Friday, May 17, 2013

Racism in India

The Washington Post published an article: A fascinating map of the world's most and least racially tolerant countries.  India shows on the map as the least racially tolerant country.

Tracing back from the newspaper article to the journal article to the source of data lands one at the World Values Survey  (WVS) (http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org).  The data on which the findings are based date to the WVS survey questionnaire from 2005, that was conducted in India in 2006.  The questionnaire was translated into Hindi by some of the researchers, back-translated to English by someone else, and the whole thing was approved by the WVS organization.  The Hindi master was used for translation into other Indian languages.   The way the polling was conducted was exit polling - random selection of voters at randomly selected polling stations at randomly selected constituencies in 19 or so states.

So this is a survey of opinions of actual voters, at the time of elections - which are emotionally charged times, when politicians appeal to caste and religion.

Apart from the WVS survey, there was an extensive questionnaire on the respondents's background.  I do not know whether this was done before or after the WVS questions.  I do know that question 18 of this background survey had a very fine-grained division into castes,  including e.g., just for Muslims - Muslim Ashraf, Muslim Mughal (Khan),  various Muslim OBCs, Muslim Dalit, so you can imagine the categorization of Hindus.  Why this is significant is if one asked the background questions before the WVS questions one has made the respondent intensely aware of his caste identity at the time of posing the WVS question. (Question 77 of the background survey is about language.)

Apart from that the survey question in Hindi was posed with "jaati" for "race".   "Jaati" does not have the meaning or connotations of "race".  "Jaati", IMO, is best defined as an endogamous group of people, and a connotation will be "having a common profession".  The survey question is at the end of this post.

Anyway, what is interesting is that the WVS survey was conducted in India in 1990, 1995, 2001 also.  I do not know how the survey sample was conducted or how the question was posed in those surveys. Let us assume that these are all comparable.   Then what is interesting - more so than the absolute numbers - is the trend.

(You would not like to have as neighbors people of different race.)
1990 - 34.9% (2500 respondents)
1995 - 36.0% (2040 respondents)
2001 - 41.8% (2002 respondents)
2006 - 48.8% (1786 respondents)

For comparison (You would not like to have as neighbors immigrants/foreign workers)
1990 - 36.6%
1995 - 33.1%
2001 - 38.2%
2006 - 39.2%

Interestingly, only in the 2001 survey the question was posed (You would not like to have as neighbors people of the same religion)
2001 - 41.8%.   I'm guessing this must be a data-entry error.

"Jaati"-intolerance seems to have risen, while intolerance of  immigrants/foreign workers - who are almost certainly of a different jaati,  but maybe common profession -  has not moved much.

Assuming the data at each survey is meaningful and the data is comparable across surveys, this trend in jaati-intolerance is to be explained - why has it risen so much in 15 years?



The 2005 survey question was:

On this list are various groups of people. Could you please mention any that you would not like to have as neighbors?

1. Drug addicts
2. People of a different race
3. People who have AIDS
4. Immigrants/foreign workers
5. Homosexuals
6. People of a different religion
7. Heavy drinkers
8. Unmarried couples living together
9. People who speak a different language
10. (optional: minority relevant to given country, write in):


The Hindi translation of the question is available as asked (I'm transliterating into Roman)

Mein ab aapke saamne kuch khaas log/samudaya ka zikra karunga/karungi, yah bataayen, aap inmein se kinhe apne padosi ke roop mein pasand nahin karenge?

a. nashaa karne waalaa
b. doosri jaati ke log
c. AIDS bimari se grasit vyakti
d. videshi
e. samlaigik
f. doosre dharma ke log
g. sharaabi
h. avivaahit stri-purush jo pati-patni ki tarah rahte hain
i. doosri bhasha bolne waale log
j. doosre rajya/praant ka vyakti

How the results are recorded for India (1786 respondents)
People that the respondent would not like to have as a neighbor:

Drug addicts: 60.3%
People of a different race: 48.8%
People who have AIDS: 48.9%
Immigrants/Foreign workers: 39.2%
Homosexuals: 45.2%
People of a different religion: 49.2%
Heavy drinkers: 54.3%
Unmarried couples living together: 47.8%
People who speak a different language: 44.6%
Militant minority: 43.7%

For comparison purposes, the figures for the USA are (1200 respondents)

Drug addicts: 93.8%
People of a different race: 4.1%
People who have AIDS: 15.9%
Immigrants/Foreign workers: 13.2%
Homosexuals: 26.0%
People of a different religion: 2.6%
Heavy drinkers: 72.9%
Unmarried couples living together: 8.4%
People who speak a different language: 11.1%
Militant minority: 14.8%

Comments (22)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Very interesting survey. Does it also say anything about the places/polling stations where they conducted the survey - rural, semi-rural, small towns, metros etc. I am guessing we will find very different trends. But, I will still agree with the fact that India is racially intolerant.
7 replies · active 338 weeks ago
Some kind of intolerant, yes, but I object to the term "racially intolerant", because "race" has a meaning very different from "jaati".

Race in the West begins with the biblical story of Noah, and his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japeth. All humans are supposedly descended from this three. Japheth is the ancestor of Europeans, Ham is the ancestor of Africans, and Shem of the Semites (Arabs, Hebrews). Then for example, Wiki tells us "the 17th-century Jesuit, Athanasius Kircher, thought that the Chinese had also descended from Ham, via Egyptians".

With the arrival of the scientific study of human populations, this set of concepts drove what appeared to be science-based classifications. They are all almost all bogus. As noted in a previous post, Ta-Nehisi Coates noted that despite having only fuzzy definitions of "race", Western culture has had a preoccupation of theorizing about it (as also IQ). {Let us note that a highly quantitative field with precise measurements underlying it need not be scientific, for instance, astrology or phrenology. "Race" science does not even have that much going for it.}

This is not to say that Indians are not skin-color conscious, or that they do not discriminate against groups that they see as distinct from their own group, etc. But the feature measured in the WVS survey is not "racism" it is "jaati-ism". My post title has "racism" only because that is how the WaPo article that started me off has described it.
Regarding the origins of modern racial classification, here is a not-so-flattering take, via my blog: http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2010/05/mother-o...
and here is a much more positive one: http://www.bmj.com/content/335/7633/1308
I should point out that neither of these articles even begin to address why someone would look for the original race of humanity in the Caucacus; the origins of that are quite obscured in trying to present this as scientifically legitimate work, don't you think?

The answer is simple - After the Biblical great flood, Noah's ark supposedly came to rest somewhere in the Caucasian mountain range.
There is an overall profile of the sample. As percentages of the sample:
Male 56.8%, Female: 43.2%
Literate: 69.5%
Illiterate: 30.5%
Religion: Hindu 80.3%, Muslim 8.6%, Christian 3.3%, Sikh 3.4% (no religion also is thre)
Scheduled Castes: 18.5%, Scheduled Tribes: 9.3%
any idea, what was the percentage of OBCs or/and Brahmins?
No, that info is not there in the documentation on the WVS website.
Brahmins and OBCs are not mutually exclusive. Some Brahmins come under OBC in some states.
The info about the 2006 survey areas that I can find is as follows - I don't see anything about urban/rural etc., nor are there any cross-tabs on responses by region or by urban/rural, etc. Nor do I have anything on the previous years.

Andhra Pradesh - Bhadrachalam, Nellore, Hindupur
Assam - Guwahati
Bihar - Gopalganj, Jhanjharpur, Purnea, Buxar
Chattisgarh - Raipur
Gujarat - Jamnagar, Kapadvanj
Haryana - Faridabad
Jharkhand - Chatra
Karnataka - Davangere, Udupi
Kerala - Adoor
Madhya Pradesh - Manla, Ujjain
Maharashtra - Dahanu, Nagpur, Latur, Sangli
Orissa - Jajpur, Phulbani
Punjab - Ropar
Rajasthan - Sikar, Udaipur
Tamil Nadu - Vellore, Coimbatore, Sivaganga
Uttar Pradesh - Rampur, Mohanlalgunj, Basti, Macchlishahr, Jhansi, Mathura
West Bengal - Barasat, Hooghly, Bolpur
New Delhi - East Delhi
Wanted to record this: the world's ethnic diversity map from the WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp...

Afghanistan is more diverse than India!

Quote: "If you called up two people at random in a particular country and ask them their ethnicity, what are the odds that they would give different answers? The higher the odds, the more ethnically “fractionalized” or diverse the country."

I suppose it is a good thing that India is less "diverse" than Afghanistan!
Also for the record, this response to the WaPo article on India's racial intolerance: http://www.firstpost.com/world/painting-india-red...
Further, there is a question group for which here are the questions and responses for the 2006 WVS survey in India:

I see myself as a world citizen (mein khud ko vishva naagarik ke roop mein dekhta hoon)
Strongly agree 36.8%, Agree 41.3%, Disagree 17.9% Strongly disagree 4.0% (1491 respondents)

I see myself as a member of my local community (sthaniya samudaaya ke sadsya)
Strongly agree 46.2%, Agree 40.7%, Disagree 9.0%, Strongly disagree 4.1% (1678 respondents)

I see myself as a citizen of the [country] nation (bhaaratiya naagarik)
Strongly agree 68.3%, Agree 26.8%, Disagree 3.0%, Strongly disagree 19.% (1794 respondents)

I see myself as a citizen of Asia (dakshina asia ke naagarik)
Strongly agree 27.2%, Agree 36.3%, Disagree 24.5%, Strongly disagree 12.0% (1230 respondents)

I see myself as an autonomous individual (swatantra vyakti)
Strongly agree 51.5%, Agree 32.9%, Disagree 11.2%, Strongly disagree 4.4% (1425 respondents)

These 78.1% world citizens nevertheless don't want a neighbor of a different jaati at a 48.8% rate!!!
:)
Slightly off topic, but somebody did a study of endogamy versus democracy and found a strong inverse correlation. Of course India would seem to be a rather populous counterexample. The logic is that the stronger the attachment to some pre-national group (clan - very roughly similar to jaati) the weaker the attachment to nation.
8 replies · active 338 weeks ago
As far as I know, cousin marriage is permitted only in some Hindu communities and among Muslims. Muslims alone form some 15% of the population. I'm not sure that all Muslim castes allow cousin marriage, I do know if is very prevalent in what is now Pakistan. (I wonder among Bangladeshis.). The classical rule for permitted marriages was - imagine each person carries a label from the patrilineal lineage. Then none of the labels of the four parents of the prospective match can be the same. This rule is relaxed a little in modern times. It is the cousin marriage that correlates inversely with democracy; and that too, probably because of some 50+ Islamic countries which are not very democratic, and that allow cousin marriage by Islamic law.
Someone on yahoo explained this about first cousin marriage:
If you are getting married in India, and you or the girl you are asking about are Hindu, then you come under the Hindu Marriage act. In most cases under that Act, first cousins would be sapinda, and the Hindu Marriage Act would barr you from marrying each other. "Sapinda" means that you are part of the same extended family with rights of inheritance and mutual support within that group. Hindus cannot marry within their sapinda. To determine if you are sapinda with someone else, count up the generations to a common relative:

From you to your mother: one generation
From your mother to your grandmother, who is also your cousin's grandmother: a second generation

If it is three generations or fewer going through your mother, then you are sapinda; or ...
If it is five generations or fewer, going through your father, then you are sapinda.

The Hindu marriage act allows exceptions to the sapinda rule, where there is a pre-existing tradition of cousin marriage. If you belong to a caste and ethnic subgrouping where paternal cousin marriage is an accepted custom, your marriage would be allowed. That however is unlikely; as it is far more common for caste custom to allow only maternal cousin marriage, and that only in some regions of India's south.
Is that an old established custom, or something more recent?
Long established custom.
These kinds of endogamy - exogamy rules make genetic sense and may also be useful in establishing a wider society, by ensuring that cooperating groups not become too small. I wonder if the extreme cases of endogamy occur mostly where there is not a long established larger civilization.
The endogamy within a jaati type of rules may have made sense as a means of conserving knowledge when there were few other means of doing so. E.g., see the specializations in my ancestral community (scroll down on this wiki page.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathur_Vaishya

I think it is out-moded now.
"as it is far more common for caste custom to allow only maternal cousin marriage, and that only in some regions of India's south" --- I think cross cousin marriages are much more prevalent in the south -eastern states like Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. If you see the NHFS-4 data, you will find that close to 30% of marriages in these three states are consanguineous while the figures are barely 5%-7% in the northern states. ( i assume that the 5%-7% in north india is because of muslims and some other tribes). When i see figures like this, it makes me realize how the term 'Hindu' is a legal construct. You simply remove muslims,christians,jews,sikhs and jains , the remaining population you call as 'Hindus' and govern them under 'Hindu law' .
Thanks for the info on consanguineous marriages in the states of India. I found the NFHS-4 data, posted some here: http://answer2pakteahouse.blogspot.com/2018/10/in...

Post a new comment

Comments by