There has recently been a number of articles in the press about the growing influence of the Indian-American lobby among Washington politicians. With the U.S.-India Nuclear deal taking center stage, the press began to focus more on the dynamics of this relationship. A number of parallels were drawn to the increasing similarity some of these groups share (or would like to share) with some Jewish lobby groups. A month old article in the NYTimes featured the Hindu American Foundation:
When the Hindu American Foundation began, it looked to groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center for guidance with its advocacy and lobbying efforts.
Indian-Americans, who now number 2.4 million in this country, are turning to American Jews as role models and partners in areas like establishing community centers, advocating on civil rights issues and lobbying Congress.
Indians often say they see a version of themselves and what they hope to be in the experience of Jews in American politics: a small minority that has succeeded in combating prejudice and building political clout. [Link]
<
p>As long time readers know, I have often (1,2,3) railed against some of the lobbying groups that purport to represent “Indian Americans” (USINPAC chief among those that receive my disdain). I do not feel that USINPAC represents my interests whatsoever and I wish the press would stop assuming they speak for all Indian Americans. Indolink points us to a new paper in the South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal (SAMAJ) which examines a number of “Indian-American” lobby groups and how closely they really represent “Indian-American” interests (as opposed to “Hindustani” interests):
The article addresses the issue of the growing influence of the Indian-American lobbies and even more importantly their internal divisions, giving way to the constant formation of new groups. In the face of these divisions, the author shows how Islamophobia has provided a unifying force, whose roots can be found in the articulation between local and transnational factors: especially in the context of the (American) war against terrorism and the furthering of the India-Israel-US strategic partnership. No wonder a spokesperson for USINPAC was reported as saying: “The terrorism directed against India is the same as that directed against the United States and Israel.”
Therwath reveals that fieldwork conducted in New York and in Washington “revealed virulent streaks of Islamophobia and hostility towards Pakistan amongst professional Indian American lobbyists.” The author adds: “While not absolutely systematic, this anti-Muslim sentiment has been prominent in most of the interviews that I conducted…” [Link]
<
p>I actually recommend reading the whole paper. It’s really quite fascinating and I had to stop myself from quoting the whole thing here. There are all kinds of gems in there that academically confirm things we all kind of knew:
When asked about their Muslim membership, USINPAC leaders seem embarrassed as they did not know the figure. In the end, they come up with a 10-15% estimate, a proportion that corresponds to the general proportion of Muslims in India and they think would hence enhance their representativity. They could not however mention one active Muslim member and none of them was Muslim either. Moreover, none of the 125 private donations made to USINPAC, since its creation, was registered in a Muslim name. The USINPAC members I met said they wish to defend India’s positions, oppose Pakistan and told traumatic tales of Islamic fundamentalism. Although a few of them directly experienced Partition, they all seemed to carry its stigma and have an Indo-centric approach, by contrast with the younger America-bred activists who focused on South Asian cooperation and local community issues. [Link]
<
p>
<
p>There are also some rather harsh quotes by some of the interview subjects who were commenting on the internal divisions inside many Indian American groups:
…a young 32-year old Indian Jewish migrant working for the American Jewish Committee (AJC), one of the most powerful ethnic lobbies in the U.S., is very harsh toward Indian Americans. This deeply patriotic senior fellow in charge of international affairs and Indian-Jewish American relations is extremely critical and says that ‘Indians suck you. You should never work for Indian Americans because they exploit you. They are very individualistic and very poor as a community. There is little close cooperation. Where there is success, there is ego and this is a problem’. [Link]
<
p>What is perhaps the biggest factor contributing to Islamophobic elements within some lobby groups? As I’ve pointed out in past posts it is probably in large part due to a generational divide:
The second divisive factor is age, now that two generations of Indian Americans are professionally and politically active. Significantly, virulent critics of USINPAC include the 39 year-old President of the Indian American Leadership Initiative (IALI), the 29 year-old Executive Director of the Indian American Center for Political Awareness (IACPA) and the 29 year-old founding President of the now defunct South Asians for Kerry (SAKI). They have repeatedly pointed out the generation gap between themselves, born and raised in America, and the ‘uncle and aunties [who] don’t believe in this South Asian thing and who cannot see beyond the India-Pakistan and Hindu-Muslim communal conflicts. Although the younger generation is now entering the political arena, as Bobby Jindal’s 2004 election to the Congress has revealed, the older Indian Americans are still leading forefront organizations like USINPAC and claim to represent the community as a whole. The older generation of activists seems more influenced by subcontinental conflicts while the younger ones see the advantage of pan-Asianism or at least of South Asian unity and tend to form South Asian organizations in order to address a wider audience…The generation gap, aggravated by the fact that only 22.7% of Indian Americans were born in the U.S., all in the younger age group of course, provides a potent explanation about the pervading defiance against Islam encountered in USINPAC and other leading organizations. [Link]
There you have it (in the highlighted sentences above). Now you understand why there have been so many heated debates on SM (which is written mostly by the 22.7%) about this very thing. Bottom line as I see it? Unless our generation (through orgs like IALI, IACPA, SAALT) find more issues that we agree about and are willing to work hard to lobby Washington for, our “community” will increasingly be hijacked and represented in Washington by “long-distance Nationalists.”
You should point out examples of this if you’re going to make such assumptions and generalizations. It’s nice that people don’t have to couch their Hinduphobia as anything though; they can just accuse anyone of being casteist and communalist.
Ummm. I don’t think I’m a Hindutva type, but you may classify me as one, in which case that would make me one of those that addresses those issues as well.
One can level any accusation at Hindutva types, but casteism is one which will simply not stick. Hindutvadis care next to nothing about their caste – indeed, they want to enhance Hindu identity even if it means it is done at the expense of caste identity.
M. Nam
While in theory this may be true, in practice it isn’t entirely accurate. The Hindutva (BJP/VHP/RSS) message of ‘muslim appeasement’ resonated strongly with middle/upper-caste Hindus who were also rather anxious about the whole reservation system for lower-caste Hindus. There’s significant evidence to suggested a clever tactic of lumping these two groups together (even though muslims generally would not get these reservations) to play on upper-caste anxieties. Caste and communalism are linked, and not necessarily antagonistically — they may in fact have reinforced each other. There was an interesting book written about this – http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521683692&ss=fro
Neal (@297) — I agree. This divergence in viewpoints is inevitable. As someone who’s grown up here, I simply find it impossible to relate to the mindset that would justify Modi and his ilk, and thus would find it implausible that USINPAC represents my views (and many others, in this regard).
I’m not a fan of labels, but I guess I’m one of those progressive 2nd gens, so I’ll bite: I think we’re willing to listen — those of us that read this are responding aren’t we? Well, anyway, I’m listening; I just don’t find the argument convincing, probably because I harbor very little or any nationalistic sentiment towards India. Cultural, yes, social, yes, but political patriotism? Nope. Maybe that’s the disconnect? (In fact, I may be odd.. but I’m a bit like Pico Iyer. I find it hard to work myself into a nationalistic/patriotic fervor — though since I grew up in Canada, seeing the maple leaf and poppy do generate some pride.. which is something). I don’t think there’s any reason to feel victimized by the ‘evil progressive 2nd gens’ — its just that, social and cultural affiliations often don’t translate into nationalist political ones for India. My own views on politics in India are simply general ones I hold for all societies; perhaps unrealistic, but hey.. chalk that to where I grew up.
I do think it’s safe to conclude USINPAC represents a specific set of interests that by no means reflects the views of all, or perhaps even a majority of Indian-Americans. That’s fine, as long as, in the long run, they stop claiming to represent all of them..
AR: You are imputing that USINPAC supports Modi based on what exactly ? And upper caste people don’t oppose reservation because they want to keep Dalits down, they do it because most people are biologically programmed to look out for the best interest of their children. I personally am in favor of reservation for Dalits but it is a bit of a reach to look for caste animus when class explains it perfectly
To what groups/sources are you referring?
There’s significant evidence to suggested a clever tactic of lumping these two groups together (even though muslims generally would not get these reservations) to play on upper-caste anxieties. Caste and communalism are linked, and not necessarily antagonistically — they may in fact have reinforced each other. There was an interesting book written about this – http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521683692&ss=fro
Very interesting. Actually the Hindu lower caste – Muslim dynamic in India is pretty interesting as well. Research suggests that a lot of the violence committed against Muslims in sectarian riots in India is actually perpetrated by lower caste Hindus. In fact the Bhangi neighborhoods have many times been the epicenter of religious violence in India.
Nala, apparently you haven’t read Nussbaum ;-)…we Hindus are the root of all subcontinental discord
It’s not worth convincing progressives anyway, not like they end up in positions of power (outside of campus) anyway
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001277.html — others can probably point to better links/news articles on this but the quote was:
Right, so at the risk of making an exaggerated comparison, should the US allow in a former member of Pol Pot’s regime whose court cases haven’t wound down yet just because he got elected in Cambodia? (I know this has not happened.. just a hypothetical scenario). USINPAC took a deliberate political stance here — one that many here (and SAALT, I believe?) disagreed with.
As for upper-caste people opposing reservations, sure they’re looking out for their interests, which is fine. I think the point that book makes is that there’s some leveraging of caste-animus into communal-animus in the various tactics employed by Hindu nationalists in the 80s-90s. As Al_Chutiya_for_debauchery points out, it plays out it in subtle, counter-intuitive ways. The general argument, however, is that while in theory caste is irrelevant, in practice it has, and continues to be relevant as at least one part of how the Hindutva movement gained support with upper-caste/middle-class Hindus.
May I rephrase.
Quite different to your summation.
Very interesting. Actually the Hindu lower caste – Muslim dynamic in India is pretty interesting as well. Research suggests that a lot of the violence committed against Muslims in sectarian riots in India is actually perpetrated by lower caste Hindus. In fact the Bhangi neighborhoods have many times been the epicenter of religious violence in India.
Bery, Bery interesting that you use the word “bhangi” rather than jamadar or many other word like harijan (meaning people of god) or dalit. Bhangi is or even more derogatory than “ni****”. So much for progressiveness amongst SAA, and fruedian slips. Bhangi has a very loaded history, and has a very specific meaning, and I hope that is noted on SM.
Now, to the point, the dynamics of backward caste and muslim is very complicated. In places, they are at each other’s throat the most during tension, but in UP, Bihar, Samajwadi Party, Mayawati have build strong alliance for last 10-15 years.
FYI AR: Narender Modi himself is a backward caste. He is technically OBC. Also, USINPAC never lobbied for Modi’s visa but called the denial “unfortunate”. Please read the link ACM provided above.
Just for balance MBDESI, here’s what my Brit-Indian friend used to say about OZ:
Laloo Prasad Yadav and his party (mostly backward castes dominant) in Bihar has very strong support amongst Muslims
kush,
you’re overreacting. He didn’t call out anybody on the board and call them a “Bhangi” or as you prefer, “B@#$@#.” I think it’s fairly well-known that it’s not a polite term–at the bottom of the wikipedia entry it clearly shows that the term is in the ‘ethnic slur’ category. And “n#$@@” doesn’t mean a damn thing, but “nigger” does. You’d know that if you’ve been called “sand-nigger” as many times as I have.
All SM should note is that term exists–but i guess you’d rather make spurious insinuations about ACFD’s moral compass.
AR: Where can I find progressives lobbying against the issue of visas to Pakistani officials who have contributed to gross human rights violations in Afghanistan via Taliban proxies, Kashmir, and Bangladesh in ’71. Progressive outrage is selective which makes it as dishonest as the Hindutvaadis you are so hung up on.
Kush: After all these years, you have finally nailed me and my anti-lower caste bigotry! Congratulations! Also Freudian slip. WTF? Yes, we progressive types sit together and rag on lower caste people because we are all such caste-baiters.
I used the term ‘bhangi’ because thats what I found the Wikipedia explainer for.
All SM should note is that term exists–but i guess you’d rather make spurious insinuations about ACFD’s moral compass.
I am not making any insinuations. ACFD and I have been interacting for years on SM, and often (sometimes not) I agree, and we both get along well, and I consider us virtual friends. I think he is an OK guy.
Since this space claims to be “progressive“, I wanted to point out the meaning of the word, and its real connotation more so. It has more loaded history than “ni****” word. More so, I want to point out that unless one keeps the discussion with the real context and what happens actually in Indian subcontinent in mind, a lot of comments are just coffee house discussion.
That’s all. Not an attack on ACFD. Peace.
I am not making any insinuations. ACFD and I have been interacting for years on SM, and often (sometimes not) I agree, and we both get along well, and I consider us virtual friends. I think he is an OK guy
Thats why I was a little surprised by #314. Anyway, lets move on. Peace.
Fine, who are these officials? They’ve been issued visas to the US? Why haven’t Bangladeshis/Bangladeshi-Americans who would know more about those that ordered atrocities in the 71 war sounded the alarm about this? Perhaps they have? I don’t know enough about this, but this article, http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=12408 , suggest that, perhaps, its a function of no proper legal proceedings having taken place yet? I won’t speculate further about this particular example, but intuition suggests that once you have court cases to point to, it’s simpler to make a case to the State Department.
Anyway, I’m not a lobbyist, and wouldn’t have known about Modi getting a visa if it weren’t for media reports. Other than the above, the reason people noticed and that it got coverage, was probably that it was only a few years after Gujarat. I mean, would even a knowledgeable person here in their 20s/30s (2nd gen especially) easily notice the name of someone behind the anti-Sikh ‘riots’ in Delhi after Indira Gandhi’s assassination, getting a visa? People are myopic on such things, unfortunately.
I don’t know the motivations of those that lobbied against Modi’s visa. Frankly, it’s probably that it was a pretty easy, and obvious call to make — and is a function of the fact that what happened in Gujarat horrified a lot of Indian-Americans and was very much present on our minds. Without enough knowledge of the motivations that did lobby, I’ll argue that it’s just much easier to make a case on something involving a high-ranking official, that happened recently, with well documented incidents/atrocities and court cases.
None of this changes the fact that USINPAC made a strong statement (“a setback to the US-India relationship” is a very strong statement in lobbying/diplomatic-speak) and took a stance on something when they could have easily remained neutral. That’s deliberate, and it’s support, anyway you look at it. This is equivalent to a Pakistani lobbying group saying ‘this is a setback’ if the US had in fact not permitted an elected official connected with atrocities in Bangladesh from coming to the US. Chances are, you’d be all over them for doing this. In both cases, they don’t reflect my views and those of many others; so the claim to representing all Indian Americans is dubious. If they did, they’d have remained neutral and said nothing.
You basically said what I said in this thread, just from a different perspective. I don’t think any group should claim to represent all Indian-Americans, because, frankly, that’s just stupid. Obviously the disconnect between us comes from the fact that I am somewhat politically invested in India (as opposed to just culturally). What I mean by my ‘argument’–I don’t deny that Hindu nationalism is a dangerous force that threatens India’s stability, I just ask that people recognize that Islamic terrorism is as well. I don’t think that you/’evil 2nd gen progressives’ (hey, I’m a lefty South Asian American myself) can say, though, that you don’t find this argument ‘convincing’ because you are coming at it from an apolitical perspective, when views like the ones espoused in the original post obviously are political–just with a different bent. If you didn’t care about India politically at all, why get so up in arms about groups like USINPAC? I don’t feel ‘victimized’ by the ‘evil progressive 2nd gens’ I’ve dealt with because they were apolitical, but because they dismissed my political beliefs as being distasteful because they didn’t mesh with their supposedly ‘apolitical’/’secular’ beliefs.
See first sentence of second paragraph of what I wrote here. Another example- this year, both Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad and crowded areas of Hyderabad were bombed, most likely either by Islamic militant groups that get their funding from a group that is banned in Bangladesh, or by Naxalite groups. In addition to the Hindutvadis who provoke communal violence, these groups also use terrorist tactics (though they’re not as harmful to India’s political stability on a national scale; I just ask that people recognize that there are more groups on the subcontinent than Hindutvadis that do wrong).
Dang, I just want to qualify this as ‘terrorism coming out of Pakistan.’
And that qualification is obviously proof of my latent Islamophobia.
Partly true. Besides farming mining and tourism the Oz is buggerall.
I didn’t know one can be a latent islamophobe, anymore than one can be a latent homophobe. Now, I know one can be a latent homosexual, and homophobia is a result of this condition…so clearly Nala is standing in her closet wearing a Burka as we speak.
funny story- for a (not very scientific) psych experiment in high school, I wore hijab for a week. The derisive looks and comments I got in public were only rivaled by those I got when I was bald about a year before that.
Besides farming mining and tourism the Oz is buggerall.”
but what about the cricket?:) i wish they were buggerall at that too.
“For many advocates, “progressive” politics with respect to opinions about India are entirely illegitimate, and even incompatible with Indian (rather than “South Asian”) identity. Leave aside issues of relations with Pakistan, Bangladesh, or any other foreign state — even progressive critiques of the treatment of internal minority groups are considered illegitimate.”
i think the other side of that is that some of the 22.7 percent also seems to find the opinions of many not born in the u.s. as not entirely legitimate and even incompatible with united states (and not even american in the sense of unity between all of the americas, which would be the corollary of “south asian”) identity. many non-indian-american progressive critiques of america are sometimes put down or not given enough weight because the person “didn’t grow up in the u.s.”, “doesn’t understand the experience of growing up as a minority in the u.s.” “has too many prejudices from the old country” etc. there’s a criticism of long-distance nationalism when it is seen rightly/wrongly as “favouring” india, but what about long-distance american nationalism when “progressive” indian-americans or south asians write/agitate for/lobby/discuss/give opinions about things going on in india that affect indians, not indian-americans? if one doesn’t care about long-distance nationalism at all, that’s one thing, but if one wants one’s own version of long-distance pan-nationalism to eventually hold sway (south asian as opposed to indian), then one can’t expect others not to want their own version to hold sway. and while south asian may work for indian-americans, using it to try to influence us.-india relationships is just as much trying to force a false identity on most indian/pakistani/bangladeshi/nepali/sri lankan citizens (even most secular ones) or mistakenly speaking for all of them as usinpac is accused of doing. as risible said, to expect a pro-india group not to lobby for indian interests over pakistani ones is unrealistic. and therwath seems to think that the u.s. selling f-16s to pakistan is some sort of victory over usinpac’s islamophobia. nevermind that the “war on terror” probably had more to do with it. and since when is being wary of arms being sold to your traditional nemesis islamophobia? i guess the pakistan lobby must clearly be hinduphobic evertyime they express any reservations about u.s. bonhomie with india. or they must be hinduphobic because all of their contributors seem to have only muslim names.
“And that’s why I am skeptical about the ability of any group that is trying to represent “Indian-Americans” as a whole, at least in all cases. “
i agree. but i also think that applies to “progressive”/south asian groups as well. they can never represent everyone either. the “our generation” referred to above is hardly monolithic, even amongst 2nd gen. the paper cited refers to bobby jindal as part of the new generation, a new generation that the author sets up as the progressive, enlightened, south asian alternative to the regressive older indian-americans. well, i’m not sure that bobby jindal would be considered progressive by everyone, even if he is of the younger generation. his election clearly caused dissent – some were ecstatic, others horrified. one south asian said their co-religionsists at their place of worship would most likely not vote for a hindu-american, no matter how qualified. you don’t think a mindset like that also has some very definite views about what long distance nationalism and u.s.-india ties should consist of or be like and wouldn’t/doesn’t try to lobby for their own interests in the u.s.-india relationship? why are attitudes like that not labelled ‘hinduphobia”? so how can this “our generation” be any more representative? best for there to be as many lobbies as there are viewpoints and they all duke it out.
I meant to write the ‘Oz economy’. In Sport the Oz kicks ass including the arcane ones. eg baseball and gridiron leagues!
Cricket – am looking forward to the boxing day test this summer.
That would be concern for human rights! 😉
Hey, it works for Deepa Mehta. 😉 🙂
nala, if you haven’t already, check out this book called “Invading the Sacred.”
“In Sport the Oz kicks ass including the arcane ones. eg baseball and gridiron leagues! Cricket – am looking forward to the boxing day test this summer.”
the aussies even made their presence felt at the last winter olympics! annoying:) i wonder if they are the most sporty nation, per capita or whatever the measurement is? can’t wait for the boxing day test. hope india can replicate some of the resistance they put up last time around in australia and that they fare better than the lankans. i am enjoying the india-pakistan series (what a strange, but gripping, first test), which is being played, so far, in a much better spirit than the recent rancorous one between india and australia.
Yes, I recognize. But they don’t carry the clout and danger that the Hindu elite, operating under shady umbrella orgs like USINPAC do, imho. To me, Hindus don’t have a leg to stand on accusing other religions when their own society and religion needs a LOT, really A LOT, OODLES, of fixing.
This is from someone born in a Hindu family, who found the caste system so disgusting and the prejudice against lower castes, tribals, basically anything or anyone that isn’t “Hindu” to be so overpoweringly disgusting, I don’t believe in organized religion anymore, and definitely have nothing but disgust for Indian organized religion and the Hindutvadis who fight and pillage to defend their privilege. At least, jihadis claim to be fighting for the rights of fellow Muslims, which to me is a nobler goal by far.
Just read about the latest incident in Assam. Horrifying and oh so so SAD. This latest is just more of the same, and I urge nala and whoever else to fight against such disgraceful Hindu discrimination against tribals, lower-castes, and people of others religions and eliminate it, before even thinking of raising a voice against other groups. Stones, glasshouses – you know what they say!
Hey, someone, even with your, er, interesting, definition of nobility, I assume you are using the term “fellow” literally, so as to exclude Muslim women, whose rights are, well, you know, a little circumscribed. That, and all that pesky intra-Muslim fratricide seems to put a dent in Shia-Sunni bhai bhai too.
I agree with your points about Hindu practice in India, but getting into an inter-religion rumble is about as productive as getting progressives not to hate Gujaratis and H1-Bs.
Seems like you’re actually spouting Hindutva agenda here – if you equate India to Hindu society. 😉 🙂
And if you’re not a Hindu, then why worry about Hindus? Focus on a problem that’s there in your society – whatever you identify with. Stones, glass houses etc. etc. :p
ROFL.. looks like you are a “troll”, planted by the “evil Hindutvadis”.
Hey, calling troll is the refuge of the loser. My point is made, make of it what you will.
Hah, right, USINPAC is more of a threat to parts of south India than Naxalite groups are. Good one. (And I say that as someone whose father used to run with the Naxalites back in the day, which obviously gives me more credibility than you.)
Well, you’ll get no disagreement from me with regards to how bad the caste system is. Though you really seem to be the one equating “Indian organized religion” with Hinduism here. And your last sentence basically takes you off the map for me.
Um, where exactly do Hindutvadis come in to the incident in Assam? Right, because Indian Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians are all perfectly egalitarian. It seems to be more of an INDIAN problem than anything else. And considering your statement above about the nobility of jihadis, well, I really don’t have to justify anything to you or talk about how I and my family do do what we can with regards to helping others. “Elimination” will take a long while, though, and in the meantime I don’t think it’s unfair to point out idiocy where I see it. Like in your Hinduphobic statements.
Nala, we aren’t talking about India here, but about the US. The entire discussion – read the opening post if you may be so bothered – is about Indian-American interests, not Indian interests. That’s the whole point!
As for my Assam comments, sorry, I got a little carried away. You’re right, casteism isn’t the cause, linguistic regionalism is – another evil in Indian society.
Umm. How about you read the whole post? We’re talking about Indian-American interests w.r.t. lobbying Congress about political issues in INDIA. The examples I brought up that you responded to previously were also about India.
To paraphrase the opening comment: USINPAC is an organization that claims to represent Indian-American interests when in fact representing Hindu elite interests (Islamophobia, &c).
AFAIK, Naxalites are NOT members of USINPAC, ergo pose no threat to the representation of Indian-American interests in the US.
Oops, I meant, “the interests of the Hindutvadis from the Republic of India” not “Hindu elite interests” to make the finer distinction, before I get jumped on.
Ok, Assuming you are not a troll, this is what you said.
How did you conclude that “Hindutvadis” are “upper caste” who are fighting to defend their privilege and why they can’t be as noble as the “jihadis”?.
You should really qualify “Hindu elite” to “Hindustani” (and even that term is improperly used, as it describes a language more than anything else) as even the original post had the sense to do. There are a lot of ‘Hindu elites’ who don’t care about anything but their 401k’s and H1-B’s (like my family). And I’ve already said that groups like USINPAC shouldn’t claim to represent all Indian-Americans, since they obviously don’t. But they obviously do represent a significant, influential portion of Indian-Americans. So I don’t think they are “posing a threat to the representation of Indian-Americans in the US” (whatever that means).
You came in saying that ‘Hindu elites’ shouldn’t throw stones, etc., until all of India’s (which you are equating to Hinduism) problems are fixed. But if these Hindu elites aren’t allowed to get involved in Indian foreign policy from afar (since they’d have to work on fixing the U.S.’s foreign policy first, being residents of the U.S.), they shouldn’t be allowed to try to work on India’s social ills either, right? And then so many of the Indian NGOs that help the poor (lower castes, tribals, etc.) in India would never get the funding they do from rich Hindu elite expatriates.
I didn’t see this before I wrote #344.
Whatever, I still think it’s stupid as hell that anyone would take this paper at face value as proof of rampant institutional Islamophobia among Indian-Americans and the organizations that represent significant portions of them. See WGiiA?’s comments. I’m out.
nala, my final comment as well:
Lobby groups like USINPAC are becoming fronts to serve Indian (as in, Republic of India) interests, including anti-Pakistan and Islamophobic positions. And Indian-Americans – those who are simply of Indian ancestry, not nationality – need to guard against this and propagate the REAL interests and issues of Americans in the US of Indian descent. I hope we can all agree with this. Indian interests are not the same as Indian-American interests.
Whether “Hindu elites” or “Hindutvadis” want to influence Indian (Republic of India Indian) policy or improve peoples’ lots is not relevant here. If they want to do this, they can form organizations that explicitly claim to do this, instead of hiding behind the banner of “serving Indian-American interests” which is what the USINPAC website claims.
They can do what they want – though if I were an Indian citizen in India, I’d be damn pissed about foreign citizens hijacking national policy – as long as they’re honest about it. See 2.
Did you miss my comment #343 ?.
I don’t think USINPAC prevents any of the REAL interests and issues of Indian Americans being propagated. Do you have anything specific in mind?.
What if Indian interests and the “general” American interests (leave alone the “progressive native born South Asian Americans”) match, for example, in the case of “terrorism” emanating out of Pakistan?.