# Urdu/Hindi/Punjabi: colloquial ethnonyms as forms of address



## lcfatima

What are some forms of addressing or calling out to others that are ethnonymic in nature?

Of course there is sardaar and sardaarji used to address Sikh males.

In Pakistan I have heard non-Pashtoons call to Pashtoons by saying "Khaansaab."

I am told that it is not considered impolite to call someone sardaarji or khaansaab. I know Sikhs use sardaar amongst themselves, too. But with Khaansaab it reminds me of how sometimes Gulf Arabs address South Asians as "boss," or how East Africans address South Asians as rafeek (rafeeq). There is some Otherization or seeing someone only as a member of their ethnicity or race implied when this is done. 

Native speakers, what do you say? Is addressing people this way appropriate?


Are there other examples of this type of form of address for other ethnicities?


----------



## Qureshpor

lcfatima said:


> What are some forms of addressing or calling out to others that are ethnonymic in nature?
> 
> Of course there is sardaar and sardaarji used to address Sikh males.
> 
> In Pakistan I have heard non-Pashtoons call to Pashtoons by saying "Khaansaab."
> 
> I am told that it is not considered impolite to call someone sardaarji or khaansaab. I know Sikhs use sardaar amongst themselves, too. But with Khaansaab it reminds me of how sometimes Gulf Arabs address South Asians as "boss," or how East Africans address South Asians as rafeek (rafeeq). There is some Otherization or seeing someone only as a member of their ethnicity or race implied when this is done.
> 
> Native speakers, what do you say? Is addressing people this way appropriate?
> 
> _*As for using "Sardaar" and "Khaan SaaHib", my personal understanding and experience is that both communities have accepted these titles and see themselves as Sardaars and Khaan SaaHibs with pride. In this case, I do not feel there is any problem in referring them with these titles.
> 
> I must add that to my knowledge the titles only apply to the male members and even though one has "Sardaarnii" and "Khaanum" titles for the females, I am not sure if they are used in the same way as for their male counter parts.
> *_
> 
> Are there other examples of this type of form of address for other ethnicities?
> 
> _*There are but I shall not get involved in this. There is likely to be an element of "looking down" on one community by another in the terminology applied.*_


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Punjabi Muslims in Pakistan do also address PaThaan males of the same age by the title : *Laalaa jii..*.


----------



## BP.

lcfatima said:


> ...
> In Pakistan I have heard non-Pashtoons call to Pashtoons by saying "Khaansaab."
> 
> I am told that it is not considered impolite to call someone sardaarji or khaansaab. I know Sikhs use sardaar amongst themselves, too....


We've all possibly heard Pushtuns being called khansab but not all of them are khans nor do they refer to each other in that way. So there appears to be some typifying going on in others' minds, which is natural, and the Pushtuns don't seem to mind. What reinforces this view is that someone I've known took offence when called khansab and he believed the caller mistook him for a Pushtun.


----------



## panjabigator

> I am told that it is not considered impolite to call someone sardaarji  or khaansaab. I know Sikhs use sardaar amongst themselves, too. But with  Khaansaab it reminds me of how sometimes Gulf Arabs address South  Asians as "boss," or how East Africans address South Asians as rafeek  (rafeeq). There is some Otherization or seeing someone only as a member  of their ethnicity or race implied when this is done.
> 
> Native speakers, what do you say? Is addressing people this way appropriate?
> Are there other examples of this type of form of address for other ethnicities?


The politics of "sardaar ji" are really interesting. Who counts as a "sardaar"? My family often refers to me in the third person ("ارے، فون چکیں، سردار جی دا فون اے) as "sardaar ji", but other Sikhs tend not to because I cut my hair. There also seems to be a jocular and often pejorative ethos that people evoke when identifying a potential "sardaarji" that is a bit off putting, but that isn't universal. I've never heard "sardaarni" as a form of address akin to "sardaar ji," though I have heard the word used in other contexts (to parrot what Qureshpor has said).

In Indian Punjab, it's common to refer to people who come from Bihar or UP with the word _bhaiyyaa_. I always thought this was a bit patronizing as "bhai" signifies an immediately close kinship relationship but, coupled with the "tu" or "tum" pronoun, it seemed offensive. When I North India, I was repeatedly corrected against using "aap" to address rickshawwale (who often were of this "bhaiyya" class) as that would a) identify me as a foreigner and b) make it seem as if I were patronizing them.

How do you avoid an "Otherizing" word is my question.


----------



## lcfatima

> How do you avoid an "Otherizing" word is my question.



Just avoid racialized forms of address and use the same thing for each person, varying only by formality/context but not by ethnicity.


----------



## tonyspeed

lcfatima said:


> Just avoid racialized forms of address and use the same thing for each person, varying only by formality/context but not by ethnicity.




It seems to me that the avoidance of racialized terms of address is really only an american political-correctness-influenced viewpoint. Do people really care about "otherization" in other countries IF it is not done with ill intent and derogatory language is not used?


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> It seems to me that the avoidance of racialized terms of address is really only an american political-correctness-influenced viewpoint. Do people really care about "otherization" in other countries IF it is not done with ill intent and derogatory language is not used?



That may or may not be true. But bringing certain useages into an open discussion is likely to fling open "flood gates" of undesirable exchanges which must be avoided.


----------



## tonyspeed

panjabigator said:


> In Indian Punjab, it's common to refer to people who come from Bihar or UP with the word _bhaiyyaa_. I always thought this was a bit patronizing as "bhai" signifies an immediately close kinship relationship but, coupled with the "tu" or "tum" pronoun, it seemed offensive. When I North India, I was repeatedly corrected against using "aap" to address rickshawwale (who often were of this "bhaiyya" class)



It seems to be common to address service people and shop keepers as bhaiyya and bhai saab in the Hindi heartland. One thing to notice however is that adding the yya makes them older than you and therefore deserving of respect and adding the saab does the same. So it doesn't seem completely disrespectful, just informal.

Because of the wide-spread usage of tum amongst people in colloquial usage, aap, in my experience tends to seem overly formal in certain contexts.


----------



## lcfatima

> It seems to me that the avoidance of racialized terms of address is really only an american political-correctness-influenced viewpoint. Do people really care about "otherization" in other countries IF it is not done with ill intent and derogatory language is not used?



To be clear, I am not trying to lecture native speakers on how to use their own language. But I do believe in the principles of political correctness (and South Asians are not unaware of the concept-dalit instead of achuut, etc) so I prefer to avoid Otherizing language in my speech. I also tend to exclusively use aap, though often aap+ho constructions, perhaps because I have become very accustomed to this structure.

I am identifiable as a Muslim woman (wear a headscarf) and I was called Aapa many times in India by non-Muslims. I certainly didn't take offense. 

I do think that a non-Pashtoon will call someone who bears visual cues of being a laborer or taxi or rickshaw driver 'Khaansaab' before they would call a Pashtoon doctor khaansaab. There are some class issues intertwined with these ethnonymic forms of address, too.

I was just interested in native speaker perceptions on the issue, and also curious if there were other examples of this sort of language.


----------



## Koozagar

Very important question. I have been thinking about this for sometime now; although I am not certain that my thoughts are clear on this, I will make an attempt to expand on a few things in the lines below:

*'Other' categories in the Indian Subcontinent*
All modern societies have sections that are relegated to inferiority. In India, that section is the lower cast Hindus, Dalits, Achuts, the Untouchables; whatever you may want to call them. Historically, it has been this section of the population that has been 'Otherized'. In modern Pakistan, 'Chooray', the lower cast Hindus who converted to Christianity are still at the bottom rung of the society and are still considered 'untouchable' and 'unclean'. This status is a legacy of their historically belonging to the Hindu Achut community. Anglo-Indian Christians on the other hand are treated as respectable members of the society. In the course of the nationalist movement, and in the aftermath of the Partition, 'Hindus' and 'Muslims' have 'Otherized' each other, as 'Hindu Banya' and 'Muslaa'. Both are used as derogatory titles. 'Sikh' is also used to associate 'filthiness' with someone. An unclean Muslim person would hear something like this from his mother: 'SikhaaN dai kaar jamiyaaN' (Do you belong to a sikh household?). 'Muhajir', 'Urdu speaking', 'Bhaya' are also categories created by the dislocation caused by the Partition and are used to 'Otherize' people who migrated to areas now in Pakistan. In East Punjab, migration from UP and Bihar due to economic reasons created a 'Bhaya' class that is employed in mostly low-paying occupations. South India is also a big 'Other' for North Indians and vice versa.

*The Other*
I have felt that their is a tendency among Western students and people of high intellectual achievement alike to apply the Idea of 'The Other' as used in post-colonial theory, to established categories of identities existent in non-western societies such as India, that do not necessarily have an antagonistic relationship with each other. By doing so, they are being cognizant of how 'Otherization' has been used historically as a tool to subjugate and dominate. They are also viewing relationships among these social categories in the light of relationships as they exist in Western societies and by doing so, they are imposing an antagonistic dynamic where none exists.

*Ethnic Identities and Titles*
We must remember that the primary identity before founding of the modern nation state in India was that of one's clan, village, and ethnicity. People relate with ethnic titles with pride ( I am Dido, Ranjha is my zaat and Takht Hazara is my vatan). By calling someone 'Khan Sahb' you are recognizing his primary identity which is Pashtun. You are also evoking the stereotypical character from Mushtaq Ahmed Yousfi's book 'Aab-e-gum'. But you are also connecting the rikshaw driver with Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan who said: " I have been a Pathan for 2000 years, a Musalmaan for a over a thousand and a Pakistani for less than fifty years" (The quote may not be exactly accurate). You will often hear two socially very respectable people from the privileged class addressing each other as 'Khaan Sahb' and 'Chaudhry Sahb'.  Imran Khan is often referred to as "Khan Sahb". Similarly Sardar ji also evokes the Sikh identity along with the stereotypical goofy character of the Punjabi jokes. But the title does not carry any antagonism in it, neither is there any desire or tendency to 'Otherize', dehumanize or humiliate the addressed person. However, by seeing it as such and describing it as such one can potentially impart that tinge to it.


----------



## BP.

Educational addition Koozagar sahab, but left me as confused as informed. Do you mean  that the _3aks-e diigar - _'image of the other' theory does not apply but in an innocuous manner on the subcontinent?


----------



## Koozagar

BelligerentPacifist said:


> Education addition Koozagar sahab, but left me as confused as informed. Do you mean  that the _3aks-e diigar - _'image of the other' theory does not apply but in an innocuous manner on the subcontinent?



I don't mean that it does not apply. But I think the nature of the relation with the Other, as in the North Indian-South Indian relationship, is quite different from how Europe Otherized Asia, or how African-Americans were Otherized. Since ethnic, tribal and clan identities are primary identities of most people, people own them and they do not as such relegate people to the society's fringe or box them in any undesirable category in the way gays, Jews, Muslims or Mormons are boxed-in in the West. African-American identity is not 'main stream' American identity. 'Khan Sahb' on the other hand is 'the identity' of a Pathan.


----------



## lcfatima

Well, Koozagar, I am not a student or a person of high intellect, I am just a housewife. But I don't think that it is an imposition of Western post-colonial theory to recognize that every society, Eastern or Western, has privileged groups and marginalized groups, which you have acknowledged. I would hesitate to make exact parallels between say, US society and the social position of Black Americans, and any particular group in Pakistan (or India). The social histories and contexts are completely different. I will say that privileged groups tend to maintain their position above the marginalized in similar ways in each country, though. When I bring up Otherization, I do think in discourse, the concept exists beyond the Saidian sense and can be used to describe any lines drawn between self and out group or in group and out group. 

Clearly, there are some settings in which Pashtoons are a marginal group in Pakistan, but I would hesitate to say that they are 'oppressed' or any such thing. In other contexts, Pashtoons hold privilege, and the system of marginalization becomes economic class and tribe in Pashtoon majority areas. And in India with Sikhs, they can be targets of prejudice while simultaneously having social privilege as a broad community.

I am simply curious about ethnonymic forms of address used on a stranger in public. Are they patronizing? Do they sound coarse? Are they appropriate? 

They do make me uncomfortable for reasons I explained above, but I am a non-native speaker. 

It seems that based on responses, there is indeed an antagonistic tinge to them on some level, but they are not considered particularly offensive.


----------



## Koozagar

lcfatima said:


> It seems that based on responses, there is indeed an antagonistic tinge to them on some level, but they are not considered particularly offensive.



I respectfully disagree. I don't think that there is an antagonistic tinge to them. By asserting that there is an antagonistic tinge, we are creating space for antagonism to arise.


----------



## tonyspeed

lcfatima said:


> Are they patronizing? Do they sound coarse? Are they appropriate?




This depends on the speaker and the listener and is more about cultural viewpoint than the actual language.

For instance, in Jamaica, ethnic terms are very common. Offense is only taken when one does not view himself as part of the Jamaican society as a whole. For instance, an Indian whose great-great grandparents came to Jamaica would take no offense at the ethnic term "coolie", but someone who came later on and knows the origin of the word might. I was born in Jamaica and take no offense at the use of the word "chynie" when directed at me by other Jamaicans. On the other hand, I would take offense if an American called me such because in the context of American culture and history, it is unacceptable to use such racial terms.

Another example is the practice in Dilli of calling all Asian-looking people "chinese". To a foreigner this may be offensive if he/she does not like the Chinese people. To a native of north-east India, such a term is tantamount to attacking their Indian nationality.

So once again, the answer to your question can only be answered on a case-by-case basis. Whatever the answer is, such terms, while done in ignorance are usually not done with ill-intention. It is very hard to pass judgment on culture in such broad terms without seeming paternalistic.


----------



## Koozagar

tonyspeed said:


> It is very hard to pass judgment on culture in such broad terms without seeming paternalistic.



You are absolutely right.


----------



## lcfatima

Right. I am completely aware that racial dynamics function very differently from place to place.


----------



## Athanasios

tonyspeed said:


> This depends on the speaker and the listener and is more about cultural viewpoint than the actual language.
> 
> For instance, in Jamaica, ethnic terms are very common. Offense is only taken when one does not view himself as part of the Jamaican society as a whole. For instance, an Indian whose great-great grandparents came to Jamaica would take no offense at the ethnic term "coolie", but someone who came later on and knows the origin of the word might. I was born in Jamaica and take no offense at the use of the word "chynie" when directed at me by other Jamaicans. On the other hand, I would take offense if an American called me such because in the context of American culture and history, it is unacceptable to use such racial terms.
> 
> Another example is the practice in Dilli of calling all Asian-looking people "chinese". To a foreigner this may be offensive if he/she does not like the Chinese people. To a native of north-east India, such a term is tantamount to attacking their Indian nationality.
> 
> So once again, the answer to your question can only be answered on a case-by-case basis. Whatever the answer is, such terms, while done in ignorance are usually not done with ill-intention. It is very hard to pass judgment on culture in such broad terms without seeming paternalistic.



The fact that ethnic terms/slurs can often have meanings that are not easily perceived by outsiders or even by insiders not of that ethnic group is shown well in your post with the Jamaican example.

I can say, coming from a family of Jamaican Indians, that A LOT of "Indian[s] whose great-great grandparents came to Jamaica" find offense at being called "coolie". They just don't usually express that sentiment to non-Indians, because non-Indians don't care. I know of many people that have pointed out their dislike of the word "coolie" to Black Jamaicans, and they have generally been met with hostility.  The Afro-Jamaicans get mad and tell the Indians that they are wrong, being "sensitive", and that "Indians from Jamaica don't find 'coolie' offensive!" Right...that's why one is telling him now, right?

Often, what appears to be someone not taking offense from what a person said, is actually someone that has decided that the offensive person is simply too prejudiced to care that he is being offensive. So, one just smiles and ignores it. That's often better than having a fruitless argument with an crass fool, isn't it?


Almost all Jamaican Indians that I am acquainted with know that "coolie" is a slur, even if they do not know the precise origin of the word. Even the kind of Indians that do not mind being called the word know that it is a slur, generally speaking.

Going back to terms like Khan saHib and Sardar ji, are such terms used by people of all classes and educational levels, or is their use a sign of the speaker's particular background?


----------



## tonyspeed

Athanasios said:


> Almost all Jamaican Indians that I am acquainted with know that "coolie" is a slur, even if they do not know the precise origin of the word. Even the kind of Indians that do not mind being called the word know that it is a slur, generally speaking.




That perception would be absolutely wrong. Coolie is not a slur and never has been a slur in the context of non-British Jamaican society. In societies like Jamaica people were often referred to by their colour. White people were backra. Black people were nayga. Indians were coolie. And Chinese were chiney. The term coolie in my experience has never been used in an offensive manner as a slur would be used. Compare that to the term naygah which is used by black society in reference to themself. That often has negative connotations especially when used with adjectives such as "dutty naygah" and "chupid naygah" etc. Those are common phrases, whereas I have never heard any phrase as "dutty coolie".

The problem is that those that knew Hindi know the origin of the term kuli which was never common knowledge to the black majority population who have little knowledge of Hindi other than words that have infiltrated the Jamaican vernacular.
It was a term used by the British in reference to the first Indians AND Chinese immigrants who were exactly that, kulis. 

In fact the term coolie often has positive connotations especially when talking about physical features.

This is exactly the phenomenon we are talking about whereby the outsider of the situation perceives racism or exclusion when there was none intended. It is especially hard to understand such a situation once one is exposed to the 
  polarised society of America where all such terms are viewed as offensive. In other societies it is simply viewed as a fact of life, not as a bludgeon.

But once again, all such claims can only be validated from within the society. It would be interesting to see the viewpoint of a non-expatriate Jamaican Indian family whose ancestors came in the 1830s versus a Sindhi family whose family immigrated
in the 1940s or even someone who is partially Indian. I suspect that the 1830s family and the mixed Indian would be more tolerant of the term as is my experience. But once again all such research would have to be done within the culture and not among expatriates since as I mentioned before America and Europe tends to racialise virtually everyone's outlook (not to mention exposure to others in the desi diaspora such as those from Trinidad and Tobago where such a term probably does have negative connotations).


----------



## Athanasios

tonyspeed said:


> That perception would be absolutely wrong. Coolie is not a slur and never has been a slur in the context of non-British Jamaican society. In societies like Jamaica people were often referred to by their colour. White people were backra. Black people were nayga. Indians were coolie. And Chinese were chiney. The term coolie in my experience has never been used in an offensive manner as a slur would be used. Compare that to the term naygah which is used by black society in reference to themself. That often has negative connotations especially when used to adjectives such as dutty naygah and chupid naygah etc.
> 
> The problem is that those that knew Hindi know the origin of the term kuli which was never common knowledge to the black majority population who have little knowledge of Hindi other than words that have infiltrated the Jamaican vernacular.
> It was a term used by the British in reference to the first Indians AND Chinese immigrants who were exactly that, kulis.
> 
> In fact the term kuli often has positive connotations especially when talking about physical features.
> 
> This is exactly the phenomenon we are talking about whereby the outsider of the situation perceives racism or exclusion when there was none intended. It is especially hard to understand such a situation once one is exposed to the
> polorised society of America where all such terms are viewed as offensive. In other societies it is simply viewed as a fact of life, not as a bludgeon.



So, this is an outsider's perspective? When my parents were growing up and were taunted for being "coolies" it was not racism? When "coolies" got made fun for "originally having tails until they were cut off on arrival to Jamaica" or for "eating their own feces with roti", it was not racism? When the school bullies just happened to beat up the "coolie" kids more than other kids, it was not racism? They grew up in the 1960s and 1970s. It was worse before then. In the 1920s, when most Indians were non-Christian, they didn't even have their marriages recognised. If you look at my grandfather's birth records, the "receipt" copy they give when you register is fine, but the official record on the books has the father removed (because all Hindus were of course bastards!) and they added the appellation "coolie" to the mother's name ( just in case you didn't know!). I have seen pictures from the 19th century of shops in Kingston that had "No Coolies Allowed" signs.

My perception of racism and resentment in many Jamaican's perception of Indians, as well as the offensiveness of being called a "coolie", is not an "outsider's view". It is the view that my parents and many Jamaican-born Indians have had all their lives.

This is exactly my point: just because you are an insider doesn't mean you understand the feelings of other ethnic groups in your country. How one feels, and what expresses privately, is often different from the face put on in public. That is often the case in Jamaica, and it may be the case in South Asia as well. I am just saying that we need to be careful of assumptions.


----------



## tonyspeed

Athanasios said:


> So, this is an outsider's perspective? When my parents were growing up and were taunted for being "coolies" it was not racism? When "coolies" got made fun for "originally having tails until they were cut off on arrival to Jamaica" or for "eating their own feces with roti", it was not racism? When the school bullies just happened to beat up the "coolie" kids more than other kids, it was not racism? They grew up in the 1960s and 1970s. It was worse before then. In the 1920s, when most Indians were non-Christian, they didn't even have their marriages recognised. If you look at my grandfather's birth records, the "receipt" copy they give when you register is fine, but the official record on the books has the father removed (because all Hindus were of course bastards!) and they added the appellation "coolie" to the mother's name ( just in case you didn't know!). I have seen pictures from the 19th century of shops in Kingston that had "No Coolies Allowed" signs.
> 
> My perception of racism and resentment in many Jamaican's perception of Indians, as well as the offensiveness of being called a "coolie", is not an "outsider's view". It is the view that my parents and many Jamaican-born Indians have had all their lives.
> 
> This is exactly my point: just because you are an insider doesn't mean you understand the feelings of other ethnic groups in your country. How one feels, and what expresses privately, is often different from the face put on in public. That is often the case in Jamaica, and it may be the case in South Asia as well. I am just saying that we need to be careful of assumptions.



Actions of racism and a terms of racism are completely different. Chinese were treated in much the same way and were attacked and even killed during anti-Chinese riots of a similar period. In fact, my grandfather changed his name to an English name to escape mockery. However, the term "Chinie" is still not a racist term, just in the same way coolie is not inherently a racist term when used in the context of black society as it exists today. (In the above contexts you seem to be referring to a mixture of societies, both white and black since black people would not have had much governmental power in the 20s. Also the sign "No coolies allowed" would also have referred to Chinese people in the 1800s since coolies were ALL indentured servants at that time, not just the majority) Meaning, the term coolie was not invented for the purpose of being a slur. It is simply a descriptive term that came to be associated with a race. Similarly, even if I call someone sardaar and intend to mean it in an offensive way, it does not make the term sardaar itself offensive unless language changes in such a way to make the general meaning an offensive one. I think your experiences may blind you to this fact. We are not talking about 1920 or 1960. We are talking about 2011. 

But this is somewhat off-topic. I believe the point is, be fully aware of a situation before you use a term and be prepared to CHANGE if you find out a term is offensive to a certain person or group of people.
I personally find racialised form of address when used towards myself as endearing, and I SHOULD feel "otherised"  according to some perspectives.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> Another example is the practice in Dilli of calling all Asian-looking people "chinese". To a foreigner this may be offensive if he/she does not like the Chinese people. To a native of north-east India, such a term is tantamount to attacking their Indian nationality.



Indians are not Asians?


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> Indians are not Asians?


 Far-east looking. In Nepal they call them Mongol. I guess Mongoloid could be the term I'm looking for.


----------

