Someone on my GChat list had an intriguing link included in their status message. I saw “inauguration”, and since that historic event is still very much on my mind, I clicked it. I was led to the Boston Globe’s website, to a feature called “The Big Picture: News Stories in Photographs“.
Yesterday was a historic day. On January 20th, 2009, Barack H. Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America – the first African-American ever to hold the office of U.S. Commander-in-Chief. The event was witnessed by well over one million attendees in chilly Washington D.C., and by many millions more through coverage on television and the Internet. Collected here are photographs of the event, the participants, and some of the witnesses around the world. (48 photos total)
Picture number 38 caught my attention, setting my browndar off before I could even read the caption underneath it (which I’ve quoted, well, underneath it):
Pakistani Christian children hold portraits of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama during a prayers ceremony for global peace in Islamabad, Pakistan on Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2009. (AP Photo) [Globe]
At first glance, I didn’t notice the word “Christian”. I just saw “Pakistani children”. I thought I’d just post the picture plus a quick blurb about where I found it, and isn’t it sweet, etc. But for obvious reasons, I started surfing around, and a rambling post was born.Over the past five years, I’ve made numerous references to my family’s faith and Christianity as it exists in Kerala, but Christianity exists in every South Asian country (admittedly in miniscule numbers, in some of those nations). The first non-Indian brown Christian I ever met was my ruthless Montessori pre-school teacher in San Francisco. She was Sri Lankan and my parents strongly encouraged her to get old-school naddan on me, if I were naughty enough. That meant that if some little white kid did something wrong, they were gently scolded. If I did something wrong, I got hissed at and pinched. My parents were overjoyed that they were really getting their money’s worth.
It would be 14 years until I met another Desi who was Christian; at Davis I discovered that someone wasn’t just using an anglicized nickname. “Wait, that guy’s actually named ____??”
“Yeah. He’s Christian.”
me: Baroo?
“Not like you. He said he’s Pakistani.”
me: wow.
“Yeah. Now there are two of you…and three hundred of us!”
I still don’t know all that much beyond a vague, depressing sense that it’s rather dangerous to be a Christian (or a Hindu) in Pakistan, due to the brilliantly just Blasphemy laws, which require nothing more than the insinuation of disrespect towards Islam, to ruin someone’s life:
Ten years ago today, Bishop John Joseph, Catholic bishop of Faisalabad in Pakistan, shot himself dead on the steps of the Sahiwal district court in protest at the abuse of the country’s blasphemy laws. Ten years on, little has changed in Pakistan.
The blasphemy laws impact everyone, regardless of religion – and the tragedy is that almost every case is completely fabricated. When the laws were first introduced, they were used primarily as a tool by extremists to target religious minorities – Christians, Hindus and others. These days, however, Muslims have got wise to the potential for using the blasphemy law against each other to settle personal scores.
The reason is simple. The blasphemy law requires no evidence other than an accusation made by one person against another.
There is no proof of intent, and an inadequate definition of blasphemy. When it comes to court the accuser does not even have to substantiate the charge. If the judge asks what the accused actually said, the accuser can refuse to elaborate, on the basis that by repeating the alleged statement they themselves would be blaspheming. [Guardian]
See? Brilliant!
This made me wonder about the Christians in Pakistan; we all know that Sikhs and Hindus had been there before partition, but I’d never heard much about the history of Christianity in that country. I have a deplorably lazy habit of assuming that the answers to such questions tend to involve colonizers and missionary types. Let’s see if I get lucky:
The exact introduction of Christianity to the South Asia is a debatable topic, with the Syrian Christian community in Kerala, South India being recorded as the earliest. Missionaries accompanied colonizing forces from Portugal, France and Great Britain, but in north western Ancient India, today’s Pakistan, Christianity was mainly brought by the British rulers of India in the later 18th and 19th century. This is evidenced in cities established by the British, such as the port city of Karachi, where the majestic St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Pakistan’s largest church stands, and the churches in the city of Rawalpindi, where the British established a major military cantonment. [wiki]
Had no idea about any of this:
Christians in Punjab and Sindh had been quite active post 1945 in their support for Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s Muslim League. Even before the final phase of the movement, leading Indian Christians like Pothan Joseph had rendered valuable services as journalists and propagandists of the Muslim League. Jinnah had repeatedly promised all citizens of Pakistan complete equality of citizenship, but this promise was not kept by his successors….In the mass population exchanges that occurred between Pakistan and India upon independence due to conflict between Muslims and followers of Indian religions, most Hindus and nearly all Sikhs fled the country, but the Christians remained. [wiki]
I have a million reasons for wishing my Father were still alive, but the one which is relevant to this post has to do with Jinnah, specifically the declamatory 15-minute rant he used to launch in to upon hearing his name. When I was younger I thought it was odd that my Dad, who was born in 1937, was so much older than everyone else’s parents. Now I wish I had written it all down.
I wanted to find out more about the ceremony for global peace in Islamabad at which that picture was taken, but all I found were a few more photographs of the event and no news story. Oh, well. It’s poignant how the inauguration of our latest President has affected not just this nation, but the world. South Asians for Obama, indeed. 🙂
96 · TTCUSM said
Are you also disturbed by anti-nazi bigotry that is justified by the nazi racial classification system and the nazis treatment of the handicapped, homosexuals, gypsies, jews and slavs?
I think it is telling that the hindutva gang is never disturbed by the casteism, misogyny, slavery etc that blight hindu culture. They are the real problem not those who highlight these critical issues.
People who are supporting conversion in India should at least read the genocides of the past and abandon their quest for this world supremacy in the name of my God is true God, rest are evils. Understanding this quest since crusade times the equally exclusive Islamists have every reason not to let any churches come up in Pakistan. Forget us Hindus, we are worse than Christians in their world view. Why replace one intolerant ideology with another?
What happened to the Incas, Aztecs, Mayans and the native Americans? What happened to Diversity, Cultures and Traditions? TRUTH BE KNOWN
I don’t sympathize with the Hindutva cause, but you’re mistaken on this matter. Organizations like the RSS focus a significant part of their effort (though the other parts might be more a little misguided) on fighting the caste system.
Examples:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/238039.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/RSS_rips_into_ban_on_Dalits_entering_temples/articleshow/1040404.cms
75 · Kiran P said
Even sikhs living in America practice casteism: sudras/jatts acting superior to chamars, even though the sikh gurus preached against casteism. Casteism is against the principles of Buddhism, Islam and christianity as well. Yet this pernicious social system has such a stranglehold on the desi mind that even converts to other religions, even those living outside india, cling to it tenaciously. But there is no denying that remaining a hindu dalit is far worse than whatever vestige of casteism is retained when the dalit converts to christianity or islam. At least the dalit convert to these religions is taught that he is equal in the eyes of God which is not what is taught in brahminism.
Question: what caste is assigned to the tribals who are converted to brahminism by the hindutva missionaries? The answer to that question should highlight the fraud and farce that is casteism.
89 · Kiran P said
LOL! (Reminder:- Islam, Christianity are eastern religions). The only people who hold Rath Yathras, these days, are politicians who want publicity and not empires.
Dhoni said
I have already said casteism is an all-India phenomenon affecting Christians, muslims, Hindus, all of us. That’s why converted dalits are also unable to escape it. Now you have introduced 2 more evils and attributed it to Hindus. Misogyny and Slavery. Where are you getting such hateful and factually incorrect information. Are you telling Patriarchial society translates to Misogyny? And slavery has been imported from USA to Indian context. I can’t believe the degeneration of this topic, anything goes to justify conversions!
And just because I am opposing unethical conversion someone already labelled me as Hindutva. Is Swami Vivekananda also a Hindutva? What is your definition of Hindutva? Anyone who considers Bharat/India as maatrubhoomi and Punyabhoomi is a Hindutvavaadi. In that sense YES I am one. Jews consider Israel like that. Anything wrong there? No.
Why dont we ask Viswa Hindu Parishad to change its name to Bharatiya Hindu Parishad.
For people who want to know sincerely more on caste system
Is There an American Caste System?
dhoni,
what is brahminism? That’s new to me.
See the missionaries have invented lot of literature to equip missionaries so that they don’t feel guilty doing God’s work. It’s called manufacturing consent. Please don’t fall for it.
They are an international organization of Hindus, hence Viswa. What’s your point?
109 · Wondering said
Christianity and Islam are middle-eastern religions (though the gospel of Jesus, unlike christian dogma, reads like the preachings of any eastern/desi godman). Their core belief in what happens after death: bodily resurrection followed by eternal heaven or hell is derived from ancient egyptian religion and stands in stark contrast to the eastern/desi belief in reincarnation till moksha/nirvana is achieved.
But there is no denying that remaining a hindu dalit is far worse than whatever vestige of casteism is retained when the dalit converts to christianity or islam. At least the dalit convert to these religions is taught that he is equal in the eyes of God which is not what is taught in brahminism.
I don’t think so. I think Dalits should show some patience and remain Hindu and take the leadership role in Hinduism. Follow the Mayawati model. The demography and the numbers are on their side in a one man one vote democracy. Clever manipulation using caste numbers and the threat of aligning with Christians / Muslims can see them being offered leadership roles within the Hindu fold. Once you get the political power everything will follow automatically. Dalits should use the Muslim / Christian threat wisely. I already see that happening.
105 · Dhoni said
No, but I am worried about the anti-German bigotry. After all, not all Germans are Nazis, RIGHT????
110 · Kiran P said
Here we go again with the lies. So it is the americans who introduced the ancient practices of sati, devadasism, widow shunning, child slavery/bonded labor, child marriage etc to hindus? What makes you think you can fool us all with such outrageous lies?
116 · TTCUSM said
The german people have renounced nazism, the reamaining nazis are a fringe minority. The same cannot be said about indians with respect to casteism, untouchability, misogyny, child slavery, callousness towards horrendous and widespread suffering. India has been given a pass for too long.
Dhoni,
You are a true evangelical, you have been brainwashed. I asked you for sources on Misogyny and Slavery being sanctioned in Hinduism. Instead of answering that you bring in more evangelical dirt here – sati, devadasism, widow shunning, child slavery/bonded labor, child marriage. These social practices are either dead or on the verge of extinction. These are vehemently opposed in modern society. Indian government at the centre and state governments are also policing these. There was sati couple of years ago and the whole western media painted this is commonplace in India. The problem with your rationalizing is you equate social evil to Hinduism. That’s intellectual dishonesty. Again, anything to justify conversion!
I can list numerous social evils in American society and blame it all on Christianity – Racism, segregation of American churches based on race, Teenage pregnancies, pedophiles in chuch, pornography, alcoholism, drug addiction, teachers raping students, same sex experiments, spouse swapping, blind dating… too many! But that is not fair and I won’t do it.
108 · Dhoni said
Hmmm, so none of the hindutva champions have an answer to this question?
Dhoni,
Finally your intentions are clear. Yes, it’s time for you ( as a white man to do the white man’s burden or as a native converted christian sepoy of the western white man ) to civilize the heathens and pagans like us.
See what has your kind done to the world.
Dhoni,
How can anyone answer a question that’s wrongly framed? Try again and I WILL answer.
TRUTH BE KNOWN
119 · Kiran P said
Why dont you tell us where hindu misogynistic practices like widow burning, widow shunning, temple prostitution of girl children, child marriage etc arose if not from brahminism? Who introduced devadasism, untouchability, casteism etc to India? The christian and muslim conquerors who did not subscribe to such customs? Who would believe such an accusation other than the irrational brainwashed? None of these practices is sanctioned by even other indigenous dharmic religions like buddhism, jainisim, sikhism etc. It is only the casteists/brahminists who keep trying to defend such indefensible beliefs and practices with lies and finger-pointing. It won’t work.
122 · Kiran P said
It is a very simple question: what caste is assigned to the tribals who are converted to hinduism? What are the criteria that are used to assign caste?
It is a very simple question: what caste is assigned to the tribals who are converted to hinduism? What are the criteria that are used to assign caste?
I don’t know the details of tribal conversion / re-conversion. isn’t tribe a caste by itself?. There is a reservation category called the Scheduled Tribes. looks like this wiki entry lists the different castes that constitute a scheduled tribe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scheduled_Tribes_in_India
If you can answer my list of social evils in America – segregation of American churches based on race, Teenage pregnancies, pedophiles in chuch, pornography, alcoholism, drug addiction, teachers raping students, same sex experiments, spouse swapping, blind dating etc – I will tell where and how this those came about. You started the finger pointing by linking social evils to Hinduism. So it’s time you started googling – don’t quote from missionary material please. TIA.
TRUTH BE KNOWN
Ponniyin has sort of answered it. You are too fixated on caste? because that’s your bread and butter, your rationale to convert. British constructed it and you want to perpetuate it. Any tool to divide and create ‘other’ness is in your toolkit, right? Simply said – Probably they will go back to being tribals. As long as social upliftment happens who cares. See, this is where the western definition of religion won’t fit Hinduism. Hinduism is a way of life. It’s diverse. Tribals have their way of living in this fold praying to their deities, nature worship and such for thousands of years. Read this
Adivasis, Tribals and Christian Missionaries
TRUTH BE KNOWN
125 · Ponniyin Selvan said
This is another example of the intellectual dishonesty that characterizes the defenders of casteism: that casteism=tribalism. Which is a lie.
What hindu caste (brahmin/kshatriya/vaishya/sudra) is assigned to tribal (or other) converts to hinduism? Are they caste hindus or outcaste hindus? Are they all assigned the same caste regardless of their characters, vocations, abilities? The answer to this question will show how totally indefensible hereditary casteism really is.
Dhoni,
Here’s one more answer for you. One para says
.
So I guess they have a choice of worship, ‘caste’ if they want to. I personally don’t care as long as they follow some native tradition that is inclusive and pluralistic.
Dear Dhoni,
Your effort to divide and pigeon hole us won’t work. If this makes you happy here’s my bio: I was born as sudra but an intellectual kshatriya debating with you, a brahmin at working mentoring junior programmers, my wife is born sudra who is a brahmin teaching music to kids, my brother is a vaishya being a marketing manager for a software company. Cool isn’t it?
Do I ask you what chrisian denomination you are? Do I ask you to convert from one to another?
Please don’t talk about intellectual dishonesty? Saying “My god is the only true God and rest are false” has been the most intellectual dishonest statement in the history of mankind.
What has that done to humankind?
127 · Kiran P said
Actually its hindus, even some hindus who convert to other religions and hindus who emigrate to non-hindu nations, who are so fixated on caste.
The caste system is ancient in India. Buddha criticized brahminism and casteism 2500 years ago and you are blaming the british for imposing it on naive, innocent, spineless hindus? What makes you think that you can fool the world with such outrageous lies?
130 · Kiran P said
This is beyond silly. Hindu casteism is not the equivalent of religious sectarianism…..or tribalism.
Dhoni,
I am seriously telling you: your sources of information are corrupt? Even after direction you don’t make any effort to enlighten yourself. Let me give you some keywords – Jati and Varna. Don’t confuse this with Caste. Missionaries have confused it as it fits their agenda and you are reading their material.
TRUTH BE KNOWN
“My god is the only true God and rest are false” is beyond EVERYTHING!
Goodbye. May your god give you buddhi!
I got to go but don’t forget this
126 · Kiran P said
Man you got a very good impression of America. So the green bills with the powder is motivation here for you. LOL. You are now sounding like Ahmedinejad. None of this things exist in Iran( and India according to you).
129 · Kiran P said
Since you cant possibly be that ignorant, it means that you are willfully engaging in deceit and dishonesty. Here is news for you: “choice of worship” is not casteism. It is really dumb to even think that such a lie could fool anyone with the slightest clue.
Your “answer” is no answer at all. It says nothing at all about the caste tribal converts are assigned. Vaishnavite and Saivite are not hindu castes. Jeez….
This is another example of the intellectual dishonesty that characterizes the defenders of casteism: that casteism=tribalism. Which is a lie. What hindu caste (brahmin/kshatriya/vaishya/sudra) is assigned to tribal (or other) converts to hinduism?
he…he… are you a “progressive” ?.
That truthbeknown site is quite interesting. The Hindutva folks should translate and print that list of atrocities, and circulate it in the conversion areas. That would be better than trying to beat up the evangelicals. It would be propaganda versus propaganda, a level playing field. No one can complain.
You could also include this case, where a 19-year-old nun in Kerala was killed by two priests and another nun, when they young nun found them indulging in, um, some activities not taught in the seminary. The church used influence to bury the case for 16 years, but judicial activism has led to the three being arrested by the CBI now.
“naive, innocent, spineless hindus”: Has this thread run its course?
132 · Dhoni said
You’re absolutely right. One is an injustice perpetrated by Brown people. The other is an injustice perpetrated by White people and is therefore, a-okay.
It’s only the Brownies who are barbaric obviously.
Screw evangelicals, I am heading over to Manjula’s Kitchen to make some laddu!
17 · Kiran P said
Poor Baby… are you scared to be a minority?
Don’t members of a national community have a right to determine what kind of community they want to live in?
I guess the attempts to systematically undermine or eradicate a way of life is cool too though. After all, it’s not like Pat Robertson and his moral majority police have caused any trouble for minorities here in America. We shall certainly be safe in their hands.
Yum. Some shape issues, but still yum.
And now, where are we in da fight against da soul-harvesting devils?
That was kind of sarcastic…
I just think that saying Hindus are a becoming a minority in India is a bit laughable. In all my time in India I have heard more Hindus (who I would argue still have a enormously powerful voice in politcs and day to day life) saying communalist things against other religious (minority) groups in India, especially Muslims. I have heard, time and time again, comments such as “those Muslims all have a 15 children and are trying to take over our country and make us a minority in OUR own land… they should move to Pakistan”. I’m sorry, but those comments, which to me, sound quite similiar to Kiran P above (though he may try to express himself without quite so much inflammatory language) is reactionary as least, full of hatred at best, and expressed a fear of Hindus in India that “their” culture will be taken over by “others”.
Of course, we all know that India is a country of many religions, and while Hindus are a majority, Indian cultures are not solely Hindu, but ran a gamut of different regions, religions, ethnicities, and so forth. I think this fear that Hindus will become a minority in India and “lose” their Indian culture equates India= Hindu, which ignores the Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians, etc that also contribute to Indian cultures, past and present.
And putting forced conversion aside, why would it be so terrible if religious demographic changed in India? Before Hinduism was the dominate religion, Buddhism was… if people chose to change their religion, why is that a bad thing? It’s their choice, not yours. (I don’t follow a religion at all, by the way, in case anyone feels I have some sort of bias)
I think your notion if religious identity is a very Western one LinZi. In the Indian context, prior to the arrival of the British, religion among non-Muslims was fluid. People revered certain Gods but as far as the theology was concerned it was pretty free-wheeling and people subscribed more or less to whatever they felt like. The lines between Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are more like the differences between Keynesian, Marxist, and Freidman/monetarist economists than a tribal distinction between, say Christians and Muslims.
So going from Hinduism (broadly defined) to being a predominantly Abrahamic society has far reaching consequences. In one sense it would be a final nail in the coffin for an Indian civilization and culture that has already been ground down by a thousand years or so of progressively increasing marginalization and immiseration.
Also, keep in mind that this shift in religious identity has had implications for India’s national security as well. The fact that South Asian Muslims are being progressively Arabized has implication for their ability to integrate into the Indian national community and makes India as a whole less stable and secure. The fact that evangelicals in India’s northeast (and increasingly in the Naxalite corridor throughout the South) are starting to agitate for independence from the Indian state also undermines India’s national security.
For a second step back and look at this from the perspective of a religious person or a nationalistic person who values the national or religious community they have as it is. They look around and see that a country like China or Dubai are so much wealthier than they and so much better at maintaining their integrity as a stable and secure nation. They are likewise more capable of sustaining the cultural and national sense of identity that the “core” of their national identities are based on. India has always found strength in its democratic norms. But if pseudo-secularism and downright naivete about the types of forces arrayed against them continue to nurture the ideologies and forces that divide Indians from each other they are going to start looking for alternative ways to protect the interests of their communities. For them it feels like they’re being punished for being open and accepting. How long is that punishment going to last before there is a backlash? Because current trends extrapolated, either there is a backlash or they find themselves finally backed into a corner and wiped out. Neither of those options are very pleasant.
146 · NV said
Thanks for pointing out my ‘western’ views.(sacrastic again, btw)
My point is that India has not always been a “Hindu” country but throughout history has had an ebb and flow of many different belief systems. I wouldn’t generalize to say “before the British, all religions (besides Islam) in India are fluid”. Zoroastrians, for example, have been in India for quite a long time and maintained a very distinct religious group. Likewise, Christians and Jews have also maintained distinct religious identities. And since the British, it is not as if religious that are more fluid, such as Hinduism, do not not accept other religious beliefs into their own.. for example, in Bihar, I saw Hindus pray to Jesus, offering prasad as they would at a mandir, or I often see Hindus making offerings as Sufi Shrines.
If you want to compare Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism, then we could argue something similar for Catholics, Protestants, and Syrian Orthodox, but the distinctions are still important to people who follow the religions, albeit with similar roots and belief systems.
I understand valuing your own religious beliefs and ‘nation’, but my question is, if people chose to change religion by their OWN FREE WILL, why is that damaging you? You can keep your religion, continue to worship and believe as you please, so why can’t others do the same? Why do you feel threatened by others choices?
If your religious group is a majority in a nation, is it your duty and right to make sure you maintain the majority? How far will you go? Would you make conversion illegal? Would you kill people who change religions? Would you commit mass genocide?
Also, you claim that South Asian Muslims are being Arabized. Let’s first consider that since Islam has entered India, it has changed and altered to create a unique Indian Islamic culture, take Sufism, for example.
How are Muslims in India today turning to Arabic forms of Islam? Mainly through madrassas, many of which are funded by Wahabi groups from Saudi Arabia.. Perhaps if Indian had a universal, equal education program for all children in India, Muslim families wouldn’t have to turn to outside, conservative Islamic groups such as Wahabiism to get some sort of education for their children.
If you read studies regarding education and literacy, and poverty in India, you will find that a higher proportion of Muslims remain poor and illiterate. If such minority groups are ‘taking over’ India, why do they still stand in such a poor economic and educational state within the country?
A few examples of articles with reference to education struggles for Muslims in India:
http://infochangeindia.org/200801306848/Education/Books-Reports/Elementary-education-Kerala-tops-Bihar-lags-Muslim-enrolment-poor.html
http://www.indianmuslims.info/articles/yoginder_sikand/what_ails_muslim_education_in_india.html
http://www.indiatogether.org/2007/aug/edu-muslimedu.htm
And if you want to use the CIA Factbook as an extremely basic estimate for percentages of religious groups in India you get:
Religions: Hindu 80.5%, Muslim 13.4%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.1% (2001 census)
The country population would be approx: 1,147,995,904 (July 2008 est.)
So let’s then say that 80.5% of the population is: 918,396,723
Please tell me how this 918,396,723 peoples religion, culture, and way of life can be wiped away by 229,599,181 people.
Having grown up as a minority (in terms of religion)in India, let me say, the majority is mainly concerned with issues pertaining only to themselves. I (and people of my community) have never felt accepted by the Indian mainstream. If our community has prospered it has been despite the presence of the majority. We were and still are always the ‘other’. I agree with LinZi, it is hypocritical for the Hindu’s (I mean the bigot Kiran P) to claim religious minorities are infringing on the Hindu way of life. Its also funny to see how when some of the Hindu community (being a minority in the US) feel vindicated when Obama mentions them in his Inaguration speech!! How about Hindus (I am looking at you, Kiran P) treat minorities in India with the same respect they demand from the majority in the west!
(and those 229,599,181 people include all your ‘fluid’ religions such as Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, etc, too!)
The core of the national identity still centers around one notion of culture though. Just like in America we’re thought the myth of the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock, which completely simplifies the nature and diversity of the initial American colonizers, it is important to have a sense of national identity that is positive and unifying. Zoroastrians were there as were the Eastern Christian churches and Jews, but they’ve always been a miniscule part of the civilizational makeup. In the grand scheme of things they were a footnote in describing the forces that shaped Indian society. It’s important that their rights and identity be respected, but it’s also not a credible Indian national identity. Trying to make it an issue as far as self-identification is concerned just pulls the country apart.
India does have a universal, equal education program. The problem is this program only exists in theory since in practice, politics is done on a patronage basis and the money never gets to where it is supposed to go. The patronage politics is fueled by stoking communal tensions between religious groups and ethnic groups and the like. So an ambitious, charismatic politician can set himself up as “The guy for Christians,” get his little slice of the pie and divvy it up to who he wants it to go to.
Having a professional and effective civil service is another thing that requires a sense of common national identity in order to pull off. Your politicians and civil servants need to feel like they’re invested in the well-being of all Indians rather than their particular tribe and stoking communalism through competitive intolerance hurt that effort. It also doesn’t help that it is just about impossible for people to agree on a valid school curriculum since each and every factoid is construed as a grievous offense to one narrowly defined interest group or another.
I am aware of this. In fact, I think it is a great tragedy that the Indian flavors of Islam and Christianity have been progressively eroded away by the influence of neo-imperialists that push their ideologies with soft-power implements like money and pseudo-academic writings. It’s less blatantly violent than the old imperialism, but it is motivated by the same insidious attempts to eradicate the variety and diversity that makes the world interesting.
It’s a self-reinforcing cycle. They have higher rates of demographic growth precisely because they are poor and illiterate. And they stay poor and illiterate because of the same factors that promote that growth (migration of poor Muslims from Bangladesh, cultural lack of emphasis on educating women (employment options lower fertility), etc.) I’m not saying discrimination doesn’t happen, but it’s only one part of the problem.
But in this too we see the effects of being too accommodating towards narrowly defined interest groups. India’s Muslims have a separate civil law system than the rest of the country. While the country’s Hindus are governed by the secular, democratically determined laws put forth by the state the Muslims generally have to go by sharia. As a result the Indian state has surrendered its authority over its Muslim minority to the most conservative elements within Islam. So Muslims still operate under a regime that allows polygamy in India while both Pakistan and Bangladesh have long ago banned the practice (even though they too are starting to find efforts to bring it back, but that’s another long story.) The Indian government cannot properly deliver services and initiate the important social and cultural reforms needed within the Muslim community if the mullahs are going to raise a ruckus about how it’s anti-secular every time they try. Having literate parents, especially a literate mother, is immensely important in determining whether or not a child learns how to read. Whether they have access to schools or not it is crucially important. But as long as the Indian government or society at large is powerless to actually initiate those reforms, nothing is going to get done.
It is also important not to aggregate the numbers too much. India is a large and diverse country and looking at a nation-wide average can draw you to the wrong conclusions. Hindus in Bihar, for example, aren’t all that much better-off than Muslims anywhere else.
Educated, informed conversion by people doesn’t really bother all that many people. The reason conversions are regarded as a problem is because they almost never happen that way. They are happening within a context in which foreign churches are going out of their way to systematically convert Hindus en masse. If an organization has a mission to specifically go out and convert people within a society that’s a pretty aggressive hard sell. Often they do this with financial inducements. That’s not an honest and sincere religious conversion by these poor marginalized people. That’s conscription into some megalomaniacal religious crusade. The problem people have with these conversions is that they are being used in some twisted game of religious usury.
The Tibetan monks are instructed that when they go out into the world their goal should not be to pull people away from their religious traditions. In fact, when arguing with a Christian the Buddhist’s role should be make them better Christians rather than turning them into Buddhists. This is a wise and spiritually mature tack the Dalai Lama took there, but it is not the tack that missionary evangelists take with the adivasis in India.
Also, I know you said that you’re “unbiased” because you do not follow and religious tradition. But don’t you think maybe the fact that you don’t take religion or tradition seriously might bias you against people who do?
153 · NV said
NV speaks for him/herself on that one there! (All you non-Hindus cannot be part of a credible Indian national identity, according to NV!)
And, BTW, having an American national identity based on some mythical story of how the Pilgrims and native people came together in love and happiness is a dangerous, false, and completely embarrassing national identity, not something to proud of at all.