Varshney writes-
Are America’s Blacks and India’s Muslims politically comparable?No. Blacks did not enslave or ethnically cleanse Whites in America. In the Indian sub-continent, Muslims ethnically cleansed non-Muslims from places where they were in the majority. Sikhs and Dogra Hindus did the same as did some other Hindu groups though to a much smaller extent. There is no similarity whatsoever between African Americans and Indian Muslims.
This question has acquired a new salience with the rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, underway for weeks in the US, covering several hundred cities.But there is no similar movement in India. Furthermore, nobody gives a shit about India or Pakistan or Bangladesh in America. Thus this stupid question has no salience at all.
Comparisons have been drawn with the anti-CAA protests in India, lasting three months after mid-December, rebelling against the attempted demotion of India’s Muslims to secondary citizenship.There was no such demotion. The anti-CAA protest helped the BJP but led to the collapse of the Congress & Leftist vote. It was a piece of political theater which backfired.
The mainstream Black argument that Blacks have been treated as inferior Americans, with Whites as the putative owners of the nation, is not altogether distinct.Distinct from what? Varshney doesn't tell us. Does he read over his own shite before pressing send?
The fact is Whites owned Blacks as slaves. Property can't itself own property. Even after Emancipation there were draconian Jim Crow laws till the mid Sixties. 'Putative ownership' is meaningless with respect to an abstraction. I may say 'Ireland belongs to the Iyers'. This may raise a laugh but it has no legal or political meaning.
In what ways, then, are India’s Muslims and America’s Blacks similar or different?In the same ways they are similar to Guatemalans but different from Estonians.
And are such similarities and differences politically consequential?No.
Blacks, of course, are not religiously distinct from Whites. They are predominantly Christian. In contrast, India’s Muslims are racially similar to the Hindus, but religiously different.I honestly didn't know that. Did you? See how much we can learn from a Professor at Brown?
Similarities emerge when we turn to demography and politics. Blacks are a little over 12 per cent of the US population, Muslims slightly over 14 per cent of India’s. Democracies tend to privilege numbers. In conditions of polarisation, racial or religious minorities can get swamped by racial or religious majorities. When a majority of Hindus or Whites vote communally or racially, the threat to minorities can become quite real.So, Varshney is saying both African Americans and Indian Muslims are minorities. But so are Brahmins in India and Jews in America.
Consider the political arithmetic underlying the proposition above. Hindus are roughly 80 per cent of India, and Whites about 73 per cent of America’s electorate. If 50 per cent of Hindus vote for the BJP, it would constitute 40 per cent of the national vote, which, given a certain geographic distribution, is enough for victory in a parliamentary system, if not in a presidential system. When it won 44 per cent of Hindu vote, the BJP approximated this possibility in 2019. Indeed, only 1.4 per cent of BJP’s national vote last year was non-Hindu. That level of Hindu concentration, a voting novelty in India, allowed the Narendra Modi regime to embark on an anti-Muslim legislative frenzy between July and December, culminating in the CAA.But this has always been the case. The fact is, it was the 1946 election which caused Partition. India implemented a Hindu Constitution- there is a Directive Principle re. cow protection- and chose to strip Muslims of citizenship if they had fled to Pakistan. Through the Fifties and Sixties, Muslim families were persecuted by the Custodian of Enemy Property. Many were forced to emigrate. Things only got better in the Seventies. But, in the Eighties, Indira Gandhi cracked down on Muslims. Her son cleared the way for a temple to be constructed on the site of a mosque in Ayodhya. Had he not been assassinated, he would have cornered the Hindu vote as the incarnation of Lord Ram, as his deeply religious mother, considered the incarnation of Goddess Durga, had done before him. Don't forget it was Mahatma Gandhi who chose Pundit Nehru as India's first Prime Minister. But Nehru presided over the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Delhi itself. He may have been 'secular' but his Cabinet wasn't. President Rajendra Prasad attended the consecration of the rebuilt Somnath temple. Nehru title of 'Pundit' was hereditary. His successor however had trained to be a 'Shastri'. Had India lost the '65 War, Muslims would have been ethnically cleansed from the Gangetic belt.
Varshney speaks of an 'anti Muslim legislative frenzy'. What does he mean? The triple talaq bill? Does he approve of triple talaq? Does he not know Pakistan banned the practice long ago?
Perhaps he means the downgrading of J&K to Union Territory status. But how else was the Security situation to be dealt with? The police were completely demoralized.
As for the C.A.A, it was brought in because the Supreme Court published the Assam Citizenship register. All that the CAA does is formalize and expedite what has been normal practice since 1947. The fact is, if you are Muslim and the Mullahs demand your head in Bangladesh or Pakistan, you will be no safer if you move to India because the Indian Mullahs will place a bounty on you. Dr. Taslima Nasrin found this out the hard way. By contrast, a non-Muslim fleeing Islamic persecution will be protected by the non-Muslim majority in India- provided she does not settle in a Muslim majority area.
Analogously, if 70 per cent of Whites vote for a racist party in the US, it can easily win the presidential elections, assuming a certain distribution of that vote.Assuming a certain distribution of votes, if dog-owners vote for a doggy party in the US, it can easily win the presidential election.
Republicans, under Trump, were not too far from this target in 2016, when Trump received 64 per cent of White vote (and only six per cent of the Black vote).But the popular vote went against him.
After victory, Trump has followed a White racist agenda, and the strategy for November 2020 is also clearly aimed at racial polarisation.This is Varshney's opinion. But Varshney is a cretin.
He may not, of course, succeed.Racial polarisation may occur. Opinion polls are poor at picking up on things of this sort. Few people say 'I have a smaller dick than average' or 'I'm a racist nutjob'.
The BLM protests have been remarkably multi-racial,and remarkably stupid
and polls show a substantial reduction in Trump’s White support.But not because of BLM. Biden appeals to non Graduate Whites.
The greatest difference between the US Blacks and Indian Muslims is, of course, historical.No. It is geographical. If only Manhattan was next door to Mumbai, there'd be no Indian Muslims in Mumbai. Nor would there be many Hindus. The Parsees could have the place to themselves.
The Blacks were brought to the US as slaves, starting 1619.Blacks were brought to India as slaves a lot earlier. Some did very well.
Bought and sold as commodities with no rights, families often split and violence frequently inflicted, they bore the pain of slavery till 1864.Varshney is as ignorant of American history as he is of Indian politics. Emancipation was in 1863. 'Juneteenth'- i.e. military enforcement of the proclamation, was in 1865.
After slavery ended, the suffering of the Jim Crow era began,No. First there was 'Reconstruction' when Blacks could become Lieutenant Governors.
when the recently won equality and voting rights were obliterated, segregation enforced, and lynchings and pogroms unleashed. Finally, after equality and voting rights returned in the mid-1960s, police violence emerged as a method of social control.There was always police violence. But 'social control' in an advanced Capitalist country is not achieved through violence. Varshney may not know this. He may think people ring up the police and say 'Social control of my no good son and his druggie pals is breaking down. Kindly beat those fuckers with your truncheons.' That's not how things work.
The nine-minute police knee on George Floyd’s neck was the wrenching tip of a vast iceberg.A spectacle may be 'heart-wrenching'. But nothing is the 'wrenching tip' of anything else.
Though the parallel is not exact, untouchability in India came closest to slavery.No. Slavery, including hereditary debt bondage, in India, came closest to slavery in America. On the other hand, African origin slaves in India had a completely different life from African American slaves.
That is why some social scientists have sought to compare Blacks and Dalits.Indian Dalits were quicker off the mark in gaining affirmative action. As with African Americans, they have been blessed with superb intellectuals and statesmen.
Muslims were neither forced into slavery, nor untouchability. Between the 11th and 18th centuries, much of India was ruled by Muslim princes.Including a couple of African origin Princes.
There is no Black parallel in US history. Blacks have been at the bottom of American society for four centuries.No. Because of their productivity, they were better off than many of the indigenous people.
This historical contrast has been undeniably consequential. Muslim princely power has been used by Hindu nationalists to transform the conduct of some Muslim rulers, especially Babur and Aurangzeb, and before them, the invasion of Ghazni and Ghouri, into a larger anti-Muslim political narrative.Who gives a damn about history? The fact is India, like the rest of the World, has become anti-Islamist because of the rise of Islamic terror.
M S Golwalkar’s formulation “barah sau saal ki ghulami” (1,200 years of servitude, thus colonisation starting before the British conquest), which Modi repeatedly articulated when he came to power in 2014, refers to the West and Central Asian invasions from 8th century onwards.Gowalkar was the second head of the RSS, the voluntary organization which nurtured Modi. It should be remembered that Gowalkar received monastic initiation from the third head of the Ramakrishna Mission. In other words, he was following the Nationalist 'Sanyasi' movement which originally fostered Hindu Nationalism in the second half of the Nineteenth Century. Varshney must have heard of 'Anandmath'. He must know that 'barah sau saal ki ghulami' is a Nineteenth Century Nationalist trope. The vast majority of Congress workers held this ideology. They were determined that Hindus would rule India. Muslims would take a back seat. Naturally, the Muslim majority portions split off- but this would have happened anyway because Islam is itself, ab ovo, a complete political ideology.
This narrative is very different from the anti-Black narrative of White racism.The truth is that the Hindu Nationalism of Vivekananda and the Arya Samaj gave rise to popular support for 'garam dal' Congress leaders as well as Hindu revolutionaries. This did not necessarily mean that such Hindus were anti-Muslim. People like Amba Prasad Sufi hoped for an international alliance between Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc, against the Imperial powers. But, this proved to be a pipe dream. Either a country could stand on its own feet and expel the Imperialists- as Turkey did- or else some accommodation had to be made with Europe. Thus anti-Imperialist narratives focused on getting strong by any means- e.g serving in the Imperialists army to gain military expertise- and giving wordy idealism the cold shoulder. Gandhi ended the Hindu-Muslim alliance and made partition inevitable by explaining that Hindus wanted to be cowardly and weak. The only reason they were in politics was so as to talk incessant bollocks while betraying anyone who allied with them and making such a nuisance of themselves that the Brits would lose patience and lock them up periodically. There is no point allying with stupid cowards. Stand on your own two feet and the powers that be will accommodate you.
In America there was a narrative of White racism. It focused on Jews and 'Mongoloids' and the Pope who is a Commie faggot like all them Catlicks. It considered the Black Man to be a cheerful fellow who loved working hard and eating watermelon. Beat him if he is uppity by all means. He'll thank you for it. But it's them kikes and Commies and dagos and wops and limp wristed limeys you really have to watch out for. As for F.D.R, don't get me started!
In the Hindu nationalist narrative, Muslims have always been disloyal to the Indian nation, which in turn is equated with the Hindu majority.No. In the Hindu nationalist narrative, Muslims have always been aggressors- 'bullies' is the word Gandhi used. Beat them and chase them away if they act up. But, no one can deny they are good workers and personally very charming people. Moreover, they are worth allying with because they like fighting and think it a blessing to die on the battlefield. Hubb al watan min al Imam. Patriotism is part of the Islamic religion.
India’s partition is presented as the latest proof of Muslim infidelity.No. It is presented as proof that Muslims will ethnically cleanse or forcibly convert non-Muslims if they get the upper hand. Why speak of infidelity when you can point to genocide?
It is their everlasting disloyalty which makes Muslims unworthy of equality with the Hindus.Varshney thinks Nationalists care about 'equality'. I believe they want a 'Fuhrerprinzip'- i.e. a strong, decisive, leader. Mrs. Gandhi had this quality- at least some of the time. Modi, however, is an enigma. How come we don't know which of his Cabinet Colleagues is plotting against him? He has had rivals from within the Sangh Parivar. But he never made the mistake of including them in his Cabinets. Why? He thinks only governance matters- not balancing factions and neutralizing or buying off rivals. This is what makes him an effective politician.
Nationalists and Race Supremacists do accuse certain groups of disloyalty. Which groups? 'Cosmopolitan' elites. Smart people with fancy degrees. Who am I speaking off? Not the Jews, as you might think. It's the Iyengars. Who drove the Iyers out of Ireland? Who saddled Tambrams with 'Forward Caste' status? It was dem clever-too-clever Iyengars. I know for a fact, though I have no proof, that it was an Iyengar boy in my class who spread the rumor that Iyers are putting garlic in sambar. Garlic! Chee Chee! Why not say beef fat and be done with it?
In the White supremacist narrative, Blacks are not disloyal to the US which is, of course, viewed as a White nation.Jews and Liberals and Catlicks and dem fancy pants White Shoe lawyers and Wall Street bankers and East Coast preppies are viewed as disloyal. Blacks are not. At best, Racists may picture them as liable to run amok hitting people with their ginormous dicks.
Muslims in India are not viewed as disloyal per se- at least by the BJP. That is why they kept 'Missile Man' Abdul Kalam at the head of their secret military research. Later, after the nuclear test, they made him President. The fact is, Islam is considered a warrior's Religion. We want to know Muslim soldiers are hacking off the heads of Chinese soldiers. Anyway, we have fought 3 wars with Pakistan and plenty of Muslims have sacrificed their lives for the Nation. Also, I can think of Hindus, Christians and even Sikhs who have sold secrets to our enemy. But, try as I might, I can't think of a single Muslim who has done so. I may be wrong. But, the fact is, those who get 'honey-trapped' are alcoholics. Thus a namaazi Muslim with a long beard is exactly the guy I want to be in charge of secrets.
On the other hand, back in the Sixties and perhaps later, there was talk of 'divided loyalty'. That died down. Sikh soldiers could be radicalized. But nothing similar happened with Muslims. In the last decade or so, two Muslims reached Lt. General status, something unthinkable in the Sixties. As I said, by the early Seventies things had changed.
But Blacks, for them, are irredeemably inferior, and therefore, entirely undeserving of equality and respect. The two narratives construct unworthiness differently.White Supremacy is premised on the fact that Whites really did rule the world. Hindu Nationalism is merely about catching up a little.
Both narratives are fundamentally flawed. The Hindu nationalist narrative errs when it flattens the behavioural plurality of the Muslim princes.Screw the Muslim princes. They were as useless as the Hindu princes which is how come a tiny number of Britishers ruled the entire sub-continent for over a hundred years.
The proverbial comparison between Akbar and Aurangzeb — the two biggest Mughal emperors — belongs to this discursive realm. It is impossible to prove Akbar’s disloyalty to India, and as for Aurangzeb, even Jawaharlal Nehru wrote, in The Discovery of India, that “Aurangzeb set the clock back”. No serious historian finds an unbroken chain of Hindu-repression and India-hatred running across centuries of Muslim rule.But there was an unbroken trend of demographic change such that Hindus became the minority in many places.
More fundamentally, how are Muslim masses implicated in the princely conduct? Why punish them?Muslims got punished for the same reason non-Muslims got punished. They had land or money or attractive daughters. Grabbing zar, zin, zamin may be described as punishment. Monopolising Government jobs and offices of profit may be described as punishment. Bullying people may be described as punishment. But we aren't really speaking off punishment are we? This is abuse and injustice plain and simple. The reason we don't want a minority to be plundered is because it may be our turn next.
Historically, Muslim social structure has been bi-modal. A small court-based princely and aristocratic class coexisted with a vast mass of poor Muslims. And in 2005, the Sachar Committee conclusively demonstrated something already intuitively known: That, along with Dalits and Adivasis, Muslims are the poorest community of India.No. That 'along with' invalidates the comparison completely.
This is where the Black-Muslim comparison begins to recover its validity.
Like Blacks, India’s Muslims are mostly poor and deprived, and like them, they are a minority.But, the fact is, poor and deprived people are the majority in India. In America they are a minority. In a country of over 1.3 billion, only 15 million pay Income tax. It is relatively inexpensive for the American tax payer to lift up the poorer section of African Americans such that long run Tax Revenue increases while Expenditure decreases. By contrast, India's 15 million tax payers can't do shit for the great mass of their brethren. There is a solution. Get girls out of rural districts into big factory dormitories. Some of the tamer and more biddable men can be similarly employed. Others can do 'manly' work in construction or security etc.
After the mid 20th century, a democracy is not a proper democracy unless it safeguards minorities.No. A Democracy is a proper democracy if Elections change who is in power. Minorities don't matter at all. By contrast, an Empire must protect minorities otherwise you have a runaway process towards Balkanized Nationalism.
And if the minorities are also poor, the protection becomes even more necessary.But if the vast majority is also poor then no protection will be forthcoming. Why? There is no tax revenue to provide it.
A poor minority deserves empathy and justice,from whom? A tenured Professor in a wealthy country they are not allowed to emigrate to? Goody goody. I will email Varshney just now only. 'Pleeze Varshney Sahib, I am poor Muslim girl named Jivan who is imprisoned by Modi Sarkar for Facebook post. Kindly send me 100 dollars by Fed Ex so I can be buying some empathy and justice from Prison Canteen. Also, pleeze ask Megha Majumdar Madam to send me some small share of her royalties from her book about me. Thanking you kindly, Signed. Jivan Jihadottolah (100 per cent genuine Muslim despite Hindu name) currently awaiting hanging due to evil lies of Modi Sarkar.'
not hatred and repression. It is a morally diminished and normatively impoverished society, which adopts the latter path.Very true. Why people are hating and repressing cannibals like Hannibal Lecteur? Why they are punishing and pouring vitriol on genocidal maniacs? It is a morally diminished and normatively impoverished society- not to mention one which is wholly imaginary and peopled by talking animals- which adopts the latter path.
Varshney should give up his hate for Trump. He should stop repressing his natural inclination to strip naked and run around campus with a radish up his bum. His hatred and repression are morally diminishing and normatively impoverishing America. Mind it kindly. Aiyayo.
No comments:
Post a Comment