What's new

The great Indian racist

Such belief of 1000 yrs of rule myth only exist among Pakistanis. :sarcastic::sarcastic:

I've read your sorry excuses for 'how' it was not a thousand year rule. It was a riot but that is to expected when leading luminaries of scholarship in India are likes of P.N Oak (pruning fame) :D
 
I've read your sorry excuses for 'how' it was not a thousand year rule. It was a riot but that is to expected when leading luminaries of scholarship in India are likes of P.N Oak (pruning fame)
Four times converted has come up again with his theory.:o:
 
I've read your sorry excuses for 'how' it was not a thousand year rule. It was a riot but that is to expected when leading luminaries of scholarship in India are likes of P.N Oak (pruning fame) :D
Looking at where your rulers brought you in 60+ odd years raises serious doubts about the pedigree you all claim.
 
I've read your sorry excuses for 'how' it was not a thousand year rule. It was a riot but that is to expected when leading luminaries of scholarship in India are likes of P.N Oak (pruning fame) :D

I am not here to debate the number of years but the theory of who ruled whom or who got defeated. Like Raja Dahir is the real ancestor of Sindhi Muslims instead of a Bengali, Marathi or Tamil Hindus.
 
Four times converted has come up again with his theory.:o:

No personal attacks dipshyt - I have to remind this lot time and again that this is not the crap infested capital of India but a forum with very precise rules and regulations pertaining to forum behaviour.

As for conversion, I am most pleased with any of my ancestors which were smart enough to jump the dung ridden boat of 'Ancient Civilization (renowned for its ancient atomic farts) or I would have been taking the bath of enlightenment in some corpse ridden pit. :lol:
 
As for conversion, I am most pleased with any of my ancestors which were smart enough to jump the dung ridden boat of 'Ancient Civilization (renowned for its ancient atomic farts) or I would have been taking the bath of enlightenment in some corpse ridden pit. :lol:
The truth is very far from your post considering the current situation of Pakistan. :lol::lol:
 
Looking at where your rulers brought you in 60+ odd years raises serious doubts about the pedigree you all claim.


Unlike you lot I actually have an interest in History and remember the plight of India as late as nineties. It was openly ridiculed for its 'Hindu rate of Growth' (its a real term - Google) and all one heard from Indian leadership was never ending wailing of how 'west' favors Pakistan. Hence the irony of patriotic boosts from India are not lost on me. Nations go through tough times, Pakistan will come out of it in a year or two.
 
As for conversion, I am most pleased with any of my ancestors which were smart enough to jump the dung ridden boat of 'Ancient Civilization (renowned for its ancient atomic farts) or I would have been taking the bath of enlightenment in some corpse ridden pit.
So, this is the story you were told.:disagree:

Unlike you lot I actually have an interest in History and remember the plight of India as late as nineties. It was openly ridiculed for its 'Hindu rate of Growth' (its a real term - Google) and all one heard from Indian leadership was never ending wailing of how 'west' favors Pakistan. Hence the irony of patriotic boosts from India are not lost on me. Nations go through tough times, Pakistan will come out of it in a year or two.
Read the history of 5000 years. Now, tell me when modern day Pakistan are was ruled by modern day Pakistanis before 1947.:woot:
 
Modern Indians are getting more confidant, not having the feeling of insecurity and inferiority, due to social and technological development in India.

But still long way to go to get rid of their ingrained old problems in their mind.
 
The truth is very far from your post considering the current situation of Pakistan. :lol::lol:

Haha if this makes you sleep easy then keep believing it :lol: 70 years and it still it hurts the torch bearers of 'ancient civilization' that some sane ones jumped ship.
 
We can be outraged by the racism in India only when we begin to accept that cultural and ethnic contamination is the overriding theme of our identity
On a trip to Lahore once, I was struck by the cultural similarities between my hosts and myself. We liked the same food, lived in similar surroundings, and shared the same jokes. It was an altogether friendly experience, separated by a border. On a similar trip to the Northeast, I realised how different I was from the local population. Despite the cordiality, the cultural and ethnic connection of my hosts was closer to China. Yet, I felt gratified that our differences were not a source of alienation, and that the boundaries of nation states were in fact not cultural, social or culinary boundaries.

But through most of India, the Northeast evokes an ambivalent response. Nido Tania’s death is just one of many incidents that has again focussed attention on racism and public attitudes to both foreigners and Indian citizens. Last year, when two women of Chinese descent from Singapore were molested in Goa, the police delayed the registration of their complaint with the excuse that they thought the women were from the Northeast. Two years ago — triggered by an SMS hate campaign — many Northeast residents were forced out of Karnataka back to their home States fearing racist attacks. Only when the Rapid Action Force was deployed in Bangalore did the exodus stop. By then 30,000 people had already left the city. Similar campaigns by Sena activists in Maharashtra have led to marches against Bihari outsiders. Despite the media uproar, little or no action is taken and race issues are brushed aside as being insignificant.

Different responses

However, racism outside the country elicits an altogether different response. When actor Shahrukh Khan is frisked by American immigration authorities, it is racial profiling at its worst, and causes a diplomatic crisis.

Four years ago when Indian students — mainly of Punjabi origin — were the target of racist attacks in Australia, incensed and outraged protests were staged against Australians, both in India and abroad. Calls were made for diplomatic ostracism and a boycott of Australian universities. Had those students been of Northeastern origin, would the protest have been as muscular and vehement? Why is the Indian outraged at racism directed at him abroad, and not at home?

Psychologists will say that the Indian’s deep-seated inferiority is rooted in a past of subjugation, the colonial despair of feeling second rate. But a deeper resentment now emerges as a form of by-polar urbanism where protection of self and turf is paramount, and always guarded against any invasion. Unfortunately, when the insularity of neighbourhoods is viewed as a positive attribute, Ugandan women in a Delhi mohalla will continue to be seen as an unacceptable intrusion in middle-class urban culture; as will the Danish and other Europeans, if they abandon the tour buses and start walking down the local streets. The assertion of Indian racist self-worth is always more palatable when weighed against foreign cultural comparisons.

Will then, Indians of African descent, the Siddis, settled in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Karnataka ever be truly accepted as Indians? Would Ugandans, if they settled down in India, ever become citizens with full rights, just the way 12,000 Indians have in Uganda? If Indians from the Northeast are not accepted into the mainstream, does that then weaken the case for Arunachal Pradesh being an integral part of India? If indeed mainstream India is unwilling to accept the Northeasterner’s Indianness, why then is the Kashmiri’s position questioned? Is the Indian Kashmiri’s applause for Pakistan at a cricket match as much a betrayal as a resident Indian supporting the Indian team against England in England? The answers probably lie in the larger issue of who is an Indian anyway.

Many Hindus still believe that they are the true settlers of India. Muslims, they maintain, became settlers only through invasion, and Christians through missionary imposition. On the other hand, Muslims — and many Hindus — believe that cultural assimilation is the true strength of the country; while some regard aboriginals as the only original inhabitants of India. Whatever the merits of the debate, once cultural and ethnic contamination — rather than purity — is accepted as the overriding theme of Indian identity, questions of who is Indian become redundant.

Till then, Assamese women will continue to be groped on the metro; at bus stops, Mizo nurses on their way home will be seen by many passing motorists as easy prey. Africans anywhere will be presumed to be drug addicts and suppliers. The enforcing of such stereotypes is a cultural flaw, an acid test for an urban culture that oscillates between modernity, tradition and barbarity, often in the same breath. However long a Ugandan woman may live in a Delhi mohalla, or an Arunachal girl in a Bangalore suburb, they will not be invited to join the residents’ welfare association. Sadly, the stamp of “Resident Alien” is permanently fixed on their ethnicity. The Indian is an unforgiving and ruthless host, living by the rules of some imaginary past, uncomfortable in the rapidly changing present, and completely disconnected with his future in the city.

If anything, the insular state of urban life demands a serious look at outsiders by those who consider themselves insiders. Is a lack of assimilation a threat to cultural integrity, or is the current state of racial exclusion essential for religious and ethnic purity? The answer may shape India’s urban future.

(Gautam Bhatia is a Delhi-based architect and writer.)

The great Indian racist - The Hindu
Spring I can tell u one thing is first Nido case does not qualify racists act but it mere unfortunate accident happened with our NE brths..... if u follow criminality in delhi u wud not b surprised to know that anyone at Nido place had met similar fate in delhi.......
I m not saying 0% racism but few hundreds miscreants who indulge in such acts does not reflect the general psyches of indian masses.

We can be outraged by the racism in India only when we begin to accept that cultural and ethnic contamination is the overriding theme of our identity
On a trip to Lahore once, I was struck by the cultural similarities between my hosts and myself. We liked the same food, lived in similar surroundings, and shared the same jokes. It was an altogether friendly experience, separated by a border. On a similar trip to the Northeast, I realised how different I was from the local population. Despite the cordiality, the cultural and ethnic connection of my hosts was closer to China. Yet, I felt gratified that our differences were not a source of alienation, and that the boundaries of nation states were in fact not cultural, social or culinary boundaries.

But through most of India, the Northeast evokes an ambivalent response. Nido Tania’s death is just one of many incidents that has again focussed attention on racism and public attitudes to both foreigners and Indian citizens. Last year, when two women of Chinese descent from Singapore were molested in Goa, the police delayed the registration of their complaint with the excuse that they thought the women were from the Northeast. Two years ago — triggered by an SMS hate campaign — many Northeast residents were forced out of Karnataka back to their home States fearing racist attacks. Only when the Rapid Action Force was deployed in Bangalore did the exodus stop. By then 30,000 people had already left the city. Similar campaigns by Sena activists in Maharashtra have led to marches against Bihari outsiders. Despite the media uproar, little or no action is taken and race issues are brushed aside as being insignificant.

Different responses

However, racism outside the country elicits an altogether different response. When actor Shahrukh Khan is frisked by American immigration authorities, it is racial profiling at its worst, and causes a diplomatic crisis.

Four years ago when Indian students — mainly of Punjabi origin — were the target of racist attacks in Australia, incensed and outraged protests were staged against Australians, both in India and abroad. Calls were made for diplomatic ostracism and a boycott of Australian universities. Had those students been of Northeastern origin, would the protest have been as muscular and vehement? Why is the Indian outraged at racism directed at him abroad, and not at home?

Psychologists will say that the Indian’s deep-seated inferiority is rooted in a past of subjugation, the colonial despair of feeling second rate. But a deeper resentment now emerges as a form of by-polar urbanism where protection of self and turf is paramount, and always guarded against any invasion. Unfortunately, when the insularity of neighbourhoods is viewed as a positive attribute, Ugandan women in a Delhi mohalla will continue to be seen as an unacceptable intrusion in middle-class urban culture; as will the Danish and other Europeans, if they abandon the tour buses and start walking down the local streets. The assertion of Indian racist self-worth is always more palatable when weighed against foreign cultural comparisons.

Will then, Indians of African descent, the Siddis, settled in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Karnataka ever be truly accepted as Indians? Would Ugandans, if they settled down in India, ever become citizens with full rights, just the way 12,000 Indians have in Uganda? If Indians from the Northeast are not accepted into the mainstream, does that then weaken the case for Arunachal Pradesh being an integral part of India? If indeed mainstream India is unwilling to accept the Northeasterner’s Indianness, why then is the Kashmiri’s position questioned? Is the Indian Kashmiri’s applause for Pakistan at a cricket match as much a betrayal as a resident Indian supporting the Indian team against England in England? The answers probably lie in the larger issue of who is an Indian anyway.

Many Hindus still believe that they are the true settlers of India. Muslims, they maintain, became settlers only through invasion, and Christians through missionary imposition. On the other hand, Muslims — and many Hindus — believe that cultural assimilation is the true strength of the country; while some regard aboriginals as the only original inhabitants of India. Whatever the merits of the debate, once cultural and ethnic contamination — rather than purity — is accepted as the overriding theme of Indian identity, questions of who is Indian become redundant.

Till then, Assamese women will continue to be groped on the metro; at bus stops, Mizo nurses on their way home will be seen by many passing motorists as easy prey. Africans anywhere will be presumed to be drug addicts and suppliers. The enforcing of such stereotypes is a cultural flaw, an acid test for an urban culture that oscillates between modernity, tradition and barbarity, often in the same breath. However long a Ugandan woman may live in a Delhi mohalla, or an Arunachal girl in a Bangalore suburb, they will not be invited to join the residents’ welfare association. Sadly, the stamp of “Resident Alien” is permanently fixed on their ethnicity. The Indian is an unforgiving and ruthless host, living by the rules of some imaginary past, uncomfortable in the rapidly changing present, and completely disconnected with his future in the city.

If anything, the insular state of urban life demands a serious look at outsiders by those who consider themselves insiders. Is a lack of assimilation a threat to cultural integrity, or is the current state of racial exclusion essential for religious and ethnic purity? The answer may shape India’s urban future.

(Gautam Bhatia is a Delhi-based architect and writer.)

The great Indian racist - The Hindu
Spring I can tell u one thing is first Nido case does not qualify racists act but it mere unfortunate accident happened with our NE brths..... if u follow criminality in delhi u wud not b surprised to know that anyone at Nido place had met similar fate in delhi.......
I m not saying 0% racism but few hundreds miscreants who indulge in such acts does not reflect the general psyches of indian masses.
 
So, this is the story you were told.:disagree:

Yup P.N OAk is not taught in Pakistan (But I have read his work just for kicks) :lol:

Read the history of 5000 years. Now, tell me when modern day Pakistan are was ruled by modern day Pakistanis before 1947.:woot:

I can't care less for your loony theories, come 1947 and Muslims fought for and got a homeland and thats the part which matters most.
 
Spring I can tell u one thing is first Nido case does not qualify racists act but it mere unfortunate accident happened with our NE brths..... if u follow criminality in delhi u wud not b surprised to know that anyone at Nido place had met similar fate in delhi.......
I m not saying 0% racism but few hundreds miscreants who indulge in such acts does not reflect the general psyches of indian masses.


Spring I can tell u one thing is first Nido case does not qualify racists act but it mere unfortunate accident happened with our NE brths..... if u follow criminality in delhi u wud not b surprised to know that anyone at Nido place had met similar fate in delhi.......
I m not saying 0% racism but few hundreds miscreants who indulge in such acts does not reflect the general psyches of indian masses.

i understand that.

But the brawl started by calling/considering the victim somewhat inferior "chinki" ?
 
Haha if this makes you sleep easy then keep believing it :lol: 70 years and it still it hurts the torch bearers of 'ancient civilization' that some sane ones jumped ship.
Yes it hurts us to see the sane ones, get a new country and then push for peace talks with terrorists - oh the hurt is immesurable!
 
@Spring Onion Haven't read what you've posted..BUT YES..at least in Delhi it seems that there is a significant enough percentage of people who are racist, at least enough people that discrimination/attacks/crimes against NE Indians simply because they happen to be from the NE is common and of late the same has started even against African students.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom