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.
Thanks JGandhi. I will look up the links when I have more time. I did briefly go over them. I think any immigration of this magnitude is bound to have consequences and it will be interesting to look into the consequences in India as compared to lets say the consequences of Mexican immigration to US.
Uhh yes. Hindus are regularly discriminated in jobs and housing. Islam is declared the official state religion of BDesh.
The Vested Property Act is used to confiscate Hindu temple property.
In addition all Hindu organizations are forcibly administrated by Bangladesh’s Ministry of Religious Affairs which is staffed by devoted Muslims.
Despite all this BDesh gets kudos for being tolerant by Islamic standards and I understand why you would use it as an exception that somehow proves Islamic states are tolerant.
re: discrimination against hindus. when i was in bangladesh in 2004 i was at a bank and noted the names of about 20 heads of the bank since independence (there were photos too). every single one was muslim. in a nation that has been 10-15% hindu at least since 1971 that seemed strange to me. my father would talk about how hindus were half the class at dhaka university, so it isn’t like they’re illiterate rubes. i noticed this sort of thing several times, hindus simply don’t exist it seems in prominent positions aside from in in the arts.
The problem is that they don’t have much to offer – because they are as wretched as poor Indians.
Right, I see upper middle-class India taking up cudgels against Muslim immigration and pointing to low-income Indians as the people who will suffer most from the Bangladeshi influx. But these are the same people who cheat on their taxes, never consider the effect of urban expansion on the resource availability for rural and tribal populations, pooh-pooh rural migrants, exploit them as domestic help, do not pressure the government to develop an efficient drought relief system (india is so scientifically capable, and yet disproportionately dependent on the monsoons for agricultural yield), do not vote, flout all kind of municipal laws, steal electricity from the power lines but hate the slums, loathe it when kids from other parts of india (esp. the NE) come to study in their big-city colleges……i have a million more examples. how come we have become so suddenly concerned about the north-east? has anyone seriously considered their separatist movements, and their alienation from mainstream india? most NE insurgent groups argue that they do not politically, culturally, or economically belong to india. and as much as i wish we could preserve the territorial integrity of india, we had all better acknowledge that the india of today has fictive origins, many of them constructed during our colonial history. the hindutva brigade is so concerned about bangladeshi migrants in assam, but does it also seriously consider the claims of ULFA? crocodile tears, anyone? funny how the india that is shining suddenly starts getting concerned about the effects of bangladeshi migration on the wretched of NE India. what a sudden development of a civic conscience. waah-waah. the amnesia and the hypocrisy is astounding. the problem is that the poor of the world only have fair-weather allies. so easy to dismiss them as fanatic ignoramuses. i’m not saying bangladesh and pakistan are paragons of democracy and socially just societies. but just look at where their persecution complexes and theocratic leanings got them. i hope that that sort of perversion and zealotry never gain a strong foothold in india. do we need more sectarian violence and a still more inflated military budget? india needs to handle things very strategically without being alarmist and defuse escalation in the long-run. we cannot afford to end up like israel, surrounded by hostility and always waiting for some crazy to drop the other shoe. imagine if all our H1-B wunderkids all got summons to go back home to a stint with the bombay sappers? all very well to rail around war cries on sepia; but are you all prepared for the sacrifices hyper-nationalism demands?
Portmanteau: Is Bengal part of the Northeast? Is Mumbai part of the Northeast ? Large amounts of Bangladeshi illegals live there too. I’m not going to weigh in on the Northeast beyond stating I would be OK to see them leave the Republic as long as they don’t become PROC proxies, but as they are in it and have demands regarding outsiders keeping out we must respect that whether they be Marwari traders or Bang illegals. Stop conflating my opinions with those of the Indian moneyed classes. I am not one of the “India is Shining” propagandists (did I not describe Indians as wretched ?)….it is because that it is not shining that we cannot afford this largesse. Just because India is poorly administered does not give foreigners the right to add to the misery. You call us out for our hypocrisy, why don’t you and Amardeep prevail upon your relatives back home to open up their doors to the newly arrived ?
I can’t profess to comment on the impact that Bangladeshi immigrants (legal and/or illegal) have on India. However, I am a little stunned by the suggestion that there is a fundamental individual right to migrate anywhere one wants. Is there any historical authority for this position? From what I understand, individual rights have really only been recognized in the modern sense since around 1215 A.D., and even then that recognition was limited to specific geographic regions and specific groups of people. I don’t recall that a free, unqualified, right to migrate ever enshrined before or since that time. Migration patterns both before and after that time usally involved groups, albeit admittedly made up of individuals. Ignoring the nation state theory, what region in history freely allowed all people to enter and leave its borders or freely settle wherever they wanted within such borders? Usually there was some condition on entry and sometimes conditions on departure. Now they may not have had the enforcement abilities that some regions do today, but I don’t think there was ever a philosophical recognition that as many people as wanted could settle in a particular region. I don’t think either history or any current legal regime supports the idea of free, unqualified movement of people. I mean if you’re talking Huns, Romans etc., their “fundamental right” was another person’s “invasion” or, if you talk to some First Nations people in North America, “genocide”.
Just as an aside, if you’re talking about the fundamental right to barter services in a free market, I also question that. The “free market” concept is at best a 400 years old. There has been no universal legal recognition of the unqualified right to freely market one’s services at any point in recorded time. There isn’t such a right, even in the U.S. If there was, then prostitution would be legal in every U.S. state.
It’s all very well to wish that such right exist and suggest that we make moves towards that state, but to state it as a current fundamental right seems to be a strong stretch. And I think that buy-in to that concept needs to occur from more than one party for the solution to be palatable and workable.
Portmanteau, I’m not advocating annexation (and I specifically chose it because of recent geopolitical events ;))–I’m simply stating that if one examines the “reasons” behind mass migration, it can be as logical a conclusion as the conclusion that the receiving countries should continue to absorb the influx. Each has its benefits and dangers.
The point I was making regarding the decision 60 years ago, is that IF you are telling ordinary citizens to trust in leadership even when leadership takes them in directions they don’t want to go, then it has to cut both ways. You can’t tell people that they should just listen to the elite to have their best interest at heart and then dismiss the elites of yore. At this point, it seems like the ordinary citizens, at least on one side of a particular border, are not interested in certain types of migration (and I note the report did NOT specifically address Bangladeshi migration, just control of access and entry in general). Their belief is that if there are separate national entities, there must be different consequential political rights within a nation for people who hail from one entity and for outsiders. I see nothing monstrous about the conclusion. Now if you add a further assumption that the two separate national entities have very different values systems, it seems fair for citizens of either nation, IF they want to preserve their value systems, to be wary of uncontrolled mass and intense influxes of people from the other nation. Again, I am speaking in generalities and not addressing the Bangladesh immigration issue–I am not qualified to comment on that.
Now, I do “hear the two wrongs don’t make a right” argument and I think it is fair. However, I’m not convinced that being opposed to uncontrolled migration into a region is a “wrong”. Reciprocity might be one of the “controls” that might go some way towards convincing others towards opening up migration from a particular region. After all, any U.S. citizen can migrate to any state within the Union–it’s not just U.S. citizens from north of the Mason-Dixon line who have that privilege. That reciprocity probably goes a long way towards smoothing over some of the stresses of mass migration (but doesn’t always obliterate them–“Grapes of Wrath”).
But I agree, this has been a great discussion 🙂
why do i assume i don’t already prevail upon them? 🙂 and also, sorry did not mean to single you out as an ‘india shining’ propagandist, but was alluding to the general profile of people who hold those opinions. most of whom actually live in india. and no, i don’t mean that people of all sorts should infiltrate india because our borders are porous and poorly secured. the point is that i am saying that there are good reasons to prevent certain kinds of people coming into India, but they must be better justified: security reasons and infrastructural constraints perhaps. Not religious-minded hysteria. At the same time, desperate people will try to come in no matter what, and that seems to be easy to understand (think Cubans coming to the US).
and if mumbaikars demand entry restrictions (to be applied to other legal indian citizens), then they must give up some federal funding for that privilege. to be part of a territory of a country generally implies free movement and into and out of that region (exception to this rule is apartheid SA). they can certainly give reservations and extra municipal/civic/local voting privileges to their own residents (eg just like state schools, state-level welfare initiatives and insurance programs in the US), but chauvinists can’t rationalize this on the basis that non-marathis aren’t good enough for Bombay.
also, once one concedes that NE-states may have a right to self-determination, then one can’t demand that they have a particular kind of foreign policy. if they are independent, that is their and their elected govt.’s prerogative. one might, however, use diplomatic means, sanctions, and permissible arm-twisting to get these states to be less recalcitrant, though. Machiavelli-style 🙂
Louicypher, I like your pragmatic approach and did not mean to essentialize your political commitments. Apologies if you thought I was insensitive to that.
portmanteu @24,
If the upper-middle class indians don’t vote why does the hindu right candidates get elected ? The next best model of relatively free movement of people is Europe and even they are having problems and suffering from immigration backlash. So there should be some deeper reasons for anti-foreign influence feelings pervasive everywhere or is it just as simple as miniscule number of zealots on the right managing to play on the fears ?
I would use the Bhutan approach. Bhutan is an independent country but they get 30% of their govt. spending budget from India which, aside from cultural affinities, keeps them cooperative. This would be appealing to the NE states because, while they may take money from PROC intelligence agencies because of their current grievances, they know being in bed with PROC (which is a Han fascist state) will mean extinction.
Ente, nice and thoughtful comments @ 206. Sure, Magna Carta 1215 AD was kind of basic, and I think you might be reading into the word ‘right’ some kind of greater ‘enforceability’ or ‘widespread agreement’ corollary or precondition. I’m just talking about the right that you and I as individuals have, even before societies and nation states and authority structures are established. Once those structures are established, they will inevitably infringe on individual rights, predicated hopefully on the establishment of a greater common good. Still, the original right remains, but if infringed, must now be negotiated within these structures. That is a practical matter, but the legitimacy and rationale for those structures, and the process by which they justify their ‘greater common good’ outcome then becomes a contestation. This is where the immigration debate in general goes on. So I agree, it’s complicated, and there are many facets to it, though the pushback on the hypocricy of the people that are objecting to the Bangladeshi immigration that portmanteau has mounted is valid nevertheless.
Ente, I am not taking that position. Just feel that modern immigration laws have requirements (education, country of origin etc rather than only have non-arbitrary requirements like payment of taxes, declaration of allegiance, duration of residence, national service of some kind, completion of civic education) that seem to contradict the rights that constitutions deem to be “natural.” It may turn out on, after analysis, that this contradiction is ethically permissible; all I’m saying is that it seems odd at first glance. After all, most countries confer citizenship rights because you “inherit” them or they are “natural.” For non-citizens, if they fulfill certain non-arbitrary/luck independent (exclude political asylum here) criteria, they should (ordinarily) be able to get legal citizenship. However: the one big reason that countries should be able to limit influx should be resource and infrastructure constraints i.e. plain lack of absorptive capacity (no other reason like religion, country of origin, educational qualifications).*
The most obvious analogy to this would be capital inflows: countries are encouraged to allow foreign investment and firm ownership. But there are reasons for restricting certain types of capital inflow. They can impose requirements to ensure that the funds coming in are not “hot money” or capital that flows in and out of the country for purely speculative reasons. Or they can say that foreign firms cannot own the majority stake in media/news companies (this I am not sympathetic to) because govts. are afraid that foreign ownership of media outlets makes them vulnerable to spewing foreign propaganda or stirring up anti-govt. sentiments. Note that protectionist economic laws would not be justifiable under a trade regime which is based on these ideological commitments.
I see that I am making an abstract point here, which might be a little bit hard to comprehend due to middling communication skills 🙂
*Historically, countries that have encouraged immigration are those which have a glut of resources but not enough people to translate that to economic growth (US, Australia in the 19th c. are examples).
free tibet! 🙂
they don’t always get elected (perhaps the ‘india shining’ debacle was an example of that). UMC Indians should not have a problem with anyone that keeps in line with sound economic policy[Manmohan Singh/Sinha-Jaswant Singh/Chidambaram are all examples of this], does not increase reservation, simplifies the tax structure for salaried people, and does not seem to overtly kow-towing to minorities (those reasons don’t seem problematic to me, except when a lot of people think modi-style evasive leadership is justifiable, even commendable).
this is because many Europeans succumbed to xenophobia, which was obviously not helped by extremist Islamic reactions abroad. Both sides are reactionary. And, Europeans seem to feel threatened more by non-European immigration rather than intra-European movement. Again, there are reasons to restrict immigration, but their basis should not be the preservation of demographic homogeneity at all costs. Once these countries have immigrant populations (some as a direct consequence of their imperialist careers), they had better learn to deal with it, not put them in ghettos. That is just the push they need to get radicalized.
sorry if the comments are repetitive. just wanted to acknowledge brij’s question.
Just to clarify, portmanteau, my comments regarding the”fundamental right” were in response to chachaji’s earlier post and were not directed towards you–I think you did an excellent job of conveying your point, so no communication issues from my end. Chachaji also did a good job of responding to my confusion, even though this may be one of those “agree to disagree” situations :).
I checked the election commission of India website for 2004 results. http://www.eci.gov.in. I think you meant BJP as the “Hindu nationalist party”. BJP received 22.16% and Congress received 26.53% of the total votes. Do you think all those who support BJP belong to the upper middle class?
No, I did not say that; moreover, it’s not crucial to my analysis either. I just said UMC Indians are more concerned with “sound economic policy[Manmohan Singh/Sinha-Jaswant Singh/Chidambaram are all examples of this], does not increase reservation, simplifies the tax structure for salaried people, and does not seem to overtly kow-towing to minorities.” Whoever does this seems to be an acceptable candidate for UMC India. Don’t know about other parts of India, but in North India trader castes are thought be a big support base for BJP. BJP often tries to distance itself from its RSS-Jana Sangh roots – how they want to be perceived currently is something I have little qualification to elaborate. Also, again in North India (BJP target audience), at least at lot of constituencies vote en masse on a caste basis. So if they can be convinced to vote for one of their own because she will “take care of them,” party affiliation becomes a lesser consideration. Similarly, certain political families (not only the famous ones but locally prominent ones) have a lot of local muscle and influence so it’s hard to say who/which values people are voting for. Muscle? Money? Values? Economic policy? A mixture of all the above? My psephology skillz are rather limited, PS (pardon the contraction). But I don’t rely on them to make my main argument regarding migration and immigration laws.
<
blockquote>and if mumbaikars demand entry restrictions (to be applied to other legal indian citizens), then they must give up some federal funding for that privilege In net, the fedral government actually takes away tons of moolah more from mumbai than it gives back . If the decision were purely financial mumbaikars would probably be glad to give up federal money for it. But it ain’t happening.
It looks like you did not do your high school in India, otherwise you would have remembered this from your SSC history/ Civics class: Q. why did Gandhi wear a lungi and not pants? A. Because he wanted the constitution to ensure freedom of movement! (God I miss my teachers!)
Just curious.. This is what you said in #204
What did you rely on to make an assertion that it is JUST the Upper Middle Class that is againt Bangladeshi illegal immigration?. I see that BJP is against Bangladeshi illegal immigration and they carry the voice of 22% of the indian voters.
Threadjack alert From Yalene and Khoofia’s Link
And which image would that be? Unreliable performance? Outdated styling? Car reviewers call Jag a dead brand walking. Desi companies going international may want to look at The Lexus Story.
and it shouldn’t. rich parts of the country (even those that generate the most revenue for the federal govt) cannot prohibit other citizens from entering. bombay is no aamby valley, thank heavens. besides, historically cities, where is lot of migration and diverse populations with the entrepreneurial drive, encouraged by relatively liberal politics and economic policies tend to do well (wonder how much capital generation happens in Bombay by people of non-local extraction?). Examples include, Bombay, of course. Others: Hong Kong, Singapore, New York, Renaissance Italian city-states, Bangalore and many smaller American cities near tech centers with big foreign-born populations (eg Bethesda, MD; Cambridge, MA etc).
No, I said that they form a solidarity with neglected Indian populations to protest Bangladeshi migration, while they constantly undermine the interests of these marginal populations otherwise. Just pointing out that it was a political solidarity with a shaky and insincere foundation (inconsistent and hypocritical). Did not say the poor Indians could have a problem with Bangladeshi migration.
See 180, 204, 207. Sorry, but this was an unfair characterization of my argument. To summarize, what I said was:
Sorry this shd read:
200+ posts bashing Bangladeshi’s later, and we’re still wondering if we really are ‘cultural chauvanists’. I am always amazed at how cultural chauvnists can afford to be blind about their actions and thoughts.
JGandhi, people like you make me afraid. You don’t understand that it’s your attempt to politicize Hinduism that makes the rest of us question whether our faith will be hijacked by ignorant zealots… The project undertaken by people of your ilk is NO DIFFERENT from the mullah’s who you are bent on shouting down.
Additionally, when I was referring to ‘diaspora Indians’, I was talking about all those living outside of the US and UK. You know, the people MoorNam suggested were just waking up to their ‘Hindu-ness’–more insulting than anything Bhumi could have said.
You misunderstood what I was saying. It’s clear that people on the subcontinent are just ‘waking up’ to their Hindu-ness, meaning as they become more materially satisfied and turn their pursuits to ‘higher’ questions, they are increasingly fed a chauvanist vision of Hinduism, which reduces all non-Hindus to foreigners and is underpinned by ideas eerily mirroring Christianity and Islam.
JGandhi and others, I suggest you read up on 19th century Hindu reform movements before you can come on here and brow-beat the rest us into accepting your mediocrity as gospel 🙁
I’m really amazed at the sentiment directed toward Bangladeshi’s on this forum. Clearly, none of you have been called a sand-ni**er in your time in the US 🙁
The discussion on this board reminds me a great deal of the xenophobic sentiment in the US. Only, people here fear colonization one bottle of salsa at a time 😉
Yes I have met two. They were working for in the office of the builder from whom I bought a flat. Regular chaps – I supppose they were illegal. I dont particularly care either way.
How? I am demanding an aggresively secular government totally separating religion from politics.
Look at the totality of my comments on this blog.
I have never advocated the government to become more “Hindu”, whenever I have criticized the Indian government in matters of secularism it has always been for being too involved in religion and treating different religions in different manners. I believe Hinduism flourishes best when left alone from government – something which the “reformers” in the Congress government have refused to do.
Of course you are not really afraid of me per se. You just dislike some things I say and so you attribute to me traits of all people you dislike and try to fit me and for that matter all Indian politics into the Rightwing/Leftwing paradigms of American politics. You’re afraid of that big scary strawman goblin you built me into.
You don’t know my opinions on Hindu theology so who are you to tell me to check out 19th century reform movements.
JGandhi,
Are you telling me you do not own a pair of khaki-colored shorts and prefer not to get your exercise in formations consisting of thousands of your brethren? 🙂
JGandhi, don’t bother … it is like encountering one of these “moon landing was faked” or “young earth creationists”, no ? We try to help them out of this mania, but they are like fly paper these deluded wretches. All this long winded discussion about illegal immigration when all anyone has to do is step out of Mummy/Daddy’s posh digs in Mumbai and see that there is no space to stand or breath and that the laboring class is too numerous to have leverage.
Sheer ignorance. Bangladesh is a nation that India itself forcibly carved out 36 years ago from Pakistan. These same BJP brahmin-bania hindu fundoos who get all frothy in the mouth over ’50 million bangladeshi immigrants’ also never miss a chance to boast about how the the Indian Army liberated the bangladeshis and made a mockery of the two-nation theory!
The ‘indians’ in the north-east dont even want to be part of India. They also feel that their lives are degraded by greedy and rapacious hindu bania exploiters (the biggest supporters of hindutva along with brahmins).
Going by the posts of the hindutva fanatics in internet forums (mostly brahmins and banias and mostly NRIs), they are the most casteist, selfish, callous and delusionally boastful people around. They are among the worst enemies of India. If they had their way the “glorious” hindu custom of burning widows alive, banned by the brits, would be revived. Thats women’s rights?
This is true. But hindu brahminism is far, far worse in its treatment of low caste and outcaste hindus. What would you rather be: a dhimmi under muslim rule or a hindu untouchable?
The deceit and hypocrisy here is that these same brahmins who today rail against muslim rule of India are the treacherous caste who benefited the most from Mughal rule and who used to extol muslim tolerance of brahminical practices such widow-burning, idol-worship, casteism, temple prostitution and so on.
consumption of salsa is slowly chipping away at American institutions.
before you know it, all of you will be living under the tyranny of the nacho chip.
Hey Akshay! A Prema by any other name hates India just as much, it seems. Although I always did love the delicious irony of your name, Doordarshan.
Those who are comparing the BDeshi immigration into India with Mexican Immigration to US, have given any thought to what would happen if Mexico was a Muslim majority nation and in the last year Mexicans were involved in 3 major terrorist attacks in different parts of US??? I cant even begin to imagine the ferocity of reaction the above hypothetical scenario would cause. So lets get some perspective while compating these two migrations, they are not similar.
228… NAILED it.
In my last posts, I warned you about salsa and tortilla chips. In this post, I will also reveal another conspirator: guacamole.
Holed up in academia with obvious Marxist leanings, make no doubt about the true ‘agenda’ of guacamole.
Before you know it, all of you will be wearing sombreros, listening to mariachi music, and producing 15 children per couple.
Checklist to losing an argument a) Calls adversary a fascist-> Check….allusion to RSS khakis b) Makes dumb analogies->Check….sometimes salsa comes with a side order of giardia c) Ignores most obvious issue-> Check ….oblivious to fact that India is a wee bit crowded
222 portmanteau:
Ok, after your anti-upper middle class complaints, I thought you are of the idea that just the UMC is against the migration of non-local workers. The feelings against non-local workers is not just against Bangladeshis, I believe local labor is against even people from other states who speak a different language.
228 Akshay:
Again your theory seems to suggest that it is the Brahmin-Bania Hindus who get all frothy against Muslim immigrants. How do you explain Mr. Modi, the “hate target” for a lot of folks for his “hindutvadi” leanings coming from a Most Backward caste of “oil pressers” ?. Do you add “Ganchis” to the Brahmin/Bania nexus?.
Mr. Modi, the “hate target” for a lot of folks for his “hindutvadi” leanings coming from a Most Backward caste of “oil pressers” ?. Do you add “Ganchis” to the Brahmin/Bania nexus?.
“Black Police showing-off for the white cops”–Ice Cube
Akshay – you post #228 reveals much.
Finally we get to see the real sentiments behind the progressive veneer.
How about labeling entire people from particular castes as rapacious, selfish, etc. Looks like you are the casteist one on this board. And back up the accusation of reviving sati. Of course sati was parrticular to a few centuries of medieval India in Rajasthan but you generalize it to all of Hinduism – outdoing all the Orientalists of the 19th century. Of course you can’t backup your sati revival charge cause your just flinging feces at this moment. Hindutva is anti-caste because its based on Hindu solidarity. Look up the last 70 years of Hindutva politics and literature. Hindutva movements fight infanticide and regularly set aside seats for women. Not saying Hindutva is all goods. It is definitely a vehicle for certain nasty brand of politics. But the truth is very complex – not all bad groups are bad in every single way and not all good groups are good in every single way.
I would rather be an untouchable because Indian society is making strides in improving the lives of untouchables and has given them reservations whereas the Islamic world is cracking down evermore harshly w/ dhimmis. BTW your whole statement is a nonsequiter because we are discussing why India should prevent Islamic immigration. Perhaps your statement might be relevant if we were arguing for brahmin immigration to BDesh.
Amazing you equate idol-worship in with sati and casteism. This just shows how much hatred you have for Hinduism. And BTW as my my last name indicates I am not a brahmin – I’m actually from a OBC (Other Backwards Caste). BTW I think your rants about brahmins and banias are the most casteist posts Sepia Mutiny has seen yet.
Akshay Since you are intent on splitting hair, Bangladesh was formed 60 years ago as East Pakistan according to the two nation theory,which swiftly lost it’s
appealcharm there in the face of a West Pakistan (West Punjab) perpetrated genocide, and as for India forcibly carving it out of Pakistan,well;all I can say is read any good book on the issue.We were discussing ‘India after Gandhi’ on this blog recently.Perfectly respectable. No evil Brahmin Bania twist to it. You seem a rabid casteist to me; your derogatory comments on Brahmins and the so called Banias smack of a visceral, malicious hatred and are extremely offensive.(moderators please take note of post 228).BTW, your favourite Hindutva whipping boy Narendra Modi is neither. As for your comments on the North East of India not wanting to be a part of the union, do you have any proof to justify the assertion? I have lived in Assam and Meghalaya, and am curious. You insist that being Dhimmi under Muslim rule is better than being a dalit in India. Tell me that when the Bhumiputras offer their minorities 26% reservations in government jobs, and when Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (or any muslim nation of your choice)elects a Hindu woman or even a Christian woman as their head of state or leader of the largest political party. Heck, there are actually riots in India these days by groups wanting to be declared “backward”. Would citizens of a theocratic Muslim nation ever riot to be declared Hindu? India might have a flawed implementation of it’s justice system but I have yet to come across a case where a rape victim was officially awarded whiplashes. And to think that this Brahmin dominated evil society has nominated a meritorious dalit person as their chief justice….shudder… Muslim tolerance of idol worship- ha ha!!!“Black Police showing-off for the white cops”–Ice Cube
This is the problem with the debate. The tendency of posters to keep stuffing Indian politics into the paradigm of American politics. Hence when people argue against allowing illegal immigration from BDesh to India they get charged w/ all sorts of bizarre things from widow-burning to being a theocrat.
Indian politics exist in its own dimensions and it should be treated as such.
If you think caste is analogous to race in America you do not know how caste politics work.
Akshay should be thanked for his honesty.
The “progressives” on this board all use liberal-sounding arguments to hide their agendas
They want India to: 1)cede Kashmir 2)cede Northeast 3)accept illegal immigration from anti-Hindu irredentialist peoples 4)support Congress which interferes w/ Hindu institutions and Hindu practices while funding Muslim/Christian institutions and giving them autonomy and even enforcing sharia/canon law! 5)complain whenever Hindu-consciousness increases and Hindu temples are built 6)downplay wholesale atrocities against Hindus in the dozen or so countries w/ Hindu minorities and Muslim majorities 7)lookout like eagles for salmon for the slightest whiff of Hinduism while treating criticism of Islamic theocracy as bigotry all for non anti-Hindu “progressive” purposes.
Akshay has admitted that he has an agenda that is backed by pure contempt for Hinduism, he does not pretend to be a dispassionate person who thinks everything out according to progressive principles and just happens to stumble upon all these positions by coincidence.
This is true. But hindu brahminism is far, far worse in its treatment of low caste and outcaste hindus. What would you rather be: a dhimmi under muslim rule or a hindu untouchable?
Yeah right. Then why did the namasudras (a Bengali Dalit caste) come running back to India after partition? There was a Bengali Dalit leader, Jogen Mondal, who wanted Bengal to go entirely to Pakistan. (Another Dalit, Radhanatha Das, was in fdavor of partition of Bengal so Hindus could have a safe space). Mondalfelt “egalitarian” Islam would be on the side of Dalits. Jinnah put him in his Cabinet. Soon after “independence” when memers of his OWN FAMILY were forcibly converted and oppressed, the wrettched man came back to India, admitting his foolishness.
W. Bengal has gone from 18 to 26% Muslim since partition (contrast this with Punjab, where the Sikhs would NEVER allow that to happen.) What amazes me is that many of the soft as butter Hindu bhadralok who were EVICTED from East Bengal are ardent supporters of Muslim rights! Jyoti Basu (former CM); Amartya Sen, Nobel Laureate,the list goes on and on.
Damn, JGandhi and Paramahansa, it is a sad day (or a weak position) indeed when you feel your argument is most strongly bolstered by enthusiastically engaging with an obvious and established troll.
Typical BJP/hindutva lie. Sati was not limited in time to the medieval age; or limited in region to Rajasthan. Widow burning is an ancient brahminical custom that was practiced across much of India. The Mughals tolerated it just as they tolerated and even financed hindu temples where idols were worshipped. The British banned widow-burning over the strenuous objections of the orthodox brahmins:
http://chnm.gmu.edu/wwh/p/104.html
“The Petition of the orthodox Hindu community of Calcutta against the Suttee Regulation(January 14, 1830).”
” Under the sanction of immemorial usage as well as precept, Hindoo widows perform, of their own accord and pleasure, and for the benefit of their husbands’ souls and for their own, the sacrifice of self-immolation called suttee, which is not merely a sacred duty but a high privilege to her who sincerely believes in the doctrines of their religion; and we humbly submit that any interference with a persuasion of so high and self-annihilating a nature, is not only an unjust and intolerant dictation in matters of conscience, but is likely wholly to fail in procuring the end proposed.
Even under the first Mussulman conquerors of Hindostan, and certainly since this country came under the Mogul Government, notwithstanding the fanaticism and intolerance of their religion, no interference with the practice of suttee was ever attempted. Since that period, and for nearly a century, the power of the British government has been established in Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, and none of the governors-general, or their councils, have hitherto interfered in any manner to the prejudice of the Hindoo religion or customs; and we submit, that by various Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, under the authority of which the Hon. Company itself exists, our religion and Laws, usages and customs, such as they have existed from time immemorial, are inviolably secured to us.”
“we humbly submit that in a question so delicate as the interpretation of our sacred books, and the authority of our religious usages, none but pundits and brahmins, and teachers of holy lives, and known learning and authority, ought to be consulted”
I don’t get the analogy. Do you mean the “low caste” Modi is showing off for his Brahmin and Bania peers in the BJP?. Moreover he is a politician elected to office by the people for managing the government and not someone who is appointed by the government. I don’t see the analogy. Can you explain?.
Seems like both sides of this interesting argument are tainted by assertions based on gross generalizations.
Akshay/Prema: While Sati is a horrible practice, it never occurred in high frequency at any point during the history of the subcontinent. The British exploited the existence of the practice by creating reports exaggerating its frequency as part of biopolitical campaigns, and to justify their “civilizing” colonial presence and overall legal system. They did the same with several other extreme, peripheral practices. This is now a well-researched fact, supported by sources from all sides. If you aim to criticize Hinduism, at least find some better arguments. I also find it hilarious that you continuously mention “idol worship” and Sati in the same sentence, and to the same ends.
JGandhi: Why make such vast generalizations about people who label themselves progressive? I label myself as such depending on the context, and certainly do not conform to all the tenets of your list.
JGandhi,
I don’t think you understood what I had to say. If what I said was truly for the American paradigm, then it would have said, “Black Poh-lees showin’-off fo da white KKKops”.
You are clearly outgunned here, buddy. You guys are generally older and in possession of an engineering or business degree (or, both). Doesn’t matter which one, but mainly it’s the lack of exposure to some humanities and social science courses. Like these one’s being put in place in schools, to help children articulate a real understanding of India. They will articulate a very different view of India from people like JGandhi, Paramhansa, LouieCypher, et. al.
It’s sad. Compare this thread with the one on the deaths of the two students at LSU. The hit-counts of the threads reveal that people would much rather fight over these concerns, then deal with the here and now.
Maybe it’s the isolation and loneliness that people feel living as brown people in such a large, mostly unfriendy land.
I was in Thailand. Most of the Thai elite also harbors similar hatred of their neighbors, the Burmese.
The point is to rise up above the hatred. Is that such a difficult message to comprehend? I know some founding figures who went to their deaths believing in such principles.
Some of you know that I’m from Fiji. The language I see used by ethnic nationalists against Indians in Fiji, is shockingly similar to that evoked by religious nationalists in India.
It’s just sad that so many of my peers are succombing to the blind rage of ethnic chauvanism and nationalism. Look at yourselves? It doesn’t make you good people. You make ape-like gestures taunting players at cricket matches–further subjecting yourselves to international humiliation. We want to behave on a level that equates to European soccer hooliganry?
This is the “Great Civilization”? Which produces minds that cannot rise above simple xenophobic sentiment?
Akshay @245, get this straight. You are not progressive. You are “progressive”. Apparently, pseudo-secularists like to discard scare quotes as easily as they have abandoned the poor, oppressed, downtrodden Hindus of India.
People interested in analyzing the BJP appeal should look at the data on the “50-40” parliamentary districts. These are districts where Muslims constitute over 40% of the population, but where Hindus still have a slight majority. In some 80% of these districts, the BJP wins, even in places where they have no base at all, like Bihar.
Rahul@241 – well, the continued Hindu-hatred spewed by this troll in the comments section in many threads on SM also speaks volumes about the selective enforcement of commenting policy by the moderators of this website. I bet you that a rant that was even half as vituperative but directed against Islam or Xtianity would have earned the commenter a place in the purgatory of the banned right after the first post. Personally, it doesn’t matter to me – I don’t expect any better from the pseudo-seculars SouthAsiaWallahs running this website – but it does make it that much more difficult to follow the conversation. Many other thoughtful and articulate comments such as many on this thread are drowned in this cacophony.
I am seriously disappointed by the moderators on this thread.
Krish**: Sorry bud, you don’t have the mental acuity to distinguish between Hindutvaadis (i.e people who want a Hindu state) and people who have a concern over immigration from a country that is generally hostile to India. You might be younger, but our engineering & business degrees will translates into wealth which in turn will influence university chair endowments. You and your “progressive” friends, in quotes because you people consistently support illiberal policies like the Two Nation theory like the Hindutvaadis you claim to oppose, will have your day in the sun on campus but all this will end when you fail to get tenure because your ideas are a dime a dozen in South Asia departments. And as you continue to imply that I am a fascist, I will once again invite you to perform acts of onanism upon yourself
Gujjubhai, I have been banned for my comments on this thread. I’m posting from a different computer one last time. When free speech is smothered, people’s concerns aren’t heard and extremism grows, but of course, the people running SM can continue to live in their fantasy world watching world events go in an opposite direction.
BTW, Modi seems to have another overwhelming victory in Gujarat for his govt’s performance on developmental parameters. Celebration time for you, Gujjubhai :)!