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.”
Desidude wrote: From 1947 to 2007, the Hindu population in the newly Islamic countries in South Asia has gone down from ~13% to ~0%
Could you provide a citation, desidude? Commentors above have discussed B-desh. And we’ve covered Pk here before: (West) PK was 3.56% non-Muslim in 1951 and 3.48% in 1998 (not including Ahmadi Muslims, to maintain comparability). (Cite here at old comment).
Put another way, over the last 60 years, the proportion of non-Muslims has declined less in Pakistan than in India!
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.
They dont wear the Arab style hijab. They wear either the Burqa or the Chaddor.
Could you provide a citation, desidude? Commentors above have discussed B-desh. And we’ve covered Pk here before: (West) PK was 3.56% non-Muslim in 1951 and 3.48% in 1998 (not including Ahmadi Muslims, to maintain comparability). (Cite here at old comment).
Ikram: You are a very patient man. I hope you DO know that someone will cite the same numbers in a week, month from now.
The Jewish lobby organizations and (some) Indian-American groups find common ground in their ingrained racism and religious bigotry. As evidenced by various commenters here, it is very easy to find a loyal anti-muslim brigade to recruit, eager to advance their cause. Go back 100 years or so in America and the KKK would have been just as successful in recruiting Indian-Americans to lynch and harass African-American people – – regardless of how dark-skinned the Indians themselves were.
I think the numbers are something like 10-15% Christian and 80%(ish) Muslim
That is diaspora numbers, and it has changed in huge way.
Not in Palestine today.
Only 1-2% are Christians, and others are Muslims in Palestine, as of today. Here is more info. As I said, I happen to some Palestanian Christians from West Bank, and it ain’t that clear cut. Not at all Arabs are either, they are Lebanese Maronites in origin too.
I think the numbers are something like 10-15% Christian and 80%(ish) Muslim
That is diaspora numbers, and it has changed in huge way.
Not in Palestine today.
Only 1-2% are Christians, and others are Muslims in Palestine, as of today. Here is more info. As I said, I happen to know some Palestanian Christians from West Bank, and it ain’t that clear cut. Not all are Arab either (some are), they are Lebanese Maronites in origin too.
Ikram, Google is your friend, use it.
Hate to burst your progressive South Asian bubble, but methinks the 22.7% of Indian-Americans born in the U.S. are being dwarfed by the number of DBDs coming over on H1-Bs (razib, stats?) So it looks like the the concerns of India will continue to dominate the Indian-American lobby, not that I think it’s a bad thing.
here’s an idea: maybe all you south asian activists should stand up USINPAC and gather more money, so you can spend it undermining India’s national security through lobbying the US government. Good luck raising money for that cause.
i think this article should be read in the context of the entire journal in which it appears, and in the context of the overarching theme under which it appears, and especially in conjunction with the introduction and separate article by aminah mohemmed. the research interests of much of the editorial board also cannot be divorced from the context in which this article should be seen.
therwath and mohammed might as well have combined their articles because they are very similar in tone/aim – although the former at least openly has a target, while the latter starts out by being seemingly secular in her targetting but the thin veneer of equanimity soon wears off. they also quote similar sources, including partisan ones, and say very similar things. citing these types of sources is like citing wikipedia. at least there should have been a balance of sources for an ostensibly secular-minded publication.
basically the main points seem to be that the diaspora is being communalized along hindu-muslim lines. hindus are primarily to blame for this and the burden is on them to be more “secular” no matter what. the “other” is almost always the south asian muslim – mostly at the hands of hindus, but sometimes at the hands of others (in the case of the uk). all examples of communal behaviour in india/diaspora – actually basically just two examples, being gujarat and the california textbook controversy — are of hindus being the perpetrators of anti-secular behaviour. examples of secular victories against communalism in the diaspora/india again rely on just these two examples. hindu groups in the u.s. are more prone to communalism whilst indian muslims are prone to being all secular and defenders of the indian constitution. a federation of indian muslim groups (with the word muslim in the title) is described as a secular group, with no background given on its membership, activities etc. but hindu groups are more likely to be hardened by rss/vhp propaganda – there is no real effort made to distinguish between hindu groups in the u.s. muslims are also more aware of the fundamentalism amongst them than hindus, apparently, who are more easily duped by the vhp/rss.
lip service is paid to fundamentalism amongst diaspora south asian muslims. in the uk the muslim leaders prey on emotions about threats to islamic values. hindu extremism, on the other hand, is seemingly divorced from emotions/values and people’s fears – real or perceived, and occurs in a vacuum. in france the french only perceive a islamic fundamentalist problem, whereas in the u.s., the hindu fundamentalist problem is a real one. gujarat and the textbook controversy have riven the hindu-muslim communities, but apparently topics like kashmir, bombings in the subcontinent and other points of communal tension have not played any part in raising emotions on both sides. oh, nuclear tests have, but once again whilst u.s. hindus mostly gloated, indian muslims either congratulated india wholeheartedly or berated india/pakistan equally.
if therwath’s paper can be seen as definite proof of islamophobia amongst indian-americans (and she is the one who seems to be equating india with hindus and indian-americans with hindus, despite donations to the group by non-hindus) — then some of the papers in this journal and the general ideological bent can be seen as india- and hindu-phobic, if such little substantial proof and evidence and a healthy dose of myopia is needed to prove that one is something-phobic/communal. They make no secret of their primary focus being rooting out hindu fundamentalism, which is fine, but then why make a pretence of covering/comparing communalism amongst different south asian groups equally when you’re not really doing that, but basically saying “Yes it exists amongst all groups, but look here, see, we reveal (rather than actually prove) that these guys are the worst?”
and to those who say that anyone who disagrees with therwath is a hindutva-supporting islamophobe: it’s entirely possible to be someone who doesn’t quiver and live in fear of the “islamic hordes”, who believes in an india for all, who is turned off by the “war on terror” and other such phrases, but who can still view this paper and some of the other writing in this journal as execrable examples of academic scholarship. where are her interviews with indian muslims, her primary concern? what are their views on the usinpac and about allegedly being excluded? and what about other indian minority members of usinpac? how do they feel? their voice is silent or absent. she seems to speak for everyone and expects everyone to take her word for it and not be picky about her sources.
Ikram, Google is your friend, use it.
Did you know that the population of Muslims in all Northern states in India has been reduced by half between 1941 and 2007 because of the genocide?
Most Palestinian Christians see themselves as Arab Christians, although some, echoing similar narratives in the Lebanese Maronite community, reject this label and claim to be descended from Levantine people who were present before the coming of the Arabs, or from Europeans who came to the region during the medieval Crusades. In addition, they may also descend from a mixture of Armenians, Byzantine, pre-Islamic Arabs (Ghassanids), and Crusaders.
How about “Nazism”? You wouldn’t be labeled a bigot then would you? The truth is, “Camille”, that Islam is dangerous for non-Muslims. I don’t mean just Hindus or Christians or Buddhists or whatever, but simply everyone who doesn’t agree to convert. This is not a phobia, it’s called fighting against extremism.
To be honest, I think there’s too much censorship around discussion about Islam and how Islamic societies treat minorities, or how they take over countries that they’ve Islamicized enough. Mark my words, it will happen in the US as well when critical mass is reached.
Most Palestinian Christians see themselves as Arab Christians, although some, echoing similar narratives in the Lebanese Maronite community, reject this label and claim to be descended from Levantine people who were present before the coming of the Arabs, or from Europeans who came to the region during the medieval Crusades.
Very true Kush. Speaking of Palestinian Christians, who can forget that old lion Edward Said.
Because by its very nature, Islam is a separatist ideology. Study it, study its effects in any country you choose, before you censor these comments.
To be honest, I think there’s too much censorship around discussion about Islam and how Islamic societies treat minorities, or how they take over countries that they’ve Islamicized enough. Mark my words, it will happen in the US as well when critical mass is reached.
Well said brother. I hope we havnt reached the critical mass in India with Indian Muslims closing in on 14% of the population. I say we should fire up the ovens.
No, that canard’s not going to make me search and post numbers about Pakistan :).
In reality, the population of Muslims in Northern India has exploded over the last 50 years. Check the UP stats specifically.
the journal is looking for papers on this topic: “Outraged Communities’: Investigating the Politicization of Emotions in South Asia” in explaining what it is they are looking for, they say this: “Instead of the judgemental ‘secular/communal’ dichotomy commonly applied to South Asian politics, the topic requires fine conceptualisation that can match the unpredictability of the object.” one wishes they had applied that standard to the papers for the current topic and it will be interesting to see what the final nature of the papers will be and compare it to what they say they are looking for.
If there is such a call to ‘stand-up’ to Islamic onslaughts/terrorism, who will then lead the call to challenge the vicious, centuries old, onslaught of the caste system in India and the spread of the belief wherever such-minded folks emigrate. The British successfully used this attitude to ensure Indians would be ‘overseers’ in places like parts of Africa, Fiji, Trinidad, etc. to provide a buffer against indigenous resistance to racism.
Let’s be honest — with the daily trafficking in racist and religious biased ideas as the rule of life within the Indian-American community, it is very easy to recruit large numbers of people to support anti-civil rights initiatives, to discriminate against people because of their race, religion, economic class, etc. It is akin to the ease with which Hitler appealed to the anti-Jewish sentiments within the German society and was able to mobilize them to participate in, and accept, the cruel and muderous policies against Jews.
A large number of African-Americans are muslim; so the question is how will this lobby find ways to attack them? Granted, it is two-targets-for-one-stone for many of those Indian groups, but it is less easy to attack a native-born community with a long history of resistance to racism, than to play immigrant vs. immigrant by attacking foreign-born muslims in a time of ‘terrorism.’
prema?
In reality, the population of Muslims in Northern India has exploded over the last 50 years. Check the UP stats specifically.
Are you now asserting that the population of Muslims in Northern India has increased from 1940 to 2007? Can you cite me those numbers. I will eat shit if you do.
if therwath’s paper can be seen as definite proof of islamophobia amongst indian-americans (and she is the one who seems to be equating india with hindus and indian-americans with hindus, despite donations to the group by non-hindus) — then some of the papers in this journal and the general ideological bent can be seen as india- and hindu-phobic, if such little substantial proof and evidence and a healthy dose of myopia is needed to prove that one is something-phobic/communal.
WGIIA – very well said. You should put up your analysis (scattered in a couple of comments) of the “paper” on a blog for all to see.
well, noo york, that’s what happens when you’re controlled by the jewish run media:
Wait, non-Muslim Indians are complaining about Muslims being bigoted-discriminatory??????
The level of hypocrisy is AMAZING. If we could harness it for energy the world wouldn’t need any other fuel for centuries.
Are you now asserting that the population of Muslims in Northern India has increased from 1940 to 2007? Can you cite me those numbers. I will eat shit if you do.
Why don’t use your baseline from 1948-50 to 2007.
1940 to 2007 is misleading, as undivided India had close ~25% Muslim population.
From good old wikipedia:
The analysis on religious data, among the six major religious communities, shows that the decadal growth of the Muslims was the highest (36.0%) in the 2001 census. This statistic suggested that while the growth rate for Hindus has fallen between 1991 and 2001 compared with 1981 and 1991, Muslims have actually grown faster in the last decade, this led Indian media[42] and different parties raising an alarm at the growing number of Muslims and expressing concern about the demographic imbalance and overpopulation, which the Indian government is desperately trying to stop democratically.[43]
A grave objection to this theory is the fact that the 1991 census did not include Jammu & Kashmir, the only Muslim majority state and strife-torn Assam, while the 2001 census does include Jammu & Kashmir. Adjusted for this, the Muslim growth rate plunges from 36 per cent to 29.3 per cent.
Hillside, the way you can be so consistently bitter, to the point where it obscures reason, is truly amazing to behold. Yes, that’s exactly what people who are bothered by USINPAC are trying to do– destroy India via lobbying here, because no self-identifying “South Asian” would care about India as much as you, correct? You’re not the only person who loves India.
ACD, here’s one link via Google: http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/sep/17spec.htm. I’m sorry but I can’t really play Googler for all you folks here. I’ve said what I had to say, and I’m done.
noara, that’s a very disingenuous analogy. Talk to me after Islamic countries allow non-Muslims equal rights.
Why don’t use your baseline from 1948-50 to 2007.
1940 to 2007 is misleading, as undivided India had close ~25% Muslim population.
Kush: That is exactly what I am trying to say. These right wing Hinduvta nuts throw out numbers of Hindus in Pakistan from 1940 and compare them to numbers of Hindus in Pakistan in 2007 which is very misleading. There was a massive population shift in 47 to 58 (actually almost upto the Indo-Pak 62 war). The baseline should be the numbers from 1965 and then compare them to the numbers in 2007.
I have an intereting set of numbers from the USINPAC website which claims this is from the 2005 census data.
http://www.usinpac.com/indian_americans2.asp
total indian american population – 2,479,424 native born – 687,688 foreign born – 1,791,736 naturalized US citizen – 815,502 not a US citizen – 976,234
that implies native born US citizens are more than 22% of the population. Look you can have many more “progressive liberals” now.. 🙂
And it is good to know that non-US citizens (like the H1B and other various visa warriors and their dependants etc..) are going to hit the million mark sooner or later.
but you can complain about non-muslim bigotry without being labled a hypocrite?
The analysis on religious data, among the six major religious communities, shows that the decadal growth of the Muslims was the highest (36.0%) in the 2001 census. This statistic suggested that while the growth rate for Hindus has fallen between 1991 and 2001 compared with 1981 and 1991, Muslims have actually grown faster in the last decade, this led Indian media[42] and different parties raising an alarm at the growing number of Muslims and expressing concern about the demographic imbalance and overpopulation, which the Indian government is desperately trying to stop democratically.[43]
Kush: I am well aware of the above. I was using the 1940 Indian Muslim population example to expose the silliness of setting 1940 as a baseline so that the claim of ‘genocide’ of Hindus in Pakistan can be supported.
ACD, everyone speaking out is not a “Hindutva nut” fyi. The last thing I want is for India to end up as some kind of Hindu country. I desperately want it and the US to remain secular, diverse and equal (in India’s case, become more equal). And Islam is a danger to this as Islamic countries by definition are anything BUT secular, diverse or equal. Hence the fight. Let’s drop the Islam-questioner = Hindutva nut farce, shall we?
“desidude,” as far as I know the only other modern state that has concentration camps right now is the U.S. Are we a Nazi-state? To equate Islam with Nazism is not only intellectually lazy, it is ridiculously inaccurate. Although I’m sure if we just go ahead and Google we can find any number of sites supporting your agenda of hateration. Oh, and for the record, my name is spelled without quotes — thanks.
Kush, I understand, and I was explicit in saying my numbers included the diaspora. I understand the population is diverse, but I think the Christian/Arab divide is less instructive in the case of Palestinians than, say, the Lebanese.
ACfD, most of the Gujarati Muslims I know (not second gen) wear variations of the Pakistani or Arab style hijab, not the Burqa or Chaddor. Maybe this has changed over time?
To those calling posters on this thread ‘racist,’ bigoted,’ or Islamaphobic, you are being facetious. I hardly see accusations of similar intensity being thrown the other way, other than in self-defense. People are entitled to their own views, whatever they may be.
Anyway back to the main point of the thread. I think what most of the anti-USINPAC people here really want one thing….an economically ‘left-leaning’ lobby that, strangely as an India specific lobby, takes a ‘neutral’ stance on Kashmir and advocates the Palestinian / Anti-War side with regards to the middle east. You probably don’t favor the nuclear deal unless a similar one is awarded to Iran and Pakistan. Well, that is why USINPAC is an ‘Indian’ lobby and not a south Asian one. Clearly it WILL advocate a pro-India stance…this ought not to be anti-Muslim in and of itself, unless you consider India’s Kashmir position inherently anti-muslim, which I dont. I would say if India treats Kashmir as any sort of exception, it is reneging on its secular constitution. It should be neutral regarding Middle East issues, UNLESS it sees that by choosing sides it can benefit India particularly. It should promote the economic interests of Indian Americans, which are best served by promoting a free-market, free trade policy with India and throughout the world. It should aim for unrestricted legal high-skill set, English speaking immigration, which would favor Indians above others and increase the IA population, relatively, in America, thus increasing its political power. It should aim towards placing pro-India politicians and beaurocrats into power. It should aim to curtail Pakistan and China militarily, using ANY means necessary.
This is what an India lobby ‘should’ do. Now there can be other South Asian/Pan Asian lobbies which deal with those other issues. It is unfortunate that more Indian Muslim Americans do not join pro-India lobbies, maybe there should be a sronger recruiting effort. However a pro-india lobby should just that…Pro-India.
Camille, the effects over time on various societies that become Islamized makes the comparison not so inaccurate in my view. Supremacy of the ummah over non-believers is one pointer for you.
desidude, my point of contention is around your repetition of the “Muslim countries have egregious human rights abuses” (which is true, for those states that are “Islamic Republics”). You are not the only person to repeat this trope, but that does not make it any less specious. I also think it ignores human rights abuses against Muslims in other countries by saying “well your country [whether or not person X shares that political opinion, nationality, etc.] does bad things to those I consider to be in my broader community, so I have free license to do bad things to you.” It is a logically inconsistent argument, and worse still, it sacrifices broad norms/values in support of collective punishment and retribution. It does India and Indian lobbies, in my opinion, a disservice to brand Indian Muslims as non-Indian. It does not help anyone to reduce arguments over the problematic policies of specific states to an issue of religion. The rights abuses we see in “Muslim countries” also take place in a number of Christian countries, both historically and in the present. While the nature of the abuse may vary slightly, you cannot argue that Saudi Arabia is a “fair” representation of Islam anymore than you could argue that Nazism in Germany (to use your example) was a fair representation of Christianity.
On what basis is USINPAC being branded “Islamophobic”? Can anyone substantiate this allegation without resorting to BS?
Why is anyone voicing anti-Pakistan opinions automatically equated to anti-muslim and/or Hindutva?
Melanie Phillips, Martin Amis, Christopher Hitchens and Salman Rushdie have all watched the infamous “undercover mosque” documentary (of which a corollary was never made in the US) and some have written about it. Martin and Christopher happen to be the two largest mouths in the western hemisphere, so I doubt there’s been any shortage of ‘lip-service’ paid to this phenomenon. People like Mark Steyn and John Derbyshire have also been on the radical Islam track for a while now, especially as the issue intersects with immigration, and they (though this is probably not the main reason for the move)have ensconced themselves comfortably in America at the AEI and the NRO to reach a larger audience with the usual “the Islams are coming!” alarmist claptrap.
My understanding is that USINPAC works for Indian Americans.Given Pakistanis are not indians, what is wrong with them lobbying for indian interests, especially if some voices in the indian american group want that ? If it was a lobbying organization for akhand bharatians(a.k.a south asians), then the question arises as to the discrimination against pakistan. As for islamophobia, the article is a good example of hatchet job. Based on my personal experience, I can see islamophobia being a common thread among indians in US but this article is not the one to cite in support of that view.
No resolution or understanding will come of this, I am happy that the Indian “progressive” view is a minority one because it is inconsistent at so many levels. Here’s just one inconsistency….Pakistan as a viable state without external (i.e. US) meddling. I mean secularism, which I am on the record supporting as being better for Hindus than Hindutva, is a must for a morally upright state if that state is India. But of course in Pakistan they were headed for a Renaissance before the CIA pumped in naughty American dollars to support Zia and anti-Soviet efforts of the mujahideen. Please someone from Sepia Mutiny answer me, how is it that you accept Pakistan as a non-secular state by design while you are so critical of an imperfectly secular one ? Would you feel less critical about Hindutva in India today if in ’47 the Hindu-Sikh mobs had expelled enough Muslims to mirror the 4% minority representation that exists in Pakistan today?
44
“though I also support a similar deal for Pakistan (some details might differ). Currently, the US-Pak nuclear deal is off the public and media radar, but I think it will happen sometime within the next five years, after the civilian government in Pakistan has properly settled down, and a few things like the AQ Khan issue are squared away”
Chachaji, there is a new book out, read it:
“Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons”
http://www.amazon.com/Deception-Pakistan-United-Nuclear-Weapons/dp/0802715540/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195578752&sr=1-1
The problem is all the motivated SAJA dorks and dorkinis who have taken over the ABCD identity. Mosts ABCDs are not interested in becoming Arundhati clones.
“Martin and Christopher happen to be the two largest mouths in the western hemisphere, so I doubt there’s been any shortage of ‘lip-service’ paid to this phenomenon.”
my comment was strictly limited to three articles i read in the journal in which therwath’s paper appears and my perception of them.
Camille, the difference is that in Islamic societies, rights abuses are sanctioned by (Islamic) law.
Yes, there are rights abuses in other countries, but I don’t know of non-Muslim countries that legally define fewer rights for a group of people on the basis of religion.
This is unrelated, bu I dunno where else to say it. Shouldn’t someone post a story on the Bangladesh Cyclone by now…th latest estimates have a death toll over 10,000…..where, how can people help..etc.
Oh, a Eurabia booster! Too bad the numbers flew the wrong way in 2005
so why exactly do they have to comment about muslim extremism in other countries for this paper to be valid?
“so why exactly do they have to comment about muslim extremism in other countries for this paper to be valid?”
maybe because the theme of all the papers is: “Migration and Constructions of the Other: Inter-Communal Relationships amongst South Asian Diasporas”
and maybe because they say this in the introduction to this theme: “Three countries have been selected for this study, the United States, the United Kingdom and France. The United Kingdom has long been the paradigmatic country of the migration from the Subcontinent. The United States has become the home of fairly successful and increasingly visible South Asian diasporas4 but it also witnessed an event that reshaped its ethnic landscape and its relation with the Other: September 11th. As for France, apart from the fact that all the contributors to the special issue are based in France, this country offers a (relatively, see infra) contrasting example with the Anglo-Saxon model in terms of integration and the place of religion in society.”
forgive me, but my understanding of the term “South Asian diaspora” is that it includes all the countries/religions of that region. and my understanding of “three countries have been selected” is that literally they will look at the behaviour of the entire South Asian diaspora in these three countries. and maybe i naively thought upon reading this that they will treat all forms of extremisms/inter-communal problems/otherness as the same or at least pretend to have some semblance of balance in giving credence to everyone’s real and perceived fears and everyone’s real and perceived bigotedness and phobias. silly me.
Such discourse is impressive (though most of you are writing compelling comments and we thank you for it). As for those who write egregiously misspelled comments which indicate that in your opinion, it’s great that Pakistani girls are good girls and a shame that Indian girls are sluts, not only is that inaccurate and offensive, it’s off-topic. That’s why you were deleted.
As for “shouldn’t you post about Bangladesh”, for the benefit of those who are new and haven’t read this now-familiar response, we post what we can, when we can and it’s not a reflection of how much or little we value a story, rather, it’s usually an issue of time. Threads like this require heavy moderation, which also cuts in to “research and writing time”. Also, Thanksgiving week = an empty bunker (though I’ll be here, per usual). If you’re concerned about a story, do post it on the news tab. People really do read those links.
louiecypher, you’re a thoughtful commentator, and I have acknowledged some of the points you have made before. I feel your frustration. I will try to answer your questions, as a way of clarifying my own thoughts, not speaking as some authority.
I agree, in fact, I would assert that Pakistan was not initially a viable state. Western support on a quid pro quo basis – started in 1946-47 itself. Over time, Pakistan’s economy became distorted, and in fact, during the late 90s, when Pakistan had been cut off, it had reached the brink. (India too had reached the brink – somewhat sooner, by 1991, let’s not forget, and again, because its ideology led to a distortion in its economy).
Pakistan is an Islamic state, but one in which minorities are guaranteed certain rights. We can ask how well these guarantees are implemented, but that is not the same thing as saying minorities have ‘no rights’. In fact, in some ways, India’s secularism, by failing to recognize the the clearly documented prejudice of the majority, arguably serves its own religious minorities less well than Pakistan’s Islamic state. Some Indian Muslims have actually supported a declared ‘Hindu India’ – if it also then recognized religious minorities – and then guaranteed them certain rights, including electoral representation, etc.
In my ideal world, the religio-spiritual sphere might not intersect with the socio-cultural sphere very much, and with the political-civic sphere not at all. We don’t live in such an ideal world, though we could work toward it. In such a world, secularism might work well. But Indian secularism has been so imperfect in its implementation and actual impact, that it would be dishonest not to clearly point them out, and indeed also to question both the intent and the applicability of the concept in India. Professing secularism in a milieu where in practice a majoritarian (and constructed) Hinduism dominates – is hypocrisy.
ENOUGH with the whole Muslim v. Non-Muslim flame war!
There are extremists everywhere. These people NEVER represent the general population. This country is not secular (one nation under God). Neither are India or Pakistan. Until religion is abolished (communists tried it, with equally deplorable results) there is always going to be a conflict between different faiths. When our parents (or we) came to the US, we took on a new hyphen. It’s not just Muslim/non-Muslim, now it’s non-white. Apologies to the light-skinned Mutineers, but until you can meet someone without being asked ‘where are you REALLY from,’ we’re all in the same proverbial boat. The fact that these divisions between Muslim and Hindu, black and brown, north and south, have been perpetuated only serves to further undermine the cause of all minorities in the US. When they build the wall and limit immigration, it’s not just going to keep out Mexicans or Muslims, it’s going to keep out anyone from a non-European country (and even some Euros too) who doesn’t fit the idea of what America SHOULD look like, according to the White Christian government. When I get stopped at the airport tomorrow and ‘randomly selected’ for searching, it’s not going to be because I am or am not Indian, because I do or don’t practice Islam, it’s goint to be because I’m brown. If you want to spread fear and hatred, go for it, but while you’re busy making fun of these Hindutvas and those Islamists, all of our civil rights are slowly eroding.