By now, many of you have been inundated with coverage of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. India, with all of its complicated communal, religious, and cultural conflicts was reduced to the America-like binary: the good citizens of India and the crazy Islamic Terrorists. A simple script for everyone here to digest; in fact many went as far as to call it “India’s 9/11″ ( bullshit comparison, as very convincingly argued in this well written editorial piece in the UK Guardian.
I can’t even begin to start on how simplistic and erroneous that perspective is. And as a Muslim of South Indian ancestry, I feel that I have to tell a side of the story that has been rather conveniently neglected by the media.
So what do we need to know?
Firstly, that India is home to about 151 million Muslims- the second largest population in the world, after Indonesia. That was a much larger number before the Partition of India and Pakistan, though those who remain form India’s largest minority group and nearly 15%. Secondly, Indian Muslims have traditionally been adherents of a moderate, progressive and Sufi-oriented (Islamic mysticism) strand of Islam. And lastly: the Indian Muslims of today are disproportionately poorer, less educated, most segregated and systematically oppressed group in all levels of society in India today.Don’t believe me? Read the Sachar Report, an objective analysis of the status of India’s Muslims by the Indian Parliament.
OK, so why does this matter you ask? especially since the “terrorists” were from Pakistan anyway?
Well here’s the kicker: it really doesn’t matter. The politics of communalism (i.e. ethnic and religious politics) run so deep in India that in the end, right-wing Hindutva (Hindu extremist) parties point their finger at the easiest target in their backyard: Indian Muslims. And in a place like South Asia, this isn’t some tame political issue. People actually die in mass ethnic violence and large-scale genocide. Actually, Muslims end up dying 9 times out of 10, and get blamed for attacks like those in Mumbai whether they were actually involved or not.
It makes me wonder. We’ve gone out of our way to apologize for the actions of “Muslim” terrorists who attacked Mumbai (In what way they represent Islam to any degree? not at ALL). We’ve held marches and prominent religious groups like Deoband seminary and Jamaat-ul-Hind have all issued repudiations of terrorism. But why does it seem like we’re the only ones apologizing?
Where are the Hindus apologizing for the inhumane massacre of over three thousand Muslims in Gujarat by Hindu extremists? (which by the way, happened only seven years ago?) Extending that line of thought: where are the Christians apologizing for George Bush’s shenanigans in Iraq that have left countless thousands of innocent Iraqis dead? Do I see any Jews apologizing for the shit conditions the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip have to live in every day?
This is not to diminish the horror of what happened in Mumbai. What those men did morally defunct and showed an utter disrespect for human life. But until I see some equanimity: i.e. everyone else being taken to task, namely Hindutva extremists in India and the others listed above for the murders committed in the name of religion, there will be no true justice. In the mind of many in the Muslim world, our lives are seemingly worthless, for when thousands of us die–whether in Iraq, India, what have you–no one blinks an eye, and no one feels compelled to make us an apology. Meanwhile, every time some whack-ass nutjob commits a murder ostensibly in the name of Islam, all of us have to apologize for that person.
That’s it for now. I’m gonna continue in Pt. II, so stay tuned.
“Saaf Rang”
Posted in social commentary with tags beauty, Desi culture on September 28, 2009 by Sultana“Saaf Rang” in Urdu/Hindi translates to “Clean Color”–in reference to light-colored skin.
I had an interesting thought the other day. If you read this blog, I talk about race quite a bit. Racism in terms of white privilege, racism directed against immigrants, African Americans, and the like. But as I’ve come to discover, the spotlight is a wee bit more uncomfortable when it is directed against yourself. I’ve had this idea floating around in my head for the last couple of weeks, and I finally decided to go ahead and address it.
It all began a few months ago when I mentioned to someone that I was going to a local makeup store to buy a bronzer.
Me: “I just got this new bronzer. I totally wanna be darker.”
Friend: “But you have the skin tone every Indian girl wants! Why?!”
Ah, the light-skin thing in Indian culture. Something I love to bitch about, except in this case- I’m the one with the privilege…which makes for great food for thought. I’m a “lighter-skinned” South Asian chick (On the “lighter” end of very wide skin color spectrum that exists on the Subcontinent).
White privilege isn’t something limited to the United States. Sure, it takes on a whole new malignant dimension when you consider the ways in which white privilege was written into the law. In India, preference for light skin color wasn’t grounds for legal discrimination–but it has been deeply rooted in our social fabric for centuries. From what I’ve read about the nature of white privilege in the United States, it is the idea that having white skin and being perceived as “white” comes with inherent social advantages. The kicker is, if you were born with this advantage, it becomes so innate and integral to the way you function in society that it is normal and unquestioned. It is something that you simply have never been without.
I didn’t grow up as a “White” person in America. I did, however, grow up as a light-skinned, (in the eyes of others) ambiguously South Asian person. And in the Indian culture, being a light skinned female comes with profound advantages. You’re considered better looking. Wealthier, higher-class. More marriageable. And that’s just in America. In India, it’s another story: “Saaf rang” puts you at a higher social strata, period. Case in point, I remember going jewelry shopping with my mother (who is even more lighter than I am). We entered the store behind a group of dark-skinned women. Who do you think got waited on first, despite being the last in?
I have to admit, this is something that I didn’t really consider until I got into college and was forced to question all of my old ideas. Without even thinking about it, my light-skin was a social advantage in the world I was growing up in–be it in America or India. I had many dark-skinned friends–Indian, African American and the like who didn’t have this advantage, and many of the South Asian girls who were more “tan” were raised in a culture that devalued them. I had grown up secure in a position near the upper echelon of that social hierarchy, and the thought of losing that privilege scared me.
I wonder, what will the attitudes of second-gen Indians be about this issue? Are we going to preserve the “colorism” hierarchy of our parents, where lighter-skinned people occupy the top? Or does America in its “post-racial” (that’s a huge point of debate!) reality afford us a chance to redo this social construct? I vote for the latter.
Colorism in the media: Check out Beyonce’s mucho-lightened ad for L’Oreal.
Leave A Comment »