QuoteReplyTopic: HISTORICAL SKIN COLOR PREFERENCE IN INDIA Posted: 04-Dec-2009 at 03:58
I have been contemplating this question for a while and I am hoping that some of you can shed some light on this matter. I would like to know, if historically white women were preferred to darker women and considered the standard for true beauty.
Also, by historically, I mean, before the mughal empire.
IT is well known during the mughal empire, a white complexion was desirable, however, prior to the mughals was that the case?
We only know this through literary point of view on what they preferred in women and I dont think it's much different here.
Theres a popular Vedic Goddess of Beauty called "Tripura Sunderi" name which translates to "Beauty Of Three Worlds"
"The goddess Tripura Sundari in her aspect as Shodasi is represented as a sixteen-year-old girl, and is believed to embody sixteen types of desire. The Shodasi Tantra, a treatise on the Tantra, describes Tripura Sundari as "Beauty Of Tree Worlds". She is described as being of dusky color, and is depicted in an intimate position with an aspect of Shiva. The couple are shown on a bed, a throne, or a pedestal resting on the significant male gods of Hinduism like Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, and Indra."
Other than that Kama Sutra Texts has reference's or guide for men when it comes to picking a wife, courtesan etc
Kama Sutra - The following women are not to be enjoyed.
A lunatic
A woman turned out of caste
A woman who reveals secrets
A woman who publicly expresses desire for sexual intercourse
A women who is extremely white
A women who is extremely black
A bad-smelling woman
A woman who is a near relation
A woman who is a female friend
Other than that there are popular celestial maidens & nymphs like Apsaras, Urvashi, Tillotma, who are feminine beauty personification in myths.
" Wearing profuse jewllery, a magnificent crown with a face resembling the moon, broad-hipped, slender-waited, and graceful as panthers. They were accomplished dancers and divine courtesans, forever virginal, despite their amorous adventures."
" Urvashi came out of foaming waters of the primeval ocean when it was churned by the Gods and Demons in search of the nectar of immortality. When she emerged from the foaming sea holding nectar in the right hand and poison in the left the surging ocean ' like a serpent charmed with spells and lowered its million swollen hoods and fell' at her feet. Her complexion was 'Jasmine White' and she was naked. The eternal beauty emerged to subdue the pride and wrath of the mighty, and not to satisfy the sexual appetite of man but to be adored by the 'heaven king'."
one thing i have noticed that hindus are usually darker then muslims or sikhs, is it this because hindus are Indian?? and many muslims and sikhs have recent outside genes?
one thing i have noticed that hindus are usually darker then muslims or sikhs, is it this because hindus are Indian?? and many muslims and sikhs have recent outside genes?
Thats because India is closer to Equator than Pakistan.But fairskinned hindus of India outnumbers any other community in India and even in Pakistan.India has 1000million hindus even 40% of it will be twice pakistans population.
^ not really, the only fair skinned hindus in india i have noticed are some upper caste, but not even all upper caste are fairskinned, i have noticed many really dark upper caste as well. Many muslims and sikhs actually are recent arrivals in the subcontinent, mostly from central asia or afghanistan, i think that is the reason the might be fairskinned, the dalit hindus who have converted to islam or christianity are mostly dark skinned.
^ not really, the only fair skinned hindus in india i have noticed are some upper caste, but not even all upper caste are fairskinned, i have noticed many really dark upper caste as well. Many muslims and sikhs actually are recent arrivals in the subcontinent, mostly from central asia or afghanistan, i think that is the reason the might be fairskinned, the dalit hindus who have converted to islam or christianity are mostly dark skinned.
Dear friend you are thourughly wrong in
this.Majority of muslims in India are converts and not turkish or Mongol
and.Its true that a few came with
invaders and settled in India.Your Qaid e Azam Mr.Muhammed Ali Jinnah &
Ex-prime minister Zulfiqer Ali Bhutto both hails from Muslim Rajput families.I
think he is fair enough for you.Muslim rajpput community is a Mughal creation
and there are altogether 27-30 lakh muslim rajputs all over the world ie
more thn 27% of the total Rajput population is muslim today They never
came from outside along with mughals or other rulers they were sons of the land
who were converted.During most of the Conquests the option left for the defeated
was death or Islam those who chose not to die came to the fold of Islam.
Kalapahad the notorius muslim king of north
east India who destroyed the Konark temple himself was a convert from hindu
community.
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar has in his writings mentioned
Islamic invasion and subsequent conversions as the main reason for the decline
of Buddhism in India
And In South India during Haider Ali &
Tipu Sultan's invasions in both Kerala & South Canara.they used to
forcefully convert large numbers of Nambudiri Brahmins,Nairs,Shettys ,
Kodavas(Coorgis) and other caste people to islam.They had a torture camp for
Nairs and Kodavas at seringapatnam fort which is still open to visitors.Apart
from all these large scaleforceful
conversions took place all over India during the Khilafat movement also,even
british historians are attesting this.
And there are muslim families who are of Yemenese & Arab descent in Kerala and these families are called with a title "Thangals" & they dont even constitute 1% of the total muslim population of Kerala ie the balance population are pure converts from local population and their skin colour has nothing to do with yemen or central Asia and there are lots and lots of fair people among thenm also.
There was no muslim central Asians or Afgans in Afganistan/Pakistan till the decline of Kabul Shahis who were Hindus
After
their decline only islam spreaded in that area but skin colour of none of these
clans were known to turn fair or white after their conversion to islam.
And if
you want to have a better understanding about the spread of Islam in south east
Asia these linkswill be useful
You are
seeing India from outside andmost of
your perceptions about India has proved wrong so your race theory of black
hindus and white muslims of India is fully wrong.And if you go through Indian
History you will have a better understanding about the converts, ie that they
were either forcefully converted uppercastes or the down trodden of the
societies who were denied many rights say dalits of that period.If you want to know more about India you visit india and study about its races.Many north indians think that south india is full of dusky of dark skinned people and when they visit south india only they are surprised and convinced that south india also has fairskinned people.
And to my understanding skincolour has nothing to do with a human's ability.A man is evaluated upon his intelligence and other abilities not based on skincolour.
So put a hold to your
fair muslim theory in India.We here respects all races and ther exists no discrimination in India based on skincolour.
^ not really, the only fair skinned hindus in india i have noticed are some upper caste, but not even all upper caste are fairskinned, i have noticed many really dark upper caste as well. Many muslims and sikhs actually are recent arrivals in the subcontinent, mostly from central asia or afghanistan, i think that is the reason the might be fairskinned, the dalit hindus who have converted to islam or christianity are mostly dark skinned.
Dear friend you are thourughly wrong in this.Majority of muslims in India are converts and not turkish or Mongol and.Its true that a few came with invaders and settled in India.Your Qaid e Azam Mr.Muhammed Ali Jinnah & Ex-prime minister Zulfiqer Ali Bhutto both hails from Muslim Rajput families.I think he is fair enough for you.Muslim rajpput community is a Mughal creation and there are altogether 27-30 lakh muslim rajputs all over the world ie more thn 27% of the total Rajput population is muslim today They never came from outside along with mughals or other rulers they were sons of the land who were converted.During most of the Conquests the option left for the defeated was death or Islam those who chose not to die came to the fold of Islam.
Kalapahad the notorius muslim king of north east India who destroyed the Konark temple himself was a convert from hindu community.
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar has in his writings mentioned Islamic invasion and subsequent conversions as the main reason for the decline of Buddhism in India
And In South India during Haider Ali & Tipu Sultan's invasions in both Kerala & South Canara.they used to forcefully convert large numbers of Nambudiri Brahmins,Nairs,Shettys , Kodavas(Coorgis) and other caste people to islam.They had a torture camp for Nairs and Kodavas at seringapatnam fort which is still open to visitors.Apart from all these large scaleforceful conversions took place all over India during the Khilafat movement also,even british historians are attesting this.
And there are muslim families who are of Yemenese & Arab descent in Kerala and these families are called with a title "Thangals" & they dont even constitute 1% of the total muslim population of Kerala ie the balance population are pure converts from local population and their skin colour has nothing to do with yemen or central Asia and there are lots and lots of fair people among thenm also.
There was no muslim central Asians or Afgans in Afganistan/Pakistan till the decline of Kabul Shahis who were Hindus
After their decline only islam spreaded in that area but skin colour of none of these clans were known to turn fair or white after their conversion to islam.
And if you want to have a better understanding about the spread of Islam in south east Asia these linkswill be useful
You are seeing India from outside andmost of your perceptions about India has proved wrong so your race theory of black hindus and white muslims of India is fully wrong.And if you go through Indian History you will have a better understanding about the converts, ie that they were either forcefully converted uppercastes or the down trodden of the societies who were denied many rights say dalits of that period.If you want to know more about India you visit india and study about its races.Many north indians think that south india is full of dusky of dark skinned people and when they visit south india only they are surprised and convinced that south india also has fairskinned people.
And to my understanding skincolour has nothing to do with a human's ability.A man is evaluated upon his intelligence and other abilities not based on skincolour.
So put a hold to your fair muslim theory in India.We here respects all races and ther exists no discrimination in India based on skincolour.
well i dont know about india, but pakistanis are fairer then indians, a lot royal muslims from the north india actually migrated to pakistan in 1947 and many of them were afghans, they were fairskinned. Yes i agree that rajputs both muslims and hindus are fairer but Rajputs only make really part of population west india
^ not really, the only fair skinned hindus in india i have noticed are some upper caste, but not even all upper caste are fairskinned, i have noticed many really dark upper caste as well. Many muslims and sikhs actually are recent arrivals in the subcontinent, mostly from central asia or afghanistan, i think that is the reason the might be fairskinned, the dalit hindus who have converted to islam or christianity are mostly dark skinned.
Dear friend you are thourughly wrong in this.Majority of muslims in India are converts and not turkish or Mongol and.Its true that a few came with invaders and settled in India.Your Qaid e Azam Mr.Muhammed Ali Jinnah & Ex-prime minister Zulfiqer Ali Bhutto both hails from Muslim Rajput families.I think he is fair enough for you.Muslim rajpput community is a Mughal creation and there are altogether 27-30 lakh muslim rajputs all over the world ie more thn 27% of the total Rajput population is muslim today They never came from outside along with mughals or other rulers they were sons of the land who were converted.During most of the Conquests the option left for the defeated was death or Islam those who chose not to die came to the fold of Islam.
Kalapahad the notorius muslim king of north east India who destroyed the Konark temple himself was a convert from hindu community.
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar has in his writings mentioned Islamic invasion and subsequent conversions as the main reason for the decline of Buddhism in India
And In South India during Haider Ali & Tipu Sultan's invasions in both Kerala & South Canara.they used to forcefully convert large numbers of Nambudiri Brahmins,Nairs,Shettys , Kodavas(Coorgis) and other caste people to islam.They had a torture camp for Nairs and Kodavas at seringapatnam fort which is still open to visitors.Apart from all these large scaleforceful conversions took place all over India during the Khilafat movement also,even british historians are attesting this.
And there are muslim families who are of Yemenese & Arab descent in Kerala and these families are called with a title "Thangals" & they dont even constitute 1% of the total muslim population of Kerala ie the balance population are pure converts from local population and their skin colour has nothing to do with yemen or central Asia and there are lots and lots of fair people among thenm also.
There was no muslim central Asians or Afgans in Afganistan/Pakistan till the decline of Kabul Shahis who were Hindus
After their decline only islam spreaded in that area but skin colour of none of these clans were known to turn fair or white after their conversion to islam.
And if you want to have a better understanding about the spread of Islam in south east Asia these linkswill be useful
You are seeing India from outside andmost of your perceptions about India has proved wrong so your race theory of black hindus and white muslims of India is fully wrong.And if you go through Indian History you will have a better understanding about the converts, ie that they were either forcefully converted uppercastes or the down trodden of the societies who were denied many rights say dalits of that period.If you want to know more about India you visit india and study about its races.Many north indians think that south india is full of dusky of dark skinned people and when they visit south india only they are surprised and convinced that south india also has fairskinned people.
And to my understanding skincolour has nothing to do with a human's ability.A man is evaluated upon his intelligence and other abilities not based on skincolour.
So put a hold to your fair muslim theory in India.We here respects all races and ther exists no discrimination in India based on skincolour.
well i dont know about india, but pakistanis are fairer then indians, a lot royal muslims from the north india actually migrated to pakistan in 1947 and many of them were afghans, they were fairskinned. Yes i agree that rajputs both muslims and hindus are fairer but Rajputs only make really part of population west india
Say Royal Converts.
well your posts uncovers your prejudice and complex
Rajputs are spreaded all over north India and west from Bihar to Gujarat /Rajastan in west and Karnataka in south.
Kindly free your mind from your Dravidian and Hindu hatred and try to understand more about india before spitting out fictitious theories about the races and skin colours of India.Most of what you say are your beliefs or what you were taught and are thoroughly wrong.Your concept about dravidians being darkskinned had already been proved wrong.Dravidian is a language family and there are many races who speaks dravidian languages.Apart from this there are lots of people belonging to different races residing over in South India too there are fair skinned,darkskinned and wheatish people in south India.
But I dont think facts/proofs are going to make any difference to you you are blinded with prejudice and hindu hatred.
^ not really, the only fair skinned hindus in india i have noticed are some upper caste, but not even all upper caste are fairskinned, i have noticed many really dark upper caste as well. Many muslims and sikhs actually are recent arrivals in the subcontinent, mostly from central asia or afghanistan, i think that is the reason the might be fairskinned, the dalit hindus who have converted to islam or christianity are mostly dark skinned.
Dear friend you are thourughly wrong in this.Majority of muslims in India are converts and not turkish or Mongol and.Its true that a few came with invaders and settled in India.Your Qaid e Azam Mr.Muhammed Ali Jinnah & Ex-prime minister Zulfiqer Ali Bhutto both hails from Muslim Rajput families.I think he is fair enough for you.Muslim rajpput community is a Mughal creation and there are altogether 27-30 lakh muslim rajputs all over the world ie more thn 27% of the total Rajput population is muslim today They never came from outside along with mughals or other rulers they were sons of the land who were converted.During most of the Conquests the option left for the defeated was death or Islam those who chose not to die came to the fold of Islam.
Kalapahad the notorius muslim king of north east India who destroyed the Konark temple himself was a convert from hindu community.
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar has in his writings mentioned Islamic invasion and subsequent conversions as the main reason for the decline of Buddhism in India
And In South India during Haider Ali & Tipu Sultan's invasions in both Kerala & South Canara.they used to forcefully convert large numbers of Nambudiri Brahmins,Nairs,Shettys , Kodavas(Coorgis) and other caste people to islam.They had a torture camp for Nairs and Kodavas at seringapatnam fort which is still open to visitors.Apart from all these large scaleforceful conversions took place all over India during the Khilafat movement also,even british historians are attesting this.
And there are muslim families who are of Yemenese & Arab descent in Kerala and these families are called with a title "Thangals" & they dont even constitute 1% of the total muslim population of Kerala ie the balance population are pure converts from local population and their skin colour has nothing to do with yemen or central Asia and there are lots and lots of fair people among thenm also.
There was no muslim central Asians or Afgans in Afganistan/Pakistan till the decline of Kabul Shahis who were Hindus
After their decline only islam spreaded in that area but skin colour of none of these clans were known to turn fair or white after their conversion to islam.
And if you want to have a better understanding about the spread of Islam in south east Asia these linkswill be useful
You are seeing India from outside andmost of your perceptions about India has proved wrong so your race theory of black hindus and white muslims of India is fully wrong.And if you go through Indian History you will have a better understanding about the converts, ie that they were either forcefully converted uppercastes or the down trodden of the societies who were denied many rights say dalits of that period.If you want to know more about India you visit india and study about its races.Many north indians think that south india is full of dusky of dark skinned people and when they visit south india only they are surprised and convinced that south india also has fairskinned people.
And to my understanding skincolour has nothing to do with a human's ability.A man is evaluated upon his intelligence and other abilities not based on skincolour.
So put a hold to your fair muslim theory in India.We here respects all races and ther exists no discrimination in India based on skincolour.
well i dont know about india, but pakistanis are fairer then indians, a lot royal muslims from the north india actually migrated to pakistan in 1947 and many of them were afghans, they were fairskinned. Yes i agree that rajputs both muslims and hindus are fairer but Rajputs only make really part of population west india
Say Royal Converts.
well your posts uncovers your prejudice and complex
Rajputs are spreaded all over north India and west from Bihar to Gujarat /Rajastan in west and Karnataka in south.
most rajputs east of punjab/rajhistan are fake and have mixed with local dravdians, they are usally darkskinned, have you seen how the so called brahmins of south india are so dark skinned and look exactly the same as south indians?
Kindly free your mind from your Dravidian and Hindu hatred and try to understand more about india before spitting out fictitious theories about the races and skin colours of India.Most of what you say are your beliefs or what you were taught and are thoroughly wrong.Your concept about dravidians being darkskinned had already been proved wrong.Dravidian is a language family and there are many races who speaks dravidian languages.Apart from this there are lots of people belonging to different races residing over in South India too there are fair skinned,darkskinned and wheatish people in south India.
But I dont think facts/proofs are going to make any difference to you you are blinded with prejudice and hindu hatred.
again most dravdians are darkskinned, no one can deny this, i dont hate dravdians, but it seems they hate themselves and their skin colour, in general all darkskin indians hate their skin colour, which are 90% of the population
^ not really, the only fair skinned hindus in india i have noticed are some upper caste, but not even all upper caste are fairskinned, i have noticed many really dark upper caste as well. Many muslims and sikhs actually are recent arrivals in the subcontinent, mostly from central asia or afghanistan, i think that is the reason the might be fairskinned, the dalit hindus who have converted to islam or christianity are mostly dark skinned.
Dear friend you are thourughly wrong in this.Majority of muslims in India are converts and not turkish or Mongol and.Its true that a few came with invaders and settled in India.Your Qaid e Azam Mr.Muhammed Ali Jinnah & Ex-prime minister Zulfiqer Ali Bhutto both hails from Muslim Rajput families.I think he is fair enough for you.Muslim rajpput community is a Mughal creation and there are altogether 27-30 lakh muslim rajputs all over the world ie more thn 27% of the total Rajput population is muslim today They never came from outside along with mughals or other rulers they were sons of the land who were converted.During most of the Conquests the option left for the defeated was death or Islam those who chose not to die came to the fold of Islam.
Kalapahad the notorius muslim king of north east India who destroyed the Konark temple himself was a convert from hindu community.
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar has in his writings mentioned Islamic invasion and subsequent conversions as the main reason for the decline of Buddhism in India
And In South India during Haider Ali & Tipu Sultan's invasions in both Kerala & South Canara.they used to forcefully convert large numbers of Nambudiri Brahmins,Nairs,Shettys , Kodavas(Coorgis) and other caste people to islam.They had a torture camp for Nairs and Kodavas at seringapatnam fort which is still open to visitors.Apart from all these large scaleforceful conversions took place all over India during the Khilafat movement also,even british historians are attesting this.
And there are muslim families who are of Yemenese & Arab descent in Kerala and these families are called with a title "Thangals" & they dont even constitute 1% of the total muslim population of Kerala ie the balance population are pure converts from local population and their skin colour has nothing to do with yemen or central Asia and there are lots and lots of fair people among thenm also.
There was no muslim central Asians or Afgans in Afganistan/Pakistan till the decline of Kabul Shahis who were Hindus
After their decline only islam spreaded in that area but skin colour of none of these clans were known to turn fair or white after their conversion to islam.
And if you want to have a better understanding about the spread of Islam in south east Asia these linkswill be useful
You are seeing India from outside andmost of your perceptions about India has proved wrong so your race theory of black hindus and white muslims of India is fully wrong.And if you go through Indian History you will have a better understanding about the converts, ie that they were either forcefully converted uppercastes or the down trodden of the societies who were denied many rights say dalits of that period.If you want to know more about India you visit india and study about its races.Many north indians think that south india is full of dusky of dark skinned people and when they visit south india only they are surprised and convinced that south india also has fairskinned people.
And to my understanding skincolour has nothing to do with a human's ability.A man is evaluated upon his intelligence and other abilities not based on skincolour.
So put a hold to your fair muslim theory in India.We here respects all races and ther exists no discrimination in India based on skincolour.
well i dont know about india, but pakistanis are fairer then indians, a lot royal muslims from the north india actually migrated to pakistan in 1947 and many of them were afghans, they were fairskinned. Yes i agree that rajputs both muslims and hindus are fairer but Rajputs only make really part of population west india
Say Royal Converts.
well your posts uncovers your prejudice and complex
Rajputs are spreaded all over north India and west from Bihar to Gujarat /Rajastan in west and Karnataka in south.
most rajputs east of punjab/rajhistan are fake and have mixed with local dravdians, they are usally darkskinned, have you seen how the so called brahmins of south india are so dark skinned and look exactly the same as south indians?
You are a racist to the core.And all these theories are coming from your colour prejudice.Pleasectry to learn more about India and Indian before putting forth such lunacy.
“Zardari, after all is a Sindhi, from a people most upper
class Punjabis think off as backward, lazy, illiterate serfs who are
unpatriotic and thus not deserving to be at the helm of affairs. This Punjabi
elite cannot get over the fact, the man they hated, from a people they
despised, has ended up as the president of the country, and that too without
their blessing.”
Pakistan is a multi-national and multi-lingual country of diverse
peoples that wraps itself in the banner of Islam. However, its elites practice
neither Islam nor recognize diversity.
On the contrary, the dominant ruling elites, the Punjabi upper
middle class, civil and military officers, as well as the landed aristocracy
have ruled the nation for over 60 years with a sense of entitlement that
bristles with racism and chauvinism.
One would have thought the Punjabi ruling classes would have
learnt a lesson in 1971 after their colonialist policies in then East Pakistan
destroyed the country. However, instead of facing the truth, it seems this
sense of entitlement and colonial attitude has been reinforced and passed on to
the next generation.
These men and women simply see themselves as the normative and all
other Pakistanis, be they religious or racial minorities, as their subjects.
Only if one recognizes this internal racism of the Pakistan’s
ruling Punjabi elites, including the media, can one can get to understand the
near hysterical nature of the opposition to President Asif Ali Zardari that
takes on a vicious personal nature.
At times it seems the hatred targeted at Zardari is sheer
jealousy. More than one such gentleman has said Zardari did not deserve to have
been the husband of Benazir Bhutto; a position they feel should have been
reserved for them or one of their fellow Punjabis who fake colonial British
accents, false Muslim bravado, but back their patriotism with genuine Canadian
passports.
Zardari, after all is a Sindhi, a people most upper class Punjabis
think off as backward, lazy, illiterate serfs who are unpatriotic and thus not
deserving to be at the helm of affairs. This Punjabi elite cannot get over the
fact, the man they hated from a people they despised, has ended up as the
president of the country, and that too without their blessing”
This arrogant and racist attitude is not reserved just for the
Sindhis, but also includes the Baloch, a people treated like the Blacks in
America before the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
Blogger Wasiq Ali captured this feeling best. On August 7, 2009,
he wrote about a recent report by Transparency International that inside
Pakistan the ‘perception’ is that while corruption is down in Punjab, it has
increased in places like Sind or Baluchistan.
Wasiq writes:
“Quite clearly the perception creators are Punjabi chauvinists who
deem the “lowly” Sindhis and Baloch more corrupt than themselves. Ironically,
there is more wealth –and vulgar display of wealth in Punjab—than in Sind and
Baluchistan. We must all believe, as true believers in the ideology of
Pakistan, that the Porsches and BMWs of the Chaudhries of Gujarat and the
Sharifs of Raiwind are all legally obtained but the Pajeros of the Baloch and
Pashtun Sardars are not. And, of course, the Sindhi Asif Zardari was “horrible’
for owning horses and feeding them apples (which, by the way, all horses are
fed) but the Punjabi Sharifs are non-corrupt even when they own rare Siberian
Tigers [Imported from Canada].”
In a country where ordinary Punjabi military generals retire as
multi-millionaires in US dollars, it is fascinating that the tarred word
‘corruption’ is associated, not with them, but is reserved exclusively for
politicians from the Sind and Baluchistan.
Thus, President Asif Ali Zardari has to live with the title “Mr.
Ten Per Cent,” not because he has been convicted of the charge of corruption
despite being interned for over ten years, but because the phrase has a sexy
rhyme to it. It is repeated ad nauseam by the media who cannot comprehend
anyone outside the Punjabi framework as being independently wealthy.
Now those same elites are using Transparency International’s
report on ‘perceptions’ to denigrate a democratically elected government in
Pakistan that is dedicated to eliminate the jihadi threat to the country.
According to Wasiq Ali, “The words of ‘transparency’ and
‘international’ are good attraction points to draw public attention in Pakistan
because of vague political landscape. Nobody knows the modus operandi and the
data collation procedures of TI. Publication of these reports thus mostly
serves the purpose of the opposition to taint the governments especially in
third world countries. During the 1990s TI reports were used against democratic
governments and eventually to justify [General] Musharraf’s military takeover
in October 1999.”
He very correctly points out that “Transparency International has
a local chapter in every country where it literally out-sources the task of
compiling reports. The task is to interview local businessmen who first
safeguard their business concerns, revitalize their vital connections, and try
to milk these reports as much in their favour as possible.
Like all developing countries, Pakistan too is faced with growth
pangs, one them being corruption. It is the nature of the beast and even
countries like Canada are not free of this aspect of the ‘free market’
principles of capitalism. Former Prime Ministers have been exposed as receiving
hundred of thousands of dollars in brown envelopes. Bribes by their nature have
two parties involved—the giver and the taker, both equally complicit in
corruption.
The fact that the Punjabi elite dominates all major businesses in
Pakistan allows for a certain ethnic chauvinism, which then affects the
compilation of these Transparency International reports and opinion surveys.
However, it is only downright racism that suggest when a Punjabi politician
imports a Siberian Tiger, he is an animal lover, but if Sindhi politician feeds
his horse an apple, he is a guilty of corruption.
As Wasiq Ali writes, “Interestingly the business elite which
mostly hails from Punjab has brought the country to the brink of Balkanization
by concentrating prosperity in one province while distributing misery around
the country.
This elite practically controls all resources of the country,
mostly resides in Northern and Central Punjab and has often been the cause of
major upheavals in the checkered history of Pakistan.”
Pakistan broke up in 1971 due to the arrogance and racism of the
country’s Punjabi elites towards dark-skinned Bengalis of East Pakistan. Today
the next generation of Punjabi ruling class should recognize that if they do
not recognize their faults, what is left of Pakistan will also splinter into
many fragments leaving their prosperity landlocked and surrounded by hostile
neighbours with wounded prides.
The racist nature of Pakistan’s politics. Where Punjabis govern
with a sense of entitlement over Sindhis and Baloch.
(Note- Tarek Fatah is a highly respected Canadian commentator who
has fearlessly confronted Islamic extremism in recent years.)
The following is an edited excerpt of a speech delivered last week at the
Durban Review Conference (Durban II) in Geneva, Switzerland.
As I speak to you, I am deeply disappointed that my colleague
Milly Nsekalije, a survivor of the 1994 massacre of Rwandan Tutsis, could not
share her story with all of you. The reason: In the eyes of some, she cannot
have been a victim of the genocide since she is not 100% Tutsi.
What does it say about the state of racism in our world when the
victims of a genocide practise exclusion on the basis of the so-called purity
of blood lines and ethnicity?
Worse than her exclusion from to-day’s event is the fact that it
has happened at a conference meant to combat racism. As this shows, we have
turned the concept of racism upside down.
Racism operates not just as a black/ white divide, but also as a
cancer that affects relations between people of colour — people who often share
the same religion, but have different shades of brown or black skin.
This internalized racism, which devours the people of the
developing world in Asia and Africa from within, is too often left out of the
discussion of racism.
This afternoon, I would like to shed some light on two genocides —
one happened in 1970-71 in what is now Bangladesh; and the other that continues
as I speak in the Darfur region of Sudan. In both instances, the root of the
problem lay with one group of Muslims feeling they were racially superior to
their victims, who also happened to be Muslim. In both cases, the doctrine of
racial superiority and the practice of institutional racism went unchallenged,
even after the horrible consequences of such racism were evident and for all to
see.
In 1970, my country of birth, Pakistan, was divided in two: an
eastern part that is today known as Bangladesh and the western rump, which
survived a subsequent war with India as the state we now know as Pakistan.
East Pakistan was inhabited by the darker-skinned Bengali people
who happened to be the majority community of Pakistan, but found themselves
ruled by a lighter-skinned minority from what was known as West Pakistan.
In the first 25 years of the country’s history, the racist
depiction of the darker-skinned Bengalis as an inferior and incapable people
became the unquestioned dogma among the ruling minority. The darker-skinned
Bengalis’ culture was portrayed as un-Islamic and influenced by Hinduism. Their
music, cuisine and attire were mocked, and their language was banned, leading
to widespread protests and deaths in 1952.
In 1970, after suffering under the minority rule of West Pakistan
for 25 years, the people of East Pakistan voted to elect a party based in their
region, and gained a clear majority in the country’s national parliament.
However, the racist view that Bengali people were incapable of
ruling the country, or that they were traitors to the fair-skinned minority of
West Pakistan, led to a military intervention and widespread massacres over a
10-month period.
The killing of the Bengali people by the West Pakistan army
stopped only when India intervened and defeated the Pakistan Armed Forces, but
not before hundreds of Bengali intellectuals, professors, poets, authors,
musicians and painters were rounded up and massacred.
All told, one million Muslims were murdered by fellow Muslims in
an orgy of hate that defied the teachings of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad,
whose religious authority was being invoked by the Pakistan army.
One would have hoped that this genocide would have served as a
cautionary tale. But the sad fact is that racism in the Islamic world has
remained ubiquitous in the years that followed. Yet there is near universal
denial about it, not just among the governments of Muslim nations, but also
among many NGOs and civil society groups.
In Sudan, the Arab janjaweed militia and the Arab government in
Khartoum have caused the murder of 500,000 Darfuri Muslims whose only fault is
that they are black and thus considered inferior to the ruling classes of that
country.
The mistreatment of black Muslims by those who feel they are
superior because of their lighter skin colour has gone on throughout history.
Only in the Middle East can one get away with addressing a black man as Ya
Abdi, which translates as “Oh you slave.”
Only the Arab League would choose to embrace Sudan’s President, a
man charged by the International Criminal Court for his murderous campaign in
Darfur.
It is time that the medieval belief in the inferiority of non-Arab
Muslims to Arab Muslims is laid to rest. Arab countries and leaders of Arab
NGOs must denounce this doctrine, which has led to discrimination against
darker-skinned Muslims by Arab governments in countries as far apart as Dubai
and Darfur.
If we cannot allow a woman to speak here because she is of mixed
blood, then all I can say is that in the words of Robert Frost, we have miles
to go before we sleep. – Tarek Fatah is the author of the recent book Chasing
Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum