Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Pew Forum Survey of India: Religion in India, Tolerance and Segregation
Pew conducted what seems like an exhaustive survey of India. They:
Surveyed 29,999 Indian adults (including 22,975 who identify as Hindu, 3,336 who identify as Muslim, 1,782 who identify as Sikh, 1,011 who identify as Christian, 719 who identify as Buddhist, 109 who identify as Jain and 67 who identify as belonging to another religion or as religiously unaffiliated). Interviews for this nationally representative survey were conducted face-to-face under the direction of RTI International from Nov. 17, 2019, to March 23, 2020.
So that’s almost 30,000 people (why did they hold back?) – and the results are fascinating. I suspect they’re also frustrating for people (both sides of the political spectrum) who are more comfortable making claims without evidence, with the loudest voices carrying the day.
To set it up for you, 81% of the adults in India are Hindu (615 million), 12.9% Muslim (97 million), 2.4% Christian (18m), 1.9% Sikh (5 m), 0.7% Buddhist (4 M), 0.4% Jain (3 m) and 0.6% Other (4 M).
What PEW led with – religious tolerance:
Indians see religious tolerance as a central part of who they are as a nation. Across the major religious groups, most people say it is very important to respect all religions to be “truly Indian.” And tolerance is a religious as well as civic value: Indians are united in the view that respecting other religions is a very important part of what it means to be a member of their own religious community.
These shared values are accompanied by a number of beliefs that cross religious lines. Not only do a majority of Hindus in India (77%) believe in karma, but an identical percentage of Muslims do, too. A third of Christians in India (32%)…say they believe in the purifying power of the Ganges…In Northern India, 12% of Hindus and 10% of Sikhs, along with 37% of Muslims, identity with Sufism, a mystical tradition most closely associated with Islam. And the vast majority of Indians of all major religious backgrounds say that respecting elders is very important to their faith.
Yet, despite sharing certain values and religious beliefs – as well as living in the same country, under the same constitution – members of India’s major religious communities often don’t feel they have much in common with one another. The majority of Hindus see themselves as very different from Muslims (66%), and most Muslims return the sentiment, saying they are very different from Hindus (64%)….generally, people in India’s major religious communities tend to see themselves as very different from others.
…Many Indians, across a range of religious groups, say it is very important to stop people in their community from marrying into other religious groups….Indians generally stick to their own religious group when it comes to their friends…many would prefer to keep people of certain religions out of their residential areas or villages.
Strangely:
Indians, then, simultaneously express enthusiasm for religious tolerance and a consistent preference for keeping their religious communities in segregated spheres..Indians who favor a religiously segregated society also overwhelmingly emphasize religious tolerance as a core value. For example, among Hindus who say it is very important to stop the interreligious marriage of Hindu women, 82% also say that respecting other religions is very important to what it means to be Hindu…
National identity:
The survey finds that Hindus tend to see their religious identity and Indian national identity as closely intertwined: Nearly two-thirds of Hindus (64%) say it is very important to be Hindu to be “truly” Indian…
Even though Hindu BJP voters who link national identity with religion and language are more inclined to support a religiously segregated India, they also are more likely than other Hindu voters to express positive opinions about India’s religious diversity. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of this group… say religious diversity benefits India, compared with about half (47%) of other Hindu voters.
Xenophobic streak:
…the survey also asked respondents if they completely agree, mostly agree, mostly disagree or completely disagree with the statement “Indian people are not perfect, but Indian culture is superior to others.”
An overwhelming majority of Indians agree with the statement (90%), including 72% who completely agree. Three-quarters of Hindus and roughly the same share of Buddhists (73%) completely agree that Indian culture is superior to others. Among other religious minority groups, somewhat fewer people share this sentiment – about half of Christians (52%) completely agree Indian culture is superior, as do 63% of Muslims and 57% of Sikhs.
Caste:
Most Indians from other castes say they would be willing to have someone belonging to a Scheduled Caste as a neighbor (72%). But a similarly large majority of Indians overall (70%) say that most or all of their close friends share their caste. And Indians tend to object to marriages across caste lines, much as they object to interreligious marriages.3
Overall, 64% of Indians say it is very important to stop women in their community from marrying into other castes, and about the same share (62%) say it is very important to stop men in their community from marrying into other castes. These figures vary only modestly across members of different castes.
Religiosity:
the vast majority of Indians, across all major faiths, say that religion is very important in their lives. And at least three-quarters of each major religion’s followers say they know a great deal about their own religion and its practices
Belief in God:
Nearly all Indians say they believe in God (97%), and roughly 80% of people in most religious groups say they are absolutely certain that God exists.
Diet is important:
Hindus are divided on whether beliefs and practices such as believing in God, praying and going to the temple are necessary to be a Hindu. But one behavior that a clear majority of Indian Hindus feel is incompatible with Hinduism is eating beef: 72% of Hindus in India say a person who eats beef cannot be a Hindu…
Three-quarters of Indian Muslims (77%) say that a person cannot be Muslim if they eat pork, which is even higher than the share who say a person cannot be Muslim if they do not believe in God (60%) or never attend mosque (61%).
So there’s that.
Disturbingly:
Slightly fewer than half of Indians say that the country should rely on a democratic form of government to solve the country’s problems (46%). The other half say that it would be better for the country to have a leader with a strong hand (48%)…
This ambivalence toward democracy exists to some degree among all the country’s religious groups. In the Pew Research Center survey, among Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Jains, there is no clear majority position on this question. Only among Buddhists (57%) and Sikhs (54%) do more than half of adults express a preference for a democratic form of government.
Regional differences are more stark. Fully six-in-ten Indians in the Central region say that a leader with a strong hand is best suited to solving India’s problems, compared with only one-third who prefer a democratic form of government. The opposite is true in the Northeast, where about six-in-ten adults prefer democracy (61%). There also is a modest gap between urban and rural regions, with half of urban residents (50%) preferring democracy, compared with 44% of adults in rural districts.
It’s very interesting, and the first time that I have seen these kinds of statistics across the country for these beliefs and positions. Some of it good, some of it depressing, but it is what it is. If you’re interested in India, do have a look.
Published in General
Teresa Hines.
Nonetheless, a poll that rates belief in karma, in a country that invented karma, should have used a correct definition of karma. What if the pollsters used belief in the concept of a misunderstood socialist man (perhaps a gifted teacher, but nothing more) as their definition of being a Christian, would the results actually mean anything?
I’ve liked this about other countries I’ve visited. My favorite part about Cuba was the national spirit. There are some very good things about the openness in the West (ya know, when it’s an earnest appreciation of what other places have going for them), but it really has manifested as a sickness for quite a few.
She married into power.
I didn’t think they believed in a god, but in a godly state – bliss – and those they “worship” or follow are those who had reached the state of bliss, where they follow the practices and behaviors of the person. That explain tolerance it segregation/difference. In such a world, to a Hindu, Jesus Christ is just another avatar that has attained bliss.
I guess I should go back and study Hinduism again. I haven’t looked to closely since college.
Unless the culture influences the perception of the “foreign” religion. Born again, resurrection, heaven and hell may be understood through a perception of cultural Hinduism that results in a different view of karma, but ultimately karma is how they understand it.
And now dispenses it.
Henry Kissinger had an affair under Nixon. He mentioned that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
So the survey is now being discussed and the findings presented by different media outlets in India.
Having read all 14 pages myself, it’s interesting how each of these headlines it.
A Centrish example:
From the Right:
And from the Left:
Or
All, as it happens, accurate albeit limited reports about the survey.
What is interesting is what is not being talked about and given prominence, which is caste divisions. Which tells me that the engine that runs India is too sensitive an issue to take on – the Hindu/Muslim stuff is manageable, caste is too dangerous, or fundamental, a fault line to deal with in the same manner.
The survey also brought home what a tiny slice of India I inhabit (in diaspora).
More thoughts on this:
Can one say the same re BLM in America? Race is something that can be addressed, the relations and dependencies between economic classes is too sensitive? Imagine the working class equivalent of BLM protests.
You mean the reason the ruling class hates the Trumpsters is perhaps because the Trump populists bring up those relations and dependencies when they should just keep quiet?
Maybe: yes?
And the issue isn’t keeping quiet, it’s a matter of actually perceiving these through the lens of economic class rather than Republican/Democrat, or Coastal Liberals/Heartland Patriots or Native Born/Immigrant or English Speaking/Spanish Speaking or White/Black or Christian/Atheist etc etc etc
I’m not 100% they’re there yet – hence the maybe. (I don’t think Trump was there 100% either – but he was the great disrupter – which just involved saying the emperor has no clothes. That’s all it took. How about that?)
Btw, I don’t think BLM is there yet either. Hence the B.
Edited to add: in India caste isn’t exactly there either – just a bit closer completely due to historical chance.
@thereticulator
Weirdly, I ran across this interview of Jimmy Dore. Very Leftistleftistleftist and a bit small pond, but I think you might find parts of it surprising – this is what the real Left sounds like (for good or for
I’llill).The focus on BLM instead of class is that there are fewer blacks than there are under class. To reframe BLM as a class issue makes the ruling class the target and unites the under class across racial lines. You can not have that if you want to keep the under class divided.
Last time I was in India my cousin said that we would never get movement on some of these structural economic issues until caste Hindus stood with Dalits and Muslims. So far they’re unwilling – imho because these are advantages and they’re loathe to give them up in the short term.
Whether that applies to working class White people in the US or not wrt standing with BLM etc. , well, you tell me.
This sounds like the zero-sum fallacy to me. What do WASPy well-off people get by keeping Appalachian whites and inner city blacks poor? Furthermore, how do the caste Hindus benefit from keeping the Dalits and Muslims poor? Wouldn’t it be to everyone’s advantage to improv the outcomes of the poor.
Additionally, I don’t know too much about the Hindu castes but I do know that they are incredibly diverse and they have very different interests and probably different opinions about everything. So how are they unified in approving of structural economic issues?
it’s not a matter of keeping other people poor/disadvantaged as an objective rather is it an acceptable side effect for keeping me rich and advantaged? And by how much?
I’d say so, but why would you say so?
Sure – assuming one point of view or a single agenda from any group is a mistake.
But it seems like you assume it. Can you explain why Hindu castes oppress Dalits and Muslims and why?
We have a system which advantages one set of groups and disadvantages another set. This plays out in a number of ways – de facto access to land and water, how the police deal with you, how the market deals with you in terms of freedom of association. The reasons for this are historical, and political, and broadly cultural – and the impact is often economic and political (in terms of rights).
All caste Hindus don’t overtly discriminate – but enough do that it’s reflected in cultural and political institutions. Very few caste Hindus decline the privilege they experience when dealing with these institutions – and it’s hard to see how they could without questioning the institutions and reforming them. Iow acting in ways the reduces their own privilege (which is a relative term). This acquiescence strengthens these institutions and how they function.
And keep in mind : caste and religion are only two of the things which influence a person’s experience in life. Are you rich and well educated? You’ll be treated differently than if you were poor and illiterate. And you know what? You’d be as unlikely to substantively change that differential as a caste Hindu is to change the caste differential. (Is the likelihood of being rich and well educated linked to caste? Sure. But it isn’t the same thing at all.)
Now factor in class. And gender.
It isn’t a simple (dumbed down) binary. But at the same time caste and religion are two very important marke
trs in India.Edited to add: the one thing that you can reliably depend on is self interest. I’d argue that a more just society is in everybody’s enlightened self interest, even if it does mean reducing my privilege. But that is, in itself, a fairly privileged viewpoint.
@henrycastaigne – wanted to add: just as there are (a few) people who fall into these designated ‘disadvantaged’ groups who are in many ways actually economically advantaged, there are (many) people in the designated ‘
disadvantaged’ groups who are economically disadvantaged. So why do they acquiesce to the system despite this? Imho for the sliver of privilege it affords them. When you have very little every sliver counts.Keeping them poor isn’t as important as keeping them dependent and in their place.
Do you think that is a conscious policy or it just happened that way?
It’s what humans do.
@Zafar
Do you believe that if black-American studied and married in a similar fashion to Asian-Americans that they would continue to suffer unusually high rates of poverty and incarceration in the United States?
What are the reasons they don’t? Do we have anything here apart from assumptions?
I’m a bit more skeptical of the chicken-egg problem of financial stability and marriage. One thing is certain, though, is that kids raised by two parents are better off financially than the one raised by one. So getting knocked up, poverty is no reason to stay apart.
However, many men will avoid marriage if they cannot support a family. Which means they should avoid sex, too…
Liberals have a problem in that every policy their voters have chased in a quest to help blacks has made them worse off. So now, the policy failures are blamed on institutional racism. I’m pretty certain reversing every liberal policy in black America would, while not fixing everything, make the situation much better.
You romantic!
Around the 1960s the black family imploded. We can never fully understand why but part of it was the government paying people to not get married. The pill and a sort of wide spread rejection of bourgeois norms helped do that to.
Why do you think that black-Americans commit more crimes and are more likely to form broken forms?