Cultural Differences between India and Australia

Both Australia and India are former British colonies with a love of cricket; however,
Britains interest in each was vastly different. In India, Britain wanted to make money.
In Australia, Britain wanted a dumping ground for the people it considered to be
human garbage.
The different motivations in each land affected how Britain respectively managed
them. In India, Britain exploited a pre-existing caste system in ways that may have
strengthened it. Specifically, British commercial interests formed strong relationships
with the Indian upper classes, which in turn allowed them to exploit the lower classes
and even export them as indentured labour throughout the British Commonwealth.
While Britain demonstrated flattery when dealing with India, with Australia, they used
every opportunity to punish Convicts and then informed their cultural descendants
that they were morally and physically degenerate because of their heritage. The result
was a society that came to hate class divisions and became known for its
egalitarianism.
Australia

India
Population

GDP per capita

($US)
GDP composition by
sector:

Public debt

1,220,800,359 (July 2013 22,262,501 (July

est.)
2013 est.)
$4,000 (2013 est.)

$43,000 (2013 est.)

agriculture: 16.9%

agriculture: 3.8%

industry: 17%

industry: 27.4%

services: 66.1% (2013

est.)

services: 68.7%
(2013 est.)

51.8% of GDP (2013 est.)

32.6% of GDP (2013

est.)
1

Racial groups

Export partners

Indo-Aryan 72%,
Dravidian 25%,
Mongoloid and other 3%

White 92%, Asian

7%, Aboriginal and
other 1%

UAE 12.3%, US 12.2%,

China 5%, Singapore
4.9%, Hong Kong 4.1%
(2012)

Japan 19.6%, China

12.3%, South Korea
7.5%, US 6.2%,
India 5.5%, NZ
5.5%, UK 5% (2006)

From CIA World Fact Book

History

The Out of Africa theory of human evolution proposes that anatomically modern
humans would have reached India 73-55,000 years ago; however, the earliest evidence
unearthed to date is only about 30,000 years ago. (Evidence of Homo erectus in India
has been found to date back 300,000 years and some theories of evolution propose
Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens.)
Cave paintings at the Bhimbetka rock shelters record the various changes in Indian
society. Paintings from Palaeolithic era 10,000 + years ago have animals as the chief
subject, which is fairly typical of hunter gatherer societies. Human figures start
appearing in the Mesolithic era 5,000 to 10,000 years ago when agriculture was
believed to have commenced in India; however, the figures show hunting and lack the
hierarchical signs of status typically found in agricultural societies. Paintings from the
Neolithic era between 4,500 and 2,000 BC depict contact with agricultural groups.
Caste

Indian social structure is governed by the caste system (which is illegal but survives in
culture.) At the top of the hierarchy is the Brahmin, who are priests and
teachers. Next is the Kshatriya, who are landowners and rulers. The third is the bania,
who are the businessmen, and the shundra, who are the labourers. At the bottom are
the pariahs, commonly referred to as the untouchables or dalits.
Some theories propose that the caste system was established by the Aryans so that
only they could be the priests (Brahman), aristocracy (Kshatria) and the businessmen

(Vaisia) of the society. The Hindu religion affirmed the caste system by proposing that
individuals could achieve nirvana by conforming to caste expectations.
Although it seemed to have Hindu origins, Buddhists and Muslims also embraced the
system. It has been argued that British colonists also saw it as a useful system for
organising society and thus strengthened it.
While India is caste orientated, Australia is arguably the most egalitarian society in the
developed world. There is a strong sense that the class someone is born in is not the
class that they need to die in. There is also a sense people from all walks of life can sit
down together to share a drink.
While Australia is not very class conscious today, it was highly class conscious in its
penal era. There was marked division between those who came to Australia in penal
servitude and those who were free settlers. After transportation ended, division
continued between those who were descendants of free settlers and those who had a
Convict in their ancestry. (Aborigines tended to be seen as allies by both sides and
each accused the other of injustice towards Aborigines.)
The elevation of bushrangers to icon status (accompanied by songs celebrating their
values) went a considerable way to eroding class pretentions. This was followed up
with unions portraying anyone who made a profit as a capitalist pig or crook.
Informally, a cultural sympathy to the underdog eroded any status that one may have
harboured at the top of the social pyramid. For example, the trucking
magnate Lindsay Fox (who was worth $350 million at the time), said of Australia:
'We don't have a class structure. We have people who relate to people. No body is
superior. No body is inferior. The people who I went to school with collect the
garbage around here. But if they want to come in and have a drink, that's fine with
me.'
Indians accustomed to being high in the caste system can suffer decline-in-status
syndrome when they visit Australia as they find themselves being treated equal to a
garbage collector or toilet cleaner. They then can become angry an accuse Australians
of racism.

Religion

Throughout its history, India has fluctuated between tolerance and intolerance of
religious diversity. Some Buddhist, Hindu and Islamic rulers have been quite happy
for the general population to continue their faiths while others have tried to impose
their religions on the population. The partition of the subcontinent into Muslim and
Hindu areas reflected a belief that, in the 20th century, religious differences were too
much for the population to overcome. Since partition, religious violence has suggested
that perhaps those views were correct.
Hinduism is practiced by around 80% of India's population. Hindus believe in a cycle
of death and rebirth. They also believe that individuals can be liberated from the cycle
and achieve a state of eternal bliss through worship of the gods, following laws, doing
good work and conforming to the expectations of their caste.
Muslims make up 12% of the total population. Indian Muslims conform to the basic
pillars of Islamic faith which includes a pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting during
Ramadan, giving to charity, praying 5 times a day, and accepting the confession of
faith. There doesnt seem to be the same conflict between the Sunni and Shia Muslims
that is common in other Islamic countries.
Australia is a secular society with almost no religious violence by world standards.
The 2011 census found that 61.14% of Australians identified as Christian, 2.5% as
Buddhist and 2.2% as Muslim.
Racism

India and Australia approach racism in very different ways. The Indian approach tends
to deny that racism could possibly exist in India while the Australian approach tends
to exaggerate racism to portray their country as the land of pointy hats, Nazi salutes
and burning crosses.
Some of the different approaches to racism were seen in 2009 when an Indian
player, Harbhajan Singh, referred to an Australian player of African heritage, Andrew
Symmonds, as a monkey. (The Indian player had previously referred to Symmonds as
a monkey in India when Symmonds had been subjected to monkey chants by the
Indian crowd.) Symmonds put in a complaint and Singh was found guilty of racial
abuse by a neutral match referee. The Indian Board threatened to withdraw from the
tour unless the decision was overturned in the subsequent appeal. For the Indian
4

board, the notion that an Indian could be racist was unacceptable. The issue of Indian
crowds making monkey chants or an Indian player referring calling a player of
African heritage a monkey didn't bother them like it did Australians.
While denying an Indian could be racist, the Indian media was keen to portray
Australians as the true racists. Over the following months, Indian media began
running stories of Australian police reports which indicated that Indian students were
disproportionately represented in victim of crime statistics. The police attributed the
overrepresentation as stemming from a cultural trait of Indians to display their wealth
more prominently than other groups. For the Indian media, this constituted blaming
the victim. Their readers agreed and to protest, they burnt effigies of Australian prime
minister Kevin Rudd and made references to Australias penal heritage. (The media
chose to ignore that the statistics showed that the perpetrators of the attacks were often
recent migrants themselves, thus they werent descendents of the Convicts that
supposedly made Australians racist and immoral.)
The situation escalated in late 2009 when Indian media reported that an Indian had
been set on fire and another had been murdered. When the Australian police explained
that it was too early to conclude the attacks had been racially motivated, one Indian
newspaper published a cartoon of the Australian police in KKK hoods. It later
emerged that the burnt Indian had accidently set himself on fire in an insurance scam
and the murdered Indian had been killed by fellow Indians.
The politics of meat

In both India and Australia, the consumption of meat is political. Hindus dont eat
cows and have had a clause inserted in the constitution that demands that lawmakers
should work to prevent the slaughter of cows. Muslims dont eat pork and consider
anyone who eats pork to be dirty. Dalits (untouchables) generally eat meat as do
Sikhs. In recent years, Dalit groups have publicly eaten meat as a form of activism
against those religious figures who tell them not to.
In Australia, the politics of meat are more concerned with individual ethics than with
religious adherence. Whale and dolphin meat is banned and many Australians
campaign against its consumption in Japan (consumption by Norway and Australian
Aboriginal groups doesn't seem to be a concern.) Native animals such as kangaroos
are somewhat controversial, with some Australians proposing that kangaroos should
be eaten and some saying they shouldnt be. Beef, pork, chicken and beef are readily
5

eaten but there is some concern about the way they are farmed. Large supermarkets
have started responding to customer concerns with free range meat where the animal
is raised outside of cages and feedlots before being slaughtered. Some Australians are
vegetarians due to concern about animal cruelty.
White skin

Fair skin is a very desirable characteristic in India. It frequently appears as a sales

pitch in personal adds, defines many Indian models and helps sustain a skin whitening
industry.
Some people have proposed that the positioning of white skin at the apex of Indian
beauty stems from the west positioning itself as superior to the local Indian culture.
Others have proposed it is a side-effect of Hindu legends of white heroes battling
black demons. Finally, it may reflect a socio-economic association that stems from
lower castes being dark because they spend more time in the sun doing work and
higher castes being light because they spend more time in the shade relaxing.
In Australia, darker skin is considered desirable and it is far more likely that
Australians will use tanning creams or a tanning salon than buy a skin whitening
product. Perhaps the socioeconomic association in Australia is that tanned people have
the free time to relax on the beach or are healthier because they play sport.
Admittedly, although darker skin may be considered desirable by many Australians,
high profile models and actors are almost always Caucasian with relatively fair skin.
Perhaps the dominance of white female models and actors can be attributed to the
political sensitivities of using non-white models and actors. One sensitivity is that the
sexualisation of a non-white female will elicit some criticism about pandering to a
fetish or stereotyping non-white female as sexually predatory. Consequently, it is
much safer to use a white woman in a sexually suggestive pose than a non-white
woman. Another sensitivity is that, if a non-white is culturally defined, the role will
elicit accusations of exploiting stereotypes or caricaturing a culture; however, if the
non-white is not culturally defined, there may be accusations of assimilation. For
example, when the Aboriginal actor Deborah Mailman was cast in the drama The
Secret Life of Us, film producer Jeff Puser criticised the role because:

Homosexuality

Homosexual sex is illegal in India. Some have proposed that the aversion to
homosexuality stems from a sacred Hindu text that states what seems unnatural is also
unnatural. The text aside, homosexuality is not mentioned in Hindu texts and various
adherents have taken positions ranging from positive, neutral to antagonistic. Some
have proposed that India's aversion to homosexuality is a hangover from the Islamic
Mughal dynasty. Islam justifies an aversion to homosexuality with the story of Sodom
and Gomorrah where god destroyed a people because they engaged in carnal acts
between men.
The aversion to homosexuality may also be a side effect of Indias culture of arranged
marriages where homosexuality would potentially be a barrier to marriages occurring
and producing descendants. Furthermore, arranged marriages largely dismiss the
wishes and attractions of those getting married.
In Australia, homosexuals have been very visable in politics and entertainment since
the various Australian states decriminalised homosexual sex between the 1972 and
1997. Today, the debate is not whether it is wrong for people of the same gender to
have sex, but whether people of the same sex in long term relationships should be
legally allowed to refer to the relationships as a marriage rather than a civil union.
The changing and unchanging constitutions

The Australian political system makes an interesting contrast with India, which has
also been shaped by previous British rule, but has undergone a great deal of change
since gaining independence from Britain. Whereas the Australian constitution has
hardly changed since 1901, the Indian constitution has been one of the most amended
national documents in the world with more than 80 alterations since it declared itself a
republic on January 26, 1950. Much of the change has resulted from disputes between
parliament and the Supreme Court.
India's constiution proposes that all citizens have the right to vote, freedom of speech,
expression, belief, association, migration and choice of occupation or trade. These
rights are intended to protect Indians from discrimination based on sex, race, religion,
or creed. Of course, what is written in the constitution doesn't always translate to
culture. Many Indian women feel they are discriminated in education and the
workforce. The caste system discriminates according to ethnicity and religious
conflict is rife.
7

Australia's constitution doesn't contain any rights proposing to free speech, expression
or association. Furthermore, rather than criminalise racial discrimination, the
constiution gives the federal government the power to racially discriminate where it
sees fit. Specifically, Australia's constitution was written at a time that unions wanted
to exclude foreign labour, especially from China and the Pacific. They succeeded in
giving the federal government the power to pass laws targeted at any race except
Aborigines. The intention was to give the federal government the power to advantage
whites who might be having trouble competing with non-white labour or disadvantage
non-whites competing with whites. In 1967, the race power clause was extended so
that the federal government could make laws to advantage Aborigines.

Language and identity

Around 41 per cent of Indians speak Hindi as their first language. Other languages
spoken include Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, Urdu, Gujarati, Malayalam,
Kannada, Oriya, Punjabi, Assamese, Kashmiri, Sindhi, Sanskrit, and Hindustani. Due
to historical friction between speakers of the various languages, it is sometimes said
that 'Hindi divides and English unites.' Basically, English is a neutral language, which
makes it a suitable language for national, political, and commercial communication.
Most Indians are therefore able to speak English.
English is the only official language of Australia and is spoken at home by around 80
per cent of Australians. Although it is not an Australian language, the manner it is
spoken reveals something about the type of divisions that have shaped the Australian
identity. In England, accents vary according to class and region. In America, they vary
according to race and region. Unlike America or England, Australia has no variance in
accents according to class, race or region. Instead, the accent varies according to
ideology or gender. Two Australians can grow up side by side, go to the same schools,
do the same job, but end up speaking English using different words, different syntax
and with different accents. In fact, due to the gender variance, a brother and sister can
grow up in the same house and end up speaking differently.
Australia has three recognised accents. About ten per cent of Australians speak like
ex-prime minister Bob Hawke with what is known as a broad Australian accent. The
broad Australian accent is usually spoken by men. 80 per cent speak like Nicole
Kidman with a general Australian accent. 10 per cent speak like ex Prime
8

Minister Malcolm Fraser with British received pronunciation or cultivated English.

Although some men use the pronunciation, the majority of Australians that speak with
the accent are women.
Cricket

India is defined by its diversity of cuisines, religions, political beliefs, customs and
languages. Sport is the one area where there is relative homogeneity. As a result,
cricket can act as a social glue like nothing else in India can.
Elitism seemed to be an early attraction for Indians to cricket. In the 19th century,
princely rulers and rich members of Indian society embraced the game in order to gain
the prestige that the British attached to the game. Overtime, the popularity filtered
down to the grassroots population.
Whereas India is very monocultural when it comes to sporting passions, Australia is
very multicultural. Cricket competes with Australian football, rugby league, rugby
union, soccer and basketball for hearts and minds. It is difficult to judge accurately
where cricket resides in the sporting hierarchy. In 2007, a survey by Sweeney Sports
found that 52% of the Australian public had an interest in cricket; however, arguably
their passion for cricket was nothing like that evoked by Australian football and rugby
league. As a result of relatively low passion, over the last two decades, baseball,
soccer and basketball have all moved their leagues to summer time when cricket is
played because it was seen as less competition than the football codes.
As well as lacking the same hold on the Australian psyche as it has on the Indian
psyche, cricket in Australia has a very different history. Basically, it has been a vehicle
for the English to communicate their prejudices against Australians and for
Australians to respond with bat and ball. In 1868, the first cricket team to leave
Australia was comprised solely of Aborigines. Upon arrival in England, The Times
newspaper described the tourists as, "a travesty upon cricketing at Lords", and, "the
conquered natives of a convict colony."
While some sections of English society considered them to be a travesty, they were a
popular one. So much so, the demands placed upon them were nothing short of
horrendous. In a gruelling five month stay, they played 47 games and upon
completion of each game, they also gave an exhibition of 'native sports', including
boomerang and spear throwing. Admittedly, there were no pre-metasexual Shane
9

Warnes or Greg Ritchies (aka Fat Cat) in the team, but the fact the tour was completed
with only one death and two players sent home suffering sever illness must be seen as
an incredible feat of endurance.
The results were also equally impressive. Despite the onerous schedule, having no
history in the game and playing in a foreign culture, the team managed 14 wins, 14
losses and 19 draws. One team member Johnny Mullagh - bowled 1877 overs, 831 of
them maidens, hit 2489 runs and took 245 wickets at an average of 10. An English fast
bowler of the time, George Tarrant,bowled to Mullagh and later said, "I have never
bowled to a better batsman."
Clothing

Indias caste and religious values have influenced the manner that people dress. On
the whole, Indians are quite conservative with the exposure of skin. Women are
expected to dress modestly with their legs covered. For men, shorts are a sign of low
caste and are thus avoided by everyone except the low caste.
Australia doesnt have strong religious mores governing dress nor obsessive concerns
with signalling distance from poverty. As a consequence, Australians often dress in
ways that Indians would associate with prostitutes or the low class. Specifically,
women often wear shorts or mini-skirts that reveal a great of skin. It is generally taboo
to criticise a woman for being sexually liberated so other women who dislike the
choice of attire may make a comment like, she must be cold", which is a political
correct way of saying a woman has put the attraction of others above her own
comfort.
Australian men have a reputation for dressing down. In international business, it is
sometimes said that if you want to know if a businessman is Australian, you should
look at his shoes (the implication is that Australians dont care enough to polish their
shoes.) On the streets, it is common to see men in shorts, thongs, singlets and tattered
clothing. Even when Australian men try to dress up, they may mess up their hair so it
seems they seem to be apathetic about their appearance.
Toileting

Indians dont use toilet paper. Instead, they either use their left hands to wipe or
splash water over their anuses. As a consequence, they dont eat with their left hands

10

or use them to pass money or gifts. Furthermore, lovers walking hand-in-hand dont
have the same romantic connation that they have in other cultures.
Australians use toilet paper, which acts as a barrier between faeces and hand.
Furthermore, they wash their hands afterwards. Although toilet paper tends to smear
thus doesnt clean as effectively as water potentially can, the hands remain clean for
cooking, holding hands and picking things up. As a result, there is no taboo on hand
usage.
Hosting barbeques and bringing plates

Indians often pride themselves on their hospitality so when they invite a guest to their
home for a meal, they dont expect the guest to bring anything except themselves.
Provided that the host and guests have similar tastes in food and beverages, a good
time is then had by all.
In Australia, it is customary for guests to bring a bottle of wine or perhaps a dessert.
Since good wine can be very expensive, bringing wine saves the host a great deal of
money. Furthermore, different Australians have very different tastes in wine so if all
guests bring a bottle to share, they will get to taste a variety of wines and be sure that
at least one of the wines will be to their tastes.
When having barbeques in public locations, such as parks, it is customary for the
organiser to tell guests to bring a dish, which means a meal to share. This saves the
organiser from having to provide for everyone and also ensures that the diversity of
tastes are more likely to be catered for. Furthermore, if any guest has religious or
ethnical concerns about certain foods, they can take it upon themselves to cater for
their own concerns and perhaps allow others to sample an alternative. Sometimes a
similar kind of gathering is held in the home and it is called a "pot-luck" party. Tasting
a variety of foods brought by different guests is the main idea of the gathering.
Corruption

At a federal level, Australian politicians have shown a desire to control the media in
ways that are borderline corrupt, but on the whole, most corruption scandals have
been limited to local and state governments. India, on the other hand, has a long
history of corruption at the federal level. This can be partly attributed to specific
families and specific parties dominating. To deal with potential cronyism, some ruling

11

parties have tried to keep changing the ministers around to make it less likely that
entrenched relationships can be exploited.

12