Talk:Indophobia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 December 2007. The result of the discussion was No concensus (default keep).

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 Feb 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indophobia/Archive 1 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Title

This article should be called anti india sentiment its absurd calling it indophobia there are many anti india sentiments in south asian nations do not edit and use weasel words such as saying indians are the victims of racism it happens for a reason.

[edit] Delete this page

This is tripe. The only connection between racism against American Indians and those from Asia is that the words are related in the English language. Why not have a Wiki article about all peoples who are discrimiated against containing the letter "E"?

No one questions that racism exists. This article, being biased and poorly written, makes an entirely different statement, which is that anti-racism can be even more ignorant than the racism it criticizes. It embodies, in effect, the hysteria it purports to be neutral about.

[edit] Please don't call me a troll.

I believe that it is reasonable to expect a citation for claims that Indophobia has increased in the United States, that many Bangladeshis consider India a regional bully or that India is turning its back on its creation, or that Hindus and Bangladeshis are being prosecuted (did you mean persecuted?) in Bangladesh and India respectively.

I also find it unlikely that there is no anti-Indian sentiment in Sri Lanka or Nepal, and I find the complete deletion of those sections rather odd.

I believe these are reasonable positions, and while one may disagree with my arguments, I don't think it is appropriate to call me a troll.71.174.94.146 (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See the Bangladesh section on Persecution of Hindus, as well as reports from Amnesty International on this topic. Plus, I doubt that there is any overt or systemic Indophobia in Sri Lanka, given that the LTTE depends on Indian Tamils for funding, and the Buddhist fanatics in the Sinhala Regime view India as "the holy land of Buddha" or whatever. Certainly, it is obvious that there is anti-Tamil racism and genocide from the Sinhala Buddhists, and likewise anti-Buddhist sentiments from the Sinhala Tamils, but none of them are germane to this article, and can be mentioned on Sri Lanka civil war articles. On an anecdotal note, most of the Sri lankans I have personally met are pro-India in some way or form, given that both the warring tribes down there are trying to suck up to Indians for support. 11:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghanadar galpa (talk • contribs)

[edit] Deletions

As explained here the following was deleted in the article by Hornplease (talk · contribs) but no reason was put on the talkpage. Why was it deleted, and how could it be improved.. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indophobia&diff=157380525&oldid=156864610 Trautmann (1997) argues that British Indophobia was constructed by Evangelicalism and Utilitarianism^{[citation needed]} and its chief architects were Charles Grant and James Mill. Claims of Indophobic Bias in South Asian Studies have often been made. Such real or perceived bias can imply old-fashioned and prejudiced outsider interpretations of Eastern cultures and peoples:

Biased interpretation of Indian history. For example James Mill's History of India downplays Indian history.^[1]
One-sided, unfair, exaggerated or exclusively negative presentation of some aspects of Hinduism or Indian culture. For example exaggerations or misrepresentations about Hindu theology, misrepresentations about the status of women in Hinduism, etc.
Claims that the Indological scholarship of Indians themselves is not scientific or that it is motivated by political motives, i.e. by Marxist, nationalist, Hindu, Muslim, Dravidian separatist or other motives.

He advocated the creation of a middle Anglicised class that was "Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect".^[2] This class of anglicized Indians would then in turn anglicize the Indian people. His work "History of British India" (1817) may be the "single most important source of British Indophobia and hostility to Orientalism".^[3] . American views of India, that have been quite negative, can be noted in the use of characterization like "Very Benighted Heathens", "the White Man's Burden" and the "Lesser Breed". ^[4] </small

IMO, some of the deletions were unjustified. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DOESNT EXPLAIN MAKES EXCUSES

THIS ARTICLE IS TOTALLY BIASED IT DOESNT EVEN EXPLAIN WHY ANTI INDIA SENTIMENTS EXSIST IN PAKISTAN IT BEATS AROUND THE BUSH IGNORING THE FACT OF KASHMIR AND OPPRESSION OF MUSLIMS IN GUJARAT IT TRYS TO PAINT INDIANS AS VICTIMS WEAK ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.210.56 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

There is a severe problem with this edit[1]. The hrw report talks about some incidents in kashmir, but draws no correlation with these incidents and anti-India sentiments in Pakistan. In order to establish that anti-India bigotry in Pakistan has any correlation with Kashmir or Gujarat, correlation must be established clearly by Reliable Sources. The kashmir issue is a separate one, and largely unrelated to Indophobia in Pakistan (in fact, many Pakistani scholars agree on this, there was a lecture delivered by Pakistani physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy in the Smithsonian on Pakistan-India relations where he clearly states that Indophobia in Pakistan is largely unrelated to Kashmir except as a propaganda device, also see "Pakistan: nationalism without a Nation" by [Christoffe Jaffrelot] for a similar analysis). I intend to remove the unrelated hrw reference and put in the Hoddbhoy and Jaffrelot references once the article is unprotected.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like a French speaker to read and possibly translate Jaffrelot's book "Le Pakistan, carrefour de tensions régionales, direction, Complexe, Bruxelles, 1999, rééd. 2002" for analysis. I can't read French, but I've read reviews of the book that suggest that it also discusses Indophobia in Pakistan.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For once, I agree with you. The article makes an unsourced claim that anti-Indian sentiment in Pakistan is related to anti-Muslim violence in India, eg the killings in Gujarat. Kashmir is obviously forms an important element of anti-Indian sentiment, although it is a moot point as to whether the Kashmir conflict is a cause or symptom of this prejudice. A more sophisticated approach to the debate is needed in this article.--Conjoiner (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it odd that you can say there is a serious problem with this edit, but what about the statement it was replacing, namely "Anti-Indian sentiments, coupled with anti-Hindu prejudices as well as prejudices directed at Indian Muslims have existed in Pakistan since it's formation. "

Where is the source for that?, especially the one against Indian Muslims.

First of all the article clearly notes that

"The term "Indophobia" was first coined in western academia by American Indologist Thomas Trautmann to describe negative attitudes expresed by some British Indologists against Indian history, society, religions and culture"

So really IMO this article should be on Wiktionary, if there is an article on Indophobia then why not on Greekophobia or Anti-French sentiment. Where is the article on anti-African sentiment?

I mean in reply to this, you could also argue, what the hell is "indo" phobia? A Phobia is a phobia, no matter what ... surely this is race baiting?

But anyway the term Indophobia seemed have been coined for a very specific scholarly meaning to refer to theories amongst Indologists, the article ostensibly about 'Indophobia' seems to have morphed into something called 'Anti India Sentiment'

Pakistan and Bangladesh both border India and are mentioned in this article, where are the Banglaphopia and Pakistanphobia articles?

Pahari Sahib 00:32, 14 January 2008 (GMT)

Statement:

Response:

Gotta find one. I have some sources from Indian Muslim websites regarding this. There was a blurb written by Asghar Ali Engineer about how Pakistani Fundamentalists see Indian Muslims as takfir (false Muslims) on account of their choosing to coexist with "idolatrous Hindus".Ghanadar galpa (talk)

Statement:

First of all the article clearly notes that

So really IMO this article should be on Wiktionary, if there is an article on Indophobia then why not on Greekophobia or Anti-French sentiment. Where is the article on anti-African sentiment?

Response:

See Francophobia, Anglophobia. They're there already. Additionally, the term is used not just by Trautmann, but numerous East African academics as well.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement:

I mean in reply to this, you could also argue, what the hell is "indo" phobia? A Phobia is a phobia, no matter what ... surely this is race baiting?

Response:

Well first of all Indians and Pakistanis don't constitute a race. Whites do. Sort of (at least Europeans are more ethnically homogeneous than South Asians). clearly the edit you cite using a derogatory term like "White Racist" is a classic example of race baiting. Since neither Indians nor Pakistanis constitute a single unified race (Sindhis, Punjabis, baloch, Pashtun etc in Pakistan are all different races, as are Biharis, bengalis, Tamils, Marathis, Oriya in India and so on), the discourse of racism doesn't really play in here except in the context of Eurocentric perceptions from the Brits.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement:

Response:

Originally yes, but academics have extended the definition to include anti-India sentiment in general. A good parallel is antisemitism. A term coined by Wilhelm Marr to denote (and originally glorify) a very specific kind of prejudice, but has been extended to include anti-Judaism, anti-Zionism and such sentiments in the Muslim world.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement:

Pakistan and Bangladesh both border India and are mentioned in this article, where are the Banglaphopia and Pakistanphobia articles?

Response:

Because those terms are neologisms. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistanphobia. The terms are used in politics, and politics alone. This is different from Indophobia, which is used both in politics and scholarly discourse.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a nationalist pissing contest here. Just because there is an article on Indophobia does not mean there should be an article on Pakistanophobia or whatever. We need to only write about terms that satisfy wikipedia criteria on WP:NOTABILITY. If there are any academic sources talking about "Pakistanophobia" I'd love to see 'em.

By the way, I DO believe there are acadmic works written on Banglaphobia (specifically anti-bengali racism) but they primarily discuss such attitudes held by Pakistan during the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all I invite you to find a source for 'prejudices directed at Indian Muslims', but don't just revert it back unsourced.

I agree incidentally that Pakistanis and Indians do not constitute a race (and in face share several), but as the racism article makes plain, 'racism has many definitions' - not always to with an actual ethnicity. Also most people who are 'Indophobic' will more than likely be prejudiced against the subcontinent as whole, not India in particular (this is of course especially true for colonial era prejudice) - the article needs to make this clear.

As for the argument that the term "White Racist" is race baiting, I was just using one of your edits as an analogy with this article, it is used extensively in the media [2] [3] [4].

Incidentally I wasn't arguing for articles on Banglaphopia and Pakistanphobia merely because there is one on Indophobia.

Pahari Sahib 02:13, 14 January 2008 (GMT)

"Also most people who are 'Indophobic' will more than likely be prejudiced against the subcontinent as whole, not India in particular". I think that this is correct.I am not adverse to mentioning this in the article pending sources. However, the discussion will be complicated by the fact that "India" as it is understood today is not the "India" of the colonial period.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the India of the colonial period does not equate to the India of today - however in general what you call 'Indophobia, both historically and today, would encompass all of the subcontinent. It would only specifically be about India in countries that border it, I do not think noting this would be much of a complication, a slight adjustment to the lead should suffice.

Your version of the article seems to imply that anti-Indian sentiment was solely due to the 'Martial Race' theory (originally espoused by the British), this is - I think- simplistic - the origins go back to partition. Not everyone in Pakistan is from one of the 'Martial Races' and the article notes this theory was 'central to the Pakistan Army'. But how far did this theory percolate down to the common man? In times of war people tend to rally around the army and leadership - and there is the inevitable increase in bigotry on both sides - albeit temporarily.

Have you got any more details on the 'Pervez Hoodbhoy' lecture? Where does he believe that animosity towards India springs from? - And where does he say that it is a propaganda device - this seems like an important thing to note in the article. Also do you have a link to a review of Christophe Jaffrelot's work?

Pahari Sahib 05:14, 15 January 2008 (GMT)

Ganadar Galpa please stop vandalising this article with your personnal beliefs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.149.202 (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghanadar galpa can you proove these wars have made anti india sentiment in pakistan stop your self comforting indian propaganda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.234.86 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution

There needs to be far more attribution of sources, instead of portraying contentious statements as facts. This subject is a matter of debate and all sides must be represented.--Conjoiner (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the cited article in greater detail [5]. The source is from the University of Illinois at Urbaba ChampaignGhanadar galpa (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced it entirely supports what this paragraph is saying.[6] For a start, the author acknowledges the tensions between the secularism of the Awami League and the Islamists. Plus, it is the opinion of one man, a security analyst. It is important to make this clear.--Conjoiner (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Attribution to the analyst can be made explicit in the article. That seems fine.Plus, the Awami league was pro-India during the Bangladesh Liberation war, and thus the anti-Awami ideology of the Islamists becomes anti-India by association. I believe that that is the point that the article is making. Also, all the stuff about Bengali ethnocentrism and so on are made in the article as well. Can you read the article and give me an overview of what you think best summarizes it's content with regards to anti-Indian sentiment?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The text states "The phobia that had grown from anti-Hinduism into Indophobia is also a part of ethnic Bengali Nationalism in the country". Given that the secular Awami League was at the forefront of the war of liberation and defined Bengali nationalism as a linguistic-based movement, it is wrong to claim that Bengali nationalism is anti-Hindu or anti-Indian. As you acknowledge, Awami League is pro-Indian. The article you cite also acknowledges this. Nearly half the ethnic Bengali population is Hindu anyway, if you take into account West Bengal and ethnic Bengali population living elsewhere in the north-east. Bengali identity is not defined by religion. Those who play to religion in politics, such as the Jamaat-e-Bangladesh, opposed Bengali nationalism in the first place, siding with Pakistan! The statement is simply contentious and unsupported by any source.--Conjoiner (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Excerpt from the Sakia article:

"Indeed, the Muslim identity of present-day Bangladesh was sought to be established way back in 1901 an 1947 when the British first divided Bengal and then the sub-continent on distinct Hindu-Muslim lines.5 And although a sizeable Hindu population had continued to reside in East Bengal and consequently East Pakistan, Hindu migration to India was also continuing and had gradually increased as a result of the growing anti-Hindu feelings in the country after the partition. The phobia towards Hindus of the pre-partition days that had metamorphosed into Indophobia in 1947 (certain secular Bengali Muslims had expressed their opposition to the anti-Hindu rhetoric by seeking to proclaim Bengali nationalism, which had briefly gained in ground after the liberation of Bangladesh) continues to mark an average Bangladeshi’s perception of the other. The ruling Bangladeshi class had realized this soon after the formation of Bangladesh and consequently made successive attempts to project not only the anti-India stance of the country, but also its Islamic innards, which came to be the basis of anti-India rhetoric in the subcontinent."

This seems to more or less agree with the edit made, that "secular" (read ethnic) Bengali Nationalism played a role in fostering Indophobia by projecting the "Bengali" as racially distinct from "the other" Indians. On a more anecdotal note, this sort of prejudice is quite common among Bengalis. Most BEngalis in India don;t even refer to their state as "Poshchim Bongo" (west Bengal) but by "Bangladesh", a clear cut case of Bengali ethnocentric irredentism that comes from their perceived "race-brothers" in Bangladesh, and a major genesis for Indophobic views and attitudes among the ethnic Bengalis, Indian or BangladeshiGhanadar galpa (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The article states that the Islamic Fundamentalists were both anti-Hindu and Indophobic. I think you're confusing the two. They are distinct views. While admittedly secular ehnocentric Bengalis downplayed the anti-Hinduism, they nonetheless perceived Indians as "the other" as the article clearly states (see quote). They opposed anti-Hinduism, yes, but they festered Indophobia in a secular discourse, particularly the ruling classes (secular Bangladeshis)Ghanadar galpa (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

caveat - I'm not 100% clear who Sakia means when he says "ruling class". Does he mean secular Bengalis or the fanatic Muslims? If it's the former, then the edit, as it stands now, is correct. If it's the latter, then Conjoiner has a valid point and Sakia indicates that Indophobia primarily comes from fanatic Muslims rather than secular Bengalis. Is there any way to clearly determine this?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Awami league's Indophobia, here is another source [7] which does seem to contrast Bengali ethnocentrism and Islamic Nationalism in Bangladesh, but which mentions, nonetheless, that Awami League supporters tend to be Indophobic.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you are grasping what the author is saying. He said "certain secular Bengali Muslims had expressed their opposition to the anti-Hindu rhetoric by seeking to proclaim Bengali nationalism". We can only guess who he is referring to, but I'm pretty certain he means Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding father of Bangladesh, and the Awami League when he says secularists. In reference to the ruling class, he probably means the military dictatorships that followed Mujibur's assassination, which attempted to gain legitimacy through appealing to religion, albeit nothing on a scale seen in Pakistan. He is not saying that "Indophobia" was fostered by secularists. I completely disagree with your claim that West Bengalis refer to their state as Bangladesh. It is simply not true. Every Indian state is parochial in the way it views the rest of the country, but I've never come across anything approaching what you are claiming. And I would oppose any such portrayal of Bengali nationalism or culture in this article.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Upon reading the article in greater detail, and your statements, I'm inclined to accept that the article does not draw an explicit connection between secular Bengali ethnocentrism and Indophobia (however the bit about Bengali irredentism I talked about is completely true, most Bengalis do refer to wb as "Bangladesh", but I guess that's beside the point for now). I suggest removing the following sentence:

"The phobia that had grown from anti-Hinduism into Indophobia is also a part of ethnic Bengali Nationalism in the country[28], which continues to mark an average Bangladeshi’s perception of Indians"

and replace it with the following:

"The phobia that had grown from anti-Hinduism into Indophobia became part of the propaganda disseminated by the military dictatorships following the assassination of Sheik Mojibur Rahman as an appeal to militant Islam"Ghanadar galpa (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we still need to have a source that clearly states this. The author you are citing is not clear on the matter. It is clear that the military dictatorships and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party have appealed to religion (not "militant Islam", but conservative religious values - conservatism should not be confused with radicalism), but it is not evident that this necessarily equates to anti-Indian sentiment. As for "Bengali nationalism", I am married to a Bengali and have lived in West Bengal for many years. There is a certain snobbery directed towards "Purbo Bangla", with West Bengalis - particularly Hindus - regarding themselves as somewhat culturally superior to people east of the international border. They would certainly not call themselves Bangladeshi, including those who have settled in India after fleeing what was East Pakistan. I respect your right to hold this opinion, but it is not one that can be used as fact in this article.--Conjoiner (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We seem to agree that "ruling class refers to military dictators, except that your point about not subscribing to militant Islam but "conservative" (euphemisn for fanatic) values (what is called Islamism, really only a semantic distinction). Doesn;t this section essentially support the present contention:

"The phobia' towards Hindus of the pre-partition days that had metamorphosed into Indophobia in 1947 (certain secular Bengali Muslims had expressed their opposition to the anti-Hindu rhetoric by seeking to proclaim Bengali nationalism, which had briefly gained in ground after the liberation of Bangladesh) continues to mark an average Bangladeshi’s perception of the other. The ruling Bangladeshi class had realized this soon after the formation of Bangladesh and consequently made successive attempts to project not only the anti-India stance of the country, but also its Islamic innards, which came to be the basis of anti-India rhetoric in the subcontinent.""

Read the bold letters in succession.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the author's analysis anyway. I don't think anti-India and anti-Hindu sentiment is as important to Bangladeshi nationalism as he contends, although it is certainly a factor in some sections of the population. Unlike Pakistan, the Bangladeshi state was not created on the basis of religious confession but a notion of Bengali culture. There is a tension between those who define Bangladesh on cultural grounds and those who want to define it by religion, but there is no unanimity. Within the religious camp, there are those who want to define Bangladesh in opposition to India.(talk) 16:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but your disagreement is not sufficient cause for removal of the paragraph, since our opinions are irrelevant in the face of attributed reliable sources. Of course, attributing the statements to the source in the narrative is perfectly fine.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Conservative" is not a euphemism for fanatic. Many Hindus are conservative, but are not fanatic. In fact, many conservative Muslims abhor Islamic radicalism. For example, there is a strong quietist tradition in Shi'ism - usually represented by the Najaf seminary - that is in conflict with the radicalism of the ruling ayatollahs in Iran. Likewise, the Al-Azhar Institute may be conservative, but generally stands in opposition to Wahhabism. It is possible for a government to appeal to Islamic values in society without creating an Islamic state, supporting Islamic radicalism or even persecuting minorities. Your equation of Islam = anti-Hindu = anti-India is your opinion, but it is not fact.--Conjoiner (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

""Conservative" is not a euphemism for fanatic. Many Hindus are conservative, but are not fanatic" that is not what the Communists say. Actually, I know a little about the Najafis, but that is a phenomenon unique to Shia Islam in Persia. There are very few (negligible really) Shia Muslims in the Indian subcontinent (Balochistan doesn't count). I don't think that there is any equivalent of Najafiism in Islam in the Indian subcontinent. Likewise, no parallel exists to anti-Wahhabist conservatism in Indian subcontinent either. While several madhabs in Islam are often opposed to each other on theological trivialities, they are essentially united in their desire to persecute and eventually exterminate the kufr in Jihad. The only "Muslims" who are against this (the so-called "moderate Muslims") are actually not Muslims, but secularists with Arabic sounding names who identify themselves communally as Muslims (but don't observe Ramadan for instance).Ghanadar galpa (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"They would certainly not call themselves Bangladeshi, including those who have settled in India after fleeing what was East Pakistan" - that's probably because they are less loose-lipped around you (an "obangali") than they are around me (a fellow tribesman).Ghanadar galpa (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The article you cite does not say anything of the sort. The article says that Awami League supporters are pro-India and the nationalist-Islamist supporters are anti-India. It says that there is a 20% of floating voters who are in favour of the Liberation War but anti-India, who are more easily swayed towards the BNP and Khaleda Zia.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry yes you are right about that. I misread. The article says that anti-Awami is anti-India. I missed the anti- part. I withdraw that contention.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bangladesh

Going through this section, I have found the sources do not support the text. For example, this statement "The phobia that had grown from anti-Hinduism into Indophobia is also a part of ethnic Bengali Nationalism in the country[28], which continues to mark an average Bangladeshi’s perception of Indians" is incorrect. The source states that anti-Hindu attitudes grew into anti-Indian attitudes within a certain group that gained control over Bangladesh, not the country's initial secular leadership which was pro-India.

This is also misleading: "The term "Indophobia" is first applicable to denote these prejudices when they began to morph from traditional anti-Hinduism in the Muslim communities to political accusations against Bengali Hindus specifically pertaining to dual loyalty with India.[24][25] Such prejudices have been compared by many outside observers to the anti-Semitic propaganda of Nazi Germany.[26][27]." Only one source makes a reference to Bengali Hindus being treated like Jews in Nazi Germany, but states quite clearly that this situation occurred under Pakistani rule and Bengali Muslims also suffered persecution. It does not state that this was endemic to Bangladeshi nationalism or makes any reference to dual loyalty (since it refers to pre-independence).

This section is irrelevant: "Political disputes like the Farakka Barrage, Indo-Bangladesh enclaves and Indo-Bangladeshi barrier have created rift between the two." It is a complex territorial dispute, not "Indophobia".

"Persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh by the rising tide of militant Islamists and cross-border infiltration into India by illegal Bangladeshi immigrants has created likewise anti-Bangladeshi sentiment in India." This has nothing to do with "Indophobia" and should be deleted.

I am examining the other sources as well, so there may be more areas of the article to clean up and correct.--Conjoiner (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The point that the refs make is that the prejudices directed by Pakistanis against Bangladeshis were, in part, motivated by anti-Indian sentiment, even when they were directed against Bengali Muslims.See 1971 Bangladesh atrocities, particularly the statement "This widespread violence against Hindus was motivated by a policy to purge East Pakistan of what was seen as Hindu and Indian influences. The West Pakistani rulers identified the Bengali culture with Hindu and Indian culture, and thought that the eradication of Hindus would remove such influences from the majority Muslims in East Pakistan" . Perhaps it may be a good idea to put all this in a separate East Pakistan section instead of Bangladesh section. That would be ok. I agree with the rest of what you say, regarding the Farakka bridge etc. I was planning on removing that para anyway after protection expires. It is a Synthesis.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of creating an East Pakistan section, would it not make sense to put such text under the Pakistan section?--Conjoiner (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

ok.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghanadar

questions for this ghanadar geezer: "Anti-Indian sentiments, coupled with anti-Hindu prejudices as well as prejudices directed at Indian Muslims have existed in Pakistan since it's formation. "

Where is your source for this claim please answer becuase it just gos to show how indians can talk all the rubbish they want without sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.177.147 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How's this? By a Pakistani political analyst Khaled Ahmed in a Pakistani newspaper."We have another stereotype about the Hindus, which is remarkably similar (to antisemitism). Both Hindus and Jews were the underclass that plied commerce when being a warrior carried the badge of honour. Today both Jews and Hindus are on the rise. The warriors are down and out."Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghanadar

Please do not feed the trolls.

dear hindu you still havent given me any sources you have just gloated about jews and hindus on the rise somehow. p.s the underclass was created by these rising hindus your caste system poiosoned south asia now even hindus are disregarding there gita becuase if this underclass dalit hindu system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.179.45 (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward

Perhaps it would be best to overcome ethnic and national grievances in order to write a balanced and well-written article. There has been no substantial addition to this article for some time. Perhaps it is best to review what is in the article line by line, pick out the most controversial sentences and discuss them sensibly. Attempting to play on other editors' perceived national sensitivities is unlikely to achieve anything. So, please, let us see the main points of contention and resolve them in a civilised debate.--Conjoiner (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are my opinions

Is this section needed or appropriately placed in this article?[8]
I don't see the connection between the arguably well-founded fear of outsourcing of jobs to South Asia in recent years with violent harassment in the 1980s [9]
There is great confusion in this section over "Indophobia"[10] Bangladesh did not exist until 1971 and until 1947 it was part of India. All Bengalis suffered under Pakistani rule, whether they were Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Buddhist. Tribal people were also persecuted. To extrapolate Indophobia from the treatment of Hindus by an essentially foreign regime is original research. I would also like to stress the points I raised above about Bengali nationalism, which was and continues to be secular in nature. There are also serious factual errors in this section (the BNP, for instance, is not a militant Islamist organisation even if it decides to form alliances with Islamist parties). I would like to request that the author of this section makes adequate changes, as discussed above, as it is better he does this than open an edit war.

I hope these points are taken seriously and we can come to an agreement on the text.--Conjoiner (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are my responses

The British part is explicitly sourced from Thomas Trautmann, who uses Indophobia to describe the attitudes denoted. Read the Aryans and British India chapter. As for the Turban tide part, I believe that it it, by definition, and example of anti-India sentiment. Do we really need to wikilawyer here?
This is about notable applications of the term "Indophobia". If you read the Economic times referenced, the author clearly uses the term "Indophobia" to denote the outsourcing paranoia phenomenon.In fact, I plan to elaborate further on this as I gather references
The B'desh part is hardly OR, since the term Indophobia, again, is explicitly used in the cited reference to denote such prejudices. Have you actually read any of the citations? I have added in footnote. Some appropriate fixups are required. The BNP is actually a nationalist party. However, the term militant Islamist is applicable here since most nationalist parties in the Muslim world (even the Baathists of Iraq and PLO, who are not militant Islamists per se) use Islamic Fundamentalism as justifications for their actions (Saddam certainly did). Still, explicitly OR issues can be ironed out, of course. The point that the author is trying to make is that, while prejudice was directed at non-Indian Bengalis, it was motivated by the paranoia of dual loyalty that the Yahya Khan era Pakistani administration directed at them. The reasoning for the bigotry was that since Indians are bad, and Bengalis are more loyal to India than to Pakistan, therefore Bengalis are bad. This is a case of anti-Bengali racism serived off of Indophobia. The paper makes this argument quite eloquently, actually. So it's both anti-Bengali racism (explicitly) and Indophobia (implicitly). None of this is OR and is explained in the citation. You raised a point about attribution earlier, and I agree, an attribution can be made to the analyst who makes the indophobia inference. The points you raise about bengali nationalism etc are also well-founded, and can be modified accordingly. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

footnote: The relevant references are this one for outsourcing related Indophobia and this one relating to East Pakistan-era Indophobia.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commentators in Pakistan

Commentators in Pakistan using the term "indophobia" to denote anti-Indian sentiment:

Khaled Ahmed [11]
Razi Azmi [12] Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

These commentators dont state what you wrote i nthe article stop misrepresenting articles to your indian point of veiw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.232.244 (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

biased article needs more neautral editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.100.3 (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research?

Pahari Sahib's most recent edit [13] has a problem. You're trying to place "context" into Vali Reza Nasr's work on Indoiphobia directed at Muhajir Urdus by adding that Musharraf is a Muhajir. The problems with this edit are

Original Research - Specifically your research. The website you quote does not specifically pertain to Indophobia, addressing Indophobia or addressing Vali Reza Nasr's work, making it research that you have done, which is haraam on wikipedia. You yourself have indicated that you mean to "put Vali Reza Nasr's views in context", which is another way of saying "Original Research".
WP:SYN it is a synthesis of an unrelated fact to advance a view. It's like an Indian saying that "There can be no anti-Muslim feelings in India because India has had a Muslim president ,Abdul Kalam, or a Frenchman saying that there is no antisemitism in France because it has a Jewish president Nicholas Sarkozy.

I hope that this points are clear. Masalaam.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, first of all Vali Reza Nasr makes a claim about the status of Muhajir's refugees in Pakistan, including discrimination, it is not original research to note that Musharraf was an Indian refugee from Delhi see Wikipedia:These are not original research#Obvious deductions. Now Musharraf does not mention Indophobia, whether directed against him or otherwise, in his bio. However if you include Vali Reza's text, you also need place it in context, the fact that Musharraf was a refugee from Delhi and is president of Pakistan is an important point to make. If I had added a link to Musharraf's bio and written something like "the fact that the president of Pakistan was born in India disproves this analysis" - then you have a point, the fact is I haven't, merely pointing out that the president of Pakistan is Muhajir.

Regards

Pahari Sahib 20:29, 23 January 2008 (GMT)

Pahari: WP:NOTOR is an essay. The policy WP:OR specifically says "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, [...] then the editor is engaged in original research. [...] In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor." - Revolving Bugbear 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The source I have cited, does not reach a conclusion, does not necessarily refute the preceding text - but it is a fact and a cited one at that, as I have noted above, I have not written anything along the lines of "the fact that the president of Pakistan was born in India disproves this analysis". By itself Vali Reza Nasr's claims seem to imply that those Pakistanis who originate from India are discriminated against. It is important to have something that counterbalances this.

Regards

Pahari Sahib 20:46, 23 January 2008 (GMT)

If you want to counterbalance the claim that Pakistanis born in India are discriminated against, then find a source that addresses that issue and refutes it. Drawing a conclusion from a source which does not address the issue, however, is clearly original research. - Revolving Bugbear 20:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit "The Muhajirs played a critical role in Pakistan’s creation and remain a powerful community, and we are not an endangered minority or 'third-class citizens'."" is interesting because it is completely irrelevant to the context that you wish to provide. Nobody's saying that anti-Muhajir feelings are widespread in pakistan (they're not) but are restricted to Jamaatis and their fanatic Muslim supporters, not Pakistanis in general. I think Pahari Sahib's having trouble discerning the wording of the Jamaati views and actions. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is not irrelevant, your edit states :"According to Tufts University professor Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, Indophobia in Pakistan increased with the ascendancy of the militant Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami under Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. According to Nasr, the first victims of Indophobia in Pakistan were not Indian nationals, but the Muhajir Urdu immigrants who were accused of dual loyalty with India by the Jamaat and their cohorts, providing them with ammunition needed to justify discrimination and physical attacks on the Muhajir Urdu minorities."

The above gives no indication that this view is restricted to the Jamaat it states it increased with their ascendancy and mentions discrimination against the Muhajirs

Now it is important to note that the president of Pakistan is a Muhajir and also to note Husain Haqqani's comments he states "The Muhajirs played a critical role in Pakistan’s creation and remain a powerful community, and we are not an endangered minority or 'third-class citizens'."

Admittedly he does not mention the word "Indophobia", but what matters is that the content is a counterbalance to Nasr's claims, it doesn't actually need to include the word "Indophobia", Nasr uses the word "Indophobia" to describe the Jamaat's attitude to Muhajirs, whereas Haqqani actually describes the status of the Muhajir, an important thing to include as Nasr's analysis mentions discrimination against them.

Only including Nasr claims gives a lopsided view, although he *may* be writing solely about the Jamaat - this article needs to mention the status of the Muhajir in the light of Nasr's claims

Pahari Sahib 20:46, 25 January 2008 (GMT)

I'm afraid you're having some trouble understanding WP:NOR here. No Original research means there should be no context provided other than the ones provided by the authors of the references. No explicit context has been provided by any of the authors you cite vis-a-vis Indophobia specifically. Your information is best placed in the Muhajir Urdu article, not here.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

"Indophobia is a tendency to react negatively towards people of Indian extraction against aspects of Indian culture and normative habits"

That seems to be a good definition. I'd like to remind people that opposition to Indian foreign policies, or opposing Indian politicians, or Indian claims over a territory (e.g. Kashmir) probably does not constitute as Indophobia.Bless sins (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above, however the article is mostly a collection of conjecture and supposition including all that stuff on 'martial races' and Nazism. The bits of the article that are properly cited seem more suited to an entry on wiktionary.

Pahari Sahib (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pov (by omission)

I think as it stands the article is POV, one of the reasons is the following para:

"Anti-Indian sentiments, coupled with anti-Hindu prejudices have existed in Pakistan since its formation. According to Tufts University professor Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, Indophobia in Pakistan increased with the ascendancy of the militant Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami under Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi]. According to Nasr, the first victims of Indophobia in Pakistan were not Indian nationals, but the Muhajir Urdu immigrants who were accused of dual loyalty with India by the Jamaat and their cohorts, providing them with ammunition needed to justify discrimination and physical attacks on the Muhajir Urdu minorities."

I put this into context with my edit on 23 January, which added the following text

"However despite these claims, the current president of Pakistan is a Muhajir refugee who was born in Delhi, India^[5], according to Husain Haqqani, a journalist and former ambassador to Sri Lanka, who is himself a Muhajir "The Muhajirs played a critical role in Pakistan’s creation and remain a powerful community, and we are not an endangered minority or 'third-class citizens'."^[6]"

I considered it important to add this, as it does not refute Nasr's claims but adds context - without this text, someone reading the article may deduce that the Muhajir's are victims of prejudice and discrimination, that this has been increasing due to the rise of the Jamaat (and hence a section of society that is discriminated against)

However upon adding the second para it can be seen that the current president of the country is a Muhajir, and also Husain Haqqani states categorically that Muhajirs (Pakistanis of ancestry within the current republic of India) are not an "endangered minority or 'third-class citizens". I am at a loss how this can be considered a synthesis.

I believe that the assertion on that Husain Haqqani's analysis is irrelevant because it does not mention the word "Indophobia" is flawed as is the comparison with Nicholas Sarkozy and antisemitism.

In my opinion that would be equivalent to saying Daniel Cohn-Bendit (to pick a random French Jewish person) words on the status of the Jewish community being excluded from an article on antisemitism in France because he does not actually use the term antisemitism. Imagine (I am making this up purely to provide an analogy) text like "French Jews played a critical role in French politics and remain a powerful community, and we are not an endangered minority or 'third-class citizens'." - this is no way would refute claims of antisemitism or racism or prejudice, but would help the average reader to get a fuller picture - which surely is what Wikipedia is meant to be about.

However given the unmasking of Ghanadar galpa as User:Hkelkar, I think we have to take the supposed comments by Nasr with a pinch of salt, not only that, but the other supposed sources by GG do not back up his claims. Upon closer inspection the whole article is a hodge-podge of conflicting sources and synthesis including the comparision with Nazi Germany and Antisemitism. The whole article needs a radical overhaul.

Pahari Sahib (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted User:Hkelkar's last edit, he is a serial puppetmaster and troublemaker, however the article as it stands still has issues - and I would like these to be addressed.

Pahari Sahib (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghanadar lies

this indian patriot has been revealed first acting like ghandi then sneeking in right wing hindu mentality veiws —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.177.10 (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Ghanadar has been banned, he was being disruptive and deceptive and it transpires that he is a sock puppet, having said all that - you should not refer to him as an "Indian patriot", most people of any country are Patriots - and most Indians I am sure do not behave like Ghanadar, and whatever his provocation (I ignored the stuff he said about Muslims being "united in their desire to persecute and eventually exterminate the kufr in Jihad.") - it's not a good idea to respond to him by saying "dear hindu" - that's bad. Anyway I am on your side :-), you should register here, would make you get taken more seriously (just as long as you avoid personal attacks).

Regards

Pahari Sahib 21:47, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Should be deleted

The whole article is a hodge podge of different sources and ideas - e.g. Martial races theory, 1971 Bangladesh atrocities - which have been conflated with the term "Indophobia". This article does note that the term was coined by "American Indologist Thomas Trautmann to describe negative attitudes expressed by some British Indologists against Indian history, society, religions and culture", so really should only be a Wiktionary entry. It was just a term used in scholarly discourse, that can also apply to prejudice against people of the Indian subcontinent - that's about it. All of the stuff in this article belongs elsewhere - it is just a pov mêlée of sources.
Pahari Sahib19:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Indophobia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Title

[edit] Delete this page

[edit] Please don't call me a troll.

[edit] Deletions

[edit] DOESNT EXPLAIN MAKES EXCUSES

[edit] Original research

[edit] Attribution

[edit] Bangladesh

[edit] Ghanadar

[edit] Ghanadar

[edit] Moving forward

[edit] Commentators in Pakistan

[edit] Original research?

[edit] Definition

[edit] Pov (by omission)

[edit] Ghanadar lies

[edit] Should be deleted

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search


	This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.