Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
Lest my writings against casteism/ racism be construed to mean that I want a role for government in these matters, let me reaffirm, as I've done on many occasions, that this is not the case.
A government has ABSOLUTELY no role in our personal prejudices. So long as we don't directly harm anyone else, we can be as prejudiced as we like.
It is only within government jobs that such discrimination must be punished. In private life, you are free to be as casteist/racist as you like.
I OPPOSE such prejudices in every way – in my personal capacity – but so long as you don't directly harm anyone, you are free to be as bigoted as you like.
Such things are for social reform and public debate, not for regulation.
Here are extracts from a discussion on FB:
GS Dear Sir, Humbly I must put that I am really pained at this misinformed post of yours which mallignes Hinduism. Caste system is present not just in Hinduism but also Christians, Muslims, Sikhs etc. In fact in Kerala there are separate churches and burial grounds for Dalit Christians…Hindus welcomed a Sikh Prime Minister, a muslim president was more popular than the present Hindu president . UPPER CASTE Hindus will certainly WELCOME A DALIT PM, KR NARAYANAN WAS A LOW CASTE GUY Caste System still survives because of the reservation policies of the government and only free markets and economic progress can eliminate caste system over a period of time
Sanjeev Sabhlok "Caste system is present not just in Hinduism but also Christians, Muslims, Sikhs etc." Let's assume this were true. Does it mean that if a fool jumps in a well, you too should follow the fool? The point is this caste thing is the GREATEST blight on mankind today. It is intolerable that Hinduism has a caste system. It is discriminatory and offensive at all levels.
GS These days it is fashion to malign Hinduism, of course people donot have balls to malign other religions .I have myself read your 'measured posts' on Islam. Caste system is not a product of Hinduism alone and I am not sure how it came up in the first place…but some kind of factions and divisions are present in all societies. I strongly object to you calling hindus racists and against liberty. that is something that can be avoided
Even Krishna said that you donot become a kshtriya by birth and Brahmans fought in the war in Kurukshetra….now for your information…here is the message of Bhagwad Gita ( and tell me if you find a better message from any other religion) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V42dN_z0SCY&feature=related
Hinduism and Buddhism are in my knowledge the only religions that come closest to freedom and liberty….as against Islam, which one of my friend calls (and I agree) a collectivist political ideology
Sanjeev Sabhlok Dear GS re: "I strongly object to you calling hindus racists and against liberty. that is something that can be avoided".
I'm afraid the truth must be spoken. There are many Hindus who are AGAINST caste system and in favour of liberty. But those who want to exploit the caste system for their personal gain are opposed to changing it. They also oppress the "Dalits".
You keep saying (very incorrectly, I may add, but I'll not debate that), that "Caste system is not a product of Hinduism alone and I am not sure how it came up in the first place…but some kind of factions and divisions are present in all societies." The truth is that the caste system with its most obnoxious and hideous discrimination is ONLY found in Hinduism. Social inequality is found everywhere but has never been institutionalised to the extent found in Hinduism.
Please don't quote me the Gita or Vedas. I care for the truth that prevails TODAY. And the truth is very ugly. The sooner you admit it, and start a battle against this evil, you will help India's growth as a free nation. When 30 per cent of India's population is treated almost on par with slaves, India can't become free.
I have mentioned on this blog in the past that I find Indians to be among the most racist people in the world.
They look at the world first through the prism of skin colour. Then caste, then parentage (who was your father), then your geographical coordinates (the state you "come from", the town or village, and so on ….
Merit comes a distant tenth (or even fiftieth).
Such a deeply parochial and bigoted view of the world was perhaps appropriate for a static agricultural economy which needed to reproduce all necessary goods over hundreds of generations without a hiccup. Intensive stereotyping was perhaps useful, then.
But today it has become an extremely incorrect way of looking at the world. We can be very easily deceived if we assess the worth of people based on their skin colour.
I was reminded of this issue today because someone mentioned to me earlier in the day that he finds his Indian friends to be the most racist of all. They are "proud", for instance, of the fact that they are not Africans or Aborigines.
I'm willing to believe this, for I have heard many stories about how badly African students are treated in Delhi. These people are also derogatively called "Kallus" – a term I first heard from one of my fellow Indian PhD students in USA.
It is necessary that we ask ourselves the harsh question: ARE WE COLOUR-CONSCIOUS? If so, we need to work hard to eliminate this false consciousness.
I was editing the 'race' section of DOF a moment ago. I'm providing the current draft below for your comment (and, hopefully not necessary, englightenment).
EXTRACT
Race
Evolution is unrelenting. It doesn’t stop – even for a single generation. Millions of mutations occur in each generation, as the life force engages in active experiment to prepare itself for contingencies. The overwhelming majority of these mutations die. Millions of unsuitable human foetuses are aborted by nature every year; and thousands of defective ones that are born, quickly disappear. Only ‘good’ mutations, that give (or can give) the species a competitive edge, survive. This evolutionary process allowed our ancestors to roam the earth, adapting to all its environments with relative ease. Only the children best adapted to the environment cold survive. In this process a number of cosmetic differences emerged.
We all seem to have descended from dark skinned African forbears who were adapted to intense equatorial sunlight (to block out harmful wavelengths). As humans moved to the higher latitudes they found less sunlight, making it hard the dark-skinned to produce sufficient vitamin D. In the high latitudes, children with a mutation that helped them produce less melanin (lighter skin) had better odds of survival than their darker siblings. Over time, the so called ‘white race’ evolved, as a local environmental adaptation. Note that being a function of random chance, evolution doesn’t lead to exactly the same ‘solution’ or adaptation everywhere.[1]Similarly, children with mutation for longer hair survived better in higher latitudes than those with Afro- (or short, curly) hair because long hair keeps the head warmer. Once these mutations had emerged, other factors such as their ‘popularity’ (sexual adaptation, which is often linked with fitness), would have come into play.A range of ‘hidden’ adaptations which are not cosmetic but otherwise crucial to survival, also emerged. For instance, those Europeans who had a mutation which protected them from bubonic plague survived the Black Death. Those without the mutation, died. As a result of this, the progeny of the survivors (being most of the Europeans living today) are also resistant to the plague.While such adaptations have led to many (minor) differences, overall, these differences account for less than 0.01 per cent of the variation in the human genome. We are identical in 99.99 per cent of our genes. Scientists tell us that ‘[i]t is impossible to look at people’s genetic code and deduce whether they are Black, Caucasian or Asian.’[2] Variation amongst individuals within a so-called ‘race’ is generally far greater than variation across so-called ‘races’. Thus, ‘modern human genetics … deliver[s] the salutary message that human populations share most of their genetic variation and that there is no scientific support for the concept that human populations are discrete, non-overlapping entities.’[3] The myth of ‘race’ had long ago been exploded (such as in Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race writtenby anthropologist Ashley Montagu in 1942), most people continue to believe in this concept. Our use of such a term is a really bad habit. It falsely creates categories where there are none, and distorts the social and political discourse.We are one big family and ought to learn to treat each other as such. Indeed, scientists are now beginning to ask the opposite question: Why are we so similar? William James Burroughs believes that ‘[g]iven the length of time humans have existed, there should be a wide range of genetic variation, yet DNA from people throughout the world is surprisingly similar.’[4] There are competing theories about why this is the case. One plausible explanation is that human population declined to just around 5 000 to 10 000 around eighty years ago, before clawing back from near extinction.[5] If true, then all of us have potentially evolved from a single tribe, or a handful of closely associated tribes in North Africa just about 75 000 years ago, which explains our extremely low diversity as a species.Racism simply has no legs to stand on. But this mis-conception won’t go away so easily since most humans have very a poor understanding of biology. Only the spread of education will eliminate this myth about ‘race’.
[1] E.g. Johan Moan, of Institute of Physics at the University of Oslo, said in a research paper: "In England, from 5500-5200 years ago the food changed rapidly away from fish as an important food source. This led to a rapid development of … light skin." The Australian, 31 August 2009. [http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26004285-26040,00.html. Also, Nina Jablonski’s work.][2] Henderson, Mark, ‘Gene tests prove that we are all the same under the skin’, Times Online, October 27, 2004,[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article499598.ece][3] Lynn Jorde and Stephen Wooding of the University of Utah, cited in Henderson, Mark, ‘Gene tests prove that we are all the same under the skin’, Times Online, October 27, 2004. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article499598.ece][4] Burroughs, William James, Climate Change in Prehistory: The End of the Reign of Chaos, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, p.138. Google books.[5] Transcript of Cusack, Sinead, ‘Supervolcanoes’, BBC2 9:30pm Thursday 3rd February 2000.[http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/supervolcanoes_script.shtml]
This is an extract from a current draft revision of DOF.
Btw, I'm inclined, in order to explain the existence of the racist caste system in India, to give credence to the theory that the Vedas were brought to India from outside India (e.g. Michael Wood's BBC documentary on India). Linguistic theories support that. Either way, I'd welcome input from any reader who can explain to me why Indians DESPERATELY seek to get married to fair people. How is it possible that this behaviour is practiced widely in society and yet India insists that caste is not racist?
Since DOF is still a draft, I'll be happy to revise it based on appropriate information.
THE WHITE BARBARIANS
Racism is a relatively modern phenomenon and concept. As Hirschman notes, ‘race and racism are not ancient or tribal beliefs but have developed apace with modernity over the last 400 years and reached their apogee in the late nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century.’[1] Indeed, Robert Draper believes that ‘‘[t]he ancient world was devoid of racism’[2], not only were darker-skinned people like the Indians far more advanced than ancient Nordics or Caucasians, the extremely dark-skinned Nubian civilization was relatively advanced. (The Nubian civilisation preceded, or was coterminous, with the Egyptian civilisation. The modern world doesn’t know much about it yet because archaeologists have only recently started discovering its glories.[3])
That different people had had different skin colour was (very sensibly) attributed by the people to climatic variation. No implication was drawn about differences in ability merely on the grounds of skin colour. Instead, the Greeks (who are more tanned than ‘white’) were prejudiced against the northern whites who were thought to be ‘barbarians’, fit only to be used as slaves. The Greek historian Herodutus wrote: ‘Barbarians can neither think nor act rationally [and] … are incapable of living according to written laws’.[4] The Greeks and Romans benchmarked and competed with the darker cultures of the Middle East and Egypt, not with the primitive North Europeans. Julius Caeser said of the British tribals derogatively that they painted their bodies blue with woad[5]. Nevertheless, manumitted (released) slaves were allowed to mix with the rest of the community. Enslavement of white ‘barbarians’ in the Roman empire did not lead to racism as it came to be in the recent centuries. James Dee points out that ‘the most remarkable aspect of all [in Greek and Latin literature] … is the absence of the kind of obsessive and corrosive concern with ‘whiteness’ and ‘blackness’ that so disfigures our modern world.’[6]
Further, the Jews were tanned by the sun as well, not ‘white’. Jesus Christ, one of them, was tanned. None attributed weaker ability to Jews merely because of skin colour. Early Christianity readily elevated three North Africans to the rank of the Bishop of Rome (Pope): Victor (183-203), Gelasius (492-496), and Mechiades or Militiades (311-314). With dark skinned religious leaders, racism could not have been even remotely imagined.
RACIST INDIA
The earliest signs of racism in the world seem to have appeared in India where the caste (varna) system, based originally on individual merit, degenerated into a hereditary system based to a large extent on skin colour. When darker skinned Indian aborigines were absorbed into Hinduism, they were usually allocated a lower caste. Later, after Manusmriti prohibited inter-caste marriage, India became a firmly racist society. Today, skin colour and caste are strongly correlated in India, and because a lighter skin (generally) indicates a higher caste, with marriage to a person of higher caste being preferred, lighter skin shades are blatantly advertised as a special feature in the marriage market. The blatant racism found in marriage advertisements in India is not found anywhere else in the world. [See links to a few advertisements below.]
Consciousness about caste seems to have spread beyond the Hindus even into the Christians and Muslims of India. Not many Indians will marry (or allow their children to marry) pitch-black Africans from Somalia. In that sense, possibly 99 per cent of Indians are racist. India recently imported 1000 British ‘actresses’ for petty roles in Hindi movies – but none from dark Africa. Why? The fact that Indians place a disproportionate value on ‘white’ skin colour at least partly explains why Sonia Gandhi is readily acceptable. Had she been from black Somalia, her inclusion into India’s culture would have been much harder.
[1] Ibid. pp.385-86.
[2] Draper, Robert, ‘Black Pharaohs’, National Geographic, February 2008, p.41.
[3] See ‘Black Pharaohs’, National Geographic, February 2008.
[4] Cited in William C. Bradford, ‘Barbarians at The Gates: A Post-September 11th Proposal to Rationalize the Laws of War’ (September 6, 2003). bepress Legal Series. Working Paper 54, p.109. [http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/54]
[5] Dee, James H., ‘Black Odysseus, White Caesar: When Did ‘White People’ Become ‘White’?’The Classical Journal, Vol. 99, No. 2, (Dec., 2003 – Jan., 2004), p. 164.
[6] Dee, James H., ‘Black Odysseus, White Caesar: When Did ‘White People’ Become ‘White’?’The Classical Journal, Vol. 99, No. 2, (Dec., 2003 – Jan., 2004), p. 162.
INDIAN MARRIAGE ADVERTISEMENTS THAT DISCUSS SKIN COLOUR
Yes, India is a cesspool of racism, particularly if you happen to be from one of the "backwards" communities, or from the North East. Prejudice haunts you throughout life. I've written a lot about the caste system in India and why it is such a huge tragedy for everyone involved. So when writing this blog post, I'm fully aware that the kettle is black, not just the pot.
Regardless, the truth must be reported and discussed.
There is no point hiding from the fact that mankind lives today in a terribly primitive state. Racism and stereotypes predominate, thus precluding any possibility of genuinely harmonious relationships.
In India I felt unwelcome in many places because I did not perfectly "fit in". Overall, however, I was still fairly comfortable with who I was.
On the other hand, in Australia I'm forced every few days to realise that I'm not one of "them", but a "foreigner" even though I'm now an Australian citizen. Indians have been forced to flee India because of its misgovernance but they end up in the West as second-class citizens.
What a fate for the proud Indians – once members of the world's richest nation for 12 out of the last 20 centuries, and the second richest for the remaining 6 out of 8 centuries. What a climb-down for India. What an INTOLERABLE shame that India has been RUINED BY MR. J.L.NEHRU AND HIS PROGENY. I do hope that FTI succeeds in my lifetime and I can finally return home. This kind of a life – living as a "foreigner" in a foreign land – often becomes quite intolerable. No self-respecting Indian, I think, would EVER live in the West if India was well-governed. But Mr. Nehru's STUPID ideas and his even more stupid and corrupt progeny and godchildren, force us to stay away.
Surprisingly, it is the "leftists" and "socialists" of the West who are the least racist. I got a job in Australia within a couple of months upon arrival because of one such "lefty" (may God bless him). It was a very lucky break since it is extremely hard for an Indian – despite all the qualifications and experience he or she may bring – to get a job in Australia commensurate with his or her skills. It doesn't matter in Australia whether you have a doctorate from a top-tier Western university, you will still be ranked on par with a local high school graduate. This bias has been demonstrated through numerous studies.
They say that there is a glass ceiling for women in the West. Well, there's a much thicker glass ceiling for Indians in the West. It is virtually unheard of that an Indian will be considered for senior roles despite the so-called emphasis on merit in this country.
Earlier, I wrote about least two instances of racism that I've experienced from relatively junior staff . But senior executives are heavily bigoted, as well.
a) I was having drinks after work with one of my bosses as part of a team celebration, and this boss was soon going to Darwin for a holiday. The talk turned to the weather and she said it was going to be around 32 degrees but fortunately dry, given it is winter in Australia. She added that she hated the humidity of the rainy season in Darwin. But having said that, she could not resist adding that "you may, of course, like it". Undoubtedly she knows NOTHING about the human body. But what this shows, above all, is that when she looks at me she sees my SKIN COLOUR, not who I am (and, of course, FOOLISHLY imagines that skin colour has anything to do with homeostatis or the perception of humidity or heat).
b) I was talking to a boss and tried to discuss Australia's policy on India. What he said is significant: He said that India should be treated just like Papua New Guinea. To compare India with a tiny country like Papua New Guinea is of course absurd. But from the way he said this, it was clear that he looked down upon India – despite India having now having the world's third largest GDP in PPP terms. I had taken great pains to send this boss a copy of my book, and asked him whether he had read it. He had not.
If at all there is value to Australia in "importing" Indians like me, it is in how our knowledge and experience can be put to productive use for the benefit of Australia. But that's clearly irrelevant to (at least some of) these people who still live in the racist world of the past.
c) During the last Christmas office party (which goes on late into the night – I had long left that party), one of my bosses sent me a foul-mouthed text message on my mobile phone. I asked him about this and he said his phone must have been temporarily stolen. However, he has till today not bothered to investigate this matter and report to me what actually transpired. How did someone take his phone from his pocket without his knowledge? Is this a racist incident? I'm not sure it is, but it is definitely not something anyone should have to undergo from a boss anywhere.
There have been MANY such (or similar) instances during the past ten years. All these incidents re-confirm that there is a HUGE amount of racism in the West. True, this is soft racism, not hard racism. Just because these people see my skin colour, not me, doesn't mean they will kill me. But they do, through various minor incidents, make CLEAR that I am different.
That Australia runs a migration program looking for skilled workers is a bit of a joke. If every second minute Indians in Australia are made conscious of their skin colour, and that they are different, then they won't EVER feel they are Australians. Indeed, there is a good possibility that such behaviour will ultimately backfire on Australia.
Had India followed good policies and not become such a miserable Third World dog, barely achieving ONE TENTH of its potential, I would NEVER have left India. This is not the kind of life one wants to lead – in the midst of racists.
Please join FTI. Let's liberate India and allow all Indians to return to India by making India a truly great place to live.
I don't hold grudges or hard feelings, but let me assure Australia that many of the good feelings I had for it have slowly dissipated over the years. That's NOT good for Australia. Don't lose friends, I'd say. One day you may live to regret it.
Recent Comments