Let’s momentarily set aside Prime Minister Modi’s heated response and the Congress party’s overly cautious apology concerning Sam Pitroda’s comments on India’s 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’s resignation as head of the Congress party’s overseas cell.
This controversy is reminiscent of Modi’s past remarks where he stereotyped Muslims based on their attire. Modi’s reaction to Pitroda’s 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.
Although Indira Gandhi included ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’ in the preamble of India’s constitution, these terms are rarely used by contemporary Congress leaders.
The term ‘racism’ is rarely acknowledged by Indian politicians. Historically, certain terms have been avoided without malicious intent. For instance, Indira Gandhi included ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’ in the preamble of India’s 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.
Similarly, the word ‘Muslim’ 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.
South 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 ‘shudra’, referring to the lowest caste, are replaced with the more neutral ‘OBC’ (Other Backward Classes). Even Gandhi’s attempt to rename Dalits as ‘Harijans’ was rejected by the community.
Colourism 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’s fairness. Historical texts like Tulsidas’s verses also acknowledge racial diversity, depicting characters with varying skin tones.
India’s 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’s gene pool through a single migration out of Africa around 50,000 years ago.
Even modern figures like Gopal Pillai, a former home secretary, have acknowledged their diverse ancestry. Pillai’s 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.
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding Sam Pitroda’s comments highlights a broader issue of India’s struggle with acknowledging its racial and cultural diversity. The political strategy of avoiding certain terms and topics only perpetuates a denial of India’s rich, multifaceted heritage. Understanding and accepting this diversity is crucial for fostering a more inclusive and honest national identity.
The writer is a freelance columnist.