» Cameron in irony overload: "I can tell you, having sat on the opposition benches for the past nine years, that opportunism does not work." 7 hrs ago

» It's also front-page of Indy tomorrow RT @libcon: Caroline Lucas uses maiden speech to attack Trafigura http://bit.ly/c0oelY 8 hrs ago

» Wow, David Miliband attacks City's "immoral" culture. Give the man a medal for pushing the boat out. http://bit.ly/c1HiyJ 8 hrs ago

» Hah! Ace find. RT @danieltrilling: umm... replicas? [Andy Burnham] http://tinyurl.com/377mhhf http://tinyurl.com/4cj29n 10 hrs ago

» Wow. Just, wow. RT @niltiac: RT @ottsworld: This makes me want to cry - oil reaches the shores of Louisiana http://ow.ly/1QN4E 10 hrs ago

Twitter profile


  • Family

    • Clairwil
    • Earwicga
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
    • Women Uncovered
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Asian caste discrimination still rife in UK


    by Sunny on 12th November, 2009 at 9:34 am    

    Asian caste discrimination rife in UK, says a report according to the Guardian.

    A number of respondents also reported being asked – directly or indirectly – about their caste background by their family doctor, nurse or a community nurse. One elderly woman felt her care worker had discriminated against her on caste grounds, while a physiotherapist was also alleged to have refused to treat someone of low caste.

    The report says that the significant number of doctors from the Indian subcontinent now indicated “a potential for caste discrimination occurring in the healthcare sector”. The Acda hopes its findings will persuade the government to amend the equality bill to make caste discrimination illegal.

    Sounds like a good idea to me. If discriminating against someone on the basis of race is illegal, why not caste? The problem is that the mainstream Hindu orgs in the UK keep denying this is a problem. I’ve read various press releases over the years where they also claim that because Hinduism does not endorse the caste system (while some revivalist movements (Swami Vivekananda, Arya Samaj most notably) rejected it, many orthodox Hindu sects embrace it). So this is a welcome report.


         
            Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Race politics, South Asia






    39 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. pickles

      Blog post:: Asian caste discrimination still rife in UK http://bit.ly/2MjGR0


    2. bmecdw

      Not more stuff to make Med staff nervous of discussing ethnicity>> RT @pickledpolitics Caste discrimination still rife http://bit.ly/2MjGR0


    3. Ashley Chisholm

      @pickledpolitics http://bit.ly/2MjGR0 conveniently fails to make any mention of Sikh caste discrimination (despite The Family).




    1. Abdul Abulbul Emir — on 12th November, 2009 at 1:56 am  

      Mrs A agrees that this is a problem Mr Sunny.

      As moslems unfortunately we are still affected by this nonsense in India which is one reason we came here.

      Many western liberals are not interested in such matters and refuse to believe 3rd world people can sometimes get it wrong.

      My goodness if they thought that their entire belief system would be turned jiggedyboo wouldn't it ?

      Sorry got to fly. Another delivery of Daily Mails have turned up.

      Peace be upon me.

    2. bluebop — on 12th November, 2009 at 2:13 am  

      It's always easy for people to harp on about the 'Hindu caste system' but its not much different from class system (still dictating much here in the UK) or the differences percieved by different sects of Muslim and Christian faiths (that have even caused wars!) I don't agree with class, caste religious hierarchies but the notion that things that have been brewing for many hundreds of years can be wiped out with legislation is naive. It would have to be a combination of education and legislation and should then be broadly applied to all forms of discrimintion not just to 'Hindu's and their caste system'.

    3. Cauldron — on 12th November, 2009 at 2:24 am  

      In fairness to Muslims and Buddhists of South Asian ancestry, I think the title of your piece ought to be 'Hindu caste discrimination…..'

      It's not your fault that the word 'Asian' is used in a lazy fashion in common parlance - it suits both the BNP and leftists to use a word that helps promote identity politics. But 'Asian' is too often used as a catch-all phrase for 'brown people' when in reality disparate groups of 'brown people' in the UK have very disparate experiences, attitudes, successes and failings.

      The term 'Asian' is usually brought into disrepute by the malfeasance of people of Mirpuri origin, so it's kinda interesting to see here an instance of the word 'Asian' being used in a fashion that makes a different set of communities cringe.

    4. kismethardy — on 12th November, 2009 at 2:26 am  

      The problem is they're dark. In this country caste wouldn't play such a big role because there's no untouchables working in fields and such, some of them go to school in this country, and all they need is skin bleach and they'll be okay.

    5. Reza — on 12th November, 2009 at 2:43 am  

      Bluebob

      Wonderful piece of moral relativism!

      “It's always easy for people to harp on about the 'Hindu caste system' but its not much different from class system…”

      Couldn’t agree more.

      The caste system is so much more interesting and exotic than Britain’s boring class system.

      What a bland place this would be without ‘diverse’ value systems enriching us all with their rich enrichment.

      Isn’t multiculturalism great?

      Oooh feel that ‘vibrancy’!

    6. Sacrastic — on 12th November, 2009 at 3:20 am  

      How dare we question their culture and try and force our cultural norms on them.

    7. Ravi Naik — on 12th November, 2009 at 3:20 am  

      Isn’t multiculturalism great?

      It is indeed great, Reza. And I am glad you recognise that, since you and your parents have been prime beneficiaries of this policy.

    8. Shamit — on 12th November, 2009 at 3:39 am  

      Reza

      Most Hindus in the UK do not endorse or practice this idiotic notion of caste - however like all religions Hinduism has its fair share of nutters. However, I fail to see the challenge to multi culturalism based on this post.

      The caste system is as despicable as the Catholic Church's willingness to excommunicate a raped 9 year old girl or stupid muslim clerics welcoming actions of terrorists. It is evil.

      Unfortunately, there will always be evil in this world and we will always have to fight evil in one form or the other. The sad part is organised religion in all parts of the world irrespective colour or creed has been the root cause of evil. As Obama said - No Just or Loving God favours these actions - whether it comes in the form of BNP, or Hindu wankers or the Muslim terrorists or people like Pat Robertson.

      No faith supports any action that discriminates or increases human suffering. And Hinduism, which by the way is a philosophy rather than a religion, is no different.

      As far UK and its multiculturalism goes — a pluralistic society is always welcome as long as the foundations of our citizenship begins with We ARE BRITISH rather than we are Christians or Jews Or Muslims First.

      On this blog, many of the people you attack often namely Jai, Sunny, Perse and soeme others — all of them have stood up to Munir and other idiots who have claimed that their Ummah beyond the shores of this country is far more important than their native land Britain.

      Some of the things you say are actually intelligent and I would agree with if you did not pursue this completely one track mission of yours — trying to spread hatred towards our fellow citizens who happen to be Muslims. On that front you sound like Pat Robertson - someone I detest.

      Sunny is hated by Anjem “the WANKER” Chaudhary and his lot much more than you would ever be. So is it really fair to question his integrity or intelligence or for that matter Jai, Perse or others Who i feel privileged to call my frieds..

      Anyway got to get back to work. Hope you pay some heed to my advice. The Islamic Revolution in Iran happened partially because lack of opportunities and a miserable quality of life for most of its citizens.

      Don't get me wrong I have no love for iudiots who come to this country and live on the system and niether do I agree with this Government's policy of Granting British Citizenship to all and sundry including many South Asians too easily. As I said you make some good points but this blog is about persuading people — and may be you go about it the wrong way.

    9. Shamit — on 12th November, 2009 at 3:41 am  

      Sunny

      How the hell do I edit my comments once posted on this system.. I am a bit confused.

      Ta mate

    10. Reza — on 12th November, 2009 at 3:47 am  

      Not strictly true Ravi.

      My parents benefited from a fairly strict immigration policy that let them move here because they had the skills and finances to contribute to British society. I didn’t actually receive Naturalisation until my late teens, over a decade after I arrived here. In fact, I was refused first time and told not to reapply for five years. My parents appealed and I got my Naturalisation soon afterwards.

      When I (pretended) to come to this country as a child, many years ago, I was the only non-indigenous boy in my class. Then, my English was poor.

      But somehow, I still clearly remember how my teacher introduced me to the class on my first day. “This is Reza. He comes from a country called Iran which is a long, long way away.”

      No one was asked to ‘value’ or ‘celebrate’ my ancestral culture. I didn’t receive special learning support at huge cost to the taxpayer. Fortunately, my parents were fluent in English, but if they hadn’t been, there was no infrastructure of translation services.

      In the area I lived there were no ethnic minorities. At my secondary school, there was one ethnic-Chinese girl, one Indian Hindu boy and one Bangladeshi Muslim boy. And me.

      We assimilated. Yes we wanted to, but even if we hadn’t, we wouldn’t have had much choice.

      I remember going to South Shields with my father as a child. In those days, you couldn’t buy things like aubergines or even basmati rice in the area where I lived.

      I remember how strange and foreign it seemed to have people in this country dressed in ethnic garb and speaking foreign languages. It was interesting. But I never wanted to live among them. I wanted to live in Britain. In the culture and value system I’d grown up in.

      I often wonder how our lives might have turned out if I’d grown up in an Iranian ghetto. If there had been one. If we could have continued to socialise and associate with our ancestral country folk. Would we have integrated so well? I doubt it.

      So Ravi, it truth my parents and I benefited from NOT having multiculturalism.

    11. Ravi Naik — on 12th November, 2009 at 4:09 am  

      So Ravi, it truth my parents and I benefited from NOT having multiculturalism

      No, you DID benefit from multiculturism, in the sense that Britain accepted your family - who belonged to a foreign culture - to live among the “indigineous”. It also allowed your family to adapt to a new culture, without forcing you to decide or completely erase your identity of origin.

      Unlike Iran, people in this country are free to wear what the hell they want. They also can speak the languages they like, and eat what they like. And English people seem to enjoy kebabs and curries as much as they like their tea, all of which came from abroad.

      I agree that there must be a common bond between people living in this country, and speaking a common language and sharing secular values is important. But the excesses of multiculturism are the exception and not the rule.

      Your comments about multiculturalism and immigration sound to me hypocritical precisely because you are a product of it. I understand you disagree with me, but if you were a white Englishman and in charge of immigration policy back in the 70s, your family would never have been allowed to immigrate here, right? Because at that time, the rhetoric of immigration was even worse than now.

    12. Reza — on 12th November, 2009 at 4:25 am  

      Shamit

      Thanks for your constructive criticism.

      Just a couple of points. You wrote:

      “As far UK and its multiculturalism goes — a pluralistic society is always welcome as long as the foundations of our citizenship begins with We ARE BRITISH rather than we are Christians or Jews Or Muslims First.”

      A commentator called Alcuin on Harry’s Place addressed this issue very well:

      “The mistake of the bien pensants is to confuse multiculturalism with pluralism - they are not the same. Multiculturalism leads to ghettoes, poor integration, little cohesion and a very vague and confused idea of what it actually means to be (say) British. Pluralism is the acceptance of the values of others, but assumes certain ground rules. Uniquely of all cultures, Islam does not accept these ground rules, viz. tolerance, pluralism, the rule of law, democracy, due process, and freedom of speech, assembly, religion and the press.

      Multiculturalism is used by Islamists as a Trojan Horse in the West. They certainly don’t want it in their own countries, and must consider us fools for accepting it, as do the Americans.”

      I agree with a degree of pluralism. But even then, I do not feel that it is appropriate to consider religious ideologies such as Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism as being equivalent to Judeo-Christianity in Britain. I stress; in Britain. They are recent and they are foreign. It is the concept of ‘foreignness’ that multiculturalism seeks to deny.

      There is a British culture, and British values. Most immigrant groups share most of these values or ‘ground rules’. But where they don’t, then we must be confident enough to tell them that their way is ‘foreign’.

      And where that ‘foreignness’ crosses the line of what is tolerable in British society, such as the caste system, or fetching marriage, we must be confident enough to say, “No, not here. We won’t allow you to do that here.”

      But how can you have that confidence with multiculturalism and it’s foundations of moral equivalence, non-judgmentalism?

      “The Islamic Revolution in Iran happened partially because lack of opportunities and a miserable quality of life for most of its citizens.”

      Yes, it did. But it also happened because of the Utopian hope that Islamic government offered people. Just like the other totalitarian Utopian ideologies of fascism and communism. However, people are less inclined to reject Islamic government, because they believe that it is ‘god’s law’. And much as it pains me to admit, I believe that some form of Islamic government has a lot of support in Iran.

      “Don't get me wrong I have no love for iudiots who come to this country and live on the system and niether do I agree with this Government's policy of Granting British Citizenship to all and sundry including many South Asians too easily. As I said you make some good points but this blog is about persuading people — and may be you go about it the wrong way.”

      You hit the nail on the head here. However, I don’t believe that extremists can ever be persuaded. And here the extremists here even less rational than those on the far right.

      Even the BNP have an idea of how their Utopia would be established, how it would look and they are willing to explain or defend their ideas.

      But here, there is only an intellectual bankruptcy. Denial. Accusation. Criticism. Conspiracy theories.

      No solutions are ever proposed. Everything is blamed on ‘racism’.

      And I think that my posts demonstrate that to anyone looking in.

    13. Reza — on 12th November, 2009 at 5:07 am  

      Ravi

      “No, you DID benefit from multiculturism, in the sense that Britain accepted your family - who belonged to a foreign culture - to live among the “indigineous”….”

      That was ‘tolerance’ not multiculturalism. The British, like all North Europeans are generally tolerant.

      If my family had had wanted to retain ‘Iranian’ culture, if for example, if my parents had demanded halal food for me at school, or excluded me from mixed swimming lessons, if my mother had collected me from school in a hejab, or my father gone to parents’ evening unshaven, wearing shalvar khameez (okay, more Kurdish than Iranian, but you get the point) then I doubt that we would have been so “accepted”.

      In reality, that’s not the sort of background I came from. We were, as people say today, “Westernised”. But that was the good thing. That’s how it was so easy for us to fit in. I have no problem with receiving immigrants that are assimilable, (as long as they have something to offer this country).

      “Unlike Iran, people in this country are free to wear what the hell they want. They can also speak the languages they like, and eat what they like…”

      That’s true AND right.

      People should be free to wear what the like. However, I as an employer should also have the right to dictate what I will or won’t tolerate in my work place. For example, I wouldn’t employ a Scotsman who insisted wearing a kilt every day, nor will I have people coming to work in football tops or England, Scotland or Pakistan shirts. I won’t accept face piercings, green Mohicans or political badges.

      I won’t accept the niqab. I will accept the hejab, as long as it is worn with a western-style, business-like trouser suit. So that’s no to jilabya. And if a Muslim man or woman won’t shake hands or make eye-contact with members of the opposite sex, then I won’t employ them as I know that our clients will be unsettled by this. The Sikh turban is fine but not Punjabi ethnic garb. In fact I won’t accept ethnic garb.

      So yes, let people be free to wear whatever they want. But give me and people like me the right to choose what we want and don’t want for our businesses.

      Currently, the law would probably back me for refusing to employ people wearing kilts and football shirts. But if I was to refuse to employ people wearing ethnic or religious garb then I could be taken to an industrial tribunal where for ‘race’ or ‘religious’ discrimination, there is no maximum pay out.

      Similarly, if someone wants to speak a foreign language, that’s fine. But why should I, as a taxpayer, be expected to fund language services, and language support for kids born here who go to school unable to speak English.

      Can you see how easily “free to” becomes “right to demand to”.

    14. Dalbir — on 12th November, 2009 at 5:14 am  

      Let's not forget to castigate the buffoon Sikhs who still can't leg go of backward caste notions either.

    15. Jai — on 12th November, 2009 at 5:25 am  

      Even the BNP have an idea of how their Utopia would be established, how it would look and they are willing to explain or defend their ideas.

      Completely false. The whole world now has access to dozens of publicised answers from the BNP, formally authorised by the BNP's senior leadership, in response to forensic policy-related questions supplied to them by eGov Monitor.

      The answers are full of denial, accusation, criticism, and conspiracy theories. And in conjunction with the BNP's most recent election manifesto, the limited number of proposed solutions are politically, socially, economically and militarily completely unworkable. Not to mention the huge number of cases where there have been outright refusals to give a straight answer or indeed any answers full-stop.

      The consistent theme is that everything is based on 'multiculturalism' and 'immigration'.

      'Intellectual bankruptcy' is the perfect description of both the BNP's deliberate scapegoating of certain groups for being the alleged source of the 'problem' and the BNP's subsequent 'solutions', such as they are.

      And I think that “Reza's” posts demonstrate his true sympathies and attitudes to anyone looking in.

    16. Shamit — on 12th November, 2009 at 5:52 am  

      The arguments about melting pot and salad bowls don't resonate with me - I am proud of my heritage and I am proud of my country. And I don't find them to be mutually exclusive.

      With regards to “foreignness” and how much is enough - I do not believe the State has any business telling people how they should practice their religion behind close doors. But I believe the State has every right to impose boundaries when you bring your religion to the public place or try to impose your religious beliefs on others.

      And most people here have similar beliefs - so where is the beef Reza?

      The United Kingdom allows all its citizens and guests the freedom to practice their religion and we should all be proud of that. By the way, why aren't you against the Church of England and/or the Catholic Church trying to impose its values on political process and decision making? Why don't I see comments from you attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury for poking his nose into affairs which is none of his business or that idiot of a Bishop Nazir Ali.

      Or the Catholic Bishop trying to tell us what laws we should pass. If you have a go against Muslim clerics shouldn;t you have a go at them too. Or are Muslims easy targets.

      There are Muslim officers in Security Services as well as the Armed Forces who wear this country's uniform and put their lives in danger to protect us — and you castigate all Muslims.

      I just don't get you.

    17. Reza — on 12th November, 2009 at 5:58 am  

      Jai

      Your wilful myopia regarding my affiliations is clouding your perception of reality. I do not, have not and never will support the BNP, nor their ‘solutions’ for the reasons you accurately give:-

      “…the limited number of proposed solutions are politically, socially, economically and militarily completely unworkable.”

      The point I was making however was that they at least have a tangible ideology that can be debated and countered.

      The sundry lefties of PP do not. Or if they do, I have yet to see it.

      The BNP will write something like “Unemployed immigrant family get £1,000,000 council house”, and follow it up with “if we were in power, immigrants would go to the bottom of the housing queue…”

      But Sunny’s posts are exclusively sniping, criticism and denial.

      All I see is “such-and-such has happened and it’s all the fault of racists”.

      And “..this wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for the BNP/Mail/Express/racists…”

      See?

    18. Ravi Naik — on 12th November, 2009 at 6:01 am  

      I will accept the hejab, as long as it is worn with a western-style, business-like trouser suit. So that’s no to jilabya. And if a Muslim man or woman won’t shake hands or make eye-contact with members of the opposite sex, then I won’t employ them as I know that our clients will be unsettled by this. The Sikh turban is fine but not Punjabi ethnic garb. In fact I won’t accept ethnic garb.

      Can you see how easily “free to” becomes “right to demand to”.

      Reza, you think that you are so westernised and superior than other immigrants, but you do share the same mindset of those that brought about the cultural revolution in Iran. You are unsettled by people who wear differently from the norm. I understand that employers and schools have the right to impose a dress code, but looking at your posts, you seem uncomfortable by the fact that people wear their traditional garb in public. I find this to be very sad. I am glad most people do not suffer from your inferiority complex.

      Furthermore, for someone who thinks that he is completely westernised, you do not seem to comprehend the basic principle that in a liberal democracy, individuals can make demands from their governments if they are not happy, regardless of their background. There are proper channels to do this, and a tolerant society accommodates some of these demands. Not all demands should be accepted, specially when health and safety are at risk.

    19. Jai — on 12th November, 2009 at 6:22 am  

      Shamit,

      There are Muslim officers in Security Services as well as the Armed Forces who wear this country's uniform and put their lives in danger to protect us — and you castigate all Muslims.

      I just don't get you.

      Something everyone should remember whenever “Reza” starts attempting to scapegoat Muslims and promote his paranoid conspiracy theories about them is the following quote:

      “We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it's the thing they can understand. It's the thing the newspaper editors sell newspapers with. If we were to attack some other ethnic group — some people say we should attack the Jews … But … we've got to get to power. And if that was an issue we chose to bang on about when the press don't talk about it … the public would just think we were barking mad. They'd just think oh, you're attacking Jews just because you want to attack Jews. You're attacking this group of powerful Zionists just because you want to take poor Manny Cohen the tailor and shove him in a gas chamber. That's what the public would think. It wouldn't get us anywhere other than stepping backwards. It would lock us in a little box; the public would think “extremist crank lunatics, nothing to do with me.” And we wouldn't get power.”

      http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=12696...

    20. Sunny H — on 12th November, 2009 at 6:33 am  

      I used 'Asian' because caste discrimination is a problem with Sikhs and (to a lesser extent) Muslims too.

    21. Reza — on 12th November, 2009 at 7:16 am  

      Ravi

      “…you seem uncomfortable by the fact that people wear their traditional garb in public.”

      On the contrary. I have great respect for traditional garb.

      I’ve visited places such as Eastern Turkey and Egypt with my partner. She wore long sleeves, long trousers and sometimes even the hejab. Not all ‘Westerners’ did. It was hot. Indeed my partner would have been much more comfortable wearing shorts and a vest. But we’re both respectful enough to recognise that the locals would have found it unsettling.

      And our respect was rewarded. We were treated noticeably better by the locals and even the tour guides.

      In Iran, during the days of the Shah, my (pretend) mother wore a mini-skirt in Shemran (the affluent and ‘Westernised’ part of northern Tehran). It was the 60’s. It was the fashion. Yet when she visited places such as Ghom or even the southern part of Tehran she would slip on a chador. Otherwise people would literally throw rocks at you in the street.

      I do find some garb offensive. For example the niqab. I wouldn’t ban people from wearing it. But I would advocate that it must never be ‘protected’ by our race laws. And I believe any organisation, public or private should be allowed to ban wearers of this garment (or any other ‘extreme’ garment) from their premises or their employment, as they see fit.

      Wearing ethnic garb is assigning yourself to a ‘tribe’. It is a mark of separation. It is saying “I’m not one of you”. And therefore, I believe it is divisive.

      When I visit Iran (pretend to of course) I always wear long sleeved shirts with no tie. although the authorities won’t arrest you for wearing short sleeves or a tie. But strictly speaking, it’s frowned upon.

      But that’s their culture. Their laws. Who the hell am I to tell them what they should accept.

    22. Rumbold — on 12th November, 2009 at 7:33 am  

      Good point about the Sikhs Dalbir. It seems less apparent in that religion, but from what I am told, there are still plenty of issues with Jats and other castes. Given that one of the central tenants of Sikhism was the (very admirable) rejection of caste it is pretty shameful.

    23. M K — on 12th November, 2009 at 11:20 am  

      Sunny,

      I'm curious to know which orthodox Hindu sects in the UK embrace caste?

    24. Sunny H — on 12th November, 2009 at 11:42 am  

      Reza, you think that you are so westernised and superior than other immigrants, but you do share the same mindset of those that brought about the cultural revolution in Iran.

      He's Mr Cooper from GGM!

      MK - Well there are lots of Gujaratis I know who still talk a lot in caste terms… mixed with jati terms like Lohana, Patel etc.

      Im pointing out that while revivalist Hindu sects abhor casteism, mainstream Hinduism has quite cleansed itself of casteism yet.

    25. M K — on 12th November, 2009 at 1:35 pm  

      Sunny,

      1) In your first post you pointed out that “some” Hindu sects reject caste and also managed to give a couple of examples. You followed this up by specifically saying “many” Hindu sects “embrace” caste yet didn't elaborate any further.

      When it comes to the UK, Hindu sects such as the Arya Samaj, Swaminarayan and Iskcon are VERY mainstream (it's safe to say that they're also the most popular and most influential). I'm not sure how much, if it all, you can say that they “embrace” caste.

      2) Did you mean mainstream Hinduism has or hasn't quite cleansed itself of casteism yet?

      3) It's interesting that you bring up 'teh' Gujis. Do you think its more prevalent amongst Gujis or Punajbis like ourselves? I mean they have inter-caste sports competitions, hell I've come across arranged intercaste mariages. Punjabis on the other hand, well i know of families not allowing their kid's friends into the house because he's low caste, my mum telling me to clean my room because it looks like a low castes been living in it (thankfully she's stopped saying crap like that now), my friend's girlfriend breaking up with him because he's a different caste and the list goes on. Honestly I can't say I've come across anything of the same level amongst Gujis. And I'm surrounded by them…*gasp*. That said I'm not suggesting that they're somehow immune to the caste virus. But I guess I wouldn't be suprised if others had a different take on it.

      Side note : Am I the only one who just assumed that caste discrimination was already covered under UK law?

    26. falcao — on 12th November, 2009 at 5:56 pm  

      I even see cast discrimination in the suburbs of surrey of all places you will not often find an affluent member of surrey seen mixing with a person from the ghettos of south or east london.

    27. Sunny H — on 12th November, 2009 at 9:38 pm  

      When it comes to the UK, Hindu sects such as the Arya Samaj, Swaminarayan and Iskcon are VERY mainstream

      Really? That's not been my reading. It could be the groups we hang out with…
      I didn't say those groups weren't mainstream - only that most Hindus still practised it.

      I'm not in any way letting Sikhs/Punjabis off the hook. After all, we have caste-based gurdwaras!

    28. Jai — on 13th November, 2009 at 7:11 am  

      But even then, I do not feel that it is appropriate to consider religious ideologies such as Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism as being equivalent to Judeo-Christianity in Britain. I stress; in Britain. They are recent and they are foreign. It is the concept of ‘foreignness’ that multiculturalism seeks to deny.

      “Judeo-Christianity” is of foreign origin where the British Isles are concerned; in fact, it is no more 'indigenous' to Britain than Islam is 'indigenous' to Persia.

      As someone who claims to be Iranian and has railed at Islam as being an imported foreign religion in terms of medieval Persian history, one would expect “Reza” to appreciate this fact. Curiously, he does not.

    29. Reza — on 13th November, 2009 at 7:43 am  

      There was no contradiction whatsoever in my post.

      “Reza”, if you can't see the contradictions within that post and countless others you've deigned to post here, then your psychiatric problems are even more severe than we thought.

      In fact, your own words apply to you:

      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6323#co

      “The fact you don't see them says something about you not seeing anything that contradicts your intellectually bankrupt world-view.

      And you actually mention “discussion”? All you ever do is make baseless pronouncements unsupported by any evidence or simply contradict points, again without ever providing evidence. “Oh no it isn't!”. Like the “argument clinic” sketch in Monty Python. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

      And failing all that you resort to an ad hominem attack, albeit a bland and humourless one.

      Now that's boring.”
      There is an old Arab saying:

      Irrelevant. Persians aren't Arabs. And their culture certainly isn't predominantly based on Arab culture. In fact, most real-life Iranians would be insulted at the attempted conflation you've been repeatedly trying to promote.
      So why doesn’t anyone reassure me?

      Because, “Reza”, nobody is under any obligation to do so. The world doesn't revolve around you. It doesn’t exist to indulge your self-centred whims and demands. And, for that matter, this website doesn’t exist to gratify your egotistical need for constant attention and importance.
      Tell me you didn’t hear any anti-British sentiment on your grandfather or father’s knee.

      Tell me you didn’t hear any anti-Asian sentiment on your father’s knee. Tell me your father wouldn’t approve of you accusing random Asians of secretly harbouring dark desires about “race replacement” and “revenge for colonialism”. Tell me your father wouldn’t approve of you spending your time obsessively promoting racist propaganda about Asians across the internet 24/7. Tell me your father wouldn’t approve of you describing the Indian subcontinent as “backward sh*holes that most of your ancestors hail from”.

      So what’s it going to be, “Reza”: Did your father really bring you up this way ?
      Jai and co resort to personal insults, against…..even my parents on this site.

      You really are a pathological liar, aren't you ? Provide the URL links and the specific quotes for any comments prior to this thread on this website where I have written a personal insult against your parents.

      Jai

      Time out.

      Clearly you feel that I personally insulted you parents (and to be fair I do how you feel that). Therefore, I apologise unreservedly. I got carried away with the point I was making. There’s no excuse.

      And I give that sincere apology regardless of your animosity and constant personal attacks on my character.

      I clearly recall that people here have commented on my (pretend) parents before. It may not have been you. I can’t be bothered to find the post. But even if they had, I still regret the way I made my point. Because I do believe I had a point.

      “Irrelevant. Persians aren't Arabs”

      Of course they’re not. Persians generally find being called Arabs to be insulting.

      There is an popular Persian rhyme that goes:

      “Arab dar biyabahn malakh mikhoreh. Sag e Esfahan ab yakh mikhoreh.”

      (The Arab in the desert eats locusts. The dog in Esfahan (the old capital) drinks iced water.)

      That tells you a little of the Persian attitude to Arabs. Racism isn’t a European monopoly.

      However, I consider Islam to be and Arab value system and that’s why I gave the example of the old Arab saying.

      Finally, I am not attacking all south Asians or ‘all’ anyone else. But I am interested in how cultural or historical prejudices can effect the way a population behaves.

      I’ll give you an example. I happen to be pro-Israel and also have a lot of time for the values of Judaism. My closest friend is an observant Jew and a cantor at a synagogue. I’ve attended and heard him sing. I’ve read books by Jonathan Sacks and recommended them on this site.

      Jai

      Come on, you’re just being daft here. Arguing for the sake of arguing.

      “…”Judeo-Christianity” is of foreign origin where the British Isles are concerned; in fact, it is no more 'indigenous' to Britain than Islam is 'indigenous' to Persia….”

      Christianity has been here for a thousand years, and has had a massive cultural influence that’s shaped this society. Judaism has been around for hundreds of years. In any case, the roots, fundamental values, beliefs and even religious texts of both religions are pretty similar.

      Until 40 years ago, Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism barely featured in British society.

      I’m not aware of any tangible examples that any of these ‘new’ ideologies have contributed to shaping British culture or law. I’m not criticising them (well not Sikhism or Hinduism), but you can’t deny reality.

      Islam is indigenous to Iran. The overwhelming majority of Iranians are Muslims. It’s been there for around 1400 years. It’s laws are based on Islam. In fact, even during the Shah’s time, many Iranian laws were based upon Islam.

      Iran is a ‘Muslim’ society. And unless Iran decides to embrace multiculturalism and massive mass immigration of non-Muslims with higher fertility rates than the indigenous Iranians, it will remain so.

    30. Reza — on 13th November, 2009 at 7:46 am  

      Ignore my previous post.

      Jai

      Come on, you’re just being daft here. Arguing for the sake of arguing.

      “…”Judeo-Christianity” is of foreign origin where the British Isles are concerned; in fact, it is no more 'indigenous' to Britain than Islam is 'indigenous' to Persia….”

      Christianity has been here for a thousand years, and has had a massive cultural influence that’s shaped this society. Judaism has been around for hundreds of years. In any case, the roots, fundamental values, beliefs and even religious texts of both religions are pretty similar.

      Until 40 years ago, Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism barely featured in British society.

      I’m not aware of any tangible examples that any of these ‘new’ ideologies have contributed to shaping British culture or law. I’m not criticising them (well not Sikhism or Hinduism), but you can’t deny reality.

      Islam is indigenous to Iran. The overwhelming majority of Iranians are Muslims. It’s been there for around 1400 years. It’s laws are based on Islam. In fact, even during the Shah’s time, many Iranian laws were based upon Islam.

      Iran is a ‘Muslim’ society.

      And unless Iran decides to embrace multiculturalism and massive mass immigration of non-Muslims with higher fertility rates than the indigenous Iranians, it will remain so.

    31. Jai — on 13th November, 2009 at 9:17 am  

      “Reza”, your knowledge of history is as faulty as your creative reinventions of the meaning of words like “indigenous” and “foreign”, but we already knew that anyway.

      Christianity has been here for a thousand years,

      Wrong. Christianity has been in Scandinavia for approximately a thousand years.

      Christianity has been in Britain for approximately 1500 years; and large-scale conversion to Christianity in England specifically did not occur until the Anglo-Saxon period, from the 7th century onwards.

      It appears that even your understanding of British history is grossly inaccurate. “The plot thinnens” [sic], as you would say.

      Christianity has actually been in India for much longer – possibly starting with St Thomas in the 1st century AD, but certainly as a result of evangelical missions coupled with the establishment of the first confirmed Christian community by Syrian Christians in the 4th century.

      Islam is indigenous to Iran.

      Wrong. Islam is indigenous to Arabia. Zoroastrianism is indigenous to Iran.

      Islam did not originate in Iran, which is what the word “indigenous” actually means. The same applies to Christianity in relation to Britain.

      It’s been there for around 1400 years.

      60% of Persians were still not Muslim by the 9th century. And the vast majority did not become Muslim until the end of the 11th century.

      Christianity has been here for a thousand years, and has had a massive cultural influence that’s shaped this society. Judaism has been around for hundreds of years. In any case, the roots, fundamental values, beliefs and even religious texts of both religions are pretty similar.

      If you think that the roots, fundamental values, beliefs and religious texts of orthodox Islam are not “pretty similar” to many aspects of orthodox, conservative Christianity and Judaism, then that is yet more evidence of a staggering level of theological and historical ignorance on your part. Orthodox Islam (as opposed to most mainstream interpretations of South Asian Sufi Islam) has far more in common with orthodox Christianity and Judaism respectively than it does with mainstream Hinduism and Sikhism.

      but you can’t deny reality.

      Unfortunately, we can’t say the same as far as your own worldview and misbegotten efforts are concerned.

    32. Reza — on 13th November, 2009 at 9:37 am  

      Jai

      I’m not going to get into semantics with you. Neither am I going to get into cross-checking every point with Wiki to ensure I don’t get a date wrong here or there.

      You know what I meant.

      You can’t equivilate the cultures and religions that existed among a majority for generations with something that, to all intents and purposes, showed up 40 years ago.

    33. Shamit — on 13th November, 2009 at 10:23 am  

      Reza

      one simple point -

      Your comments here show you haven't paid much attention in school.

      which Uni did you go to?

    34. Jai — on 13th November, 2009 at 11:39 am  

      I’m not going to get into semantics with you. Neither am I going to get into cross-checking every point with Wiki to ensure I don’t get a date wrong here or there.

      I know this may come as a surprise to someone like you, “Reza”, but many other people, myself included, don't necessarily need to refer to Wikipedia or other internet sources when it comes to our knowledge of history.

      More to the point, the errors in your assertions weren't exactly “minor mistakes”; as indications of a staggering level of ignorance about some of the most simple, basic, and widely-known aspects of British, European, and Persian history, they were on a par with……well, previous examples of your handiwork such as “the Roman Empire made 'interbreeding' illegal”, “Muslims in India haven't assimilated in even a thousand years”, and “Pakistan is ethnically and culturally homogeneous”.

      Anyone with a passing familiarity with the history of those parts of the world would be aware of how inaccurate your statements are. Given that you are not, it doesn't exactly do much for your credibility, and raises further questions about what kind of obscure wingnut sources you are getting your information from. Not only that, but making the completely erroneous statement “Christianity has been here for a thousand years” (inaccurate by 500 years) is very, very strange indeed. It's such a colossal error about one of the most fundamental, widely-known aspects of British history that it's like an American person being unaware that Abraham Lincoln was President of the Union states during the American Civil War.

      Perhaps it's time for you to call it a day, “Reza”. Withdraw from this website while you still have a shred of dignity left, if you have any self-respect at all.

      And use the time you would have otherwise spent commenting on this blog to educate yourself properly about global history; God knows what sources you have used so far, but your level of knowledge is far below normal even for Average Joe, let alone someone who claims to such a “highly-educated professional”. If you want to be thorough, I suggest you also discuss your stance towards non-white people with your GP; showing him/her all your comments on this blog during the past 24 hours alone should be sufficient to result in a formal psychiatric evaluation and possibly subsequent referrals for a suitable counselling programme. That's assuming that you're not reported to the police for breaking British laws as a result of your explicitly racist comments on this website, of course, but that's a matter for your GP to decide.

      After that, once you come out of the other side, you may be in a better position to discuss the various matters you've raised. Either way, at that point, hopefully you can rejoin the rest of the human race.

      In the meantime, your level of delusion, deception, and detachment from reality renders any attempts at dialogue utterly pointless.

    35. Ravi Naik — on 13th November, 2009 at 11:45 am  

      Until 40 years ago, Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism barely featured in British society. I’m not aware of any tangible examples that any of these ‘new’ ideologies have contributed to shaping British culture or law. I’m not criticising them (well not Sikhism or Hinduism), but you can’t deny reality.

      This is a futile argument. Britain of today is the result of its empire and massive wealth it got from the colonies and cheap labour. But you do not have to agree with this.

      Christianity is a middle-eastern religion that came to England. It was not indigenous, but now you say it is indigenous. Islam was also introduced in Persia, and again you say it is indigenous. If that is the case, then the term “indigenous” is not absolute to you and the BNP, but has a temporal quality: something becomes indigenous after an arbitrary X number of years. Let's say 1000 years. So, in 1000 years - Hinduism, Islam, South Asians and even imaginary Iranians will become indigenous to these Isles.

    36. tamblackwood — on 1st December, 2009 at 7:18 am  

      Just because you employ someone it does not mean you can dictate what people wear

      As a Scotsman I wear a kilt everyday and think that you are discriminating against races

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.