I think the better path to Dalit advancement is to sneer at the piety of us non-Dalit people at all times. I for one would rather take my medicine is a humorous way where they laugh at us for our preening arrogance. Dalits have a right to be pissed any way they want.

Ashish Nandy says it better in the article you linked Ennis,

“I certainly do not agree with some of Bhan’s thesis,’’ said an aghast Nandy, “but....it’s the sheer audacity of it that makes it so forceful.’’

I know such English that I will leave the British behind. You see sir, I can talk English, I can walk English, I can laugh English, I can run English, because English is such a funny language. Bhairo becomes Byron because their minds are very narrow. In the year 1929 when India was playing Australia at the Melbourne stadium Vijay Hazare and Vijay Merchant were at the crease. Vijay Merchant told Vijay Hazare. look Vijay Hazare Sir , this is a very prestigious match and we must consider it very prestigiously. We must take this into consideration, the consideration that this is an important match and ultimately this consideration must end in a run. In the year 1979 when Pakistan was playing against India at the Wankhede stadium Wasim Raja and Wasim Bari were at the crease and they took the same consideration. Wasim Raja told Wasim Bari, look Wasim Bari, we must consider this consideration and considering that this is an important match we must put this consideration into action and ultimately score a run. And both of them considered the consideration and ran and both of them got out.

As many know here, in the nationalist argot, 'Macaulayite' is a slur, signifying someone who is anglicized beyond recognition. But truly, no one, not even the Communists, likes Maucalay in India.

Macaulay famously said that a shelf of a good European library was worth more than the entire corpus of Sanskrit and Persian.

So his strategy is in part a snub.

Prasad's project is to create a Dalit middle class and a Dalit leisure class (the type of Indian who can travel abroad, afford to send his kids abroad) etc., and he has tired of the unexamined leftism of other Dalit intellectuals. He is agog at the fact that there is a solid African American middle class, and he sees this group as a role model. He is also in favor of private sector reservations.

With due respect to the native language enthusiasts, he is sadly right. The way up (and lets be honest) out in the private sector is English. While Dalit IIM graduates do occasionally land jobs at Goldman Sachs, they are held back mainly because of their lack of English proficiency, not because of their caste.

This may be bad for India in the long run as several have pointed out in the past here, but as a Dalit activist, he sees it as his business to propose ways to improve his community. Blame globalization, if you will: a call center worker makes more than an entry level chartered accountant these days.

I've actually had this argument with friends of mine before...the vast majority of India's people were better off with the Brits running things than the locals, until India produced a sufficiently Western/liberal leadership.

Kinda like the quote from Life of Brian: "All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans British ever done for us?"

Not that the British deserve any credit for it- the whole point of the British Empire was to make money. Any claim about the "civilizing mission" or the "white man's burden" was strictly hypocritical rationalizing bullshit. India might have advanced, but the whole point was to let India advance just far enough to make the Empire more profitable.

That doesn't change that the fact that people at the bottom were marginally better off under British imperialist capitalism than Indian feudalism. It also doesn't change the fact that India has the best of both worlds now...a Western political system run by Indians for their own benefit.

Celeritas Subpontus

Dalit poet Parak sang a couplet to the portrait - a refashioned Statue of Liberty, wearing a hippie hat, holding a massive pink pen, standing on a computer, with a blazing map of India in the background - Oh, Devi Ma/ Please Let us Learn English/ Even the dogs understand English, to cheers and laughter, even as Lord Macaulay’s portrait, looking the perfect English buccaneer, gazed below. Bhan then declared his new intention - the painting will be printed on calendars and distributed at all Dalit conclaves and community meetings. “Hereafter, the first sounds all newborn Dalit and Adivasi babies will hear from their parents is - abcd. Immediately after birth, parents or a nearest relative will walk up to the child and whisper in the ear - abcd,’’ he said mirthfully.

Looks like these dalit intellectuals are having a good laugh: at the servile english-obsession of their hindu upper-caste oppressors; at their pathetic hypocrisy in reviling Macaulay (and christian missionaries) on the one hand while desperately trying to get their children into english-medium convent schools, on the other; at their propensity to make gods and goddesses out of any and everything. While making the valid point that english may be their ticket out of the dehumanizing hindu caste trap, in a country where non-english speakers are second class citizens in their own native land. Smart move, if they follow through.

BTW, India would be a gold mine for Borat. :)

Ennis -

"Is the best past for Dalit advancement to reject Indian languages in favor of English? Lastly, should they learn International English or Desi Hinglish?"

With due respect, who the F825 are you to ask and, we to tell them (Dalits) what language to use.

As Sahej said - "Dalits have a right to be pissed any way they want."
And, to learn in any language they fancy.

Kritic bhai,

My antipathy was not for Ennis, as I think he is probably more learned than me on Dalit issues. Don't mistake my tone as annoyance with him, as after all, he is the one who put this post up to highlight the problems going on.

Not that the British deserve any credit for it- the whole point of the British Empire was to make money. Any claim about the "civilizing mission" or the "white man's burden" was strictly hypocritical rationalizing bullshit.

Show some gratitude fella. Or do you really think the British finally ending the centuries old hindu customs of widow-burning, human sacrifice, crushing suicide under the Juggernaut etc were strictly hypocritical rationalizing bullshit??

his insistence to teach the “natives” English broke the stranglehold of Sanskrit, Persian and Arabic teaching, a privilege of only the elite castes and, he argued,for the European kind of modern education, with focus on modern sciences.

See he didn't mention Urdu or Hindi which are not elite. Sanskrit is so irrelevant for the few hundreds of years and persian and arabic are so rare.

Or is this just a PR stunt, to stick a finger in the eye of the local intelligencia?

You are so right. It is not just the local intelligencia but the whole gamut of upper caste/nationalist junta.

There is no doubt that English will better the lot of lower rungs of strata not just dalits or adivasis just because the dollars are flowing into India and the high % of them will to those that learn English

ROTFLMAO at the thought of Nandy staring aghast at this declaration of faith in English as a tool of liberation!! (those who know Nandy will see the humour - he's Mr. Subalternist to a fault, and worships "authentic" tolerant Hindu culture as the soul of the nation even though he was brought up Christian...)

Sahej -

My grouse is not with the post itself, only with the last para.

With due respect, who the F825 are you to ask and, we to tell them (Dalits) what language to use.

As Sahej said - "Dalits have a right to be pissed any way they want."
And, to learn in any language they fancy.

If you don't like what I write, and what I ask, then please don't read it. These activists are making a public claim, and I'm engaging with them. I have no idea why you think my question involves some sort of paternalistic dictation, but I have noticed that whenever I write a post, you seem to think that you can read my mind and ascertain my true intent. You are incorrect, sir.

English speaking graduate = Better job opportunities. Economics trumps everything else.

I have come across many bais who proudly say that they clean 12 houses every day to make sure that their kids can attend English medium schools. For them, ensuring secure future for the kids is #1 concern. Middle fingering established class is a happy side effect.

I have come across many bais who proudly say that they clean 12 houses every day to make sure that their kids can attend English medium schools.

That is very true. Every poor Indian knows the economic power of English language, and the opportunities it presents.

"If you don't like what I write, and what I ask, then please don't read it."

Or, If you don't want your post to be read, don't write it.

Also, I never calimed to divine your intention. I did, however, imply that your query reeks of hubris.

celeritas wrote: I've actually had this argument with friends of mine before...the vast majority of India's people were better off with the Brits running things than the locals, until India produced a sufficiently Western/liberal leadership.

Actually, liberalism is not a British invention and neither was it new to India. Much before the British believed in such things, do note than an Indian ruler, and a Muslim to boot, was a founder-member of the Jacobin club in Paris.

I find it utterly tiring to keep proving with examples of poetry, literature and history that Indians were not the-backward-"vernacular-medium"-casteist-aborgines-before-the-British-came-into-India.

Just as India had adopted/created technology in other spheres, India would've have, left to its own devices, adopted railways, and the benefits of industrialization.

If anything, Macaulay's efforts have created a class which loathes its Indianess so thoroughly, that one finds it hard to swim against that tide and explain otherwise.

I am deeply saddened to see the increasing influence of Evangelical Christians in their terrorist activities of breaking apart India. Even though, these events may seem novel when they stand alone, however one has to read between the lines and look behind the mirage to see that most of the Dalits activities are being funded by Christian Missionaries in US. And these Christian Missionaries do not have a desire to help India or Indians in any meaningful way, besides increasing their own head count. Yes, they have done some wonderful work in India, but there sole and ultimate motive is to increase their head count at any cost. Do you find it acceptable that such moves should be encouraged even at the cost of Indian Culture? Just visit here to read the whole paradigm such activities http://www.christianaggression.org

You might want to look at this too - http://www.kafila.org/2006/11/09/the-dalit-betrayal-of-hindi-hindu-hindustan/

In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of knowledge, interest in, and exploration of history, combined with a lack of humility.

Evaluating factual statements made by public figures involves "overconfident pride and arrogance"? That's a very odd inference to draw, and yes one that requires knowledge of my mental state to make.

Even if you were right in general, that final sentence is clearly tongue in cheek - click on the link and see where it takes you. Definitionally, I think it's hard for jocular utterance to be understood as hubris, unless the act of joking and poking fun itself reveals arrogance or overweaning pride.

To quote ancient wisdom:

"Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. " [Link]

So please, open a dictionary and put away your crystal ball. You really can't read my mind, I wear a tin foil hat so that the mind reading rays can't get into my gray matter.

They unveilled a portrait of “English, the Dalit Goddess”- a refashioned Statue of Liberty, wearing a hippie hat, holding a massive pink pen, standing on a computer, with a blazing map of India in the background

Hmmm lets see: English language, America, Computers, India Shining.......isnt this the true goddess of the hindu "upper caste" masses yearning to break free from the shackles of poverty?
:)

Even though, these events may seem novel when they stand alone, however one has to read between the lines and look behind the mirage to see that most of the Dalits activities are being funded by Christian Missionaries in US.

Prasad is not in the missionaries' pocket. He writes for the Organizer, a nationalist-sympathetic publication.

I meant the Pioneer.

circus wrote See he didn't mention Urdu or Hindi which are not elite. Sanskrit is so irrelevant for the few hundreds of years and persian and arabic are so rare.

True, but only somewhat. The official court documents of various kingdoms in India were in different languages. Quite a large number of northern kingdoms used Farsi in court. In the South, it was a combination of Marathi, Tamil, Malayalam and Telugu. [Marathi was for a long time the official language of kings in Karnataka as well.]

I do agree that Sanskrit was almost never used in court or during business transactions. Also, the ability to learn any of the courtroom languages was hindered by economics and not caste. A poor Muslim would've as much of a tough time learning Farsi as a poor "low-caste" Hindu would. That said, feudalism had its own patronage system that allowed the affluent to sponsor education to those that they found promising. Ambedkar himself is a good example of a child who was benefited by patronage.

The richest folks in India during the 1600-1800s were not always kings. Merchants were very wealthy as well. Trade, in Calcutta was, for instance conducted by "lower-caste" merchant bankers(Jagat Seth, Omichand etc), who spoke in Marwari.

Quizman,

Wasn't there a king in India till 1947, whose court language was French, and mimicked everything French. They were some strange cookies - the rajas and ranis of India.

So you are a Tipu Sultan fan.

In 1947, Nawab of Hyderabad was one of the richest man in the world

Also,some kings/ nawabs were paupers with their writ not even extedning their tiny homes in Lucknow (or place like that)

True, but only somewhat. The official court documents of various kingdoms in India were in different languages. Quite a large number of northern kingdoms used Farsi in court. In the South, it was a combination of Marathi, Tamil, Malayalam and Telugu. [Marathi was for a long time the official language of kings in Karnataka as well.]

I do agree that Sanskrit was almost never used in court or during business transactions. Also, the ability to learn any of the courtroom languages was hindered by economics and not caste.

Are you saying that Marathi, Tamil etc.. are elite languages, I hope not. So I don't get what you are saying... It is nothing to do with the language per se but literacy. Agreed at some point of the history, elite languages were denied for some castes and wrote their own death sentences.

Kush,

You are probably referring to the Nawab of Arcot, whose great-grandson is this guy.

Not a fan, but I get irked by statements that seem to convey that the Brits civilized us. On the contrary. They set us back by 200 years (See India's GDP estimated figureds before and after their arrival). Look at the damage the Brits did to Iran, Iraq and other countries. The fundamental question to ask is: why is India so different from all the other non-white countries ruled by Britain? Why didn't we regress to feudalism after they left, as other countries did?
Answer: Because we had a tradition of liberalism for a long time. The Brits didn't civilize us. Even the Sati/widow-remarriage laws were repudiated at the insistence of Indians. As we saw with Pundita Ramabai. Indian women pressurized the Brits in 1886 to open schools for women.

circus: No, you contended that Persian etc were marginal. They were not. Farsi (Persian) was the official language of the court in many kingdoms. I qualified that statement by stating that there were other kingdoms where esoteric languages did not hold sway.

Perhaps, ennis can confirm, but iirc, even Ranjit Singh's court in the early 1800s did its business in Farsi.

Quizman,

Do you have a link for the GDP estimates?

Getting back to Ennis queston, though: the answer is yes, I don't think the dalits, or anyone else has a choice other than learn English and Chinese. That's where the economic opportunities are.

Quizman -

"Also, the ability to learn any of the courtroom languages was hindered by economics and not caste."

If true, why isn't the above statement reflected in the "lower caste" discourse?

All my life, I have learnt, how the upper castes never allowed the lower caste, irrespective of economic standing, to be schooled in sanskrit or farsi or schooled at all.

Do you have a link for the GDP estimates?

Sahej,

Amongst many, Paul Kennedy (The rise and fall of great powers) has shown the GDP decline in India with the British's arrival.

Follow Paul on google.

Sahej -

Besides Paul Kennedy, another good resource is u penn's Francine Frankel.

Sahej,

I don't quite recall where, but I think it was linked in a similar discussion on Ravikiran's blog. IIrc, it was a book published by CSS India.

Thanks all

It's true, as others have pointed out, that English has created a socio-economic and cultural divide in India. But this applies to everyone not just the dalits.

I do not buy the claim that the English provided the Dalits with their rights to education. There is a rich body of literature authored by Dalits on a continuous basis since antiquity. The most famous examples of this are the Valmiki Ramayana and Vyas's Mahabharata. If dalits were continually being opressed and denied education how did these people manage to compose literary works of such scale? I think a better strategy might be for the dalits to take pride and ownership of their heritage instead of denigrating it all the time. The so-called upper castes value these and other works composed by dalits. It's ironic that dalits continually rail against Sanskrit.

World GDP share of major economies. [link]

Because we had a tradition of liberalism for a long time. The Brits didn't civilize us. Even the Sati/widow-remarriage laws were repudiated at the insistence of Indians. As we saw with Pundita Ramabai. Indian women pressurized the Brits in 1886 to open schools for women.

kritic: Simple. The introduction of English language schools in India did not increase literacy amongst the lower castes either. The English language schools - then as now - are primarilyy the domain of the middle-class and upper class - regardless of caste. The same was the case with Indian language institutions before English, though clearly there was a lot of restriction on enrollment which was caste-based. Do note that the people who controlled the economy, even before the British, were not the traditional higher castes in India. Then as now, the literate class were mostly bureaucrats, translators, negotiators and so on. They were simply decently paid civil servants. Sort of tangential, but an article in Outlook (probably 2005) referred to the harm that madarrasas do to the Muslim community in India by teaching them stuff like Farsi, Arabic, calligraphy etc. Do rich Muslims go to madarassas? Heck, no! Rich Muslims go to English medium schools. Richer ones go to 5-star ones like these. :-)

Prasad's pronouncements have less to do with history and more to do with media stunts. Politicians in India are learning the western art of sound bites. Say something controversial and you are guaranteed your fifteen minutes of fame. That's how Lalu Prasad Yadav - I assume everybody knows who he is - became a national figure despite having ruined an entire state of 80 million people.

The message of globalization, unfortunately, is quite clear: Learn English, become urbanized, move out of the lower middle class. Stick with your native language, and no matter how intelligent, you will still be the village baniya picking at your toenails while selling mounds of aam and papitha.

That is not completely true, of course. There is a small Dalit middle class in all of the metros and the districts made up of government employees. But Bhan sees the writing on the wall: there is limited growth in the bureacracy; there is limited growth in embracing tradition. Truly, its the wealthy ones who get nostalgic about tradition.

The introduction of English language schools in India did not increase literacy amongst the lower castes either. The English language schools - then as now - are primarilyy the domain of the middle-class and upper class - regardless of caste.

Sure, it took money to access English medium schools. I don't think that was the question, however. In the past, could dalits go to school of any sort, or did their access to education begin with English medium? Prasad says:

it was after the introduction of his English system of education in 1854, that Dalits got the right to education

Do you agree or disagree that before this point, it was impossible for Dalits to become literate?

Ennis,

I do not mean to pry, but you don't by any chance happen to have six fingers on your right hand?

"Do note that the people who controlled the economy, even before the British, were not the traditional higher castes in India."

But of course. For example, "the poor Brahmin."

Do you agree or disagree that before this point, it was impossible for Dalits to become literate?

I doubt thats true. There is a Gandhian scholar named Dharmapal who collected data about village schools in the Madras Presidency which demonstrated that at least some of the lower castes had access to education.

No Von Mises:

Do you always begin conversations this way? Yes, I am Hrithik Roshan.

Divya,

Given the despicable way our ancestors have treated and,(shamefuly in some parts) our peers are treating, the Dalits, it is unfair to expect reciprocity, for a Valmiki here or a Vyas there.

The onus is upon us, the so called upper castes, to beg for forgiveness.
And criticising their linguistic preferences is the wrong way to seek redemption (not of the religious, mumbo jumbo kind), in my opinion.

Instead of learning English I think the Dalits should start changing their last names to English surnames, which would save them from alot of prejudice! A quicker way to assimilate them in society on equal footing, is to make a couple of them Bollywood super stars (it aint hard and you dont need english!), then it would be trendy then to have them work for you or be associated with them. Success!

Thanks, Quizman

ennis: Do you agree or disagree that before this point, it was impossible for Dalits to become literate?

I don't know. Many contrary examples abound, including the famous Ramayana itself. You simply need to look at numerous surviving religious songs/music (still sung) composed by "low caste" saints in Maharastra and Karnataka to know that there were literate dalits. Was access to religious schools restricted. Yes.

However, I'm not certain whether sufficient study has been done on the correlation between literacy and class (not caste) in pre-British times. I would be interested in pointers.

The onus is upon us, the so called upper castes

Out of curiosity - how many of us know our castes? I didn't know mine at all - I had to ask what our caste was back when our family was Hindu, and it's something I refuse to tell others.

Is this something that is more present in the lives of others?

Instead of learning English I think the Dalits should start changing their last names to English surnames, which would save them from alot of prejudice! A quicker way to assimilate them in society on equal footing, is to make a couple of them Bollywood super stars (it aint hard and you dont need english!), then it would be trendy then to have them work for you or be associated with them. Success!

Those advocating the African-American model would like to see more Dalits in entertainment and promote Dalit arts, like the "Pariah" drum number found in Tamil films. There are Dalits here and there in entertainment, like Ilayahrajah, but I don't think there is a single one in Bollywood. There is one notable Dalit gangster: Chota Rajan.

I agree with Kritic.

I also agree with those folks that mentioned that English is the license to climb up the economic ladder. While I don't think English is the only factor (I'm sure Dr. Ambedkar's teachings also weigh in heavily), it is important to recognize the value of creating a space from where people from different castes have the capacity to move beyond preconcieved notions of "embracing their culture".

Kush--GREAT job as Arjun Singh vald Bhim Singh vald Dhashrat Singh.

Quizman:

You simply need to look at numerous surviving religious songs/music (still sung) composed by "low caste" saints in Maharastra and Karnataka to know that there were literate dalits.

Why does that show literacy? Illiterates could have learned scriptures by rote without ever learning to read, and they could have composed hymns without ever learning to write.

The onus is upon us, the so called upper castes, to beg for forgiveness.

The onus is upon us, the so called upper castes, to beg for forgiveness.

You're presupposing that all the oppression was done by the high castes to the low castes. There is no such thing as a pan-Dalit identity. There is a great deal of strife, rivalry and oppression in between the dalit jatis and even from the lower to the higher castes. Most of the cases of oppression you hear about are not cases of brahmin oppression.

ennis :Why does that show literacy? Illiterates could have learned scriptures by rote without ever learning to read, and they could have composed hymns without ever learning to write.

The Bhakti songs that I'm alluding to are way too metaphysical to have that sort of explanation. Plus, their ability to use "educated" metaphors and use complex Sanksrit grammar etc leaves out the method that you suggested.

Hereafter, the first sounds all newborn Dalit and Adivasi babies will hear from their parents is - abcd. Immediately after birth, parents or a nearest relative will walk up to the child and whisper in the ear - abcd,

There goes brown unity, macacas!

Why does that show literacy? Illiterates could have learned scriptures by rote without ever learning to read, and they could have composed hymns without ever learning to write.

Dalits composed these works not just learned them by rote. In any case, anyone who has the luxury to follow literary pursuits cannot be oppressed.

Ennis - No need to look up your (Hindu) ancestor's caste.

While it may not be as structured as in Hinduism, this disease has infected, Sikhs, Muslims and Christians in India, as well.

I have heard many a time, some of my sikh friends, who happen to be Jat, talk of the "chamars", "labhana", "ramgarhia", etc, in not too polite terms.

The fundamental question to ask is: why is India so different from all the other non-white countries ruled by Britain? Why didn't we regress to feudalism after they left, as other countries did? Answer: Because we had a tradition of liberalism for a long time.

Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, West Indies etc regressed to feudalism? Where the heck did you learn that?

The fundamental question you need to be asking is: why is the Indian subcontinent so miserably impoverished and backward compared to the other non-white countries ruled by Britain?

the Sati/widow-remarriage laws were repudiated at the insistence of Indians.

Dont be silly quizman. It never occurred to hindus that burning widows alive was a horrendous crime until some British missionaries began pressing the East India Company to ban it. Some british educated indians like Ram Mohan Roy also joined the campaign, and they were staunchly opposed by orthodox brahmins. Note that the westernized Ram Mohan Roy rejected the polytheism and idol worship of his ancestors also.

Similarly, it never occurred to hindus that sacrificing little children to a goddess was an abominable practice.

Have the decency and intellectual honesty to give credit where its due.

I have heard many a time, some of my sikh friends, who happen to be Jat, talk of the "chamars", "labhana", "ramgarhia", etc, in not too polite terms.

Dalit Sikhs known as Mazabhis suffer widespread persecution.

Why is this news? People always treat the enemy of their enemy as their friend. Many in India considered the Nazis heroes for attacking the British oppressors. Many Dalits consider the British heroes for attacking the Hindu oppressors. I'm sure some Dalits have oppressed others, maybe in the form of spousal abuse, or child abuse, or whatever, and the oppressed will likely ally with someone the Dalits hate.

I do congratulate the author of the book for taking advantage of readers' voyeuristic needs to read about random persons XYZ loving you just for being you (in this case, English, which serves the author well since one can reap rewards from gaining a mob of English readers). Oh, don't sound so startled -- why do you come to sepiamutiny, to read about how people think we suck or about how people think we're smart and talented?

The only problem I have with revering or hating an individual is that it likely leads to blindly agreeing or disagreeing with their ideas. That is dangerous, as is blindly revering or hating an individual just because you agree or disagree with their ideas. Human history is plagued with this transitivity problem: X agrees with Y on A, so X adopts Y's position on B. Just because Dalits agree with the English on X, it shouldn't follow that Dalits must revere the English, and it certainly shouldn't follow that Dalits must align with other English positions as a result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

Macacaroach - Since you mention intellectual honesty, can you produce evidence that sacrificing little children, or any humans, was a custom in India. A stray case here and there won't do since by that standard you can even claim that Americans are cannibals.

Did somebody mention cannibals? :)

Ennis, I am pretty sure most of us 2nd gens know what our caste is, at least in name. Some of the less-knowledgable among us may not be able to put that label into a context however...they may know they are 'X', without knowing much about 'X'. Not CARING about it (which is cool too) is a different matter.

I need time to articulate my thoughts about the language issue vis a vis dalits.

I would really like to know if the caste system in still prevalent in India? I don’t know anyone in India but I have been to India, are all the beggars thus lower caste/untouchables/dalits? I will never forget that when I was in Bangalore some guy begged to clean my friends shoes for a few rupees, he refused to just take the money, while chatting with him and he did speak very good English, he informed us that he has a Bachelor is Commerce but couldn’t find a job and was thus reduced to performing menial tasks. It was an astounding lesson for me to learn, cos where I was raised education meant power. But the core of the matter, is it really a problem of language? Or is it just another excuse to explain the abject poverty of a beautiful country and a government that lacks the skills to make a change.

The fundamental question to ask is: why is India so different from all the other non-white countries ruled by Britain?

Niall Ferguson, an apologist for Empire, states that the longstanding civilizations did not benefit greatly from colonialism, namely India and China, whereas others did. Eg. Zanzibar's GDP was 1/7 of Britain's at the time of their departure. While it is clear that Indian GDP fell dramatically during British Rule, that they prevented Indians from making modernizing investments, and strangled growth in other ways, unfortunately, India's share of world output fell even further after they left. It had been a really sad story for a long time.

By the way Ennis, unless you simply use 'Singh' as your last name, anyone in the know (which is probably most people in India) can figure out what caste you are.

By the way Ennis, unless you simply use 'Singh' as your last name, anyone in the know (which is probably most people in India) can figure out what caste you are.

Ennis Singh Mutinywale ;)

By the way Ennis, unless you simply use 'Singh' as your last name, anyone in the know (which is probably most people in India) can figure out what caste you are.

But more seriously, neither side of my family used their old caste surnames, so I didn't know what they were. And when asked, I still play ignorant ;)

I don’t know anyone in India but I have been to India, are all the beggars thus lower caste/untouchables/dalits?

Absolutely not, though a disproportionate number may be. And also, Dalits is an umbrella term for a wide variety of castes. The Mahars in Maharastra (Ambedkar's caste) arguably have a better SES/literacy profile than the dominant Marathas.

Since you mention intellectual honesty, can you produce evidence that sacrificing little children, or any humans, was a custom in India.

You never heard of Kali? Amazing. If the practice was not prevalent in large parts of India, primarily Bengal, why on earth would the British have felt the need to ban it? Anyway, educate yourself:

http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/devot/kali.html

"There is a long tradition of human sacrifice to the Goddess in different parts of India, and there is evidence that this was practised regularly in some of the main Shakta temples of Bengal until the early nineteenth century when it was banned by the British. Occasional child sacrifices are still reported today. The Thugs strangled and robbed travellers in the name of Kali until the cult was eradicated by the British."

Another point: The dominant castes change all the time. The "Dravidianist" movement, though it had much lofty egalitarian rhetoric, displaced Brahmins with other dominant castes: Pillais, Mudaliars, Chettiars, etc. They shunned the Dalits. Then the numerically dominant so-called lower lower castes in TN, like the Vaniyars, saw through the nonsense, and started taking power away from the non-brahmin uppers. The new guys shun the Dalits too.

Did someone mention Thugs? :)

The sympathies and programs need to be directed to the poor in India, not specifically the Dalits. Since most of the rural Dalits are poor anyway, they will be included automatically. But a caste driven initiative in India? Not a good idea. As long as the concept of caste is sanctified by social planners, even for worthy causes, caste will remain a self-perpetuating cancer. Read the matrimonials in Indian newspapers, published in the US, in the 21st century, and read by a community considered to be among the best educated - "inviting correspondence from fair, highly qualified BRAHMIN girls for our ivy league educated MD son. Handsome, dutiful, no bad habits." Caste is still a barrier to integration, even among the supposedly enlightened and affluent Indian diaspora. Can you imagine what it is like in India?

The quota system for "scheduled castes," which was instituted right after independence, served its purpose in an era when the Dalits were indeed the untouchables, treated more like lepers rather than the disadvantaged. The situation was similar to the separate-water-fountain treatment of African Americans in the US. A Dr. Ambedkar and caste specific programs were needed to not just uplift the Dalits but admit them into the human race. In India today, Dalits are definitely not a sub-human caste. They are exploited and mistreated because all poor people in all societies are. India can help its poor without bringing the dreaded caste system into the picture. Incidentally, Dalit in Hindi means downtrodden, which is not a caste.

Niall Ferguson, an apologist for Empire, states that the longstanding civilizations did not benefit greatly from colonialism, namely India and China

China was never colonized by the British. Only a tiny fraction of it was, and that part has done extremely well.

unfortunately, India's share of world output fell even further after they left.

Cant blame the British for that can you?

So the question is: whats holding India back? Culture, religion, low IQ, or what? It cant be democracy since it has worked so well in many other places.

powder keg: opened

You never heard of Kali? Amazing. If the practice was not prevalent in large parts of India, primarily Bengal, why on earth would the British have felt the need to ban it? Anyway, educate yourself:

I’m trying to educate myself. You link doesn’t seem to work. And the quote is laughable. If it is about Shakta practices, this is a tantric sect and their practices have always been esoteric and highly secret. So it couldn’t have been widely practiced. The thugs were a fierce tribe who gave the Brits a run for their money so you will find all kinds of assertions against them. Do you seriously believe that Indians were so lacking in basic human decency that they had to wait for the Brits to come along show them the way? All legislation in India is via the Brits not just anti-sati legislation. Surely this doesn't mean that Indians were moral cretins who didn't come to realize that burning people was wrong.

Macacaroach said:

Show some gratitude fella. Or do you really think the British finally ending the centuries old hindu customs of widow-burning, human sacrifice, crushing suicide under the Juggernaut etc were strictly hypocritical rationalizing bullshit?

No, I do not think that. On the other hand, it's not like the British established the Raj to prevent those things. Those were only a fortunate side-effect of the British attempt to make a hell of a lot of money.

Celeritas Subpontus

"So the question is: whats holding India back? Culture, religion, low IQ, or what? It cant be democracy since it has worked so well in many other places."

Flawed Economic and Social policies, which thankfuly, are being changed, albeit too slowly, in my opinion.

"So the question is: whats holding India back?"

Who's talking about anything holding India back? 8.5% annual GDP growth, a huge demographic tailwind that makes the Baby Boom look like a statistical blip, truly a future economic giant now just waking up. When the economy booms, social reforms eventually follow.

As this first-gener Indian likes to tell his second-gener "American" daughter,"You better study hard in school or else someday you will be slaving for the Indians."

So should the great land of the brown go, dare I say it...............communist?

China was never colonized by the British. Only a tiny fraction of it was, and that part has done extremely well.

But the British had a fierce Opium trade running in China which it used to finance its Indian defecits; we know what happened when they tried to stop it. And then there is the small matter of Japan. China had a worse profile than India in 47, and like India, continued to tailspin thereafter. Colonialism was not good for it.

I am pretty sure most of us 2nd gens know what our caste is, at least in name.

Quizman said:

Actually, liberalism is not a British invention and neither was it new to India.
...
Just as India had adopted/created technology in other spheres, India would've have, left to its own devices, adopted railways, and the benefits of industrialization.

Actually, I would argue that the modern definition of political freedom is mostly an Anglo-American invention. There were important influences from other sources, particularly France, but c'mon, it's not like the British marched in, overthrew a bunch of Indian copies of Athens and Venice, and set up shop.

As for industrialization, you're probably correct. Everyone adopts industrialization eventually. Political freedom, not so much.

Celeritas Subpontus

unfortunately, India's share of world output fell even further after they left.

Cant blame the British for that can you?

Oh yes we can and should. When the British left India in 1947, the literacy rate was an incredibly low 11%! I am not saying that independent India didn't contribute to her own economic woes, but to absolve the British of any blame is absolute nonsense. Check out the misdeeds of the British that would cripple India for decades to come: http://members.tripod.com/%7EINDIA_RESOURCE/colonial.html.

Do you seriously believe that Indians were so lacking in basic human decency that they had to wait for the Brits to come along show them the way? All legislation in India is via the Brits not just anti-sati legislation. Surely this doesn't mean that Indians were moral cretins who didn't come to realize that burning people was wrong.

What "basic human decency" do you find in the practices of untouchability, widow-burning and shunning, child sacrifice, temple prostitution etc that have plagued India for thousands of years?

Why did it take the British to pass laws against sati and human sacrifice? Dont hindus have their own law books, such as the famous Manu Smriti?

Macacaroach -

Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, West Indies etc regressed to feudalism? Where the heck did you learn that?

The fundamental question you need to be asking is: why is the Indian subcontinent so miserably impoverished and backward compared to the other non-white countries ruled by Britain?

What about many countries South East Asia, many countries of Africa, West Indies. Are they really better off than India? Where the heck did you learn that? Putting caste as the fundamental reason for poverty of the so called lower casts is taking the easy route.

You never heard of Kali? Amazing. If the practice was not prevalent in large parts of India, primarily Bengal, why on earth would the British have felt the need to ban it? Anyway, educate yourself:

You are taking couple practices in one part of India (even Sati is largely north Indian practice) and justifying the British rule would be nearly same as asking blacks to show gratitude to whites for enslaving them and for taking them out of poverty ridden and cannibalistic Africa.

If you really believe that the effect of British on India is a net positive you need to take the blinders off your eyes and need to look at the overall picture of India and not just parts. The 400 years or so that British had control over India are the years where the whole world made huge progress. What makes you think India wouldn't have made similar progress along with the rest of the world?

You should read this book

So the question is: whats holding India back? Culture, religion, low IQ, or what? It cant be democracy since it has worked so well in many other places.

Relatively to what? Show me another country as big and diverse as India and as much historical baggage as India progressing so fast? Don't tell me it is China, that opens another can worms.

Looking for one reason either it be caste or religion or British occupation is intellectual laziness.

I might be oversimplifying here. Arranged marriages = same caste marriages = guaranteed continuity of the caste system. "Love" marriages (they are still called that in India) = mixed marriages = gradual dissolution of castes. It's not wishful thinking. Ask Indians in Trinidad and Guyana what their caste is. Indians in those countries haven't practiced arranged marriages in over 50 years, and that has not only obliterated the caste system, which was naturally very strong among the early Indian immigrants, but also the religious barriers. Hindus and Muslims inter-marry quite freely in Trinidad and Guyana, and merrily follow their respective religious rituals. It is a wonderful sight. The racial divide among the Indians and blacks in those countries is a whole different story.

Macacaroach -

The ills you have listed are indefensible, but to imply that the British were more evolved is also indefensible.
To wit - COLONIZING BY FORCE scores Nations and Cultures
IMPOVERSHING MILLIONS OF HUMANS
MURDERING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENTS in pursuit of profit
ENSLAVING MILLIONS OF FELLOW HUMANS in pursuit of profit.

hardly the signs of a benevolent people.

I might be oversimplifying here. Arranged marriages = same caste marriages = guaranteed continuity of the caste system. "Love" marriages (they are still called that in India) = mixed marriages = gradual dissolution of castes. It's not wishful thinking. Ask Indians in Trinidad and Guyana what their caste is. Indians in those countries haven't practiced arranged marriages in over 50 years, and that has not only obliterated the caste system, which was naturally very strong among the early Indian immigrants, but also the religious barriers.

Among ABD Hindus, in my experience 50%+ of marriages are across caste/regional lines. But what has that to do with India? So long as the state recognizes caste as an organizing category, there is little hope it will disappear. The Supreme Court ruled that in "mixed" marriages, the father's caste prevails.

S Jain:

And these Christian Missionaries do not have a desire to help India or Indians in any meaningful way, besides increasing their own head count. Yes, they have done some wonderful work in India, but there sole and ultimate motive is to increase their head count at any cost. Do you find it acceptable that such moves should be encouraged even at the cost of Indian Culture?

Goddamn (heh-heh) right I do. If they're doing "wonderful work" does it matter that their motivation is to "win souls for Christ," and that they actually manage to convert people along with helping them? Or does person's religion matter more than bettering his lot in life?

As for "at the cost of Indian Culture," that's just ignorant. Is being Hindu necessary to being Indian, especially considering that India is supposed to be a secular state and not the Hindu version of Iran? Because a 2000 year-old Christian community in India would disagree with you.

Celeritas Subpontus

Macacaroach - I'm questioning the presumption that these descriptions of Indian society are accurate. A culture cannot survive if it has no solid merit. The fact that Indian culture has existed for so long, and in fact is one of the few pre-Christian civilizations to exist to this day, must mean that Indian culture and society were stable. Stability does not come from disgusting practices such as the ones you highlight but has to rest on a sound foundation. Nobody describes western civilzation as an witch-burning, minority-incarcerating culture. The same standard should be applied to India.

desitude -

"Among ABD Hindus,"

ABD??

Nobody describes western civilzation as an witch-burning, minority-incarcerating culture. The same standard should be applied to India.

I agree.

Ah, somebody go to wikipedia article on Sati, and find out yourself.

Now to Singh - Could be a Jat from Rajasthan, UP, Bihar, Punjab, Orrisa, MP, Maharashtra , A Sikh, A Rajput, From Scheduled Caste and Tribes. I know a few singhs who just changed their names to Singh to make them caste invariant.

Meenakshi - Thanks, yes, I am Arjun Singh.

Macacaroach said:

Show some gratitude fella. Or do you really think the British finally ending the centuries old hindu customs of widow-burning, human sacrifice, crushing suicide under the Juggernaut etc were strictly hypocritical rationalizing bullshit?

During the British colonial era, Christian missionaries promulgated a myth that Hindu devotees of Krishna were lunatic fanatics who threw themselves under the wheels of these chariots in order to attain salvation. Such a description can also be found in the popular fourteenth-century work "The Travels of Sir John Mandeville." - Wikipedia

Goddamn (heh-heh) right I do. If they're doing "wonderful work" does it matter that their motivation is to "win souls for Christ."

But the longstanding Christian communities in India also practiced caste. In the Travancore region of Kerala, oil for the Hindu temple had to be purified by a "Nasrani" (Christian) after coming from the "Sudra" Nair's shop. He simply put his finger to it. They also shunned untouchables like everyone else. The Goan Christians recognize Brahmins among them, etc. etc.

People keep tossing around pre- and post-colonization GDP figures like they mean something. Saudi Arabia has a higher GDP than Norway. Where would you rather live?

Pick a different criteria.

CS

I think some Rajput muslims are also Singhs.

Like Malik, you can be a Hindu Malik or a Muslim Malik.

"The 400 years or so that British had control over India are the years where the whole world made huge progress."

I concur. To have missed out on the industrial revolution is like a country, today, missing out on the internet revolution. Where would the country be 100 years from now?

The so-called civilizing institutions credited to the British while they ruled India, such as the penal code, the education system, a civilian rather than a military government, were all self-serving inventions to rule the country in the most profitable manner. At the heyday of the British Raj, it is said that less than 150,000 British civilians ruled a country of several hundred million. That sort of exponential leveraging of British manpower could be possible only by teaching Indians how to rule themselves, for the benefit of the Empire, of course. Stuff that is taught in B-schools - how to leverage resources for maximum gains.

ABD??

Yes. Brownz.

CinamonRani
I would really like to know if the caste system in still prevalent in India?

Just look through any "matrimoial" advertisements in any Indian newspaper. The words Kayasth, Iyer, Iyengar, Brahmin, Jat etc., just pop
out. Heck why go all the way to India, just look at the classifieds in India Abroad.

Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, West Indies etc regressed to feudalism? Where the heck did you learn that?

What "basic human decency" do you find in the practices of untouchability, widow-burning and shunning, child sacrifice, temple prostitution etc that have plagued India for thousands of years?

An incredibly simplistic and ignorant assessment of our history. In fact, these customs have waxed and waned throughout the history of the subcontinent. Arguably many social ills were actually exacerbated and magnified by the ravages of British colonialism. It's been shown time and time again that the damage colonization does to a society can actually set it backwards and make customs that may or may not have been marginal more prominent.

In any case, this argument that the British civilized us reflects an absolute ignorance of the complexity of history. Not to mention a brown-sahib mindset. We've had plenty of indigenously-generated rebellions against the oppressive status quo in India. The British were a far more destructive presence. Just look at the legacy of Partition. That alone has been a horrendous tragedy of our collective peoples.

In 104 the word is
matrimonial

"Among ABD Hindus, in my experience 50%+ of marriages are across caste/regional lines. But what has that to do with India? So long as the state recognizes caste as an organizing category, there is little hope it will disappear. The Supreme Court ruled that in "mixed" marriages, the father's caste prevails."

Desitude, that's my point exactly. Read my Post #77.

China had a worse profile than India in 47

Apparently so did Korea, South-East Asia and other non-european regions of the world. So again: why has the world overtaken India since it gained independence from the British?

Only sub-saharan Africa remains comparable to the Indian subcontinent in poverty, hunger, backwardness etc.

Like Malik, you can be a Hindu Malik or a Muslim Malik.

Plenty of Sikh Maliks too.

Desitude:

But the longstanding Christian communities in India also practiced caste. In the Travancore region of Kerala, oil for the Hindu temple had to be purified by a "Nasrani" (Christian) after coming from the "Sudra" Nair's shop. He simply put his finger to it. They also shunned untouchables like everyone else. The Goan Christians recognize Brahmins among them, etc. etc.

Correct. In fact, if the experiences of my cousins are anything like typical, the longstanding Christian community in Kerala is still practicing caste. Which is just as bad as Hindu casteism, if not worse, since Christianity is supposed to have that whole thing about being all people being equal in the sight of God. But the argument was whether evangelical missionaries were "destroying Indian culture." I gotta say, if caste is an "essential" part of Indian culture (I don't think it is, by the way) then good riddance to bad rubbish.

CS

Only sub-saharan Africa remains comparable to the Indian subcontinent in poverty, hunger, backwardness etc.

I don't believe India is in the bottom fifty countries, and, unlike virtually every other country, is growing at 9%. Do you think the asserted rate is a sham? Certain indicators are terrible, viz. child malnutrition, for which bad governance is squarely to blame.

"Apparently so did Korea, South-East Asia and other non-european regions of the world. So again: why has the world overtaken India since it gained independence from the British?"

not an expert, but didn't many european countries benefit from the marshall plan? also the u.s. helped japan and korea recover. also india was stifled by 50 years of socialist policies, and its incredible diversity, whilst culturally a boon, makes it an unwieldy and more difficult country to rule via democracy. china, singapore for example, esp. the latter, benefited from draconian policies and very little political freedoms. china liberalized its economy long before india did. countries like japan and korea are also more homogenous than india and were never systematically colonized to the extent that india was. the better comparison for india now would be latin america, which tends to be diverse, and which (as a whole, but it varies from country to country) is doing better than india at the moment in attaining many of its millennium development goals. but it would be interesting to compare latin american countries colonized by