Stereotypes of South Asians are oversimplified ethnic stereotypes of South Asian people, and are found in many Western societies. Stereotypes of South Asians have been collectively internalized by societies, and are manifested by a society's media, literature, theatre and other creative expressions. However, these stereotypes have very real repercussions for South Asians in daily interactions, current events, and governmental legislation.
Contents |
Friedrich Schlegel wrote in a letter to Tieck that India was the source of all languages, thoughts and poems, and that "everything" came from India.[1] In the 18th century, Voltaire wrote that "I am convinced that everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges, astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc...[2]
Mark Twain put it eloquently, describing India as:[3]
“The land of dreams and romance, of fabulous wealth and fabulous poverty, of splendour and rags, of palaces and hovels, of famine and pestilence, of genii and giants and Aladdin lamps, of tigers and elephants, the cobra and the jungle, the country of hundred nations and a hundred tongues, of a thousand religions and two million gods, cradle of the human race, birthplace of human speech, mother of history, grandmother of legend, great-grandmother of traditions, whose yesterdays bear date with the moderate antiquities for the rest of nations-the one sole country under the sun that is endowed with an imperishable interest for alien prince and alien peasant, for lettered and ignorant, wise and fool, rich and poor, bond and free, the one land that all men desire to see, and having seen once, by even a glimpse, would not give that glimpse for the shows of all the rest of the world combined.”
The term "Indophobia" was first coined in western academia by American Indologist Thomas Trautmann to describe negative attitudes expressed by some British Indologists against Indian history, society, religions and culture.[4] Historians have noted that during the British Empire, "evangelical influence drove British policy down a path that tended to minimize and denigrate the accomplishments of Indian civilization and to position itself as the negation of the earlier British Indomania that was nourished by belief in Indian wisdom."[5]
In Charles Grant highly influential "Observations on the ...Asiatic subjects of Great Britain" (1796),[6] Grant criticized the Orientalists for being too respectful to Indian culture and religion. His work tried to determine the Hindu's "true place in the moral scale", and he alleged that the Hindus are "a people exceedingly depraved".
Indian philosophers like Swami Vivekananda criticised some British of trying to spread propaganda about Hinduism being a caste-ridden, animal-worshipping society.
One of the most influential historians of India during the British Empire, James Mill was criticised for being prejudiced against Hindus.[7] The Indologist H.H. Wilson wrote that the tendency of Mill's work is "evil".[8] Mill claimed that both Indians and Chinese people are cowardly, unfeeling, and mendacious. Both Mill and Grant attacked Orientalist scholarship that was too respectful of Indian culture: "It was unfortunate that a mind so pure, so warm in the pursuit of truth, and so devoted to oriental learning, as that of Sir William Jones, should have adopted the hypothesis of a high state of civilization in the principal countries of Asia."[9]
Stereotypes of Indians intensified during and after the Indian Rebellion of 1857, known as "India's First War of Independence" to the Indians and as the "Indian Mutiny" to the British, when Indian sepoys rebelled against the British East India Company's rule in India. Allegations of war rape were used as propaganda by British colonialists in order to justify the colonization of India. While incidents of rape committed by Indian rebels against English women and girls were generally uncommon during the rebellion, this was exaggerated to great effect by the British media in order to justify British colonialism in the Indian subcontinent and to violently suppress opposition.[10]
At the time, British newspapers had printed various apparently eyewitness accounts of English women and girls being raped by Indian rebels, with little collaboration to support these accounts. It was later found that some of these accounts were false stories and a few created in order to paint the native people of India as savages who need to be civilized by British colonialists, a mission sometimes known as "The White Man's Burden". One such account published by The Times, regarding an incident where 48 English girls as young as 10-14 had been raped by Indian rebels in Delhi, was criticized as false propaganda by Karl Marx, who pointed out that the story was written by a clergyman in Bangalore, far from the events of the rebellion.[11]
Despite the questionable authenticity of many colonial accounts regarding the rebellion, the stereotype of the Indian "dark-skinned rapist" occurred frequently in English literature of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The idea of protecting English "female chastity" from the "lustful Indian male" had a significant influence on the policies of the British Raj in order to prevent racial miscegenation between the British elite and the native Indian population. While most of these discriminatory policies were directed against native Indians, some restrictive policies were also imposed on British females in order to "protect" them from miscegenation,[12][13] similar to the purdah in Indian society.[14]
In 1883, the Ilbert Bill, which would have granted Indian judges in Bengal the right to judge British offenders, was opposed by many British colonialists on the grounds that Indian judges cannot be trusted in dealing with cases involving English female memsahib.[15] The British press in India even spread wild rumours about how Indian judges would abuse their power to fill their harems with white English females. The propaganda that Indian judges cannot be trusted in dealing with cases involving English females helped raise considerable support against the bill.[16]
The long-held stereotype of Indian males as dark-skinned rapists lusting after white English females was challenged by several novels such as E. M. Forster's A Passage to India (1924) and Paul Scott's The Jewel in the Crown (1966), both of which involve an Indian male being wrongly accused of raping an English female.[17]
During the Ilbert Bill controversy in 1883, English women who opposed the bill argued that Bengali women, who they stereotyped as "ignorant", are neglected by their men and that Bengali babu should therefore not be given the right to judge cases involving English women. Bengali women who supported the bill responded by claiming that they were more educated than the English women opposed to the bill, and pointed out that more Indian women had academic degrees than British women did at the time, alluding to the fact that the University of Calcutta became one of the first universities to admit female graduates to its degree programmes in 1878, before any of the British universities.[18]
In the United States, both South Asians and East Asians were subject to stereotypes of exclusion, especially during the late 19th century and early 20th century with the advent of what Americans called the Yellow Peril and the Turban Tide and Hindoo Invasion. American newspaper headlines illustrating stereotypes of exclusion towards South Asians include: "The Tide of Turbans" (Forum, 1910) and "The Perils of Immigration Impose on Congress a New Issue: the Hindoo Invasion - a new peril" (Current Opinion, 1914).
Stereotypes about India in American schools negatively impact students of South Asian origin. American sociologist Yvette Rosser finds[19] that negative attitudes and images about South Asian cultures are taught in American schools or through the media, and these misconceptions color our personal socialization experience. Sensationalist news stories about India often reinforce preconceived ideas. Social studies teachers who can play a critical role in eliminating cultural prejudices, but instead they reinforce stereotypes about cultures different from their own, and present biased information about South Asians, thereby the opportunity for deeper understanding is lost.
In numerous interviews of students of South Asian descent, as compiled by Rosser, individuals of South Asian origin were asked the following questions:[19]
Many Americans of South Asian origin who participated in the survey, reported numerous stereotypes. Some sample stereotypes reported include the following:
"Wars, disease, population, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, female infanticide, flooding, and starvation; India was only thought of as a third world country—considered inferior and totally ignorant of world events. The economic backwardness of India blamed on the superstitious and polytheistic nature of Hinduism."
— American born student of South Asian heritage in Houston[19]
"The presentation of South Asians is a standard pedagogic approach which runs quickly from the "Cradle of Civilization"—contrasting the Indus Valley with Egypt and Mesopotamia—on past the Aryans, who were somehow our ancestors— to the poverty stricken, superstitious, polytheistic, caste ridden Hindu way of life. . . and then somehow magically culminates with a eulogy of Mahatma Gandhi. A typical textbook trope presents the standard Ancient India Meets the Age of Expansion Approach with a color photo of the Taj Mahal. There may be a side bar on ahimsa or a chart of connecting circles graphically explaining samsara and reincarnation, or illustrations of the four stages of life or the Four Noble Truths. Amid the dearth of real information there may be found an entire page dedicated to a deity such as Indra or Varuna, who admittedly are rather obscure vis-à-vis the beliefs of most modern Hindus."
— A South Asian in America[19]
Rosser notes that the stereotypical discourse in much of the United States about South Asia is rarely devoted to economic development and democratic institutions in independent India. India is not depicted as a viable political state. People quickly make sweeping and flawed metaphysical assumptions about its religion and culture, but are far more circumspect when evaluating civil society and political culture in modern India. It is as if the value of South Asia resides only in its ancient contributions to human knowledge whereas its pathetic attempts to modernize or develop are to be winked at and patronized. After her own studies, Rosser began to question the interpretations of some of the more well-known, leftist-oriented scholars from India who dissect the nascent nation, for whatever reasons, along with their Western counterparts, regularly demonize India’s national urges, deconstructing and disempowering individuals of South Asian origin. Most people stereotype South Asians as if the nation is little more than "Taj Mahal, famine, hunger, population, poverty, Hare Krishna, and Gandhi." Alternatively, the stereotypes stress prejudices about "hinduism, the caste system, poverty, third world country, inferiority" were the aspects of India that were stressed. One survey participant confided that the diversity of views and culture within India was not depicted accurately and "only negativities were enforced; we of South Asian origin are stereotyped as we all starve; we eat monkey brains; we worship rats. we worship cows." It is as if every single individual in India is oppressed as well as oppressing others, it is stereotyped as a backward country that treats their women poorly and kills their baby girls. Checking for facts or reality is considered unnecessary.
In the minds of many Americans, Rosser writes Indian women are to be pitied and the positive social progress made by many women in India is completely ignored.[19] Despite that fact the women's right to vote, other labor and civil rights in the United States took time in American history, such facts are never contextualized or compared to the social and political uplift of modern Indian women. The prevailing image is that if the unfortunate females of South Asia survive a deprived childhood they are likely to be burned in a dowry death after their forced marriage to a complete stranger. Indian women are shown as downtrodden and powerless victims, unlike American women who have more freedom. Indira Gandhi is seen as an anomaly. The numerous Indian women who every year join the colleges in America are also seen as anomaly.
Rosser notes that while India's religion and the caste system are emphasized in American discourse, no mention of post-independence secular India's efforts toward national integration of its minorities. No mention is made of laws and efforts against discrimination, and the country's 60 year effort towards active inclusion of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe population in educational and employment opportunities. People also forget to introspect the fact that social discrimination and prejudice has been a widespread worldwide issue, for example of African Americans in southern United States.[20]
"The shortage of Indian women resulted in violence committed by jealous lovers and husbands, creating a stereotype of East Indian men, which gained in infamy[21]... coolies reputation with the police was bad and significantly while the Negroes use their tongue in argument, the Indian commit murder, and given the scarcity of Indian women, without hesitation.[21] Thus the stereotype is reinforced ascribing to the Indian husband a frantically jealous disposition."[21]
"[I]n the Western popular consciousness the Indian subcontinent... is denounced for its irrationality[22]... Hindu beliefs and traditions are often represented as a superstitious localized collection of archaic cults[22]... During the impressionable teenage years, these negative portrayals [of Hinduism] can cause shame and embarrassment among Indian-American students regarding their ancestry and can engender a dislike for India[22]... Negativities may persist amongst the chattering masses in classes at the University level [in the United States] and amongst the working classes, in which Hinduism is represented as myth."[22] (This refers to those stereotyping without prior knowledge of the high philosophy of the dharmic Hindu faith.)
"The wholly fictional depiction of India in the Steven Spielberg film, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, seems to have been taken as a valid portrayal of India by many teachers, since a large number of students surveyed complained that teachers referred to the eating of monkey brains." [22]
Barack Obama has said that the prevailing stereotype being cultivated against Indians in the United States is that "all U.S. jobs are being outsourced to India," and the stereotype is adversely affecting India-United States relations.[23] He also commented that such stereotypes have "outlived their usefulness"[24] and "ignore today’s reality.” Obama said, "Trade between our countries is not just a one-way street of American jobs and companies moving to India. It is a dynamic two-way relationship that is creating jobs, growth and higher standards in both our countries."[25]
In Britain, Indians are depicted to be either corner shop owners or doctors. Indians are often represented as extremely smart people. In many cases, they are depicted as doctors, engineers or mathematicians, and believed to have extremely high IQ especially in the USA.[26]
Indians are often stereotyped as "curry-eaters," many Westerners surprised that they eat anything else.They are also stereotyped for eating spicy foods. However, although mostly only Indians are stereotyped, curries are eaten all around the world, and are very popular in modern contemporary cuisine.
Pakistanis are often stereotyped as taxi drivers in America. Their stereotypes are mostly similar to Indian stereotypes but also tend to overlap with the stereotypes of West and Central Asians and the stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims due to the fact that the majority of them are Muslims. In Britain, the word "Paki" is a derogatory ethnic slur for British Pakistanis, and the slur is sometimes used against British Asians in general. For example, the "Paki shop" stereotype is due to South Asians being stereotyped as being a majority of newsagent and convenience store shopkeepers.
Amar Ramasar, one of the few Asian American professional ballet dancers nowadays,[27][28] was quoted as saying:
I actually looked at my race as an advantage because there was no one who looked like me. In New York City Ballet especially, I felt my casting has always been great. The biggest one for me was Fancy Free because, if you think of the history of that ballet, it’s not necessarily the case that in the 1940s an Indian guy was one of the sailors fighting for America. But they let me do that here, and I thought, "I’m breaking boundaries that people automatically put up for a stereotypical white ballet."—Amar Ramasar, quoted in Dance Magazine, June, 2005.[27]
Examples:
|
|||||