« Immigrants less diverse? | Gene Expression Front Page | Blink! »
September 01, 2003

The confession of crime?

While doing my research for the guest blog for Aziz over @ unmedia I came across this article from India Today. It is reports on the concentration of Muslims in the criminal sector of West Bengal. The Numbers are pretty stark-25% of the population contributes about 50% of the prisoners and fewer than 1% of medical and engineering students. One point to note is that it is plausible that the Muslim middle class in the west left for East Bengal (East Pakistan, later Bangladesh) after 1947 just as the east's Hindu elite (including Jyot Basu, former PM of West Bengal) fled to Calcutta. But, I am skeptical that Hindus are disproportionately found in the jails of Bangladesh, my father claims when he was a student at Dhaka University in the 1960s around half of the students were Hindu[1] and even today there is an overrepresentation of the minority religious community.

fn1. The number of Hindus in East Bengal has dropped from 25-30% in the 1950s to 10-15% today.

Posted by razib at 02:24 PM




My local paper noted last weekend that blacks were disproportionately represented among those brought to court.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/468/4070724.html

Their presumption is that this must reflect a bias in the process, conspiracy or latent racism.

How can one expect adversely affected minorities to rectify problems if their first instinct is to blame someone else? I know you shouldn't kick a dog when he's down, but if a group is failing or jailing at a disproportionate rate, why is it taboo to take these results at face value and ask why these people disproportionately engage in such behavior? Sort of like stating that 'intelligence' or 'race' doesn't exist. The quick PC response is to invalidate the assumption, however absurd it is to do so.

Godless's 'axiom of equality' implies that any excesses of historically disadvantaged minorities in unwelcome categorization is indicative of racism or other ugliness. Such is conventional wisdom.

Posted by: eric f at September 1, 2003 03:15 PM


What accounts for Muslims and Hindus/Sikhs performing so differently in Britain? They are racially the same.

I think Islam's tendency to perpetuate cross-cousin marriages haemorrhages IQ over time. Plausible?

Posted by: Peter Phillips at September 1, 2003 04:42 PM


What accounts for Muslims and Hindus/Sikhs performing so differently in Britain? They are racially the same

yes-but that is like saying "europeans" are racially the same, in a broad-view, yes, but sikhs are almost all punjabi. most of the hindus in britain are from what i know of gujarati origin-and about half of them came to england via east africa and are of the bania trader caste. of the "muslims," you have bangladeshis & pakistanis-two disparate racial groups.

but-your general point probably has some truth to it-insofar as sikhs and pakistani muslims are probably racially the same. one could make an assumption that there is selection bias in one that does not occur in the other (sikhs with more social capital come over to england than muslims)-but this is probably not correct as most south asians that come to the U.K. are of at least middling social origins....

here is a snip of an article from CITY JOURNAL about the south asian underclass in the UK:


This is not to deny that social factors in upbringing influence the way people think and make decisions. If the negligent and sometimes brutal incompetence of so much white British parenting (solicitously justified by liberal intellectuals and subsidized by the welfare state) explains the perpetuation and expansion of the white British underclass, if not its origins, could it be that the severity and rigidity of Indian upbringing, combined with British culture's siren song of self-gratification, explain the development of an Indian underclass? The fact that the Muslim population has a crime rate six times that of the Hindu and three times that of the Sikh suggests that it could, for the Muslim culture of the subcontinent has in general much greater difficulty compromising creatively with Western culture than the other two religions have. This startling difference is a further argument against those who would see in the development of an Indian underclass an inevitable response to racial prejudice: for it is surely unlikely that the racially prejudiced would trouble themselves to distinguish between Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus. Muslim parents are more reluctant than Sikh and Hindu parents to recognize that their children, having been brought up in a very different cultural environment from that in which they grew up, inevitably depart from their own traditional ways and aspire to a different way of life. While many Muslim parents send their daughters out of the country at the age of 12 to prevent them from becoming infected with local ideas (but as the Jesuits would tell them, it is already too late—they should send their daughters away at seven), very few Sikhs do so and no Hindus at all.

Parental inflexibility is an invitation to adolescent rebellion, and so it is hardly surprising that, in the developing Indian underclass, Muslims should predominate so strongly. But there are more ways of rebelling than one, and alas, rebellious Indian adolescents have an antinomian example to hand, in the shape of the preexisting British underclass. The popular culture tells them that to spit in the eye of everyone they can reach is a sign of moral election—insofar as it is possible to be morally elect in a world without moral judgment. The underclass life offers them the prospect of freedom without responsibility, whereas their parents offer them only responsibility without freedom. They are left to discover for themselves that the exercise of liberty requires virtue if it is not to turn into a nightmare.

as someone raised in the U.S. by muslim parents i can attest that a great deal of psychological stress is caused by the lack of realistic expectations that such parents have about raising their children in a non-muslim milieu.

Posted by: razib at September 1, 2003 05:36 PM


U lot dont know a thing!!!

being a muslim in the UK, I can firstly state that muslims do not have a 6 times crime rate higher than hindus and sikhs, lol.

Everything comes down to your surroundings and environment. If you lived in a rich suburb you would go to a good school and crime would not be on your mind. Whereas if you live in an inner city neighbourhood (ghetto) then crime would be rife as unemployment rates and bad schools are rife.

When the south asians settled here they all located in different areas and neighbourhoods -

Hindus - north West london, leicester (generally good areas) North east london - bad areas loads of hindus drug dealers and crime

Sikhs - south West london not bad area, west midlands - lots of sikh drug dealers in west mids, lots of crime

Muslims:- (3 different types all over the country)

Indian muslims (mainly gujeratis) - west London, Blackburn, Leeds, Leicester, Bately - good areas tending towards bad areas

Pakistanis - East + North London, Birmingham, West Midlands, Oldham, Nottingham, Manchester (Mostly inner city areas with high crime rates) - but now as the pakistanis and all other muslims are becoming more educated they tend to move to the suburbs and decent areas.

Bangladeshis - Tower Hamlets + Camden both inner city London areas, high crime, Oldham - decent.

Now reading ur other comment about muslims being sent away at 12??? (sent where, and why did you make this up?)

Britain would not be britain without muslims.

The high rate of sending children away back home is sikhs who send their daughters to india and most of them get murdered there after disagreeing to the family wedding.

Posted by: Sajid at September 9, 2003 03:10 PM


please never argue with muslim they are the most mindless bastards.

Posted by: Naveen at September 17, 2003 06:28 AM


If you look at university you will always notice that muslims are always 9/10 the ones smoking drugs, selling dodgy phones and trying to associate with all the ladies, they are basically a bunch of dopeheads. Is it no wonder they are never going to make progress and end up causing problems especially up north Bradford riots, why dont hindus or sikhs riot and skin up like muslims??... face it hindus and sikhs and class above muslims, always have been always will be... it all goes back to the beginning when they all converted...silly doughnuts.

Posted by: Dinesh Kacharia at October 10, 2003 10:04 AM