Posted on 12/09/2019 9:44:11 PM PST by Cronos
Anglo-Indians are unlikely to be nominated to Lok Sabha and state Assemblies from now on with the government on Monday introducing a bill to amend the Constitution seeking to not to extend the provision that is in place for the past 70 years but expires in January next year.
Earlier, Congress MP Hibi Eden had written to President Ram Nath Kovind seeking his "urgent intervention" to reverse the government move. "The Anglo-Indian community has contributed significantly to the country and they are a vital part of our vibrant and diverse population. The revocation of their rights for reservation even when it was not offered to improve their economic status gave them a sense of belonging and protection," he said
"I am of the opinion that the rationale behind the provision of reservation for Anglo Indian community were introduced in the constitution as they had no motherland and their popuation was way too thin for them to elect a representative of their own to protect the well-being of their community. Their social status does not seem to have changed and thus the reason for reservation remains," he said
(Excerpt) Read more at deccanherald.com ...
What’s an “Anglo-Indian”? Someone of Hindu ethnicity who speaks English as their primary native language? Someone who’s ethnicity is mixed English/Hindu? Both?
The latter.
Probably descendants of the imperial British. India’s going nationalist. Drat that Trump.
How "multi-ethnic" is India compared to the U.S.?
/r
Therefore, is India a more racist society/country than the U.S. on several orders of magnitude?
Where are all the race hustlers on the India question?
/r/r
So basically, mixed-race Indians are banned from holding office?
No, people who have ancestry from the British isles and the rest from the Indian continent. The majority have some Irish ancestry and are Catholic
India is extremely multi cultural and ethnic compared to the USA. Technically it isn’t a country but a union if nations.
It has 4 races
1. Caucasians: aryans at 60%, Dravidian at 30%
2. Mongoloid: Tibetan, Burmese etc
3. Austronesian mon Khmer etc
4. Austroloid as in the Jarawas and Sentinelese
No.
After India became a Republic, it reserved 2 seats out of 535 in their version of Congresd.
These 2 were reserved for Indians who had some British blood. It’s not mixed race as Indians are the same race, caucasian, as Brits.
Now the Anglo Indians have assimilated and are at just 300k in a country of 1.3 billion.
They can still stand on their own merit rather than get nominated with no elections, for seats in the parliament
“These 2 were reserved for Indians who had some British blood. It’s not mixed race as Indians are the same race, caucasian, as Brits.”
—
From what I can gather, racial designation & theory when it comes to India’s population is kind of a mess. Looking at the Dravidian people it’s not easy to confuse them with Celtic descended people (i.e. Brits). Doesn’t make a lot of sense to my thinkin’ to lump ‘em all togther.
basically, now Anglo-Indians have to stand for elections rather than getting 2 seats automatically. There are many Indian parliamentary constituencies with populations of over 2 million. But the Anglo-Indians, with a population of just 0.3 million, still feel entitled to 2 seats.
If they want seats they should earn them. Affirmative action is the wrong way to do things for nonwhites in america and its the wrong way to do things for whites in india.
Indians vote democrat
Ah, well, that part doesn’t seem right.
People should be able to run for office, without any such set asides, and voters should be free to accept or reject.
By genetics black skinned Tamils and pale freckled Irishmen are the same "race"
Also note that Brits are not only "celtic" descended.
The Celts came to the British only around 500 BC. Before that, there were non-Caucasian, non-Indo-European peoples living in the isles (notably the builders of Stonehenge ) who had dark skin and blue eyes - like Cheddar man
well, some may, but most seem to accept this change.
Note that it is also a point that “you got this deal for so long, it is a pain to give it up” - which is the same problem for every welfare given by government
“Before that, there were non-Caucasian, non-Indo-European peoples living in the isles”
—
You have some sources/background info on that?
I searched your image and came up with these articles (and a few more like them)-
DNA suggests 10,000-year-old Brit had dark skin, blue eyes
http://www.startribune.com/dna-suggests-10-000-year-old-brit-had-dark-skin-blue-eyes/473112813
Study: Aegean farmers replaced hunters of ancient Britain
https://apnews.com/a711c89f6fc8471ba0a117b2b315eacf
Though, I’m not sure you can extrapolate grand a racial movement from such singular or limited remain finds.
The Anglo-Indians in India will continue to have the right to vote and hold office, but there won’t be any seats reserved for them in the national or state assemblies. The reason is there are so few of them remaining. Anglo-Indians should vote, join political parties, and seek office based on political orientation, not based on ethnicity.
The government also considered eliminating seats reserved for two underclasses, but decided there wasn’t yet sufficient progress in eliminating discrimination against the members of these underclasses. Presumably, the reservation of these seats will be eliminated in the future.
But Cheddar man was Caucasian - even though he had dark skin.
“Race” is not dependent on skin color or amount of melanin, but on the genetic structure and the skeletal structure.
By that means, the Cheddar man, modern day Irishmen and Tamils are all Caucasians
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.