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.”
Ruchira, “comfort factor” is an interesting way to put what is essentially discrimination. In the Muslim view, Hindus are essentially “idolators”, the worst kind of sinners in Islam. Such people are by and large persona-non-grata in Islamic states. The truth is that non-Muslims are generally treated quite badly in Muslim countries, but bringing it up is condemned as “Islamophobia”.
Another interesting example: From 1947 to 2007, the Hindu population in the newly Islamic countries in South Asia has gone down from ~13% to ~0%. Sikhs and Hindus and Christians complain of forceful conversions and constant societal pressure to convert. This pattern repeats in all Muslim countries. Kashmir is the latest, still under Islamic “processing”. Pointing these facts out is again Islamophobia.
I’m sorry, I may be labeled Islamophobic but I still stand for justice and rights for non-Muslims facing the Islamic onslaught down the centuries. ABD’s just don’t understand what these countries that are on the frontlines are up against and have been fighting for time immemorial. Stay blind to it until it reaches your very doorstep at your peril, 9/11 notwithstanding.
I stand corrected on muslim envoys. Though risible’s post wasnt what I was looking for as Ambassadors are not that high level. More interesting was Kush’s.
Razib…the argument works as a logical ‘AND’ statement. I.E. Pakistan = 1 religion, many languages while Bangladesh = 2 religions, one language.
Another interesting example: From 1947 to 2007, the Hindu population in the newly Islamic countries in South Asia has gone down from ~13% to ~0%. Sikhs and Hindus and Christians complain of forceful conversions and constant societal pressure to convert. This pattern repeats in all Muslim countries. Kashmir is the latest, still under Islamic “processing”. Pointing these facts out is again Islamophobia.
i am an islamophobe, but i’m not a factophobe. hindus have gone from 1/3 of east bengal’s population to 1/10 of bangladesh’s population, so your general point is correct. but it is transparently false to say that the % of islamic south asian countries is ~0%. it is closer to 5% (pakistan + bangladesh).
Razib…the argument works as a logical ‘AND’ statement. I.E. Pakistan = 1 religion, many languages while Bangladesh = 2 religions, one language.
ok, sure, but does the argument work for someone who left pakistan in 1968? it was then a multi-religious and multi-ethnic state? let’s cut to the case. is a hindu bangladeshi or pakistani outside of the circle of acceptance? i doubt it. let’s just keep it real ok?
being a non-hyphenated indian, i don’t have anything invested in usinpac or other such groups and i’m sure prejudices do exist within all these groups mentioned. however, i tried to read this paper and must ask whether it’s been translated from french, because it doesn’t read very well in english. is fragilize a word in french? and some of it reads like tawdry gossip. the information doesn’t come across as being presented in a very scholarly or professional manner.
this particular sentence seemed odd: “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’. “
did she have to overdescribe the senior fellow as “deeply patriotic” (to who?, it’s not clear) to then put what he says above reproach? substitute “Jews” or “Blacks” for indian-americans in the first two sentences and i wonder how many scholarly papers would let that pass?
also, why hasn’t she named the people who have been quoted? it just makes everything seem so general and vague. she named their positions, so it would be easy for someone to link those to names. did they agree to speak to her only off the record? if so, she should say so. in short, it doesnt’ really read as an academic paper but as an undercover expose of sorts.
No….they are not. But that is because they themselves tend to identify as Indian. Similarly most Indian Muslims do identify as Indian, rather than Pakistani or Bangladeshi. I don’t think there is an active effort to exclude anyone. If even a Pakistani Muslim really identified specifically as an Indian American, then he or she IS an Indian American. However there are certainly some Indian Muslims who consider themselves to have been stuck on the wrong side of the border, and do not ID as Indian…
bangladesh = second largest number of hindus in the world (~same number % as muslims in india).
Hinduism is the second largest religious affiliation in Bangladesh, covering 10.5% of the population as of 2001 census [1]. In terms of population, Bangladesh is the third largest Hindu state of the world after India and Nepal.
Islam is the second-most practiced religion after Hinduism. There are approximately 174 million Muslims in India (according to government census 2001), i.e., 12.4%** of the population.[1][2]. India has the second largest population of Muslims in the world (the largest being Indonesia).
The current figures are close to ~14%
Similarly most Indian Muslims do identify as Indian, rather than Pakistani or Bangladeshi.
this is going to draw a lot of claps from the hindutva crowd, but indian american muslim doctors who socialized with my parents mixed pakistani and bangladeshi crowd would often lament that india was a hindu majority state. some of them lectured my father for defending secularism in bangladesh, after all, they had to deal with non-muslim rule and couldn’t enact ‘true law’ in their own nation. these aren’t goat-beards, but ‘western’ looking indian muslims. there might be selection bias in terms of the types of indian american muslims who would socialize with pakistanis and bangladeshis. but that’s just what i noticed and observed.
That was Razib’s quote: bangladesh = second largest number of hindus in the world (~same number % as muslims in india).
Similarly my parents have many Indian/Pak/Bdeshi muslim friends, and most of the Indian Muslim ones are strongly pro-India. However a lot are South Indian, if you think that might make a difference.
Yes, Bangladesh hasn’t reached the Pakistan point yet, but it’s well on its way. There are regular pogroms against Hindus in Bangladesh – just Google for it.
Proportion of Hindus in BD: Year Percentage (%) 1941 28.0 1951 22.0 1961 18.5 1974 13.5 1981 12.13 1991 10.52 2001 10.5
there might be selection bias in terms of the types of indian american muslims who would socialize with pakistanis and bangladeshis. but that’s just what i noticed and observed.
that is a bias in your social selection, or self selection to speak off.
in my social selection, on the other hand, most of the indian muslims, or even pakistani muslims** i know outside of indian subcontinent do not care one bit about “brown” solidarity, except for biryani and cricket.
most of pakistani undergrads i knew at cornell (20-30 or so), had white american girlfriends, and did not care about politics from back home, about except they all (indian and pakistani undergrads) got shit drunk together. i always thought indian undergrads looked up to pakistani counterparts at the undergrad level for social leadership……getting drunk, stoned, and laid.
** in general they were more out going, friendlier, and laid back……imran khan would be epitomy of it. now, imran khan is quite religious, and is on hunger strike.
now, imran khan is quite religious, and is on hunger strike.
in all this, his billionaire ex-wife jemina khan has found new love for him.
four degrees of separation
elizabeth hurley + hugh grant, imran khan + jemina khan, jemina khan + hugh grant, elizabeth hurley + who is that india dude.
the icon of islamaphobia (he was given NP in 2001, after being bypassed for dozens of years), and also hindutva darling, vs naipaul is married to a woman of pakistani origin
I guess I’m a little confused. Assuming that the article is correct and the methodology is sound –why exactly is hostility towards Pakistan amongst Indian-Americans considered a sign of outmoded and geriatric beliefs? The last accepted armed conflict between the two nations (i.e. what the rest of the world sees as a conflict) was in 1999, less than a decade ago. Before that, India and Pakistan had a history of some pretty direct and costly (lives and $) engagements over a 50 year period. And, if the recent pronouncements from people in the know are to be believed, the two countries came close to war in 2001 after the attack on India’s Parliament. Yes, there have been significant strides towards harmony, but surely you can forgive certain people for wariness, if not hostility, to a historical enemy? And no, I am not saying that India is right and Pakistan is wrong–only that it takes time, and more than a couple of feel-good cricket matches, to erase some of the distrust amongst both nations. In a lobby group created to further Indian and American relations (as opposed to “Indian-American” issues), surely they are allowed to reflect the interests of, you know, India. If you also consider the historical U.S. tilt towards Pakistan (which I agree is changing, and which a number of people say is in fact due to such lobbying) how exactly is it improper for Indians to lobby for some counter-balance? I mean, if you’re going to start bashing people for engaging in identity politics, it seems a little strange to start doing so on this site, no?
As for terrorism in the name of Islam being a joint problem facing Americans, Indians and Israelis–does anyone disagree with the statement that American, Indian and Israeli civilians have been the targeted for violence by groups who define themselves as Islamic and who state that their actions are done to advance or protect the rights of Muslims? If so, then how exactly are these guys far off in making the statement that all three countries face the same issues? Again, this is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists or that all terrorist acts against Americans, Indians or Israelis are by Islamists or even that those acts necessarily constitute “terrorism” as opposed to “freedom-fighting” or (finally) that Islam is evil and the world must be purged of the eeeeeeevil Mussalman. Rather it is to point out, that actually, the countries do share some commonality of experience, so poor set in his ways grandpa may be more on the ball than naive great-niece who, try as she might, just can’t seem to find ANY pattern amongst recent world events. Of course, how the countries react to the issue is relevant (including to what extent they allow it to dominate and exclude other issues they are facing).
Look I think pan-Asian organizations are great and to the extent that one can found a group to lobby for those issues (and I’m sure this august can come up with a list of such issues if it tries), great. But I believe that it is inappropriate to assume that an issue must be pan-Asian (or pan-South Asian, or pan South Asian American) before it can have any validity. Because if a pan-Asian group decides to ignore or suppress potentially divisive issues in order to maintain harmony amongst its panoply of members, then those issues aren’t being properly addressed and it falls to another group to make sure they are dealt with.
ok. having read through the entire “paper”, i’ll risk being accused of being a hindutva supporter/islamophobe by saying this is a terrible piece of “scholarship.” i don’t see how it can convince anyone who is neutral/not that interested in lobbies. this is not to say that there isn’t truth in some of the things she says, but she does a terrible mish-mash job of putting it all together. the conclusion is a patchwork quilt grab-bag of all the standard lamentations, some gross generalizations, coupled with a most unacademic personal plea to pay more attention to ostensibly secular publications like samar and promise of india (can’t find anything about it).
her paper is ostensibly about indian american lobbies (plural), but she only presents evidence (sort of) to back her claim for one lobby – usinpac – that too, three quotes from unnamed people and an anonymous conversation amongst usinpac members. she then seems to equate usinpac with indian american lobbies and uses the terms interchangeably (seemingly). what about her fieldwork with all the other indian-american lobbies? where are the quotes and background on these groups to bolster her claim that indian american lobbies are islamophobic?
did she interview any u.s. congressmen/senators who deal with usinpac to see what their views are on this ‘islamophobia”? she accuses two of them of this: “Anyhow, the fact that the Legislative Assistants of Congressman Joseph Crowley and Congressman Joe Wilson (the two co-chairs of the India Caucus) never mention and never work with Indian Muslims, while they maintain frequent contacts with the Indian American lobbies, further hints at the penetration of a largely Hindu-bias in the Indian American political representation. ” Anyhow? And what is her source for that?
and if only 125 made private donations (now 281) have been made to usinpac, then it doesn’t really inspire much islamophobic fervour or much of anything in indian-americans (and not all the donations are from hindus if names are anything to go by.)
Kush, interesting stuff @63-64! risible, thanks for your response @50. BTW, in your list @38, did you notice that Hamid Ansari and TTP Abdullah had two terms each! And, I wonder if the two Messrs MK Kidwai are brothers, or father and son, or otherwise related? I looked up India’s Ambassadors to the Holy See, and found that the Ambassador to Switzerland is normally also accredited to the Vatican, they haven’t been all Catholic or anything.
However a lot are South Indian, if you think that might make a difference.
i would assume so. most of the ones my family knew were urdu speakers from UP or hyerdabad.
does anyone disagree with the statement that American, Indian and Israeli civilians have been the targeted for violence by groups who define themselves as Islamic and who state that their actions are done to advance or protect the rights of Muslims? I
this is a pedantic point, but one i’ll interject just to clarify an issue: hamas and islamic jihad are obviously islamist outfits. the PLO is not. it is a secular nationalist organization with leftist roots in many of its branches. e.g., the communist predominantly greek orthodox flavored PFLP. not only did yaser arafat marry a woman from a christian background (she pro forma converted to islam), but christians have traditionally been prominent in the palestinian national movement. this is not to say that the religious aspect hasn’t loomed larger of late, but we should be cautious about clumping things together and losing information. groups like the 1970s ‘black september’ as best thought of not as islamic terrorists, but left-wing nationalist terrorists.
Razib,
PLO has a very complex history, it did not start with 1970 black september (in jordan), but goes back to 1964
It has been different things in different times – a secular left organization with christian palestanians** involved in it too, at one time very close to USSR, being a darling of arab world, and at same hunted down by the arabs themselves, formenting trouble in jordan and lebanon, it has also been downright terrorist organization, and has had islamic frevor strain in it too (that is expected, and not to be surprised) – sure, compared to hamas today, it is garden variety. PLO is one of the most chameleon like (and corrupt too) organization, and that is why it lost its relevance.
** christian palestanians are very tiny in number, although majority align with palestanian arabs, but not all of them.
** christian palestanians are very tiny in number, although majority align with palestanian arabs, but not all of them.
those that reside within the territories are a tiny number. not the diaspora. the difference is an order of magnitude (e.g., 1.5% vs. 15% or so). and obviously the palestinians are a people for whom the diaspora counts a fair amount. also, re: the PLO, it’s an umbrella organization. not a unitary one. so obviously it has all flavors.
p.p.s. re: the diaspora. it must be admitted that christian palestinians and arabs in general assimilate relatively easily into many cultures (e.g., in the USA, brazil, mexico, france, etc.) and lose their identity. so i would weight their relevance less than their numbers on paper.
3) that being said, i am islamophobic myself. Razib, I respect your honesty
SM is more islamophobic than USINPAC?
Sepia Mutiny is not islamophobic at all.
I’m sorry, I may be labeled Islamophobic but I still stand for justice and rights for non-Muslims facing the Islamic onslaught down the centuries. ABD’s just don’t understand what these countries that are on the frontlines are up against and have been fighting for time immemorial. Stay blind to it until it reaches your very doorstep at your peril, 9/11 notwithstanding.
desidude I’m glad that you speak about this issue, as many in the South Asian community don’t want to deal with this issue.
Wasnt a long time PLO cabinet member lady named Hanan Ashrawi a christian too? I think she is no longer associated with the Palestanian Authority. Probably right after the death of Arafat and the semi civil war that followed, she is not to be heard in an official capacity. Saeb Arakat still has managed to be there.
Another interesting example: From 1947 to 2007, the Hindu population in the newly Islamic countries in South Asia has gone down from ~13% to ~0%.
Proportion of Hindus in BD: Year Percentage (%) 1941 28.0 1951 22.0 1961 18.5 1974 13.5 1981 12.13 1991 10.52 2001 10.5
The same misleading stats have a thousand lives on SM. Llyod Carr may have left Michigan but these same stats though refuted (on a conservative level at least 15 times) refuse to go away from SM.
The creed of the H-1 and (L-1 if working in a large multinational non-IT Company) warrior who are probably the most fervent supporters of USINPAC:
India is the bestest place in the world. Everything Indian is awesome. The poverty in India is similar to the poverty we see in Appalachia but the Western media focuses on Indian poverty because it is biased.
Caste based atrocities are a relic of the past and most Indians live in cities anyway where you dont even know the caste of the other person.
Modi is a strong leader.
Any American who is poor must be lazy or stupid and likely both.
If not for Nehru, India would have a per capita GDP similar to South Korea at worse but probably closer to Japan’s per capita GDP.
All Indians in the US are extremely rich, successful and there are no poor illegal Indians struggling to make ends meet.
Proselytizing Christians are the biggest threat to the sovereignty of India and only a strong leader like Modi can stop them.
Thanks for the “proof”. Good luck to your “South Asian (progressive 2nd gen) solidarity” against “Islamophobia” and “Indian American lobbies”.
ACfd,
Though I’m on a H-1 visa (and neither support / oppose USINPAC) I can’t say I know what other people on H1/L1 visas think on these issues. Are you quoting from a survey or they are just your personal opinions (like the report by Therwath)?
Though I’m on a H-1 visa (and neither support / oppose USINPAC) I can’t say I know what other people on H1/L1 visas think on these issues. Are you quoting from a survey or they are just your personal opinions (like the report by Therwath)?
Yes, they are my personal opinions. The above post was hyperbolic and tongue in cheek.
Ok.. I think you have a wrong idea of H1 folks, Only a miniscule minority are interested in politics (whether Indian or American) and it is possible that a few of them are “jingoistic”. Generally you’d hear the H1Bs talk more about I-140 / I-485 / I-797 and all such immigration documents than India-US nuclear deal / USINPAC.
Razib, I absolutely agree about the PLO–which is one of the reasons I said that not all “terror” attacks were by Islamic groups. We can include a number of other “terror” attacks both on U.S. and Indian soil. I just wanted to point out that there were some commonalities between the experiences the three countries were facing-so it seemed a bit unfair to dismiss the issue as “inappropriate” or “Islamophobia” for the lobby group. And I’m using “terror” in the context of how the governments of the countries in question define such acts.
So because the USINPAC has the courage of its convictions to voice its opinions against a country that is directly responsible for countless acts of terrrorism in the country of their origin over the last 20 years, it is “islamophobic”.
I get it, those uncool uncles bad, know-it-all “hipsters” on SM good. You 2nd gen. Americans of “south asian” origin are so much better than “those” narrow-minded Indian-Americans who happen to have a slightly different agenda than yours. The nerve!
Of course! They’re old; and were born in a foreign country – that must be why they are so worked up about silly things like terrorism and mass murder. We chosen ones of the 22.7% are not like them. We will continue to perpetuate the myth that anti-Pakistan = anti-muslim without knowing any better.
Since this is quoted from a “paper”, it must be true. Who cares if the quality of the research is not much better than that used by the Pat Robertsons of the world. Besides, since we “already kind of knew this to be true”, it must be.
Hindutva isn’t slightly different
Wolf,
Sure, go ahead tar everyone who disagrees with the “Hindutva” brush. How convenient for you.
Because generally speaking Muslims themselves feel they are Muslim first and Gujarati, Malayalee, etc, second. The “ummah” refers to a world wide community of Islamic brother and sisterhood. Many Muslims do not put emphasis on their national or cultural identity because it is part of the teachings of Islam not to. Many Muslims would feel more at home in an internationally diverse group of Muslims with the same religious practices, than in a group of people from their own country who have diverse religious practices.
I tend to agree more with Boston Mahesh This article just give stats that Muslims are under represented and jumps to conclusion of Islamophobia My take: If USINPAC has no fair representation of minorities then i would not consider it to represent Indian Americans. however if they do have fair representation of other minorities(Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists etc) except muslims then probably we need to look a little deeper. If the Indian muslims are more participative in Islamic groups rather than Indian groups than there could be two possibilities 1) They associate themselves more comfortably with Islamic groups than with Indian groups. In this case i would treat USINPAC as fair representative and no case of Islamophobia. After all its their call not to participate.(No special preference to Indian muslims vis a vis other religious minorities) 2) They want to join Indian groups but are put off by anit-Muslim stance: Clear case of Islamophobic
And not a single woman either!
I don’t get what Abhi is getting worked up about.
The article claims USINPAC having a pro-india & anti-pakistan stance along with significant non-muslim membership base means they are anti-muslim? How did the writer arrive at that conclusion?
I have a Pakistani-American fiancee and me being a Hindu makes it impossible for her parents to approve of our relationship even now. So, does that make her family Hindu-phobes? I would say not, its just their belief system says they under the laws of Islam from birth to death. So, if they have a right to keep to themselves and support their own country then Indian-Americans have the same rights.
Is being born in the US and being young (how young? in your twenties, thirties? forties?)the prerequisite to being liberal, egalitarian etc? I think you are over generalizing here The gist of your argument here:
Young people of Indian/south-asian origin born in the US are egalitarian, liberal and all things good People of Indian origin who were born in India are bigoted, Islamophobic etc.
The generalizations you trot out about DBDs are a tad offensive, I also don’t think they are applicable to me and I don’t think I am alone. I do agree that many of your criticisms of some of the older folk born back home, is on the money but as I see it, there no need to alienate every person of Indian origin in the US by tarring them with the brush of Islamophobia, chauvanism etc, because at least some of them agree with your point of view and are not necessarily happy with the current “leadership” of the community.
They do and they have been for a long time. West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, to name 3 North Indian states where a significant amount of Muslims live.
Heck, even some Hindu women cover their faces completely with their saree palloo when roaming in public or when in front of senior male in-laws in private (home).
wouldn’t that technically make them south indian, if they’re from hyderabad? though hyderabad has historically been seen as a crossroads between the north and the south.
agreed. i’m not really sure where folks are getting the impression of ‘H1-B warriors.’ i know more of these guys than i would ever care to, and they’re generally really politically apathetic. and also very into learning more about american culture. i doubt i’ll ever ever hear one of them praising modi. perhaps this is another north/south thing?
i have mixed feelings about this. i said on a previous thread that i believe somewhat in hindutva, just a little, tiny bit. so i guess i should clarify. i don’t support hindu nationalism at all, but i do care about things like uprooting casteism from a religious perspective. and i’m not part of the 22.7% since i’m a 1.5 gen. i try to be more understanding, but i also believe that if you want peace on the subcontinent, you know what, it’s got to come from all sides.
I forgot to add born in India and now in the US
I think what it says is that SM has not created a dialogue in which religious Muslims care to comment, for whatever reason. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is due in large part to the general hostility towards Islam in the comments made on this blog. Read the first 20 posts on this thread. Islam is called a terrorist construct, a fascist tool of oppression, a source of self-inflicted poverty, isolationist, developmentally regressive, ostentatious, etc., etc. Gee, with all the open-minded tolerance evidenced on this thread, I wonder why religious Muslims don’t comment on this blog.
Let’s be real — you are not sorry, you are cloaking your bias in the rhetoric of humanitarianism and human rights in order to justify your hateful attitude. I think this excerpt is the primary source of why so many desis (ABD and DBD) take on a hateful attitude towards Islam broadly and Muslims specifically. There is a huge conflation of “Islam over there” with Muslims and with Islam in the U.S., and then this is wrapped up in this absolutely ridiculous language around the so-called war on terror and global security. This same conflation is then used to advocate for positions that are completely devoid of a human rights agenda and that center largely on retribution and vengeance, whether or not it is at all justified. If you replaced the term “Islam” with any other ideology, you would rightfully be labeled a bigot, but because it is politically convenient and expedient to hate on Muslims people are given a free pass to be as bigoted as they want to be.
This conflation also perpetuates the idea that to advocate for the interests of India/Indians (let’s forget the “-American” joinder because it clearly is not domestically oriented) is to advocate for the interests of a homogenous, all-Hindu population. Not only does this continue to alienate communities within a diverse population (and as a Sikh, I find the Indian = Hindu conflation particularly obnoxious/abhorrent), then we blame the minority’s feelings of isolation or their increased identification with their “minority marker” as self-alienation. It is true that Islam emphasizes the concept of ummah, or community, across nationalities, borders, races, etc. However, I think it is fair to say that this idea of difference, or this concept of an Islam-focused identity, is reified when the dominant rhetoric groups you as backwards, fanatic, etc.
[aside: I really don’t buy the argument that 2nd gen desis are less Islamophobic — my anecdotal and biased experience among SAAs, progressives included, would indicate strongly that children replicate the biases of their parents and peers].
I think it’s important not to conflate religion with ethnicity. Christian Palestinians are also, mostly, Arab Palestinians. Within the larger Palestinian community (diaspora included), I think the numbers are something like 10-15% Christian and 80%(ish) Muslim. That said, Palestinians share the same national identity and language.
What a depressing thread. Look, nobody would argue that the Indian Lobby should lobby for India. But India does not equal Hindu. About 150 million Indian Muslims are equal citizens of a secular republic, and should have their voices represented in a truly Indian Lobby.
An Islamophobic Indian Lobby in America is equivalent to a Racist American Lobby in India. It’s repugnant and insulting.
That said, I am not optimistic that American born Hindus of Indian descent will be less religiously bigoted than their parents. I’d expect the opposite.
Anna wrote:
Which should I choose? Is that all there is? Hinduism or pan-Islam? Is there no space for Christianity or Sikhism in this binary identity game?
There’s a great line from “the Moor’s last sigh” (Rusdhie’s last good book) that you would love. The narrator, anticipating a question from the reader on why Moraes the mongrel is from the tiny Christian and Jewish minorities, says
Majority, that mighty elephant, and her sidekick, Major-Minority, will not crush my tale beneath her feet. Are not my personages Indian, every one?
You betcha.
Ok.. I think you have a wrong idea of H1 folks, Only a miniscule minority are interested in politics (whether Indian or American) and it is possible that a few of them are “jingoistic”. Generally you’d hear the H1Bs talk more about I-140 / I-485 / I-797 and all such immigration documents than India-US nuclear deal / USINPAC.
Its very possible that I am wrong here. So who would then be the base for the USINPAC types? Maybe much older Indian immigrants who have been in the US since the 70s?
The anti-Islamic sentiment on this thread makes me sick. This lobby group represents the Indians on here, most of which seem to be very ignorant and pro-modernism. They represent you well.
Yeah. People who have been here longer tend to get more involved in community organizations. The H1-B outflow is more recent (90s-onward).