Bangalore: Pubs bar entry of Africans

[t.shonku]

Govind Ravindran |

Bangalore, May 31, 2011 | Updated 12:41 IST





Once known as the pub capital of India, Bangalore is now earning a bad name for a racist policy that bars the entry of African nationals into pubs across the city.

The Karnataka capital was one of the first cities in the country to have a thriving pub culture. In fact, it is still known for its rocking nightlife. But its reputation has taken a serious hit with pubs and restaurants across the city coming up with a bizarre racist diktat denying entry to African nationals.

Pub owners say they have taken the step for security reasons. However, African nationals have been crying foul alleging it was purely because of discrimination.

Samal Hakim, a Sudanese student, said, "We are feeling bad. When we want to go to some places they say 'no, you Africans are not allowed here'. But what can we say, this is not our country. We are just foreigners."

Another Sudanese student Amin said, "I have come across these instances many times but I don't want to say anything."

There are many like these Sudanese students who were humiliated and discriminated against. But the city's pub owners insisted there was no prejudice behind banning the entry of African nationals. They cited security concerns as the reason for the racist order.

Sanjay Raj, marketing head of Extreme Sports Bar, said, "We have to ensure that safety comes first. We had a bunch of 19 Afro-Americans who were there to party. They had a fight amongst themselves and started beating up the women who accompanied them. We have to ensure the safety of the customers and take precautions accordingly."

Several foreign nationals have been arrested recently for peddling drugs in Bangalore. Habitual offenders like Martin En Duke have been arrested thrice for the offence.

Bangalore joint commissioner of police (crime) Alok Kumar said, "They have been habitual offenders. They have been carrying their operations for so many years. But in the last two-three years we have registered several cases against them."

While the managements of pubs and bars have put a diplomatic stand on the issue, the fact remains that several African nationals in the city complain about the acts of discrimination.



Link to article

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/story/bangalore-pubs-bar-entry-of-africans/1/139912.html












Case of discrimination from India, a land where they discriminate against their own known as Dalit , now they are after African , apartheid society

[Nehru]

This is unbelievable. Don't Indians realize that they too went through the same pain and humiliation in many places? Now they're doing it to other people?

[Johnny Kerosene]

This is unbelievable. Don't Indians realize that they too went through the same pain and humiliation in many places? Now they're doing it to other people?

Vicious cycles. They're much harder to break under capitalism.

[RedHal]

not surprising, afterall Gandhi was a racist against black south africans and considered them below him.

[Nehru]

not surprising, afterall Gandhi was a racist against black south africans and considered them below him.

Gandhi was a great man. Do not believe all the foolish stuff you read on the net about Gandhi. Most of them are false allegations to defame him.

[#FF0000]

Gandhi was a great man. Do not believe all the foolish stuff you read on the net about Gandhi. Most of them are false allegations to defame him.

No, actually. There are a lot of really problematic things about Gandhi.

[Nehru]

No, actually. There are a lot of really problematic things about Gandhi.

Yes, all of them allegations without any concrete evidence. But then leftists are not known to exercise their discretion and are mostly reactive people, so I am not surprised.

[jake williams]

This is unbelievable. Don't Indians realize that they too went through the same pain and humiliation in many places? Now they're doing it to other people?
If oppression and suffering at the hand of capitalists meant you couldn't become a capitalist, then Asia, Latin America, Africa and, for that matter, most of North America wouldn't have any capitalists, because almost everyone who is part of the bourgeoisie today in those countries were victims of capitalism before they became capitalists themselves.

For that matter, the Indian bourgeoisie is, in some ways, both subjectively and objectively more reactionary than that in many other places, precisely because inequality and class struggle are so sharp there.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

not surprising, afterall Gandhi was a racist against black south africans and considered them below him.

...


Gandhi was a great man. Do not believe all the foolish stuff you read on the net about Gandhi. Most of them are false allegations to defame him.

You're both right. Gandhi did make statements when he was in South Africa that would be quite racist by today's standards. However, this was well before he formulated his political ideology and argued for Indian independence. When he made those comments, it was before WWI and he was still a loyal Imperial subject. It was, in fact, his experience in South Africa that ultimately inspired him to argue against the colonial model.

There's no real evidence which I've ever seen that he held any views like this by the time he became politically active in the independence movement. So it's a bit of a Red Herring.


Anyway, Red Hal's comment is a red herring. Who cares what Gandhi thought? Most people around the world, of all races and ethnicities, were pretty ignorant about other people. Why would Indians be any different? Bukharin and Proudhon believed things about the Jews which were far more reactionary, yet we don't use that to judge the Russians and French or the anarchists today, and we certainly don't use it as evidence that they were not great people or important theorists.


On the original topic-luckily this policy seems limited to Bangalore. Perhaps it won't become a widespread phenomenon. Either way, leftwing voices in India should argue against all kinds of discrimination in India, including by caste, gender, language, ethnicity, religion and also race.

[#FF0000]

Yes, all of them allegations without any concrete evidence.

Look at you jump and instantly insist NO NO NO THERE'S NO EVIDENCE before I even make any specific claims. All I did was suggest that the dude wasn't perfect. And then you say "Leftists are reactive"? Yeah, okay guy.

[Queercommie Girl]

This is unbelievable. Don't Indians realize that they too went through the same pain and humiliation in many places? Now they're doing it to other people?

Well, some reactionary Indians and Chinese prefer to act as the terriers and lap-dogs of Western imperialism in Asia and help them to further oppress groups like Blacks and Malays as long as they get to be the "2nd caste" after the British and US imperialists themselves. If you look at 19th century "scientific" racist descriptions of non-whites by Europeans, Indians and Chinese aren't discriminated as much as Blacks and Malays - at least the Europeans admit that we (China and India) had advanced ancient civilisations in the past, even though they are now (in the 19th century) completely degenerate, and Chinese/Indians possessed intelligences that were only just below the whites, despite being pagan, impotent, effete and morally bankrupt (the standard Orientalist stereotype of Asian countries). The Black Africans and Malays on the other hand were little better than semi-apes who are significantly less intelligent and didn't even possess any society that is technically "human", in the eyes of these white racists.

Many British imperialists believed that white Aryans originally brought civilisation to ancient India, who then mixed with the local indigenous population. Some Europeans also have a similar idea for the Chinese (though not as common as for the Indians) - white Tocharians created ancient Chinese civilisation. So Asians might have had some "white blood" from all the way back in high antiquity, whereas other groups such as Blacks, Malays and Native Americans before European contact are completely "alien". So Asians like Chinese and Indians were considered to be slightly "higher" in the eyes of European racists and imperialists.

It's actually a common theme in south-east Asia historically - often the ethnic Chinese migrants would act as the "middle layer" between the white colonists at the top and the indigenous Austronesian peoples (e.g. the Malays) at the bottom. In Hong Kong today there is still some racism towards immigrant Malay workers. Singapore is basically an economic advanced "island city-state" mainly inhabited by ethnic Chinese migrants who have been very significantly Anglised by British imperialism (The current president of Singapore, an ethnic Chinese called Li Guangyao in Mandarin, was described in the West as "the most authentic Englishman on the eastern side of the Suez canal") situated in the midst of a significantly poorer Malaysia in which ethnic Malays are the majority ethnic group. And ethnic Chinese are generally more well-off than Austronesian groups in south-east Asia.

[Nehru]

Look at you jump and instantly insist NO NO NO THERE'S NO EVIDENCE before I even make any specific claims. All I did was suggest that the dude wasn't perfect. And then you say "Leftists are reactive"? Yeah, okay guy.

You made a statement without providing evidence, and I merely pointed it out. Sorry if I hurt your ego.

[Nehru]

Good post but ...


...

You're both right. Gandhi did make statements when he was in South Africa that would be quite racist by today's standards.

This was about prisoners, not about Black people in general. He also commented on Indian and Chinese prisoners - it's there in his autobiography.

[Queercommie Girl]

You made a statement without providing evidence, and I merely pointed it out. Sorry if I hurt your ego.

Sometimes I think some people in the West like to deliberately pick on people like Gandhi because he is not a "macho strong guy" these people prefer, but rather a pacifist, impotent, effete little Asian mystic. Maybe some subtle and implicit Orientalist anti-Asian racism is involved too?

[agnixie]

Sometimes I think some people in the West like to deliberately pick on people like Gandhi because he is not a "macho strong guy" these people prefer, but rather a pacifist, impotent, effete little Asian mystic. Maybe some subtle and implicit Orientalist anti-Asian racism is involved too?

It's funny because indians don't hero-worship Ghandi as much as the west, and it's very well known that he was a flawed man; it probably helps in the west that he represents a somewhat less visibly threatening form of revolution.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's funny because indians don't hero-worship Ghandi as much as the west, and it's very well known that he was a flawed man; it probably helps in the west that he represents a somewhat less visibly threatening form of revolution.

You mean like Ghandi is to Indians what Martin Luther King is to Blacks? (Whereas the Malcolm X of Indians would be more like the Maoists in India)

I certainly don't hero-worship him as such, since for one thing I don't agree with his doctrine of absolute pacifism. (Though it's true that I generally do not like violence and would only utilise violence as a last resort when necessary) However, I wouldn't label Ghandi as a "systematic racist" either.

[agnixie]

You mean like Ghandi is to Indians what Martin Luther King is to Blacks? (Whereas the Malcolm X of Indians would be more like the Maoists in India)
I'm quite aware, I know quite a few women who criticize him on feminist grounds while still using honorifics for him, there was quite a bit ti criticize too. It;s different from hero worship.


However, I wouldn't label Ghandi as a "systematic racist" either.
Maybe not, but he certainly had a few rather shit ideas on race.

[#FF0000]

You made a statement without providing evidence, and I merely pointed it out. Sorry if I hurt your ego.

No you didn't. You said that every criticism of Gandhi is an allegation without evidence. You didn't say anything about my statement -- you just made one of your own.


Sometimes I think some people in the West like to deliberately pick on people like Gandhi because he is not a "macho strong guy" these people prefer, but rather a pacifist, impotent, effete little Asian mystic. Maybe some subtle and implicit Orientalist anti-Asian racism is involved too?

I'm sure some people kind of do that, but they're about as dumb as the people who think Gandhi was a saint. I'm definitely no expert on him but people should really remember that he was 1) a human and, more importantly 2) a politician.

[RedSunRising]

I certainly don't hero-worship him as such, since for one thing I don't agree with his doctrine of absolute pacifism. (Though it's true that I generally do not like violence and would only utilise violence as a last resort when necessary) However, I wouldn't label Ghandi as a "systematic racist" either.

Iseul what the hell are you doing in the Maoist group, I mean seriously?

Gandhi is a hate figure of Indian Maoists who are the epicenter of the global Communist movement. Yes he was a racist and even had proto-fascist tendencies though in fairness less than the vast majority of Hindu nationalists which would be very difficult to have though.

Please read this site.... http://gandhism.net/

And remember that Indian Communists hate Gandhi even more than they hate Trotsky which is really saying something.

[Queercommie Girl]

And remember that Indian Communists hate Gandhi even more than they hate Trotsky which is really saying something.


Yet somehow Islamic nationalists are more "progressive" than Trotskyists. :rolleyes:

Also, you don't dictate what Maoism is. Not every Maoist hates Gandhi. Many Maoists in China have a more balanced but still critical evaluation of him.

[RedSunRising]

Yet somehow Islamic nationalists are more "progressive" than Trotskyists. :rolleyes:

Also, you don't dictate what Maoism is. Not every Maoist hates Gandhi. Many Maoists in China have a more balanced but still critical evaluation of him.

You keep saying that. Yet there is no evidence of any Maoist organization saying that.

And no I dont dictate what Maoism is, the fact is though that the Communist Party of India (Maoist) made up as it is almost entirely of low caste and "untouchable" Indians has extremely strong opinions against this vile man, and they are the leaders of the International Communist Movement, so yes pretty much every Maoist hates Gandhi.

[RedSunRising]

http://monthlyreview.org/2007/12/01/political-islam-in-the-service-of-imperialism

For those who are interested above is the Maoist line on political Islam.

The fact is though that while it may present itself as anti-Imperialist it does not present itself as socialist while Trotskyites wrap the red flag around them in order to undermine to Communist struggles and achievements while at the same time attempting to divert the struggles of the oppressed and exploited towards safe, legal channels. In situations of intense class warfare such as the USSR in the 30s and India today Trotskyism can morph into out and out fascism (Maoists characterize the CWI in China today as social-fascist because of the way it relates to the revolutionary war). So in that sense Trotskyism may be considered as more dangerous than political Islam.

[Queercommie Girl]

You keep saying that. Yet there is no evidence of any Maoist organization saying that.


As I said, some reformist (with respect to the current Chinese regime) Maoists in mainland China have.

[Queercommie Girl]

Maoists characterize the CWI in China today as social-fascist because of the way it relates to the revolutionary war


Please explain and elaborate.

[RedSunRising]

Please explain and elaborate.

The CWI believes that the police and army in India are proletarians, it seeks to build up a base within them, while the same police and army are murdering and terrorizing lower caste Indians. It carries out propaganda against the people's war and sides with the state against it . Its social base is among the labour aristocracy who earn more much of the time than the national bourgiouse and the middle classes and this is reflected in its caste chauvinism. I will email Red Cat for more details. Again it is the Communist Party of India which is the center of Maoism globally and so defines to a large extent what exactly Maoism is and its positions.

Can you show me a Maoist group that supports political Islam as something progressive?

[RedSunRising]

As I said, some reformist (with respect to the current Chinese regime) Maoists in mainland China have.

If they are reformist in respect to the Dengist regime than they are not Maoists and I would suspect them of being basically Chinese nationalists.

Words mean things, Maoism is a spefic current with certain positions and its wrong to label any old thing as Maoist just because it may call itself that.

[Queercommie Girl]

The CWI believes that the police and army in India are proletarians, it seeks to build up a base within them, while the same police and army are murdering and terrorizing lower caste Indians. It carries out propaganda against the people's war and sides with the state against it . Its social base is among the labour aristocracy who earn more much of the time than the national bourgiouse and the middle classes and this is reflected in its caste chauvinism. I will email Red Cat for more details. Again it is the Communist Party of India which is the center of Maoism globally and so defines to a large extent what exactly Maoism is and its positions.


Did you mis-spell? You said "CWI in China", not "CWI in India".

[RedSunRising]

Did you mis-spell? You said "CWI in China", not "CWI in India".

Oh sorry I meant to say in India.