rac·ism: The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
What does it imply when in a lot of our poetry, the woman is referred to as “Gori” (the fair one)? What does it imply when a woman’s face is compared to a moon as in “Chaand sa chehra” (a white orb in a dark background)? What does it imply when in ads for marriages, the groom’s parents explicitly demand a fair girl or the bride’s parents go out of their way to describe their daughter in terms which make her sound fair (using terms like wheatish etc to describe the skin tone)? What does it say about us when a whole lot of our beauty products are supposed to make you fairer? Does this make us racists? It does not and I will explain later.
Spike Lee who is a brilliant moviemaker tackled the issue in his movie “Jungle Fever” where there exist a preference in black population for black women with lighter skin tones. Does that make them racist? I don’t think so. What about the obsession of the white population all over the world who are willing to risk melanoma for a tanned skin? In my dealings with white people I have heard them mock fellow whites with very pale skin? Does that make them racist? No.
Racism is about hatred not about preference. People with darker skin prefer lighter skin because that makes them unique. Same goes for people with white skin who prefer darker skin tones. It is our self loathing that makes us do so not our hatred for others. This preference is a collective burden, our cross to bear if you will.
That said, we in India have another issue adds to the burden that is our natural preference for lighter skin and that is our institutional memory of the British rule. For many Indians, white skin and English language makes us acutely aware of our insecurities. Even the most aggressive Indians tend to abandon their natural tendencies when faced with a person of European origin. I have seen this in the US.
Now coming to the main point I would like to ask you one thing – If Sonia Gandhi had not married Rajiv Gandhi will she be a leader of equal power and prominence in Italy? Will she be locking horns with Silvio Berlusconi and other Italian conservatives for the right of Italian poor? Before you answer that remember her background. In fact her only qualification is that she married the right guy. Before we condemn Giriraj Singh to the depths of hell, we should not forget that the only reason why the Congress leaders brought her to the fore. She has the Gandhi family name which Congress worker worships and she is unique which will be her USP for the voters. What makes her unique? Is it her staggering intellect? Is it her prior experience as a CM of a state or a minister in Central Government or a senior bureaucrat? If she were this brilliant statesperson, then why would Congress be in such doldrums? Going back to the last days of PV Narsimha Rao when Congress wanted a new direction, how did the Congress bigwigs like Janardhan Dwivedi, Oscar Fernandez, Ambika Soni et. al fathom Sonia Gandhi’s administrative capabilities? All of it points to the only thing that makes her unique. If Rajiv Gandhi had married a Hindu or a Muslim housewife like so many other prominent Indian politicians, do you think we would be having this discussion? Clearly Giriraj Singh, in his attempts to make this statement with a dramatic flair decided to go to the other extreme of the color spectrum and replaced white Italian with a Black Nigerian.
Giriraj Singh’s statement should not offend Sonia Gandhi. She is only guilty of the usual human follies. The people who thought her leadership would get a typical Indian voter curious and vote for her are the ones who are guilty of racism. The voters who voted for her because of her “unique features” are also guilty of ignorance and their aforementioned racial burden. So of what is Giriraj Singh guilty? All he did was point out our own weaknesses.
Giriraj Singh is clearly not a diplomat. He has a remarkable ability to say the wrong thing at the worst possible time making him a huge liability for the BJP. However, with his latest remark he has inadvertently brought attention to not only his but the entire country’s attitude about races. Condemn him if you must but look within. See if you or your loved ones have a completely clear conscience about racism.
After Nina Davuluri won the Miss America contest, it was said that she would never win the equivalent title in India. Why? Because she is too dark skinned. Giriraj Singh may be a loudmouth but for once, he is right.
PS: We support Giriraj Singh's right of freedom of speech as we always do. I wish the usual leftist brigade who are for complete freedom of speech will throw their weight behind Singh.
A similar article can be read at: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/what-if-rajiv-had-married-a-nigerian-indians-are-racist-giriraj-singh-is-right-2182249.html
No comments:
Post a Comment