In India the police and the media were busy with British security guards who were accused of manhandling students and parents, and called them "bloody Indians" or “bloody Muslims” as they tried to enter a school. During the same period England cricketer of Indian origin Monty Panesar was called a "stupid Indian" by some spectators in Australia.
Both the news dominated the precious media space for more than a week and both were termed as racial abuses punishable under the law. Unfortunately the British bodyguards could feel the taste of Indian police while the spectators got away. But what I don’t understand is how these personal attacks on individuals have become a case of racism.
The Wikipedia describes racism as ‘a belief or doctrine where inherent biological differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, with a corollary that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others'
So when somebody calls us an Indian with a prefix or suffix, we feel that our race is inferior and so we have the right to feel offended. But does it apply if an Indian calls an American ‘bloody American’ or an Australian the same way. Will they also complain it as a racial abuse? Why a case of racial abuse not registered against an Indian spectator who discovered that the Pakistani cricketer Inzamam Ul Haq was a potato? Why such a complaint was not registered when Sunil Gavaskar was abused in Calcutta?
So it is legitimate that a lower race can abuse a lower race but not by a ‘superior race’. Who defined the inferiority and superiority of the race? By mere colour of skin? In that logic donkeys should be a superior race than horses.
Why did the Muslims felt offended when they were called by the name of their religion – of course with an objectionable prefix? But will this same feeling be there if those same Muslims abuse the bodyguards by saying ‘you bloody Christians’ or ‘gora’ or ‘angrez’. Will the same charges be applied in this scenario? A South Indian feels offended if you call him Madrasi while he is happy if you call him Tamilian. Both are same but the humans have certified and classified that the term Madrasi is objectionable while Tamilian is not.
So we have classified ourselves into various stages of prejudice, discrimination, segregation or subordination where unwritten rules are framed. To see that these unwritten rules are adhered to we have laws that deal with such discrimination. Take the case of Indian caste system, which is divided into social stratification. Basically it is a Hindu tradition and has nothing to do with religions that came to India at later stages. But today we have not only Hindus but Muslims, Sikhs and Christians too practice it. In order to protect the lower castes from the routine mud slinging by the upper castes and to retain their dignity, the government of India formed strict rules. If you speak any offensive terms against a lower caste, you are punishable under a non-bailable offence. That precisely means on a complaint of such a nature, you have to prove yourself innocent. No proof is required by the complainant to put you behind the bars. In other words, this law is more dangerous than POTA, a law that was designed for terrorists. It is a matter of debate and further musings that such laws are misused in urban centers while in rural areas such laws are hardly implemented.
The immediate name that pops up when we discuss racial discrimination is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a Christian American political activist and the most famous leader of the American civil rights movement. He fought for civil rights and equal rights and for which he was assassinated in 1968. Same is the case with our own Mahatma Gandhi and he also paid the same price. Both of them did not fight for superiorities. They fought for equalities.
Now consider this :
There are 3.22 Million Indians in America and every Indian in India dreams of reaching that dreamland legally or illegally, with or without racism, 38% of Doctors in America are Indians who service the superior white race leaving their inferior race back home to government health centers, money minting super specialty hospitals or the Almighty, 12% of Scientists in America are Indians who make that nation proud by achieving unachievable targets, 36% of NASA employees are Indians, 34% of MICROSOFT employees are Indians, 28% of IBM employees are Indians, 17% of INTEL employees are Indians and 13% of XEROX employees are Indians.
According to Mark Twain India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great grand mother of tradition. So more than half of the world is ours and still we feel inferior by merely being called an Indian.
Everybody wants to go to heaven but no one is willing to die.
Binu Alex
Both the news dominated the precious media space for more than a week and both were termed as racial abuses punishable under the law. Unfortunately the British bodyguards could feel the taste of Indian police while the spectators got away. But what I don’t understand is how these personal attacks on individuals have become a case of racism.
The Wikipedia describes racism as ‘a belief or doctrine where inherent biological differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, with a corollary that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others'
So when somebody calls us an Indian with a prefix or suffix, we feel that our race is inferior and so we have the right to feel offended. But does it apply if an Indian calls an American ‘bloody American’ or an Australian the same way. Will they also complain it as a racial abuse? Why a case of racial abuse not registered against an Indian spectator who discovered that the Pakistani cricketer Inzamam Ul Haq was a potato? Why such a complaint was not registered when Sunil Gavaskar was abused in Calcutta?
So it is legitimate that a lower race can abuse a lower race but not by a ‘superior race’. Who defined the inferiority and superiority of the race? By mere colour of skin? In that logic donkeys should be a superior race than horses.
Why did the Muslims felt offended when they were called by the name of their religion – of course with an objectionable prefix? But will this same feeling be there if those same Muslims abuse the bodyguards by saying ‘you bloody Christians’ or ‘gora’ or ‘angrez’. Will the same charges be applied in this scenario? A South Indian feels offended if you call him Madrasi while he is happy if you call him Tamilian. Both are same but the humans have certified and classified that the term Madrasi is objectionable while Tamilian is not.
So we have classified ourselves into various stages of prejudice, discrimination, segregation or subordination where unwritten rules are framed. To see that these unwritten rules are adhered to we have laws that deal with such discrimination. Take the case of Indian caste system, which is divided into social stratification. Basically it is a Hindu tradition and has nothing to do with religions that came to India at later stages. But today we have not only Hindus but Muslims, Sikhs and Christians too practice it. In order to protect the lower castes from the routine mud slinging by the upper castes and to retain their dignity, the government of India formed strict rules. If you speak any offensive terms against a lower caste, you are punishable under a non-bailable offence. That precisely means on a complaint of such a nature, you have to prove yourself innocent. No proof is required by the complainant to put you behind the bars. In other words, this law is more dangerous than POTA, a law that was designed for terrorists. It is a matter of debate and further musings that such laws are misused in urban centers while in rural areas such laws are hardly implemented.
The immediate name that pops up when we discuss racial discrimination is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a Christian American political activist and the most famous leader of the American civil rights movement. He fought for civil rights and equal rights and for which he was assassinated in 1968. Same is the case with our own Mahatma Gandhi and he also paid the same price. Both of them did not fight for superiorities. They fought for equalities.
Now consider this :
There are 3.22 Million Indians in America and every Indian in India dreams of reaching that dreamland legally or illegally, with or without racism, 38% of Doctors in America are Indians who service the superior white race leaving their inferior race back home to government health centers, money minting super specialty hospitals or the Almighty, 12% of Scientists in America are Indians who make that nation proud by achieving unachievable targets, 36% of NASA employees are Indians, 34% of MICROSOFT employees are Indians, 28% of IBM employees are Indians, 17% of INTEL employees are Indians and 13% of XEROX employees are Indians.
According to Mark Twain India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great grand mother of tradition. So more than half of the world is ours and still we feel inferior by merely being called an Indian.
Everybody wants to go to heaven but no one is willing to die.
Binu Alex
3 comments:
Do you know that South Indian could mean Tamil, Telugu, Kannada or Malayalam? Why should a Malayalee or Kannadiga be branded 'Madrasi'? Realize that there are four different states with different languages. Using 'Madrasi' collectively for these poeple as if they don't matter is absurd!
Absolutely. But ask an illiterate person how he would call a guy from Andhra and he would be clueless. He also doesnt have an idea of terms like Tamilian, Kannadiga, Malayalee etc. So to avoid all these confusion, the common word evolved was MADRASI, which gradually got offensive.
One can forgive illiterates but I have seen scores of educated people using MADRASI. MADRASI is always used in a derogatory sense or with contempt to refer to the people south of the Vindhyas. It was always offensive (it didn't gradually get offensive.)
Post a Comment