What should India do ? Vote against Sri Lanka or for Sri Lanka ?

[Tronic]

I agree that those from the NE face this kind of issue. Given that place been under AFSPA we don't get to hear from there very often in the press. As there are no jobs there naturally the young migrate to other parts of the country. So there is an influx here that creates tension. What i'm unsure of is whether this is a recent phenomenon or something that has existed much longer.

Rascism for me is between two different races. So this one applies. Kinda, It should not though because they are not foreign. I find it interesting that in your essay there is no mention of Nepalese. They are foreign but do we also mistreat them in the same way.

They are not treated this way just because they are from the North East! They are treated this way because of their physical appearance! That is RACISM. No sugarcoating here!

Nepalis are quite obviously treated the exact same way, i.e., they face racial discrimination, because a large portion of Nepalis too have Mongoloid features.

The influx argument you give is redundant here, because the example given was of Delhi! Majority of the people in Delhi are all migrants!

What other instances can you mention ? A friend related cases on a college campuss with African students and them getting seperate hostels.

Where are the races in India otherwise ? Our melting pot happened hundreds of years ago.

Bihari violence isn't rascism its regionalism with cultural chauvinism. More overt towards them more covert in other areas. Bihari's aren't a different race.

Don't be. I'm just being semantically pedantic here. The word rascism transplanted from the west into an Indian context is too generic as to be meaningless. You have a valid case with those from the NE or even Tibet but what more beyond those communities. That is what leads people to not acknowledge it, and here i'm referring to the educated. It's low on the radar because we don't have much exposure or experience with it.

India has not had anywhere near the same level of immigration that the west has had, if that changes in the future then these issues are likely to crop up and become more pertinent. We have a person of Italian descent in charge of the ruling party of the country. The opposition via their agents tries its best to show she isn't an Indian and fails consistently. She could not stand for PM but is still the most powerful person in India. Her party's chances in the election have more to do with how well her party performs than her.

You can see it with food, i always hear people from the north complaining they cannot get the food they want in the south. Its the same the other way around too. Mumbai is prolly the only exception in the whole country. We don't travel a lot as a people even within the country. Too wedded to our own state's culture that to live elsewhere in the country would be like living on the moon or as you put it in a galaxy far far away :)

I'm not shrugging off or denying anything here. Only trying to be more precise. If anything prejudice is very developed here, we specialise in it even. If you want to say India's is a prejudiced society, or one that practices discrimination then i will agree because it exists on many levels. Putting it this way is much more meaningful in an Indian context, nobody would deny it because now people understand what is said.

I credit this board with tempering my views on the subject of rascism. Whereas in the past i would throw that word around easily but am more careful with it now as its a very strong word.


Agree but given it happens in a private institution nothing can be done and its better that way otherwise we will have chaos if the state enters in here. This isn't rascism either its discrimination based on religion.

I've also read on boards how difficult it is sometimes to get accomodation for northerners in the south. Supposedly, they have a different culture from the locals and are not to be trusted. Regionalism.


Lets start with using the right words then. As to what we can do about it, it will change when more people have to travel around the country. A rising GDP will bring that on. Satellite & TV will bring it on. Given how old our culture is i don't see PC making much inroads here yet.

DE, you're merely playing with semantics here. Discrimination based on physical appearance is no different than Racism. On one instance you talk of no immigration to India, yet, you shrug off ethnic/racial discrimination which happens to be a result of internal migration. Racism might be a strong word for you, but it is what it is.

When someone gets called a "Bhaiya" or a "Madrasi" simply due to their appearance, regardless of the fact if the person is actually from Bihar or Madras; to me that is racism. When Nepalis, North East Indians, Ladhakis, get called "Chinkis" due to their physical appearance, that to me is racism. When any dark skinned person with curly open hair gets derogatorily called a "Habshee", that to me is racism.

A rising GDP, satellite TVs, or whatnot, cannot root out racism from society alone. It has to be first acknowledged as a problem, which most Indians quite obviously shy away from doing!

[lemontree]

I have this idea that if you are precise then you can target these different instances more effectively. Its easier to understand for a start as it puts matters in context, custom made for the particular situation.

I get your point.

Don't follow. Article 15 is being used to justify positive discrimination for a number of communities. In that sense the law supports discrimination.

My mistake, discrimination is permited under Artciel 19(1)(c) which allows formation of associations and unions.

I don't know what you can do if somebody does not want to eat with somebody else. How do you deal with people that want to live in their own community and not with others. In the same way as those that choose to be veg, non-veg or avoid pork. Give them the freedom to choose.

No one is questioning their choice of food, but they have no right to discriminate and judge me on the same grounds.

[Officer of Engineers]

No one is questioning their choice of food, but they have no right to discriminate and judge me on the same grounds.

Yes, Captain, they do. You gave them that right. What they don't have is to force you on their terms.

[Double Edge]

My mistake, discrimination is permited under Artciel 19(1)(c) which allows formation of associations and unions.

No one is questioning their choice of food, but they have no right to discriminate and judge me on the same grounds.

Its an extension of the same idea. If you allow them to choose what they can eat then let them choose who they can associate with as well.

This is counter intuitive but i think its better to give people that freedom. That this in the long term is better for relations between communities.

In a common law country there is no way for you to force this issue and thats a good thing. Whereas in a civil law country the state can jump in and deem it illegal and enforce it. This has the potential to create more friction between the communities than otherwise.

[lemontree]

Its an extension of the same idea. If you allow them to choose what they can eat then let them choose who they can associate with as well.

This is counter intuitive but i think its better to give people that freedom. That this in the long term is better for relations between communities.

In a common law country there is no way for you to force this issue and thats a good thing. Whereas in a civil law country the state can jump in and deem it illegal and enforce it. This has the potential to create more friction between the communities than otherwise.

No, discrimination of any kind is unfair and wrong, especially in a multi-cultural nation like ours.

[Double Edge]

In France & Germany what you said is exactly how it would be enforced. This is why some time ago their leaders proclaimed multi-culturalism was dead. A non-sensical statement from an Indian or ABCA pov. Evidently at some point they hit a wall.

To put it another way, if you don't want others to dictate what you can eat then you can't dictate to them that they have to mix with others.

I've read similar sentiment on WAB as you expressed about Jains by people from different countries and i've learnt not to see it as discrimination but as freedom to choose.

[AmericanCentury]

India does not want a conflict with China in the immediate term, but these two countries are ultimately rivals in the region. It's a threat to India with China gaining influence along its Southern Shore right near the Straits of Malacca. This is the hydrocarbon route from the Middle East and an area that India must dominate. If a country of 1 Billion cannot deal with Sri Lanka, it is essentially landlocked.

The International Bodies do the work for the Indians. Would you want your main rivalry sitting on your back porch, on the most critical Ocean in the World. And let us not forget, China & India are competing for the same resources from the Middle East. China has developed it's "String of Pearls" Strategy to bypass it's "Malacca Dilemma", thereby securing Port access to natural gas via its Port in Karachi. But refueling is necessary and Sri Lanka would provide that ideal spot.

[Double Edge]

This is a difficult debate with numerous traps but i'll give it a shot.

They are not treated this way just because they are from the North East! They are treated this way because of their physical appearance! That is RACISM. No sugarcoating here!

Nepalis are quite obviously treated the exact same way, i.e., they face racial discrimination, because a large portion of Nepalis too have Mongoloid features.

They are being discriminated against on the basis of their ethnicity. That is what i intended to imply earlier. I'm very familiar with it as i've had to endure it myself when i was abroad.

I can counter it isn't so much racism as it is discrimination. Given how skilled one is here, the former is easier to dispute than the latter. Rather than sugarcoating it keeps the focus on the subject without getting side tracked.

The influx argument you give is redundant here, because the example given was of Delhi! Majority of the people in Delhi are all migrants!

Here its about the exposure of those in Delhi to people from the NE. That is why i asked earlier whether this was a recent phenomenon or not. Whether its existed in the past to the same extent or has it risen in the last decade. If more people have left the NE because of political violence then its a recent thing.

When i watched your youtube clip, what struck me most was that the locals were ignorant or did not have much exposure to people from the NE. As opposed to being explicitly racist or having it in only for people from the NE.

I would recommend that those from the NE see it in this way as its a lot less injurious to them than to think most people hate them for what they are and where they come from. Got to reduce the hate being perceived as that way one is better able to cope with it rather than being turned into a helpless victim. Otherwise it can even become a chip on one's shoulder and used as a crutch. Don't become one of the walking wounded.

DE, you're merely playing with semantics here. Discrimination based on physical appearance is no different than Racism.

Just calling it what it is in the numerous contexts it occurs and putting it all in perspective. Discrimination is a much better word without offensive connotations and applies in all of the contexts mentioned.

Whether discrimination based on physical appearance qualifies as racism depends on the act.

Consistent & explicitly directed physical violence yes. When the person or persons in question perpertrating these acts do so consistently to numerous people of said group the charge of racism becomes stronger. Here i'm creating a distinction, an important one and is my basis to using that word, sparingly, and when it really applies rather than liberally.

On one instance you talk of no immigration to India, yet, you shrug off ethnic/racial discrimination which happens to be a result of internal migration.

Come on, i've never shrugged it off, i've agreed with you its discrimination. What i find harder to swallow is that its racism each and every time.

When someone gets called a "Bhaiya" or a "Madrasi" simply due to their appearance, regardless of the fact if the person is actually from Bihar or Madras; to me that is racism. When Nepalis, North East Indians, Ladhakis, get called "Chinkis" due to their physical appearance, that to me is racism. When any dark skinned person with curly open hair gets derogatorily called a "Habshee", that to me is racism.

Earlier i saw it that way too but now see it as harassment instead. The best way to deal with it is repartee. Think of it as a food fight like we have here and then trash talk. Go at it from different directions & angles. Skill yourself in that and the majority of people on the street will not have a reply and have to concede. You turn the situation around and if in public win their support. Now you have the initiative. The person making the calls might even respect the other more as a result of it. Possibly less likely to try the same again because now the other ain't so dumb. If indeed these people are acting out of ignorance and basing their opinion on something as superficial as appearance then they will be easy to sway.

But if you view this as racism then your first instinct is to get angry and fight it. If you respond in like then you contradict your own position. And if you cannot reply then you become more bitter.

You tell me which is the better way of looking at it.

Isn't it better to learn to deal with it as we cannot control and should not be able to control what others say.

Racism might be a strong word for you, but it is what it is.

If you use it liberally then you weaken your position. It is a strong word and can be used as a weapon to club others.

Let's just admit it, we live in a deeply racist country.

Implies we are all monsters. Tell me which people anywhere in the world are going to agree to this. They will flat out deny it or even resist it because it is patently wrong. To come to this conclusion even after the bouts of communal violence we've endured is just as wrong because it ignores perspective and history. Its playing to emotions and those come in floods when its about this subject. Very difficult to have a balanced take.

[lemontree]

To put it another way, if you don't want others to dictate what you can eat then you can't dictate to them that they have to mix with others.

The constitution goes out of the window then. In India you have to enforce the rules with a stick in your hands, and you know that very well.

I've read similar sentiment on WAB as you expressed about Jains by people from different countries and i've learnt not to see it as discrimination but as freedom to choose.

That is giving in....they have the right to choose, but they cannot prevent you the right to live in their residential societies because you belog to a different religion and your food habits are different from them. You may not feel it...but try telling a military vetran that he is not fit to live in the same residential society because he is has different food habits or religion.

[Double Edge]

The constitution goes out of the window then. In India you have to enforce the rules with a stick in your hands, and you know that very well.

No it does not.

The key difference here is govt vs private. In a govt org the constitution will be enforced. The govt cannot make rules that violate article 15.

That is giving in....they have the right to choose, but they cannot prevent you the right to live in their residential societies because you belog to a different religion and your food habits are different from them. You may not feel it...but try telling a military vetran that he is not fit to live in the same residential society because he is has different food habits or religion.

I understand what you mean, these actions are specifically targeting those that are non-veg.

No need to be a veteran, i'd feel the same way too. But i'd then ask myself whether i'd want to live with such people in the first place. I could do without the dirty looks every time i use the lift. They don't have a monopoly on housing. I'd find another place and tell them to shove it. To force the issue is to make things uncomfortable for both parties. Some will make their peace with it others will not.

In a private setup, there is no right of entry to begin with. They can choose who they want. They can make up their rules and on the basis of those rules select who enters and who leaves. There is no way to fight it as everybody has signed to those rules when they entered. The reason it goes on is because its very difficult to prove that this discrimination on the particular basis even occurred. You can get the media involved and go to the street with it but no court.

To do what you're saying implies pushing into the private domain and that is going to be problematic ie quotas. Then you end up with token minorities in various places just so they can comply and no more. The situation here is marginally improved with increased tensions and yet no more minorities can enter. Has the problem been solved, no, just appearances are ok and nothing beyond.

Its not giving in as both have to compromise depending on whether its govt or private.