free blacks who had been born and raised on the soil and were culturally much more “American” than the new migrants. There were a fair bit of skirmishes amongst blacks and Irish fighting for the same resources and the Irish were not above personal and institutional racism of the kind that you would probably deplore. The gains of a number of Irish came at at least some expense, political and economic, of free blacks, and not at expense of the cream of Boston or New York society. So, is it really illogical for people to recognize that migration will happen but they can at least try to exert some control the mode and manner? Is it also illogical for people to say that the pace or extent of change might be too much for them personally to absorb? While I think change may be good, necessary and inevitable, is it wrong to try to shape that change in a way that is more palatable?
Now, you’ve indicated that migration would happen and its futile to rail against it without examining the reasons. I agree. But that can cut both ways. If the “reason” appears to be that the leadership of the jurisdiction isn’t doing such a great job of managing its resources and people, it certainly lends credence to the suggestion that perhaps, instead of simply absorbing the movement of people and giving the leadership a pressure valve, the external parties affected by the results of that incompetent leadership need to take a hand in the internal affairs of that jurisdiction–perhaps even, I dunno, annex it and/or replace the leadership. That of course, comes fraught with its own dangers.
I think you definitely do have valid points, however I just think that it is unfair to assume that in the case of migration, people’s concerns aren’t legitimate and are purely based on irrational concerns. While I agree that stagnation is bad, I think stability is just fine. And I think that attempting to control the pace of change, helps keep society stable, even as it transforms.
Out of curiosity, is there any nation which permits free entry and settlement of people into its borders?
Why is this chauvinism? One could just as easily label this as a Hindu Renaissance. I think the words you used here to characterize Hindus practicing Hinduism do more to reveal your attitudes towards Hindus and Hinduism than anything else.
The rise of Hindu consciousness in America has also seen with it the building of temples, funding of Hindu art, funding of charities, ethical and cultural instruction for children, etc.
If anyone here tied the rise of Islamic practice to chauvinism or extremism would automatically be labeled a an Islamophobe.
BTW when we talk about loosening immigration across the subcontinent lets be honest what we are talking about. Allowing Muslims who are often very nationalistic about their Pakistani and Bangladeshi identities and anti-Indian and anti-Hindu to move into India. We are not talking about two-way immigration or two way giving.
We are essentially asking Indians (predominantly Hindus) to accept large populations of people who are contemptuous of India and Hinduism to move into India.
Does anyone think there will be any tolerance of Hindus moving to Bangladesh or Pakistan? Pakistan does not even allow Bollywood to sell films in Pakistan (its all bootleg), yet Indians are demanded to be open-minded and accept poor swaths of the Pakistani population.
Imagine if hundreds of thousands of Gujaratis or Marwaris tried to move to Dhaka or Lahore and built Swaminarayan temples and started doing business. It would never happen, the local communities would make life too difficult for the immigrants. There would be rioting and looting.
Be honest – what is being demanded is not two giving but Hindus being asked to just give and give not expect to receive anything in return.
The double standards are so brazen it is astonishing. Pakistan and Bangladesh are blatantly discriminating against native Hindus and driving them out let alone letting any Hindus enter India and everyone’s main concern that India is not welcoming enough to the Muslims illegally immigrating to India.
ente, i mention these concerns, and i don’t think they are irrational. and i do accept that local govts. to extend greater privileges/ more amenities to tax-paying citizens. from comment #166:
for instance, in various construction projects that may be given to non-DC contracts, the city govt. stipulates that the certain percentage of workers and/or apprentices should be residents of the city. and this stipulation seems fair as long as one can earn residence status by living here a number of years, and filing a tax return.
the pre-conditions of aggression/annexation must be pretty stringent – otherwise that sounds like that classic bush defense 🙂 and i see that you do qualify your statement.
surely, this cannot be right. one, people are moving out because they the conditions and governance produce intolerable consequences. second, we can condemn the actions of legitimately elected governments that were complicit in wrong-doing in the past (this is presentism perhaps, but we may do this to recognize and/or mitigate historical wrongs). for instance, the third reich, japanese govt. during ww2, imperial European nations, american govts. that permitted slavery, gujarat under narendra modi, are all examples of what may be legitimately elected govts., but those whose decisions should not and cannot be endorsed by future generations. and my argument alluded to the fact that those who endorsed th two-nation theory were powerful elites who acted in their interests, and many of those who had to bear the consequences of their politics did not and still do not have the agency/clout/resources/spare time and energy to fight those circumstances.
Jgandhi, this I concede, and identify personally with. But the problem is as follows: Do we think those actions are permissible against Hindus in Pakistan/Bangladesh? If they are not, surely then if we act the same way, then we make the same moral errors as they do. If as a society, we prioritize retribution over justice, we might act that way. But I would hope that India is a greater nation than that, and certainly, our constitution is a (mostly) great document which embodies better ideals. Also, what of people who are driven by economic desperation to migrate to big cities with same motivations as rural Indians (I doubt that religion is the first-order concern for them, but this could be empirically verified). Maybe realpolitik leads us to different conclusions, but I may be the sort of person who thinks that “Imagine” has the same intuitive, visceral, and universal appeal 🙂 Very interesting thread, btw.
Allowing Muslims who are often very nationalistic about their Pakistani and Bangladeshi identities and anti-Indian and anti-Hindu to move into India.
Two questions:
(1) What percentage of BDeshi immigrants coming to India are Muslims as compared to Hindus? (2) Where is the evidence that BDeshi immigrants who are immigrating to India are often very nationalistic and Anti-India and Anti-Hindu? Has anybody polled these people? If 20-50 million have come to India, how have they displayed their Anti-Indianism and Anti-Hinduism? Have there been Anti-Hindu riots in those areas? Have they been destroying temples?
portmanteau, very nice comments upthread.
Ente,I thought you made a few good points there. But to get out of the is-this-liberal-or-illiberal mental quagmire, realize that the only real irreducible and non-negotiable entity is the individual. The individual comes first; the nation-state, and ethnic affiliations, and other people’s ideological blinkers, and cultural arguments, and economic and intellectual pretensions – come only afterwards. The most fundamental right of the individual is to freely barter (trade) hir services in the open market. Now introducing the idea that this right is the most basic, and overrules all other considerations – in a hierarchical, feudalistic culture with dozens of secondary affiliations (caste, subcaste, religion, etc) and a fairly highly controlled rent-seeking economy that is slowly liberalizing – is difficult. All the noise vis-a-vis the Bangladeshi immigration into India, and more generally the ‘backlash’ against immigration worldwide, arises from this difficulty. And so one questions the ‘pace’ of globalization – too fast or too slow; how many immigrants are ‘too many’; which immigrants are the ‘wrong’ kind etc. But on this I really hope all people, but especially immigrants realize that while some regulation may be necessary, the fundamental right to immigrate must be unquestioned, and while some issues surrounding identity and assimilation are inevitable, the assimilationist model has broken down (if it ever worked). So anything along the lines of ‘don’t come here because I don’t like your religion, but oh by the way, won’t your wife do the dishes in my house for next to nothing’ is basically BS.
JGandhi, I acknowledge some of the points you make, but why assume that it will only be one-way traffic. While both Bangladesh and Pakistan now have substantially fewer Hindus (or Sikhs or Jains) than they once did, the communities can be reestablished, as people migrate back, or just migrate, in pursuit of economic opportunity. The idea of a free economic zone is to make all other identities less salient in the public sphere (not disappear). Just as there are people from all parts of India now in Bangalore (with some tension, but in time there will be adjustments both ways), so also some day there will be people from all parts of South Asia in other parts of South Asia (just as it was before 1947, only much more so).
DizzyDesi @172: Significant business constituencies in Bangladesh have in fact been asking for a free-er trade regime with India for a long time. They see the Indian northeast as their ‘natural hinterland’ and feel they can supply it cheaper than Indian companies based out of Calcutta and points west. To some extent this obviates the need for ‘transit rights’ for Indian goods. A free-er and well integrated Bangladesh also significantly reduces the ‘security imperative’ for a wider transit corridor. Paradoxically, India, partly in support of its own business constituency, has argued for transit rights for Indian goods while not conceding the right of Bangladeshi business for a free-er trading area into the Indian Northeast. Thankfully, by now agreeing to a (transitional) non-reciprocal trading regime, India has taken important first steps to resolve the logjam. So bottom line: Bangladeshis want both free movement of labor and goods, but understandably, don’t want all those goods to only be Indian. Some time ago, Kush had mentioned how the Tatas had been rebuffed by Bangladesh in their natural gas project. Frankly, a huge Indian monopoly is the last type of company I would like to see initially benefiting from free trade in the region – it is from the smaller companies based out of Kolkata, Dacca, Chittagong, Guwahati, etc that the true free-trade growth spurt will emerge. And BTW it’s the same on the other border(s) – the companies out of Lahore and Amritsar and Jullundur and Ludhiana and Rawalpindi and Sialkot – are the ones who will contribute most to the growth spurt. The huge monopolies have the rest of the world to play in.
Has anybody here ever met a BDeshi immigrant in India?
No but it serves to identify the sentiments of those illegally entering India. India has no moral imperative to let these people enter India. Indeed India has a moral duty to prevent those who hate Hinduism and India from entering the country to ensure the well-being of its own citizens. Indians in the Northeast India are having their lives degraded due to the influx of these illegal immigrants.
It is foolish for Indians to live in some idealistic fantasy while neighboring countries are busy playing realpolitiks and manipulating demographics for long-term strategy.
Indian policy should be geared toward the self-interest of Indians with some moral constraints – that is real morality. It is wrong for India to make grand moralistic overtures by helping those who despise India and harm Indians upon entering India.
A mother who feeds orphans and takes them into her own home may be moral. But if she feeds those orphans at the cost of her own children going hungry and lets those orphans beat up her own children then I consider her to be morally depraved.
I think the Hinduvta types are very similar to some Palestinians who will not let go of what happened 2 generations or in Hinduvta’s brigage mindset 2-25 generations back. At some level the Hinduvta brigade has borrowed a page from the Islamists where the West will till kingdom comes be viewed through the prism of Crusades and Western Imperialism.
Indians in the Northeast India are having their lives degraded due to the influx of these illegal immigrants
Evidence?
Dope Chacha’s “integrated” Bhangladesh.
Because present minorities in both countries are being eradicated – the only reasonable conclusion is that new minorities will also be prevented from growing.
Lets be honest – you seriously think Lahore and Quetta will let large communities of Hindus exist? They will be beaten up and driven out. Hindus are much more tolerant of large minorities in their midsts than Muslims (relatively speaking). Why do you think so many Sikhs, Christians, and Parsees left Pakistan for India during partition? If you expect Marwaris to be able to freely do business in Pakistan you are mistaken. Non-Muslim immigrants will be seen and treated as threats to Islam that must be eradicated. Non-Muslim minorities that prosper are especially seen as a challenge to Islam.
I believe that Muslim immigrants will freely enter India and establish new communities and grow existing ones and demand more accommodations for Islamic practices while Hindus and Sikhs will be bullied out of Muslim majority areas.
BTW it is an aim of Islam to make Islamic identity the most salient no matter what happens – this is readily admitted by most Islamic scholars.
Again we do not need to guess what more Muslim-Hindu interaction will bring: look at a millennium of history, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Gulf States, Pakistan, BDesh, Muslim neighborhoods in UK, Guyana, I could go on.
The empirical evidence is staggeringly stacked against your predictions and in favor of mine.
JGandhi, I believe you are essentializing an entire religion. I know there are some Islamists who have the point of view you described. But there are supremacists and majoritarians in every religion, including Hinduism, Sikhism, Christianity. The point is to develop an economic and social dynamic that isolates them, instead of some kind of exclusivist economic zone in India. By definition such zones must be outward looking, and also internally inclusive. If not, then just by the reaction to the non-inclusion, you will have trouble, and resistance, and extremism. There will always be some resentment against identifiable minorities, and some historical memories (even if manufactured) of economic wrongs. But we have to move past it to create a real new future, not continue to live in an imagined past.
This is true, imo. But we’re talking about the same class of individuals on both sides. The difference is that Islam has its intellectuals too. Hindus do not. So when it comes to representation, all you get is the political riff raff. They’re busy scrambling towards this renaissance which is nothing more than painting the traditions of India with the same brush as the rest of the so-called great religions. Naturally you see them on the same page. I do too, unfortunately.
Right, because what happened in ’47 , ’71 are ancient history like the Crusades. Like the ideas that gave birth to Partition don’t have wide spread support today, as evidenced by the continued calls for the “liberation” of Kashmir, from even the “liberal” Muslims. You give us evidence of change and we’ll change.
Hindutva’s complaints are about what they perceive as continuing injustices against Hindus. I myself do not want politics to be about Sultan Tipu and Mahmud of Ghazni and I am against politics which demands that historical grievances be addressed. I want to see present discrimination of Hindus and double standards against Hindus to end.
The Hindutva movement is not like Islamism – its founder was an atheist (Savarkar) and its definition of Hindu is very complex w/ theology playing a secondary role. Even a practicing Muslim can be a Hindu according to Hindutva definitions.
Furthermore Hindutva-followers are Hindu reformers, they are not demanding a return to Medieval Hinduism – they are anti-caste, anti-dowry, often anti-Brahmin and support women’s rights within Hinduism.
PS: I think Palestinian grievances are legitimate, land is being taken away from them at this very moment not just two generations ago.
You give us evidence of change and we’ll change.
So you are going to wait on Pakistan (a disfunctional and rapidly evolving into a failed state) to lead the way or reciprocate?
I personally think that Pakistani immigration to India is not advisable but its not happening and nor is anybody clamoring for it though if India continues to experience GDP growth and Pakistan continues to slide down it might become a factor 40-50 years from now. But right now its a non-issue because there is no immigration to India from Pakistan.
I am still waiting to see the evidence of the negative consequences of 1/3rd of BDeshi population moving to India (if the numbers of 50 million are to be believed) or even 20 million. Not claiming that there are none. Just havnt seen the evidence for that.
How about living in the present? Every country w/ Muslim majority and a Hindu minority has legal, social and institutional discrimination against Hindus interweaved into every facet of that country (what you dismiss as “some resentment”). I don’t see this level of intolerance in Christianity, Sikhism or Hinduism.
How about we stop pretending that all religions are equally good and bad in every single way an wake up to reality that Islam is particularly vicious in its treatment of rleigious minorities borne out by the treatment of non-Muslims in the vast majority of Muslim countries?
I don’t mind opening borders to commerce – its not migration of people I am worried about because as empirical evidence show sus it will mostly be one way immigration.
correction *I don’t mind opening borders to commerce – its migration of people I am worried about because as empirical evidence show us it will mostly be one way immigration.
Right, because what happened in ’47 , ’71 are ancient history like the Crusades
Hmm. Guess who else is stuck in 48 instead of 47 and 67 instead of 71. Yes, the Palestinian as I gave the example. Also what does 71 have to do with BDeshis anyway. They were the victims not the perpetrators of 71 unless you believe that regardless of what happened 71, Bdesh and Pakistan are the same nation which will make you among the last 2 serious people who still believe in Jinnah’s 2 nation theory.
Every country w/ Muslim majority and a Hindu minority has legal, social and institutional discrimination against Hindus interweaved into every facet of that country (what you dismiss as “some resentment”).
In BDesh there is legal and institutional discrimination against Hindus?
Are Al_Chutiya and Al_Mujahid the same person?
Yes. I am not interested in anything the potential Pakistani or Bangladeshi migrant has to offer India, so I see no need to make the first move.
You can’t see it because it is hard to differentiate between degrees of wretchedness. You don’t get to decide if it is an imposition for Indians living at the margins
Articles on Effects of Bangladeshi Immigration:
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/faultlines/volume17/wasbir.htm
http://www.ipcs.org/India_articles2.jsp?action=showView&kValue=1139&country=1016&status=article&mod=a
http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr171.pdf