In short, no I don't think so. We are the most diverse, yes, but no we aren't the most racist people in the world. I see this being thrown around quite a bit, and it hurts to see even educated people blatantly criticizing our own countrymen without thinking it through. This post is directed at addressing that question.
I am going to support my point with five arguments. First, I believe what we mistake for racism (most of the time) is actually rivalry and some of the things that come with it. Second, the immensely diverse nature of our society and country is actually an asset which we confuse with xenophobia to call ourselves racists. Third, yes, there will always be some among us and others who will be intrinsically anti-social and absolutely racist - but you cannot disown them, as the "No true Scotsman" fallacy points out. And oh, lest I forget, some of us do behave in a manner that portrays a negative/uncultured image to the outside world about Indians. These people naturally invite the wrath of common people of other nationalities which then we get to hear as "racist attacks on Indians". Finally, how do you measure who is the most racist and who isn't?
So let's begin with rivalry and racism. Dictionary.com defines racism as "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others", which in our context of discussion essentially boils down to the last definition on that page: "hatred or intolerance of another races or other races". But rivalry is different. Proximity and equal capability to accomplish the same task between two groups will always breed rivalry. Two colleges in the same city, two platoon regiments nearby in the same area, or for that matter two different localities in two buildings across the road, there will be rivalry. And rivalry to some extent is good. It brings pride in oneself, and teaches team spirit. And of course as a collateral you invent jokes about the "other" team, and prefer being in your team's camp even after the match is over. It is natural, it is human, and it isn't racism.
Another common argument I see from my own friends is something on the lines of this: oh we are always abusing one another! "There are so many jokes about Punjabis"; "Delhi people are unequivocally hated in Chennai"; "Marathis cannot tolerate Biharis", and so on. My point is simple: yes we are a diverse population. But it isn't racism. It is an asset. There is a singular concept of India among all of us. We might be fighting amongst ourselves, but see what happens when militants get into Kargil or a terrorist attack on Mumbai happens. Each one of us... every single state, caste, linguistic group lines up to fight the abuse and a united front shows up. If we were indeed nurtured "hatred or intolerance of other races", people in Maharashtra would be happy to learn of floods in Bihar, and people would burst firecrackers in Chennai to celebrate series of bomb blasts in Delhi. We aren't different races: we are just one race, and we proudly call ourselves Indian.
Then there is the problem of blanket generalization. Statements like "Bengalis are culturally talented" and "Indian women don't cheat" are misleading, since you cannot include everyone in your statement. The day you come across an adulterous Indian woman or a Bengali guy who cannot write a poem even if his life depended on it, you will proclaim "No true Bengali will not know how not to write a poem". This, if you go through the wikipedia link above, is a logical fallacy. How does it apply here? Well, yes there are very racist people among us Indians. And we cannot disown them: they are as much an Indian as you and I. But if someone forms their judgement based on just some random supporter of Raj Thakeray shouting obscenities and burning down shops, then it is simply unfair. Yes we do have racist people among us, but they aren't the majority.
Finally, do some of us provoke hatred from others? Yes. If it is common courtesy to leave seats for the elderly or to not keep your feet up on the cushion across the aisle on a public bus, then we should abide by it. Some of us, however, seem to have missed the common civic sense lessons while growing up and hence draw attention to themselves by doing the exact same things in other countries/states/localities which others don't. This behaviour stands out very conspicuously. Following which, Indians/Biharis/Nehru-nagar-people are branded as a bunch of folks lacking civic values. No all of us aren't that way. But when a bunch of students from a nearby engineering college are seen wolf-whistling and eve-teasing almost every evening at a nearby locality, then there is reason to brand that engineering college as a shit-hole.
My last argument is regarding the phrase, "most racist". How do you measure who or what group of people is more racist than the other? Is being Brahmin the only link between them, or did they also go to the same school at the same time? I find it absurd that someone claims Indians are the most racist. So who is second-most? And how did you measure that? Based on your experience, really? How many other nations have you been to and intimately known? Or for that matter, have you met everyone in India? If it is solely your experience you are talking from, then I am sorry to say that you keep a racist circle of friends. By extension... umm.. let's leave it at that. Statistically speaking, biased samples are going to yield exactly what you started off with and wanted to see - a bias. In a population as big as ours, you need a huge representative sample to determine the percentage probability that someone or a nation itself is racist. And then you need to find such sample surveys of all nations, and then pronounce your verdict. So much for your education, then!
To conclude, therefore, we mustn't confuse rivalry and racism. Our diverse population is in reality an asset, and however many abuses we hurl at another state or caste, we stand united in the face of crisis at all times. Blanket generalizations aren't good, therefore your abusive Tamil neighbor isn't the best representative sample of all Tamilians, and neither is your sweet Delhi aunty next door of all Delhi-ites.:P We have scumbags amongst us as well who want to make us behave as racists, but you cannot measure absolute racism through any sample size and reach conclusions like "the Aussies are the most racist". I rest my case.
Update: a common theme I see emerging from some of the comments is that as if I have claimed that Indians aren't racist. Yes, we are. But the title of most racist in the world does not befall us. Please consider this before commenting.
I am going to support my point with five arguments. First, I believe what we mistake for racism (most of the time) is actually rivalry and some of the things that come with it. Second, the immensely diverse nature of our society and country is actually an asset which we confuse with xenophobia to call ourselves racists. Third, yes, there will always be some among us and others who will be intrinsically anti-social and absolutely racist - but you cannot disown them, as the "No true Scotsman" fallacy points out. And oh, lest I forget, some of us do behave in a manner that portrays a negative/uncultured image to the outside world about Indians. These people naturally invite the wrath of common people of other nationalities which then we get to hear as "racist attacks on Indians". Finally, how do you measure who is the most racist and who isn't?
So let's begin with rivalry and racism. Dictionary.com defines racism as "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others", which in our context of discussion essentially boils down to the last definition on that page: "hatred or intolerance of another races or other races". But rivalry is different. Proximity and equal capability to accomplish the same task between two groups will always breed rivalry. Two colleges in the same city, two platoon regiments nearby in the same area, or for that matter two different localities in two buildings across the road, there will be rivalry. And rivalry to some extent is good. It brings pride in oneself, and teaches team spirit. And of course as a collateral you invent jokes about the "other" team, and prefer being in your team's camp even after the match is over. It is natural, it is human, and it isn't racism.
Another common argument I see from my own friends is something on the lines of this: oh we are always abusing one another! "There are so many jokes about Punjabis"; "Delhi people are unequivocally hated in Chennai"; "Marathis cannot tolerate Biharis", and so on. My point is simple: yes we are a diverse population. But it isn't racism. It is an asset. There is a singular concept of India among all of us. We might be fighting amongst ourselves, but see what happens when militants get into Kargil or a terrorist attack on Mumbai happens. Each one of us... every single state, caste, linguistic group lines up to fight the abuse and a united front shows up. If we were indeed nurtured "hatred or intolerance of other races", people in Maharashtra would be happy to learn of floods in Bihar, and people would burst firecrackers in Chennai to celebrate series of bomb blasts in Delhi. We aren't different races: we are just one race, and we proudly call ourselves Indian.
Then there is the problem of blanket generalization. Statements like "Bengalis are culturally talented" and "Indian women don't cheat" are misleading, since you cannot include everyone in your statement. The day you come across an adulterous Indian woman or a Bengali guy who cannot write a poem even if his life depended on it, you will proclaim "No true Bengali will not know how not to write a poem". This, if you go through the wikipedia link above, is a logical fallacy. How does it apply here? Well, yes there are very racist people among us Indians. And we cannot disown them: they are as much an Indian as you and I. But if someone forms their judgement based on just some random supporter of Raj Thakeray shouting obscenities and burning down shops, then it is simply unfair. Yes we do have racist people among us, but they aren't the majority.
Finally, do some of us provoke hatred from others? Yes. If it is common courtesy to leave seats for the elderly or to not keep your feet up on the cushion across the aisle on a public bus, then we should abide by it. Some of us, however, seem to have missed the common civic sense lessons while growing up and hence draw attention to themselves by doing the exact same things in other countries/states/localities which others don't. This behaviour stands out very conspicuously. Following which, Indians/Biharis/Nehru-nagar-people are branded as a bunch of folks lacking civic values. No all of us aren't that way. But when a bunch of students from a nearby engineering college are seen wolf-whistling and eve-teasing almost every evening at a nearby locality, then there is reason to brand that engineering college as a shit-hole.
My last argument is regarding the phrase, "most racist". How do you measure who or what group of people is more racist than the other? Is being Brahmin the only link between them, or did they also go to the same school at the same time? I find it absurd that someone claims Indians are the most racist. So who is second-most? And how did you measure that? Based on your experience, really? How many other nations have you been to and intimately known? Or for that matter, have you met everyone in India? If it is solely your experience you are talking from, then I am sorry to say that you keep a racist circle of friends. By extension... umm.. let's leave it at that. Statistically speaking, biased samples are going to yield exactly what you started off with and wanted to see - a bias. In a population as big as ours, you need a huge representative sample to determine the percentage probability that someone or a nation itself is racist. And then you need to find such sample surveys of all nations, and then pronounce your verdict. So much for your education, then!
To conclude, therefore, we mustn't confuse rivalry and racism. Our diverse population is in reality an asset, and however many abuses we hurl at another state or caste, we stand united in the face of crisis at all times. Blanket generalizations aren't good, therefore your abusive Tamil neighbor isn't the best representative sample of all Tamilians, and neither is your sweet Delhi aunty next door of all Delhi-ites.:P We have scumbags amongst us as well who want to make us behave as racists, but you cannot measure absolute racism through any sample size and reach conclusions like "the Aussies are the most racist". I rest my case.
Update: a common theme I see emerging from some of the comments is that as if I have claimed that Indians aren't racist. Yes, we are. But the title of most racist in the world does not befall us. Please consider this before commenting.
