"Islamophobia has provided a unifying force…"

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.”

348 thoughts on “"Islamophobia has provided a unifying force…"

  1. Don’t make me take off my chappal

    Best. Handle. EVAR.

    Oh, and the comment was spot-on, too.

  2. “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.”

    i am frankly astounded by that claim. life is sometimes no bed of roses for some minorities in india, including hindu minorities, and arguably there are deep-seated prejudices in the “majority” (which is hardly monolithic), but are you saying that pakistan has somehow successfully recognized its own clearly documented prejudices of its own majority – or are you claiming that their majority has no clearly documented prejudices? last time i checked india does recognize religious minorities, makes quite a few accomodations for them and does guarantee them certain rights including electoral representation. no need for a hindu india that encompasses any of that – it already is. the implementation might be flawed, but the idea that India’s “secularism” fails to recognize any of what you said seems flawed to me.

  3. There are extremists everywhere. These people NEVER represent the general population.

    Your first sentence is correct, as extremism is part of the human condition…and certainly not isolated to Muslims or Hindus. But in order for hate groups to prosper they must have a sympathetic general population. Did the KKK emerge from a vacuum or did the profound racism of the antebellum south give rise to them? Did not hitler have his “willing executioners” and pre-existing german anti-semitism? Does not the profound bigotry and religious hatred within the muslim world feed radical islam, or islamofascism for lack of a better term?

    And it doesn’t hurt if the general population has an exaggerated sense of their own victimization. This is why we should be more careful about throwing around the term islamophobia, as we do not want to feed this exaggeration.

  4. 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.

    The condescension is unneeded and unwarranted. The paper’s focus was obviously the American lobbying world–if you had truly thought that this paper would address in a holistic manner, the entirety of the diasporic experience in three countries, you’re solely mistaken. Take a look at their conclusions–see anything about British or French lobbying world there? This is about the mildest conclusion i’ve ever seen in an academic paper and they obviously know they don’t have the citations to prove their point.

    .

    A three-fold conclusion can be drawn from this episode: firstly, Islamophobia is far from being a consensual view among Indian Americans, secondly academically-oriented secular activists both on the West and on the East coast can sometimes counter the work of New York or Washington-based ethnic lobbies, and finally the idea of India is still fiercely debated among the diaspora.

    If you’re going to be so up in arms about omitted narratives then write your own paper–the paper as it stands is far too short to prove it’s thesis, but it’s not really a scholarly essay so much as deliberate meditation.

    So, pray tell, what exactly are the ‘real fears’ for which we should all be on the look-out?

  5. ACfd,

    Interesting info. for you from the USINPAC website.

    http://www.usinpac.com/Volunteer.asp

    Contributions and gifts are not deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes Contributions from Corporations and Foreign Nationals who are not US Citizens or US Permanent Residents may not be accepted. Contributions from US permanent residents (green card holders) are acceptable Paid for by USINPAC Federal law requires political committees to use their best efforts to report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer for each individual whose total contributions exceed $200 in a calendar year.

    looks like H1Bs are not welcome in USINPAC. Please correct your opinions about H1B and other such visa holders.

  6. I took the time to actually read the article over lunch (sacrificing a trip to “Shawarma King” for some cafeteria salad).

    It’s mostly a rehash of dinner table gossip, this is not a serious academic article! Too many anecdotes and too little data.

  7. This is why we should be more careful about throwing around the term islamophobia, as we do not want to feed this exaggeration.

    That is why, Ingrid Therwath’s article is the shoddiest article I have read in years. Even if you give the benefit of doubt about the claims, and research methodology, all it tells USINPAC has an anti-Pakistan tilt, which should be expected when Kargil happened less than 10 years ago, and in 2001, there was one of the largest buildup of armies across the India-Pakistan borders, and Pakistan has received close to US $10 billion dollars in aid since 2001, and majority of it has gone to buying fighter planes, and advanced weaponary without little oversight. Those fighter planes are against….any guesses, India

    And dishonest too………there is no concrete proof of Islamophobia, other than in writer’s own words: While not absolutely systematic, this anti-Muslim sentiment has been prominent in most of the interviews that I conducted

    Now, to USINPAC having no prominent Muslims in it. That is something they need to work on, no doubt. But a small percentage of Muslims from India immigrate to US (It is not ~14%, as the population demographics in India is) since a lot of them are not in economic strata to begin with that puts you in line for student visa/ H-1B to US. GREs, SATs, ticket to USA ain’t cheap when paid in rupees. I only know few Muslims from India during student, H-1B days….definitely not ~14%.

  8. I think there might be some legal reason fro not accepting money from non-citizens/permanent residents.

    Contrary to some of the opinions here it is not in the interest of Indian Americans, from a real-politik perspective, to have unrestricted immigration. It is in their interest to have unrestricted immigration of Indian Americans while somehow excluding others. For example, having English fluency as a requirement, or maintaining a selecive policy preferring high-skill immigrants. IAs simply do not have enough in common, socio-economically, with other minority groups. Also, you are mistaken if you think that even economically similar minority groups are going to have a united front in the near future. We are already beginning to see a black-hispanic split over immigration. If any of you are from Southern California, ethnic violence has minly been between Korean, Black and Latino minorities, not between any one of these groups and the majority White community.

  9. Manju writes:

    This is why we should be more careful about throwing around the term islamophobia, as we do not want to feed this exaggeration

    This term is wrong on another account.

    phobia = fear.

    I don’t think any of the people/persons among the pro-India lobby is afraid of Islam. There may be pity, revulsion, scorn, apathy, and a host of other emotions. But fear is not one of them.

    M. Nam

  10. I think there might be some legal reason fro not accepting money from non-citizens/permanent residents.

    You can accept money from Permanent Residents. Look at Democratic Party, Republican Party fund raiser forms, they will ask if you are PR, then you have to give PR #. I receive those forms all the time.

    Manju, glory days of KKK come from Indiana, not South.

  11. Desidude wrote:

    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%.

    And then, when asked for a citation, wrote:

    Ikram, Google is your friend, use it

    Desidude — Look, you sound like a moron here. You’re making a verifiable, statiscal claim, then when asked to back it up, you demand that others do your homework. You must have found that 13% figure somewhere — just link to it or cite it.

    Louiscypher wrote:

    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?

    That’s almost what happened. Look at table one in this paper, on the Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh proportions in Punjabi districts (excluding princely-states) in 1941 and 1951. Pakistani Punjab had proportionaly more migration, but the numerical effect was great in India (look at Ferozepur of Jullundhur).

    Partitions most serious ethnic cleansing was a generally a Punjabi phenomonon. Indian Punjab (adn Haryana) was almost completely cleansed, with those Muslims taht are left mostly in Malerkotla in Punjab and Mahndragarh in Haryana (both are former-princely sates, where the “Punjabi Civil War” was not quite as brutal).

  12. does guarantee them certain rights including electoral representation.

    Sure, minorities can vote, and there probably are some constituencies in India where only some minorities e.g. Muslims can win, or only Muslims will run, or will be run. This is better than nothing, of course. The question is whether this also addresses representational equity, whether people who identify with specific socio-religious communities do in fact feel represented, whether their voice is heard, and whether, in certain spheres, their vote is definitive. It is no use hoping or claiming this to be true if it is not felt to be true by the people in the communities themselves. In an ideal polity maybe this question wouldn’t arise. India is not that ideal polity.

    This also raises the issue of whether there are communities defined by things other than religion that feel this way – I would say yes, and that identifies the inherent limitations of the Westminster form of parliamentary representational democracy that India has practiced. That is the larger issue, and helps frame the putative religious identity problem in a larger context that is relevant even in the purely politico-civic sphere, and thus also the socio-economic sphere. So I would say ‘guaranteeing electoral representation’ is meaningful only in a demonstrably equitable representational system.

    In this context, I acknowledge the general point you make about minorities. And so, one solution is to bring government closer to the people – to have many more sub-nations and states, for example. And that then goes to the unitary state/federation biggie. I’ll leave that for ‘maybe later’. Bowing out of this for the present.

  13. Abhi – You have two moderate Sikhs and one Conservative Christian blogging for this site, why no moderate or conservative Muslim?

  14. Chachaji,

    This is what wikipedia says about relegious minorities in Pakistan “Since Pakistan declared itself an Islamic nation and pursued a decidedly Islamic course in its political and social life since the 1980s, Hindus as a minority in Pakistan have had considerably fewer privileges, rights and protections in comparison to minorities in India, which constitutionally avows itself secular and giving of equal rights to its religious minorities including the Muslim, Christian and Sikh communities. Cultural marginalization, discrimination, economic hardships and religious persecution have resulted in forcibly converting Hindus to other religions (Islam, Christianity), and today Hindus constitute barely 2% of Pakistan’s population”

    The paragraphs that follow talk about minorities in communities etc, link here.

    Equating everything wrong in South Asia with India and repeated calls for sub-divisions of India and its states doesn’t further the debate at all in my opinion.

  15. Abhi – You have two moderate Sikhs and one Conservative Christian blogging for this site, why no moderate or conservative Muslim?

    yeah, and while were at it why dont we get some scientologists in on the fray! the mutiny must fight xenu to the end!

  16. Abhi – You have two moderate Sikhs and one Conservative Christian blogging for this site, why no moderate or conservative Muslim?

    a) What’s your point?

    b) We have two Christian bloggers, neither of whom is “Conservative”. “Libertarian” or “moderate” would be more accurate.

  17. Contributions from Corporations and Foreign Nationals who are not US Citizens or US Permanent Residents may not be accepted.

    It says may and not shall/will 🙂

    Please correct your opinions about H1B and other such visa holders.

    Hey, I am not a H-1 hater. You have identified yourself as H-1 and I love your comments. From the comments here it does seem like H-1 people are not the core base of USINPAC.

  18. 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.

    I guess some trolls are more equal than others. I am speechless. Well snark and shock aside I think I know what Chachaji is saying. Under the Taliban for example some of the more draconian decrees like stoning to death for adultery were not applicable to non-Islamic minorities like Hindus and Sikhs. But that doesn’t mean that Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh can come out in the streets chanting ‘ long live Narendra Modi ‘ like hundreds of thousands of Muslims do in India ‘ Long Live Osama ‘.

    Brown, you are right. Hindus haven’t mostly been forcibly converted in Pakistan and Bangladesh. It’s just that the conditions have been so discriminatory as Hindus and incentives relatively lucrative as Muslims that they have had to convert. But still there have been several well documented cases of lower class Hindu girls being forcibly married to Muslims. Now of course that’s something you won’t hear here on SM because it’ll generate more Islamophobia:)

  19. 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.

    I somehow missed this among all the posts. Wow! To think I had a lot of respect for chachji’s views – “had” being the operative word here.

    M. Nam

  20. But still there have been several well documented cases of lower class Hindu girls being forcibly married to Muslims. Now of course that’s something you won’t hear here on SM because it’ll generate more Islamophobia

    If you have a story about this, post it on the news tab. Especially now, when people are voting on what stories they find most valuable.

  21. I somehow missed this among all the posts. Wow! To think I had a lot of respect for chachji’s views – “had” being the operative word here.

    Chachaji is an ISI operative. His real name is Chachamian.

  22. “yeah, and while were at it why dont we get some scientologists in on the fray! the mutiny must fight xenu to the end!”

    Throw in a jedi master too!

  23. I swear I did. Several months ago when one could email you news tips in private. The mail was ignored. And I hadn’t posted it out of any malicious anti-Muslim agenda. I like Islamic culture – the one that made India so culturally rich in the last few centuries. But people please stop telling me that Sunni Islam as an ideology is not a threat to the modern world and poses an existential threat to both India and Israel.

  24. “yeah, and while were at it why dont we get some scientologists in on the fray! the mutiny must fight xenu to the end!”
    Throw in a jedi master too!

    Don’t forget Pastafarians. We have starchy feelings, too.

  25. It says may and not shall/will 🙂

    Right, that’s why I said H1Bs are “not welcome” in USINPAC and NOT “not accepted”. I have read “Internetworking standards” and know how MUST/SHOULD/SHALL and MAY/MAY NOT work.

    From the comments here it does seem like H-1 people are not the core base of USINPAC.

    Right, I think H1s are a very recent phenomena. It looks like USINPAC folks are old hands.

  26. and doesn’t pose an existential threat to both India and Israel.

    It’s about time someone called Chachaji out on his ‘ thoughtful ‘ revision of subcontinental partition history as well. Chachaji has taken what would be considered mere contrarionness to a whole new level – one where it is hurting people and insulting their memory. I am all for moving forward without ill will towards anyone but please don’t tell me that Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims were all equal victims. And to all the ABDs you’d do objectivity a great service if you stopped looking at India’s religious majority-minority dynamic through the West’s collective memory. In the subcontinent it is the minority that has long terrorized the majority.

  27. Chachajiisfunny wrote: existential threat to both India and Israel.

    Seriously?! Existential threat to India? Either you don’t know what that word means, or you have some very unusual views on the probability of India being destroyed in the near future.

  28. I swear I did. Several months ago when one could email you news tips in private. The mail was ignored.

    You can still email news tips in, in “private”, but considering the volume of email received, unfortunately it may not get blogged; that doesn’t mean the tip was deliberately ignored. Frankly, I think the emailing option is best if you want to direct a story to a specific blogger.

    This is exactly why the News Tab was created– there is no possible way we can write a post about every tip sent in, but we realize that many of you have very important links which deserve exposure. Please, take advantage of it, especially now that comments are enabled on those news tab submissions. 🙂

  29. Wow, it looks like this particular mutiny will never ever die :).

    I have a question: Do Hindus publicly, privately and in practice refute the caste system and affirm the equality of human beings regardless of any attribute? If NOT, and all evidence points to NOT, then their ideology is just as discriminatory as Islam, dangerous for everyone and needs reformation. Let Hindus purge their society of all discrimination based on caste and build a more equitable society before they take up other religions.

    This is coming from someone who does agree that Islam and religious-apartheidic Islamic societies desperately need reform, and Muslims need to change their mindsets vis-a-vis everyone who does not believe in their book.

  30. SM Intern – Anybody who felicitates Bobby Jindal on his victory, however obliquely, is a Conservative Christian in MY book.

    As for my point – Just wondering as to why Sepia, a self confessed South Asian Blog, doesn’t have a single blogger from the second largest South Asian community – Muslims.

    Please do not view my query as a veiled criticism, anything but. As a matter of fact, I consider your blog to be more sensitive and objective on matters [ progressive Indian] Muslim, than most Muslim blogs out there. Thanks.

    PS – Were I even halfway as talented as the majority of your writers, I would gladly volunteer my services.

  31. I knew that was coming Ikram. Yes because India and Israel both have nukes while the Islamists have merely stones and suicide bombers strapped with mere nails. Right? It’s more complicated than that.

  32. SM Intern – Anybody who felicitates Bobby Jindal on his victory, however obliquely, is a Conservative Christian in MY book.

    Then Amardeep is a Conservative Christian, too. 😉

    As for my point – Just wondering as to why Sepia, a self confessed South Asian Blog, doesn’t have a single blogger from the second largest South Asian community – Muslims.

    It’s a South Asian American blog in outlook and atmosphere; we want commenters who are South Asian but not of Indian descent to feel welcome here. It’s not a collection of token-bloggers. Bloggers are chosen by skill set/experience and availability (not everyone whom we approach has time to blog here), nothing else.

    Please do not view my query as a veiled criticism, anything but. As a matter of fact, I consider your blog to be more sensitive and objective on matters [ progressive Indian] Muslim, than most Muslim blogs out there. Thanks.

    Thank you, that’s a wonderful compliment.

    If anyone else has questions about the blog, instead of derailing this very active thread, let’s be courteous to those who are discussing the actual post and move that discussion elsewhere (though Facebook’s SM group forum is all that comes to mind).

  33. “The condescension is unneeded and unwarranted. The paper’s focus was obviously the American lobbying world–if you had truly thought that this paper would address in a holistic manner, the entirety of the diasporic experience in three countries, you’re solely mistaken. Take a look at their conclusions–see anything about British or French lobbying world there? This is about the mildest conclusion i’ve ever seen in an academic paper and they obviously know they don’t have the citations to prove their point.”

    murali, let me try again. sorry for the condescension but i felt you were being condescending yourself. perils of the internet. my comment in #109 covered all three of the articles i mentioned – the introduction, therwath’s and aminah mohammed-arif’s separate article. the introduction i cited is from the introduction to the theme of all the papers (including a couple of others), and doesn’t just apply to therwath’s. i was just mentioning what i had gleaned from reading all three of them. only therwath’s paper focussed on the american lobbying world and i had already given my unsolicited opinion on that piece alone. i’m not saying that therwath’s paper should address the diasporic experience in three countries, since she clearly stated what her aim was (however I will say that her narrow focus is at somewhat at odds with the more all encompassing theme guiding all the papers). but i don’t think it’s too much to expect all the papers in their entirety to live up to the theme of this issue of the journal – a theme they set and whose parameters they defined, not me. while muslim fundamentalism is mentioned in the other pieces, my own opinion was that it was given short shrift compared to hindu extremism and came across as being mentioned only as a sort of eyewash and to lull the reader into thinking that both were being treated “equally.” i don’t think so. i’m not saying i am right, just that that’s the impression i got.

    “This is about the mildest conclusion i’ve ever seen in an academic paper and they obviously know they don’t have the citations to prove their point.”

    well, it’s easier not to have to cite anything when you deal in vagueness and generalities. with reference to therwath’s paper, i certainly think she should provide a source for her “anyhow, these two congressmen have assistants who don’t even speak to indian muslims.” saying “anyhow” and “the fact is” doesn’t absolve one of citing evidence for something that is not a given or widely accepted as a fact and is bound to be controversial, as opposed to something like “new delhi is the capital of india.” what she says may indeed be true but she undermines her own paper by speaking like that, as if the “anyhow” is supposed to convince us to just accept what she says. anyhow her paper is rubbish. does that make it true for everyone?

    “If you’re going to be so up in arms about omitted narratives then write your own paper–the paper as it stands is far too short to prove it’s thesis, but it’s not really a scholarly essay so much as deliberate meditation.”

    and you and others are not in high dudgeon over criticism of her “paper”? i am merely disturbed that a piece so weak as this, in my opinion only, should be cited as ammunition to prove something else and should be given pride of place in what is supposed to be an academic journal. i would not want my children to go to a college and have to put up with this level of scholarship – be it right-wing, left-wing or centrist or martian. i’d demand my money back. i think citing things like this undermines the often valid arguments of those who label themselves “progressives” and “secular” and shines a not-so-kind spotlight on the often invalid arguments of said group.

    i’ve already explained that when i looked at more than one of the papers/the overall tone/some of the statements/the editorial board/stated aims etc., i felt that there was a lack of balance more than “omitted narratives” or whatever. as for “the write your own paper” advice, frankly i find that tiresome and trite. i am not a “trained” south asian expert or academic, so it’s unlikely that i will write for a journal like that. i assume these people are writing in their journal for others to read what they write with a critical mind, and i guess i feel that my own education has given me some ability to do that. or is it meant to be incestuous and only for those in the know or who agree entirely with them? it already looks like they review one another’s books in their own publication. i put that on a level with cnn’s larry king touting lou dobbs’s or jack cafferty’s book although it’s probably unavoidable and i’ve seen it done on cricinfo as well.

    what’s the point of a blog if everytime you disagree with someone you say “go start your own blog”.? the bloggers often review movies/books/music on this website, sometime favourably and sometimes unfavourably. they, and all of us, are not shy about saying why we didn’t like a film/book/album, what we thought could be better, what we thought was omitted and should have been included, what we thought the characters should be like/not be like. how is that any different from criticizing someone’s blog post? of course, there are ways to criticize. but saying “i wish this director/writer would do/write about this instead of that” is not that much different from “i wish they would blog about/focus less or more on this rather than that.” would the directors, writers and musicians and actors who are the subjects of unfavourable reviews then be within their rights to come to this blog, berate us and say “direct your own movie, write your own book or make your own album or act in your own movie if you’re not happy with my product and before you criticize me”? after all, they put just as much effort and thought into their work as bloggers and writers of academic papers. perhaps no one should be allowed to criticize anything they themselves have not done/experienced?

  34. Chachajiisfunny: I knew that was coming Ikram. Yes because India and Israel both have nukes while the Islamists have merely stones and suicide bombers strapped with mere nails. Right? It’s more complicated than that

    Pakistan also has nukes, but to end the existance of India it would have to have enough nukes to kill 1 billion people (it doesn’t), or invade and conquer India and rules it (it can’t.).

    (Israel faces an existential threat becuase it is a small country whose legitimacy is still not entirely accepted by neighbouring populations. India is not small and it’s existence is recognized by all its neighbours.)

    Again, either you don’t know what the word “existential” means, or you have a likely scenario in mind in which the country of India is destroyed and its existence ended. Please feel free to elaborate.

  35. ok, i read the paper; i tend to agree with kush; its terrible (and would get a b- in my class, and that too would be a sympathy grade b/c she took the trouble to conduct interviews). all that being said, i still think that the basic concern of the paper is valid. i personally would not like to see another aipac like organization(though i think that all the talk about the “power” of aipac is vastly overemphasized).

    of course it still might be true that usinpac is motivated by “islamophobia” (however defined), but sufficient evidence substantiating that does not come from this particular paper.

  36. and you and others are not in high dudgeon over criticism of her “paper”? i am merely disturbed that a piece so weak as this, in my opinion only, should be cited as ammunition to prove something else and should be given pride of place in what is supposed to be an academic journal. i would not want my children to go to a college and have to put up with this level of scholarship – be it right-wing, left-wing or centrist or martian. i’d demand my money back. i think citing things like this undermines the often valid arguments of those who label themselves “progressives” and “secular” and shines a not-so-kind spotlight on the often invalid arguments of said group.

    Actually there’s no dudgeon goin’ up ’round these parts. You’re conflating my criticism of your comments with others which is fairly sloppy itself (given that you abhor such sloppiness in a purported academic journal.) I was criticizing the scope of your criticism of the paper–which took it to task for things it couldn’t possibly have addressed in the space it took up. It’s fine to say that the substantiation is insufficient and the argument unpersuasive, but to go further and complain about what it left out is clearly an aspiration of one who feels that a different sort of paper is in order–which is why I asked you about writing your own and not just complaining about the omissions in the paper in question (note that I didn’t ask you to start your own blog).

    The invitations to flesh out criticisms elsewhere is most definitely warranted when commentators introduce straw-man arguments into the discussion–if it is actually so important that you have to write a several-para long comment about it, then pony up the time-resources that Therwath did and provide a substantiated counterpoint. it is not an ‘incestuous’ approach that is needed to obtain the ‘authority’ to comment on the topic, but it does require you to sack up and write the response under the same rules that she did (with regards to substantiation) or at least point to some sources which contradict her conclusions.

  37. sh*t, hope i didn’t deep-6 v-man’s dating prospects….

    Nah, all the conjecture re: his special friendship with Manish takes care of that. 😉

  38. This may be a little offtopic

    Only 22.7 of Indian-Americans are born in the United States

    This has been said in several posts. And many times on other topic people have been upset when somebody ask them where they were born. But is this not a fair question?

  39. They dont wear the Arab style hijab. They wear either the Burqa or the Chaddor.

    It’s long, black, and covers the entire body including the face. How is it any different? (Other than that the “arab style” looks more sleek and graceful?)

  40. It’s long, black, and covers the entire body including the face. How is it any different? (Other than that the “arab style” looks more sleek and graceful?)

    Eh what? Wikipedia entry on Hijab.

  41. How is it any different?

    i hear you, but people kill each other over stupid differences. in the 1980s some bangladeshis were switching to a shafi style of hold their hands higher when they pray standing up instead of the traditional south asian hanafi style which is lower. it might look the same toward you, but the adherence to a small ritual was a good indicator for overall arabic or bengali identification re: islam (e.g., the second person would be more favorable toward pir veneration).

  42. and dude, if you don’t know the details about islam, it is kind of dumb to use the handle “Explaining Islam.” it’s like using the handle “Explaining Roman Catholicism” and expressing disinterest in their perception of the bread & wine they use in their rituals.

  43. Explaining Islam It’s long, black, and covers the entire body including the face. How is it any different?

    Among Desis, huge cultural and demographic differences. The Burqa was worn by my great grandmother when she went out a hundred years ago. Today, it’s still worn by less educated or more backward women in India, but less and less.

    The (modern-style) Hijab, which covers only the hair, is often worn by very educated, new-style religious women. Until the mid-90s, I had never seen a Desi Muslim woman wear one — but times are changing. Even now, I don’t think women in India wear the modern-style Hijab at all, but I could be wrong.

    Not really fair to call it “arab-style” — its common in Malaysia and Indonesia too.

    (Given that your tag is “explaining Islam”, you’d think you would already know this)