July 26, 2001

10:22 AM

The Hindu nationalist group Bajrang Dal name a puppy George Bush.This isn't meant to be a complimentary act... it's in reaction to their discovery that the Bushes' cat's name is India (short for India Ink). They've taken this as an insult to the nation, and have retaliated with the puppy. I'm kind of curious about what this tells about Indian naming practices and significances, as compared to those in the US. Could someone more familiar with Hindu/Indian culture please enlighten me as to why they'd feel so insulted?
posted by jason (36 comments total)

I'm not the least bit familiar with Indian culture, but my immediate guess would be lack of air conditioning.
posted by dong_resin at 10:30 AM on July 26, 2001

Why aren't they equally insulted by the ink being referred to as India ink, and boycotting that??? It hasn't apparently been a large public problem since we've been calling it that for, oh, six hundred years or so...
posted by DiplomaticImmunity at 10:35 AM on July 26, 2001

I am no expert, but I did grow up in a Hindu Indian household, and I'd guess it's the general feeling that animals are unclean, so naming an animal after the country would be insulting.

We in the western world tend to see pets as members of the family, where they are distinctly "other" in most people's perception in India.

I was struck when I first saw this story, because I've always thought of naming any daughter I might have "India". Maybe I'm just completely assimilated, but I would name my dog or cat India in a heartbeat.

And India Ink isn't an insult because it's a reflection of where the ink comes from. Think of it this way, DI: What if I named my garbage disposal after you?
posted by anildash at 10:36 AM on July 26, 2001

Interesting cultural situation. George certainly meant no insult to India (the nation) by naming his cat India (the ink,) and certainly won't be at all insulted at having a puppy named after him, so the whole round trip is pointless (unless it makes some Indian nationals feel better.)

They can name as many puppies after me as they like, that's how broadminded I am.
posted by jfuller at 10:38 AM on July 26, 2001

so are the donkey named america and puppy named george bush friends?
posted by mathowie at 10:41 AM on July 26, 2001

I'm kind of hoping that the donkey named America will eat the puppy named George Bush. It wouldn't happen, but the symbology would be fantastic.
posted by jason at 11:08 AM on July 26, 2001

Name whatever you want after me, in fact I think the DI garbage disposal sounds very hi-tech :)

The thing I'm trying to point out is that the two are both objects not having do to with india itself (india ink does not come from india either - most references I've seen specifically mention only China). The cat is named after the ink, not after the country itself, so a direct connection isn't even there. Even if it were it's hardly something to get excited about (in the same way that naming a puppy bush isn't, this goes right back to Nicomedes and Sulla!), irrespective of how you classify animals. Cultural understanding goes both ways, an offendee has to see the intent of the culture supposedly doing the offending as much as an alleged offender has to see someone else's culture. Meet in the middle and there's no problem - it always seems that offendees feel they don't have to budge though.
posted by DiplomaticImmunity at 11:16 AM on July 26, 2001

!!!!! We should retaliate and introduce George Bush band India Ink.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:19 AM on July 26, 2001

Reminds me of the polemic over Ariel laundry detergent being boycotted being pro-Israeli. WTF?
posted by ParisParamus at 11:20 AM on July 26, 2001

brand not band.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:20 AM on July 26, 2001

> an offendee has to see the intent of the culture
> supposedly doing the offending as much as an alleged
> offender has to see someone else's culture. Meet in the
> middle and there's no problem - it always seems that
> offendees feel they don't have to budge though.

At which point the unintentional offenders say "Oh, get a life," and forget the whole subject, leaving the offendees to fester. Sounds just like race relations.
posted by jfuller at 11:27 AM on July 26, 2001

At which point the unintentional offenders say "Oh, get a life," and forget the whole subject, leaving the offendees to fester.

Unless the offenders give a damn about being thoughtful or sensitive. Since when is the burden of obligation on the part of the person who's not being rude?
posted by anildash at 11:31 AM on July 26, 2001

Personally I think it's just the Bajrang Dal trying to get some publicity.

Anil: Pets are considered a part of the family in India too. In the villages where farmers have animals such as cows and bulls, they treat them well, and even pray for their well being.

As for animals, most animals are attached to some deity or another. The rat is the vehicle of the Lord Ganesh (The Elephant God), the bull called Nandi is the vehicle of Lord Shiv (The Destroyer, and the main god), etc. So again I don't think people would really mind an animal being named after India.
posted by riffola at 11:33 AM on July 26, 2001

Unless the offenders give a damn about being thoughtful or sensitive. Since when is the burden of obligation on the part of the person who's not being rude?

Members of Bajrang Dal: YOU ARE STUPID, DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY A-HOLES.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:34 AM on July 26, 2001

Oh I ought to add that if you want to make it look like an insult you can. It would've been a lot worse if Bush had named his dog "India" In India dog or kutta as it is called in Hindi is an insult, similar to calling someone a bitch.
posted by riffola at 11:37 AM on July 26, 2001

wowsers, Paris. I thought i told you to stop sniffing that modeling glue!
posted by Kafkaesque at 12:40 PM on July 26, 2001

"Members of Bajrang Dal: YOU ARE STUPID, DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY A-HOLES."

Hey ParisParamus, France just named a poodle after your mother to protest her naming you Paris.
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 12:53 PM on July 26, 2001

Pets are considered a part of the family in India too. In the villages where farmers have animals such as cows and bulls, they treat them well, and even pray for their well being.

I've seen that firsthand and know that to be true. But in all the village where I've seen animals (usually farm animals) treated that well, dogs and cats were still mostly strays, very rarely treated to the beds (and therapists...) that American pets enjoy.

Members of Bajrang Dal: YOU ARE STUPID, DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY A-HOLES.

Perhaps you're just disconnected from their reality?
posted by anildash at 12:54 PM on July 26, 2001

Is that a serious political party?
posted by ParisParamus at 12:57 PM on July 26, 2001

A friend of mine told me that cats are considered to be the embodiment of evil spirits in India and that is why it is relevant that the pet in question is a cat. Apparently kids in India will throw rocks and kill cats and then drag them around with string etc, and that no one thinks twice about it. I also saw a PBS (Nova maybe?) piece about monkeys that are considered the reincarnation (or something like that) of gods. So these god monkeys are allowed to run all over the place and steal people's food and there is nothing the humans will do about it. In the film they showed images of people taking monkeys who were killed by power lines and having full-blown funerals that would make Princess Diana's look small. So I wonder if George had a monkey named India if they would have been honored?

I originally commented about this story on my blog last week because of the timing. People were gathering in Bonn and Genoa for protests about the environment and trade and on the same day this story about protesting a cat came up. I though the timing of their protest was bad. There are definitely more important things to be concerned about.
posted by terrapin at 1:00 PM on July 26, 2001

George ain't curious.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:03 PM on July 26, 2001

Tangentially: a large section of The Dam Busters was edited out of a recent TV screening in Britain (causing a fair bit of controversy) because it dealt with an airman's dog: a black labrador called "Nigger". (Apparently, the US version overdubs it, so the dog becomes "Trigger".)

As for whether Bajrang Dal is a serious poltiical party? Well, the affiliated BJP is pretty damn serious.
posted by holgate at 1:13 PM on July 26, 2001

Given that it's perfectly obvious that We here Americans love our cats and dogs, this can only be considered stupid.

P.S. Poodles are great dogs!
posted by ParisParamus at 1:24 PM on July 26, 2001

> Unless the offenders give a damn about being thoughtful
> or sensitive. Since when is the burden of obligation on
> the part of the person who's not being rude?

Do you mean in the general case, or in this particular instance? In this instance: it's no part of George's culture to imagine that somebody on the other side of the planet might be offended by his cat's name. Nobody in his own culture would be offended by a horse named "Texas," for example--or a razorback pig named "Arkansas."

If there is somebody somewhere whose culture construes animal names as insulting in this fashion, it is ignorant ethnocentrism on their part to assume that all cultures should conform to theirs. They may apply such cultural expectations only to persons who share their cultural background.

Example: if there's anybody in Uttar Pradesh who keeps a pet cockroach named "Rajasthan" you might justifiably feel there's some purposeful rudeness going on. By contrast, if there's somebody in Saskatchewan who owns a sheep named "Kashmir," it would be silly for Kashmiris to worry about that.

In the general case: the number of things that a member of one culture might do or say that might cross some taboo of another culture is infinite and there's no way to anticipate them all. If such a case crops up it definitely is the duty of those preparing to take offense to ask themselves first, "is this intentionally offensive or is it just a case of cross-cultural miscommunication?"
posted by jfuller at 1:32 PM on July 26, 2001

...cats are considered to be the embodiment of evil spirits in India... Apparently kids in India will throw rocks and kill cats and then drag them around with string etc

And they think the cats are evil?
posted by ratbastard at 1:54 PM on July 26, 2001

Well, they have nothing on you, Don ;)

"Mum. Dad. Don't touch it... it's eeeevil!"
posted by terrapin at 1:57 PM on July 26, 2001

Here's the run down on dog-cat symbology in other cultures/religions:
1. The saliva of a dog is impure in Islam, Hinduism [and also in some schools of Buddhism.]
2. Muslims can have guard dogs or other utility dogs.
3. Dogs and cats are low level of mortal existence in both Hinduism and Buddhism. Being referred to be either a dog or cat is not a sign of respect in either of these two faiths where re-incarnation is a major part of the life-cycle philosophy.
4. Both Hindus and Buddhists can have pet dogs. While these animals rank in the lower steps of the life-cycle ladder, most Buddhists and Hindus treat their cats and dogs well and do not eat them.
5. Muslims too can not eat either a dog or a cat.
6. Jews too can not eat dogs. [90% of all Muslim dietary laws are similar to Jewish laws.] Rules on pet dogs other than guard dogs depends on the explanation of your Rabbi. Some are more strict than others.
7. Christianity has no such cat-dog laws.

[Which is a curious aspect, since both Hinduism and Buddhism predates Judaism and Christianity by centuries and Islam came about 700 years after Christianity.]

In another curious observation, Saddam Hussain had a portrait of George Bush Sr. painted on the floor in front of the door of a major hotel in Iraq. All the patrons have to walk over the face of President Bush when entering or leaving the hotel. This "gesture of friendship" has yet to be reciprocated by the US.
posted by tamim at 2:31 PM on July 26, 2001

Given that it's perfectly obvious that We here Americans love our cats and dogs, this can only be considered stupid.

P.S. Poodles are great dogs!

ParisParamus...I don't know if it's a problem with my comprehensions skills, but I can't work out your tone. I reread your posts above a few times and I just don't understand what you're trying to say. I'm not offended by any of your remarks, just confused. Are you being sarcastic, because I can't tell. The one above sure sounds sarcastic to me. Maybe be a little more explanatory for folks like me.

I in no way mean this to be an inflammatory post, just want to figure this out.
posted by Kafkaesque at 2:33 PM on July 26, 2001

I in no way mean this to be an inflammatory post, just want to figure this out.

The poodle remark was intentionallly non-sensical. As for the rest, it means that since Americans hold cats in high esteem (or whatever you call it for a cat), it's not legitimate for a Hindu to be offended by India Ink (although it does shoe a certain lack of imagination on the part of "W"...). It's plain stupid and provincial. Or stupid and culturally arrogant.

And in a related story, I'm left handed!
posted by ParisParamus at 2:55 PM on July 26, 2001

OK think I get ya now. Still not sure how to "shoe" a certain lack of imagination, but I'll work on it.
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:09 PM on July 26, 2001

Unless the offenders give a damn about being thoughtful or sensitive. Since when is the burden of obligation on the part of the person who's not being rude?

Who's being rude is entirely in your perspective anil. Perhaps being overly pedantic about offence is rude to my culture? And if they were being thoughtful or sensitive they'd realize that the name of a cat in my culture is a triviality and not something designed to offend. The point is meeting in the middle in some form of understanding - in this case that no rudeness was meant, without retracting the name of the cat in question.
posted by DiplomaticImmunity at 3:10 PM on July 26, 2001

On another curious observation, the printed maps from U.N. Cartographic dept. and National Geographic [two sources that are notorious for their cultural and political sensitivity] has India labeled as BHARAT. Is "India" even a native word of any of the Indian languages currently in use in India? Can it be even traced back to Sanskrit?
posted by tamim at 3:34 PM on July 26, 2001

India is also refered to as Bharat, and Hindustan. India, I believe the word comes from the river Indus. The Sanskrit name is Bharatavarsha. During the dark ages, the known world was broken into three parts: Europe, Africa and India.
posted by riffola at 6:37 PM on July 26, 2001

Boy do I love MetaFilter. This has been an elightening thread (no pun intended). Thanks Tamim, Riffola, etc...
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 6:49 PM on July 26, 2001

If they really wanted to make a point, they would name a wolf in sheep's clothing George Bush.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:15 PM on July 26, 2001

..and if they named one of those ultra-respected monkeys George Bush...ahh you see where I'm going with this...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:08 PM on July 26, 2001