Did someone “Indian” help the Nigerian bomber in Amsterdam?

abdulmutallab.jpg

I left work later than I intended to tonight, and this concerned me because I’m in the middle of a rather difficult move from one apartment to another here in Chocolate City. Moving. Ugh, right? Anyway, while worrying that I now had even LESS time to sort and pack my crap, I overheard something important on NPR. “Maybe I was meant to run late”, I mused to myself…maybe, indeed.

What I ended up listening to had me riveted to the news [though it wasn’t quite a driveway moment— that would be challenging here in the city :)]. NPR’s All Things Considered co-host Robert Siegel was interviewing a Michigan-based attorney named Kurt Haskell; Haskell was aboard Northwest flight 253, along with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man who attempted to blow it up on Christmas day.

While all of you are aware of this horrifying incident, a few of you may be unaware of some disturbing additional information pertaining to that attack. On NPR, Haskell described a scene he witnessed with his wife prior to boarding that ill-fated flight home to Detroit. He recalled seeing terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab escorted to the gate by a “well-dressed Indian man”, who tried to intervene on Abdulmutallab’s behalf and browbeat an airline employee in to overlooking the fact that the wanna-be martyr lacked a passport. WTF? Who gets to board anything without a passport, these days? And also, uh, INDIAN? I think he meant South Asian, because if Mr. Haskell is anything like me, he was born here and probably can’t tell the difference between a Pakistani and a Sri Lankan from a mere glance.

Let me perfectly clear: I did not come out of semi-hiding to write this post for the purpose of moaning that now “we” look “bad”, nor am I digging in my heels and protesting this “slur” against all good Yindians from Yindia. Aside: I think this incident illustrates a point I have long-made on this blog and it illustrates it very well; nuance and difference are lost on most people. While many of my first and a few of my second generation friends hotly protest being lumped in with “those” Pakistanis or “those” Indians (depending on whether they are the former or latter, mais oui), I roll my eyes for many reasons, including the fact that racists and other assholes just see curry. Brown. Apu. Outsourcing. Perhaps now, Jay Sean.

They sure as hell don’t assume that I’m a Christian or know where Kerala is– to most of the people with whom I interact, I’m Brown, most probably Hindu, and possibly on my way to an Arranged Marriage which I can then write about in poor chick-lit form, via a book with any combination of henna, mangoes, sari pallus and whatever else, flanked by an ersatz Indic font on the cover. Yay for predictable fiction! /aside

So why DID I write this post? Because.

a) Apparently everyone/everything really IS connected to someone Brown these days (!)

b) Haskell was so sure that the man ushering Abdulmutallab was Indian that he said as much a few times during the interview which I overheard, and NOT ONCE was he asked about this detail…not even via a tentative, “Well, you think the man was Indian, correct?”

c) Almost every article I’ve read since, including a post on ATC’s own blog omits this potent adjective. See for yourself:

As we reported earlier, Haskell (a Michigan lawyer) has been telling investigators and the news media about a conversation he says he heard before passengers boarded Northwest flight 253 to Detroit on Christmas Day.

According to Haskell, Abdulmutallab and an older, well-dressed man approached an airline employee. The older man said Abdulmutallab was Sudanese, had no passport, but needed to get on the flight. The airline employee directed them to a manager and the men went down a hallway. Haskell says he never saw the older man again, and didn’t see Abdulmutallab until the incident aboard the flight as it approached Detroit — when the Nigerian (the suspect is not Sudanese) allegedly tried to ignite some typeof explosive. [npr]

Interesting, right?

I haven’t found anything else which mentions the “Indian” mystery man who helped put an evil criminal on Flight 253, but whatever his ethnic origin, if he was aware of what he was participating in then I wish him a similarly painful, scorched-balls-sort of fate, and I fervently hope that he, too, fails at harming innocent people.

::

Because I am in the middle of moving during a holiday week, I hope you will take extra pains to be civil to each other in the comment thread below. I do not have internet access in my new home (yet) and even if I did, I do not have the time to wade through comment-drama. I want to thank you in advance for your sure-to-be thoughtful words; I hope I am not given a reason (or fifty) to regret posting this. 🙂

248 thoughts on “Did someone “Indian” help the Nigerian bomber in Amsterdam?

  1. VARUN #150

    ” Indian Hindus have no history […] for destroying American or international passenger airplanes” Xeno says: false No, true. There is no history of Indian Hindus blowing up,or trying to blow up American or international airplanes, let alone using the pretext of religion( injustices toward Hindus, American/British imperialism, anti-Hindu communal riots etc) . Dhiren Barot had converted to Islam and became “Al Hindi” or something like that. Yes, there’s a possibility of an Indian Moslem cell of one of the Pakistani terror groups, assisting the Nigerian. But Haskell didn’t make any mention, any qualifying statement, when he used the word “Indian”.

    Xeno, you seemed to try to show to Varun in his post #126 AND #150 that Indian HINDUS do have a history of blowing up American planes or international passenger airplanes. Varun seemed to be talking about HINDUS as Hindus for Hinduism have no history of blowing up international planes, not muslim converts for Islam. Your example of of that Muslim convert only reinforces Varun’s point since that convert did it, not as a religious Hindu, but as a religious Muslim. His example would add to the history of Muslims blowing up planes. You still have not shown any examples showing a HISTORY (which would entail multiple instances) of HINDUS blowing up American and international planes. As for that arms dealer Lakhani, the “US agents believe he was not affiliated to any terrorist group but that he was “in it for the money” and prepared to deal with anyone.” Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-192321/British-arms-dealer-court.html#ixzz0bV0gYSQ2

    Not sure what religion he is cause this would be odd for a Hindu to say: “…He pleaded not guilty before US district court Judge Katherine Hayden of Newark, New Jersey and insisted he will never plead guilty.

    “I was offered a deal (plea bargain), but why should I say yes? Whatever is to happen will happen, Allah sabka hai (Allah is there for everyone) and if this man (the government’s cooperative witness, Habibur Rehman) is ever extradited, (Pakistan President Pervez) Musharraf will throw him in prison for all he has done.”…http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/may/03speca.htm and Daily Times for Pakistan has him as a Muslim Briton http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_5-1-2005_pg7_49

    The arms dealer, regardless of his religion which does not seem to be the motivating factor, but money as the US agents said was, still was not selling weapons to Hindus to bring down planes he was selling them to Muslims.

    As to names being an indicator, there are a couple of jihadists, converts and born muslims who were born with non-Muslim names and who like “Headley” in the November Mumbai massacre took on a non-Muslim name deliberately to pass as a non-Muslim. So I agree with you a person with a Muslim name should not automatically be suspected, and everyone with a non-Muslim name should not be automatically be above suspicion. But you still have not shown any examples that Varun isn’t still right in that there is no history of Hindus like there is for Muslims in blowing up international airplanes.

  2. VARUN #150

    ” Indian Hindus have no history […] for destroying American or international passenger airplanes” Xeno says: false No, true. There is no history of Indian Hindus blowing up,or trying to blow up American or international airplanes, let alone using the pretext of religion( injustices toward Hindus, American/British imperialism, anti-Hindu communal riots etc) . Dhiren Barot had converted to Islam and became “Al Hindi” or something like that. Yes, there’s a possibility of an Indian Moslem cell of one of the Pakistani terror groups, assisting the Nigerian. But Haskell didn’t make any mention, any qualifying statement, when he used the word “Indian”.

    Xeno, you seemed to try to show to Varun in his post #126 AND #150 that Indian HINDUS do have a history of blowing up American planes or international passenger airplanes. Varun seemed to be talking about HINDUS as Hindus for Hinduism have no history of blowing up international planes, not muslim converts for Islam. Your example of of that Muslim convert only reinforces Varun’s point since that convert did it, not as a religious Hindu, but as a religious Muslim. His example would add to the history of Muslims blowing up planes. You still have not shown any examples showing a HISTORY (which would entail multiple instances) of HINDUS blowing up American and international planes. As for that arms dealer Lakhani, the “US agents believe he was not affiliated to any terrorist group but that he was “in it for the money” and prepared to deal with anyone.” Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-192321/British-arms-dealer-court.html#ixzz0bV0gYSQ2

    Not sure what religion he is cause this would be odd for a Hindu to say: “…He pleaded not guilty before US district court Judge Katherine Hayden of Newark, New Jersey and insisted he will never plead guilty.

    “I was offered a deal (plea bargain), but why should I say yes? Whatever is to happen will happen, Allah sabka hai (Allah is there for everyone) and if this man (the government’s cooperative witness, Habibur Rehman) is ever extradited, (Pakistan President Pervez) Musharraf will throw him in prison for all he has done.”…http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/may/03speca.htm and Daily Times for Pakistan has him as a Muslim Briton: “Trial of Muslim Briton begins in US

    NEW YORK: A jury was picked on Tuesday in the case of Hemant Lakhani, a British businessman arrested in August 2003 in an FBI sting operation for trying to sell missiles to militants intent on downing airliners.”

    The arms dealer, regardless of his religion which does not seem to be the motivating factor, but money as the US agents said was, still was not selling weapons to Hindus to bring down planes he was selling them to Muslims.

    As to names being an indicator, there are a couple of jihadists, converts and born muslims who were born with non-Muslim names and who like “Headley” in the November Mumbai massacre took on a non-Muslim name deliberately to pass as a non-Muslim. So I agree with you a person with a Muslim name should not automatically be suspected, and everyone with a non-Muslim name should not be automatically be above suspicion. But you still have not shown any examples that Varun isn’t still right in that there is no history of Hindus like there is for Muslims in blowing up international airplanes.

  3. , still was not selling weapons to Hindus to bring down planes he was selling them to Muslims.

    good luck trying to defend the claim that the person who sold the weapons is not complicit in the blowing up of the planes.

    and Daily Times for Pakistan has him as a Muslim Briton:

    This is what Hemant Lakhani has himself said:

    “But now they are very nice, they have realized that I don’t want to harm this country (the US), that I am a peace-loving Hindu.”

    “In the beginning, I had a lot of problems since I am a strict vegetarian, and I kept telling them I can’t eat meat.”

    “I have my shraddha, my belief in God,

    “My wife Kusum and I are devout Hindus, and I still pray for about two hours or more every day, morning and evening.”

    “I am a desi, I will remain a desi,

  4. “Yes all UP/Bihar/Punjab people are light skinned and brandy eyed with sharp noses like Central Asians and cannot be confused for south Indians, especially those from the rural parts.”

    you kidding? http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/04/0415_india_most_powerful/image/004_mayawati.jpg

    http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/life/2007/08/17/images/2007081750090401.jpg

    check the pictures and show where are those fair skinned brandy eyed people with sharp noses different from south indians .

  5. Punjabis and biharis don’t look anything like each other…that said many shades exist amongst punjabis as well..this linl looks like a hot potatoe…a terrorist is just that, whatever his alligence

  6. when a guy of indian origin whose passport says dhiren barot and looks like this

    Clicked the link and right off the bat guessed Dhiren is Bengali. So how’s my Desi geo-pheno-regional-ethnic-meter?

    Now I’ll google wiki him and see if I’m correct.

  7. Xeno, why would a devout Hindu refer to Allah? It doesn’t make sense. In any case the US agents have said he did it for the money, not religion.

    Xeno you have no proof that Hindus as Hindus for Hinduism in religious war have a history of blowing up international airplanes. None. Your “best” evidence is one arms dealer who was aiming to sell weapons to MUSLIM terrorists for their JIHAD (as Lakhani called it) so Muslim terrorists could once again target international planes. An arms dealer as an individual committed a crime by selling to terrorists and other shady people, in this case Muslim terrorists, but that is far different from what Varun was pointing out.

    Show us a history (more than once) of Hindus as Hindus for Hinduism in religious war blowing up international planes – not Muslim converts engaged in Islamic terrorism, not an arms dealer whose religion is shady who sold weapons to Islamic terrorists for them to blow up planes.

  8. Xeno you have no proof that Hindus as Hindus for Hinduism in religious war have a history of blowing up international airplanes.

    the question is not why they do it. the question is whether they do it. and the answer is yes. which is all that matters for instituting a policy of profiling people, both because they do it, and because they are indistinguishable from those who do.

    you can redefine the question narrowly, orthogonally, or upside down if it gives you the answer they want, but that is not the question relevant here. you can continue to believe that hemant lakhani is muslim despite all his pronouncements to the contrary too, if that gives you solace.

  9. the question is not why they do it. the question is whether they do it. and the answer is yes.

    How many Hindus have done this? 1? 4?

  10. How many Hindus have done this? 1? 4?

    how many such people do you need before you start taking precautions? how many shoe bombers do you need before you put in procedures reg footwear at airports? how many undie bombers do you need before you start agreeing that more security checking is needed in airports? 1? 4? 10?

  11. how many undie bombers do you need before you start agreeing that more security checking is needed in airports? 1? 4? 10?

    You mean they’re going to start searching our underwear at airports now????

  12. “You mean they’re going to start searching our underwear at airports now????”

    Yeah we will have to take them off and but them through the x-ray machine like we have to do with shoes since the shoe bomber.

  13. Xeno :”great stuff! i couldnt come up with better satire if i tried!”

    Actually, this condition also applies to Indian Christian neo-converts. They possess the zeal, exclusivism and aggressiveness of the new convert. They draw heavily upon “Jesus” , the bible, the church and/or the Vatican. They tend to denounce Hinduism. In the US, Canada and Denmark, among similar countries, Christianity is very much in the background. Anyone making constant references to Christ, the bible, the Pope etc, really stands out like a sore thumb, that is if they are not considered “Jesus freaks”. But in the name of secularism, this type of behaviour is even encouraged in India.

  14. Actually, this condition also applies to Indian Christian neo-converts. They possess the zeal, exclusivism and aggressiveness of the new convert. They draw heavily upon “Jesus” , the bible, the church and/or the Vatican. They tend to denounce Hinduism. In the US, Canada and Denmark, among similar countries, Christianity is very much in the background. Anyone making constant references to Christ, the bible, the Pope etc, really stands out like a sore thumb, that is if they are not considered “Jesus freaks”. But in the name of secularism, this type of behaviour is even encouraged in India.

    I would add that it in fact applies to anyone that isnt hindu and a healthy shade of wheat.

  15. Actually, this condition also applies to Indian Christian neo-converts. They possess the zeal, exclusivism and aggressiveness of the new convert. They draw heavily upon “Jesus” , the bible, the church and/or the Vatican. They tend to denounce Hinduism. In the US, Canada and Denmark, among similar countries, Christianity is very much in the background. Anyone making constant references to Christ, the bible, the Pope etc, really stands out like a sore thumb, that is if they are not considered “Jesus freaks”. But in the name of secularism, this type of behaviour is even encouraged in India.

    >

    I would add that it in fact applies to anyone that isnt hindu and a healthy shade of wheat.

    >

    And I would add it applies to any convert to almost any religion.

    Just see the “hare krishnas” for an example of zeal with regards to the (Hindu) religion they converted to.

  16. “And I would add it applies to any convert to almost any religion.

    Just see the “hare krishnas” for an example of zeal with regards to the (Hindu) religion they converted to.”

    That’s possible, but a major difference is that the Hare Krishna’s are smaller in numbers, and tend not to denounce other religions, including their former one, if they are converts from non-Hinduism.

  17. That’s possible, but a major difference is that the Hare Krishna’s are smaller in numbers, and tend not to denounce other religions, including their former one, if they are converts from non-Hinduism.

    Many Hare Krishnas denounce other relgions and ways of life. It’s one of the things that turned me off of their Sunday Feasts, even though the grub was delish.

  18. Denouncing any non-hindu-religion is cool if you ask me. Hip/edgy anyone? Thats all I really care about. Or is it more like facist/insular? In which case not as much I must admit.

  19. Denouncing any non-hindu-religion is cool if you ask me. Hip/edgy anyone? Thats all I really care about. Or is it more like facist/insular? In which case not as much I must admit.

    In the case of HARE KRISHNAS it’s neither hip nor edgy, more like immature and fanatical.

    Not saying all are like that, but a significant number of ones I’ve met have been. I hear things are changing though. They also denounce other Hindus, and even other sects within their own religion.

  20. In the case of HARE KRISHNAS it’s neither hip nor edgy, more like immature and fanatical. Not saying all are like that, but a significant number of ones I’ve met have been. I hear things are changing though. They also denounce other Hindus, and even other sects within their own religion.

    Ah. So we are talking immature-fanatical. Closer to facist-insular than I personally like hanging around at. Its a fun spectrum to be honest.

  21. The only delusion I can see is comparing bihar and bengal, two relatively close states, and not more poignant examples such as tamil nadu and punjab.

    I don’t think you know what the word delusion means. Trying to pass off a minority of residents from Punjab, a small state with less than a third of Bihar’s population, as representative of North Indians is the height of delusion.

    BTW, two of the most successful punjabis, Manmohan Singh and Bobby Jindal, are typical of what the majority of punjabis look like. And they would not stand out in a South Indian or Bengali crowd.

  22. I don’t think you know what the word delusion means. Trying to pass off a minority of residents from Punjab, a small state with less than a third of Bihar’s population, as representative of North Indians is the height of delusion. BTW, two of the most successful punjabis, Manmohan Singh and Bobby Jindal, are typical of what the majority of punjabis look like. And they would not stand out in a South Indian or Bengali crowd.

    If by crowd you mean hundreds of people then no. But then again, not many people stand out in any crowd of x, y, or z. A north indian is much more likely to pass off as hispanic than a south indian. Thats just been my overwhelming experience. This is not to say that exceptions dont exist.

  23. A north indian is much more likely to pass off as hispanic than a south indian.

    This is just ignorance piled upon delusion. It is far from “much more likely” that a desi from north indian states like Bihar, Bengal, Madhya Pradesh etc would pass off as a hispanic than a south indian. I don’t think Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (without his turban) or Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, both typical punjabis, would be mistaken for anything other than desi.

    Secondly, hispanics come in all colors and phenotypes; and those with mixed african or dark gypsy ancestry are the ones that some desis may sometimes “pass off as”. I think it is downright pathetic how so many desis, including both north and south indians, feel the need to claim that they “pass off” as non-desis. Especially considering that the people they claim to pass off as aren’t exactly the most admired peoples around. Clearly there is a great deal of racial shame and a deep inferiority complex going on here…

  24. I’m north Indian…and whereever I go in UK and Europe people realise I am Indian or Pakistanni…yet when I was in california people for whom I opned the door would say thanks amigo or spanish types would start speaking to me in spanish…first I was no I’m not mexican.,..then I just got annoyed…then I just got even by speaking back in Punjabi!!! Point is America might be melting pot, but its sure ignorant about most of the world

  25. This is just ignorance piled upon delusion. It is far from “much more likely” that a desi from north indian states like Bihar, Bengal, Madhya Pradesh etc would pass off as a hispanic than a south indian. I don’t think Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (without his turban) or Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, both typical punjabis, would be mistaken for anything other than desi. Secondly, hispanics come in all colors and phenotypes; and those with mixed african or dark gypsy ancestry are the ones that some desis may sometimes “pass off as”. I think it is downright pathetic how so many desis, including both north and south indians, feel the need to claim that they “pass off” as non-desis. Especially considering that the people they claim to pass off as aren’t exactly the most admired peoples around. Clearly there is a great deal of racial shame and a deep inferiority complex going on here…

    First of all, Im not talking about anyone needing to pass off as anything. Secondly, while jindal may not be able to “pass off” (i think his nose is too big / arabic looking), I think manmohan probably could if he lost the turban and beard. Just a guess.

    I think those desis wanting to pass off as another race are generally those that dont see themself represented in media and entertainment and have a natural desire to see themselves reflected in their surroundings. Desis are generally not very visible (with the occasional exception) in mass media outside the subcontinent. Within india for example, there is an obsession with light skin but then again Id argue that in the US there is an obsession about tan skin.

    I chose hispanics precisely for the reasons you outlined – that being said, they are different from desis in that as a people desis are probably the only ones that have both simultaneously a certain “look” and yet are still different in other ways. I’m simply describing those “other ways”, which can include everything from facial features to skin color.

  26. I think it is downright pathetic how so many desis, including both north and south indians, feel the need to claim that they “pass off” as non-desis.

    Id argue that this is a consequence of having various phenotypes available to them as well. Whites, black, chinese, etc generally dont have the option. It isnt right but I think it indirectly supports my argument.

  27. You have not show “THEY” have a HISTORY of doing it. ONE arms dealer ONE time who is in it for the money selling to Islamic terrorists for their jihad for Islamic terrorists to blow up international airplanes, does not make a history of Hindus blowing up international airplanes. By your reasoning everyone who sells weapons is complicit with how they are used by those who bought it. If that is the best example you have, it isn’t anything at all. You have failed to show Varun is wrong when he said Hindus do not have a history of blowing up international airplanes. Your example seems to me to be not a very helpful one for Muslims. Motive is a factor in why there is a history of MUSLIMS blowing up airplanes – according to those Muslims it is jihad. This is why Muslims thanks to Muslims are under more scrutiny than Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Atheists, Wiccans, Druids, hell even more than crazy Satanists. It is about likelihood. The Pope too could blow up an airline but the likelihood is far less than a Muslim terrorist.

    As for profiling like I said I agree with you that a non-Muslim name doesn’t mean he is not a person who won’t blow up the planes and a Muslim name doesn’t mean he will. Racial or religious profiling won’t work because Islam is not a race, and by looking at a person one cannot tell his religion or more importantly whether to that person blowing-up-planes-jihad is on his mind, but watching out for behavior works far better.

  28. It is either European or Latino. Very few Desis talk about how they pass for East Asian (and there are some), Arab and Black.

  29. Are you all pranking me? The first 100 comments were “Indians look different from Pakistanis. Why didn’t he say ‘Indian or Pakistani’? Waaah!”. And the next 100 comments are “Scythians look different from Lemurians. No they don’t. Your mom”. If this unintellectual debate goes any further, we’re going to end up with “Namboodris look different from Malankaras. You know who else looked different from Malankaras? HITLER!”. Stop it, please.

    For the record, Ted Kaczynski was The Unabomber, and this Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is The Undibomber.

  30. Are you all pranking me? The first 100 comments were “Indians look different from Pakistanis. Why didn’t he say ‘Indian or Pakistani’? Waaah!”. And the next 100 comments are “Scythians look different from Lemurians. No they don’t. Your mom”. If this unintellectual debate goes any further, we’re going to end up with “Namboodris look different from Malankaras. You know who else looked different from Malankaras? HITLER!”. Stop it, please. For the record, Ted Kaczynski was The Unabomber, and this Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is The Undibomber.

    Why is it not intellectual to recognize that the part of the world desis come from is rich in all kinds of diversity? Thats what it seems like when you hear something like “all indians look the same”. It goes beyond simple racializations. From the north to the south india is extremely rich in all kinds of traditions, cultures, religions, and on and on. Isnt that what makes it so unique and wise – is it too much to ask to appreciate differences? Why do we have to fit into desi caricatures? Because thats what uneducated non-desis would be most comfortable with? How intellectual is that? I can appreciate that the debate can sometimes get trivial but I dont think that means there is nothing to talk about.

  31. It is either European or Latino. Very few Desis talk about how they pass for East Asian (and there are some), Arab and Black.

    Ha. Ha. So true.

  32. Hispanics and arabs, and even turks, are far more diverse in looks and color than desis. Desis are not even close to them in true diversity.

    A crowd scene from Punjab will not be mistaken for a crowd scene from anywhere outside the Indian subcontinent. The sad truth is that too many desis are ashamed of their origins. Observe the numbers of desis (and not just muslims) who claim that their ancestors came from somewhere outside the Indian subcontinent, or who constantly boast that they are mistaken for non-desis. This shame at being from India, or looking like indians, must have been true even a 1000 years ago, since the gypsies who were from northwest India lied about their origins and claimed to be from Egypt when they reached Europe.

  33. Hispanics and arabs, and even turks, are far more diverse in looks and color than desis. Desis are not even close to them in true diversity.

    While there are plenty of diverse genetic populations, I dont see how that negates diversity within the subcontinent. There are desis that are as pale as pale gets and those that are as dark as dark gets. There are sharp featured, dull featured, and so on. Yet they are all readily identifiable as desi. I dont see how you can quantify that and compare it with hispanics, arabs, and turks… If im guilty of being delusional, you are guilty of being in denial.

  34. “First of all, Im not talking about anyone needing to pass off as anything. Secondly, while jindal may not be able to “pass off” (i think his nose is too big / arabic looking), I think manmohan probably could if he lost the turban and beard. Just a guess. “

    How come jindal’s nose and arabic lookin related to each other? Haven’t you seen Indians(both North and South) with long noses?

    it shows your ignorance.

  35. How come jindal’s nose and arabic lookin related to each other? Haven’t you seen Indians(both North and South) with long noses? it shows your ignorance.

    I was saying that jindal looks less hispanic to me because of his nose – not more or less north or south indian.

  36. How come jindal’s nose and arabic lookin related to each other? Haven’t you seen Indians(both North and South) with long noses? it shows your ignorance. I was saying that jindal looks less hispanic to me because of his nose – not more or less north or south indian.

    Right, I see what your saying. I could have worded it a little better. Hows “non-hispanic” looking? Forget the arabic thing.

  37. There are desis that are as pale as pale gets and those that are as dark as dark gets. There are sharp featured, dull featured, and so on. Yet they are all readily identifiable as desi. I dont see how you can quantify that and compare it with hispanics, arabs, and turks… If im guilty of being delusional, you are guilty of being in denial.

    Actually you are guilty of both denial and delusion. Along with self-loathing and treachery towards your own kind.

    There are very few desis who are as “as pale as pale gets”, whereas there are large percentages of arabs and hispanics who look like europeans.

    I was saying that jindal looks less hispanic to me because of his nose – not more or less north or south indian.

    That is further proof of your stupidity and ignorance.

  38. Actually you are guilty of both denial and delusion. Along with self-loathing and treachery towards your own kind.

    I would argue that self loathing and treacherous behaviour is trying to sell people the farce that the every indian looks like every other indian.

    There are very few desis who are as “as pale as pale gets”, whereas there are large percentages of arabs and hispanics who look like europeans.

    I didnt realize looking european was what you meant by diverse. Sorry youre so right.

  39. Here is another academic study on the topic. http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/hpg/cesmg/peopling.html

    One of the more relevant quotes includes the following :

    Genetically and culturally India is perhaps the most diverse country on the face of the earth. The most authoritative summary of genetics of human populations is provided by Cavalli-Sforza in his magnum opus, History and Geography of Human Genes [Cavalli-Sforza, et. al 1994]. He provides global maps of frequencies of 82 genes for 42 population aggregates of indigenous people covering the entire world. The 82 loci show the highest levels of heterozygosity, 0.35-0.37 for northwestern India, west Asia and continental Europe (Fig.1).
  40. Genetically and culturally India is perhaps the most diverse country on the face of the earth

    Bullcrap. Africa is far more genetically diverse than the Indian subcontinent:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043002485.html

    Africans are more genetically diverse than the inhabitants of the rest of the world combined, according to a sweeping study that carried researchers into remote regions to sample the bloodlines of more than 100 distinct populations.

    Yet despite this genetic diversity in Africa and to a lesser extent India, people from Africa and the Indian subcontinent are easily identifiable visually as being of african or indian origin respectively.

  41. The fact that Americans mistake some Indians for Ethiopians or even Latinos doesn’t mean that indians look like those ethnic groups. It just means that Americans are ignorant as hell about the rest of the world. Because in Europe everybody could see plainly that my origins lay in the Indian subcontinent. Why do we have this obsession for ‘passing’ as another ethnic group? (Note that it is always white European/Turk, not East Asian or African or Australian aborigine!)

  42. Bullcrap. Africa is far more genetically diverse than the Indian subcontinent: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043002485.html Africans are more genetically diverse than the inhabitants of the rest of the world combined, according to a sweeping study that carried researchers into remote regions to sample the bloodlines of more than 100 distinct populations. Yet despite this genetic diversity in Africa and to a lesser extent India, people from Africa and the Indian subcontinent are easily identifiable visually as being of african or indian origin respectively.

    Africa is a continent. India is a country. There is also an indian subcontinent. But they are not the same. Do we need geography lessons now? The link that I sources mentions african genetic diversity as well:

    “With the exception of Africa, such an extent of genetic diversity is not observed in comparable global regions.”

    The statement :

    “Genetically and culturally India is perhaps the most diverse country on the face of the earth.”

    Is perfectly plausible and quite likely.

    Im not sure why this is such point of contention for you to be honest. I have never said you should always be able to tell a punjabi, bihari, tamilian, malayalee, maharastrian, etc apart without fail. I have said that there are unique phenotypes all over and they tend to cluster regionally. Because of this, certain statements can be made such as “people from blank are more likely to blank”. Is this really hard to believe? Or are we back to talking about arabs, turks, and hispanics?

    Yet despite this genetic diversity in Africa and to a lesser extent India, people from Africa and the Indian subcontinent are easily identifiable visually as being of african or indian origin respectively.

    Yes and no. I would say that this applies to black africans, but egyptians, morrocans, libyans, etc.. could confuse people.

  43. The fact that Americans mistake some Indians for Ethiopians or even Latinos doesn’t mean that indians look like those ethnic groups.

    While I agree with what you’re saying (to an extent) I would also add that Indians are often mistaken for natives by natives, in other countries/regions. Particularly latin american ones.

  44. Bullcrap. Africa is far more genetically diverse than the Indian subcontinent: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043002485.html Africans are more genetically diverse than the inhabitants of the rest of the world combined, according to a sweeping study that carried researchers into remote regions to sample the bloodlines of more than 100 distinct populations. Yet despite this genetic diversity in Africa and to a lesser extent India, people from Africa and the Indian subcontinent are easily identifiable visually as being of african or indian origin respectively.

    Africa is a continent. India is a country. There is also an indian subcontinent. But they are not the same. Do we need geography lessons now? The link that I sources mentions african genetic diversity as well:

    “With the exception of Africa, such an extent of genetic diversity is not observed in comparable global regions.”

    The statement :

    “Genetically and culturally India is perhaps the most diverse country on the face of the earth.”

    Is perfectly plausible and quite likely.

    Im not sure why this is such point of contention for you to be honest. I have never said you should always be able to tell a punjabi, bihari, tamilian, malayalee, maharastrian, etc apart without fail. I have said that there are unique phenotypes all over and they tend to cluster regionally. Because of this, certain statements can be made such as “people from blank are more likely to blank”. Is this really hard to believe? Or are we back to talking about arabs, turks, and hispanics?

    Yet despite this genetic diversity in Africa and to a lesser extent India, people from Africa and the Indian subcontinent are easily identifiable visually as being of african or indian origin respectively.

    Yes and no. I would say that this applies to black africans, but egyptians, morrocans, libyans, etc.. could confuse people.

  45. Bullcrap. Africa is far more genetically diverse than the Indian subcontinent: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043002485.html Africans are more genetically diverse than the inhabitants of the rest of the world combined, according to a sweeping study that carried researchers into remote regions to sample the bloodlines of more than 100 distinct populations. Yet despite this genetic diversity in Africa and to a lesser extent India, people from Africa and the Indian subcontinent are easily identifiable visually as being of african or indian origin respectively.

    Africa is a continent. India is a country. There is also an indian subcontinent. But they are not the same. Do we need geography lessons now? The link that I sources mentions african genetic diversity as well:

    “With the exception of Africa, such an extent of genetic diversity is not observed in comparable global regions.”

    The statement :

    “Genetically and culturally India is perhaps the most diverse country on the face of the earth.”

    Is perfectly plausible and quite likely.

    Im not sure why this is such point of contention for you to be honest. I have never said you should always be able to tell a punjabi, bihari, tamilian, malayalee, maharastrian, etc apart without fail. Not being able to do so is not a crime either. I have said that there are unique phenotypes all over and they tend to cluster regionally. Because of this, certain statements can be made such as “people from blank are more likely to blank”. Is this really hard to believe? Or are we back to talking about arabs, turks, and hispanics?

    Yet despite this genetic diversity in Africa and to a lesser extent India, people from Africa and the Indian subcontinent are easily identifiable visually as being of african or indian origin respectively.

    Yes and no. I would say that this applies to black africans, but egyptians, morrocans, libyans, etc.. could confuse people.

  46. Bullcrap. Africa is far more genetically diverse than the Indian subcontinent:   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043002485.html   Africans are more genetically diverse than the inhabitants of the rest of the world combined, according to a sweeping study that carried researchers into remote regions to sample the bloodlines of more than 100 distinct populations.   Yet despite this genetic diversity in Africa and to a lesser extent India, people from Africa and the Indian subcontinent are easily identifiable visually as being of african or indian origin respectively.

      Africa is a continent. India is a country. There is also an indian subcontinent. But they are not the same. Do we need geography lessons now? The link that I sources mentions african genetic diversity as well:   “With the exception of Africa, such an extent of genetic diversity is not observed in comparable global regions.”   The statement :   “Genetically and culturally India is perhaps the most diverse country on the face of the earth.”   Is perfectly plausible and quite likely.   Im not sure why this is such point of contention for you to be honest. I have never said you should always be able to tell a punjabi, bihari, tamilian, malayalee, maharastrian, etc apart without fail. That’s hardly a crime.. I have said that there are unique phenotypes all over and they tend to cluster regionally. Because of this, certain statements can be made such as “people from blank are more likely to blank”. Is this really hard to believe? Or are we back to talking about arabs, turks, and hispanics?  

    Yet despite this genetic diversity in Africa and to a lesser extent India, people from Africa and the Indian subcontinent are easily identifiable visually as being of african or indian origin respectively.

      Yes and no. I would say that this applies to black africans, but egyptians, morrocans, libyans, etc.. could confuse people.