Gulzar Dildar<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s momentarily set aside Prime Minister Modi\u2019s heated response and the Congress party\u2019s overly cautious apology concerning Sam Pitroda\u2019s comments on India\u2019s diverse racial makeup. Pitroda, a scientific adviser to Rajiv Gandhi and a loyalist to the Gandhi family, innocently remarked that Indians have traces of African, Arab, and Chinese ancestry. This comment, made at an election rally, provoked Modi, who accused Pitroda of insulting Indians based on skin colour. This led to Pitroda\u2019s resignation as head of the Congress party\u2019s overseas cell.
\nThis controversy is reminiscent of Modi\u2019s past remarks where he stereotyped Muslims based on their attire. Modi\u2019s reaction to Pitroda\u2019s comment was a strategic distraction from pressing issues like the electoral bonds scam and unemployment. The Congress party, in a typically submissive manner, rebuked Pitroda for his statement instead of addressing the actual issues.
\nThe term \u2018racism\u2019 is rarely acknowledged by Indian politicians. Historically, certain terms have been avoided without malicious intent. For instance, Indira Gandhi included \u2018secularism\u2019 and \u2018socialism\u2019 in the preamble of India\u2019s constitution, yet these terms are rarely uttered by contemporary Congress leaders like Rahul or Priyanka Gandhi. This avoidance is often a political strategy rather than an outright rejection of these values.
\nSimilarly, the word \u2018Muslim\u2019 is often skirted around in political discourse. Modi once claimed that the Congress would steal mangalsutras and give them to Muslims, a statement that Priyanka Gandhi parodied without directly mentioning Muslims. This strategy aims to navigate the sensitive socio-political landscape without alienating any group.
\nSouth Asia, including India, is one of the most ethnically diverse regions globally. This diversity is often downplayed or ignored in political rhetoric. Cultural sensitivities and historical biases contribute to this denial. For instance, terms like \u2018shudra\u2019, referring to the lowest caste, are replaced with the more neutral \u2018OBC\u2019 (Other Backward Classes). Even Gandhi\u2019s attempt to rename Dalits as \u2018Harijans\u2019 was rejected by the community.
\nColourism and implicit racism have deep roots in Indian society. Hindi literature and songs reflect this, as seen in the bhajan where Krishna questions his dark skin compared to Radha\u2019s fairness. Historical texts like Tulsidas\u2019s verses also acknowledge racial diversity, depicting characters with varying skin tones.
\nIndia\u2019s genetic diversity is a testament to its complex history. Research by population geneticists like Priya Moorjani from the University of California, Berkeley, reveals that modern Indians are a mix of three ancestral populations: indigenous hunter-gatherers, Iranian farmers, and Central Asian herders. These groups contributed to India\u2019s gene pool through a single migration out of Africa around 50,000 years ago.
\nEven modern figures like Gopal Pillai, a former home secretary, have acknowledged their diverse ancestry. Pillai\u2019s DNA test revealed he was 80 per cent Central Asian, despite being from a Hindu community in Kerala. This acknowledgement of mixed heritage stands in stark contrast to the current political discourse that often seeks to homogenize Indian identity.
\nIn conclusion, the controversy surrounding Sam Pitroda\u2019s comments highlights a broader issue of India\u2019s struggle with acknowledging its racial and cultural diversity. The political strategy of avoiding certain terms and topics only perpetuates a denial of India\u2019s rich, multifaceted heritage. Understanding and accepting this diversity is crucial for fostering a more inclusive and honest national identity.<\/p>\n
The writer is a freelance columnist.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gulzar Dildar Let\u2019s momentarily set aside Prime Minister Modi\u2019s heated response and the Congress party\u2019s overly cautious apology concerning Sam Pitroda\u2019s comments on India\u2019s diverse racial makeup. Pitroda, a scientific adviser to Rajiv Gandhi and a loyalist to the Gandhi family, innocently remarked that Indians have traces of African, Arab, and Chinese ancestry. This comment, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[13310],"class_list":{"0":"post-409118","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-article","7":"tag-gulzar-dildar"},"yoast_head":"\n