English Quiz for SBI PO Prelims 2016 – Set 3

The mysterious death of Loitam
Richard in Bangalore, the murder of Ramchanphy Hongray in New Delhi, the
suicide by Dana Sangma and other such incidents serve as reminders of the
insecure conditions under which people, particularly the young, from the
north-east of India have to live within the metros of this country. What these
deaths have in common is that the three individuals were all from a certain
part of the country, had a “particular” physical appearance, and were seen as
outsiders in the places they died. These incidents have been read as a symptom
of the pervasive racial discrimination that people from the region face in
metropolitan India. Quite expectedly, such an assertion about the existence of
racism in India will not be taken seriously; the response will be to either
remain silent and refuse to acknowledge this form of racism or, fiercely, to
reject it. Ironically, most Indians see racism as a phenomenon that exists in
other countries, particularly in the West, and without fail, see themselves as
victims. They do not see themselves harbouring (potentially) racist attitudes
and behaviour towards others whom they see as inferior.

But time and again, various
groups of people, particularly those from the north-east, have experienced
forms of racial discrimination and highlighted the practice of racism in India.
In fact, nstitutionalised racism has been as much on the rise as cases of
everyday racism in society. In a case of racial profiling, the University of
Hyderabad chose to launch its 2011 “initiative” to curb drinking and drug use
on campus by working with students from the north-east. In 2007, the Delhi
Police decided to solve the problems of security faced by the north-easterners
in Delhi, particularly women, by coming up with a booklet entitled Security
Tips for North-East Students asking north-eastern women not to wear “revealing
dresses” and gave kitchen tips on preparing bamboo shoot, akhuni, and “other
smelly dishes” without “creating ruckus in neighbourhood.”

Very recently, in the run-up to
the BRICS summit in New Delhi, the Delhi Police’s motto of “citizens first” was
on full display, when they arrested or put under preventive detention the
non-citizens — the Tibetan refugees. But the real problem for the security
personnel cropped up when they had to identify Tibetans on the streets of
Delhi. This problem for the state forces was compounded by the fact that Delhi
now has a substantial migrant population from the north-east whose physical
features could be quite similar to those of Tibetans. So, the forces went about
raiding random places in Delhi, questioning and detaining people from the
region. North-eastern individuals travelling in vehicles, public transport,
others at their workplaces, and so on, all became suspects. Many were asked to
produce their passports or other documents to prove that, indeed, they were Indian
citizens and not refugee Tibetans. In some cases, “authentic” Indians had to
intervene in order to endorse and become guarantors of the authenticity of the
nationality of these north-easterners. The situation became farcical and caught
the attention of the judiciary reportedly after two lawyers from the region
were interrogated and harassed. The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police
not to harass people from the north-east and Ladakh. How much easier it would
have been for the Delhi Police, if only citizenship and physiognomy matched
perfectly. But should one expect otherwise from these state and public
institutions, given the fact that racism is rampant at the level of societal
everyday experiences? For north-easterners who look in a particular manner,
everyday living in Indian cities can be a gruelling experience.