December 14, 2007
"Our Vanity Is Matched Only By Our Persecution Complex"Issues
Meera Nanda has a detailed summary and analysis of the most recent Pew Global Attitudes report from the Indian point of view:
The Pew poll asked people in 47 countries if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others.” Indians topped the list, with a whopping 93 per cent agreeing that our culture was superior to others, with 64 per cent agreeing completely, without any reservations.
Now all people have a soft spot for their own culture. But to see how off-the-charts our vanity is, let us compare ourselves with the other “ancient civilisations” in our neighbourhood. Compared to our 64 per cent, only 18 per cent of the Japanese and only 20 per cent Chinese had no doubt at all that their culture was the best. Indeed, close to one quarter of Japanese and Chinese — as compared to our meagre 5 per cent — disagreed that their ways were the best.
The U.S. — a country universally condemned for its cultural imperialism — comes across as suffering from a severe case of inferiority complex when compared with us. Only 18 per cent Americans had no doubts about the superiority of their culture, compared with our 64 per cent. Nearly a quarter of Americans expressed self-doubts, and 16 per cent completely denied their own superiority. The corresponding numbers from India are five and one per cent. (link)
The obvious question to speculate on (and please, speculate away) is where this discrepancy comes from. I personally don’t know though I’ve definitely seen some evidence of it in the hyper-patriotic way many Indians cheer for the national cricket team.
A bit more:
The strange thing is that for a people who think so highly of our own culture, we are terribly insecure. A startling 92 per cent of Indians — almost exactly the same proportion who think we are the best — think that “our way of life needs to be protected against foreign influences.” Here, too, we beat the Japanese, the Chinese, and the Americans by about 25-30 percentage points. When it comes to feeling embattled and needing protection, we are closer to our Islamic neighbours, Pakistan (82 per cent) and Bangladesh (81 per cent). Indeed, we feel so embattled that 84 per cent of us want to restrict entry of people into the country, compared with only 75 per cent of those asked in the U.S., a country where legal and illegal immigration is of a magnitude higher than anywhere in the world.
So, paradoxically, our vanity is matched only by our persecution complex. (link)
It is kind of surprising that more Indians want immigration controls than Americans, especially considering how hot the immigration issue is in the U.S. right now. (Perhaps India is like Iowa; the fewer immigrants you actually have, the more you worry bout immigration?)
Nanda also summarizes the report’s findings on Indians’ attitudes to the role of government on helping the poor, and the proper role of religion in government (Indians are personally religious, but they also strongly support separation of church and state). The entire report can be found here (PDF) and the Pew Center’s brief summary is here.
amardeep on December 14, 2007 10:21 AM in Issues · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Many Indians are concerned about illegal Bangladeshi immigration.
Very sad but I must say the report is not surprising. It's like the baseball doping stuff flooding the news today. I mean, really, was it that much of a shock?
I am surprised, however by this statement from Ms. Nanda:
Only 75 percent? That's a lot and it's shameful.
Amitabh, yes, I've seen this in Mumbai and Bengal, and commenters have recently mentioned concerns in Assam. But is it the same in, say, Delhi... or Chennai?
(Perhaps India is like Iowa; the fewer immigrants you actually have, the more you worry bout immigration?)
There are about 20 million or so immigrants from Bangladesh in India.
Many Indians are concerned about illegal Bangladeshi immigration.
The Banglas are willing to do jobs no Indian wants.
I hate it when I call up a service provider on the telephone in India and I have to wait for ....press 1 for Hindi....press 2 for Bengali.
Kush, yes -- but that's still a smaller number per capita than is the estimated 10 million illegal aliens in the U.S.
Also, the 'foreigners' in this case have the same complexion as Indians themselves, and speak the same language as a significant number of Indians. That, one would think, would lessen the hostility in some ways.
"I personally don’t know, though I’ve definitely seen some evidence of it in the hyper-patriotic way many Indians cheer for the national cricket team"
amardeep, not sure i understand by what you mean by evidence. could you elaborate? thanks.
Wonder what Moornam will say to this.
WGIIA and Amardeep,
the cricket example isn't very useful because the main and most celebrated contests are the international ones--ICL, county cricket, ranji trophy et all are still sideshows with regards to viewer volume and press--so 'hyper patriotism' is not only understandable but endemic to the dominant format. When the relatively hated Aussies come to India their centurions and 50-makers are applauded, as is done for the Indians overseas. Cricket is fairly unique as a bat-and-ball team sport in that individual accomplishments are acknowledged and celebrated by both sides.
amardeep, not sure i understand by what you mean by evidence. could you elaborate? thanks.
Whose God, thinking it over a bit more, it's just a silly comment. Countries that have good soccer teams are every bit as fanatical about soccer as Indians are about cricket... So please just disregard the comment!
i don't really see anything that surprising about this poll. india is going through a time of speedy changes in many areas in a relatively short period of time, both unsettling and uplifting (and it depends on who they polled in india, from what backgrounds). people are bound to feel both optimistic, smug and insecure at the same time. the euphoria of IT soon gave way to stories about the positive/ negative effects on the lifestyles/nature of cities where IT is big. security/insecurity go hand in hand. i wonder what the japanese might have felt a few decades ago, especially when they were seen as the be-all and end-all. i remember a professor telling us that most of us would fail and wouldn't get anywhere close to the achievements of the japanese. now, their "ancient civilization" has had time to cope with 20th century prosperity and they have the luxury of being more jaded/self-critical/mature about it.
Also, the 'foreigners' in this case have the same complexion as Indians themselves, and speak the same language as a significant number of Indians. That, one would think, would lessen the hostility in some ways.
That is all true. A good number of the illegal immigrants are Hindus from Bangladesh.
I think it is a complex issue.
Most of the illegal immigrants in India live in shanty towns, doing most menial and dangerous construction jobs - in some sense, like here.
But then some resourceful ones become Indian citizens in 10 minutes. If you can get a ration card, you can prove that you have been Indian citizen all along. Near elections in WB, and Bengal, parties can arrange that in return for promise for vote to their party.
Near elections in WB, and Assam
The "foreign influences" fear is also reflected in the Indian press almost daily --- often utilizing the words "infiltration" and "terrorists" from Pakistan and Bangladesh, as well as "encroachment" by Chinese military --- when talking about India's security and sovereignty. Thus, Indians are constantly exposed to the suspicion of foreigners coming into India to do harm, and with security or intelligence issues, the public never really knows what is/was true.
Personally, I'm worried about Bangladeshi Muslim immigration into India more than anything else. It's dangerous for Indian secularism, population growth (Muslim growth rates are higher even compared to Indian growth rates), demographics and just general future - sorry, but one does not want to see Mughal India version 2 with people of other religions paying the jizya taxes for their continued existence.
From the article:
I often see parallels between such answers and Feynman's narrative on Brewster's angle in Brazil. I'd bet that the respondents who answered these questions had read about the benefits of free markets from some source (magazine/journal/blog/etc) and the social benefits of helping the poor from other sources (maybe even their middle school Moral Science classes), and cheerfully threw everything into the blender without critically analyzing the effects of one on the other. I half suspect that this is indicative of yet more rote memorization without reflection on the true meaning.
fsowalla,
1. Fact: There are regular attacks carried out by Pakistani terrorists in India - let's not pretend unknown people are carrying out bomb attacks in temples and universities and courts.
2. Fact: There are millions of Bangladeshis (women in head-to-toe black suggests Muslims) flooding India and this is obvious in places like Mumbai.
3. Fact: China attacked India in 1962 after conquering Tibet and has claimed all of Assam as Chinese territory as late as last year (the Chinese Ambassador in India made this statement no less).
Not to mention that India has been historically the target of Islamic expansionism.
The facts drive the fears. Let's not pretend people's fears are unfounded and based on vague and unjustified "phobias".
It is kind of surprising that more Indians want immigration controls than Americans, especially considering how hot the immigration issue is in the U.S. right now. (Perhaps India is like Iowa; the fewer immigrants you actually have, the more you worry bout immigration?)
Huh? Fewer Immigrants? Only for the past 5000 years or so buddy.... And many of them stayed and decided to change the culture quite drastically. But it is hard for Americans to understand such a long-term point of view, with the best of you only being able to hold it in contempt and throwing your hands up in the air. Mock it, dispute it, whatever, but Indians' memories go back a long way. Aryans, Muslims, Mughals, British, whatever. I'm not saying it's right or wrong or even factually correct. But to say that India hasn't had any migrants is a very narrow view to take. Invaders, at least of the sort that came to India can be considered 'Migrants' and so can 'Colonisers'. Not everybody needs a visa to set up shop in a foreign land. Therefore it is extremely unsurprising that Indians would hold such a view, and be considered 'insecure'. I don't see how not wanting your culture exposed to foreign influences makes you insecure. It just means you like the status quo. I'm not condoning the attitude, just presenting a different argument to your conclusion. Again, considering you are America, it is unsurprising you would view that as insecure, however. This is not meant as a slight in any way. But you have to understand the differences in your background and exposure definitely come into play here. Further, India is not a land based on immigration like America. Nobody said anything about bringing your poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free here. We have enough of our own to worry about, thanks.
BTW, I don't believe Indian culture to superior to others. But I do believe and agree with the fears about neighboring countries - puhleeze, Pakistan, China, etc are anything but pacifist.
Arjun, my point was not to assess the credibility of the claims, but to point out the daily exposure to the claims themselves and the sensationalism of the Indian media. Let's not get into which are "facts" -- there have been enough staged encounter killings of "terrorists" as well as actual terrorist attacks, enough claims of Chinese border incursions (some true, others not).
And as far as Bangladeshis go, do you really think this impacts the average Indian citizen? In what way? Are you claiming that India is becoming more Muslim as a result, or that Khaleda Zia's or Sheik Hasina's or Jamaat's followers are exerting more influence in India, or that W. Bengal is becoming more "Bangla" somehow? I do think Bangladeshi migration will impact states in the NE of India, but ironically, Indian "culture" is still fairly foreign to the ethnic groups living there.
Perhaps India is like Iowa; the fewer immigrants you actually have, the more you worry bout immigration?
Thats just lazy writing... Do you even know how many immigrants India live in India? How is it even remotely like Iowa?
Like I said, lazy.
Hindu chauvinists talk a lot about Muslim growth rates. But the statistics I've seen show only a slight difference between the Muslim growth rate in India and that of the general population. If you carry forward current rates of growth, it will be hundreds, if not thousands, of years before Muslims come remotely close to outnumbering Hindus.
(Of course, if you carry forward current rates of growth, India will have a population of 150 billion+ by the year 2201! Current rates of growth are simply not sustainable...)
And Phoenix, not wanting your culture exposed to foreign influences is the definition of insecure.
as the couplet goes (satire)
"cheen-o-arab hamara. hindostan hamara. rahne ko ghar nahin hai. saara jahaan hamara"
Semi-literal interpretation
China is ours and so is Arabia.
We are Hindustan.
We dont have a roof over our heads
But we own the whole world.
fuck me. i will laugh till the tears dry up.
p.s. any idea how canadians rated themselves.
muralimannered, i agree. although i think amardeep has a point in that the indian cricket team does elicit a more obvious patriotism/nationalism now than during my parents' youth. now you see children, adults, pensioners with faces painted with the indian flag, flags everwhere. there definitely is a lot more aggression in the support. but you also see this amongst pakistani, british, aussie fans etc. so while support for the indian team is highly nationalistic, i think you are correct in saying that for the most part, it's not a negative aggressive nationalism (beyond the usual sporting hubris of almost all nations and fans and issues tainted with colonialism/racism that pop up once in awhile in cricket and discussions/claims of cultural superiority do creep in, but all fans of all nations do it) funnily enough, given the more nationalistic nature of india-pakistan matches in the past, some fans are now complaining that they are too tame and the teams/fans are too friendly and this is affecting the quality of the matches!!
i see the report says that the samples in india and a few other countries were overwhelmingly urban. i also wonder about the general nature of some of these questions and how different people may have interpreted them. when i read foreign influences, i didn't think of immigration, i thought of cultural influences like music, clothing, changing mores via tv etc. i wonder if the questioners specified what they meant by some of these terms?
Why are we insecure? Because though we feel culturally superior, we are poor. No one is going to respect us in the global arena unless we become their economic equals.
Btw, I don't think that feeling your own culture is superior is vanity. What else is vanity then, thinking that, for all its flaws, your country is the best? That, btw is called patriotism, or nationalism.
Amardeep, they may have the same complexion but they are enthusiastic supporters of the Two Nation theory. Should Indians happily concede districts that become majority Bangladeshi? I don't agree at all with the unreflective attitude of Indians regarding their own culture, but they are right to feel besieged. People talk about Kashmir using all sorts of legalisms but basically it boils down to the "progressive community" believing that Muslims have the right to have a Muslim nation whereever they are in majority. You say that the amount of illegal immigrants is not the same as in the US, but do you really think that the Indian economy is growing at a rate that can provide employment for this huge inflow of Bangladeshis? I don't see any solutions from your progressive camp....
this is probably a dumb question, but in the case of india, which is more heterogenous than some of the other countries, when they asked them to agree/disagree with "Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others", did they specify that "our" meant india as a whole and "others" meant outside india, or did the respondents have the leeway to see "our culture" as their particular regional/religious/linguistic/ethnic culture?
Its not surprising really, Indians in general are not a confident people, and despite the rants against muslims of hindu chauvanists, Indian attitudes are closer to that of the arab muslim world than the west.
Looking back to some distant glorious past, when their culture reigned supreme
Pride in values, usually obscurantist and unfriendly towards women.
Little or no emphasis on individuality.
Emphasis on tradition above and beyond anything as trivial(according to the traditionalists that is) as an individual's happiness.
Asking questions is usually not encouraged, one is supposed to bow down before centuries of tradition
(While typing this, I just realized Christian fundamentalists share some of these same characteristics too)
Despite this there are many Indians who manage to break free from the shackles of tradition and live on their own terms and think for themselves but it is in spite of our "glorious" culture and not because of it.
With so much pride in Indian culture, the country is also apparently suffering from mass delusion.
"With so much pride in Indian culture, the country is also apparently suffering from mass delusion."
well, given that the sample is overwhelmingly urban, i don't think it's fair to say the country is suffering from mass delusion. also, even if they had asked more people in villages etc, the pride in culture may still have been high or it may have been lower. it all depends on what people understood by the word "culture." tanzania is the only other country, it seems, with 64 percent feeling that their culture was definitely superior to others. and their sample was both rural and urban, not as skewed as india's.
I thought the general belief is to always to take only the 'good' things from other cultures. What is 'good' is most often defined by family.
I have a probelm with the same question being asked to such a diverse sample and expecting everyone to interpret the question exactly the same way.
Example:
In L.A. ask anybody "How's are you doing?" and 99.9999% of the time you would get an "Fine".
In Mumbai you'd get very different answers. Perhaps more honest ones?
Also, perhaps many Americans think of security in a very literal way whereas Indians are looking at the bigger picture out of sheer necessity.
A bit off tangent, but one needs to spent some time in NE India to realize the impact that immigration from Bangladesh has had there. There are many districts which are almost mini Bangladesh now. In Assam at least, one of the biggest reason the militancy started was illegal immigration from Bangladesh. So its a bit insensitive to say that Bangladeshi immigration doesn't impact India, unless of course you think that NE isn't "really" India.
On Migrants/Immigrants in the present context in the subcontinent.
1. Nepalese Migrants - Census estimates till 1991 estimated an inward flow of 500,000 a year. I have not been able to find official figures beyond that. However during the recent Maoist period the estimated inflow was reportedly much higher. This paper http://www.neupaneg.com/pdf/migrants.pdf estimates total current Nepalese migrant population to be about 1.3 million people. The actual number is probably closer to 2 million.
2. Bangladeshi Migrants - Former Defense Minister publicly quoted roughly 20 million Bangladeshi nationals in India (but provided no evidence). Other retired government officials have stated figures of upto a total of 50 million immigrants. There is no official figure and no 'study' of note. Conservative estimates put Bangladeshi immigration figures at about 10-15 million.
there is a bitter truth in that.
i travel to india off and on and there's a vigor and zip to the society that's very youthful, very palpable. i find it very refreshing after having lived in a more mature society for so long...
at the same time there is a lot of self-deluding going on. ironically, this mostly reflects on the cricket field. i got crried into the world cricket cup hype (i was in india) and then i looked at the stats. india was not even in the top 3 cricketing nations and to hear the media talk about it, it was actually a crushing disappointment that the country failed to qualify. i mean... get real yaar. you cant live in your head alone. but this may be masking a whole lot of insecurity.
more later
Why is it paradoxical to believe your culture superior and yet also be insecure about the impact of outside influence on that culture? What I mean by that is that the question wasn’t whether Indian culture was the most robust and unassailable--it was whether the culture was "better" than the rest. You’ve imputed your own assumption that better must mean "easily able to counter outside influence". It could simply mean "more interesting, more enjoyable". One could, for example, feel that separation of church and state is better than theocracy and thus be worried about the impact of movements that seek to obliterate that barrier—it wouldn’t necessary be irrational or paradoxical. If anything, it seems logical to argue that if the culture is “better†you’ll want to preserve it against less worthy options.
Also, I'm not sure that the attitude demonstrated is best characterized as a “persecution complexâ€. I would think that a “persecution complex†would be more akin to when you believe that you (or your culture) are being actively targeted for destruction-that’s a little bit different that saying, for example, that immigration is undesirable or that foreign influences are having a destabilizing influence on the culture.
I make no comments on whether or not Indian culture is better or at risk--just that I don’t see the “paradox†or “persecution complex†based on the information provided.
Amardeep, thanks for blogging this. I glanced quickly at the main results and read Meera Nanda's nice summary article also, but not the main report yet.
My first question is about the sample - its composition and size - how could they have asked nuanced questions about the nature of a free market economy (for example) and have had a representative sample which actually understood it. Same with many other questions. Even a slight urban bias in the sample would skew the results, while a truly representative sample would encounter many illiterates, poor people, etc.
But on the whole, there is nothing particularly surprizing about the combination of liberal and illiberal values that Indians seem to simultaneously hold, the contradiction between precept and action, different valuing of public and private goods, etc that the survey uncovers. In fact, you see opinions reflecting this contradictive straddling of the putatively liberal and the illiberal right here on SM all the time.
Take the direction the 'Bangladeshi immigrant' discussion is taking right now. Except for a short stretch of the border near Rajshahi, where the Ganges forms the border, there are no real natural barriers on the ground between Bangladesh and India, and nothing to distinguish local economic geography between the countries. The Rio Grande on the other hand, forms the entire border between Texas and Mexico - some 1,300 miles. Never mind that most people saying things like this, here anyway, are immigrants themselves. The simple act of realizing that Bangladesh and India are part of the same big region, until fairly recently fully economically integrated, and soon to return to that level of integration - removes the apparent contradiction. But oh no, the poor 'illiberal' 'Bangladeshis' are swarming India, the great liberal free market democracy. 20 million is a likely overestimate, but look at all the natural disasters Bangladesh has had recently, and the population flows that they cause. Where else are Bangladeshis going to go anyway, if not to India. And the big contradiction in refusing to take in Bangladeshis while continuing to hold much of the Northeast inside India by force never strikes most Indians. So anyway, this is just an example of a mentality that I had really hoped people would re-examine, especially given their own immigrant status and high level of education. But I continue to be disappointed....
On the other hand I would argue that Indian youth have got there thoughts right about the state of the nation. Culture on the other is a subjective issue, I would say it is the best !
They don't need to outnumber non-Muslims all over India. It can work district by district until renewed demands for exclusive Muslim homelands ruled by Sharia can be raised. We see this not just in the cases of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir etc, but all over the world - see Thailand or Phillipines, two new countries facing Islamic state demands. Also, until I see proof that non-Muslims are not legally mistreated in Islamic countries, and all evidence points to the contrary - current events of Malaysia are the latest example, but look at Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or other Gulf countries and you have daily examples, I'm happy to see these numbers because they mean most Indians are well aware of the new Muslim threat, 50 years after giving in to their demands.
I expect more awareness of Indian history from Sepia Mutineers before they wax self-righteous about unPC attitudes in India.
Also, for the record, I'm not a "Hindu chauvinist" but a secularist who prefers to see India remain a country of diverse cultures and religions rather than see more exclusivist Islamic theocratic/dictatorial states carved out of it.
...more realistic than this mania perhaps? ;-)
I wonder what I should be concerned with, Chachaji's disappointment or the increase of immigrants in a country where unemployment is already a massive issues. My parents came here legally to fill an economic need of the US, I am disappointed that you cant see the difference
If we take in Bangladeshis, we have a right to Bangaldeshi territory to have the resources to support this increase in population. India should begin to annex border regions of Bangladesh
louie, I wouldn't be too worried about chachaji's disappointments :). He's a dreamer of the Andalusian sort.
I would ask people to compare Indians' discomfort with Tibetan immigration (sympathetically welcomed for the most part) with that of Muslim immigration, and draw their own conclusions about the reasons thereof. Why do Muslims make Indians so fearful? Might history be a guide for the inevitably historically clueless Americans here?
Also, Nepali immigration isn't immigration so much as exchange. Nepal and India have free flow of people in both directions. Besides, Nepalis have never asked and aren't expected to ask for their own theocratic country to be carved out of India.
The big difference in Bangladeshi and Pakistani illegal immigration is that these countries demanded separation from India. First they ask for separation and then they illegally immigrate to India. Most Indians are not concerned about Tibetan and Nepali illegal immigration so its unfair to say that this is basic xenophobia. Pakistani and Bangladeshi illegal immigrants are often very anti-India and often regard the land they immigrate to as rightfully belonging to their respective countries.
Every region in which there is a Muslim majority with a Hindu minority has seen substantial reduction in the rights of Hindu (even in Indian Kashmir). It is perfectly sensible for Hindus to worry about illegal immigration that will turn certain parts of India into a Muslim majority.
Where else are Bangladeshis going to go anyway, if not to India.
well, bangladesh has an enormous expat population in the gulf states and bangladeshis also tend to be construction workers in places like singapore and malaysia. and obviously there is a bangladeshi diaspora in england. though i suspect the composition of the different migrant streams an issue here. e.g., for obscure historical reasons the bangladeshis in england are overwhelmingly sylheti. i have a relatively large family and i know the life histories of a fair number of cousins. many have lived in japan, latin america, europe, the arab world, southeast asia and north america. not only has emigrated to india!?!?! i think that's a function of class, my relatives do visit india, but generally for thinks like eye surgery that is cheaper and better. so the ones going to india are probably relatively poor without the means to pay a recruiter to go work in the gulf or the education or connections to go to a first world country. and they probably come from bordering regions...my family lives in dhaka, comilla and chittagong, rough an axis from the middle of the country to the southeast, bordering regions of india which aren't example prime agricultural land.
not one has emigrated to india i meant. and re: class, in terms of first degree cousins and what not, i don't know if any of them are 'working class.' most have university degrees (a few have lower level vocational certifications i think). so you get a sense of the skewing of the sample....
Sure, why not time travel back to pre-1940 Europe, where this kind of thing was pretty routine for adherents of a certain ideology. Look, it's not about annexation, but about making the border itself irrelevant. Secondly it is about reducing the population flows, by increasing economic growth and spreading it out everywhere in South Asia, enabled in part by the free-trade enabled growth spurt. And thirdly, it is about decreasing the relative salience of religious identities in the public sphere, enabled also by higher and more equitable economic growth.
And of course, 'India' should have transit rights, but more broadly, that border shouldn't even be an issue, as in 'South Asia'. But the implications are both ways. India can hardly expect transit rights if Bangladeshis can't freely migrate anywhere within South Asia.
Razib, good points. Sure, they can go to the Middle East, and they can go to UK and Europe and the US and Malaysia. So the poorest will go to India, and if anything that's a statement that for them, India is better than whatever they had in Bangladesh. If Indians now want to hold up their religious belief as a reason not to let them in, then what happens to the professed secularism? Doesn't it then look like a majoritarian Hinduism?
According to the Qur'an, Islam is a supremacist and separatist ideology. Roughly "Allah has made the Muslims a separate and better nation than all the others", "Befriend not the unbelievers", yadayada.
So, no. In my view, secularism is anti-Islam, in the same way that liberalism is anti-Nazism. The two are polar opposites. Your question is like asking in 1940's Britain: If Britons now hold up Nazi beliefs as a reason not to let Nazis in, then what happens to their professed liberalism?
So the poorest will go to India, and if anything that's a statement that for them, India is better than whatever they had in Bangladesh. If Indians now want to hold up their religious belief as a reason not to let them in, then what happens to the professed secularism?
did all the hindus who were pushed out of bangladesh over the past 50 years naturalized? i mean, they were 25% or something of east pakistan's population the 50s and now the number in bangladesh is closer to 10%. my family knows for a fact that a large number of prosperous bangladeshi hindus live in bangladesh on "paper," so that they can retain their property, but actually reside in india (we help them when we have had a close relation with them going back generations, one branch of my family was originally hindu and still is on good terms with their distant hindu relatives).
According to the Qur'an, Islam is a supremacist and separatist ideology. Roughly "Allah has made the Muslims a separate and better nation than all the others", "Befriend not the unbelievers", yadayada.
the same sort of thing can be said xtianity and its old testament. also, there are hindu scriptures which make it seem like brahmins are by nature superior to all others. but somehow not all brahmins & christians manifest what their texts might imply. so the question isn't about the islamic text, it is why muslims appeal to supremacism to not produce anything like indian secularism (turkish laicism still remains strongly prejudiced against heretics [alevis] and non-muslims).
one branch of my family was originally hindu and still is on good terms with their distant hindu relatives
to be clear, obviously most of my ancestors were hindu. by my paternal grandmother's family converted so recently that she had many hindu second cousins, and the muslim and hindu lineage groups remain in a working relationship. most of the hindus have emigrated to india, but the muslims serve as their proxies in handling property in bangladesh.
Chachaji: You call me a Nazi, so I will call you a freak show. If India, a resource strapped country, is expected to support the material needs of a population that had earlier asserted its "separateness" it has a right to annex the resources needed to support that population. Did Germany invade Poland because Poles were swamping Germany ? Chachaji, you masquerade as an idealist advocating some kind of Union of South Asian states, but you know Pak and Bangladesh will never reciprocate and will only "take". Which is why, coupled with your many ridiculous statements, you are a Hindu baiter and an India hater.
Yes, razib, completely agree.
sorry couldn't resist :D
Razib, hope you will elaborate a little on this as time permits. So even the most secular of majority-Islamic countries today is still less secular than India. And that happens even though, both Hinduism and Islam have texts that can be used to justify a supremacist ideology. What is your best understanding of why this is?
And what about history? Weren't Islamic states in the middle ages that were economically and militarily powerful also quite secular in practice if not theory?
I dont have a strong opinion on the question of insecurity, although I
also agree with some that the comments were poorly thought out,
(Indian insecurity over immigration is different from the US).
Bangladeshi immigration (esp. of muslims) has caused severe problems
in the northeast, and is changing the demographic profile. It has
also contributed somewhat significantly to magnifying existing
ethnic tensions in the Northeast. Immigration in India does have
tangible security and law and order consequences, and I think
this explains some of the insecurity people have over it.
i would like to second chachaji . the sample cannot possibly be representative (for india). i can bet you that they conducted phone interviews or stuck to the urban areas. so expect huge--and i mean huuuge--selection effects. when in doubt about statistics in india remember these two rules
1) economic statistics are generally well-collected (since most of them are done by those who have access down to the lowest administrative level)
2) public survey statistics (except those conducted by the govt. or in partnership with the govt by desi agencies) are highly suspect
No, there's big difference between holding up a religious belief and holding up a political model.
No, but some Nepalis have asked for and fought for a separate state in India. See the Gorkhaland Movement, particularly in the mid 1980s. So too the Bodos, Kukis, Mizos, Nagas and others.
The (il)logic of this statement would indicate that you also are "fearful" of the British. The disturbing aspect of your argument is that it justifies the actions and policies of the Indian government (or rather, lack thereof) that the Sachar Report, for example, condemned. Please read some recent history rather than childishly calling Americans clueless.
It's not an all or nothing issue here. India is going to have to grapple with a substantial Muslim population for the forseeable future. What would be appropriate is searching for ways to stop reducing this issue to one of religion only, but also economics, regional stability, and social rights. India doesn't have a solution (and clearly neither does the US for its immigration challenges), but I personally believe in both countries capacity to absorb all manner of influences.
. So even the most secular of majority-Islamic countries today is still less secular than India.
1) depends on how you define 'secular.' i don't think that india is really that 'secular,' but i use a different definition ;-)
2) but yes, in turkey even though there is an anti-islamic streak among the kemalists, they haven't been able to shake off the prejudice that non-sunnis are by their nature a 5th column and not part of the turkish nation. this applies even to alevis, a quasi-shia group subject to a great deal of oppression and suppression during the ottoman period who actually tend to support kemalism because of its disestablishment of sunnism as the state religion. alevis still complain about prejudice and discrimination at the hands of the turkish state and its officials, and that prejudice is probably simply a part of the historical background of sunni elites who also oppose islamism.
What is your best understanding of why this is?
my best understanding is that the history of islam has strongly shaped the perception of the ummah of how the world should be ordered. i suspect the "1,000 years of muslim domination" of south asia has had a much stronger influence in how muslim elites view non-muslims under their rule than the koran or the hadith, which most of them are not very familiar with unless they consult a religious cleric.
if you want see how muslims can be less supremacist, a study of the history of muslims under russian or chinese rule isn't bad. the problem though is that both russian and chinese muslims are becoming more like other muslims as they hook into world-wide information networks and receive saudi funding, but in both cases they are constrained by the reality that they are a minority who will not attain power and they have always been a minority which has had to tailor their own beliefs to the majority dispensation (in fact, the history of islamic uprisings in the 19th century shows that they became successful with the muslim reformists began using the same figurative language that was in use in buddhist and daoist secrete societies, the muslim revolt was one of an ethnic group rather than a religious ideology).
oh, and a third thing, about the two rules. there is enormous variation in the quality of even government collected statistics (see dreze and sen, i think their 2000 volume, on this. they have a detailed discussion).
the comparison with the chinese is interesting. on the one hand
1) many east asians are very proud of their societies
2) but they value self-criticism and humility
#2 is manifest in personal attitude surveys, they just don't value self-esteem, rather they don't want to seem like they stand out and are loud & proud of themselves as individuals. i would have assumed brown people are the same, but is it that brown people are more like westerners in individualism or attitudes toward bragging? chinese are just like indians in asserting that all great things originated in their homeland.
Pakistan and Bangladesh, not to mention the myriad Muslim separatist movements in the world, are manifestations of a political model based on a so-called "religious belief".
Wary, more like. India could well be an Iraq some day. So learning from history and current events is "illogical" - interesting.
Turkey is always pointed out as an example of Islam's potential to coexist with secularism and modernity, but it is the exception that proves the rule. In Turkey the government creates stringent laws that keep Islam out of political affairs and the government runs all the mosques and employs all the imams.
Turkey remains secular because it operates under the assumption that Islam if left unchecked will destroy Turkish secularism and modernity. For Turkish secularism to survive Islam needs to be constantly managed and tamed by the government.
i found it a bit odd that only 6 percent of chinese (and 33 percent mostly) the govt. had too much control over their daily lives compared to 30 percent indians (41 percent mostly) and 28 percent americans (37 percent mostly).
Pakistan and Bangladesh, not to mention the myriad Muslim separatist movements in the world, are manifestations of a political model based on a so-called "religious belief".
i think modern communications is resulting in a homogenization of muslim attitudes toward non-muslims. my reading of the history of chinese muslim thought has reinforced this perception. the chinese muslims have somewhat shifted from being a particular chinese cult to muslims who live in china (they are still very particular, i'm talking of a difference in degree). also, arab 'dominionism' has an outsized influence because of gulf money.
Weren't Islamic states in the middle ages that were economically and militarily powerful also quite secular in practice if not theory?
no, they weren't secular. not state was really secular in the pre-modern world. the chinese emperor sacrified to heaven and was the axis mundi between the divine and the world. in the india context secular ~ religiously neutral, right? they weren't secular then. in the america context secular ~ religion is private. well, they weren't secular then either. in practice muslims and muslim states made many accommodations with the vicissitudes of reality, but they remained muslim states where islam was supreme over non-muslim religions. think of granada, it paid tribute to christian powers, but islam was still the established religion of the state.
"only 6 percent of chinese (and 33 percent mostly) completely agreed that the govt. had too much control over their daily lives."
i just read the excerpt; now i have strong doubts about nanda's interpretations. i think the poll has inadvertently conflated conceptual differences and categories in their framing of questions. for example most respondents from africa want curbs on immigration (ranging from 94% for ivory coast to 67% in uganda). but the questions, even within africa mean different things in different countries depending on historical contexts. thus support for restricted immigration is lowest in uganda (still high...apparently if this survey is to be believed). but i'm sure many posters here are aware of the unfortunate political conflicts with asian immigrants, in whose aftermath (including economic effects) we would expect people to be more cautious. similarly within asia the question means different things to different people. thus when you say immigration in japan, i'll bet you that most japanese mean temporary immigrants and visitors (since gaining japanese citizenship is almost impossible for a non-ethnically japanese; ask the koreans born there); whereas in india they mean permanent settlers.
i would not put too much credence on this survey; it is radically decontextualized,(i think pew has unfortunately presented it within an unified framework) and if not used properly the user ends up looking like an idiot .
Pride in Indian culture doesn't equate to patriotism. The poll gives a distorted view because it is falling into that trap of assuming a nation shares "a" culture. Of course Indians are proud of "our culture", because "their culture" is shared by a small subgroup of Indians. They don;t mean "Indian culture". They literally mean "their own culture".
And i am actually very sympathetic to nanda's point of view (including her view of the innumerable maladies of indian society)
Yipes, there goes the US case for "liberating" the Chinese from themselves ;).
They don't need to outnumber non-Muslims all over India. It can work district by district until renewed demands for exclusive Muslim homelands ruled by Sharia can be raised.
Paging Mark Steyrn!
Muslim hordes after turning Europe into 'Eurabia' are now targetting India to turn it into 'Indarabia'.
Is there Sharia law in BDesh?
Ummm....you do know that there is a recent precedent for this in South Asia, unlike Europe, right ? And that the progressive camp views this as a reasonable demand in Kashmir, right ?
What this poll confirms is that Indians are more akin to Africans in their attitudes than to chinese, japanese or europeans.
Al_Chutiya_for_debauchery: Yes, oh the Islamophobia! Let's just let them all in again and calmly wait for another Direct Action Day.
Let's check back on this in 10 years
Ummm....you do know that there is a recent precedent for this in South Asia, unlike Europe, right ? And that the progressive camp views this as a reasonable demand in Kashmir, right
I dont know the progressive camp's stance on India and to be honest I dont really care about the Kashmir dispute anyway. I think some dire predictions made here about Sharia being imposed in India if the BDesh immigration is not controlled are frankly alarmist and not grounded in reality. BDesh has a population of 150 million and as most Muslim nations have higher standards of living than India, I dont see a Europe like situation emerging in India where tens of millions of Muslims from all over the Muslim world are trying to immigrate.
I am sure absorbing another 10-15 million (higher level) of Bengalis no different in profile than Muslim living in Eastern UP/West Bengal/Assam is going to lead to a Iran style theocrcracy in India.
Is there Sharia law in BDesh?
Let's check back on this in 10 years
So there is currently no Sharia Law in BDesh. I thought the Islamists were in power or something. Yes, in 10 years I can actually see more Muslim nations going the Sharia route. Theocracies have not been fully discredited in the Muslim world yet so there is some demand for Sharia in most Muslim nations.
Al_Chutiya_for_debauchery: Yes, oh the Islamophobia! Let's just let them all in again and calmly wait for another Direct Action Day.
I dont think you are an Islamaphobe. You are an alarmist with a loose grip on reality who seriously lacks the ability of making serious future projections based on current numbers. Hell, as long as you are not a Budget manager for a company, who cares!
What this poll confirms is that Indians are more akin to Africans in their attitudes than to chinese, japanese or europeans.
Birds of the same feather flock together. India is also more similar to Africa in most Human Development Index parameters so the hopes, aspirations and fears might be similar.
Uh - yeah this has already happened before, heard of Pakistan and Bangladesh.
It is also open knowledge that Saudi Arabia is financing projects to Islamicize India.
Notice that very rarely do the "progressives" on this board debate those who offer criticism on the role plays in Islam on the subcontinent.
Usually they slime people the people w/ accusations that have nothing to do with the topic. I've been accused of Nazism, oppressing the dalits and wanting to kick poor people out their homes in the slums.
The "progressives" often accuse critics of being like Mark Steyn, being a Hindutva or put some label on them as if that actually refutes their arguments.
Its a way of avoiding the argument while appearing to engage in it.
as i was saying above, this kind of decontextualized statement (which incidentally nanda also indulges in) is bollocks (in the best possible sense). the very idea that something is "akin" to another without looking at meanings that people give to certain concepts is, to put is mildly, extremely naive.
some interesting (if skewed) results in this thing. indians consider being able to say anything in public more important than being free to practice your religion(22 percent, funny, given how religious the survey finds indians to be) and being free from hunger and poverty (22 percent, again this is an urban sample). 41 percent of indians consider being able to say anything in public more important compared to just 18 percent of americans. and they didn't even offer the religion option on their china survey. and tv seems to have wiped out radio in india as a source of news. surprised to see that 70 percent get their news from tv and only 20 percent from newspapers, considering it's an urban sample. and 72 percent of this sample said they do not use a computer at their workplace, at school, at home, or anywhere else on at least an occasional basis. much lower than i would have expected. according to this survey, very few urban indians use the internet even occasionally or send/receive e-mail.
These relatively wealthier Muslim countries don't border Bangladesh last time I checked. I encourage wealthy Arab states to open their doors to Bangladeshis, India can't take of its own and has a responsibility to repatriate these illegals
They won't push for sharia you say, maybe you are right. But that they will push for a constitutionally Muslim nation as was the case in the creation of Pakistan. I don't give a damn that you don't care about Kashmir....I hope you can see why it might concern Hindus who on one hand see progressives talking about secularism but on the other hand are advocating the establishment of yet another state based on Muslim identity in the subcontinent.
Stephen Cohen in his book, India: Emerging Power makes mention of a perceived proclivity by Indian's to lecture all and sundry on their greatness, moral and otherwise, and more importantly to have this be recognized by others. However the developmental gap of the Indian state vis-a-vis almost everyone else makes a mockery of this. This disconnect between Indian self-perception and the perception of other's leads to an accute sense of vulnerability and defensiveness. Naturally enough this very same sense of persecution by others leads to greater and greater delusions.
I recall a recent Times of India editorial by some so-called "strategic thinker" about a similar topic. Essentially he was galled by the fact that according to an international survey, only a low percentage of Chinese surveyed regarded India as a great power. While this is fundamentally true, it was also likewise myopic and self-deceiving in that it omits the survey results from other nations where India generally also ranked last among those surveyed on who was a great power.
Whats the most salient feature of indian culture that sets it apart from all others? The caste system. So what this poll confirms is that almost all indians, including untouchables, agree that the caste system is superior to the social systems of all other nations.
Like 84% of Indians polled apparently :). Alarmists with loose grips on reality or people well-aware of what their country needs to protect itself from is a matter of perception.
"much lower than i would have expected" should have been "much higher than expected".
Spoken like a true Macaulayite, well brain-washed :).
Other possibilities Indians may feel proud about (rightly or wrongly) when they talk about their own culture: non-violence, vegetarianism, strong family units, strong social cohesion and support, non-aggression against other countries, etc.
interestingly, yalene linked this article in the news tab.
Frankly a lot of us have seen some of this crap at a personal level. My reaction was to fuck working for the man and striking out. I am doing much better than some of the mid-level hacks i worked for earlier. May be it isnt a complex.
Arjun@90 , well put in a few words.
Very true. Cant think of another nation in which the ruling party (the hindu nationalist BJP) would be so idiotically delusional as to boast in its campaign platform: "India is Shining; the world is in awe of us". Talk about disconnect with reality.....
hehe. i liked this response from indian hotels' kumar:
"It would be very easy for us to make an open offer [for Orient-Express]," says Kumar. "Except for our own restraint."
and i think this is the best response: "Indeed, if history is any guide, Indian companies take rebuttal as a challenge."
Other possibilities Indians may feel proud about (rightly or wrongly) when they talk about their own culture: non-violence
The delusion is pathological!
Non-violence: massive communal slaughter during Partition, massacres of sikhs and muslims, daily murders and rapes of Dalits.....
Vegetarianism: most indians would eat meat every day if they could afford it....
Strong family units: widow shunning, bride burning, female infanticide, discrimination against females in the family unit......
Strong social cohesion and support: this must be an obscene joke. A near complete absence of a safety net marks India's culture. The numerous poor are left to starve or beg.....
Non-aggression against other countries: Bangladesh....
Pagla @70 . Very succintly put.
ahh, the american nationalists are at it again, quick to pass judgement on inferior "others"...
So here we have Amardeep - indians and bangladeshis are identical - so whats the big fuss if 10 million bangladeshis move to india - but "americans" and mexicans are quite distinct - its appropriate that immigration should be a big issue in the US. Never mind that americans and mexicans are both mostly christian and speak european languages. I would say that from an indian perspective there is almost no difference between these two cultures.
But who cares about that, right? This is a blog from an american perspective after all....
That's why so many Indians move to Mexico? Or somehow politics and economics isn't part of culture? Huh?
huge generalizations on all sides, endowing whole populations with hegalian (singular humanoid) minds and thoughts (i.e. indians "think" this and that, "feel proud" of this and that, "like" to lecture, etc.),no nuance or context (where are you chachaji and razib?); this thread is in danger of descending into inrrationality....
So here we have Amardeep - indians and bangladeshis are identical - so whats the big fuss if 10 million bangladeshis move to india - but "americans" and mexicans are quite distinct - its appropriate that immigration should be a big issue in the US. Never mind that americans and mexicans are both mostly christian and speak european languages. I would say that from an indian perspective there is almost no difference between these two cultures.
Where did I say that? Why are you putting words in my mouth?
In my earlier comments, I merely questioned the demonization of Bangladeshis by nationalistic Indians -- just as I would question the demonization of Mexicans by nationalistic Americans.
When I speculated on how the illegal immigrant situation in India might be different than it is in the U.S., I wasn't proposing that India should simply look the other way and allow unlimited immigration. In fact, it does make sense for India to control its borders.
Amardeep:
By making this comparison, you were trying to belittle the concern of Indians. We are talking about migration from a country that made a conscious decision to hav