Far from

Far from "cleaning" politics, Somnath Bharti has taken it to a whole new low. Unabashed racism along with self righteous goonda giri is enough to make one puke. It's even more sickening than common thuggery because it hides behind morality.

Stop Talking about “Africans” – Racism is Disgusting

What is racism you ask? When Somnath Bharti says “Nigerian girls and men all indulge in prostitution and drug trafficking”, it’s racism. When people refer to “Africans” and what “they” do, it’s racism. It doesn’t just end with race or nationality. Though religion is not a race, the essential idea of grouping people together and making derogatory statements about them as a whole is racism. Talking about “Muslims” and the problems they cause is racism. Pointing to certain castes is racism. The Shiv and Raj Sena singling out north Indians, Biharis, or outsiders as the cause of Mumbai’s problems is racism.

Do you know how to not be a racist? It’s simple! Don’t mention race, nationality, gender, religion, or caste in your words or use them as criteria in your actions and you should be fine. Whenever you hear someone say “I’m not a racist, but…”, you can be sure the next words to come out of their mouth will be racist!

AAP minister Somnath Bharti said he received letters or complaints that African, Nigerian, Ugandan or whatever were causing problems in a certain neighborhood. That letter itself is racist! Did the letter mention specific complaints of illegal activities against specific persons with names or who match a specific description? Did the letter say “At such and such a time, I saw people meeting xyz descriptions do so and so illegal acts”? No. Did the minister have a warrant from a judge getting permission to raid the house of a specific person? No. Instead, all he had to go by was the race.

How do you not be a racist? Don’t mention race, nationality, gender, religion, or caste in your words or use them as criteria in your actions and you should be fine.

That is textbook racism.

The Delhi police did absolutely the right thing in refusing to pander to his wishes. Whatever laws they break in other circumstances, they didn’t break it this time. Civil liberties are in place for a reason. India is a civilized country with a certain system of jurisprudence. Warrants, credible evidence and reasonable suspicion are not inconveniences or hinderances. They are what make India worth living in. They are what separates India from many other countries in the world. The next time you hear someone compare India to China and say “In China they would have just sent the guy to jail”, please respond by saying that your standards are not so low as to compare India with countries like China, or Pakistan, or Iran.

Racism is disgusting, and for a minister to so publicly open his mouth and spew this dangerous trash is doubly disturbing. But by itself I don’t think racism should be illegal. A person (even a minister) should have the right to say anything they want. Of course, we have an equal right to judge and condemn them. In this case however, it went beyond mere racism and took on the form of illegally entering someone’s house without a warrant and without any credible specific evidence. That is illegal and cannot be glossed over.

Somnath Bharti has to be kicked out. Resignation is not good enough. He has to be thrown away like a diseased cancer. With any other party, I would not expect any such thing. But part of my outrage and disgust is due to the fact that I thought AAP was different. I thought it was made up of right thinking people and not goondas and thugs. I was wrong.

It’s still not too late. Kejriwal needs to stop supporting this idiot, admit his mistake, and simply sack him. After all, isn’t that one of the planks of AAP? That they will not have criminals as party members? Bharti broke the law in a horrible and callous manner. Now let’s see if AAP stands by its commitment.

Comments

  1. tp says:

    The argument here seems to be that the police is hand in glove with drug traffickers and prostitution promoters and has done nothing in the past to bust these activities….and are reluctant to do anything now…this goes on everywhere.

    How does one get the police to investigate a nexus where they are hand in glove with the criminals ? Tough question

    Not condoning the manner in which this took place, but sometimes unconventional methods ( when conventional methods have failed ) are necessary sometimes …. perhaps ?

    Thanks for introducung the ” edit ” option..

    • bhagwad says:

      You first find out if any specific complaint against specific individuals against a specific law being broken was made, and find out what action was taken. If an FIR was filed, then the court will know whether it was a shoddy investigation or not. There’s no easy way out of this. The process is there for a reason. Tomorrow it will be MY house that invaded by some self righteous moral crusading idiot, so sure of the “rightness” of his cause that he will expect me to thank him! And what of the innocent people whose house this thug broke into? What about their rights? They’re Africans, so they have none? Where is the punishment? Where is the justice?

      This is nothing but racism masquerading as moral righteousness. Honestly, the way people are supporting this guys’ actions are scary.

  2. Nidaa says:

    Being convinced that we are doing a good thing doesnt give us the right to break the law. I am sure even goons like the khaps, senas and nazis are convinced that they are doing humanity a great service.
    How difficult is it for a law minister to obtain a warrant on grounds of numerous complaints and other evidences. And And now the AAP fb page admin is focusing all their energy on showing us evidence that those people they attacked are criminals. But it doesnt change the fact that the law minister himself broke the law, a very important one at that.

    Sharing this on fb.

    • bhagwad says:

      Yeah! I’m sure there are people in khap land who are saying “At least someone is doing something! The system hasn’t worked. Maybe they went too far. But what to do? You have to shake the system up!”

  3. Western Point of View says:

    How is talking about “Muslims” racism? Muslims are a religion, not a race. There are Arab, Black, hispanic, oriental and indian Muslims.

    Jews are a race–they are an “ethnoreligion.” Only the children of israel technically allowed to be Jewish (ie your mom is a jew then you are a jew).

    • bhagwad says:

      Ref. first para of my post.

      • Western Point of View says:

        I see that, but being against a religion is NOT racism. Feeling hatred toward a gender is NOT racism. That is sexism. These are races–Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, South Asian, Middle Eastern, African etc. These are religions–Islam, Christianity, Judaism.

        Putting all of those under the same umbrella is not appropriate. It is not an apples to apples comparison. You are basically saying not liking apples and Chevrolets fall under the same category. Completely different things.

      • bhagwad says:

        I’m saying that despite the technical difference, the feelings involved are the same. A good example of this is caste. India is probably the only country in the world sticking to the technical defense that caste is not a “race” per se. Well that’s obvious, but the UN is adamant in treating it as racism nonetheless. Recently, the UK recognized caste discrimination as a form of racism because it shares all the important elements of racism.

        This isn’t about a technical difference between what is a race and what isn’t. The word “racism” has evolved beyond that.

      • Western Point of View says:

        Caste issues may be relevant simply because a person who is a Bhanie for example will have children that are at least half Bhanie.

        You cannot lump religion into the mix simply because people CHOOSE their religion. You can be born into a Christian family, yet end up a Muslim.

        Religion in itself is a choice. There are lots of cases where discrimination occurs based on the choices people make.

        If you go to a Dodger game wearing a Giants jersey, for example, you will get your butt kicked most likely. The man/woman wearing the Giants jersey saw discrimination based on the CHOICE of jersey h/she made. You cannot say that this is a case of racism, can you?

        I’m not saying discrimination is at all right, it is bad, but you cannot call prejudice or discimrination of a religion group racism, nor can you call discrimination against a gender racism.

        Race and gender are also two different things.

      • bhagwad says:

        Whether caste is a race or not depends on how one chooses to define race. As far as India is concerned, caste is not a race. As far as religion goes, many people cannot choose to give up their religion. In India for example, I can’t choose to be an atheist legally. I have to choose something.

        But this is besides the point. I am in fact saying that all discrimination is “racism” at some level or the other. I would even say that Android vs iPhone fanboi wars are a form of racism. It’s a milder form of course, but not very different from the “big endian” and the “little endian” groups in Gulliver’s travels.

      • Common Sense says:

        why can’t people choose to give up their religion? Even if you are “forced” to do something, you technically still chose it. You chose to live in a land in which atheism is not a choice. That is still a choice. You have the choice to relocate. Even so, you still are a practicing “atheist” even without reporting it.

        I do agree, castes are race however. Different castes (remember, the Middle East also has a caste system and no one will admit it, but so does Western Europe) are technically sub-races of a larger ethnicity. IF you do a DNA test on a Shah versus a Patel, there are variabilities. One can therefore argue that these two themselves are separate entities. So yes, I will give you that discrimination based on caste is a form of racism.

        Why can’t you just say that discrimination is discrimination? Why not just use the term discrimination? Look, I’m a scientist and technicality is something I value, for without technicality, you wouldn’t have engineering systems, biosystems etc. So why can’t we just call it what it is–discrimination?

        Android versus iPhone? Not racism. I chose to purchase an Android. Someone maybe CHOSE to purchase an Iphone. Living in a land in which Androids are outlawed in itself is a choice–you can either live in that land or you can relocate.

        Even if someting is a VERY DIFFICULT choice, it still is a choice. A poor person can choose to leave india on a raft made out of bamboo and sail upon the Arabian Sea. The choice is difficult, but it still is a choice nonetheless.

      • bhagwad says:

        It’s just a question of definitions then. I want to expand the meaning of the word “racism” to include all forms of discrimination. And yes, we can use “discrimination” as well.

        In my definition, the fact that a person chooses an Android or an iPhone makes no difference.

      • Western Point of View says:

        Why expand the definition of “racism?” I mean, take the situations here in the US. White folks are seriously tired of hearing the term “racism” and, frankly, I don’t blame them. Blacks are given the card to say nasty things about whites, yet whites cannot say anything critical about blacks or else are deemed…racist.

        With that in mind, in order to capture the minds and hearts of such an audience, why “expand” on the term racism? Why not just stick with the term “discrimination.”

        Race is something that you are born with. No one decides if they are black, white or hispanic.

        Religion is simply NOT race. Owning an iPhone is not relevant to race.

        I understand your complaints, but if you really want to combat such issues, calling things like Android users hating on iPhone users racist just makes things look silly, irrelevant and to a certain degree an elitist liberal (ie Jesse Jackson, Oprah, President Obama etc).

        I mean think about this sentence.

        “hey that iPhone guy called that Android guy a loser. That iPhone guy is a racist.”

        I mean, how does that even make sense?

        I mean if we are changing definitions, why can’t we begin calling locomotives semi-trucks or military carriers steel rafts without sails?

        Words have definitions for a reason.

      • bhagwad says:

        It’s just my opinion that all discrimination is alike regardless of reason.

      • Western Point of View says:

        That is correct. All discrimination IS alike, however calling discrimination against women RACISM is just silly. I mean it is discrimination, but if you throw out words that way it just looks funny.

        Discrimination is discrimination, regardless.

        I should point out, as you say, I have every right to discriminate.

        I am racist in a way. I prefer not to go to black neighborhoods. If I see a black person at a restaurant, I will probably leave because they make me uncomfortable, but that is my right to do so.

      • RenKiss says:

        You’re comment just made me laugh “Blacks can say what they want about whites. Whites are OPPRESSED!!! OMG!!!” LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

      • Western Point of View says:

        I thoroughly believe (as a non-white) whites are being oppressed. There is more scrutinity laid upon them. If a black man says “that cracker can’t do jack squat” it is funny. If a white man says “that nigger can’t do jack squate” it is suddenly racist.

        What gives? I’m tired of the entitlement that the “oppressed” races feel (ie non-asians).

        Discrimination works both ways and unfortunately the liberal end of the spectrum doesn’t see that.

  4. Abhishek says:

    I know you will probably have a hard time admitting this, but the ignorant, stupid Modi supporters were right about AAP from Day 1. And they have been vindicated every single time!

    1. We said AAP & Congress are together. This is *exactly* what happened after the election.

    2. We said Cong will help AAP to try to stop Modi. Again, this is *exactly* what happened; when AAP made a fool of itself with its recent Dharna, Congress quickly stepped in with a facesaver to help AAP.

    3. We said AAP is NO different from other parties in terms of criminality. Again, *exactly* what happened in the case of Somnath Bharti!

    Yes and Modi supporters are again right about one thing: if you vote for *anyone* except BJP, Shiv Sena or Akali Dal, that vote will … ghoom fir ke…ultimately go to Congress.

    • bhagwad says:

      I have no reason to think that the Congress and AAP are on speaking terms. Everything so far can be attributed to missteps on the part of the Congress when they assumed that AAP wouldn’t take their support.

      I still have hope that AAP will right itself. Otherwise it’s a damn shame. As someone put it, there will be no more reason to vote for AAP when they can choose thugs from any other party instead!

      Incidentally, what is this about “ignorant, stupid Modi supporters”? Did I say that?

  5. simple girl says:

    I had little respect for AAP. Now the least AK could do is to not tolerate such crap from its own cabinet ..

  6. Fem says:

    I think lumping religion with race is somewhat of walking a tightrope. Some religions are backward because they have not seen progress due to lack of economic prosperity, opportunities, etc., while other religions have been able to progress a little. All religions are discriminatory in some aspects or the other because they are ‘man’ made religions, and . I think it would be perfectly ethical to say that Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism, etc. are all more or less backward systems. Would this mean I am being racist, merely for speaking the truth?

    On the other hand, saying ‘All Muslims are terrorists’ or ‘All Indian men mistreat their wives’, would be discriminatory, simply because we are lumping the millions of people into one category, many of whom it may not fit.

    • bhagwad says:

      I think we can make a distinction between criticizing a religion’s tenets and making sweeping judgments about the people itself. You’re right- it should be perfectly fine to say “xyz religion is backward”. But in my opinion, saying “All abc’s are stupid” would be racist.

      The former is an academic dissection of an impersonal ideology. The latter is a sweeping statement about a whole group of people. Do you think I’m stretching it? :)

  7. B says:

    From FT.com:

    “This is the instinct of people who have always agitated. They’ve brought in a militant protest culture and a confrontational attitude. They will certainly alienate the middle class. Chaos is something they don’t want.”

    The rabble-rousing tactics have also prompted fierce criticism that the AAP is failing to make the transition from activism to governance. It has even fuelled speculation that Mr Kejriwal is angling for the Congress party, which has backed his minority administration, to withdraw its support and spare him the difficulties of governing the city of 17m people.

    • bhagwad says:

      The middle class wants good governance. They haven’t lost faith in the systems, but rather in the people who are supposed to make the system work. The idea of AAP for people like me was that they could finally get the system to work.

      AAP seems to want to overthrow the system entirely. Including all the things which make India stand out from the neighboring crowd.

  8. Purba says:

    So,why are we acting surprised! We judge people on basis of skin colour, education, spoken English, the size of the car….The list goes on.

    What I feel is, in his enthusiasm to set things right and fast, Somnath Bharti acted too harsh without realizing the consequences. I wish he’d apologized instead of trying to justify his actions.

    I’ll still choose to have faith in AAP, instead of baying for their blood and screaming from rooftops, how they’ve let us down.

    • bhagwad says:

      I suppose when you put things in context, it’s not worse than what political parties have been subjecting us to for decades. It’s just that…I had so much hope that these were the “good guys” you know? So my anger and disappointment is stronger.

      I too still have hope that they’ll come out of this wiser and more aware of what their support base likes and dislikes.

  9. A.Madhavan says:

    Such crap, I practically vomited when I saw the news. Western women face a similar treatment, with many thinking that we are “loose” or “prostitutes” etc due to guess what – none other than the mere color of our skin! So I guess it is not just Westerners, it is also Africans too…so basically anyone who is not of Indian origin.
    I wish they would mention this on the “Incredible India” campaign….slogan: if you are foreign, you may be mistaken for a prostitute at some point. Just so you know. EN-JOY!!!!!
    Lol!

    • bhagwad says:

      And to think Indians spend a fortune on creams and lotions to change the color of their skin!

      • Western Point of View says:

        And why shouldn’t they? As far as I’m concerned, a darker skinned woman simply isn’t as attractive as a lighter skinned woman. Look at pretty much every model, even the black ones, have light skin.

      • bhagwad says:

        That’s obviously a matter of opinion. I know for a fact that given a certain skin color, the typical Indian woman will want to make it fairer whereas someone from the west will probably be perfectly happy with the same complexion.

      • Western Point of View says:

        People in the West (who are already very pale) actually want to darken their skin (slightly), so yes they would be happy. But both seek that happy golden medium.

        Of course, it is also the whole “grass is greener.”

      • bhagwad says:

        Like I said, even given the same complexion, the typical Indian (male or female) would be far more interested in making it fairer than their western counterpart.

      • Western Point of View says:

        grass is greener I suppose. Women with straight hair want wavy hair and vice versa.

  10. Mike says:

    Why do Indians smell so bad? Is it because they don’t bathe or is it the goat meat that they are eating?

Add Your Comment