India (1947- ) has over a billion people and lies at the heart of Hindu civilization. Toynbee would call it a universal state: one that covers most of its civilization. Only China has more people and even that will not last: China is turning grey like the countries in the West.
While China looks set to become the number one power in the world by the 2020s, India is the one country that could upset that probable history: India will not only have more people by then, it will also have a much larger work force. In addition, India’s laws and government are based on British models, which have a proven record of success. The year 2100 belongs to India, not China.
India is a parliamentary democracy like Britain. In fact, it is the largest democracy in the world. On the other had, the people in power have far more blood on their hands and dirty secrets to hide than their counterparts in Britain or America.
India was ruled by Britain for most of the 1800s and right up until 1947. Mahatma Gandhi led the peaceful protests that drove the British out. But once the British left, the blood began to flow.
India was divided in two: the Muslim part was called Pakistan and the Hindu part India. India was once ruled for hundreds of years by the Moguls. They were Muslims and so there are Muslims throughout India. Some of these fled to Pakistan, but even more had to stay behind.
Millions were killed in the break up. The bad feelings and distrust last to this day: between Hindus and Muslims and between India and Pakistan. The two countries have fought four wars since then. And now they both have the bomb. Their big disagreement is how to divide Kashmir in the north.
India is far more religious than the West. It has given birth to at least four religions: Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism. At one point India was almost all Buddhist, but Hinduism made a comeback and now is number one. Even so, one person in six is Muslim (only Indonesia has more Muslims) and there are millions of Christians too.
Languages: India has over a thousand languages, but only two matter nationwide: English and Hindi. Most young people with a good education know both. In the south English is favoured over Hindi.
Most of the languages in the north come from Sanskrit, the ancient language of India that all the holy books and old stories are written in. The languages in the south are Dravidian. They are no closer to Sanskrit than they are to English.
The four largest cities are Bombay (Mumbai) in the west, New Delhi in the north (the capital since Mogul times), Calcutta (Kolkata) in the east and Madras (Chennai) in the south.
The countryside, where most people still live, is shockingly poor.
The castes that used to divide society are dying out. Cows are still holy and gurus still teach.
See also:
Abagond 
@ Legion, another quiet thread 😀
Could the (apparent) lack of interest in this region and its people PARTLY be explained by what you said on the Hinduism thread? Let us say we replace the words “Hinduism” with India, and “religion” with people:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2007/09/08/hinduism/#comment-201658
LikeLike
I agree with Kiwi. This ^^ is a Eurocentric PoV.
It’s not like the Indians woke up one morning and said “We will now kill and rape our neighbours in a bloodthirsty-frenzy after having lived among them in peace for centuries”.
The British were right at the centre of, if not behind, this catastrophe.
To be clear, the British ruled India out of greed and exacted its wealth through violence. And, neither were Britain’s motivations for “giving” Independence grounded in altruism.
For one, I used to hear that the British only gave up India because she could no longer profit from staying there much longer. It was the 1940s, post-WW2 — when the British government needed money to rebuild its country, and pay for the welfare state and National Health Service. The British brokered this deal because it was the most expedient manner to get them out of debt: they owed India £3 billion pounds at the time, and Independence would write that debt off.
The violence that ensued during the Partition — massacres and mass rapes — was not the result of some kind of spontaneous lunacy by primitive savages. I’ve seen it framed like that when I was growing up and the subject of India came up: “Indians are not rational like white Europeans…”
What is not spoken of much is that the British colonial style was Divide and Rule. That means they exploited the existing social strata, and in this case, they made a caste system into caste based society with a nod to racism. A large holdings like India, 3 methods used:
1. Exploitation of ethnic stereotypes,
2. Creation of more subdivision within each ethnicity, and application of
3. Pressure on one subdivision to fight for its own country.
Britain’s Victorian enthnologists made full use of race science to an extent where it has become STANDARD BELIEF to this day. This belief is that Indians are divided into the following categories and rationale:
A) Dravidians, who are primitive and dark-skinned, or,
B) Indo-Aryans, who are lighter-skinned, higher up and have power, the apparent descendants of Europeans. And,
C) Naturally, that Indians had created their colour-based caste society to ensure racial purity and skin colour to indicate social status…
Never mind that this is simply not true!
Hindus have moved between castes through tribal affiliations and always did so through marriage. Their religion had not been organized along strict colourist lines — this is artificial notion that was exploited to exacerbate existing fractures. After all, black-skinned Brahmins exist much as fair-skinned Dalits (“Untouchables”).
As far as religious differences went, the British did their utmost to institutionalise fragmentation by forming separate political rights based entirely on religion — they created separate entitlements to vote for Muslims only in key areas. Doing that is always a sure way to forge inequality and unrest.
And also, why centre the area for Partition in the Punjab, probably the richest and most vibrant Province, for 14 to 18 million people to cross without food or water, in the shortest timespan? Fourteen to eighteen million on foot or on cart is a lot of people running for their lives.
Partition was inevitable, but it could have easily been planned without breaking up the Province and turning the region intoa theatre for Ethnic Cleansing instead.
A solid study of this British colonial practice is Susan Bayly’s Caste, Society and Politics in India. http://www.1947partitionarchive.org/node/60
There’s also Ishtiaq Ahmed’s analysis of using the locus of wealth in ethnic cleansing: The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed: Unravelling the 1947 Tragedy through Secret British Reports
There’s a 9 part doc about the subject. A 10 minute extract from it:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQnARfK9G_w)
LikeLiked by 1 person
^^ comment in moderation..
@ Legion, I didn’t tell you what I thought of the India video? I thought I did, but it was deleted.
Easily remedied! Will watch again tomorrow and comment.
Like the new picture. From “Blade Runner”.
LikeLike
In 2007 Pratibha Patil becomes first female president of India.
LikeLike
1915,After studying law in Great Britan and fighting for Indian Rights in South Africa, Mohandis Gahandi launches a campaign of non violent resistance against British rule in India. Gandi is called Mahatma, meaning “Great Soul”
LikeLike
Namaste is Hindi for hello/goodbye.
LikeLike
1638: Mogul Emperor Shah Jahan begins construction of the Taj Mahal in memory of his wife Mumtaz.
LikeLike
mary, Legion = cool 😀
LikeLike
@Bulanik, I wish I saw this thread earlier. I would say that the special relations with the Muslims that the British had also did a number to divide the country. Also the way the treated Ghandi at the time, he kind of fell into that trap and personally I think the British lead him there at the time. The whole summit with all the factions in India is a very interesting read. I personally believe without the British tampering with India there would be no Pakistan. I also think all those wars between the two countries were ridiculous. Eat the basic same food, have the same ancestors, and are the same people. However the military march between the two countries is also interesting.
I would say look at the massacres the British have left in their wake.
LikeLike
A short and sweet film about India’s Partition:
LikeLike
Oops, here is one with English subtitles:
LikeLike
The Taj Mahal is a beautiful monument, it is one of the seven wonders of the world. I read it took twenty years to build. Master craftsman from all over India and Iraq built the lush gardens that surround it. It touches my heart that the emperor who loved his wife so much will build her monument in her memory. That is a lovely and touching love story.
LikeLike
@ Legion
What did I think of the Chomsky vid? Oh, I wonder if I should say what I really think!?
Admittedly, I am not a reader of his work, but I will say much of what he says is quite familiar and I find him the most sensible of thinkers.
What he says I’ve heard before from way back.
I don’t know if this is so because I have been based in western Europe and west Asia? For instance, Dr Chomsky begins by talking about Adam Smith. For anyone who has actually read Adam Smith, they will know that much of what Smith wrote has been misunderstood and mis-applied, and has manipulated in the fashion of classic misinformation…
An example of this is the attitude towards neo-liberalism. What a misnomer.
There is nothing neo or liberal about it, because it’s neither new or liberal because it was precisely the economic policy which was standard practice by the British in India: basically dominate the weak with market discipline and be soft on the powerful! It was British imperial model for centuries.
I find Dr Chomsky honest and unassuming. He’s seen a lot.
He impresses (because it is unusual to hear) when he points to the insularity of American world view, in general, the outcome of the nation’s post-war self-glorification, and the resulting and stubbornly narrow view toward India, specifically, and how that has closed down so very much.
I’d say that this “Western” outlook does not only affect thinking by whites, it goes much further. For example, forming a blind-spot among black people in the West, too, towards India and Indian.
I had to smile when Dr Chomsky points to his own once-shutdown outlook towards something like Sanskrit, formerly perceiving it as “insignificant and exotic” (lol!) in opposition to American modern-ness and absolute relevance to everyone, everywhere. Yet, as it turns out Sanskrit is the Mother of Indo-European languages.
Also, but not surprisingly, it’s the language most suited to computer software:
(https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.language.hindi/SQd33K2e_Nw)
LikeLike
* was manipulated in the fashion of classic misinformation
LikeLike
@Bulaink: That was precious. The friendship of the two gentlemen. I liked that.
LikeLike
@ Mary, you can see there what the Partition of India meant for many people, millions and millions. It is just a 3 minute story, but it sums up the unnecessary waste of life and human loss that that AVOIDABLE decision cost.
It’s emotional just watching it. I don’t have a personal history of it, but since I learned about how Pakistan was formed, I have realized the heartbreak behind it.
LikeLike
@Bulanik: India and Pakistan, they ended up parting ways because of the partion. It was very lovely the two friends got back together.
LikeLike
Rupee is the currency used in India.
LikeLike
I sometimes wonder how far the root of one tree can divide. Can it truly become a separate thing or do those trees remember they were once the same seed. I do hope that even now they will strengthen ties with each other. I miss the discussions with my friends from that area. No one can stay for as long and argue better. No matter how many imaginary borders we put up the land is still the land. It will keep going long after those lines have no meaning.
Śubha rātri or achha rat achha terh matha sepney han sew
LikeLike
@ King of Trouble
What were these “special” relations that the British had with Muslims at the time? I’ve head again and again that Partition was “inevitable”, but I don’t think there’s been a full and frank discussion about why that was.
This “inevitability” argument could have been just propaganda.
LikeLike
Bulanik most of the military for British long history in India came from Muslim stock. It was once boasted about in the history books.
LikeLike
That would never have occurred to me, King of Trouble.
It’s not my belief that India’s Muslims had a special relationship with the British.
Muslim AND the Hindu soldiers had been pivotal in the Indian Army’s Rebellion against the British in 1857, and the British had never trusted them after that.
It was never the same. The British may have manipulated the Muslim element, though. Is that what you mean?
I realize that a lot of army recruiting went on in Muslim strongholds before the Partition, but I’ve never heard of any Muslim regiments, or something similar.
True, the Muslim Indians were over-represented in the British Indian Army, but so were the Sikhs. (The Sikhs continue to have a presence in the British military. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100193886/where-would-the-british-army-be-without-the-sikhs/)
In the past, the British Victorian enthnologists believed in a pseudo-science which guided them into separating off some Indian “races” and what work they were suited to. Those beliefs guided them to force the women of some ethnicities into prostitution, and the men into soldiering.
The British colonialists believed that some Indian “tribes” were born to serve their interest. Soldiers had to be brave and strong, but dumb; they would fight but had no brains for leadership or thinking. They were “by nature” subservient and docile to authority. The British felt that some of the Indian were just perfect for that. They were good fighters because they were masculine men of the primitive sort! That was the theory! That applied to a number of Indian ethnicities, though.
One book on the theory of martial races:
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/Martial-Races-Masculinity-1857-1914-Imperialism/dp/0719069637/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1384908284&sr=8-2&keywords=martial+races)
LikeLike
You should also know that the Brits had fanned the flames of divisiveness among otherwise peaceful Indians. They made the Hindus and Muslims hate each other so much that it ended up killing millions.
On top of it, the Brits propped up Pakistan as a possible future client state. Jinnah was more than willing to sell Pakistan down the street to the highest bidder.
Pakistan started out as “secular Islamic nation” (whatever that means) and after losing the 1971 war with India they turned into “more Islam” as a solution to their woes. The Indians fought the 1971 war reluctantly due to the Pakistani genocide of Bangladeshi Bengalis and the resultant influx of refugees. On a side note Nixon and Kissinger supported Pakistan in this conflict, which India had to finish in a matter of 72 odd hours before one of the US super-carriers bombed our fleet.
The brits have a lot of blood on their hands, and unfortunately our first prime minister was a biggest Uncle Tom that ever existed. That fact and the fact that we had a rather peaceful transfer of power from the Brits to the already established power structure of brown leaders (who made money by serving the Brits, and were hence British in their attitudes) resulted in our education system containing distorted history where the Brits are more or less “thanked” for doing what they did in India.
This education has created a bunch of meek “house slaves” as Malcolm X would have put it. I keep reminding my brothers and sisters on the evidence (that is as clear as day) on the mess that the Brits left behind in 1947.
Before the advent of brits, 60% of India was dependent on agriculture and 40% in Industries and services(late 1700s), there were small wars here and there, but nothing of the scale that is seen recently. By 1947 that number became 95% agriculture 5% on Industries and services, with most of the people at each others neck. Divided and broken.
Every time I see a brit complaining about Indian poverty I have to hold back the urge to spit on him/her.
LikeLike
@ Lokee
I think many who’ve looked at the question, realize that.
But it took a while for that truth to be filtered through!
From what I can remember of my British education, the emphasis was more on Gandhi’s peacefulness and courage. That education dismissed the Muslims — come to think of it there was only scorn shown to them. If memory serves, it was the Muslims who were portrayed as the villains, and carried the blame for what became of India. The British were saviours.
After all, it was the Muslims who were behind Gandhi’s assassination. Silence about British manipulations, skullduggery and LIES.
In fact, much was made of the sub-continent’s apparently blood-lust and irrationality. Thus, the Muslims were depicted as war-like, backward, fanatical, and the destroyers of India, the “true” Indians were seen as victims of THEM.
On the other hand, the influence of the British (I don’t call them “brits” myself, lol), were cast as “neutral” custodians, only on their way out of an Indian-created mess.
Parallels were later drawn with Israel. The message from that education was: if only there wasn’t the aggression of the backward Arabs, everyone would live in peace! The constant tit-for-tat fighting is just an outgrowth of retaliation, squabbling without end…these swarthy Oriental types are so emotional…
Of course, the British were only bystanders and sometimes referee amidst all the killing and devastation.
*
Interesting what you say about the peaceful transfer of power and how that coloured the truth about British colonialism.
When you say this:
“This education has created a bunch of meek “house slaves” as Malcolm X would have put it. I keep reminding my brothers and sisters on the evidence (that is as clear as day) on the mess that the Brits left behind in 1947.”
Could you point out the direction (links ) or lay out more detail) of that evidence? Whatever I know about the subject mentions it, but not with specificity or great elaboration. How the subcontinent was bled and robbed unrelentingly of its riches, decade after decade..?
Also, from a more distanced point of view: little is said about why the accomplishments (and oppression) of India remained so under-reported, and even excluded from general discourse. Could it be that the historical narrative, as well as the influence of India and Indians, is pushed to the periphery because any “racial” discourse in the West is dominated by the black American frame of reference?
LikeLike
Just an observation, I noticed the last name Patel is quite common, similar to the American Smith, or Jones.
LikeLike
Bulanik,
What you asked is a very very broad question (to my very very open claim 🙂 🙂 ). I can write a book on it (probably be a badly written book). But I will try to address it in parts here since Abagond has an audience that I care about and vice-versa (hopefully 🙂 ). Let me first try to address the “peaceful transfer of power situation”
This is our first prime minister:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/313016?uid=3739560&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102963207067
It is clear that his entire family was very loyal to the Brits. Only late in life did he actually change. but even then he continued having extra marital affairs with multiple (mostly white) women and died of syphilis in 1964.
Gandhi, our founding father, was a loyal british subject until the very end (1942). he even helped the brits in the boer war. Towards the end, he did liberate himself from the clutches of being a slave, but he was not even close to where Fanon Frantz or Albert Memi were.
Gandhi fell into the trap of Islamic colonialism when confronting English colonialism. Worse, he found reasons to justify the horrific crimes committed by the Brits in India.
Here is an article outlining Gandhi’s loyalty to the Brits:
In my reading of history, it is evident that the Brits exploited these two gentlemen to the hilt. They had no intention of giving power away. Hitler spoiled that party by bringing WWII upon the brits. Gandhi actually encouraged Indians to voluntarily join the British Indian army. However, he was very critical of the Indian National Army (INA) which had formed to align with the Japanese to liberate India.
To defeat the Japanese, the Brits exported every bit of grains from storage facilities in Bengal and taxed the farmers heavily (since they expected INA and the Japanese to attack Bengal first). That very year there was a drought and it killed around 4 million Bengalis. This was Churchill’s war crime. Gandhi never uttered much about this issue, he was afraid of what the Brits would say and was afraid he would lose his standing with them.
Once WWII was over, there was a big mutiny in the Indian Navy called the RIN mutiny. This mutiny broke the confidence of the Brits on being able to control India. That event coincided with American pressure and they had no choice but to let go, and Gandhi plus Nehru seemed an ideal combination.
Gandhi died soon after independence (was killed by an extremist). Nehru, who was a full house slave, retained the colonial structure for administration. He just changed the name “Royal British” and “British Indian” to “Indian”. For example, the administrative folks in India have to go to a college to attain their qualification called “Indian Administrative Service”: It has exactly the same structure and the same courses as what was before our independence. They even have horse back riding as a course.
Nehru never fired the police force that was used to oppress, he never fired/changed the civil administration that was present at the time. This was the biggest mistake. Our founding fathers and our beginning administration was made entirely out of people who were at one point or the other sympathetic to the Brits and benefited from their brit masters. They were looting earlier on behalf of the Brits, after independence they started looting for themselves.
To this day, very few in the administration have actual interest in making India a better place. It is the price we are paying for a blood-free transfer of power. For a bloody transfer of power would have ensured that any person in the position of power ends up there because of genuine interest in effecting change. This reasoning can also be found in most books about post colonial thinking (Especially Fanon Frantz and Albert Memi).
This is exactly what Fanon Frantz says about peaceful power transfer, and why he justifies violence as a necessary condition for true decolonization:
http://zeroanthropology.net/2009/03/12/frantz-fanon-concerning-violence/ (from page 45 onwards is where the interesting part begins).
LikeLike
@ Bulanik
In the thread “interracial relationships” I (we?) touched slightly the question of how non-Black minorities were treated in Africa and which kind of relationship has been developing between Blacks and Indians in that continent.
I would like to expand those reflections to India and put a specific topic to discussion: what are the relationships between Black Africans and Indians in India? has the caste system some impact on that? and the British colonial rule has left something that impacts today’s relationships between those groups?
I ask you this because I noticed that you have, in part, Indian ascendancy and, maybe, you can have already thought about this.
Some food for thought I found in following link:
(http://mycontinent.co/Racism.php)
Differently of many people in this blog, I do think that collision between people of different racial backgrounds do not necessarily involve White people or are related to White supremacy. People of color do have sometimes quarrels or misunderstandings between themselves.
LikeLike
At Bulanik by the time of the war do you know who were the highest up in the British military from India after. It was still by far Muslims. The problem being that Sikhs and Muslims were but it use to be said that much like African Americans the Muslims wanted more rights brokered by the Military accomplishments. However, I do succeed that the new racial science at that time tried also to frame all Indians as needing the leadership of the good ole English. One of the shortest way to take down most of Indian’s early British oppositions was to stroke the differences and us the Muslims who knew the routes. (In the way that had France done a better job supplying the Native American allies they might have been able to hold on to more of their land in the Americas.)
LikeLike
Jumping in here: Africans in India are extremely abused. India comes very close in racism to the US.
If the Africans were looked upon curiously I could have excused it, but they are considered to be animals. My sister was a lecturer at a college and she had a few African students she interacted with. Their interaction with her is one of the few interactions they would have with the outside world.
Indians are to blame themselves (no doubt) for propagating this nonsense. But I do believe Brits and western media have a large part in the origination of this deep seated bias and prejudice.
To this day when I call up my mom, she tells me about some or the other relative who eloped with someone, and would add their skin color as an adjective (For ex: Mr. xyz eloped with that dark skinned bitch).
I have been really curious on what the root of this menace is. Before the Mughals, there is no evidence of skin color worship. Infact two of our greatest Gods (Krishna and Shiva are dark in complexion). The greatest female Godess (Kali) is also dark. There is no evidence in any of our scriptures about skin color determining social status.
One thing I do know, is that the caste system has nothing to do with the “varna” system in Vedas (or in Manusmriti). Castes were a lot fluid and very loosely defined (except coarse boundaries between say Brahmins and Kshatriyas). Basically caste was loosely based on profession. People switched them often.
This went on until the Brits came along and asked us to “define” what caste we belonged. They assigned roles to each caste. They also broke the back of the Indian guild system, resulting in drying up of opportunity and making everyone dependent on agriculture. That also resulted in ossification of castes (since everyone turns inward to conserve economic opportunity that their caste had won from the brits).
This was a potent weapon that the brits used to divide and rule. In Tamil Nadu Brahmins are hated with vigor (to this day) because they used to get all the official positions under the Brit admin.
Honestly for India to move forward, we have to trust each other enough to destroy that institution called caste. It is as much a product alien to India as much as it is Indian.
LikeLike
@ munu aka Bantu, that’s an intriguing link that you posted. I’d like to think through your question a bit, though, as there are all sorts of strands to any answer I might attempt…
@ King of Trouble, I never thought of it from that perspective before, and had no clue about the Army ranking practices at that time, either.
@ Lokee, anywhere is a good place to start — it’s the starting that counts 😀
Thank you for the links, I hope that I can return to the many points you raise when I am fresher. I couldn’t agree with you more about the evils of caste in India — a subject we really must return to in greater detail, as I don’t believe the meddling British were the only ones to contaminate the “Varna” system with caste.
Nonetheless, when you said:
…I believe you are onto something.
The work of 14th century political theorist, Ziauddin Barani has much to answer for. His work about the challenge of ruling the low born (the dark skinned?), appealed to the Sultans at the time. as for their education:
Teachers of every kind are to be sternly ordered not to thrust precious stones down the throats of dogs or to put collars of gold round the necks of pigs…
(http://www.countercurrents.org/sikand150204.htm)
It is likely that the influx and influence of the people of Central Asian, Turkey, Afghanistan and Iran brought with them not only Islam, but their own, rather damaging concepts introduced from their home cultures that promoted social inequality. This is the idea of Muslims who are of “foreign” ancestry being of higher status, the”Ashraf”, aka, the noble-bloodied who are the direct descendants of Muhammad’s daughter, Fatima.
The gentry do not mix with those of low birth.
Therefore, the colourism aspect may well be attributable to an extent to the Mughals, though not exclusively.
http://www.preservearticles.com/2012031627539/the-important-works-of-history-written-during-the-14th-century.html
LikeLike
@ Bulanik, India is a huge place I love swimming around in its history but it is a very diverse place with a lot history. The British invasion, to secure the silk road is just one path way of studying parts of India. British military machine, and the so call taming of Spice is another way. Most of the areas that the British have left are still rifled with violence and hatred. The divide and conquer strategies worked very well for the them.
LikeLike
Dont have much time, so this will be quick ( 😦 I have been typing for 20 minutes for this now 😦 😦 )
Bulanik,
Thanks for the links. let me review them a little closer. I am not excusing varna system for introducing a dividing line in the first place. Our ancients made a couple of mistakes, varna was one of them. The other was a jealous guarding of Vedic knowledge by the scholar clan (I am not calling them caste because I dont think they had the flavor of current day castes). This caused learning to be limited and inward and that made it easy for a religion like Buddhism to spread around. Which I think was inherently good. But when the north eastern kings converted to Buddhism (in current day Afghanistan) and renounced violence, it set the stage for the Islamic conquest of India.
Buddhism engulfed India from 400BCE(Asoka) to around 800 – 900CE. There is another curiosity of mine, if caste existed in pre-800BC Hinduism, how in the world did caste make it through the Buddhist period of 1100 odd years. HOW? I am still looking for answers. As a rule I discount any opinions of western indologists and take only the facts they present. So far I have never seen any evidence of caste solidication before and after the Buddhist influence.
King of Trouble,
The brits only fought a couple of critical wars in India. The rest was a policy of using one against the other. At the peak of Brit invasion of India there were 10000 white brit soldiers that were on the ground. Far lesser than administrative officials etc. Most of our rulers were already decimated by the Mughal-Maratha and Mughal-Punjabi wars. India was like a hostile acquisition with a couple of share-holder murders in between.
Brits never conquered India, they acquired a feudal architecture that was left over after Islamic conquest had run their course. If we were sea baring like in the early era of Hinduism, and if our knowledge system were open. We would have been able to easily break the back of the Brits, but alas we were already too divided to do that.
LikeLike
Correction above:
“I am still looking for answers. As a rule I discount any opinions of western indologists and take only the facts they present.”
SHould be:
“I am still looking for answers. As a rule I discount any opinions of western indologists and take only the hard measurable evidence they present.”
LikeLike
Bahh.. i should be in bed… The king shahis of north west India (instead of north east India):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Islamic_Hindu_and_Buddhist_heritage_of_Afghanistan
LikeLike
@ munu aka Bantu, you said:
Lol!
Perhaps we’re a little, lonely puddle of folks who are completely out of step with the programme!
You ask a damn good question but I doubt if I am able to give a fair answer because the truth is so complicated. There’s a lot that can be said.
I can only make sweeping generalizations informed by stuff I know, and what I might say which will only sound unfair and ignorant, I fear:
My opinion is that, going by the link you provided, Indian’s racism towards black people is unquestionable. The Nigerian and Congolese men in India experience rampant discrimination and harassment for no other reason than their race. No matter what the excuse, if the men were white, we might safely say they would have been treated better.
I think many Indians stereotype ALL newcomer-Africans with the illegal drugs trade (Nigerians) and pirates (Somalis) following news reports like this: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsl1YTXFxPs)
There’s no way of knowing to what extent the men’s behaviour might have contributed to their bad treatment. I suspect, though, that their harassment was unprovoked. Nevertheless, there are Africans who do look down on Indians, and Indians have a long history of being looked down on by white people, too, so that could have played a part.
It’s also a fact that newcomers in a new country can have poor cultural sensitivity to it. Offence can be caused and taken where none is intended.
For example, I’ve noticed that Indians like to openly tease and scold anyone who is physically “different”, whether they are dark-skinned or whatever.
A white friend of mine came back from a trip to India and said she was upset by people who would point at her with their fingers and laugh, telling her how “big and fat” she was… This kind of attention is cruel and humiliating, without a doubt — but does it mean that Indians “look down” on the person being pointed out? And, what about staring at foreigners? Well, that goes on in lots of places (!), and even though it’s on the rude side, it is not a sign of “hate” or looming endangerment as such.
That said, I have the impression (sweeping generalization coming) that not only is discrimination THE WAY OF LIFE FOR INDIANS, but also that many Indians in overcrowded cities have little care leftover for their fellow human beings as it is. Is that what happens in huge and anonymous cities where most people are piled on top of each other and struggle desperately to survive?
They seem utterly de-sensitized to each other’s suffering generally — like deep, widespread poverty. Or completely uncaring to specific and personal suffering, such as in this report here, where a woman and toddler lie dead in the street after being run over and her other child and husband beg passersby to stop and help them. No one does. : (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YM9CAs2xSQ)
LikeLiked by 1 person
contd.
India is a society of extremes, and extreme divisions. Some Indians may not like Africans, but many more Indians do not like most other Indians — because they are the wrong caste, wrong lineage, wrong religion, wrong skin shade, and on and on. It seems many brown skinned Indians don’t like having “dusky” skins themselves, and they will turn their self-hatred outward.
Could we be looking at the highest form of mental slavery when we turn to India?
After all, this is the country where there are a strata of Indians that gather the excrement of the higher-up Indians and carry it in loads on their heads for 12 hours a day, every day, only because they are low-born. And, what is more, that ghastly job may be the least of the hardships such low-borns face.. I doubt if someone from that caste would be allowed to live anywhere they wanted. There are designated places they may live. I think that is so for much of India, and wouldn’t it also apply to the Africans (foreigners!) seeking accommodation too.
(Manual scavenging is widespread in prevalent in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_scavenging)
India also has small pockets along the West Coast where there are communities of Africans, called Siddis or Makranis. They have been in India for many generations (at least one thousand years from what I’ve been told. They came as mercenaries, merchants and sailors, although some were slaves. They seem to pretty much keep to themselves — they might be “shunned” minority group — although the men sometimes marry Indian women.
I am not under the impression that they’re persecuted or such, for all that. I think many poor Indians in the villages live like that; everyone knows their place and follows the rules without much carry-on. Indians are always outsiders to other Indians, so why should newcomer-Africans be any different?
Siddis of India:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCo78Jthymo)
Africans of Pakistan:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxaz6hBxf3I)
LikeLike
Bulanik,
Other than the manual scavenging part . You have pretty much everything spot on. We have too many people, there is no support structure to take care of them and make them feel valuable. No framework of belonging that they feel proud to add value to.
The framework we have is a broken and empty shell of a great culture that once was. Today we just follow its rituals without understanding even a bit of it, and that too blindly follow it. That framework only divides its people, its a narcissistic society that feeds on its own. Thats what we are at this moment in history. The future does not look bright either, I think we will always be a weak meek and attacked civilization in this world.
India is a place where everyone “others” everyone else, in fact that hatred runs so deep that many would trust a white skinned foreigner (who has his or her own agenda) than another Indian.
We have had such a long lasting civilizational trauma and crisis that it has made us conserve what we have, live for ourselves and we take living for ourselves to the extreme, even at the cost of ignoring others plight.
You tell me one thing, the people ignoring the woman and child run over by a vehicle are descendents of people who went through this (they did it to each other):
http://greatgameindia.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/rare-photos-of-partition-of-india-1947/
There is no excuse for both these crimes. However one can understand how a traumatized and divided society behaves.
Everytime some pearly white person tells me he/she wants to travel to India to “find themselves”, I try not to laugh my ass off.
Another thing is, urban poverty in India is rather a new phenomena. but that would take a whole lot of typing and could be a topic for another day.
All said and done. I am proud to be from India. I have come to accept what I cannot change and discovered, rather happily, that I do not want to change and I am comfortable with who I am. There were times when I used to blush when someone asked me where I was from, nowadays I proudly say: India, yeah its a place with all the warts and all… but thats who we are. We may change, we may not change! Who knows, and I am ok with that 🙂
LikeLike
Bulanik and Lokee
Thanks for taking the time answering my previous question about the treatment of Africans in India.
Lokee, one particular aspect of your reflections got my attention:
“We have too many people, there is no support structure to take care of them and make them feel valuable. No framework of belonging that they feel proud to add value to.”
Too many people! This seems to me to be the keyword!
I’ve been thinking about this when I saw the post entitled “The ten largest countries by population, 1900 to 2100” and the comments that follow it.
Africa has been a poor continent too. But, at least for a while, not a densely populated one. But things are changing fast and in some cases not to a brighter future (or so I think!). With relatively few people we can hope to address their problems, give them a better life without stressing the available resources and within a short time span. But with very large populations every thinkable change become much more hard to materialize and will require more time and resources.
Let’s take the case of Nigeria, for example.
By now they have less than 200 million people at that space. But projections put its population at more than 900 million by the year 2100! Almost the same as India today but in a much smaller space!
I’m not sure which models were used to come to that scenario but I suspect that available natural resources were not taken in consideration. Do somebody really believe that the Niger river basin is able to carry on so many human lives at its end (this is were Nigeria is situated)?
If it comes to that demographic scenario it will be a dystopian future, for sure. I hope African societies grow mature enough to understand the danger that such future huge populations will pose to their stability before even such scenarios come close to materialize.
Too many people will mean that individual human life will lose value.
Bulanik, the general tone of your answer was good but once you slipped: “Indians are always outsiders to other Indians, so why should newcomer-Africans be any different?”.
The real question would be: why are Africans treated that way if Whites are not?
Your reflections carry also an answer to another question: do Indians treat Africans with the same or similar respect as Africans do to Indians in Africa, or not?
There is also a big similarity in the way people of African descent are treated in India as Blacks are treated in many Latin American (or South America) societies, like Mexico or Peru. The reason for that are also similar: their ancestors came there as slaves and they were not able to overcame the heavy legacy of that status even after slavery was long abolished. The renowned American scholar Henry Louis Gates made it clear in a PBS miniseries a few years ago. Look at folowing link, (www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIzHIRCBtdE)
I stated elsewhere that Black ruled societies (in Africa) had more chances to treat people of different races more fairly exactly because such societies were not tainted by the “original sin” of having people of other races as slaves in a recent past. Its easier to such societies to understand that people of different backgrounds must be treated the same way from the point of view of their basic human rights. For other societies this can be accomplished only when their governments take conscious steps to (re)educate their people in such new values. Otherwise racist practices will remain alive, in one form or another.
LikeLike
@ munu aka Bantu
I “slipped”? ! Oh, no, munu aka Bantu.
I had no idea was being “monitored” for my tone…
Why don’t you tell me what you are really asking me?
*
Why is it now the “real” question?
Why isn’t the context of India the “real” issue, on a thread about India, when the way the Africans are treated is not so different from the way Indians are treated by other Indians? Why is not of any relevance whatsoever…?
What are you REALLY implying here?
*
Who were the colonial rulers of India? Africans?
Isn’t India most well known for exporting slaves?
What is the legacy of Indian enslavement in their own land? Weren’t Indian slaves exported to work for whites in Africa and Latin America?
So, are you saying that millions of Africans came to India as slaves?
Just like Latin America, and that is why any swarthy Mexican or Peruvian (?) would be deferred to in India because they are “white”?
I get what you are saying, but it’s not quite hanging together.
Moreover, I have the feeling you have been marking my replies to look for the opportunity try nail down the part — the “tone” as you put it — that would fit in with the standard “it’s the same race story everywhere that inferiorizes black people” despite how much the context of INDIA is included or expanded.
LikeLike
@ munu aka Bantu, earlier you said this>
Now, I am beginning to wonder whether you really mean that…
LikeLike
@ munu aka Bantu
You also ask this:
Is that an absolute given? Are you telling me that no nation in East Africa has ever practiced Indophobia? Or ethnic cleansing of Indians? Isn’t the term “dukawallahs” a racial slur used by Africans to stereotype and scapegoat its Indian population?
No doubt you’ve heard of a Committee (from the late 1960s) that was set up under Milton Obote’s government in Uganda at the time to restrict and segregate Indians in every walk of life. In the Ugandan context, weren’t those existing divisions then exploited by Idi Amin? Did this way of thinking never spread, or were they isolated to only “respect”?
Did that phenomenon in Uganda just “appear” from nowhere, and then simply “disappear”?
I was watching a news report a while back that said that Indians in today’s Uganda are marginalized and occupy an inferior status to other Ugandans.
Last month, I stumbled upon a report that the Indian government is to pressure the Ugandan government to investigate the murder of Harish Sharma, an Indian businessman: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJNfzrCGrJ0)
LikeLike
^^ I am tempted to ask — in the fashion to posed to me earlier — whether the Ugandan authorities would have acted without pressure from a foreign government if a WHITE American or English had been murdered under the same circumstances…
LikeLike
For perspective, it’s only appropriate to mention the murders of dozens of Indians in Durban, South Africa, committed during 1949.
Natal’s leading black African newspaper put the blame for the killings on the Indians themselves, because of their snobbishness and exclusionary business and political habits. Taking their lives was “logical” and “inevitable”.
(http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2785912)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_Riot#cite_note-SAhistory-1)
LikeLike
@ Legion, it IS remarkable.
There are a few things I’d like to add here which further attests to the extraordinary nature of India. When energy and inclination allows, I’d like to share it.
LikeLike
It would be nice to hear about the political rivalry between Gandhi and Ambedkar.. the Zulus etc..
LikeLike
The rape reports from India are indeed horrifying.
Rape reports tend to be.
My impression has been that Indians are not only aware of how their nation is being protrayed in the West, but want Indian solutions — not Western ones — for the very real — and appalling — inequalities and divisions in their society.
Perhaps Indians best understand, more than other nationalities, the social instability that has resulted from gender imbalance, products of female infanticide and female foeticide? The killing of female children has been a long-time practice in India. The solution for this genocide might attitudinal change, but how can this be achieved?
http://www.dw.de/female-infanticide-in-india-mocks-claims-of-progress/a-15900828
I question, though, whether the rape reports are “phenomena”, a showing of culturally sanctioned raw, primitive savagery, even — and therefore somehow different from or worse than, rapes elsewhere.
I have also seen the rape reports in India described as “endemic” and “epidemic”, words which imply that rape is a manifestation of disease-state of India’s culture, or its dominant religion. (I mention religion, as the reports I have read seem to reflect the exclusively Hindu background of perpetrators.)
It makes me wonder WHY India’s culture has been singled out, and shamed, in this way? A civilized, Western nation, say Canada, also has violence problem,s namely among the rape of First Nations women and girls. Yet I have never encountered headlines which have me disgusted and baffled and asking:
“What is wrong with the men in Canada?” or “Why is that place like that?”
http://www.ammsa.com/content/missing-and-murdered-indigenous-women-and-girls
LikeLike
@Bulanik
The implicit theme here is that India is still an “uncivilized” nation and culture, whereas Canada is civilized and, therefore, above board.
As for what “Indian solution” there could be, I’m not at all familiar with that culture, so I’m a bit in the dark about what possible solutions there could be.
LikeLike
@ Mack, who is the “she” you are referring Legion to?
LikeLike
Or rather:
@ Legion — who is the “she” you are referring to?
If your intention is to smear and insult me, Legion, then be gentleman about it.
I am quite disgusted with your ignorance and sexism as it.
LikeLike
Or rather, and let me tidy that up:
@ Legion — who is the “she” you are referring to?
If your intention is to smear and insult me, Legion, then be a gentleman about it.
I am quite disgusted with your ignorance and sexism as it is, and it comes as no surprise that you would sink so low as to make personal attacks against someone who has no wish, and no history, of slurring you.
LikeLike
@ Mack, I shall respond more fully to your comment, as there is some background to the issue of rape in India, and it’s reporting in the West.
LikeLike
@ Legion
Legion: Stop it.
There is no “crafty” construction. This is not about Legion.
The serious issue about rape in India and the way it is reported troubles observers in India and abroad, for a number of reasons.
You did not consider that in your comment.
I thought if you were genuine in your interest in the subject, then you could have responded to mine thoughtfully, and a constructive exchange might have ensued.
When I asked:
….did you stop to think about the international perception or reportage?
Have you noticed the pattern it has taken and the language used.
Where do these (mis)perceptions come from?
What can be done about the violence AND the misperceptions?
Kiwi has a point.
I could go into the specifics about India and the long tradition in European thought about this very subject of Indian men and sexual violence.
In fact, the issue is a far, far more serious subject than your imagination about “veiled digs”. Your remark to Mack was no more than ad hominem … Not cool.
And not necessary all together.
If my comment had been intended for you, I would have addressed you.
Frankly, it seems now that you’ve been sniffing around for a reason, ANY REASON, to launch your vitriol at me. You did this on Open Thread, as well, and even there, Buddhuu had to inform you that there was no “dig” coming from my direction at all. You didn’t acknowledge that.
I realise now, you simply wanted to go off on me: it didn’t work then, but you kept trying … and here you are, and look how you handled it?
Did you do a good job!?
Please get past this foolishness.
That should not be hard to do if, as you claim, you have no interest in “personal attacks”. Simply stop now.
I much prefer the reasoned conversations that you are otherwise capable of.
LikeLike
@ Mack
You said:
Yes, that is how some non-white, “Oriental” countries seem to be skewed in news reports. It’s often seen in the way anything to do with Africa is presented, for example. There are other examples of course.
And if I had the time, I’d say more about the why “concern” is extended to women in foreign countries by people who otherwise don’t concern themselves with the plight or protests of women in their own countries. Do you recall George W. Bush’s sudden interest in the freedom of Afghanistan’s womenfolk after there some military gains, because the “fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women”.
This a trend with a long history, mostly European.
However, there is no question that India has a rape problem.
What I read shocked and nauseated — but as a country, India is not alone in having this problem. But, like you, I’m interested in what India proposes to do about its own problems.
When I say “not alone”, I meant context.
India’s population is well over 1 billion, and I don’t think anyone knows the true percentage of sexual assult there, how much of it is reported, or what incidences reach the news.
I was pondering that when I saw news about the so-called “Roast Busters” earlier this year, a gang in New Zealnd, who rape under-age girls and then upload videos of these sexual assaults onto social media sites.
NZ has a population of 4.5 million. Rape there is on the “increase”, or at least rape reporting, it seems.
Also: consider that Sweden has the highest rape of rate in Europe.
Compare that to the way rape is dealt with in China. This is where marital rape is legal, “child rape isn’t rape”, and rape-cases are a legal rarity because too much protesting can land a woman a sentence in a labour camp, the system loaded against the complainants.
http://www.broowaha.com/articles/15719/a-new-ancien-r%C3%A9gime
Experience of the justice system for rape victims in China:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/world/asia/rape-case-is-a-rarity-in-chinese-justice-system.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
…
LikeLike
contd:
Specifically for India, if there are going to be solutions, then what are the underlying causes of what appear to be, at least, a more public form of sexual violence, as the rape-murders reported seem almost “lynch-like” in their horror.
Has there been some “change” in India that isn’t obvious from the outiside?
I recall reading an article that stated India’s male population of jobless has spiked dramatically:
http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/abheek-barua-india-s-jobless-growth-story-113010200119_1.html
This is among the generation economic liberalisation, in places were tens of millions live on less than one £/pound or €/euro per day.
That, in an aggressively patriarchal culture will not a good combination make.
How do young men command respect? and how entitled do marginalized b0ys and men assert their identities? It seems, with great cruelty.
I had to remember when I was thinkign about this, that India is a society which has more b0ys than girls born through sex selection / female foeticide.
This violence happens in the woman, before birth, or at birth.
What can be done to attribute greater value to female life there?
Also, If there are too few women, what impact will this have on relationships between males and females?
And, what about the rape that goes among the middle and upper classes, behind India’s closed doors?
I haven’t a clue about what any of these answers could be.
My common sense makes me feel that the root cause has to be addressed, not just the symptoms…
What has been done?
Well, there are women’s and children’s groups that agitate all the time.
Indian legislatures have introduced new anti-rape laws, but they simply don’t go far enough. The features of the law were watered down by general apathy from male parliamentarians: other critics of it said that it would undermine the Indian family. The Bill proposed
…tough jail terms for gang rape; for acid attacks, stalking, voyeurism and trafficking to be made specific offences; and for dereliction of duty by the police or medical authorities in responding to a rape victim to be made a criminal offence.
…{The} suggestion that marital rape be made a criminal offence was rejected, right-wing politicians arguing that it would “destroy the Indian family” and that if a man raped his wife the matter could be settled through counselling.
…Other recommendations, such as lowering the age of consent to 16, prohibiting politicians facing rape charges from standing for election, and reviewing the army’s sweeping powers in conflict areas, were also ignored by parliamentarians.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/04/24/justice-jsverma-death-rape-committee-idINDEE93N00420130424
LikeLike
@bulanik thanks for the link re: sanskrit and nasa (computer languages)
LikeLike
@ v8, welcome.
On the White Inventor Argument thread, Kiwi and Abagond were discussing maritime travel and ship-building. Kiwi mentioned the Chinese seafarer, and there was bit there about India’s maritime past. This is is not something that comes up much at all, if ever in discussions about early human travel on the waters. The Chinese and some of the West and East African mariners are mentioned now again, but the Indians haven’t, afaik:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/the-white-inventor-argument/#comment-251645 AND
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/the-white-inventor-argument/#comment-251746
@ Legion, I’d rather talk about India
You prefet to make mischief.
All froth and assumptions.
I am not interested, Legion.
Your commentary was turned “off” for me long ago (last year), something you didn’t clock…
So it’s like this: my response about the rapes in India is critical of the ORIENTALIST thinking as it pertains to Asian men and women, and the way the plight of the women and girls in these cultures — India, in this instance — is used and has been used, for imperialist motives.
That is the thing which makes me angry and upset.
Not you and your silly billy-ness
You don’t know me or mine. But India is part of my heritage. It’s a personal thing, so you can mind your own business and stop imagining what is in my skull.
The work of Edward Said and Deepa Kumar MEAN SOMETHING TO ME.
Deepa Kumar has done a lot of work on how Indian and other “Oriental” women are depicted in the Western media, and it didn’t escape me that your post(s) bought into that perspective, which is sexist by nature and unpleasant to contenance in ways you do not appreciate, or have shown an appreciation of.
As for that Lying thread you mention: What I said on it at the time was that the whole thing was effing stupid and effing ugly.
Cue commrny in moderation, deletion and warnings to the instigator to stop it.
Actually, but I don’t have to be tailed and attacked on this blog if I feel like being here. Nobody has to put up with personal attacks as much as you would like them to, but it’s not your blog, is it.
I’ve made no unkind reference to you, not anywhere or anytime.
I have not snarked at, or smeared you, not here and not before — because I am not interested.
You are PUFFING this up so that you can have something to feel morally indignant about. I’d rather talk about India, as this is the thread for it.
Sadly, you’d rather speculate about me than speak intelligently about India.
LikeLike
Abagond please restore the response I gave to Bulanik. If you can not see fit to do that then delete all my comments from the India thread.
LikeLike
@ Legion
It is still in moderation.
LikeLike
@ Legion
I deleted all your comments on this thread per your instructions.
LikeLike
Abagond, restore the comments please, preferably up to and including the one you deleted or were considering deleting. But if you don’t wish to do that then restore all the others. If I recall correctly, they are not yet permanently gone.
Only one side of the coin is currently showing and I think it is best that both sides of the coin be on display.
LikeLike
Correction: The languages in the South (Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam and Konkani), with the exception of Tamil are also derived from Sanskrit and are closely related to Sanskrit. Please correct the article.
LikeLike
@ Melange
Not sure about Konkani, but the rest are Dravidian languages. English is closer to Sanskrit than they are.
LikeLike
[…] India | Abagond […]
LikeLike