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.”
I’m on your side anna, but his really does sound like what companies say…not that there’s anything wrong with that.
ANNA wrote: I think we do a damned good job of keeping this an open space. … What’s more important to you– tokenism or people whose outlook is inclusive?
OK, I’ll try to make this the last time I chime in in this topic. I agree that good writers and an open space is the best goal — but how do you know of you are succeeding in keeping this an open space? I look at the “SM Space”: the bloggers and the commentors.
And by that standard, your commentors are mostly letting you down. I groan a bit when I see posts like the one above, not becuase Abhi has a bad attitude (he’s a prince of a man, he has excellent hair, etc), but because I know the flurry on fact-challenged comments that would follow. (Of course, I could skip the comments — but I mostly read blogs for the discussion — other don’t).
What can you do about all this? Not much– you can’t improve the general quality of Desis. But you can use blog posts to influence the type of people that show up here. And you can carefully choose guest bloggers to that end.
That said SM has a lot of great attributes. It’s gender inclusivene. Openness to non-desis commenting on Desi issues. This is a great blog, and you would be within your rights to make no changes at all.
And by their glibness, ye shall know them.
And as penence for that boring comment above, I’m going to suggest a blog post we can all enjoy, on the article just posted to the newstab: RX for Ethnic Sex
Sex therapist Faizal Sahukhan … has seen more and more clients suffering from “sexual culture clash,” in which Western individualistic and Eastern collectivistic romantic values collide.
… even if the Muslim girl decides to sleep with her boyfriend, she won’t enjoy herself …
[a non-Indian woman]had previously been to see the therapist about an Indian man she was dating who refused to reciprocate oral sex. “Not only have many ethnic men been raised to fear the vagina,” explains Sahukhan, but they also abhor the cultural implications of “servicing” a woman
What SM really needs right now is a good discussion about how ethnic men fear The Vagina.
Your magnanimity knows no bounds.
Ikram man, what have you done. That last comment will invoke Pardesi Gori….oh the humanity !
Does anyone else have anything to say which is on topic?
Manju, I deleted that because we like you. We’re closing the thread, I’m sure you wouldn’t want that to be the “last word.”
So is this open again?
I think it’s a little sad that the major dividing line between older DBD political activists and younger, predominately ABD activists is being presented as reaction to Islam. Sure, uncle-aunty’s views on Islam usually really piss me off, but there are political issues stemming from my Indian heritage and American upbringing that I would prioritize more highly.
For that matter, the assumption that organizations like USINPAC should represent younger ABD’s may be fundamentally flawed. The analogy between India and Israel is inexact. We’re not linked by the same religious sentiment (at least in my experience). It’s the place where my parents came from, which is something, but it’s not everything. And the Republic of India’s interests are clearly not the same as mine, or most young second (third, fourth, fifth, eventually)-gen Desis. Moreover, I will believe in pluralism no matter what India’s most prominent Washington lobbying group doesn’t. Maybe it’s unfair to ask that group to serve this dual purpose.
Neal, you’ve hit bullseye. USINPAC is an organization that claims to work for the interests of “Indian Americans” when in reality it’s working for the interests of India, a foreign country – a country of our ancestors origin, and one whose interests we as Indian Americans are obviously sympathetic with, but a foreign country nonetheless.
I’m sympathetic to what you’ve both said (Neal and Arjun) — I guess my concern is that, with a constant flow of Indian immigrants to the US, over time you’d have two sets of lobbying interests. Those that are ‘Indian-American’ (second gen and beyond) and those that are ‘Indian’ — but the latter would still be represented by people who are Indian-American, and just happen to be first gen. Is there any precedent for this?
This may seem like an unnecessary DBD/ABD division but it seems inevitable that it would happen over time.. a fourth gen american of indian origin will, on average, have different interests than a recently naturalized immigrant from india. Right?
This post is in response to the long post on Sepia Mutiny blogger Abhi. The post pretty much looks to talk about the various misguided points made in the article we had discussed in the past post on Sunday.
I think it is shameful that Abhi would even reference this as a viable source, it seems as if it is a hatchet job as referenced by many of the comments to this post.
“I do not feel that USINPAC represents my interests whatsoever and I wish the press would stop assuming they speak for all Indian Americans.”
Abhi although you are free to believe that the organization doesn’t represent your beliefs the truth is the organization does work to promote values important to ALL Indian Americans. Our legislative accomplishments, our work and support for Indian American candidates, and our work with various initiatives such as this Presidential Portal, which is a strong example of this.
“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.—
I want to say and always have said I have great admiration for the work done by IALI and SAALT, if these organizations have problems and issues with USINPAC as described in the article I hope they are bringing them to our attention because working together as a unified voice is important for all of our organizations. Working directly with the organization I can assure Abhi that your claim is baseless, all of our supporters are hard working US Citizens and without really knowing the truth I think you should be careful with your words. I think the work being done at Sepia Mutiny has been great, I have spoken to Anna about this before but making harsh accusations against others never seemed to be anything I have seen before.
It is important that Indian Americans understand what USINPAC truly stands for and in no way have our views been anti-Muslim. Other accusations that went on in many comments to this Sepia Mutiny post accuse “H-1B Warriors” to be strong supporters of the agenda. For anyone that knows anything about election laws, foreign nationals are prohibited by FEC regulations from donating to a political candidate, party or organization such as USINPAC. Many people have also accused USINPAC of being a voice of “old hands”. I can assure you that although I may have a few gray hairs, my hands still are very young. The membership and leadership base of USINPAC reflects people of all ages, at all walks of life and is not really dominated by any one “type” of Indian.
As discussed before, the Indian American community is very diverse. Most ethnic communities have religion, food or language to tie them together but our community proves to be different. It is difficult to distinctly represent all groups but I assure you USINPAC support is from various people and in no way would support be turned away due to religion or any other qualifying factors.
I encourage people to ask questions about the organization if they exist but to try and restrict themselves from making baseless or falseless accusations. I am a volunteer and have never recieved a penny from the organization and can tell you that Indian Americans need to come together as a unifying force to tell politicians what is important to us to move our community forward.
http://www.usinpac2008.com
Varun @ 262:
Nice to read your response. Just to clarify that I used the term “old hands” not in “accusing tone”. That was in response to another commenter claiming that H1B warriors are big supporters of USINPAC which is not the case as you rightly pointed out.
Also, nice to know this.
The general idea in this blogspace is that “2nd gen. Indian Americans” are “progressive South Asians” and not “narrow minded Indian Americans”. 🙂
Neal (with no ‘e’):
Dood, where’ve you been?
For anyone that knows anything about election laws, foreign nationals are prohibited by FEC regulations from donating to a political candidate, party or organization such as USINPAC
Not all foreign nationals are prohibited by FEC regulations. Green Card holders can in fact donate to political candidates. As you are someone, I presume, who knows something about elecionl law, you must have surely been aware of the ‘green card’ exemption.
I want to say and always have said I have great admiration for the work done by IALI and SAALT, if these organizations have problems and issues with USINPAC as described in the article I hope they are bringing them to our attention because working together as a unified voice is important for all of our organizations.
Abhi although you are free to believe that the organization doesn’t represent your beliefs the truth is the organization does work to promote values important to ALL Indian Americans.
Advocating on behalf of Modi when his visa was denied does not constitute representing the values of ALL India Americans.
Ponniyin: Nobody stays on H-1 forever anyway. The maximum one can stay on H-1 is 6 years and then move on to Green Card status etc.
AR:
I agree that it’s kind of a shame, but the cultural divide is clearly real and growing. At the same time, I don’t think it’s fair to appropriate the term “Indian-American” solely to ABDs. The divide is first vs. multi-gen, but both lay claim to the title of “Indian-Americans”. The interests of the two groups will coincide at times (maybe most of the time), but when they diverge I am absolutely confident that there’s a core of vocal, active first-genners out there ready to provide leadership.
DJ Drrrty Poonjabi:
Hey man! I’ve mostly switched to lurker mode b/c of law school. It’s easy to spend way too much interesting time on these threads 😉
“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.”
I have a strong respect for the organizations that he mentions. But I would like to question his allegations about USINPAC’s long distance Nationalism, because USINPAC has taken a very active role in the following and many other recent issues:
1) Standing up to the Obama Campaign for questioning the ability of our community to engage in the political process: http://www.usinpac.com/news_details.asp?offset=15&News_ID=64
2) When it came to taking Sen. Allen to task about his Macaca comments: http://www.usinpac.com/news_details.asp?offset=30&News_ID=47
3) Providing support to the Indian Americans who are running for office most of whom happen to be in the 22.7% figure that he quotes http://www.usinpac.com/indian_americans_candidates.asp
I recommend you all check out http://www.usinpac2008.com a site focused on talking about issues and the upcoming presidential election.
Thanks!
Varun: Can you please tell us why your organization advocated on behalf of Narender Modi?
Neal:
Congrats, broski. I feel ya: school has forced me into lurking for the most part as well, save for any reference to Bill Hicks, 90’s rock, and/or Funyuns that happens to catch my eye. When’re you going to start blogging again?
Al:
Bam. Nailed it.
Al, will the sound of crickets chirping suffice?
ACFD: >>Can you please tell us why your organization advocated on behalf of Narender Modi?
Why is that a relevant question?
Around thirty-five Indian-American organisations advocated on behalf of Modi. Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh advocated on behalf of Modi, and so did the Indian Parliament. Would you strike all of them in the same brush? If not, the hypocrisy needs to end.
SM Intern: Relevancy is subjective.
M. Nam
Not on my blog. A mutiny is not a democracy.
Fair enough. You set the rules, so you are free to judge comment #254 as relevant to this thread and not delete it. And you are free to delete my comment which was a response to it.
M. Nam
Around thirty-five Indian-American organisations advocated on behalf of Modi. Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh advocated on behalf of Modi, and so did the Indian Parliament. Would you strike all of them in the same brush? If not, the hypocrisy needs to end.
USINPAC is not the Indian Government or the Indian Parliament. Its a lobbying group advocating for policies which represent the best interests of Indian Americans.
Varun states:
The progressive South Asian groups were instrumental in getting the State Dept. to deny the visa to Modi. I am brining this to the attention of Varun.
This whole post deals with Islamophobia. Its perfectly legitimate to question USINPACs stance on Modi.
If allegations of Islamophobia can be made against USINPAC because of it’s support for Modi’s visa, then that allegation is applicable to all the other 35 organisations, Manmohan Singh and the Indian Parliament.
If a=b and c=b, then it follows that a=c.
M. Nam
Right, so shouldn’t be called “green card warriors” and not “H1B warriors”?. (Irrelevant info: “green card” in 6 years is not possible now for a majority of Indian H1Bs. )
Moornam: There is a difference between the stance of the Indian Government which has to follow inter-country official protocol and a lobbying group in the US. Also I think the Indian Government was wrong in advocating on behalf of Modi. Manmohan Singh has done nothing on the atrocities committed against the Sikhs by Congress in 84 so his actions are hardly the gold standard for judging what constitutes just action.
Also I strongly disagree with the actions of the 35 Indian American organizations if they did in fact support Modi’s request for a visa.
(Irrelevant info: “green card” in 6 years is not possible now for a majority of Indian H1Bs. )
Why not? Not to take the discussion away from USINPAC.
There is a country specific limit on the number of green cards (I think in the tens of thousands) that can be issued per year and as the numbers indicate with atleast quarter to half a million Indians waiting in line for the green card it would definitely take more than 6 years..
I object to the claim that USINPAC “speaks for all Indian-Americans,” as Varun says, simply because that is such an absolute and ridiculous statement. Obviously, though, USINPAC represents a significant portion of Indian-Americans, and even if that portion isn’t a majority, obviously it’s influential. Why can’t organizations like USINPAC, which focuses on getting America to use its foreign policy to benefit India, coexist with organizations like SAALT, which focuses on domestic diasporic issues? I consider myself both Indian-American and South Asian. I can identify with Pakistani-Americans and Bangladeshi-Americans while still caring about India as a political entity.
I agree with Whose God is it anyways?’ excellent comments- I don’t see how trying to influence Congress to put pressure on Musharraf to take ISI-funded terrorism in India down a notch makes a group Islamophobic. And it does seem that the author of this really shoddy article herself is the one who is equating pro-India (which would mean pro-Indian Muslims, too; they get killed by terrorists too) with Islamophobia; I’m surprised that anyone would take her conclusions completely at face value as proof of institutional or even rampant Islamophobia among these organizations– I think it says more about those people than about the organizations.
This is not to say that there aren’t Modi-admiring types among the diaspora; obviously there are. And I’ll be the first to challenge them on their views and to decry domestic communalism. But let’s consider that Indian Muslims are underrepresented in South Asian America (as opposed to Christians, Jains, Sikhs, and certain Hindu castes, who are overrepresented), and the fact that many Muslims identify foremost as Muslims, not by nationality or ethnicity.
But there’s still Camille’s point about how certain attitudes probably make Indian Muslims feel alienated from South Asian America. But sn’t it possible to try to be more inclusive while still maintaining a pro-India bias (for those of us who feel nationalistic when it comes to India, and who have lots of family there whose lives might be bettered by some sort of India-U.S. deal)?
Sorry, I just don’t understand what is so wrong with a pro-INDIA lobby having an “Indocentric approach.” It doesn’t necessarily preclude South Asian American cohesiveness and solidarity. Then again, I’m not part of the enlightened 22.7 (is this like our version of the talented tenth?), so my opinion doesn’t count for much in ‘progressive South Asian’ circles.
Nala, that’s not true.
And it’s unbelievably amusing that moderate me has to ask this, but since when did “progressive” become so dirty? “Progressive South Asian” is being tossed in our faces a lot recently and it’s the same old anti-South Asia-label bullshit in a much more offensive package. How bad can we progressive South Asians be? All of you who hate the name and what we stand for so much ARE STILL HERE. So, either we’re not deserving of this unnecessary derision or, some of you should look in to why you choose to spend your time antagonizing others while patronizing a website whose focus you find so below you.
I find it funny that I used that label too, actually, because I do identify as South Asian (though I just say ‘desi’ or ‘brown’) and I’m pretty lefty myself. But I don’t think it should have to mean erasing the Indian or the Hindu parts of my identity, which I’ve felt uncomfortable espousing in some of these circles (in real life, like my college SASA). And the original post makes it seem like an either/or between Indian nationalists and South Asian Americans with this final statement:
As if those of us who recognize political differences between India and Pakistan and care about India in a nationalistic manner (NOT a Hindu nationalistic manner! I can’t emphasize that enough! Is it so wrong to want to see my birthplace get ahead in the world?) are necessarily… barbaric? unwelcome? Islamophobic?
Though I’m curious as to how South Asian Americans as a group do/should feel about subcontinental politics. What does it matter to groups like SAALT, when they’re more focused on domestic issues?
I don’t mean for the questions in #283 to seem accusing, nor do I expect answers or anything, I’m just musing and interpreting the original post as I interpreted it (excuse my redundancy).
Did #281 get re-formatted, btw?
Really? I was one of two SASA members at my alma mater who were not reppin’ India. I probably wouldn’t have joined up if it was called an Indian Student association.
probably around the time that “Liberal” became somewhat of a pejorative term. That and “progressive” are now code words for ‘Chavez-loving, gay-agenda pushin’, carbon-offset hoarding, coastal elite.”
Nala,
forgot to clarify– my latter paragraph was a general point and not aimed at you, but thank you for being so gracious with your reply, despite such ambiguity. 🙂 I’m just sick of reading “so-called South Asian progressive” and similar, especially since not everyone who identifies as SA is progressive (ahem). achtung: It’s not that I don’t want to be progressive, it’s that progressives have (online and off) expressed that I’m not progressive enough to be progressive. This all hammers that point about sweeping generalizations, doesn’t it? 😉
Yes, your comment was broken up in to paragraphs. I got pinged by a mobile user that it was difficult to read, and since your opinion counts for much with me (and many others, I’m sure) I wanted to make sure it was heard. I was in the middle of emailing you to alert you, when you asked. 😉
I love me some gay and I’m coastal but I’d totally rock that ¿Por qué no te callas? ringtone, if I had it. 😉
I’m not saying that groups like SASA should be ‘IASA’ instead (far from it!). I’m just saying that having certain political feelings about India, and an actual religious Hindu identity (as opposed to a cultural/secular one), have been unwelcome in these groups (in addition to being an uncool southie), in my experience (despite most of the group being made up of Indian-American Hindus anyway). Then again my school is so lefty it makes me feel like Sean Hannity to its Al Franken sometimes.
And I have the pretty unique experience of having been one of the few Indian-Americans in a high school where nearly all the desis were Bangladeshi-Americans, so maybe it colors my experience that I haven’t actually always been part of the majority in SASA-like situations.
“And it’s unbelievably amusing that moderate me has to ask this, but since when did “progressive” become so dirty? “Progressive South Asian” is being tossed in our faces a lot recently and it’s the same old anti-South Asia-label bullshit in a much more offensive package. How bad can we progressive South Asians be? All of you who hate the name and what we stand for so much ARE STILL HERE. So, either we’re not deserving of this unnecessary derision or, some of you should look in to why you choose to spend your time antagonizing others while patronizing a website whose focus you find so below you.”
i may be wrong, but i think nala’s comment about the “enlightened 22.7” is not directed at sm but at the paper in which that assumption or implication is made.
just to clarify. when i put the word “progressive” in quotation marks above, it’s not because of disdain for the term or derision for what those who identify themselves as such stand for (indeed i think we all share many of these “values” to varying degrees. it’s because such labels are so murky, to me at least, and don’t clearly describe people. they put people in limiting boxes. just because i may not agree with you/sm on some things, doesn’t mean i am not progressive/liberal or that i am regressive. i may find some so-called progressive people actually quite regressive from my point of view and vice versa (hypothetically, not talking about anyone here) .
i don’t think progressive/conservative are terms that anyone can lay claim to. i don’t think secular is a term that anyone can really lay claim to 100 percent because it is another often ill-defined term that can seemingly be subverted whenever it doesn’t match one person’s idea of what secular is or when one’s own biases are more important than 100 percent, true-blue secularism, whatever that is. similarly, the terms moderate/liberal/conservative take on different meanings from different viewpoints. yes i know all these terms have some sort of definition in today’s political/cultural landscape (and even that varies from country to country), but real life is gray and murky, not black and white, and i find very few, if any people, who are really true to the labels either given to them or to the labels they give to themselves. i also think when one labels oneself progressive/secular, the burden of proof is very high/higher than if one is openly pro-some religion/culture/agenda/language/bias etc., and is not always going to be convincingly met. hence, i think therwath’s paper flops. and i hope that honest disagreement is not seen as antagonism:)
Oh, I forgot to add– ironically enough, it is my friends back home who go to schools where there are larger numbers of and percentages of desis that don’t have to deal with as much identity politicking (or at all, actually).
Dang. I feel special. 🙂
Awww, WGiiA? Noooo, not at ALL. I love how the people who responded to my comment are the ones who are least guilty of what irritates me. 😉
I meant antagonism in the sense that there are people who deeply disagree with our vision and approach to this blog, who mock our identification etc…and it just perplexes me that they’d want to lurk here. Reminds of being small and having Mom look at either me or the little sister while she grimaced and muttered, “you just WANT to fight, don’t you.”
That’s only the American view.
In the desi-related view, the term “progressive” has come to mean Hinduphobic, communist, anti-H1B, pro-Bangladeshi influx, anti-Gujarathi academic elite.
Going by the trail of comments, I’ll let the readers decide how much of this is true.
M. Nam
Lobbying in America for the well being of the only true secular democracy in all of West, South and North Asia is a moral obligation not some long distance nationalism.
Thanks for the clarification, MoorNam. Very interesting.
Wouldn’t Anti-Modi be more apposite, instead of anti-Gujarathi? Must we doom Abhi and other Gujus to self-loathing? 😉
Anna,
Abhi’s no progressive – progressive don’t have a sense of humour!
Modi’s just a whipping-boy for their anti-Gujarathi-success hateroid.
M. Nam
Modi’s just a whipping-boy for their anti-Gujarathi-success hateroid.
Envy of Gujarat! What a joke. Yes, we are all lining up to go to Gujarat so that we can be successful too.
“Reminds of being small and having Mom look at either me or the little sister while she grimaced and muttered, “you just WANT to fight, don’t you.”
but a family wouldn’t be a family without unnecessary fights and unnecessary drama:)
See MoorNam, or even risible @ 19. For many advocates, “progressive” politics with respect to opinions about India are entirely illegitimate, and even incompatible with Indian (rather than “South Asian”) identity. Leave aside issues of relations with Pakistan, Bangladesh, or any other foreign state — even progressive critiques of the treatment of internal minority groups are considered illegitimate.
I believe that view is NOT uncommon. Further, I believe it’s most common (though certainly not universal) among the older generation who did not grow up in the West. And that’s why I am skeptical about the ability of any group that is trying to represent “Indian-Americans” as a whole, at least in all cases. What do you do with a problem like Modi, in which a person’s perception of the issue will vary widely with their demographic? You’re either going to come down for the strong Hindu nationalism pursued by a non-significant chunk of Indian-Americans, or you’re going to go for the (perhaps starry-eyed, Pollyanna, elitist, etc…) pluralist, human rights agenda. Either way, a lot of Indian-Americans are not going to be particularly happy. USINPAC is therefore in a much more difficult position than, say, AIPAC. Or MOST ethnic organizations. Either it foregoes ANY controversial issues (which are often the most important), or it pisses people off. It’s not fair to expect any organization to fully represent people who have such strongly-held, widely divergent opinions.
Did you mean to say non-insignificant?
It’s personally more disappointing to me to find supposedly progressive 2nd gens who are not willing to hear someone say something which differs from their view. And by difference in opinion I do NOT mean some kind of Hindu nationalist view (I really really can’t emphasize this enough), but one that recognizes the reality of danger from various sources on the subcontinent, not just right-wing Hindu nationalist fundamentalists. I don’t expect much from aunties & uncles, but in my experience, they’re really not that bad.
It’s interesting to see how these Hindutva types are now learning to couch their latent Islamophobia in seemingly evenhanded PC-speak. Bravo!
An analysis of Hindutva types will reveal disturbing levels of casteism and raw hatred for anything that is not “Hindu”. This is true of all nationalisms, but insofar as ABDs are concerned, it shouldn’t be allowed to hold legitimate “Indian-American” or rather South Asian concerns hostage to those of the elite of the Republic of India, who are fighting their darndest to keep the highly disturbing and discriminatory hierarchical social order (with them on top) that prevails in India intact. While we see many of this ilk railing against other religions, millions and hundreds of millions in their own country, and purportedly of their own religion perish or live horrid hopeless lives. You’d think they’d address that first. Will we ever see equality and brotherhood of the level of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or any other religion in Indian (read: Hindu) society? So far, the answer is a resounding NO.