The Official Indian Politics Thread

[ankitj]

Actually, this is the biggest issue with racism in our part of the world. Most people may not even realize something is "racist" when they say it. The cultural appreciation of racism and other forms of discrimination is shockingly poor across our sub-continent. I think Abhinav Mukund also wrote a big tweet or something on how he was color-shamed etc. That was met with a lot of support and sympathy from the Indian players but our education policy should re-look at how little we are taught on such a sensitive topic.

Agree with this. And there is a reason for ignorance. We don't have history of race based abuses weighing down on our collective conscience. Caste is a much more historically relevant issue and education system does emphasize it a lot. Doesn't succeed in eliminating caste prejudices completely but helps slowly over generations. Getting sensitized to racism requires subcontinent folks to be exposed to western culture and history.

 

[weldone]

The way North India interacts with South India (not just today) has a lot of racism. Yes atrocities are more caste-based, but the 'othering' of South Indians is a thing.

 

[nightprowler10]

I don't think I had western education as a kid when I realized it was wrong for me to call people kallu or judge people as inferior to myself based on their complexion.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah it is more based on color than race as in it could be anyone who has dark skin that gets called that, like smali pointed out with Balaji and even Thisira Perera apparently at SRH. It was a thing in movies as well that dark skinned guys could not be leads. One of the reasons Rajinikanth is so venerated is because he basically broke the stereotype male lead in movies, at least in the south and paved the way for so many guys. I am assuming it was the same in north as well, at least in the Hindi industry. Asha Bhonsle remarked once how they were floored by a dark skinned hero in Andha Kaanoon.

 

[Daemon]

Bollywood has a lot to blame for this. I realise how it can be a chicken and egg problem, but their regular reinforcement of these stereotypes make the problem a lot worse.

At the very least we should be past celebrity endorsements of fairness products by now.

 

[duffer]

He is bad. But I think he still is the best among the Modi-Bhakt media. The others are worse.

India Today did a solid hit piece on Kejriwal and AAP last night too.

 

[ankitj]

I don't think I had western education as a kid when I realized it was wrong for me to call people kallu or judge people as inferior to myself based on their complexion.

You are fantastic. I do recall laughing at racist jokes in my teens. It wasn't until early 20s that I was properly sensitized to racism. I don't think I held overtly racist attitudes but I was certainly fairly ignorant and didn't know it was a big deal to crack race jokes.

 

[ankitj]

Bollywood has a lot to blame for this. I realise how it can be a chicken and egg problem, but their regular reinforcement of these stereotypes make the problem a lot worse.

At the very least we should be past celebrity endorsements of fairness products by now.

Yup. Bollywood routinely had caricaturish South Indian characters.

Southern Indian film industry is not blameless either. What's with always casting actresses with lighter complexion in movies even if that meant importing actresses from Punjab.

 

[Teja.]

At some point we have to talk about how there's a high chance that the Ramayana is a metaphorically simplified story passed along history to celebrate the conquer, violence and subsequent cultural whitewashing (or 'unification') of the entire of southern India and Lanka under the mainland vedic religious narrative which persists till today absorbing all local folklore as parts of its tree.

I don't really have a moral judgment on that, all religious narratives are historical propaganda.

However, as relating to the above discussion, I think it's important to examine when the arya purush Shri Rama pushes southward, he encounters opposition from South India under the rule of the kingdom of Kishkindha (modern day Karnataka). Curiously, the south indians are described not just as dark-skinned but also monkeys who looked virtually indistinguishable from each other. This is despite them clearly being humans in every conceivable way and having their own cities and culture.

After conquering said monkey tribes, as we all know, Ramayana goes further southwards to encounter and conquer the dark skinned rakshasa king of Lanka as well as burn down their entire city and celebrate this as some sort of glorious thing.

It's important to note that these monkey tribes and demons can have all sorts of admirable and beautiful qualities and can even join and become part of Rama's army but despite that they are never described as human unlike all the mainlanders mentioned in Rama's early life, regardless of class/caste.

It's easier to propagandise yourself as benevolent civilisers when you portray your darker skinned victims of battle as sub-human or animalistic, foundationally, regardless of character.

 

[honestbharani]

You are fantastic. I do recall laughing at racist jokes in my teens. It wasn't until early 20s that I was properly sensitized to racism. I don't think I held overtly racist attitudes but I was certainly fairly ignorant and didn't know it was a big deal to crack race jokes.

My father is pretty dark skinned and my mother pretty fair. So I grew up rather sensitized to the whole thing and have never color shamed anyone anywhere ever, even within a group of close friends where the usual fatty and kaalu jokes are tolerated and even welcomed at times, depending on the attitude of the blokes. But I do remember my father being extremely proud of me being fair skinned (relatively within Indian context) and he used to give me my baths till I was 6 and it will bloody take an hour everytime coz he wanted to ensure I retained my color.

Of course, the moment I started going out and playing it all went out of the window... He even stopped talking to me when I was 12 for a few days, coz he was not happy that I was undoing all his "hard work" to keep my skin color fair.

 

[honestbharani]

At some point we have to talk about how there's a high chance that the Ramayana is a metaphorically simplified story passed along history to celebrate the conquer, violence and subsequent cultural whitewashing (or 'unification') of the entire of southern India and Lanka under the mainland vedic religious narrative which persists till today absorbing all local folklore as parts of its tree.

I don't really have a moral judgment on that, all religious narratives are historical propaganda.

However, as relating to the above discussion, I think it's important to examine when the arya purush Shri Rama pushes southward, he encounters opposition from South India under the rule of the kingdom of Kishkindha (modern day Karnataka). Curiously, the rulers of Kishkinda are described not just as dark-skinned but also monkeys who looked virtually indistinguishable from each other. This is despite them clearly being humans in every conceivable way and having their own cities and culture.

After conquering said monkey tribes, as we all know, Ramayana goes further southwards to encounter and conquer the dark skinned rakshasa king of Lanka as well as burn down their entire city and celebrate this as some sort of glorious thing. I

t's important to note that these monkey tribes and demons can have all sorts of admirable and beautiful qualities and can even join and become part of Rama's army but they are never described as human unlike all the mainlanders mentioned in Rama's early life, regardless of class/caste.

It's easier to propagandise yourself as benevolent civilisers when you portray your darker skinned victims of battle as sub-human or animalistic, foundationally, regardless of character.

While I agree with your broader point of people using religion to push their discriminatory beliefs (and that exists in all religions everywhere really), I think you have got almost all of your historical context wrong. There is as much evidence to believe in the existence of Lemuria which would mean Kishkindha could well be modern day Africa and it is no secret there are still tribes that worship Hanuman over there. Its easy to get lost in the muddle when you talk about things that are just inferences from texts written ages ago and when words, meanings and narratives have been bastardized across generations.

The easier conversation to have is to end the casual discrimination of people based on their skin color, not just race or caste. And that conversation is much more important and necessary than to retroactively **** on religious texts which never end well for anyone.

 

[Teja.]

It's not shitting on religious texts to note that vedic religious texts considered fair skin to be a desirable/positive thing among humans. Even the religious texts like the Mahabharatha, where Krishna himself was not fair skinned.

I encourage people to look up Lemuria to make up their own mind.

Not really in the mood to proceed further with this argument here because I don't want to be a stubborn dick to religious people. Peace.

 

[honestbharani]

It's not shitting on religious texts to note that vedic religious texts considered fair skin to be a desirable/positive thing among humans. Even the religious texts like the Mahabharatha, where Krishna himself was not fair skinned.

I encourage people to look up Lemuria to make up their own mind.

Not really in the mood to proceed further with this argument here because I don't want to be a stubborn dick to religious people. Peace.

Not really, if you have researched enough of vedic texts you will see that a lot of it talk about darkness being as important as the light. Including in terms of skin color. And once again, you may not intend it as shitting on religious texts but that is how these things are taken if you are not wording it correctly and lets face it, no one really does beyond a point, as it can get irritating. It is like I was telling in that thread that Shri started, it is not going to offend me if you misinterpret a text or read what you think was written than what was and I am more than willing to have these conversations but a) I don't pretend to be an expert in this except to the extent I guided a buddy in the US to his theology doctorate with my observations and research on Hinduism and b) given how social media (incl. CW at times) works these days, it is just very hard to have a respectful conversation where either party acknowledges the right of the other party to their beliefs.

My point here is that the conversation on color shaming and discrimination as it exists today is much more important than delving into historical context. Too much of the issues that divide people across the world today are about history. What has happened, has happened and my view on historical accuracy is already articulated, again in the thread that Shri started. I just feel a lot of these conversations will have more impact and create the desired effect if many in social media cut out their need to be "seen" as cool or right and instead focussed on bringing actual change to the society. Unfortunately, with most people, I think their own vanity and egos are more important than any real progress on the issues that they want to discuss. It is possible for someone to be religious and yet not be discriminatory. Gandhi himself is the best example of that. So, the religious texts (of any religion, really) does not matter as much as how people want to perceive the basic right of equality and freedom.

 

[smalishah84]

My father is pretty dark skinned and my mother pretty fair. So I grew up rather sensitized to the whole thing and have never color shamed anyone anywhere ever, even within a group of close friends where the usual fatty and kaalu jokes are tolerated and even welcomed at times, depending on the attitude of the blokes. But I do remember my father being extremely proud of me being fair skinned (relatively within Indian context) and he used to give me my baths till I was 6 and it will bloody take an hour everytime coz he wanted to ensure I retained my color.

Of course, the moment I started going out and playing it all went out of the window... He even stopped talking to me when I was 12 for a few days, coz he was not happy that I was undoing all his "hard work" to keep my skin color fair.

Yeah, moms encouraging kids to have milk so their skin will become white as milk. Parents asking kids to avoid playing in the sun so that they don't start looking dark etc. Dark people being called other nasty names like "jala hua tikka (burnt meat)" etc. Pretty common things that I remember from my childhood. Heck I remember being color shamed for my color by a fair skinned kid when I was grade 4 (9 years old) because I was darker than him. Heck, I am not even that dark by Pakistani standards, probably average or even slightly lighter. I didn't like that one bit and probably one of the reasons I never color shamed anybody else.

So much cringeworthy stuff now that I think about it and so much casual racism. And it permeated all classes and levels of society.

I do notice that there is a little more sensitivity to it now than there was 30 years ago but there is a long way to go.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, it is ingrained into us from the 300 years of colonial rule. We can't help it and then it has been taken advantage of by so many, over so many years now. I guess it might be the same in Pak as well. The fact that this began to be called out only in the noughties shows us how far we have to go.

 

[srbhkshk]

After conquering said monkey tribes, as we all know, Ramayana goes further southwards to encounter and conquer the dark skinned rakshasa king of Lanka as well as burn down their entire city and celebrate this as some sort of glorious thing.

lol what? It's Rama who is described as being extremely dark skinned - Ravana was quite a bit fairer to him.

 

[Teja.]

What? I never said Rama had fair skin in my post. I said he was an arya, which he is is explicitly described as such and I fully understand refered to royal lineage rather than skin colour.

I even stated in my post that Krishna was dark skinned. Rama was described as having the otherworldly hue of a dark cloud or a blue lotus in the earliest sources.

 

[srbhkshk]

Then why do you mention "dark skinned rakshasa King" when his opponent is just as and probably more dark skinned? What is the point of mentioning Ravana as dark skinned?

 

[Teja.]

I mean if you're interested about the topic, refer to the physical descriptions of the people in the Lanka kingdom in the Sanskrit Ramayana.

 

[Spikey]

u guys trying to get us all killed or something???