This was a post a long time coming. Not because it contains some scoop on current events – just that after Vinod invited me, and then checking with the rest of the Mutiny, I wanted to be sure that whatever I eventually wrote would be timely. So with time running out, I sat down to post on the unintended consequences of a higher profile for brown folks in the U.S. Most of the focus will be on Indian-Americans specifically, because that is what I am more familiar with. But, in past postings, one idea that has often been tossed about is that IA’s should adopt the stance of more prominent minority groups to garner more attention to its own causes. However, on of the advantages of being a relatively more recent arrival is that you get to learn the consequences of earlier methods – both planned and unintended.Last week, I received my copy of The Israel Lobby, a book by John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Stephen Walt (Harvard) that argues domestic lobbying, rather than strategic concerns, shape American policy in the Middle East. They first published their thoughts in a shorter essay version that was published in the London Review of Books back in March 2006 – an essay that received both praise and criticism. Without going too deep into the book (since this blog is focused on South Asian matters), the authors do make a reference to Indian Americans. On page 11, they write, “… Indian Americans have rallied to support the recent security treaty and nuclear cooperation agreement.†The role of Indian-Americans in shaping policy was also touched upon by Edward Luce in his book In Spite of the Gods, who wrote about, “… the almost 2 million two million people of Indian origin based in the United States had become a strong new voice in U.S. politics.†(page 278).
How does this relate to South Asia? Well, many ethnic groups use the Jewish model as something to structure their own lobbying efforts. But becoming too dominant in a region where America has different, sometimes conflicting interests, would harm both the U.S. and India. Secondly, in order to wield influence effectively, it is sometimes necessary to cut off internal debate, so as to present a more united front to Congress. In the case of the Israel Lobby, M&W argue the viewpoint it presents does not accurately reflect the varied opinion of Jewish voters in the U.S. So, an Indian lobby wishing to emulate groups like AIPAC or the ADL may wind up silencing dissenting voices that should be heard.
For example, after the attack on India’s parliament in December 2001, there was plenty of domestic pressure on the government in New Delhi to strike back, if not at Pakistan directly, then at a minimum some terrorist training camps in the Pakistani portion of Kashmir. If there existed an Indian lobby that focused solely on Pakistani-sponsored terrorism, which was as dominant as the Israeli lobby, you had the risk that the U.S. would not have tried to restrain India, thereby making a bad situation even worse. Instead, the U.S. managed to pull India and Pakistan back from the brink. Arguably, Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent was a more immediate reason that India did not strike, as discussed in Sumit Ganguly’s and Devin Hagerty’s Fearful Symmetry, but lack of domestic pressure politics allowed the Bush Administration to approach the crisis with a greater leeway than it has in the Mideast. The Bush Administration was able to offer enough incentives to both Islamabad and New Delhi to cool down the rhetoric. In Pakistan’s case, it was being designated a major non-NATO ally, a status enjoyed by South Korea and Australia. In India’s case, it was the nuclear deal. Another calming factor was now that India is “back-office to the worldâ€, it had more to lose by going to war.
In contrast, when the Democratic-controlled Congress drafted spending bills for the Iraq war, it withdrew a section that would have required the President to seek Congressional authority before it undertook any military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. AIPAC put tremendous pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and that portion of the bill was dropped. For an administration that is stuck in Iraq, allowing it the freedom to bomb Iran does not promote stability in the region or Israeli security.
While Indian American lobbying efforts will probably increase in the coming years, it seems that Indo-American relations will proceed along two tracks. In matters of regional security, lobbying efforts will take a back seat to old fashioned self-interest, by both India and the U.S. The increased military cooperation between India and the U.S. seems more focused on regional stability and not against any one country. For American hawks that worry about a rising China and see India as a counterweight, keep in mind that the level of trade between India and China is increasing rapidly. Indians are not likely to be foot soldiers for American adventurism in the region, but having been beaten by China once on the battlefield in 1962, and knowing that Pakistan’s nukes came with a Made in China sticker on it – India is not going to let China dictate terms. A partnership with America helps in that effort.
The second track – the economic one – is probably where lobbying by Indian Americans will be more prominent. Whether it is giving campaign contributions, or sending strongly worded complaints when candidates put their foot in their mouths, such as Obama’s camp did a couple of weeks ago – it is in the economic arena that Indian American efforts will yield results more quickly.
This is fine by me – a nation’s security policy should put its own interests first, and not worry about immigrant lobbies or, in India’s case, diasporic communities which advocate taking an extreme position, but not risking anything themselves.
What about lobbying by Indian (not yet) Americans as in DBDs who are on their way to a Greencard and eventual Citizenship? Check out http://www1.immigrationvoice.org/
I can’t speak for what was the incentive offered to Pakistan but I think it sheer imagination to say that “nuclear deal” was put on the platter as an incentive to India to desist from retaliation. The Indo-US deal was in the offing much before 9/11 or Dec 2001 because of the so called Next steps in Strategic partnership (NSSP) initiated by Vajpayee and Clinton forg reater civilian nuclear co-operation and high technology trade.
KXB, Thx. for an interesting and important post. It does seem to me that the desi tendency to go first for the Jewish analogy on this sort of topic is misplaced–really, a bit of hubris on our part. Why not analogize to Cubans, Koreans, Taiwanese, etc. We desis are not white, not Euro-culture focussed, and have a huge and poor Desh–all of which seem like significant dis-analogies to the Jewish situation. I suspect that the situation where we desis can get the most bang for our political buck in the short-term is in keeping trade relatively open(“free”) and immigration available–I don’t think influencing geo-politics is really on the table yet–even Israel just gets “defended”–the US still arms, e.g., the Saudis with hi-tech weapons, even though Israel would prefer the US not to.
If the American multinational companies around the world can influence the foreign policy of America vis-avis foreign govts. and also the policies of the foreign govts vis-a-vis international trade ( either directly or indirectly through the US Ste dept.) I don’t see anything wrong in any lobbyist from any ethnic group ( citizens or otherwise ) trying to peddle their interests in truly capitalist and global economy.
My understanding is that the NSPP was announced in January 2004, and then implemented in September of that same year
“Lost Tango in Washington” 11/15/2004
“On September 17 Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran and US Under Secretary of Commerce Kenneth Juster signed an agreement inaugurating the implementation of the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP) announced by President Bush and Prime Minister Vajpayee in January this year.”
As an aside – It would be also interesting to mention that Edward Luce’s wife is a desi ( they live in DC). And that he had access to many people in the corridors of power because his father-in-law was a bureacrat in the Indian govt. He also acknowledges his help in the book if you read the Preface. And he himself mentions that this book is partly for and because of his wife.
But KXB, Priya is right that Indo-US nuclear deal was first brought during Clinton-Vajpayee tenure. There was a lot of discussion that if India could/ would join NPT/ CTBC.
There is quite a bit paper trail in this regard.
Economics, and USA having no stable peg in South and West Asia has played a big part.
In October, 2001, India was offered a more comprehensive defense alliance that India turned down, something similar to Japan, Australia. They were serious pros- and cons-. India Today even published copies of those deals.
There will never be a cohesive Indian-American lobby. There’s no common thread from Indian administration to administration, so whatever we might advocate here may not have significant support back in India. If you read some of the comment boards, even the right wing in India is angry at the India lobby for pushing the nuke deal.
You and Vinod need to start an unabashedly Indo-centric blog, I’ll join you there. I do enjoy Sepia Mutiny but the over riding ethos here is one that discourages me from identifying a villain, even when I am itching to do so
Kush,
Strobe Talbott, who was Clinton’s point man on South Asia after the May 98 nuclear tests, wrote in Engaging India that the Clinton Administration was trying several approaches with the Indians, but they all seemed to stumble on the fact that Clinton wanted India to sign the NPT or CTBT. Early ideas included a proposed American-Russian-Chinese troika (page 68), then issuing a US-Chinese communique condemning the blasts (page 91). Finally he assigned Talbott to engage in one on one talks with Jaswant Singh. He recounts the series of meetings, some friendly, others testy – but the impression I drew from his book was that while meetings were regularly scheduled, actual progress was not measurable.
Furthermore, a Republican-controlled Congress, which was not too thrilled about either the President or the two treaties, meant that Clinton was probably not going to be able to deliver on certain promises. By early 1999, on page 142, Talbott writes,
With that political balance, India was certain that Clinton could not deliver on any promises, and so U.S.-India talks made little headway, which Talbott admits.
While the Clinton administration may have made some initial suggestions about nuclear cooperation with India, keep in mind that India was still extremely hostile to Pakistan. From the American and Indian perspective at that time, nuclear cooperation was un-related to improving Indo-Pakistani relations – it was more about trying to salvage the nonproliferation regime. Bush generally shares India’s view – that focusing on nonproliferation is a no-hoper. By the time Singh became Prime Minister, the nuclear deal had developed far more to where to was tangible to the Indians. There does seem to be a POV in India now that improving relations with Pakistan will improve the chances of the nuclear deal coming into force.
Classy. 😉
Thank you, sincerely, for the first five words of that, but the remainder leaves me depressed. You feel oppressed? Repressed? Censored? If you can “identify a villain” without violating the comment policy, then there should be nothing stopping you. “Ethos” can mean ethics, there’s nothing wrong with having some o’ those.
I certainly don’t feel oppressed…I just accept the fact that many of the SM bloggers identify as South Asian rather than Indian-American. I don’t see the point of being needlessly contentious with people I like (but disagree with) when there are/could be other venues for people with a similar mindset to discuss the regional politics of the subcontinent.
“a nation’s security policy should put its own interests first, and not worry about immigrant lobbies or, in India’s case, diasporic communities which advocate taking an extreme position, but not risking anything themselves “
This is a very simplistic statement and leaves many open holes to quash its logic. Firstly security policy of any nation is not made in vacuum. There are a whole lot of actors involved who peddle their interests along with the nation’s interest ( and vice versa ). The reason why America sometime “listens” to lobbyists is because America has some interest too. Will America blindly listen to immigrant or diasporic lobbyist without have some self-serving interest ? And by the same logic Indians policy makers whenever they have some self-serving interest, care for the diasporic communities’ positions. And maybe diasporic community sometimes care for the policies of their country of ancestral origin because of just familial connections like Edward Luce.
I would ban foreign lobbies. You got a case, make an appointment, make your case. And then get lost. It is embarassing how politicians are so afraid of AIPAC. Lieberman should have enlisted his kids in the mandatory military service in Israel since he loves Israel more than the US(Yes it is an assumption on my part, but I believe it). I have no wish for the Indian lobby to be as obnoxious as the Israeli lobby.
That, I think, is unfair and untrue. (Full disclosure–I went to law school with Lieberman’s son, though I didn’t know him esp. well.) I do think, though, that we have to stop thinking in terms of a false dichotomy between “emulate the Jews” (which I think just won’t work, because of the dis-analogous situations–I certainly wouldn’t object if it would work–but that is idle “uncle” chit-chat) & “keep our heads down”–there’s a lot we can do, but we have to keep our (short-term) expectations in check, and resist the temptation to facile analogies.
USA:israel vs. USA:india
do you note a difference? let’s assume for argument’s sake that indian americans are analogous to jewish americans, india and israel are very different nations. israel is a small new jersey sized nation whose international relation dynamics are constrained by a few finite (if intractable) parameters. india is the size of western europe and on the cusp of being an international power. as many american jews in the USA as israel, and a substantial proportion of israeli citizens live in the USA (not only do many american jews have dual citizenship, but a large number of israeli sabras have immigrated to the USA and created a diaspora [irony!]).
so
1) the ties that bind israel demographically to the USA are very strong in proportion to israel itself
2) israel is a much smaller player in relation to the lobby which is invested in it than any potential indian american lobby and india
the power of the israel lobby is a function of jewish americans, but, it is also a function that israel is a small and compact entity with precise and constrained needs. even assuming that indian americans can ever be as powerful as jewish americans the entity upon which this power will be bearing is orders of magnitude more sizeable in population and area, and i would argue substantial more buffeted by a host of diverse parameters.
15 · razib_the_atheist
Amen! See, e.g., bill Riker & public choice theory in general!
re: the analogy to jewish americans. here are some issues…
1) jewish americans are united by a common ethnicity far more than indian americans are.
yes, people talk of polish, hungarian and russian jews, but these are all ashkenazi groups which derive from the same yiddish speaking milieu. their identification as citizens of poland, hungary and russia were relative recent incidents (russian jews were russian because of the absorption of eastern poland late in the 18th century). in the USA there was some tension early in the 20th century between german jews and the eastern europeans, but the german jews were descended from bavarians who were themselves only recently emerged from the yiddish milieu (if at all), and eastern european jews (from galicia or lithuania) generally assimilated to a great extent to reform judaism (which was founded by germans in the USA).
(i know of the early presence of sephardic jews, and the current persian jewish community in LA, but socio-culturally they are marginal and can be ignored in the algebra)
2) jewish americans crystallized their identity in a ghetto america where intermarriage was not much of an issue until the 1960s (when it started going north of 10%). that means that there were nearly three generations (and at least two) in most families of communal endogamy and the creation of a subculture by necessity because of gentile exclusion. thanks to the civil rights revolution and the public unacceptability of racism indian americans aren’t created their identity in the same environment. in fact, the intermarriage rates are already in the 20-40% range for the 1.5 and 2nd generation indian americans, suggesting far quicker assimilation to the american substrate (at their peak jews were 4.5% of the american population around 1950, indian americans are only around 1% now)
so there is some use in the analogy, but the jewish scenario is probably the boundary condition, and one that won’t be attained.
(let’s not get into the barriers between collective action between those of disparate ethnic, linguistic and caste origins)
public choice theory
you might be amused that i was hanging out in james buchanan’s office last month. didn’t meet the great man, but a buddy shares office space with him.
also, and to be clear, i think the analogy of taiwan and cuba works for the israeli situation, not the indian one. again, taiwan and cuba are small countries with narrow parameters of action which concerted action can have the possibility of affecting. right now the pakistan-indian issue looms very large, but if indian continues to the back-office to the world it won’t be able to suck up so much oxygen.
Kewl!! I love his stuff.
Yes–fair point. My broader point was the one you articulate far better than me–the desi:Jewish analogy fails to convince. I’m not sure there is a good analogy for desis-we need to be careful about making them
Kewl!! I love his stuff.
Yes–fair point. My broader point was the one you articulate far better than me–the desi:Jewish analogy fails to convince. I’m not sure there is a good analogy for desis-we need to be careful about making them & reason more from first principles.
sorry–not sure why previous comment duplicates–pls. cut duplication if poss.
KXB:
I rarely visit this blog, but I did today, and I’m really glad I stumbled upon this post 🙂
One thing that I would like to mention is another point of interest for the IA lobbies (such as the USINPAC)is that they mention that India and Israel share a “natural affinity:” both are democracies, both are “ancient” peoples, both are surrounded by hostile enemies which existentially threaten them (Pakistanis and Palestinians respectively), both are fighting “terrorism,” and that they are both nuclear powers. India is- if I’m remembering a recent Congressional report correctly- the biggest client of Israeli weapons as well. There was also talk about building a political-military triad composed of the US, India, and Israel.
I think one thing to remember is that how successful diasporic lobbies in the US are is contingent on the dynamics that are going in those countries. It wasn’t until the BJP that an Israeli prime minister set foot on Indian soil for the first time, and judging from their remarks, the deals, and policy papers (you can search them on university databases) that came out during that era really pushed for forging more military and political cooperation between Israel and India vis-a-vis the US. That, I think, was echoed here by IA lobbies around the same time, which acquired a more responsive Congress, but not until around the Clinton years (which was also the same time that major liberalization went on in India). IA lobbies up until then percieved the US government to be more “pro Pakistani” until the Kargil conflict in which IA mobilized politically (not for politics here at home, mind you, but something overseas). It was also the same time that India and the US was building bilateral agreements in light of the major liberalization was going through.
My point is that IA lobbies can push for “pro India” causes, Pakistani lobbies can promote “pro Pakistan” causes, and American Jewish lobbies can mobilize for Israel all that they want, but that doesn’t mean they are always going to recieve a warm reception from Congress, unless the US has some interests in those countries (I agree with the facts that Mearsheimer and Waltz have pulled up, the digging they have done, and so on, but I don’t entirely agree with their argument. I think it’s every diasporic lobby’s fantasy to hear that they achieved some sort of “homeland” victory due to their own Herculean (read: lots of money spent) efforts 🙂 )
if I’m remembering a recent Congressional report correctly- the biggest client of Israeli weapons as well.
It is more complicated than that – Russia is the number one seller to India, and then Israel. That is true, that Israel has accelerated to No. 2 position very fast. I think one thing to remember is that how successful diasporic lobbies in the US are is contingent on the dynamics that are going in those countries. It wasn’t until the BJP that an Israeli prime minister set foot on Indian soil for the first time,
It is more complicated than that – around 1965 – India and Israel have had clandestine relationships, with Israel providing spares during 1965, 1971, and 1998 wars. In late 80s- early 90s, Israel asked India to give them permission for refueling their fighter planes because they wanted to bomb all the Pakistan nuclear facilities, like they did for Iraq. India balked. General Moshe Dayan – one eyed patched General – a bigger legend, and infinitely more egotistical than Israeli ever – visited India secretly in 1977-78, with a fake beard, and wig. Morarji Deseai, then PM had to cough this up in Lok Sabha when confronted.
Israel lobby has been cornerstone of US policy since 1967 – why not – Israel PM Golda Mier was once a American from Wisconsin.
I just reread my comment and one part is written poorly- second paragraph.
US relations with South Asia prior to the 90’s were mostly based on the fact that Pakistan was considered an ally of the US in which IA lobbies/ political forces felt that the US was “pro-Pakistan.” It was pro Pakistan because India was considered to be socialist, Pakistan was geo-politically significant during the Cold War (ie Soviet-Afghan war in which the ISI played the essential middleman).
In the 90’s, however, this turned around. India had not only liberalized in the late 80’s, but its liberalization accelerated in the 90’s, and the Clinton administrations began to take more interest in India. The BJP was more ideologically aligned with US policies at the time (which is basically more liberalization, more defense colloboration). This era was also one of the few times that the US intervened (Kargil)in favor of India.
Now, though, Pakistan is back to being an ally of the US, and India is certainly getting a lot of kickbacks as well. I’m not sure how much the 123 pact is going to be worth, and I’d like to see if that’s going to balance out the amount of aid that Pakistan recieves. In addition, it’s not lost on the administrations that both are growing adversarial nuclear powers as well, and the US needs to have a well behaved South Asia (particularly Afghanistan, Pakistan, India- sites of major pipes which are supposed to run through these three countries starting from either Iran or Kazakstan…? I can’t remember right now). The recent Indo-US joint military exercises should be interesting to take into consideration, though. Anyway, I think this is why the US has been receptive to IA lobbies, starting from the 90’s.
So while diasporic efforts have some bearing, I think ultimately it matters on the US establishment’s interests (which are mostly geo-politic, economic, and military) in those countries. In the meantime, those Congressmen/women can keep getting the dough that’s being thrown their way by the wealthy IA community.
Kush:
“It is more complicated than that – around 1965 – India and Israel have had clandestine relationships, with Israel providing spares during 1965, 1971, and 1998 wars. In late 80s- early 90s, Israel asked India to give them permission for refueling their fighter planes because they wanted to bomb all the Pakistan nuclear facilities, like they did for Iraq. India balked.”
Yes, you are right about the clandestine relationships (and for all his anti-colonial talk, Nehru also had some defense dealings).
But the political/military agreements that started to flourish between India in Israel burgeoned during the BJP era.
“It is more complicated than that – Russia is the number one seller to India, and then Israel. That is true, that Israel has accelerated to No. 2 position very fast.”
Yeah ok, but in my comment I was talking about India as client, not buyer. The number 1 buyer of Israeli weapons is India (will eventually dig up link later on. The report was published a month or two ago).
Re: Cubans, Cuba, and the Cuban lobbies, that is also a similar situation. The US and Congress wouldn’t colloborate much with the Cuban lobbies if they weren’t so anti Castro.
It was pro Pakistan because India was considered to be socialist, Pakistan was geo-politically significant during the Cold War (ie Soviet-Afghan war in which the ISI played the essential middleman).
It goes back to early 1950s – part of it is due to Iran-Pakistan-US defense alliance (SEATO alliance), some of it to counter USSR influence in Afghanistan. For US, it was the great game, now US in place of UK.
Some of it – Pakistani leaders especially Suhawardy (their first foreign minister) was very keen on military alliance with US.
One example, when Henry Kissinger requested Shah of Iran to divert Phantom fighters from their squadron to Pakistan in 1971 since this feel outside preview of US Congress – so nobody to push a leash.
. in fact, the intermarriage rates are already in the 20-40% range for the 1.5 and 2nd generation indian americans, suggesting far quicker assimilation to the american substrate (at their peak jews were 4.5% of the american population around 1950, indian americans are only around 1% now)
Natives (ABDS) only make up 25% of the population, and over 90% of DBDs marry “within” Immigration is continuing at a very high level The early outmarriage rates will fall as sub-communities form (like Gujurati Patel Swaminarayan seeking another), if it hasnt already, before picking up again. Religious difference places a natural constraint on complete assimilation into whiteness – and most may not consider this necessary or desirable, in any case.
2005 Community Survey on Indian-Americans
great post KXB. very informative. and you even suggest books that give out information i always wondered. your third to last paragraph enlightening. hope you analyze the manmohan and abe agreement in future posts.
oh snap. look what just happened.
Kush: yes, and also, mostly, China in place of Russia, though Russia is still a player. In this modified Great Game, however, the Northern power has already gotten itself a client in the Persian Gulf littoral, and already has a ‘warm water port’ – Gwadar! So to fight this Great Game, the client state that is in the way may need to be, er, dismantled and reconfigured – because it has outlived its utility. Baluchistan may have to go back to a ‘reformed’ Persia, while NWFP rejoins Afghanistan. And while, during the Cold War, Pakistan was ‘balancing’ India while serving as a base of operations for the Great Game – in the future, there may no longer be any need to ‘balance’ India, if India itself now serves as the lynchpin, as a ‘junior US’. Rather like it did during the British period, where it was the ‘Jewel in the Crown’ of the greatest Empire then known to Man!
So in this scenario, lobbying on behalf of ‘India’ – on geopolitical issues at any rate, will be superfluous, because of the ‘sea change’ in mutual outlooks relative to the 1950-2005 period. Commercial lobbying will continue, for favors here and there, for specific companies, etc – but this will be completely different in character from the Pakistan-centric arguments that Indian lobbyists used to make in the past (though this might be replaced with lobbying to elucidate ‘China-angles’ that Americans themselves might have missed seeing).
And as for Indians and Indian-Americans, their status within the US might come to be similar to the status Indians had in Britain during colonial times – relatively easy come and go (i.e. more H-1B and other visas) but don’t count on being treated as other than colonials in the metropolis – in the near future. Though eventually, something like the transformation the Japanese and Koreans have seen – from the ‘Exclusion Acts’ and ‘Gentlemen’s Agreements’ of the 1890s-1930s to the colonial status of the 1950s, to their acceptance as near-equals today, might also occur for Indians (?).
Ha, Rob, white people are Desi, dontchya know? Desh may be huge but it’s getting to be not so poor at all pretty quickly (look how Greece is faring in comparison, so long after 400 years of Ottoman rule) Desh may have a long history of Jewish communities living n peace and prosperity on the SubContinent– but the colonial problem with Israel makes it an unsuitable present partner in generating policy. I do agree, one should start afresh. Agree with Pravin at 13.
louiecypher, you can’t be sure of this. I think the 123 Agreement (what a name!) really is problematic and has pointed up constitutional deficits in India. I’m sure there will be consensus on other issues.
I agree that Israel is a poor comparison because our policy towards them is not entirely based on standard strategic thinking. India is not part of America’s (or at least Evangelical Christian America’s) sacred landscape…unless you believe one of those cranks who say Jesus spent time in the Desh during his missing years. I don’t see the majority community here having emotionally based pro-India inclinations…which is not a bad thing.
Can’t resist typing this: my Dad used to mutter that all the time! And yes, he was often cranky. 😀
ahh…i see u are “everything is indian” uncles daughter.
And as for Indians and Indian-Americans, their status within the US might come to be similar to the status Indians had in Britain during colonial times – relatively easy come and go (i.e. more H-1B and other visas) but don’t count on being treated as other than colonials in the metropolis – in the near future.
If you look at the community survey, something like 60% of Asian Indians are citizens – tally the natives with the naturalized. That is impressive considering that 25% of Indians have only come since 2000!Huntingtonian Hindutva, viz. America’s “essence” is Anglo Protestant Christian and we should avoid dilution of the “national character” by allowing too many Mexicans and others partly underlies the debate on whether the new arrivals should have a shot at permanent residence and citizenship. It would seem to be a good lobbying point for the wealthy community.
Anna: Do you mean your dad was muttering in favor or against this theory ?
It seems like the right-wing Hindutva types are making a concerted effort to build a Hindu lobby in the US… I think it’s plausible that they might look to the Israeli lobby (which also, as you mentioned, focuses narrowly on the interests of right-wing Zionist nationalism rather than the interests of all Jews) for ideas. But I’d love to hear from someone who knows more about it than I do. A lot of what I know comes from a few chapters of Martha Nussbaum’s ‘The Clash Within,’ but she focuses largely on academia.
First, and foremost
Indian Lobby != Hindu Lobby
It is a lobby that looks after the interests of Indians – here, there, and in-between.
This is old trick to equate Indianness with Hindutva, sometimes, with a sneaky agenda. It does done to create a wedge, or sometimes self-hate, who knows, to each its own.
A very well known example is Chagla (a very learned Indian Muslim statesman who was also UN Representative from India). During one of the Kashmir debates in 1950s in UN, the Pakistan equivalent addressed him, “A Muslim Indian”, He promptly corrected “An Indian Muslim”.
That is the point.
In favor…which is great, because that’s funnier.
there is a hierarchy among these wingnuts, Nussbaum found Bijju Matthew to be a bit shrill in his “Stop Funding Hate” campaign. I personally only work with secular NGOs, but it was absolute Hindu baiting in that campaign given the amount of money that flows into India from Christian evangelical and Muslim organizations
risible, you allude to the crux of the matter here – that America has had both a soft external empire and an often-not-so-soft internal empire – and one direction the future could take would be for both to harden. Of course, I hope for the best in everything. But the green card struggles of the H-1Bs, and the ‘amnesty plus citizenship’ demands of the ‘illegals’ have more in common than appears on the surface. Also, just because you have citizenship does not mean you get all the rights thereof. There have been no grades of US Citizenship so far – although in the ‘Trust territories’ held by the US under UN Mandate – where the internal and external empires might coincide – I’m not sure how things are there. The British on the other hand did have grades – British, Commonwealth, Colonial, etc. So one hopes for the best, but who really knows how things will pan out. And when they do, de jure and de facto could be different things.
That’s exactly my point. The attempt to create a Hindu lobby and pass it off as an Indian lobby isn’t entirely dissimilar to the idea of creating a lobby with right-wing Zionist politics and using it to dismiss and marginalize the view of the many, many Jews (Israeli, American and everywhere) who don’t share those politics.
It’s not an official ‘grade’ system, but what about Puerto Rico? Or, a step up, the District of Columbia?
The attempt to create a Hindu lobby and pass it off as an Indian lobby isn’t entirely dissimilar to the idea of creating a lobby with right-wing Zionist politics and using it to dismiss and marginalize the view of the many, many Jews (Israeli, American and everywhere) who don’t share those politics.
the power of right-wing zionist jews in the american jewry in proportional to the cycles they are willing to invest in this project. i had friends who worked as interns for AIPAC, and they frankly admitted that if they had to choose between the USA and israel they would choose israel. most american jews aren’t like this, and don’t bring along the dedication and willingness to make this a major issue, so they don’t have the same impact. in the end, those with more balanced and distanced attitudes toward israel don’t pull their weight because they allocate their finite energy to a range of topics and issues. so one can imagine a similar dynamic developing in the USA. if you’re busy working on american social justice issues, or have an interest in the topic and movement for and against globalization, you might be simply able to put less time and effort into india-related issues, ceding the ground to those who don’t give a rat’s ass about social justice for cab drivers or free trade. rather, for the bottom line would be “but is it good for india?”
Excellent point, Sarah. They are both examples of the de facto/de jure, internal/external empire issue. I had Puerto Rico in mind, but didn’t write it in my earlier comment. But DC is a great example too. Representation in Congress with no legislative voting rights for the Rep. And no representation in the Senate. And often direct rule by Congress. Canada is an example at another level – Canadian citizens have virtually unlimited rights to visit and work in the US – but no voting rights.
At another level, one idea for the future of the UN Security Council is that it would function by super-majority voting – say 60% of an expanded council of 10 or 12 ‘permanent members’ would be enough to act – all have one vote and nobody would have a veto. And India could be one of the permanent members. Is this a step up or step down? 🙂
If you are an Indian-American and you are working for universal issues like social justice, globalization or just purely interested in entertainment,media etc., you probably look for some resonance with your ancestral country on these issues. I think that is enough to the extent that you allegiance lies more with America than India. But real issues relevant to India’s interest is best left to desi-immigrants who are assumed to be here on a not so “permanent” stay and/or are less assimilated. So in this sense there should two kinds of “Indian” lobby – former “soft” and the latter “hard”. I don’t know kind of lobby people like Edward Luce will have to choose, who have their Indian spouses. I would think to minimize politicization it is better that these kinds of people choose the “soft” lobby.
are you saying canadians are second class US citizens? thats a bit harsh. not sure its an apt analogy. they are an independant country we are close to. the US gives them the right to work in our country. they can vote in canada. we cant vote in canada. i know you have a dim view of the US, but be fair…
I remember when Lamont campaigned against Lieberman, polls indicated he was getting the majority of the jewish vote prior to the primary. One of Lieberman’s supporters went on a rant questioning their loyalty as Jews and Lieberman(the self proclaimed Mr Clean politics) never even said a word to quiet him down. The problem in politics is with AIPAC , not American Jewish citizens.
Canadian citizens have virtually unlimited rights to visit and work in the US
They have more rights when compared to lets say citizens of China or India but it will be incorrect to state that they have unlimited rights.
you might be simply able to put less time and effort into india-related issues, ceding the ground to those who don’t give a rat’s ass about social justice for cab drivers or free trade. rather, for the bottom line would be “but is it good for india?”
This also results in bad foreign policy for the US. The problem is compounded when there is no one to lobby on the other side of the issue.