America does a good job assimilating immigrants


If you are lucky, you are not aware that Priyanka Chopra got “called out” by a young Pakistani woman for “encouraging nuclear war against Pakistan.”

On the face of it seems very unlikely that Chopra was doing anything more than making a vanilla patriotic statement during a very tense time (I assume literally no one except for insane people would have wanted nuclear war in any case or even a conventional war!).

Though the initial stories referred to a “Pakistani woman”, you can tell by the accent that she was raised in the USA. In fact, she was naturalized as an American citizen at a very young age (she posted the certificate on her Facebook page). To be honest, even when I heard her referred to as Pakistani (she refers to herself as such), I was a bit skeptical and suspected perhaps she was actually American because this sort of self-righteous grandstanding is what America teaches the current generation.

Ayesha Malik is self-centered, ignorant, and milking an issue of genuine geopolitical concern to elevate her own individual profile as a beauty vlogger. Very American.

3+

110 Replies to “America does a good job assimilating immigrants”

    1. Trump like
      WTH, seriously? Are you that blind to the foibles of your own team and political class?

      1+
      1. X’s foibles -real or imagined- does not cancel out Y’s foibles.
        The US is individualistic – so you exploit any opportunity for self-advancement in the way defined by yourself. Trump wanted to be President and wants to stay for one more term. So, anything goes , and anybody, anything is game. This lady Ayesha Malik is no different.

        1+
  1. Lmfao diaspora Pakistanis use progressive model of human rights, self determination, and a whole host of western liberal principles, when criticizing Israel for Palestine and India for Kashmir, but then heavily defend illiberal elements in Islam and Islamic society, proceeding to call anyone an Islamaphobe for pointing out that hypocrisy. Anyway, Pakistan has integrated POK and sent in a bunch of migrants. India will try the same and give statehood once Muslims of the valley are in minority. The whole reason for not splitting it from Jammu was to ensure this happened more easily.

    Back to the selfish diaspora netizens: Interestingly, these tactics are pushing more Indian Americans to the right the same way it pushed Jewish Americans with the Iran Deal affair.

    8+
    1. So you admit the plan is to make Kashmiri Muslims a minority in their own land? That type of demographic engineering is extremely immoral in the 21st century.

      By the way, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are not technically part of Pakistan precisely because they are part of the disputed territory.

      1+
      1. Yes that is the plan. The best thing to happen would be plebiscite. That will never happen. Pakistan, India, and China will not allow a truly independent Kashmir. More lives will be lost with this limbo situation. In the long term this solution will lead to the fewest lost lives and economic development. These Kashmiris and definitely there descendants will be better off with this scenario than the alternative of continued former status quo of abject failure. Anyway, if Valley Kashmiris alone return the balance will be close to 50 50. Anyway demographic shift is the norm in 21st century. Free movement of peoples and goods is necessary to ensure development. Regardless, in the long term average Kashmiris and definitely their descendents will be better off.

        2+
        1. That is overly pessimistic. There is no plan by the Indian gov or anybody to make pop transfers. long as Pakistan does not interfere, Kashmir valley will be left alone and in a few years, it will revert to a State.

          3+
        2. Making the natives of the land a minority is not “free movement of people”. It is akin to settler-colonialism. India settling non-Kashmiri Hindus in Kashmir would be like Zionists settling the West Bank. Part of the opposition to removing Article 370 was this fear of demographic change. By the way, states like himachal have restrictions on non-locals buying land and no one seems worried about that the way they are about Kashmir. Is it only because Kashmir has a Muslim majority?

          0
          1. no state should have restrictions. yes motivations are not the best but I think outcome wise this will be best

            0
      2. “By the way, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are not technically part of Pakistan precisely”

        This is not wholly accurate, what you have Northern areas were controlled by Pakistan under the Karachi agreement. Also part of Northern areas have been ceded to China by Pakistan

        0
        1. According to the constitution of Pakistan, Pakistan is defined as the four provinces (Punjab, sindh, kpk, balochistan). Azad Kashmir has its own president and prime minister. G-B has its own legislature. Neither of these areas have votes in the national assembly. This is despite the fact that the people of these areas fought to be Pakistani. The logic is that formally annexing these territories into Pakistan would prejudge the resolution of the Kashmir dispute.
          We settled our border with China by giving them the trans-karakorom tract with the understanding that this would be renegotiated with whoever eventually controls the territory once the conflict is resolved.

          0
          1. \formally annexing these territories into Pakistan would prejudge the resolution of the Kashmir dispute.\
            Gifting areas of old J&K to China has already nullified Pakistani claims or good faith in the matter.

            5+
          2. “We settled our border with China by giving them the trans-karakorom tract with the understanding that this would be renegotiated with whoever eventually controls the territory once the conflict is resolved.”

            So can we merge Jammu and Kashmir with Indian Punjab, and then renegotiate once the conflict is resolved?

            On Gilgit Baltistan

            https://www.dawn.com/news/1188410

            “Pakistan’s Citizenship Act extends to GB and after the abolition of the State Subject Rule in 1974, Pakistanis can buy land there. There is no bar on movement to or from the area or on conducting business there, which makes it a part of Pakistan for all practical purposes.”

            5+
          3. \On Gilgit Baltistan\

            Gilgit which was part of J&K Kingdom of Hari Singh should have come to India as per the Accession Instrument. This is where the British played their infamous double game.

            A British officer appointed under the Maharaja was instrumental in ousting the Dogra governor stationed at Gilgit. Titled Operation “Datta Khel,” the strategy to oust the governor, pacify Dogra troops stationed near Gilgit, and hand over Gilgit to Pakistan was planned well in advance by Lieutenant Colonel Roger Bacon, the outgoing political agent at that time. Major William Brown, the commandant of Gilgit Scout.

            This William Brown knew he was committing a treason by arresting the Maharja’s governor. He also crushed an incipient G-B Nationalism by arresting Mirza Hassan Khan. But Brown did not do these off his own bat ; he was directed by the British officers stationed in Pakistan

            https://hisamullahbeg.blogspot.com/2010/12/gilgit-rebellion-1947-by-william-brown.html

            https://thediplomat.com/2017/03/who-is-responsible-for-the-gilgit-baltistan-dispute/

            0
      3. “That type of demographic engineering is extremely immoral in the 21st century.”

        Then why do liberals celebrate White people becoming a minority in the US?

        0
        1. Demographic change in the US is not because of settler-colonialism. People becoming immigrants through a lawful process is different from a country moving its own nationals onto disputed territory. Deciding to make Kashmir Hindu-majority by moving non-Kashmiri Hindus there is completely immoral and akin to ethnic cleansing.

          1+
          1. Demographic change in the US is not because of settler-colonialism.

            can you chill with the fucking buzzwords? aren’t muslims in the indian subcontinent ‘settler-colonialists’? they defined india as the dar-ul-islam when they were a minority smaller than apartheid whites because they ran the place.

            (i agree with your point that the analogy is probably bad, though the rhetoric is shockingly similar when you are talking about demographic change through culture)

            1+
          2. No, Indian Muslims are not settler-colonialists. Settler-colonialism means something very specific. Israel moving Zionists onto Occupied Palestinian Territory is a prime example of the phenomenon.

            The British Raj in India is an example of colonialism because India’s resources were taken back to England. The Mughals came to India in search of a kingdom after losing their own (which was quite normal in pre-modern times). Their descendants rapidly Indianized though. India’s resources were not used for the benefit of Samarkand. Conflating the Mughals with British colonialism is bad argumentation from the Hindu Right (1000 years of Occupation and all that).

            1+
    2. Anyway, Pakistan has integrated POK and sent in a bunch of migrants.

      True, but I’m not aware of any protests against this in PoK, nor any clamor for separation from Pakistan. If the locals are fine with that, why should we care? Also, a huge bunch of them (Mirpuris) have decamped to England, so I imagine there’s a lot of empty land there for the taking.

      India will try the same and give statehood once Muslims of the valley are in minority.

      That’s pretty much an impossibility, at least if we want to stick to any notion of law and morality. The Kashmir valley is fairly well-populated, denser than Jammu in fact. “Paradise” would literally become a s*******e if enough people move there to make Kashmiri Muslims a minority.

      I think Modi and Co. are just winging it at this point. They have the Indian public eating out their hand at this time though, plus the public completely distrusts any media other than WhatsApp, so there’s not going to be a meaningful challenge to their agenda.

      2+
  2. On the face of it seems very unlikely that Chopra was doing anything more than making a vanilla patriotic statement

    Pretty much. She’s an Army brat, so tweeting in support of the Indian army is like any of us tweeting in support of a sports team.

    4+
  3. In the mid 70s Sikkim became a state of India from being a semi-independent kingdom ; it was how Kashmir was in 47. Sikkim was incorporated into India due to the local demand. In the last 40 years, Sikkim remains Sikkimese , and hardly any non-Sikkimese there apart rfom just the usual movement of people due to tourism or migrant labour, traders on temporary visits, etc. Kashmir valley will be like that.
    Sikkim was outside GoI Jurisdiction compared to J&K which is within Indian jurisdiction from 1947.

    No point in hanging onto Colonial and maharajah set of laws . As long as Kashmiris consider themselves part of democratic India , there life will only get better

    3+
  4. From a quick first look I thought your software erred and passed off Zach’s post as Razib’s.

    3+
      1. That is sad to hear. I didn’t notice it since I come to brown pundits only once in some number of days and comment on only some of the posts.

        2+
      2. Judging from the recent posts, I suspect it will take a lot more practice to “step into the breach.”

        Hoju Bhai, I’m quite tied up these days but I lurk from time to time. I’m an idiosyncratic twitterer but have had to lock my account after Hindutva took exception to my recent views on the Valley but I tend to allow vetted peeps to follow me.

        6+
        1. Bro if Twitter folks are taking exception on you r views, u can always post here. Think of this blog as your own 😛

          1+
  5. I would say both Pri Chops and Malik are made of same stuff. Pri Chops has previously done what Malik has done, and this time around she was just caught flat footed playing both sides.Good that she would learn, how quickly her new “woke” ABCD ( and Indian based wannabe Americans) fans turn on her.

    The new set of actors in Bollywood have consciously gone a bit slow on the “woke” side and have moved to the “nationalistic” side, knowing that the fans the second side bring are bit more loyal than the first one.

    0
  6. Not sure you can blame this on America, one-eyed self-righteousness and immense outrage over perceived humiliations is a very Pakistani trait. Witness Imran Khan’s denunciation of Modi as a Nazi for changing a constitutional status while he goes, “Oh China, are our friends!” when quizzed about Xinjiang.

    Not sure what is going through the BJP’s head, this has the potential to be a immense clusterf**k. Did they think no one has given China heat for Xinjiang and Pakistan’s reputation is far enough in the toilet that this would be easy? It could potentially make demonetisation look like the Moon landing.

    2+
    1. I think the view is it cant get worse. With more police and bureaucracy control they feel they will have more “control” on Kashmir. Plus now money only to bona-fide Indian “agents” and not soft separatist and all.

      With or without 370 non of the state actors(USA, China, Pakistan, UN) view towards India changes significantly. They would keep doing the same thing which they have been dong in Kashmir for last 70 years

      0
  7. Malik… (for researchers)

    In ‘India proprie dicita’ was Por’s kingdom – Pori regis triputaris, where lived Malići – Maliki, who, at the time of Alexander lived on the southern side of the Cechin hill. Alexander almost got killed there. On the west from them lived Serbian tribes Oćedračići (or Dračići), Drakulići (Ptolomei calls them Casperaei – very strong and brave tribe), further on the west lived Muzići, very big tribe with the city Niš (btw, the same name as the second largest city in Serbia where first Aryans started their expedition, also, the hometown of the Emperor Constantine where he declared the Christianity as the official religion of Roman Empire) on the river Koven (Coven)…etc…

    In the India maritima – in the so-called Pandinis regis – the tribes were: Larići, Desanovići, Zorjani, Padići and Kalingi – Sorae, Calingae et Padaet, – Barigazska bays, rivers: Namada, Mesolje and Tinda. Cities: Belocura, Barrogaza, Mužaris, Baraca and District – Belocura. Barrogaza. Mzsiris, Barace et Cottiara – on the eastern hill: Komaria, Modura, Nisava, and Maljara….

    (Note: ć – pronunciation as in word: Ciao; č – as in word: CHarles; š = sh)

    1+
  8. Their descendants rapidly Indianized though. India’s resources were not used for the benefit of Samarkand.

    with all due respect kabir (well, not really)

    1) they kept patronizing persians, importing persians to staff their civil service (not just the mughals, see the history of ayetollah khomenei’s family in india), and turks and afghans to man their armies. these are literally foreign mercenary and bureaucratic classes to administer a muslim empire atop a hindu populace.

    2) they wasted a shit tone of resources to attempt to reconquer their homeland. anyone who reads the histories is aware of it (you probably aren’t cuz i don’t get a sense you do such reading). these were total quagmires, and the uzbek’s kept whipping them (not the modern ethnicity, but the uzbek tribe).

    the best analogy with what the muslims did in india is probably spanish colonialism or the mamuluke rule in egypt: foreign muslim elements were instrumental in enforcing the rule of the indo-islamic elite.

    through every sentence of historical commentary you reflect and blast out the total lack of depth and detailed knowledge that drips out of your being. you are a fool, but too foolish to know that you live in the dark cave. a creature of contentless buzzwords. like a stopped clock you are periodically right, but you’re as ignorant and vapid as the hindutva idiotlogues on this weblog.

    read some books. think more deeply beyond deploying some buzzwords you learned in undergrad courses, and i’ll engage you seriously.

    until then, enjoy your food fights with the idiotlogues. you are just the other side of the coin from them.

    5+
      1. Razib, the Mughal Mongols (Seljik Turkik) saw Afghanistan and Uzbekistan as their heartland.

        Babur was an Uzbek, the great great great grandson of Timur and claimed lineage from Genghis Khan. Babur conquered India in an effort to eventually conquer his homeland of Uzbekistan.

        At that time Afghanistan was seen as a core part of India. Indians did not think Afghanistan was part of Iran (although Herat use to swing back and forth.)

        The Moghuls were very conscious of being Mongols and the true successors of Timur. How would they do this if they did not eventually rule Samarkhand, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan? Another reason the Mongols kept much of their military in Afghanistan.

        The great Genghis did big business along global trading routes. The Mongol Moghuls dreamed of doing this from Turin, Tibet and Xinjiang.

        And if not for the civil war that killed Dara Shikoh . . . they could have.

        Dara Shikoh was a mystic meditator (samaadhi satori) extraordinaire who integrated eastern philosophy into science, math, Islam, art, technology and neuroscience. If he had won, he would have been popular and legitimate among the bulk of his non muslim people and among Sufis. Likely no revolts to distract from the conquest of Turin, Tibet and Xinjiang. Freedom of art and thought, R&D, product development, process innovation and per capita real GDP would have soared. And the main Mongol Moghul army would have been deployed to Afghanistan. Dara would likely have gathered all his more conservative and Islamist muslim subjects and sent them to conquer central Asia. {I don’t think he would have been interested in Persia . . . beyond Herat.}

        This would have helped the Mongols export their technologically advanced products to the rest of the world. Dara also likely would have focused on trade via shipping routes.

        3+
          1. Razib, typo above. Meant to write:

            “Kabir the Mughal Mongols (Seljik Turkik) saw Afghanistan and Uzbekistan as their heartland . . . ”

            Obviously was not meant at you. Aimed at others.

            1+
        1. “Dara Shikoh was a mystic meditator (samaadhi satori) extraordinaire who integrated eastern philosophy into science, math, Islam, art, technology and neuroscience. If he had won, he would have been popular and legitimate among the bulk of his non muslim people and among Sufis.”

          AnAn, how do you know that Dara’s son wouldn’t have turned out a rabid islamic fanatic who would have made a short work of all of Dara’s sufi samadhi nonsense. 🙂

          Aurangzeb’s islamic fundamentalism was partly a reaction to Shah Jahan’s licentious ways.

          1+
        2. Also, there is a reason why Dara lost and Aurangzeb won. Aurangzeb was a much more stronger personality than Dara. In fact Dara was a loser. He was soft-hearted (a criminal trait in the cutthroat medieval world!), and indecisive. He lost out to Aurangzeb when he had the full backing of the reigning emperor, and the entire wealth and manpower of the empire was at his disposal. If Dara had won, the mughal empire would have folded up 25 years earlier.

          1+
          1. Scorpian Eater . . .

            I hesitate to say more about what I think. Let us just say that you might really like some of the Sufi masters (in Ajmer, Nizammuddin Aulia Darba, Shirdi etc.) if you got to know them. But they won’t talk as openly in public or on Brown Pundits Podcast.

            Is there an interest in a Brown Cast podcast on Dara Shikoh? Maybe with our very own Jahanara leading it?

            Dara Shikoh was deep in meditation and samaadhi. He alternated between Idraak and Wuruud. He loved everyone and trusted many. Including Aurangzeb.

            Dara could have won. The Sikh/Nanak/Kabir Dharmic sampradayas would have fought for him. So would the Marathas and many others. Maybe even the Akhara themselves (even the Tibetan Buddhists are part of the Akhara). Aurangzeb was far, far worse than anyone could have expected.

            Do not under estimate the large numbers of Sufis in India circa 1659 AD.

            0
    1. Any time someone starts a sentence with “with all due respect” it’s pretty clear that what comes afterwards is going to be disrespectful.

      The main point is that colonialism is a modern phenomenon and means something very specific. In the pre-modern era, it was quite normal for people to conquer new places in search of wealth. The Mughals intermarried with native dynasties and effectively became “Indian”. They didn’t attempt to replace the native population, which is what “settler-colonialism” is (if they did, then they were really bad at it given that India is still more than 80% Hindu). In any case, their descendants are now native to India. They are neither immigrants nor colonists.

      Calling the people who comment on your blog “foolish” and “idiots” seems counterproductive. Resorting to personal insults is also not really a sign of maturity (with all due respect).

      0
      1. “They didn’t attempt to replace the native population, which is what “settler-colonialism” is (if they did, then they were really bad at it given that India is still more than 80% Hindu)”

        If you think that the muslims rule India roughly from 1000s-1700s (apart from Sindh) , and that too for the most part North India and Bengal (roughly 70 of the land area) , i would say 40 percent muslim population in the that geographical spread as a whole is good ROI. So i wouldn’t say they were bad.

        On whether Mughals are Indian or not , wouldn’t it finally rest on Indians to decide IF they consider Mughal Indians or not?

        2+
        1. The Mughals after jahangir were part Rajput. They had Indian blood. If the Hindu right doesn’t want to consider them Indian simply because they were a Muslim dynasty, that is a gross rewriting of history.

          3+
          1. We just need to look at present day Pakistan (not to mention Kashmir) to see how Indian the people who self-identify with the Mughals consider themselves to be. It seems silly to keep embracing them as ‘Indian’ when they’d prefer otherwise.

            Identity is not a matter of blood or genes.

            8+
          2. “Identity is not just a matter of blood or genes.”
            Fine, but blood and genes do matter. Someone belongs equally to their mother’s family as to their father’s. No matter how much the Hindu right wants to deny it, they can’t wish away the fact that the mughals were part rajput. Unless of course only Hindus count as true Indians. Its OK if you believe that but then just come out and say it. Otherwise denying history is just ridiculous.

            3+
  9. Dara Shikoh and Jahanara Begum are loved by the RSS and Hinduttva crowd. They are considered “Indian,” “Hindustani”, “Hindu”, “Bharatiya”, “Swadeshi”, “culturally eastern,” “plural”, “embodying multiplicity”, embodiments of conciousness.

    Aurangzeb is not loved. Aurangzeb is not considered “Indian,” “Hindustani”, “Hindu”, “Bharatiya”, “Swadeshi”, “culturally eastern”, “plural”. Aurangzeb is considered to be a culturally foreign occupier.

    Occupation has almost nothing to do with DNA haploid admixture patterns. Occupation has to do with culture. Some might say consciousness or values.

    Is this hard to understand?

    3+
  10. Identity comes from the paternal lineage even of today’s subcontinent. @Kabir, can you please enlighten us how many Mughal princess got married to the Hindu Rajputs, Please stop making these gullible arguments, at least audience of this blog is not that stupid.

    4+
    1. “Identity comes from the paternal lineage”– Wow, what an archaic and patriarchal attitude. Nice to see such things surviving in the 21st century.

      The Hindu Right cannot wash away the fact that the Mughals were genetically part Indian much as they may wish to. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

      2+
      1. You continue to the ignore the fact that the oh-so-Indian Mughals married Rajput women but would not let their daughters marry Rajput men – including converted ones. That privilege was restricted to men of a foreign ancestry. You may want to look into how many years passed before this preference waned.

        1+
        1. Why does this matter? How many Brahmin and Rajput dynasties gave their daughters in marriage to groups they thought were below them? Hardly any.

          Also, Brahmin/Rajput converts who converted to Islam and ruled independent Sultanates before the Mughal era did marry Turco-Persian princesses.

          2+
          1. The analogy fails because Brahmins were not selectively offering their daughters to foreigners. You are mixing elite privilege with foreigner privilege. Personally I don’t care either way but the topic in question – since you seem confused – is whether Mughals considered themselves Indian.

            0
          2. Arjun,

            “Brahmins were not selectively offering their daughters to foreigners”

            You mean aside from the Turco-Persians they selectively offered their daughters to? Or the British when they were in power?

            1+
  11. My Desi side is Hindu, but that Desi side is Bengali, so I have a naturally contrarian streak. Moguls where Indian. After the first 1 or 2 generations. This is just a fact. Just like the fact that modern Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are also Desi. To the point where Islam is not contrary to being Desi, but is one of the two main options (and Sri Lanka and Nepal Buddhism sorry!). India was originally Hindu, and then sramana (which I just consider as a different sect of Hindu, even though I probably prefer the Buddhist sect to the original Hindu), but Islam got established one thousand years ago in S Asia. A lot (dare I say half?) or what it means to be South Asian is related to Muslim stuff. The f’n Taj Mahal, fun medieval story books, all the culture that came with the Moghuls. The sad thing is that Pakistan seems like it’s rejecting its S Asian background for some bullshit Arab background which is just a fiction.

    1+
    1. “A lot (dare I say half?) or what it means to be South Asian is related to Muslim stuff. The f’n Taj Mahal, fun medieval story books, all the culture that came with the Moghuls. The sad thing is that Pakistan seems like it’s rejecting its S Asian background for some bullshit Arab background which is just a fiction.”

      In what way is this distinguishable from British influence on India?

      A lot (dare I say half?) of what it means to be South Asian is related to British stuff. Lutyens Delhi, Victoria Memorial, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, Fort St. George, Indian Railways, and all the culture that came with the British (including attire, tea, cricket). The sad thing is that India seems to be rejecting its S Asian [=British] background (see name changes like Madras to Chennai).

      1+
      1. This rejection is minimal. This minimal rejection is a fig leaf for covering far more westernization. Cricket is getting only more popular across South Asia. Parliamentary system is still the preferred system. In the last 70 years bigger percentage of the population has opted for western attire, both men and women. Even toilets have changed from Indian toilets in almost all urban dwellings.

        0
        1. Yeah, i think the rejection is only skin deep. Notwithstanding our Hindu nativists (and their ethnic compatriots 😛 ) , there sons and daughters are studying in Ivy League schools and increasingly bringing the western Ethos into public administration and work. Its not simple cut and dry , but there is a “western” effect.

          Having been fooled for years where the elites took English while simultaneous foisting their nativtist policy on the gullible people, the underclass and the lower middle class has wizened up and sacrificing their bread to have their progeny rise up in the “English” ladder.

          0
        2. “This rejection is minimal. This minimal rejection is a fig leaf for covering far more westernization. Cricket is getting only more popular across South Asia. Parliamentary system is still the preferred system. In the last 70 years bigger percentage of the population has opted for western attire, both men and women. Even toilets have changed from Indian toilets in almost all urban dwellings.”

          The Islamic cultural rejection is just as superficial.

          The Muslim influence across India, and especially northern India, is impossible to erase. The influences in terms of cuisine, attire, aesthetics, language, identity, and religion are too deep to untangle.

          1+
    2. If Pakistan is rejecting the non-Muslim past (which is stupid), India is also rejecting Indo-Islamic culture (what we used to call “Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb”). Hindutva India is becoming a mirror image of Islamic Pakistan. Indians are rapidly losing the high moral ground that they had while attempting to uphold Nehruvian secularism.

      2+
      1. /India is also rejecting Indo-Islamic culture/
        India rarely rejects anything hook line and sinker. Indians are conservative. It will be reframed as something else under a different name.

        0
      2. “If Pakistan is rejecting the non-Muslim past (which is stupid), India is also rejecting Indo-Islamic culture (what we used to call “Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb”). Hindutva India is becoming a mirror image of Islamic Pakistan. Indians are rapidly losing the high moral ground that they had while attempting to uphold Nehruvian secularism.”

        – Outside of select instances in the Mughal courts of one or more of the Mughal emperors, how common was this Ganga Jamuni tehzeeb on the ground? The reality on the ground suggests that Hindus and Muslims saw each other as different and rarely interacted. When there was interaction, the historical record suggests ongoing tensions between the communities that frequently led to violence. When forced to interact with each other even more due to urbanization, the interactions reliably led to a high frequency of hostilities. Is the Ganga Jamuni tehzeeb an aspiration or is it trying to go back to a reality that likely never existed?

        – Perhaps Jinnah was right. Nehru and Gandhi may have been idealistic, while Jinnah was realistic.

        – What use is the moral high ground? What has the moral high ground really done for Hindus? A quarter of the subcontinent was given to Muslims. Both of those countries are avowedly Muslim, while India will have the largest Muslim community in the world by 2050. Pakistan has virtually no non-Muslims after partition. Bangladesh’s Hindu population has rapidly declined from ~30% post-partition to less than 10% today. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have historically had astronomical birth rates, and so has the Muslim community within India. Hindu religious sites are routinely destroyed in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Name changes were done quickly and without much pushback. The moral high ground has given us an India where Hindus were ethnically cleansed from their homeland in Kashmir. Think about that. Hindus ethnically cleansed in India. Of course it happens in Kashmir, which took inspiration from Pakistan and Bangladesh on how to treat non-Muslims when you are in the majority.

        Occupying the high ground is nice but so is living.

        4+
        1. Both of those countries are avowedly Muslim,

          this is stupid to combine bangladesh and pakistan. bangladesh has a schizo attitude toward religion. it’s a peoples’ republic, a nod to left-nationalist origins in the 70s. the official status of islam is way milder than in pakistan and depends more on who is in power (BNP vs. AL).

          Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have historically had astronomical birth rates, and so has the Muslim community within India.

          what is the baseline against india? bangladesh muslims have lower fertility than hindus in bihar.

          one thing that is a “BP-problem” is that people are vague with facts and enjoy deploying rhetoric.

          don’t follow your comments, but you are stupider than i thought. you can make the argument without being stupid (i think there’s a lot to your general point).

          4+
          1. “this is stupid to combine bangladesh and pakistan. bangladesh has a schizo attitude toward religion. it’s a peoples’ republic, a nod to left-nationalist origins in the 70s. the official status of islam is way milder than in pakistan and depends more on who is in power (BNP vs. AL).”

            I admit it’s probably unfair to club them together, but at the same time Bangladesh has a constitution that declares Islam as the state religion and its Hindu population has dwindled as a percentage. Do you think Bangladesh is more comparable to India, which also started off secular, but is becoming increasingly religious?

            “what is the baseline against india? bangladesh muslims have lower fertility than hindus in bihar.

            one thing that is a “BP-problem” is that people are vague with facts and enjoy deploying rhetoric.”

            Fair point. I took a cursory look at some of the data:

            Based on the 1951 census, Pakistan had 34 million people and Bangladesh had 42 million people. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh combined had a total population of 437 million.

            Pakistan comprised 7.8% of the undivided subcontinental population, and Bangladesh comprised 9.61% of the undivided subcontinental population. India comprised 82.6% of the population.

            As of around 2011 (last Indian census), India had about 1.2 billion people, Pakistan had about 200 million people, and Bangladesh had about 150 million people. The undivided population total is 1.55 billion.

            Pakistan comprises 12.9% of the undivided subcontinental population (+5.1), Bangladesh comprises 9.7% (negligible difference), and India comprises 77.4% (-5.2).

            In 1951, about 9.8% of Indians were Muslim; as of 2011 it is north of 14.2% (+4.4). In Pakistan, the percentage of Hindus has remained negligible. In Bangladesh, the percentage of Hindus declined from 22% to less than 10% (-12).

            “don’t follow your comments, but you are stupider than i thought. you can make the argument without being stupid (i think there’s a lot to your general point).”

            Sorry my lord, I am admittedly stupid. My excuse is that I sometimes use this place to put ideas I’ve heard elsewhere to the test.

            2+
          2. Razib, it is you who is indulging in intellectual hypocrisy. Take this for e.g.

            “it’s a peoples’ republic, a nod to left-nationalist origins in the 70s. the official status of islam is way milder than in pakistan ”

            There is a reason Bangladesh exists as a separate country, and the reason is that it is populated by Muslim people who did not want to live with Hindus.

            “what is the baseline against india? bangladesh muslims have lower fertility than hindus in bihar.”

            Dishonest argument. Again, there is a reason 160 million Bangladeshis live jam-packed on a tiny patch on earth’s surface. And the reason is that for almost half a century after 1947, its TFR remained above 4 (source- wikipedia). Its only now that they have taken a breather and learnt that there are more things to do than procreate.

            3+
          3. Muslims don’t mind living with Hindus. Its living under Hindus that’s the problem. We (I’m speaking as a civilizational Muslim here) like to eat beef, and have little interest in being lynched by gangs of cow fetishists for it.

            I think the same is true visa-vis Hindus. I would not advise any Hindu to live in a Muslim country if a Hindu-majority nation was also an option. You’ll be treated like shit. Unfortunate, but its the truth.

            Also, Hindus have a higher fertility rate than Muslims in Pakistan.

            2+
          4. Please, can we speak about Bangladesh with some granular detail and deeper understanding?

            Bangladesh does not have a high fertility rate. Neither does India. Pakistan “DOES”!

            Bangladesh and India are both very different from Pakistan in many ways.

            There is a reason that Modi, Hinduttva, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee {who is politically opposed to Modi and Hinduttva} have a crush on Bangladeshi PM Sheikh Hasina.

            Sheikh Hasina is genuinely opposed to Islamism in Bengali and English. I love me some Sheikh Hasina!

            Note that in India’s national elections West Bengal muslims voted in large numbers for the BJP or allies of the BJP. Many of these Muslims moved to India from Bangladesh.

            When taking the train (public transport) around West Bengal many muslims can be seen. I “SUSPECT” but don’t know for sure that many of them are Sufi tilted from the way they dress and behave.

            +++++++++++++++++++++++

            I hope to write about Bangladesh soon. I think that Bangladesh has been more interested in good relations and integration into India than visa versa. India and Bangladesh urgently need free trade, free investment, free cross border product development, and free movement of business people, workers, students, tourists, religious pilgrims.

            India needs to assume responsibility for the socio economic development of Bangladesh to the degree Bangladeshis welcome it. The reason this is not happening is mostly about India and not about Bangladesh.

            This would also further socio-economically boost West Bengal–which is currently in the midst of an economic miracle.

            3+
          5. \Muslims don’t mind living with Hindus. Its living under Hindus that’s the problem.\
            Muslims living ‘under’ the Hindus was never a serious proposition at any time among political elites, now or pre 1947.
            Hindu Mahasabha , the political party of the Hindus wanted a constitution which treats all equally , much like 1950 Indian constitution , and it did not ask for special laws to protect Hindus or draw their inspiration from any Hindu lawbooks. Congres, Leftists, Hindu Mahasabha were all for a non sectarian constitution.

            2+
  12. And this Hindutva thing will pass. In about 30 years or so. Indians have to get it out of their system. I think the crazy Muslim thing will pass too, but I’m much less confident about the timelines if I had to guess, I would say toward the end of this century. And then everyone will be post-religious like my enlightened ass and Razib and Western Europeans are today. And then Pakistani girls will be totally game!

    0
    1. Once again, predictably fetishsizing the on average slightly more europid and lighter skinned women of S Asia. Makes sense. Global beauty paradigm is White Euro looks. More NW you go more prevalent it is. Thousands of years of caste and foreign rule by more West Eurasian groups also heavily reinforces this on the Indian psyche. I have no issue with Indians in NW areas taking pride in their looks, as they do. I have issues with other Indians selectively fetishizing them in wich a manner that only reveals their own deep insecurities and complexes. Now, I am not saying you have those necessarily or those were the motivation for your comment. It is just your comment appears to be part of the trend and gives credence to the “bobs and vagene” fear of Kashmiris, perhaps rightfully so…

      And btw, come to the west. Bangaldeshi and Pakistani girls are accessible for anyone, just don’t be ugly. If you want to date or sleep around with women of all races, just come to NYC. Granted, S Asian and ae Asian men will have the toughest time. Stereotypes but them on the bottom of the totem pole. Alas, good looks and confidence trumps that all.

      2+
  13. There is a similar situation in Balkan. So-called Bosniacs are former Serbs who converted to Islam during Turkish occupation, some for privileges, the most to save lives. Sometimes, one brother converted, and the other remained Christian to help each other in difficult times. Having converted, they started to hate their origins. It is difficult to illustrate how big is this hatred. They used every opportunity in previous hundreds of years (including recent Nato bombing of Serbs) to conduct genocide against former brothers. They don’t want to accept that they are ethnically Serbs even when all know that their grandfathers converted, and they have close Christian cousins. They even don’t confess that their language is Serbian. It is unbelievable how Islam (with taqiyya as their moral guidance) influence people to consider muslims of different race from the opposite side of the globe as brothers and their blood Christian relatives as the greatest enemies.

    Very similar situation is with Croats, who are Catholics converts. They would not confess that they were Serbs in previous generation and they also use every opportunity to conduct genocide against Serbs and killed more than a million of them in WW2.

    In sum, I agree with Anan and I believe that is the similar story in SA. Once converted to Islam and accepting taqiyya as the ruling ethics, jihad and kill infidels, they cannot be considered Indians.

    3+
  14. There is a very interesting and globally significant situation which is related to the previous topic. For the following is sufficient common sense and basic math. I am sure that genetics can confirm it. It is known that original Turkophones were Asian, mongoloid like people. But, if you go to Turkey you cannot see mongoloid people, some are very white although the most have olive or darker skin. How to explain this? One argument says that only about 200-300 of thousands of Turkophone soldiers came from Asia to today’s Turkey and conquered Constantinople. Byzantium had about 7 million of people. One scientist says – these people were Greeks (the truth is that Serbs also lived there but it is not the point right now).

    And, what’s happened? The most of these Greeks converted to Islam to preserve privileges and they became Turks. These 7 million Greeks (and Serbs) and handful of real Turks became the kernel for today’s Turkish nation. It was exactly the same situation as in Bosnia where Turks came just to conquer and after, everything was left to local converts. The scientist even says that Turks, who came to Bosnia, were actually former Greeks. Almost unbelievable, no one looked from this aspect. But simple maths confirms this. What otherwise could happen with 7 million of Greeks. Those Greeks who did not convert later were subjected to genocides and expulsion

    4+
    1. A summary – those who converted after military occupation and genocide and sided with aggressors are traitors. They know this and because they strongly hate their unconverted neighbours as witnesses of their treason. They are not interested in previous common history, origins and identity, they do not consider that belong to the same ethnicity. Especially, when they accept new, very opposite culture (taqiyya, jihad, kill infidels).

      Re: are Turkish Turks are actually Greeks?
      I suggest to Razib to give a genetic perspective in a sci paper or blog (similar to this for Kashmiris). If the result is negative, he can criticize me and say all worst about me (including that I have a small dick). If the result is positive what would be a global sensation, do not mention my name, all yours.

      1+
  15. in regards to this interminable exchange

    1) ppl can be substantively very assimilated into X but identify with Y. the ‘hidden christians’ of japan were a case where ppl maintained the identity of being roman catholic in the face of the death penalty. but due to isolation by the 19th-century these groups had morphed into something much more like buddhism in terms of practice and belief. when recontacted with outside catholics, some of them switched to world-normative catholicism. but others remained with their identity (the cham muslims of vietnam are somewhat in this direction).

    2) it is obv. a spectrum of terms of both substantive assimilation and identity.

    at one point my family knew a man who was from UP. he as the scion of a noble family (i think they had a very small princely state?). the guy looked totally white, and even his features weren’t south asian. it was clear that his family had mostly been endogamous with people who were of ashraf west asian ancestry from what he had said. if i had to say, he kind of looked ‘armenian’ if that makes sense (ie he didn’t even look like a ‘white-passing’ south asian).

    but, the guy thought of himself as indian and urdu was his first language. he was not particularly religious as a muslim either (his wife was a white american, and his kids knew more about christmas than eid).

    to *varying* degrees the muslims have the indian subcontinent have differing degrees of affinity/identity outside of the subcontinent. this is a function of subgroup and time.

    according to eaton the arrival of mughals to bengal resulted in the decline of a bengali muslim literate class, and its replacement by a persian and later urdu literate class. arguably this is a case where you keep the religion (islam), but the extent of ‘indianization’ actually declined, because the early to middle mughals were self-consciously persianate in their cultural orientation.

    being BP, the argument will continue. but it’s a little ridiculous that some (most?) people are presenting maximalist positions. the iranis and parsis are both zoroastrian residents of the indian subcontinent. but it is clear that parsis are far more ‘indian’ than iranis in their substance.

    1+
  16. Sorry my lord, I am admittedly stupid. My excuse is that I sometimes use this place to put ideas I’ve heard elsewhere to the test.

    call me lord khan 🙂 i am the not first of my name.

    1+
  17. the fundamental problem with some of the arguments is with something like identity it’s multivalent and contextual.

    even 100% pure persian indians may not realize how indian they are until they relocate to tehran.

    tamil brahmins may not realize how tamil they are until they are in the north.

    i read years ago a random message board threat of evangelical xtian protesants from kerala (most seemed to be from nasrani backgrounds and have converted). they were justifying how arranged marriage was really more biblical and the best way to do marriage as a Christian. brought home to me how indian people remain indian even after such huge cultural shifts as converting to evangelical protestantism

    2+
      1. “TBs never realized anything else anywhere.”

        Idk about that. A lot of TBs seem to have some kind of disdain for Tamil culture, or at least the current form of Tamil culture that tries to erase or antagonize Sanskritic influences. TBs seem happiest in places like Bengaluru and Kerala, which are culturally similar in some ways but a lot more openly embracing of Sanskritic influences. I feel like TBs embrace a more generic “South Indian Brahmin” identity than a Tamil identity.

        Obviously a big part of it is that TN politics has been hostile to TBs.

        1+
  18. There is a reason Bangladesh exists as a separate country, and the reason is that it is populated by Muslim people who did not want to live with Hindus.

    scorpion, i forget, did i accuse you of having a low IQ? cuz this sort of simple comment certainly illustrates my assertion if it was you i accused!

    too bad dunning-kruger effect is probably not replicable…

    bangladeshis dislike hindus for sure and are prejucided. otoh, bengalis are far less disassociated from their south asian origins than pakistanis, who pretend they are iranians or whatever.

    stop arguing like a fucking idiot screaming on indian television. you are working hard to look kabir look subtle.

    2+
  19. Also, Hindus have a higher fertility rate than Muslims in Pakistan.

    the key issue is HDI. in the 19th-century christians in ottoman balkans had a higher TFR than muslims. but muslims tended to be town-dwellers.

    there’s also the cultural factor. iran has a lower TFR than israel jews now. but the difference is driven by hard to define cultural factors (even secular israels have well above replacement fertility, which is pretty rare in the developed world).

    there is district level data on TFR for muslims and hindus in india. muslims are higher in almost all cases. but i would curious if there is a district where their SES is higher….

    1+
    1. Culture must play a notable role. I think Hindus have lower TFR in Bangladesh despite lower SES. West Bengal has lower TFR than Gujarat despite lower SES.

      1+
      1. “Culture must play a notable role. I think Hindus have lower TFR in Bangladesh despite lower SES. West Bengal has lower TFR than Gujarat despite lower SES.”

        I see what Razib was responding to now.

        Hoju, can you elaborate on TFR statistics in Bangladesh by faith and TFR holding socio-economic constant?

        How to Hindus and Muslims socio-economically compare with each other in Bangladesh?

        0
  20. Muslims don’t mind living with Hindus. Its living under Hindus that’s the problem. We (I’m speaking as a civilizational Muslim here) like to eat beef, and have little interest in being lynched by gangs of cow fetishists for it.

    obv something to that. but muslims perceive non-muslims as ‘dirty’ in ritual terms and that has a huge impact in terms of interaction. hindus are the same reversed.

    until religious identity becomes less salient as a communal issue rather than an individual issue, this will probably be a problem.

    I think the same is true visa-vis Hindus. I would not advise any Hindu to live in a Muslim country if a Hindu-majority nation was also an option. You’ll be treated like shit. Unfortunate, but its the truth.

    oman is pretty chill. then again, it has a gay sultan.

    0
    1. Yeah I should have modified it to “Islamic Country”. A country which abides by orthodox Islamic-Law sucks to live in. Obviously there are plenty of Muslim-majority countries that have relatively little Islamic influence at the state level, and many of those are fine.

      1+
      1. bosnia, albania, azerbaijan, kazakhstan are chillish.

        also, many muslim african countries are chill. the ‘george wasington’ of senegal was a catholic cuz his mother was (otoh, hausaland is radicalized).

        the gulf isn’t bad if you have $ either no matter your religion.

        1+
        1. Bosnia is not a muslim-majority country. Before the WW2 genocide, Serbs were absolute majority, before Turkish occupation – 100%. Now, there are 42% of Serbs, 42% Muslim Bosniacs,16% Croats. The goal of muslims, presented in the Islamic Declaration book of their leader, former war president of Bosnia (his son is now one of three co-presidents) is to achieve 50% + of muslim population and after that to introduce shariah law and all other radical muslim specific in Bosnia. The goal is also to eradicate Christians, especially Serbs (during the war they were in a coalition with Croats) via genocide, expulsion, giving citizenship and residence to muslim immigrants and jihadists and, with high birth rate, to create Islamic State which will be a part of Green Transversal from Bosnia to Indonesia. The current situation is fragile because muslims plan to start war again, as they did before, to achieve previous goals and they have open and hidden support from US and western EU countries under the moto to prevent Russia’s malign influence, in fact, to prepare a staging area for their aggression on the east to get Russian resources.

          Welcome to chillish Bosnia – the land of opportunities.

          1+
        2. \bosnia, albania, azerbaijan, kazakhstan are chillish.\

          That is due to their Russian and later Commmunist past. Neither the Russians and Communists mollycoddled Islam or Islamists the way Indian secularists or western leftists do

          \many muslim african countries are chill\
          Thye are chill as long as Boko Haram or Al-shabab don’t bite them. To oppose these BH or AS , they have to behave partly like them. Complete covering of women was unknown in African societies- that is becoming the norm where these two are fighting.

          By the way , Boko Haram or Al Shabab has set back the development of African countries by decades and caused large scale disruption and no end is in sight.

          2+
          1. Boko Haram is part of Daesh (also called ISIS or ISIL). They recognize the head of Daesh as the global Kalipha or global emperor. They have declared the global Caliphate and regard themselves as the sole legitimate rulers of every country.

            Al-shabab is part of Al Qaeda. Which means they recognize the head of the Quetta Shura Taliban (appointed by the Pakistani Army) as the Amir {ruler} of the Islamic world. They have not yet formally declared the global Caliphate. Conquering and ruling the world is a long term objective but not yet actualized for them.

            Islamists have significantly reduced global total factor productivity . . . and catastrophically reduced total factor productivity in many parts of the muslim world.

            ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

            Milan, what Jatis do you consider Aryans to be? Do you consider the less than 20 saint lineage founders of Krita/Sathya and Treta Yugas [at least 12 of which were named by Buddha] and the culture/philosophy that emanates from them to be Aryan?

            If so, I am not aware of them ever eating beef.

            Many Hindus have eaten meat from the very earliest texts to today. Are you referring to beef or meat?

            0
    2. “We (I’m speaking as a civilizational Muslim here) like to eat beef, and have little interest in being lynched by gangs of cow fetishists for it.”

      For the last time, there’s been all of a few dozen cases of this stuff in a country of 1.3 billion. It happens, and it’s a problem, but it hardly deserves to be the only thing anybody talks about.

      I think the obsession with this stuff does reveal more about America than it does about India though. Americans view beef-eating as a profoundly important thing, and they are shocked that a society can have a diametrically different view on that.

      This is something I encounter often at my hospital. About half the time, the only meat in the physician’s lounge is beef, in which case I politely excuse myself and obtain other food. Some of my co-residents have asked me about this, at which point I tell them “I’m Hindu and I don’t eat beef,” and leave it at that. My peers often react with shock and horror at this, with some offering statements like “I can’t imagine living without beef.” I generally ignore them.

      I don’t really care too much about this: we’re in America, and Americans have their own way of doing things. But conversely, Hindus have our own way of doing things, and we should have places where we can live in a manner consistent with our majority’s wishes. I of course support legal and centralized moves against beef-eating, which also have the happy benefit of defeating the purpose of cow vigilantes.

      4+
        1. Heh, that will be interesting, because the environmentalist-animal rights side is coming from a very different ethical perspective than we are.

          Some vegetarian Hindus use such points to buttress their views, and most of those genuinely believe in it. But ultimately, the roots of our views are different: we approach meat-eating from a perspective of sanctity vs. degradation (as Haidt would put it), as opposed to care vs. harm or animal rights.

          Ultimately, it seems that our vegetarians have the right of it, because they are more attuned to how humans tick than the liberal Western activist types.

          Of course, this is mostly an academic interest for me, because I’m not vegetarian.

          2+
          1. \as opposed to care vs. harm or animal rights.\
            No, while animal rights is involved by animal rights activists, the environmentalists have a very different perspective.
            Beef eating – and largely meat eating – is least efficient way of providing protein to human beings with large environmental cost. The animals need large areas, water, food and other resources over a number of years. Over their lifetime, they keep emitting so much carbon monoxide and other gases, it leads to greenhouse effect. The same protein and nutrition can be got from beans, lentils and salads with no environmental footprint and at less cost.

            add to that ethical factors like not killing animals esp on large scale and a whole multibillion $ industry devoted killing animals, the argument against beef gets more steam and traction.
            https://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2

            0
          2. \as opposed to care vs. harm or animal rights.\
            No, while animal rights is involved by animal rights activists, the environmentalists have a very different perspective.
            Beef eating – and largely meat eating – is least efficient way of providing protein to human beings with large environmental cost. The animals need large areas, water, food and other resources over a number of years. Over their lifetime, they keep emitting so much carbon monoxide and other gases, it leads to greenhouse effect. The same protein and nutrition can be got from beans, lentils and salads with no environmental footprint and at less cost.

            add to that ethical factors like not killing animals esp on large scale and a whole multibillion $ industry devoted killing animals, the argument against beef gets more steam and traction.

            https://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2

            0
          3. you my brown docta bruda

            I am vegetarian btw. But I still view human life above animal life, so I have done animal research for stuff like cancer and diabetes investigations.

            If were on a deserted island and the only accessible food were meat (insects maybe idk?), I would eat to live. But if I can spare sentient beings from my own personal gustatory hedonism, I will do so.

            This has not impacted me in any physical way. Physique wise I am doing great because of heavy training and just eating a lot of vegetarian protein. Myth about the necessity of meat to build muscle. You can build near optimal if not optimal muscle on a vegetarian diet. Maybe vegan slows things a bit, due to lack of access to animal proteins but that is pure conjecture.

            Socially, it sucks sometimes at BBQs and other events. But I have gotten used to eating bland salads or skipping meals once in awhile. It isn’t a big deal. Lately, I’ve been getting a lot of respect from the “woke” crowd for it, not that that means much.

            5+
          4. Warlock:

            I’m vegetarian too (but I consume dairy and eggs), and it’s never prevented me from gaining strength. I was not in good shape when I started lifting (about a decade and a half ago), but once I got into it regularly, I was soon able to lift as much as my (very meat-eating and non-Indian) gym partner.

            It’s possible Indians who can’t process dairy have more of a problem (I don’t think lentils are enough), so it’s practical for such people not to eschew meat completely.

            2+
          5. Just wanted to share my story because I went from one side to the other.

            – Grew up in a traditional Hindu vegetarian household in the West.

            – Always argued with my parents that vegetarianism is not required as per Hinduism.

            – Gave up vegetarianism in undergrad because now I’m free to make my own decisions and eating meat is rational and religion is irrational etc.

            – Became vegan in grad school because of ethical concerns regarding animal welfare and animal rights.

            – Currently I’m mainly vegan but I can be undisciplined at times and will go vegetarian if there are no vegan options when eating out.

            I find it so challenging to navigate the discussion around vegetarianism and such because Indians and Americans / Canadians have such polar opposite reactions to the idea. In India, you’re a religious nutjob for being vegetarian. In the West, you’re a liberal hippie. I find the Indian liberals more annoying, to be honest.

            2+
      1. I just say that I don’t like meat. If they ask further I say that I am bothered by the suffering of animals. No one in America seems to care. Or if they do . . . I don’t bother to notice.

        The reason beef eating is not liked in Dharmic cultures (including many ancient sects of Mahayana Buddhism) is because:
        ——the eater feels deep sorrow and guilt over the suffering of animals {I definitely felt this very strongly. I stopped eating meat when I was four years old because of this.}
        ——it makes meditation more difficult
        ——of the sense that eating cows is like eating our mother and family member.

        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

        India has 1.4 billion people. Typically something like 16 people a year are lynched over beef.

        About 4 million cows are stolen from their families every year and killed. Sometimes the family of a cow goes crazy when their family member (as they see it) is kidnapped and killed. A village mob helps them find the person who kidnapped and killed their family member.

        The police rarely help poor people in these situations (or in any situations). Sometimes they might bother to right a police report after a few days. Often not even that.

        India has a law enforcement problem and not a beef lynching problem. If there are more cops, judges and public attorneys . . . many of India’s problems will go away. India might be the most under policed country in the world.

        2+
  21. Can anyone tell me when and why the ban on beef eating is introduced among Hindus? Were Hindus beef-eaters before Aryans arrival?

    1+
    1. Not an expert on the Vedas, so take this with a pinch of salt. Honest answer is: no one knows. If you look at the text, there’s almost nothing about beef-eating (as compared to simply cattle husbandry, which is quite prevalent) except for a stray comment in the early part of the Rig Veda that has been translated to “Verily the cow is food“. Personally, I think this could be a metaphor (“food” == “source of food”) rather than something to be taken literally.

      The later Vedas seem to proscribe beef-eating or express strong aversion to the practice.

      When this change happened is anyone’s guess, as the dates of the Vedas’ compositions are still up for debate, but it must have happened sometime between 1500BC and 500BC.

      (Vedic experts: correct me if I’m wrong)

      We don’t know if the IVC people or the AASI people ate beef, but chances are they did.

      0
  22. “Bangladesh does not have a high fertility rate. Neither does India. Pakistan “DOES”!”

    True that the growth percentages have been the same. The demographic trends have also been similar (i.e., more Muslims, fewer Hindus), but to a much greater extent in Bangladesh.

    1+
      1. “the drop in hindus in bangladesh is mostly due to migration. unless you are stupid you know this, so don’t confute causes.”

        Razib, who implied that the drop in Hindus in Bangladesh was not due to migration to India (and third countries)?

        BTW, I think claims of Bangladeshis hating Hindus (not by you) might be over stated. A small percentage of Islamists does not represent the majority of the population.

        Many Hindus have recently started traveling to Bangladesh, visiting spiritual places and conducting business. Security in Bangladesh has improved recently. {After a big scare when bloggers and journalists were being attacked a few years ago by Islamists.}

        1+
        1. i think hating is too strong a word. but there is definitely casual prejudice. in some ways the feelings are muted. my grandfather did not like hindus, but that’s cuz half his professional life consisted of him being the token muslim doctor amongst all the hindu bhadroloks (he was born in 1896). my parents have few strong opinions about hindus since they lived under pakistan, though my father has stated half his classmates at university were hindus.

          the fact that most bangaldeshis revere tagore is an indication that religion is no bar when it comes to cultural appreciation.

          2+
      2. “the drop in hindus in bangladesh is mostly due to migration. unless you are stupid you know this, so don’t confute causes.”

        It’s obviously migration rather than, say, killings. But that said, the line between ordinary migration and ethnic cleansing can be blurry. If a group is persecuted and they leave in droves, it might not just be ordinary migration.

        But I’m open to hearing more about this if you’re convinced it’s just ordinary migration.

        2+
  23. Numinous, I responded to Milan above by saying I know of no evidence in ancient Vedic or Samkhya or Jaina or Agama texts {these are the oldest we have} that didn’t discourage beef eating.

    To repeat the traditional view:

    The dates given in the scriptures imply that some of the poems derive from over 10 K years ago. Many texts are considered recreations from prior chatur yugas. For example many Vedic texts.

    This said, circa 2800 to 3100 BC. traditional scholars believe that the entire scriptural corpus was reorganized (and perhaps edited.) Several ancient texts date Krishna’s death to 3102 BC. It was at this time that the Vedas and Agamas and many older texts (Samkhya texts maybe too?) were locked. Albeit several components of the Vedas and Agamas are believed to be much older than that. This is not to imply that there might not have been minor edits since then, albeit a lot fewer than post modernists and marxists claim.

    The 18 Maha Purana Itihasas, Mahabharata Itihasa, Hari Vamsha are also believed to have been initially composed at that time. Albeit from scratch. Hence their Sanskrit is far more modern.

    Many traditional scholars further believe that the Valmiki Ramayana Itihasa, 18 Maha Purana Itihasas, Mahabharata Itihasa, Hari Vamsha continued to be significantly edited and modified over a period of thousands of years following their initial composition.

    The traditional explanation would be that many Jatis kept moving to greater SAARC over time and being incorporated into the existing order. Some of these immigrants would be considered great saints (almost all the top 15 saints started out that way). Many also contributed genetics to existing respected families and Jatis through Niyoga.

    Of course someone can disagree with the traditional view if they choose.

    Kushal has studied ancient Arya archaeology, culture and history. And suggested several scholars that we can interview on Brown Pundits on this subject.

    1+
  24. So growing up Jain, generally it was moral arguments of maximizing non-violence, seeing the world through multiple perspectives, including those of animals we interact with, and respecting the dignity and right of self autonomy of other living creatures, that were presented to persuade the youth not to eat meat. Among Jain youth, relative to say our Hindu counterparts, including Gujarati Patels and Vanias vs. Gujarati Jain Vanias, the Hindu diaspora ABCDs are far more likely to switch out of vegetarianism relative to their Jain counterparts, per my observation. The Hindus tend to be presented views in more of a “This is wrong because our people don’t do it. Our Gods don’t like it.” way than Jains. Of course, this is no where near universal and just a trend I have anecdotally observed.

    1+
    1. Fascinating anecdotes thewarlock.

      Have you studied Jaina philosophy?

      It is worth noting that many (probably the large but not overwhelming majority) of Hindus who live in India eat meat now. I was told in 2007 that most people in West Bengal ate beef. In other words many Bengali Hindus also ate beef. Many Hindus living in India outside West Bengal also eat beef.

      A ton of my caucasian friends are vegetarian or vegan. In some ways it is easier being vegetarian in some parts of America than in some parts of India.

      ““This is wrong because our people don’t do it. Our Gods don’t like it.””

      I have not heard this before. This is a sensitive question. You are clearly more cognitively endowed than most. Through pratyaksha (direct observation) of someone else, their brain and nervous system you can guess the cognitive functioning and qualities of others.

      What was the cognitive level of the people who told you this? Were any of them mediators?

      0

Comments are closed.