108 Replies to “Open Thread – Brown Pundits”

    1. A good move for Dev Patel would be to pick up Spanish to native-level fluency, and then take up the role of some Mexican mestizo hero in a LatAm blockbuster, preferably directed by someone critically acclaimed, like Alfonso Cuaron, Inarritu or Guillermo del Toro. If that works he’ll have Latin America and Iberia under his belt.

      1+
    2. The UK seems to produce more films with colourblind casting of brown ppl than America.

      “Yesterday” was mother example. And then Dave also played David Copperfield in yet another movie.

      Not sure how I feel about brown guys playing David Copperfield and the green knight. But if we can have Jake Glyanhaal play prince of Persia I guess it’s fair game.

      2+
      1. “Not sure how I feel about brown guys playing David Copperfield and the green knight. ”

        I think this is more of an American culture war issue that they try to project on to the rest of the world.

        If you can get the accent and body language right then race shouldn’t matter too much.

        Kalki Koechlin has made a career in Bollywood.
        I don’t know if you grew up in India and ever saw Shaktimaan but Tom Alter, who was extremely fluent in Hindi and Urdu, used to play an ancient priest and sort of a mentor to the titular character. Didn’t really seem very odd.

        1+
      1. “He will struggle in Bollywood. He has no USP there.”

        He just needs to star as a leading guy in a Marvel kind of a movie. He’ll gain enough recall value in India to get started.

        I don’t think he’d needs to be the hero character in India. He can play a villain in a Rajnikanth movie or some epic fantasy shit like that. Not necessarily compete with Bhai.

        I don’t even know the Heroes guy you are talking about. Dev Patel is far more famous, at least among the multiplex crowd. Plenty of people would be willing to ‘launch’ him.

        0
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZR_vMU8db8

    Posted on the other thread but I think worthy of entertaining discussion. Indian girl disappointed with coming up as 100% S Asian on ancestry test.

    Comments roast her so hard lmfao. People even delight in pointing put how “Indian” she looks but how much of a delusional self hater she is. In the same vein, one Pakistani user on quora said: “Biggest compliment to Indian girl: ‘You don’t look Indian.'”

    Might sound off but there is quite a bit of truth to it. Many Indian girls are very self hating. Not sure of the proportion. Probably worse in the West. And lmfao, she is a typical brown skinned Indian girl. She is so pathetic that its funny.

    The S Asian group Subtle Curry Traits also roasted S Asian girls in general for statements like: “My hair isn’t really dark come look at it in the sun!” and “My eyes have hazel vibe in the sun!”

    Now of course a small minority S Asians do display depigmented features, that too more common in some groups of course but still a small minority in those groups too just less so, except say like Kalash, but the proportion pining for them is rather interesting.

    2+
    1. Lol I always laugh at those people. We’re fking brown males, and it doesn’t matter if you identify as Tamil, Bengali, Punjabi whatever, you’ll still just be a brown male.

      4+
      1. Non-indians are curious about and can tell the difference between very dark skinned mallus/tamils/sri lankans and punjabi/gujju types. Just like we can tell the difference between puerto ricans and mexicans. The typology of dog breeds and immigrants is a cherished redneck pastime.

        0
  2. Some random questions:
    1. What are the genetic make ups of different european ethnicities?Who have the highest steppe?

    2. Are core Pakistanis steppe people or not?

    3. is it true that majority liberals and feminists are biased in favour of muslims and islam? Why is this so? Do they want minority votes?

    4. Who are the most disliked(both ethnic and religious) group in USA and the west? And what percentage of Americans and westerners dislike them?

    5. What are the most hated ethnic,religious and caste groups in India?

    6. Is illuminati/freemason influence in USA and the whole world growing?

    0
    1. Punjabis have more steppe and more andamanese related hunter gatherer than sindhi who have more indus periphery , less steppe . Obviously you can find lower caste groups in punjab who have higher andamanese related hunter gatherer than average.
      Pathans have more steppe than balochs who have more indus periphery.
      What is common between a pathan and a tribal from tamil nadu is most probably an
      andamanese related hunter gatherer.
      On average yes Pakistanis have more steppe than indians because major ethnic group is punjabi.
      Question 5 Answer is ” why do you want to know that?”
      Highest R1a haplogroup % found in eastern Europe .

      1+
  3. I seen this woman’s videos on buzzfeed (yes i watched buzzfeed for a while). This behaviour isn’t normal because people want mixture from west asia, central asia.
    Also this women is probably not first generation. Could be indo-carribean origin. I’ve watched one more videos of her in which other guys and girls were indo-carribean descent (they said that themselves).
    That’s one of the reason why 23 and me now provides more elaborate ancestry like Central Asian, North Indian and Pakistani( what!!) And
    Sothern south Asia and south India subgroup.
    I’ve seen a ton of ancestry related videos (that’s what i do) and I’ve found that most south asian are ok to be south asian but want more elaborate information like region like punjab, central india etc. Most of them will be happy if they have Iranian ancestry (that’s alright) but they didn’t want there result as non south asian.
    Certain pakistani woman’s video i have seen had south indian subgroup ancestry but she wasn’t like disgusted. She was Surprised.
    Nobody states that they didn’t want anything else that south Asian ancestry but the more the chunk of west Asian i guess the more hype.
    A women from bihar(working class labourers) would be different looking than a jaat/jatt women . It mean the most northwestern you go the most better looking you are. In some Cases it might be true.
    “People even delight in pointing put how “Indian” she looks but how much of a delusional self hater she is”
    Could be because of representation of India on global news at that time ( dark skinned people, filthy ,poor ,beggars, Etc).
    After all could be because she doesn’t want to be indian she isn’t the part of India’s cultural extension .

    0
  4. “It mean the most northwestern you go the most better looking you are.”

    This is partially because global beauty standard is Eurocentric. Indians have a lot of layers on top of that with more caucasoid aryans invading and leaving their genetic mark on the top of dominance hierarchy of S Asia and perpetuating it with caste endogamy, constant invasion from West Asians via Khyber Pass, years of rule under culturally Persian turco-mongols, who patronized Persian high culture, and finally subjugation by the British, that too with implantation of “martial races” and similar policies that further reinforced these trends.

    Darker more AASI looks generally are demonized for all of these reasons. I don’t really think there are objective “aesthetics.” Tribes, when they discover one another, tend to find outsiders ugly. There are random exceptions like Cortez being seen as a God by hapstance because the Aztecs had a blue eyed snake God they revered. And people living in a place for thousands of years tend to have environmental selection for traits that promote living in those places. I don’t think here is an objective beauty or inherent ugliness conversely. If advanced aliens “discovered” humans, they would likely find all humans to be equally ugly.

    One can argue that humans are evolved to find more caucasoid people more attractive via natural selection promoting bias towards that looks standard. However, evidence again of tribes encountering new people doesn’t support this. That being said, there are some general trends like people preferring, within their own subgroup, men to be on the darker side and women on the lighter.

    The main advantage of the “average Jat” vs. “lower class Bihari” woman is entirely because the ancestry of the former is of greater proportion of components of those that have historically been and currently are on top of the global racial dominance hierarchy.

    People like power. People like winning. People want to be associated with powerful winners. The darker less caucasoid people of S Asia and the global reputation as them being the dirty poor ugly people is one that many in the diaspora want to escape from, in order to elevate their status. In India, there is a greater proportion of these people than in Pak. There are proportionally fewer in the NW relative to the gangetic plain. Hence, it is the source of a lot of intra-S Asian trolling.

    2+
    1. “ Might sound off but there is quite a bit of truth to it. Many Indian girls are very self hating. ”

      It’s a desire to be treated better and more as an individual rather than a set of negative stereotypes. Brown people are low social status in America*. Self hatered or a desire to be seen as an atypical member of your group, stems from not wanting to be associated with this low status group.

      I am sympathetic to brown men and women who feel this way, granted the way these feelings manifest can be quite cringe inducing.

      *I get that South Asian Americans have high SES, and are rich as a subgroup of people, that‘a not the point.

      The social status game is different and has different prizes from the wealth game. Status is a stupider game with stupider prizes than the wealth game, nevertheless it still matters.

      A 1st gen south Asian wins both wealth and social status game relative to their peer group back home by immigration.

      Their children are well positioned to win at the wealth game but are at a disadvantage when it comes to the social status game with their peers in the new country because of their race.

      2+
    2. “Their children are well positioned to win at the wealth game but are at a disadvantage when it comes to the social status game with their peers in the new country because of their race.”

      What do you mean by social status? Are you referring to visibility in sports and media? Or is it things like general ‘coolness’, physique and confidence-related behaviour?

      1+
      1. Social prestige, desirability, influence etc.

        Think about the most popular kid at high school vs least popular.

        Media portrayal is both a cause and a symptom of social status. So it’s kind of tricky.

        It’s an individual thing but your race can be an advantage or a disadvantage.

        1+
  5. The men to be darker and women to be lighter is along the lines of sexual dimorphism, insofar as testosterone promotes greater melanin production. Granted, in some societies, too much dimorphism isn’t considered as attractive. Too hairy of men, for example, with massive jaws may be seen as primitive compared to more neonatenous men. I believe this is seen in the cultures of NE E Asia.

    1+
  6. There are random exceptions like Cortez being seen as a God by hapstance because the Aztecs had a blue eyed snake God they revered.

    haven’t followed up but i think this is not true in hindsight

    0
  7. South Asian replaces South Asian as Chancellor in Boris Johnson’s government:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/02/14/pupil-becomes-master-star-wars-fan-takes-chancellor/
    Rishi Sunak, widely tipped as a “rising star” in Tory ranks, was catapulted into the second-biggest job in government after Sajid Javid resigned as Chancellor of the Exchequer in dramatic fashion on Thursday.
    * * *
    At 39, Mr Sunak is now the second-youngest Chancellor in recent history, after George Osborne who got the job just 12 days short of his 39th birthday.
    In 2015 Mr Sunak was elected to represent the safe seat of Richmond, succeeding former Conservative leader Lord Hague. During the campaign Mr Sunak was nicknamed “Maharaja of the Dales”.
    Mr Sunak voted to leave the European Union and campaigned for Brexit during the referendum. …
    Mr Sunak’s father was a GP and his mother a pharmacist with her own chemist’s shop. Like Javid, he helped out in the family business, doing the VAT receipts.
    The new Chancellor had a gold-plated education: Winchester College followed by Oxford University and an MBA at Stanford, where he met his wife, Akshata Murthy, the daughter of Indian billionaire N.R. Narayana Murthy.
    * * *
    Mr Sunak lists his hobbies as keeping fit, playing cricket and football and watching films. A Hindu, Mr Sunak takes his Commons oath on the Bhagavad Gita, a sacred Sanskrit text.
    The new Chancellor has an encyclopaedic knowledge of Star Trek. …
    More here”
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8000143/New-Chancellor-Rishi-Sunak-rising-star-dubbed-Maharajah-Yorkshire-Dales.html

    1+
    1. I personally don’t feel anything if atheists/agnostics appropriate yoga but when muslims and xtians do it, boy, it boils my blood! They ‘purify’ yoga by taking out the ‘objectionable’contents and slowly digest it into their system just as middle eastern muslims have digested Indian mathematics. If they (muslims/xtians/jews) think that they’re the chosen people why didn’t their god reveal yoga, meditation and other mind sciences to them? They have a nasty attitude towards hindus kinda like, what good can come outta this darkie pagans! Which is why I say to american friends that there is a thin line between appropriation and appreciation. As it is hard to categorize things in a binary fashion, I think Atheists/Agnostics are more towards appreciation but xtains/muslims are more towards appropriation. Someone might say that yoga and other mind sciences might not have exactly originated within today’s India’s borders however it’s the Hindus (caste populations and tribes alike) kept it alive and enriched this traditions.
      Edits: Some sufis and other mystic traditions among Muslims also tend towards appreciation in general.

      1+
      1. While I empathize and understand your sentiment, I am not as concerned with appropriation by muslims etc. I am however, concerned about attribution and citation as we must give due credit to creators/authors. We must extend the modern system of attribution and citation to historical knowledge systems as well. This must be the work of historians of science. Since yoga is a modern day appropriation, the source by and large remains clear. However, there are innumerable mathematical, astronomical ideas where there is evidence of Indian sources but yet attributed to middle easterners. This is not fair to the authors.
        Besides the injustice to the authors, it is also unfair to India because people allege that nothing good came out of the Indian civilization. This will sap national confidence. Some youngsters could well have been inspired to take up these subjects as there was a time great contributions were made in these areas by Indics. It serves to set the record straight for the past and inspire the future.
        As Indians, we do have things to be apologetic about in our past and present. However, we should also celebrate verified, documented achievements.

        1+
      2. Yoga was birthed from Buddhists/Jains, as part of the religious movement originating in Bihar that arose as a backlash to Vedic Hinduism. It did not originate in Pakistan, though as a center of Buddhism like Bihar and Bengal, Yoga was being developed and practiced there while most Hindus in Aryavarta were rejecting it.

        Over a period of centuries the Brahmins co-opted Yoga like they did various Buddhist/Jain beliefs in order to blunt and ultimately absorb what they considered to be heretic religious movements.

        Pakistanis shaking off their delusions (they all sprang from the loins of Bin Qassim in the 7th century) and reclaiming their heritage is (yet another source) of insecurity for Hindus. This Malhotra short-circuits even just mentioning it, launching into a, “Pakistanis can’t claim Yoga because they are Middle-Eastern invaders who broke the country”.

        You can see how desperate the situation is when Hindus drop the, “you aren’t Arab you are low-caste converts”, and try to entice Pakistanis to abandon their heritage in exchange for agreeing with the foreign ancestry gimmick.

        This has actually worked up until the last decade or so, but there’s a shift in how Pakistanis are starting to view themselves and its causing consternation among Hindus who realize a lot of the toys they play with don’t actually belong to them.

        0
        1. It is only Pakistan’s prerogative to define its identity in whichever way they choose to. If Pakistanis do start identifying with the Jain/Buddhist traditions then that would be a vindication of the power of the Indic civilization and its Dharmic traditions. This may well be a possibility if renewables/other energy sources replace oil and the middle east is no longer attractive.

          The ultimate identification with a Dharmic tradition is actual practice, philosophical/spiritual engagement and pilgrimage. I have marvelled at the Jain Dilwara temples in Rajasthan and felt spiritually connected to it. I have stayed in a Jain institution for a week in Bangalore which included a few Swetambaras. We fasted and meditated together. We learnt some Jain purana verses written by Ponna, a Kannada poet in school, though I must confess I don’t remember much. The level of electism between Dharmics that is part of an Indian’s lived experience today is not comprehensible to Abrahamic followers. Though in future as binaries breakdown, Abrahamics may possibly begin to emulate this behavior. In particular, Indian muslims and christians given their proximity and access to Jain places of worship, Jain gurus and Jain practitioners are better placed to lead other Abrahamics.

          2+
          1. Hindus traditionally hated Buddhists and Jains, and engaged in frequent destruction of their temples and massacres of their priests.

            Presently Hindus can pretend to like Buddhists and Jains because the latter have been extinguished. Its safe to partake in these “Dharmic” cultures because they are dead and pose no threat to Hinduism. Similar to Iranians partaking in aspects of Zoroastrian culture.

            0
        2. “ Yoga was birthed from Buddhists/Jains, as part of the religious movement originating in Bihar that arose as a backlash to Vedic Hinduism.”

          This sentence is on the same level of wrongness as saying: Islam originated in Lebanon among the Druze as a backlash to the Catholic Church.

          I.e. it’s complete nonsense.

          I can elaborate further but fist you need to define what you mean by Yoga.

          Yoga itself is a Vedic term.

          But you can use it more narrowly to mean “Hatha yoga” consisting pranayama, the asanas, nauli etc. Which was developed as part of the tantric traditions of late Indian Buddhism and Hinduism

          Or you can use it to mean lululemon yoga that is entirely just asana driven and has been under development in the west in the 20th and 21st centuries.

          4+
    2. You dont have to practise the dharmic religions or believe in any of the deities in order to benefit from the physical exercises or mental training of meditation practices. The Pakistani yoga teacher is correct it’s not a Mazabi issue.

      Also the Muslims and Christians who are open minded enough to practice yoga are not the ones who are bigoted towards Hindus

      Reframe cultural appropriation as soft power and feel better about yourself lol.

      3+
  8. The failure of Europe to create a common polity based on at least some civilizational commonalities is striking when contrasted with India. While the common market is an achievement, past crises have exposed the pitfalls of a common monetary union without a fiscal union. Failure to create an overarching civilizational identity maybe path dependent. The idea of language based nation state, the wars of the past are a part of the path dependent explanation. In contrast, the key lesson from India’s past was that if we are divided as a polity we will be conquered and colonized. But I think the idea of sacred geography, common mythology etc also plays a role. For example, no German regards the Thames as scared whereas Indian prayers invoke the presence of all Indian rivers. These ideas reinforce the sense of shared cultural space. Therefore, the cultural battles of the masses against a cold centralized bureaucracy and a purely civic European identity are avoided in India.
    I find the failure of pan-Arab nationalism even more interesting. Could somebody shed more light on this? Didn’t common language, supposed common ethnicity, historical experience of colonialism, Ottoman rule etc make them feel the need for a common polity? Is the failure due to the inertia post Sykes–Picot ? Failure of pan-Arabism to take on Israel? Authoritarian rulers holding on to their fiefdoms? Different pre-Islamic pasts? For all the talk of Arab asabiyyah, it seems to be weaker than Indian nationalism.

    1+
    1. “But I think the idea of sacred geography, common mythology etc also plays a role.”

      Even though i agree with u, i think sacred geography is perhaps overselling it. In India itself u have vast areas and “people” who would argue that they are bound not by sacred-ness but by union-ness (or constitution-ness)

      0
      1. Yes I agree that some people are bounded by constitution-ness. But it is arguable that these people are few. Even Europe has a constitution, but a constitution alone is insufficient to create the binding force required in a modern nation state. The idea to many seems cold and bureaucratic. Given that we borrowed from the West, the constitutions of many western countries are also based on the same ideals. One could just as easily be bound to the US constitution. The constitutional ideals themselves are laudable and the institutions are necessary for India. However, it is not a differentiating factor for identifying with India. It is a universal aspiration.
        Some areas like certain parts of the North East are bound by the fiscal relationship with the union where the largess from the union and autonomy smoothens the relationship. The fiscal logic of a common market will also get stronger as the nation prospers.

        0
        1. “Some areas like certain parts of the North East are bound by the fiscal relationship”

          Well TBH, I had people in mainland India (who believe more on union-ness than culture-ness), in my mind, when i made that comment.

          I think there are two thing simultaneously happening, the union is getting stronger among culture-ists, but is getting weaker among the union-ists.

          0
    2. For someone with the moniker “southindian” you have a profoundly north indian perspective on history and civilisation. Particularly the fatalism of being forever conquered if not united under a single subcontinental polity. Do you also believe that whatever culture peninsular indians have preserved is a debt to the valour of punjabis blunting the perpetual incursions of muslim hordes? You mention the weakness of arab and european nations in being unable to unite under one polity, not seeing it for the courage it takes to stand apart. Huddling together out of fear and perpetuating the greatest concentration of malnutrition and poverty in human history is a grand achievement now.

      0
      1. Europe is coming together for the gains from a common market but struggling because of the lack of a fiscal union. We have to remain together for a common market with a common fisc.
        Additionally, without the power of the Indian state, Kerala and Telangana/parts of Andhra would be lost to communism and naxalism respectively. This would be a complete economically disastrous for those states. The contagion might then spread.
        The internecine warfare between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over Kaveri would also cost both states economically. Highly parochial politics like the 90s riots against Tamilians would prevail and Tamil Nadu would respond in kind. Maharashtra would claim parts of Karantaka, leading to conflict on another front. Tulu, Kodava and Konakani speakers may demand independence depending on the level of Kannada imposition. Bangalore would have failed to become an IT hub because it depends on attracting talent from across India.

        0
      2. All the European bravado of standing apart, led to two world wars and millions dead. European union was therefore celebrated as an end to that internecine conflict.

        2+
        1. I can add many more to your list of catastrophic outcomes. Either way, there are miles of difference between rejecting indian nationalist myths and separatism. Pragmatism in friendship doesn’t necessitate buying all their BS.

          0
      3. “Do you also believe that whatever culture peninsular indians have preserved is a debt to the valour of punjabis blunting the perpetual incursions of muslim hordes”

        I mean that would be an inaccurate belief , considering that the recent “martial” status of the punjabis is mostly due to 2B’s (British and Bollywood). For most part in their history they blunted nothing (there is a reason all major battles were fought in Panipat and not Lahore) , and took that beating face down. Swiftly changing their allegiance to whoever is their overlord (at the current time) , which has helped them overall.

        Its one thing to write revolutionary poetry and quite another to fight for one.

        2+
        1. The Hindu Shahis put up sustained resistance to the Gaznavids, fighting a number of close battles with them, and even transitioning to guerrilla warfare from the Jammu Hills once they had been eradicated from the plains of Punjab. Later on there were frequent revolts in Punjab-proper that had to be put down by the Gaznavaids (granted it was done with Punjabi loyalist troops).

          Ghori himself was killed by a Khokar Punjabi, and during the Delhi Sultanate the Khokars revolted en masse, and after throwing out the imperial garrisons, ruled the entire region from Peshwar to Delhi for a couple years.

          The Punjabis in Potohar were consistently semi-independent due to how difficult it was to subdue them militarily. The region was only completely controlled during the British period.

          And then of course during the late-Mughal period there were the Sikhs.

          People go overboard when talking about martialness of certain groups, but its overadjusting to pretend these groups (whether Punjabi, Rajput, or Maratha) did nothing.

          1+
          1. Oh did i hit a nerve there. LOL

            The Hindu Shahis were afghans.
            For the rest, small scale “rebellion” (as u put it) this is nothing out of the ordinary in any region of India. I mean if we start according them that importance, then every region was independent.

            The only people worthy of mention are the sikhs, but they came too late and lasted too short a time period and would be better classified as aberration than the rule (which is kowtowing to current emperor,whether Brits or Mughals)

            0
          2. Shahis controlled parts of Afghanistan but were a Punjabi dynasty. Their troops were largely drawn from Potohar, though in the final major battle against the Gaznavids near Peshwar a large number of Rajputs from North India also joined in.

            As a general rule everyone acquiesced to Mughal rule. Even the Sikhs didn’t do anything of note until after the Mughals had been extinguished and the Afghans and Marathas had smashed themselves to pieces, leaving a complete power vacuum in Punjab.

            2+
          3. Well nowhere do Shahis been described as punjabis. There is talk of them being of more central asian origin by foreign buddhist writers, while of being Kshartiya origin by Indian writers. Safe to say since they ruled over Afghanistan proper they were Afghans. When the Zunbils who ruled a territory even closer to Punjab (Southern Afghanistan) were not punjabis then forget the Shahis.

            “Even the Sikhs didn’t do anything of note until after the Mughals had been extinguished”

            That’s the whole point. *They came too late and lasted too short a time period and would be better classified as aberration than the rule*

            0
          4. The Shahis were originally a Buddhist Turk dynasty (though there’s some debate about whether they were Afghan), until a Hindu Brahmin adviser staged a coupe and began the Hindu Shahi dynasty. You may be confusing these timelines.

            No source describes them as “Punjabi” but the Brahmin (and possibly later Kshatriya rulers) are described as coming from the region that today we call Punjab.

            0
      4. I am south Indian(telangana) and my perspective is :
        If it wasn’t for the Sikhs and Marathas many more south Indian would’ve been circumcised.

        0
        1. Which is funny considering Muslim rule in the south was largely unaffected by the Marathas, and the Sikhs only rose after the Mughals had already collapsed. But whatever nationalist myth helps you sleep.

          Shame about the lack of circumcision though, would have improved India’s mortality rate.

          1+
          1. “Shame about the lack of circumcision though, would have improved India’s mortality rate.”

            Is there a study on this? I think IMR is related to other indices like health and sanitation, not necessarily to circumcision.

            0
          2. Saurav,

            In developing countries like India circumcision significantly reduces risks of contracting disease and was actually recommended by WHO as a means of reducing child mortality in Africa.

            In first world countries with high sanitation and health standards, the benefits aren’t that signficant.

            0
          3. You have a point re circumcision but not quite correct about health in general. It is the spread of cervical cancer among women.

            When they restricted their dataset to women with only one sexual partner, there was an increased risk of cervical cancer in women whose partners were uncircumcised only if their partner was already considered at high risk for contracting HPV (as determined by age at first intercourse, number of sexual partners, and sex with prostitutes). So, in men who already engage in risky sexual behavior, circumcision does offer an advantage for protecting their partners from cervical cancer.
            https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/whats-the-deal-with-male-circumcision-and-female-cervical-cancer/

            I think circumcision is a result of less access to water. i.e. the ability to bathe twice a day and push foreskin back and wash*.

            For the stats inclined compare cervical cancer rates of muslim and non muslim say
            a) in warm countries with water
            b) warm countries with less access to water (india)
            c) Cold countries with less access to warm water (less likely to bathe on a dailyy basis) eg Japan, Eastern Europe.

            In my opinion, circumcision became the norm in the US because of the push by Jewish doctors. In general not much phenotype difference between European Jews and Europeans, other than circumcision. So if you push for circumcision then that difference between populations is erased.

            *Restrictions on eating pork or shellfish are also probably result of environment and cooking practices. If you roast whole pig as against cutting into small pieces and cooking, then quite likely to get trichinosis.
            Goat/lamb are traditionally spit roasted in mid east cultures.

            0
        2. While I believe the Vijayanagara empire was the bulwark that protected the South, I have come to appreciate the perspective you have articulated. While the Marathas and Sikhs played a role in preventing the perpetuation of Turkic rule in the South, I was unaware of this earlier. I think there is a new political consciousness where figures who were previously regarded as regional leaders i.e. Shivaji are now appreciated for their pan-Indian contribution. Would Indian civilization have met the fate of Persia, if it hadn’t been for him?
          Through Kannada literature I became aware of the exploits of Hakka and Bukka while through popular culture I have now come to know about the Marathas. While different regional leaders were defending their own empires, they shared the impulse of Hindavi Swaraj i.e. indigenous rule over Turkic rule. Therefore, they played a role in preserving Indic culture. I think it is time for Hakka, Bukka to also gain a place in the pan-Indic pantheon of heros. It is time for a Tanhaji equivalent of Harihara and Bukkaraya to make the North Indians aware of the grandeur and resistance of the Vijayanagara empire.

          1+
          1. Well TBF Hakka and Bukka achievements overshadow Shivaji (forget Tanhaji). I think both of them not being N-Indian has to do with their lesser fame. They fought in arguably even more trying circumstances, and were pinned on either side (Madurai and Delhi Sultanate) , and governed much bigger area Marathas had under Shivaji.

            In an ironic way Vijaynagar lost its way , as their foes increasing got weaker, and they got stronger. First the Bahmanis and then the subsequent Deccan Sultanates.

            0
          2. How did sikhs play any role whatsoever in the political affairs of southern india? They are a footnote to a footnote. As mentioned by others, they emerged in a temporary vacuum in the NW, and at that after european power was already established and islamicate polities were quite weakened.
            As regards marathas, they ARE from south of the vindhyas, and are core to intra-southern political dynamics. The 18th century maratha expeditionary forces into upper india are exceptional in that it showed their ability to project power far from home. As far as saving people from conversion, it must have been trivial. The muslim population share of Telangana, the core of the erstwhile Hyderabad state is only 12.7%, and in Maharashtra it is 11.5%. These figures would have been even lower a few generations ago considering differential fertility.

            0
  9. I think if Indians were to en-masse become Jains, Indic culture would continue to thrive. There would be no loss of civilizational memory nor any significant cultural discontinuity. The Indian polity would also remain united. The culture would also be indigenous. The underlying spiritual/philosophical framework would remain. Furthermore the overlapping philosophical ideas which I am partial to i.e. ahimsa especially when it comes to animals, karma etc would gain ground. The agnostic streak of Jainism is also appealing. A happy outcome in more ways than one.
    Abrahamics often project their world view of exclusivism onto others especially converts. There would be significant cultural discontinuity and loss of civilizational memory if India was converted en-masse to Islam and to a lesser extent Christianity. We have examples in our neighborhood of struggles with defining identity, disowning of traditions, ancestors etc. Additionally, we would also import the social and cultural norms of the middle east into our society. We already have enough of our own societal problems to sort out. Even a country like Indonesia where some people say “We have changed our religion but not our ancestors” faces some struggles with Arabization. Iran would have been a very different society if it had been Zoroastrian. The Indian Parsi culture is the closest counterfactual evidence.
    All religions, even rigid ones, do change and undergo reform. Fossil fuel alternatives may dampen appetite for Arabization. So this assessment may not hold true indefinitely.

    3+
  10. Now DMK is forced to become HINDU- REf from OUTlook

    The Rajini factor has worried the DMK, keen to recapture power in 2021, ten years after being voted out in the state. In the absence of any charismatic leaders, Rajinikanth could emerge as its biggest challenger, the DMK fears. The party has drafted pol­i­tical strategist Prashant Kishore to blunt the star-power that Rajini would bring into the field. The DMK is also trying to live down its anti-Hindu image to deny Rajinikanth any advantage through his brand of “spiritual politics”. The meeting of its newly elected panchayat representatives commenced with lighting the traditional lamp—a first in DMK’s history.

    “When there is a concerted move by the BJP and a few AIADMK ministers to paint us as enemies of Hindus, we have to counter them with the right messaging. That does not mean we have sacrificed our basic secular tenets,” exp­lains a senior DMK functionary. The party needs to balance its minority votebank politics with some pro-Hindu gestures, though ostensibly it asserts that religion cannot sway votes in Dravidian Tamil Nadu.

    0
    1. I dont think Rajni has a realistic chance(does he)?

      Not sure how DMK and Rajni voters would overlap. I get AIDMK soft Hindu-ism voters overlapping.

      Also Kishore is one trick pony and his main weapon is trying to make his party more “Hindu-ised” to blunt BJP. Even there his record is somewhat of a hit and miss. Not sure DMK can afford/would be able to do that.

      0
  11. https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/opinion-the-modernity-of-arvind-kejriwal-s-hindu-politics-11581875721140.html

    “The modernity of Arvind Kejriwal’s Hindu politics”

    “Kejriwal is a provincial man, a temple-goer, a man who believes in God. He calls for the death of rapist-murderers, glorifies patriotism, and believes that Kashmir belongs to India. He is not infected by the template of organized compassion.

    Kejriwal is a reminder that the guardians of the poor and the weak have a moral obligation not to be political duds—those well-meaning men, who were genetically ordained to enter politics, activists who lament everything but can barely save themselves, righteous artists. For, in the care of duds, the poor always lose, even as the duds ensure more capable leaders do not emerge.

    The nationalism of the Bharatiya Janata Party is of pride. Kejriwal’s nationalism goes beyond, as it is built on shame. India has done foolish things in search of pride; the country has achieved much when it has been ashamed of itself.”

    1+
  12. Please set aside all the wise cracks about lack of sanitation and open defecation in South Asia. We may be looking at a major public health calamity if a vaccine is not found soon enough for Covid-19. “New reports raised the possibility that the virus may be spread by fecal contamination of the environment, such as through leaky sewage pipes.” See – https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/02/416671/how-new-coronavirus-spreads-and-progresses-and-why-one-test-may-not-be-enough

    0
  13. My perspective on Modi is one that has become more nuanced over time. In a nutshell:

    South Asia (India) has never enjoyed the kind of political unity and top-down governance, unlike China. Climate change is going to throw up such immense challenges for India that only a “strong” state is going to have even half a chance to muddle through it all. What Modi is engineering is the “Asabiyyah” for a strong state to emerge.

    The process of achieving this strong state may even tear India apart at the seams. But climate change is likely to do this regardless.

    Just my 2 cents from somebody whose politics are fairly liberal.

    1+
    1. “What Modi is engineering is the “Asabiyyah” for a strong state to emerge.”

      Only within the core cultural group, its’ fraying at the edges too.

      0
  14. When the BJP has lost Tavleen Singh you know that you are really in trouble.

    “However, it was two political events in the last six months of 2019 which tipped her disappointment into full-fledged disillusionment with Modi. The first was the way Article 370 was abrogated. While she agreed with the need to do so, Singh said Modi should have consulted the Kashmiris. More importantly, he should have taken advice from experts who know the complexity of Kashmir. Instead, he had, like demonetisation “once again, acted in ignorance”.

    As a result he had made the Kashmiri people raise questions about their attachment and commitment to India, he had given a fillip to Imran Khan and Pakistan’s anti-India propaganda and badly lowered India’s international image. She also felt that the use of Article 370 “as a test of patriotism” in the Maharashtra and Haryana elections was a big mistake. It also added to the targeting of Kashmiris by the rest of the country.

    However, it was the Citizenship Amendment Act which completely shook Tavleen Singh’s faith in Modi. She called it “India’s first Nuremberg law”. She repeatedly spoke of Modi’s treatment of Indian Muslims alongside Hitler’s treatment of German jews in the 1930s. She writes in her book “since the beginning of Modi’s second term it can no longer be said that Muslims have the same rights as other citizens”. In the interview she said that she feared Modi was now exhibiting his antipathy and dislike of Muslims whereas earlier he had been able to cover it up.”

    https://thewire.in/video/watch-karan-thapar-interview-tavleen-singh

    0
    1. Wonder why they keep referring to these grooming gangs as ‘Asian’ when we clearly know it’s just one community doing the dirty work.

      0
  15. Circumcision is a form of male genital mutilation. Clean yourself and your kids and you are fine.

    Not engaging in Jihad I hear is also good for mortality.

    0
    1. Do you ever get tired of playing the insecure Hindu afraid of Muslim male sexuality?
      This inferiority complex is at the heart of much of the Hindu-Right, though usually adherents have the sense not to broadcast their issues so transparently.

      0
      1. I was raised Jain and I am agnostic. Cutting foreskins of babies without consent obviously isn’t about insecurities regarding male sexuality. You show your pedophilic tendencies when bringing up sexuality, much like Prophet himself. The latent male sexuality obsession matches well with bacha bazi of the region. you capture both so beautifully.
        Jihad also isn’t good for mortality. My point stands. Once again poor attempt at strawman. If anything you are the insecure person projecting your own complexes and insecurities.

        3+
        1. There’s no need to hide behind irreligion, I’m an atheist. Many founders of national movements in Pakistan and India were non religious. Being so doesn’t stop one shilling for their “team”.

          Jains are even worse than Hindus when it comes to this complex btw, you aren’t doing yourself any favors with this defense.

          My observation isn’t just based on your circumcision comment, but a pattern of activity I’ve noticed from you. Gives off very insecure vibes, and I think you have such poor self awareness you aren’t even cognizant of how you come off.

          0
          1. “(open defecation being a largely Hindu practice)”
            WRONG as usual

            Hindus vs. Muslims within India (yes Hindus are worse but your characterization of “largely” is flat out wrong)
            Sanitation Quality, Use, Access, & Trends survey (linked in Print article, you can google it)
            68% of Hindu households defecate in the open—e.g., in fields, near streets, or behind bushes. In comparison, only 43% of the relatively poorer Muslim households do so.

            Data reveals 25% of Hindus who own toilets don’t use them, only 10% of Muslims do the same.
            Pak vs. India
            10.43 %

            People practicing open defecation (% of population) in Pakistan was reported at 10.43 % in 2017, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources.
            Per UNICEF even higher. You can google that
            India has greater rate, but it isn’t like Pakistan has anything near a negligible rate.
            Also, ironic you are commenting about “Teams,” yet you yourself made a massive gross over-generalization about Jains and the supposed “pattern” you’ve observed.

            Here is what is actually confirmed: You have a pattern of pathological lying, that too badly. If I remember you incorrectly called out a S Indian user for being a “fake S Indian” recently and really a disguised N Indian troll. You have a habit of antagonizing people personally, when your points don’t get across because they fail to be backed up by anything empirical. If you were at least funny, it would add some value. But your attacks aren’t even contributory in that manner, much less a substantive one.

            Btw, I’m not some Hindu Right shill. Funny you characterize me that way. I didn’t agree with demonitization. I agreed with GST but not implementation. I am against CAA and support deporting all illegal immigrants, whether Hindu or Muslim. I am pro Article 370 abrogation but against the blockade and imprisoning of political leaders.I believe in open borders and free markets within a nation. I don’t agree with the dumb land owning rules of Himichal or the NE either. Honestly, LOC as border would be a fine solution to me. That’s where I will leave it.

            0
  16. “In developing countries like India circumcision significantly reduces risks of contracting disease and was actually recommended by WHO as a means of reducing child mortality in Africa.”

    But in the subcontinent this is hardly the case. Roughly IMR mirror HDI of the region. The IMR ratings are best in Nepal and Sri Lanka , both countries which are neither developed nor practice circumcision.

    There is a difference between poorer Hindus and poorer Muslims in IMR, but i dont think it can be linked directly to circumcision, but a host of other socio-religious factors. Think of difference of Pak Punjab and FATA , FATA would have higher IMR and simultaneously being more religious/conservative and practice higher rate of circumcision than Punjab.

    Its like TFR, studies have shown even in areas where TFR has fallen in India, muslims in India still have higher TFR than Hindus (Kerala) . Would that mean muslims are just pre disposed to produce more kids irrespective of HDI ? This things have host of other reasons, not linked to one.

    0
    1. I’m not an expert on this topic or someone in the medical field, I’m just relaying what the expert position is. Quite possible it doesn’t hold for India, but I doubt it.

      Muslim children in India already do better than their Hindu counterparts in life expectancy due to better sanitation in other areas (open defecation being a largely Hindu practice), makes sense to assume this also holds for circumcision. If anyone doubt this, feel free to google, a number of academic papers have been written on this by Hindus themselves.

      0
      1. INDTHINGS, I am curious. Have you been to India? Have you traveled in India? Or is your knowledge of India primarily from books, movies and the internet? Would help me understand your perspective.

        1+
  17. More than circumcision, I’m concerned about the autonomy for women and the segregation/seclusion rules that are imposed on them.
    Traditional social structures in India i.e. patriliny, patrilocality also discriminate against women as evidenced by the skewed sex ratio and female workforce participation rates comparable to Saudi Arabia. However, I think Hinduism is sufficiently flexible that it will not resist reforms that will happen in society. One of the problems with religions is that they encode social structures, social norms into religion. This makes norms inflexible. However, Hinduism allows for flexibility due to the following reasons:
    – Hinduism extremely loosely encodes social structures in stories but does not encode these structures as injunctions. Stories make it more open to interpretation than commandments
    – Hinduism makes explicit that certain texts i.e. Smriti are time and context dependent. It also says that morality may differ in each Yuga. In contrast, Islam in particular encodes medieval social norms of ancient middle east and declares them to be time invariate.
    – Hinduism is about seeking rather than believing.Hinduism therefore allows for free expression and critique enabling change.
    – People in India makes appeals to culture i.e. sanskaar rather than a holy book when enforcing social norms. It is easier to make the case for reform in sanskaar rather than change a scripture
    – Hindus has experienced waves of reforms, has assimilated good aspects of other religions like Buddhism/Jainism and adapted to local social structures and societal changes.
    – Lastly, there is no centralized clergy to resist change
    Overall the reform potential in Hinduism is high and therefore suited to adapt to modernity and changing social norms.The stakeholders of discriminatory social structures will prove to be more of hindrance to reform rather the religion.
    In contrast even so called liberals in Islam in India, are right wingers masquerading as leftists because they never advocate reform within. They always critique other religions. This in combination with the higher rigidity is a matter of concern. But it is for the muslim community to resolve these issue. We must focus on reforms within the social structure of our own community

    0
  18. “(open defecation being a largely Hindu practice)”

    WRONG as usual

    Hindus vs. Muslims within India (yes Hindus are worse but your characterization of “largely” is flat out wrong)

    https://theprint.in/india/governance/hindus-are-less-likely-to-use-a-toilet-than-muslims-in-india/44959/

    Sanitation Quality, Use, Access, & Trends survey (linked in link)

    68% of Hindu households defecate in the open—e.g., in fields, near streets, or behind bushes. In comparison, only 43% of the relatively poorer Muslim households do so.

    Data reveals 25% of Hindus who own toilets don’t use them, only 10% of Muslims do the same.

    Pak vs. India

    10.43 %
    People practicing open defecation (% of population) in Pakistan was reported at 10.43 % in 2017, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources.

    http://www.unicefrosa-progressreport.org/opendefecation.html
    More according to UNICEF^

    India has greater rate, but it isn’t like Pakistan has anything near a negligible rate.

    Also, ironic you are commenting about “Teams,” yet you yourself made a massive gross over-generalization about Jains and the supposed “pattern” you’ve observed.

    Here is what is actually confirmed: You have a pattern of pathological lying, that too badly. If I remember correctly you called out a S Indian user for being a “fake S Indian” recently and really a disguised N Indian troll. You have a habit of antagonizing people personally, when your points don’t get across. If you were at least funny, it would add some value. But your attacks aren’t even contributory in that manner, much less a substantive one.

    Btw, I’m not some Hindu Right shill. Funny you characterize me that way. I didn’t agree with demonitization. I agreed with GST but not implementation. I am against CAA and support deporting all illegal immigrants, whether Hindu or Muslim. I am pro Article 370 abrogation but against the blockade and imprisoning of political leaders.I believe in open borders and free markets within a nation. I don’t agree with the dumb land owning rules of Himichal or the NE either.

    0
    1. Wow, you guys are fighting about the state of people’s genitals and open defecation. Can there be a better example of crass and juvenile behavior?

      It’s amazing how quickly South Asians (both Hindu and Muslim) are reduced to throwing the crassest of insults at each other.

      0
      1. It’s amazing how quickly South Asians (both Hindu and Muslim) are reduced to throwing the crassest of insults at each other.

        it’s the internet. that being said, i do think brownz go there faster…

        1+
  19. “Pakistanis shaking off their delusions (they all sprang from the loins of Bin Qassim in the 7th century) and reclaiming their heritage is …”

    this is still an elite/upper-middle-class phenomenon in pak. rank and file Pakistanis still buy the arab/foreign origin story.

    true litmus test is the name of the missiles of pak. as long as missiles are named after ghauri and gazanwi, (and not after jayapal and dahir), it doesn’t wash.

    0
    1. The State of Pakistan names its missiles after “Islamic” heroes like Ghauri and Ghaznavi because it sees itself as a “Muslim” state fighting a “Hindu” enemy. After all, the entire basis of the Partition of British India was religion. India names its missiles after Hindu kings like Pritviraj.

      This doesn’t mean that even “rank and file” Pakistanis think that they are descendants of foreigners. Most Punjabis recognize that they are the natives of the land, whose ancestors converted to Islam at some point in the distant past.

      0
      1. / India names its missiles after Hindu kings like Pritviraj./

        Kabir, not disagreeing with your broader point, but I believe India’s missile is called “prithvi” which means earth/land in sanskrit, and chosen perhaps because it is a surface-to-surface weapon. Other missiles are name “agni” (fire), “sagarika” (wave), and “akash” (sky/ether)). There’s definitely a classical elements theme going on.

        0
        1. India names its battle tank “Arjun” after the Hindu mythological character.

          It is only to be expected that Pakistan would give its missiles “Islamic” names. Like it or not, the entire basis for the division of the subcontinent was religion. The State of Pakistan defined itself as the “not India” and the way it did this was to emphasize the Muslim conquest of South Asia.

          However linking the names of missiles with Pakistanis’ supposed perception of themselves as “foreign” is a bit ridiculous. Punjabis and Sindhis very much see themselves as sons of the soil.

          0
          1. A tank named “arjun” is invoking a mythical persona, and islamic nations like indonesia do the same with garuda and such. Arjun wasn’t a famous slayer of muslims in the way ghori and ghazni are believed to be of hindus. I do think there is a distinction here. The indian state has of course self-consciously adopted sanskritic nomenclature, and toned down (but not eliminated) the persianate.
            I agree to your point that most punjabi/sindhis in pakistan see themselves as sons of the soil. Some indians overplay the loss of cultural memory in pakistan.

            0
          2. “India names its battle tank “Arjun” after the Hindu mythological character.”

            Shouldn’t read too much into it. India’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicle programme is called ‘Rustom’, which is a Persian name. I think it literally means warrior or a strong person.
            (Named after Prof Rustom Damania)

            1+
  20. I am amazed at how Kabir and Indthings pretend themselves to be liberal thinking/ atheist/ fair and open minded people while countering Indian actions in Kashmir , Rest of India, etc questioning India’s secular credentials.

    At same time, they see no wrong in whatever Pak does becoz ‘we never said we were secular’ so we get a pass here. Secular nations need to live up to very high standards set be these guys. But they will twist all facts to defend the very country who has questionable record on all human right issues or when their diaspora engaged in heinous crimes of girl grooming in name of natural consequence, outstanding male virility and what not.

    You want to claim Indian heritage then accept the fact that most of the Pak people converted from dharmic religions, the fact that this land was settled by many great civilizations from thousands of years before the desert religions took off and caused a great deal of destruction in the subcontinent. Incidentally most affected part of subcontinent to this destruction happens to be present day Pak which makes it so wrong to name things after the very destroyers who sabotaged you region and then claim cultural heritage from the punjabi/sindhi culture.

    You cant abruptly highlight events from 7th century onwards, define Pak as non-Indian, claim nothing to do with black and dirty Indians, since we rode a horse to subjugate you guys but by the way all the things that happened in present day pak in prehistoric times dont belong to Indians but us. Making straw arguments about how present day Pak is historically ever so different than rest of India to satisfy the creation of Pakistan.

    The genesis of Pakistan lies in vain superiority complex which has no basis in history or fact and due to which it finds itself in present condition of having no past or future except for the present as the source of terrorism affecting the whole world.

    You can and should claim heritage to all things Indian right from IVC but for god sake come up with a consistent story which is independent of religion and imaginary superiority alone.

    0
    1. Don’t put me in this category of people who “see no wrong in whatever Pak does”. Pakistan has some very serious problems and doesn’t treat minorities well at all. However, it is a fact that it is not a constitutionally secular state. The “standards” for secularism have not been set by me but by the international community, much of which is appalled by the communications blockade in Kashmir and the Citizenship Amendment Act.

      I have never defended “girl grooming” or made any arguments about male virility.

      I have no issues accepting the fact that most Pakistanis are descended from non-Muslims. That is simply a matter of historical record. As for defining Pakistan as “non-Indian”, that is not my personal definition but that of the State. I have often criticized the Pakistani establishment’s selective reading of History.

      “The genesis of Pakistan lies in vain superiority complex”: This is a historically ignorant opinion. Pakistan was created because of the fears of the Muslim minority of British India that they would be treated as second-class citizens in a Hindu-majority India. Congress refused to give the safeguards that the Muslim League had asked for (separate electorates, weighted representation). Their reneging on the Cabinet Mission Plan was the last straw and led to the demand for Partition. Whatever your opinion on the ML’s demands, one cannot deny that Partition was negotiated between the two political parties and the colonial power. If Congress had accepted the CMP, Pakistan would never have been created.

      As far as Pakistan “having no future” is concerned: We have existed as a sovereign state for the past 72 years and are not likely to cease existing any time soon. It is extremely difficult to bring down nuclear powers. It is up to the citizens of Pakistan to push for a progressive country that treats all its citizens equally, despite being an “Islamic Republic”.

      0
      1. ‘The “standards” for secularism have not been set by me but by the international community’

        I see a large part of educated Muslims living in west use those standards selectively. International forums are being used to bash imperfect secular countries by countries which are themselves much worse. There is a train of progressively more liberal commentators at work here where one doesnt support the worst behavior directly but supports the person exhibiting same.

        You make much subtle comments saying naming of missile on invaders seems only natural for Pak and at same time put a disclaimer that I dont agree with all things they do. Well in that case how do you feel about ‘I dont believe in all policies of Modi govt. but it seems only natural of them to do CAA, NRC, Abolish 370 etc.’ as counterargument?

        ‘Pakistan was created because of the fears of the Muslim minority of British India that they would be treated as second-class citizens in a Hindu-majority India.’
        Where should I begin? Such were the fears of Muslim minority that they got this new country and still choose to llve in large number in India. Meanwhile the hindu communities in the newly created land were decimated. The Muslim land thus created was a paradise for true believers since there was no racial discrimination done by western Pakistanis on eastern ones. Right?

        The despicable comments made by Pak leaders about skin color of Bengalis and them being hindu like are well documented. This can only be explained in terms of vain superiority complex exhibited in abundance by them and not by some ‘dara hua Musalman’ (frightened Muslim) hypothesis. Now Muslims are enjoying first class citizen status in Pak isnt it? Oh yes, just ask Ahmadis about it.

        Time to come up with a new argument to support for partition!

        Also when you say we survived 72 years just remember Bangladesh creation in 1971. The success story just writes itself.

        1+
        1. You are free to state that you don’t support all policies of the Modi government but do believe that CAA was the right thing. CAA and abrogating Article 370 were in the BJP manifesto after all.

          You can ignore any criticism from Pakistanis on these actions because Pakistan is “much worse”. However, you will still have to deal with the criticism from secular developed countries in the West which are also appalled at the idea of introducing religion as a criteria for citizenship. It’s a shame that Indians are content with simply being better than their neighbor and don’t aspire to the standards of truly secular countries. If your dearest desire is to turn your country into a Hindu Pakistan then your criticisms of the idea of Pakistan seem hollow.

          I am not going to defend West Pakistan’s frankly colonial treatment of East Pakistan. However, the political developments of the 1960s and 70s don’t negate the legitimate fears of the Muslim minority prior to 1947.

          I’m glad you brought up the plight of the Ahmadis. It is the BJP’s argument that Muslims cannot be persecuted in Muslim countries. The example of the Ahmadis shows that that is not the case. If CAA is truly about providing a refuge for the persecuted, then surely Ahmadis should be given a fast-track to Indian citizenship. The fact that they are excluded tells one a lot about the true intent of the law.

          There is no need to come up with new arguments in support of Partition. The existence of Pakistan (and Bangladesh)is now a historical fact, whether one likes it or not.

          Finally, leaving the moral justification for Bangladesh aside, it’s creation was only possible because of third party intervention from India. The fact that Pakistan now possesses nuclear weapons makes any such attempt to break up the country a very different matter. Of course, the government of Pakistan should assuage any legitimate grievances of any of the provinces. However, there is no scope for the loss of territorial sovereignty.

          0
          1. ‘However, you will still have to deal with the criticism from secular developed countries in the West which are also appalled at the idea of introducing religion as a criteria for citizenship.’

            I will suggest the same advice that you gave in other comment to SouthIndian
            ‘Perhaps you should spend less time criticizing other countries and other religious communities and focus more on the issues of your own country.’

            ‘If your dearest desire is to turn your country into a Hindu Pakistan then your criticisms of the idea of Pakistan seem hollow.’

            My dearest desire is to see better India where all religions can thrive like Jews, St Thomas Christians and Parsis do since long time, but not at cost of white washing history or under ideals of some fake liberal commentators.

            ‘However, the political developments of the 1960s and 70s don’t negate the legitimate fears of the Muslim minority prior to 1947’

            I just explained that the whole business of fears of Muslim was a front to their vain superiority complex (too good to live under the hindu rule) which was highlighted in their subsequent actions wrt bengalis. And the same continues to be the impediment to Pakistanis accepting their surroundings, neighbors and their history as it is and not as they imagine it to be.

            ‘then surely Ahmadis should be given a fast-track to Indian citizenship’

            I would accept that. In fact if the protesters had said good you have a law for persecuted minorities that Islamic countries in neighborhood reject/oppress. Lets include Ahmadis into this. Would have been valid and compelling. But saying it somehow is against islam ( and protesting violently) when Islam is the actor driving the persecution for other communities is nuts. Its like EU accepts refugees from middle east then they should also rehabilitate ISIS fighters otherwise the laws are not humane enough.

            ‘There is no need to come up with new arguments in support of Partition. The existence of Pakistan (and Bangladesh)is now a historical fact, whether one likes it or not.’

            I dont have any problems with it but it is them who have to accept the history and reality of the subcontinent to be able to reclaim their past. The violent past of Islam in subcontinent has to be acknowledged and not pushed under rug or countered with incessant narrative that Hindu RW is responsible for it all otherwise things were hunky dory

            ‘The fact that Pakistan now possesses nuclear weapons makes any such attempt to break up the country a very different matter’

            I dont think balcanization of pakistan is of any help to India rather than having multiple Islamic fundamentalist states around it. I was highlighting the fact that Pak has not survived without casualties on account of its superiority complex and it will serve it well to remember and remedy that.

            0
          2. The anti-CAA protestors specifically pointed out the fact that a law supposedly about saving people from persecution in neighboring countries excludes Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar as well as Tamils from Sri Lanka. Amit Shah himself said that the law was required because of Partition. However, this then doesn’t explain why it includes Afghanistan, which was never part of British India and had nothing to do with Partition. There is plenty of debate in India about what the real intentions of this law are.

            You are free to focus on the “violent past of Islam” if you wish. Such a reading of History is selective and will not help your country to move forward.

            Feel free to have the last word. I don’t believe you are arguing in good faith so I’m not going to waste further time on you.

            0
    2. The lack of critique and reform in Pakistan is due to the social structures/norms being encoded into religion. I have highlighted the flexibility of Hinduism earlier which not only has no blasphemy laws but also encourages debate, critique and reform. This is the one of the examples of the cultural discontinuity I’m talking about. The fundamentals of society in terms of reform appetite and acceptance of critique of religion has changed in our neighborhood. This is a fundamental feature of our civilization which is lost in the neighborhood.
      As I have mentioned earlier, India has a problem with regards to women due to the social structure of the society- patrilineal and patrilocal. However, the pace of change can be dramatic in India because norms are enforced typically in the name of culture and not religion.
      I come from a lower middle class, extremely traditional Hindu family. However, the attitudinal change in my family with regards to women is dramatic. I can live, work, study, socialize, wear what I please and have my family support me. Had I been born in an extremely traditional, lower middle class muslim family, I doubt I would have the autonomy I have to live, work, study, socialize, wear as I please. I shudder to think of the life I would have had in this alternate universe. This is the cultural divergence, I’m talking about.

      2+
      1. There is plenty of debate in Pakistan about the place of religion in the State etc. Just because you may not be aware of it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

        As for the status of women, Pakistan is full of female doctors, lawyers and engineers. We even had a female head of government (It is a different matter that she inherited her political position from her father). As you point out, it is perhaps social class that is the issue rather than religion.

        Perhaps you should spend less time criticizing other countries and other religious communities and focus more on the issues of your own country.

        0
        1. I run a startup that focuses on changing gender norms in India, so please refrain from offering suggestions on what I should focus on in my life.
          When there is debate on Pakistan’s lack of rights on this forum, there is a tendency to shut it down saying focus on your country. But you only seem to discuss only India in your comments. That is also a difference in the debating culture.
          I agree that there is debate regarding blasphemy laws in Pakistan since people are given the death penalty for just expressing contrarian opinions regarding Islam, but that is a low bar. In other cases minors from minority community as old as 14-15 are converted, raped and married off. The bar is pretty low even for a country that has chosen to define itself as an Islamic state

          2+
          1. If you are going to talk about Pakistan it behooves you to better inform yourself about the situation there.

            “The bar is pretty low”– It’s nice that Indians are content with being better than their neighbor rather than aspiring to join the civilized world. Nothing one can do about your low aspirations.

            0
  21. Dominance of Indo-Aryan Dynasties in the Mediterranean and Bronze Age Mesopotamia: Origin, Development, and Decline
    Alexander Erokhov (Sever)
    A. Erokhov (Sever)

    https://www.academia.edu/40036683/Dominance_of_Indo-Aryan_Dynasties_in_the_Mediterranean_and_Bronze_Age_Mesopotamia_Origin_Development_and_Decline?auto=download

    This paper about the Mittani Indo Aryans is a good read. It sort of supports the OIT, but then it may not. Erokhav has the IA move into the Sarasvati basin around 4000 BCE at the latest from northern Afghanistan much earlier than the AIT date of 1500 BCE (Fig 1) . The author does have the European branches move from south of the Caspian sea which squares with the OIT chronologically but not geographically. The paper does not include the usual AIT citations such as Anthony, Mallory and Parpola. So it seems like a compromised version of the OIT.

    0
  22. Do you not know of the blasphemy laws with death penalty exist in Pakistan or do you pretend it does not exist? Speaking of low aspirations, what is the bar for a self defined Islamic state? Saudi Arabia or the Taliban or ISIS?
    It behooves you to better inform yourself about the Lautenberg-Specter amendment before writing any post on the CAA that holds up the US as a model. The Specter amendment in the USA gives fast track citizenship only to Jewish, Christian, Bahai from Iran and Muslims are excluded from this fast track citizenship. Even Sunnis muslims who are persecuted in Iran are not included in this act.

    1+
    1. Who here is defending the blasphemy laws or forced conversions of minorities? In Pakistan, blasphemy laws are misused. In India, minorities (mostly Muslim) are lynched for eating beef. Majoritarianism is a problem in both countries.

      But really those whose country is rapidly on the way to becoming a Hindu Rashtra have no business criticizing “Islamic” Pakistan. The hypocrisy is blindly obvious.

      0
  23. The Anti CAA protestors got hijacked by people who proclaimed “there is no God but allah” That is like the epitome of securlarness I guess.

    And how many protest were you part of or the number of comments you wrote when minorities in Pak are attacked ?
    Whenever shown mirror you resort to saying so is your bar so low as Pak , Is india becoming like pak?
    Why care defend such a low bar country i would ask?

    Selective reading of history, Hypocrisy and bad intention are your forte. Anyone reading comments from CAA law to genetics of SA can understand who has chip on their shoulders.

    1+
    1. Criticizing Pakistan and Islam is much easier then introspecting about your own country’s betrayal of the secular principles of its founding fathers.

      You want India to become another majoritarian hellhole, more power to you. But luckily there are people out on the streets fighting for secularism and the ideals of the Indian Constitution. They are on the right side of History while you continue to prove yourself an Islamophobic bigot.

      0
      1. Don’t need you to issue secular certificates.

        So unlucky that there is no one like that to protest in pak. Oh right, they are busy lecturing other people on securalism and Islamophobia.

        Seriously let our imperfect democracy sort that out and you can put your secular brain to good use trying to stop the abduction and forceful conversions.

        2+

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.