[文集] [专题] [检索] [独立评论] [海阔天空] [矛盾江湖] [全版论坛]

独立评论

作者: cwing   莫迪坐BLM火山,印媒揭印度教种姓,高种姓白肤雅利安歧棕,棕歧黑 2020-07-04 23:22:15  [点击:1655]
看來印度才是種族主義的大戶,
莫迪的印人黨主打恢復印度傳統文化印度教,
莫迪坐上了BLM的火山
在印度教种姓制度裏,一般膚色越淺种姓越高,
白皮膚的雅利安地位最高
而且還有鄙視鏈,從白到棕到黑,次第歧視
棕歧黑比白歧棕还要猛,低种姓被歧出人命是常态,
在印度留学的非洲黑女指控,自己经常被印度棕冠以贱名并在公开场合扒光衣服
系统性歧视那更是小菜一碟了,據説低种姓不能走高种姓修的馬路,
但印度低种姓幾千年來都守規矩,從來不鬧,相安無事
我记得之前還在社媒上看過一吐槽,是个去印度的白人旅行背包客好像
说一個低种姓的孩子翻墻去高种姓大戶莊園玩,
結果讓墻上電網給電死了(也可能摔死了,記不清了)
那孩子的爹,痛哭流涕地給高种姓傢道歉,說給人家添麻煩了,
不是威逼利誘哈,
因爲按印度風俗,這事本就沒高种姓傢一點責任,
是真心實意痛心疾首的那種道歉
我推测这个添麻烦不是指费了庄园主家的電
因为据说印度有风俗,低种姓贱民发丧不许走大路(因为晦气?)
我估计这个添麻烦,主要是指给那家高种姓带来了晦气
你想,本来发丧连大路都不能走的,这直接死人家墙上了....
-----------------------------------
https://www.theelephant.info/
RASNA WARAH - Are Indians Racist or Merely Caste ...
www.theelephant.info › op-eds › 2020/06/25 › are-...
2020/06/25 - This is a complicated question because in India the line between caste and colour often gets blurred. The Hindu caste system is such that skin colour is often associated with caste background. Lighter-skinned Indians of Aryan ...
----------------------------------------------------
Are Indians Racist or Merely Caste-Conscious? - The Elephant
By Rasna Warah
Priyanka Chopra, a leading Bollywood actress who has also acted in Hollywood films, came
under
fire
recently for endorsing the Black Lives Matter movement while at the same time being a brand
ambassador for skin-lightening creams in India. Critics say that this movie star cannot claim to
support a movement against racism when she herself has promoted products that suggest that
light/white skin is more beautiful than dark/black skin.
Indian movie directors have also been accused of promoting the idea that light skin is better by
insisting that their leading ladies be fair-skinned. The few dark-skinned actresses who have made it
in Bollywood have had to jump many hurdles to be taken seriously; often the only acting roles they
get are in “alternative cinema” where they play poor or marginalised women. Dark-skinned
actresses often have to invest in a fair amount (no pun intended) of make-up to pass screen tests that
are partial to light skin and European facial features.
“If you watch Bollywood films, you’d imagine India was a country of white folks”, quipped the Indian
writer and activist Arundhati Roy in a recent
interview
. (The billion-plus Indians’ skin colour ranges
from rosy pink to tan, chocolate-brown and a kind of ash-grey that could pass for black.)
The desire for fair skin is not limited to Bollywood; it extends to Indian society as a whole.
Matrimonial columns in Indian newspapers are full of ads seeking “fair” brides.
British colonialism undoubtedly instilled feelings of inferiority among the dark-skinned Indian
people. Since “whiteness” was associated with power, wealth and technological advancement (not to
mention beauty), light skin became an aspiration among Indians. (Though it must be said that not
even a century of colonisation managed to erase Indian culture and India’s major religions, which
remained largely intact despite the British presence; in fact, some say that the British colonialists
were both baffled and in awe of the resilience of Indian culture despite their attempts to denigrate
and erase it.)
The furore against Chopra comes against a backdrop of statues of Mahatma Gandhi being removed
from a university in Ghana and debates around whether India’s most revered freedom fighter and
non-violence resistance advocate was in fact a racist, given that he did little to fight for the rights of
black South Africans during his 21-year stint in South Africa before he returned to his home country
in 1914 to contribute to India’s freedom struggle.
In recent years, there have also been complaints by African students studying in India that they face
harassment on the streets and discrimination when it comes to housing. Africans living in India find
the country to be a hostile environment that is difficult to negotiate because the racism is coming
not from white people, as is usually the case, but non-white people. As Roy commented in her
interview, “Indian racism towards black people is almost worse than white people’s racism”.
Horror stories of female African students being stripped in public or being called derogatory names
have been emerging in recent years, yet there has been no diplomatic crisis, as the one that erupted
recently when some African countries made official complaints against the Chinese government for
allowing the mistreatment of Africans living in China, ostensibly because they were perceived to be
infected with COVID-19.
The discussion on “brown-on-black” racism has been further fuelled by a much-needed conversation
in India on whether Indians have any right to condemn White America for racism when Hindu India
has for decades been discriminating against Muslims and low-caste Hindus (known as Dalits). Under
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has a distinct Hindu nationalist agenda, India has become more
intolerant of religious minorities and marginalised groups, with reports of Muslims and Dalits being
lynched and even murdered by Hindu mobs.
Perhaps now that Priyanka Chopra has moved to America (she recently married the American singer
and songwriter Nick Jonas), she is more aware of racism. Indian immigrants in Europe and America
find that even the most light-skinned among them eventually face some form of discrimination. This
has led some to join hands with black-led movements. In the UK, for instance, there was a strong
push for Asians to define themselves as “black” during the conservative Thatcher years to emphasise
the power imbalance between white and non-white people in Britain and to give the black movement
political clout. Asians in the UK who called themselves “black” were making a political statement.
The Indian diaspora in the United States and other Western nations may feel slighted by the white
racism they experience, but many have no problems supporting divisive politics at home. Ms.
Chopra, for instance, is an ardent supporter of Modi and his Hindu nationalist Bharataya Janata
Party (BJP). As Ashok Swain
wrote
in the December 2017 edition of
Outlook
, “[The] Hindu diaspora
has been a major powerbase and source of funding for the Hindutva politics in India . . . While Hindu
NRIs [non-resident Indians] are so sensitive and even aggressive to protect their perceived minority
rights in the country of their residence, at the same time they refuse to accept minorities in India”.
The blurred line between race and caste
So are Indians inherently racist? This is a complicated question because in India the line between
caste and colour often gets blurred. The Hindu caste system is such that skin colour is often
associated with caste background. Lighter-skinned Indians of Aryan descent are often associated
with high caste background, even though there are many high-caste Hindus in India who have dark
skin, and many low-caste Hindus who are light-skinned.
Caste prejudice, therefore, easily translates into colour prejudice in the Indian context. Black
Africans are perceived as low caste – people who can be looked down upon and mistreated without
the perpetrator suffering any sanction. It’s as simple – and as ridiculous – as that.
Historians maintain that the caste system was brought to India by the Aryans, a pastoralist tribe
from Central Asia that invaded northern India around the second millennium BC and subjugated the
indigenous population. As explained by historian Romila Thapar in her book,
Early India: From
Origins to AD 1300
, the dominant view is that the Aryans introduced Sanskrit, an Indo-Aryan
language that is used in the sacred Hindu texts, the Vedas.
The Aryans were viewed as representing a superior civilisation that later became the foundation of
what might be loosely referred to as Hindu culture. Hinduism sprouted a pantheon of gods and
goddesses (some adopted from the faith of the indigenous animists) and introduced a system that
divided people into occupational groups and relegated others to servitude.
However, Thapar is of the view that ascribing a superior race to the Aryans is not accurate because
there is little archaeological evidence of a large-scale Aryan “invasion” of India that displaced the
existing indigenous culture. However, there is evidence of an Indo-Aryan language belonging to the
Indo-European family “having been brought to northern India from beyond the Indian-Iranian
borderlands and evolving through a series of probably small-scale migrations and settlements”.
Thapar says that by the middle of the 20
th
century, the concept that the Aryans had a superior
language and race began to fall apart. It is more likely that there were “Indo-Aryan speaking
peoples”, not an Aryan race. “It is important to emphasise that it [Aryan] refers to a language group,
not a race, and language groups can incorporate a variety of people”.
To muddy the waters even further, the ruling BJP has been denying that there was ever an Aryan
invasion in order to support the theory that Hinduism (the dominant religion in India) was not
imported to India, but is indigenous to the subcontinent. This theory also demolishes the idea that
Indian culture is a product of “alien” forces. The “aliens” in Modi’s India are Muslims and Christians,
who are being portrayed as being the by-products of invading Muslim armies and conquerors or
European missionaries (conveniently forgetting that Islam and Christianity existed in India before
the advent of the Muslim Mughal Empire in the 16
th
century and before Britain colonised India in the
mid-19
th
century).
Regardless of their origin, it is widely accepted that the Aryans established the Hindu caste system
in India. It is believed that the new rulers needed a system to entrench their rule, and to enforce
obedience among the people whose lands they occupied. “Since a mechanism for maintaining racial
segregation was required, this took the form of dividing society into socially self-contained and
separate castes . . . Race was seen as scientific explanation for caste and the four main castes or
varnas
were said to represent the major racial groups. Their racial identity was preserved by the
strict prevention of intermarriage between them”, writes Thapar.
At the top of the caste system were, naturally, the creators of the system, the Brahmins, who
monopolised priesthood and learning. Then came the Kshatriyas (warriors), followed by Vaishyas
(traders) and finally Sudras (workers). Outside these castes or
varnas
were what are known as the
“Untouchables” (who Gandhi, in an attempt to destigmatise them, referred to as Harijans or
Children of God). The Untouchables, who were assigned degrading menial jobs like cleaning
latrines, were not allowed to come near upper caste Hindus, and were not even allowed to enter
temples. They were denied access to common wells and other public areas because they were
viewed as “impure” or “polluted”. (Nowadays, Untouchables are referred to as Dalits, a less
stigmatising and more politically correct word that in the Marathi language means “broken people”.)
In other words, the caste system legitimised inequality and discrimination.
B.R. Ambedkar, a Dalit who rose to be India’s first Law Minister, called the caste system a
“degrading system of social organisation”. He said that, especially for Untouchables, “Hinduism is a
veritable chamber of horrors” that denies them even the most basic of rights.
Added to the grief of the lower castes is the notion of
karma
– the belief that individual suffering is
the result of bad deeds committed by an individual in a past life, a sort of divine retribution that
must be endured by those who experience suffering. Poverty and other debilitating conditions are
considered an inevitable outcome of bad
karma
. With such a belief system entrenched in the psyche
of the average Indian, it is no wonder that Dalits have not risen against their oppressors in large
numbers, though in recent years they have formed their own political parties, and a few have also
been elected into Parliament.
Apologists for the caste system say that by defining areas of occupation for various groups, the caste
system helps Indian society to function without much conflict or stress because each caste knows its
place and role in society, and obtains some kind of solidarity within its own caste group and
legitimacy within the wider society. On the other hand, critics like Ambedkar, who converted to
Buddhism before his death in 1956, say that it is a system that hinders social and economic mobility,
and ensures that certain groups remain in a permanent state of “backwardness”, with little chance
of rising to positions of power or influence.
Although casteism is less prevalent in India than it was when India gained independence, it is not
unusual to still hear stories of low-caste people being lynched, raped and generally exploited by
upper caste Hindus – a reality that has become more common under Modi’s leadership. In fact, as
Roy and women’s groups have consistently highlighted, Dalit women are more likely to be raped by
upper-caste Hindus than women from higher caste backgrounds.
BLM: An opportunity to dismantle caste prejudice
So if one wants to understand Indian racism, one must also unpack casteism, which is in some ways
more insidious than racism because it is accepted as normal and God-ordained.
Casteism is a particularly difficult concept for non-Indians to grasp because, unlike racism, it is
socially and widely accepted as an integral part of Hinduism, and is therefore considered sacrosanct.
As Roy states, “Casteism and racism, though they have different histories, are not different except
that casteism claims some kind of divine mandate”. In other words, you could say that casteism is
not unlike the revisionist Christianity advocated by white South Africans that sanctioned the
separation of the races.
Hindus must divorce themselves from the caste system which, in any case, does not benefit the
majority of Hindus. They must dismantle the rigidity of the system, which relegates people to
superior or inferior status by pigeonholing them into occupational groups that in India are also
associated with skin colour. They must make the connection between their own caste prejudices and
the racial prejudices endured by people in other countries. This work needs to be done in tandem
with anti-racism and human rights movements everywhere, and would require a massive shift in
consciousness that would require redefining what it means to be a Hindu.
As Arundhati Roy points out in the introduction to the book
Annihilation of Caste
by B.R. Ambedkar,
though caste is not the same as race, casteism and racism are comparable. She writes:
Other contemporary abominations like apartheid, racism, sexism, economic imperialism and
religious fundamentalism have been politically and intellectually challenged at international
forums. How is it that the practice of caste in India – one of the most brutal modes of
hierarchical social organisatoin that human society has known – has managed to escape similar
scrutiny and censure? Perhaps because it has come to be so fused with Hinduism, and by
extension with so much that is seen to be kind and good – mysticism, spiritualism, non-violence,
tolerance, vegetarians, Gandhi, yoga, backpackers, the Beatles – that, at least to outsiders, it
seems impossible to pry it loose and try to understand it.
Although various Indian governments and India’s constitution have tried to dampen the negative
impact of the caste system by instituting various affirmative action programmes and laws that
protect Dalits (or what are known as “scheduled castes”) and other minorities, caste prejudice is still
rampant in India. Upper caste Hindus still dominate top jobs in government and in business, and
colour prejudice is apparent everywhere, including in advertising billboards and movies.
We must understand that casteism, like racism, is an exploitative economic strategy, crafted by
those in power to ensure their dominance. The question is always about who gets to control the
resources. Slavery and colonialism were institutionalised racism that allowed white people to exploit
non-white people and their lands. Racial superiority is nothing but a myth perpetuated by
supremacists who would like people to believe that skin colour is a privilege, not just an accident of
geography, climate, migratory patterns or other factors.
The global Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has offered all of us an opportunity to examine
whether our societies have institutionalised discrimination, not just along the lines of race, but also
along the lines of caste, religion, ethnicity, tribe, clan, gender and sexuality. This opportunity must
not be lost; Indians should seize it with both hands.
Published by the good folks at
The Elephant
.
The Elephant is a platform for engaging citizens to reflect, re-member and re-envision their society
by interrogating the past, the present, to fashion a future.
Follow us on
Twitter
.
最后编辑时间: 2020-07-05 08:09:39

加跟贴

笔名:     新网友请先注册笔名 密码:
主题: 进文集
内容: