The white man of the West (you may include those Down Under too) has always played smart. While historically his has been the hand that has consistently pinched the child and then rocked the cradle, he does them with astute adeptness. He is the one who colonised the entire world, yet he is the champion of freedom; his imperial escapades have killed and maimed millions, still he is the loudest proponent of human rights. All his prosperity has been at the expense of the environment, yet, after having had his fill, he is now the chief gardener of a green earth. And worst, after destroying scores of indigenous cultures and civilisations, he parades as the harbinger of democracy in those places. And through all this he has had the temerity to claim that it was his divine right, A White Man’s Burden, to civilise the world. And racism stands out as another sterling legacy of his ‘civilising’ zeal.
Being not just a pioneer but also an ardent practioner the white man tends to see any slight on him only in the light of racism. And true to his track record of inflicting wounds and then selling the balm, he is also the most vocal in the business of ‘redressing’ racism. Quite altruistic of him indeed to be making amends, but only that his motives and methods are most suspect. Like the UNs, Amnesty Intels and Greenpeaces which are totally powerless when the West violates, the white man’s concerns about his own racism is also just whitewash: his prescriptions are only for others. The scores of definitions, debates and discussions that he has spawned in the name of addressing racism actually betray an even greater racist bent of mind than real-time racism itself. And even this guilt comes with condescending undertones with the western whites trying their best to retain their prerogative as the bestower. But, with ‘inferior’ races now ruling the roost, from economic power to sports, the white man’s pain at seeing his ‘burden’ slipping away is all too evident. The Aussie players’ angst at Harbajan’s alleged racial slur only reflects the poor grace with which the whites react to such ‘race reversals’.
So is reverse racism, then, justified? But is it there in the first place? The ‘monkey business’ is probably the first episode in which Indians are being accused of racism. And it is a comic irony that Bhajji, whose community of Sardars has always been the butt of not so flattering jokes, and which has always taken such innuendos quite sportingly, should himself be accused of racism. That apart, in India we routinely chide fellow citizens, friends and even our own children as monkeys. Monkey-god Hanuman is easily the most popular in our pantheon. In such a country which not only refers but also revers monkeys so spontaneously, how can they be deemed derogatory or racist? Again, if we are to accept Aussie bowler Hogg’s argument that the B-word is culturally commonplace in Australia, uttering the monkey-nama too is culturally compatible for an Indian. In any case, it is a far more decent way to address an adversary compared to Hogg’s ‘cultural’ standards, assuming Bhajji had indeed done that.
But we will rest the monkey case with that. Racism is at best a footnote in the larger issue of assumed supremacy that most of mankind is guilty of. By definition, racism is the act of discriminating against someone or a group based on their descent and/or physical features such as colour. But to put a racist tag on an insult intended to hurt is to belittle its magnitude and divert its import. Much of Aussie sledging on field constitutes greater assaults on Indians’ self-respect and character, nay, our nation itself. To dub these as merely racist is to let the offender off lightly. Again, does a slur become serious only if it is racist? So, is trading of vulgar abuse tolerable if it is within a race? Is a racist slight the ultimate in slander? For instance, what about jihad and evangelism which are based on notions of a superior God? Really, racism pales before such ‘divine’ discrimination!
It may seem like persecution complex, but the reality is that India has always been looked at with juandiced White eyes. Western media, for instance, always display a marked reticence in acknowledging India’s rise and try their best to dub it an aberration that will ebb away soon. This is in sharp contrast to their uninhibited adoration of China. There is always this sneaking suspicion that the West would any day prefer Pak to India, despite their starkly contrasting democratic credentials. Indian born Lakshmi Mittal went on record about a racist mindset trying to stall his takeover of European steel giant Arcelor. This has been the experience of many an Indian businessman. There can be many theories to explain this bias, but one can be sure it is not just racial but also cultural, civilisational and religious. India stands out like a sore thumb in a world divided more or less equally between the religions of the Book. Period. But moving from the sublime to the ridiculous, did not Sob Sister Shilpa Shetty walk away with the Big Brother by making a virtue out of the rank racist rantings against her?
The Blacks’ struggle against racism in US, South Africa’s notorious apartheid and Hitler’s genocide of Jews are all important milestones in modern racial history. In the Indian context, the Dravidian movement of TN lays claim to a racial rationale. But that sole exception apart, caste and not race is the instrument of discrimination here.
But frankly, it looks as though there is no equality in God’s scheme of things: The ‘racist’ Almighty has thoughtlessly used different moulds and dyes in His creation! And not stopping with that, He has also genetically programmed humans to be colour conscious and seeded in their psyche the idea that pigments determine power and personal traits. Enterprising humans have taken off from there, making racism an intractable social construct, so much so that even reformers and victims have unconsciously imbibed them. Phrases like ‘fairplay’, ‘black sheep’, ‘black market’ and ‘dark deeds’ seem to associate good and evil with colour and all of us use them rather flippantly. There are already raging debates about the racist overtones of cosmetic products that seek to capitalise on the yearning of humans, of all hues, for a fairer complexion.
How unfair! Indeed, a colour-blind world looks a long way off!
e-mail the writer at [email protected]