An Indian Christian, in that order, wonders why Christians and Muslims in India are not considered as Indians but just “Christians” and “Muslims”.
Linked by Jo. Join Blogbharti facebook group.Whenever someone talk about which states each one hails from he/she tend to say “I am gujju, he is punjabi, that guy is a marwari, that guy from U.P. and Sabu is a Christian. As if, being a Christian I do not belong to any state, as if I am a migrant from Europe or US.
I wondered the exact same thing….”A Christian” is not an ethnic group or regional loyalty. A Kerala Christian is bound to be quite different from a Mizo or Nagaland Christian or a Shimla Christian. ?
I think it’s part of the regional (Asian, south Asian, whatever) tendency to conflate religion and biology. Ex: My friend Tak is Japanese, was raised with no religion at all and is an atheist…but because of his appearance Indians always assume he is Buddhist. I, on the other hand, (mostly Caucasian) am a practicing Buddhist but Indians always say “You are Christian, yes?”
…in other words…sort of like, they are implying you have given up your region for some kind of universal Christian-ness.
Interesting thoughts there, sirensongs.
The identity hierarchy is thick here….i notice that I (for example) am viewed as a “foreigner” first and foremost, then a woman, then a Christian (which I am not)! ;-) All the best, Jo.
Since the white world is almost wholly Christian, so the immediate identification. In India, Christians being relatively better educated and more mobile, often do not see themselves in narrow regional terms. With Muslims it is slightly different. Usually the the Muslim identity takes precedence over regional roots, lost in some cases due to marriages with Turks, Afghans, Persians etc over the centuries.
“Since the white world is almost wholly Christian, so the
immediate identification.”
An awful lot of Jews and Eastern European/Turkish Muslims would disagree, not to mention the vast majority of white intellectuals who are either agnostic, or atheist.
A very revealing statement. In other words, stereotyping is okay when Indians do it.
This is true only in India, where as I said, such things are viewed as a biological reality. They have nothing to do, in the Indian POV, with a “mind.” You are born that way and you stay that way.
I resent being automatically “Christianized” because of my skin colour, and I suppose the Original Poster would resent being assumed Hindu, in the US for example, because of his.
To clarify:
How would you feel if I said,
“The majority of the brown world is Muslim, (which is a fact), hence the immediate identification.” This is the kind of thinking that got Sikhs attacked in the US in the wake of 911. This is the kind of thinking that means Hindus and other Indians are targeted for harassment and profiling at airport security.
I don’t like being profiled any more than you do.
In India, Christians being relatively better educated and more mobile, often do not see themselves in narrow regional terms.
Any solid proof for that Vinod? I really do not understand all three points - Christians being better educated than the rest and being more mobile and do not see themselves in narrow regional terms (does that mean they are being western?).
Sirensongs, You have taken offence when none was meant. I just made a statement of fact that ordinary people who do not know the details you have so nicely given are prone to this identification, just as some people are everywhere else.The original poster would be first assumed Hindu in the US. No need to take offence to ignorance whether in India or anywhere else.
Jo, I can’t give you any ‘proof’ of my observations all over India. Yes, Christians were originally the more westernised Indians, mainly because of their good schooling. These days, at least in the metros, you can’t tell the difference along the lines of religion. Kids want to be more American than Americans, and are not keen to be associated with any regional or caste tags.
kindly go thru the post and join us to register our protest against a purposefully manipulated project to show India in a very bad light.
http://keralaarticles.blogspot.com/2007/10/india-in-western-eye.html
Vinod
I do not see any base for your statement and I am relying on what I have seen to place my counter argument. You said Christians are better educated and more mobile. I live in a town where there are lot of Christians and also Hindus are a majority. I haven’t seen any example of getting ‘better education’ because being a Christian. Infact, I have seen the ‘rich’ getting better education, regardless of his/her religion. I myself was denied better education from a Christian school when I couldn’t pay their standard fees, not because I was a bad student.
The second - they (Christians) do not see themselves in narrow regional terms - is also wrong. The majority of Christians in Kerala, where I live, value the tradition a lot and there are conservatives among them just like any other religious community. So you cannot justify Sabu’s friends calling his regional identity as ‘Christian’ based on this reason.
I agree with the second part of what you said - “These days, at least in the metros, you can’t tell the difference along the lines of religion” and that breaks your generalization based on religion. It is just the ‘other religions’ that matetrs and mattered - rich and poor.
Sweeping generalizations don’t make any sense.
Jo, I am really not familiar with the towns of Kerala. Thank you for the correction and education.
While I agree with Vinod that stereotyping is due to ignorance, the indian state joins the ignorant in discrimination based on color/relegion etc. You pay a lot more to go into Tajmahal if you are too black or too white- no matter how indian you may be. Since most indians have no identity cards, whether you are a foreigner or not depends on your face. Tell me if that would work today in another country.
All very interesting and enlightening discussion! …not to take away from Jo’s original post. It sucks that his ‘Christianity’ is seen as cancelling out his regional culture. Kerala Christians are quite different culturally (and even in the liturgy they follow,I think) than other Indian Christians.
Very interesting discussion on a very contentious topic. The thing for Jo to realise is this : The reason why a person says that he is a ‘gujarati’ or a ‘tamilian’ is because its their regional identity. A ‘gujarati’ is a person from the state of Gujarat. Why are you linking this with religion ???? A Borha Muslim is also a gujarati, etc. If you are identified as christian, then zoroastrians are identified as parsi ‘bawas’. I have not heard a single parsi (oops) complain about it. Another thing I would like to ask you is whoever gave you the idea that you are not considered as an Indian ??? This is the most absurd thing and I am hearing it for the first time in my life of 29 years. I would agree if our ‘firangi’ friend (oops) complains that she is not called an Indian…but not from you Jo. Sirenso.. says that Jo being a christian nullifies his regional identity(!!!). Assuming that this is the case,Jo has,in the first post itself said that he wants to be identified as an Indian, So we can safely conclude that he doesn’t want a further break-down of his regional identity. I will conclude by saying that if Jo thinks calmly, he would realise that his first post shows his confusion. Maybe, you didn’t have your tea, dear.
I don’t know if it is because I didn’t have my tea, but I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Just check the blog post from Sabu again and read the question you posted above.
What I am trying to say here is that I am a keralite christian (in that order)
this discussion is really taking a surreal turn…