Let me start by posting Sonal Shah’s newly-released statement in full, as one goal of this post is to let readers judge her words for themselves:
I was recently maligned by a professor at a college in Connecticut who wrote an article in CounterPunch accusing me of association with Hindu extremism. Then, a few days ago, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, former Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, published an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer, to which this site linked, that echoed the CounterPunch accusations. These attacks sadden me, but they share one other thing in common: the accusations are false.
In reaction to these attacks, my closest friends — and many strangers — have rallied to my side. I am touched by this outpouring of support. And as painful as this episode has been for me personally, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with the seriousness that it deserves, but the conversation should proceed on the basis of verified facts and reasoned argument, not innuendo and defamation.
Indian politics and history are contested and emotive, but also unfamiliar to most Americans. I understand why so many Indians and Indian-Americans feel strongly about religious extremism in India, because I share the same concerns.
I am an American, and my political engagements have always and only been American. I served as a U.S. Treasury Department official for seven years, and now work on global development policy at Google.org. And I am honored to serve on the Presidential Transition Team of President-elect Obama while on leave from Google.org.
I emigrated from India at the age of four, and grew up in Houston. Like many Americans, I remain proud of my heritage. But my engagement with India has been exclusively cultural and humanitarian. After the devastating earthquake in Gujarat in 2001, I worked on behalf of a consortium of Indian-American organizations to raise funds for humanitarian relief. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America (VHP-A), an independent charity associated with the eponymous Indian political group, was among these organizations, and it was the only one to list my name on its website. I am not affiliated with any of these organizations, including the VHP-A, and have not worked with any of them since 2001.
The experience with the Gujarat earthquake did, however, teach me an important lesson. It pointed up a lack of dedicated infrastructure to help alleviate suffering in India, so together with my brother and sister, I founded Indicorps, an organization modeled on the U.S. Peace Corps that enables young Indian-Americans to spend a year in service to marginalized communities in India. The fellows come from every religious background, and have worked among every religious community in India. Indeed, some Indicorps fellows focus on inter-faith dialogue as part of their projects.
In 2002, Gujarat suffered one of the most profound tragedies in its long history, when extremist political leaders, including some associated with the VHP, incited riots that resulted in the deaths of thousands. Had I been able to foresee the role of the VHP in India in these heinous events, or anticipate that the VHP of America could possibly stand by silently in the face of its Indian counterpart’s complicity in the events of Gujarat in 2002 — thereby undermining the American group’s cultural and humanitarian efforts with which I was involved — I would not have associated with the VHP of America.
Sadly, CounterPunch and Senator Santorum have suggested that I somehow endorse that violence and the ongoing violence in Orissa. I do not – I deplore it. But more than that, I have worked against it, and will continue to do so. I have already denounced the groups at issue and am hopeful that we can begin to have an honest conversation about the ways immigrant and diaspora communities can engage constructively in social and humanitarian work abroad. (link)
I was happy to see a believable account of how Shah’s name appeared on the VHPA website as a coordinator for earthquake relief in 2001. Shah doesn’t specifically address the statements from a VHPA spokesman to the effect of “she was part of our leadership council for three years,” but there is a clear and convincing account of what she now believes about the VHP as an organization in India, as well as a clear statement about Gujarat 2002. I think we should also not overlook the statement “I am an American” that is here: she considers her personal political commitments to be first and foremost oriented to the American political landscape. I think this fact is important to remember whenever we talk about 2nd generation South Asian Americans’ relationships to specific political issues within South Asia.
After the fold, some thoughts following a personal meeting I had with Anand Shah, Sonal Shah’s younger brother, today in Philadelphia.
First, Anand is a pretty intense person — he had a lot to say about the work he and his siblings have done with Indicorps. What came through is a real passion for the kind of work Indicorps does, namely help people find NGOs in India that need hard-working, compassionate people who have skills that can help people all over India. I got the strong sense that Anand would infinitely prefer to be talking about his experiences on that front in India (where he has lived full time since 2002), than dealing with this attack on his sister’s reputation. (Though he is an extremely passionate defender of his sister, don’t get me wrong.)
Second, I get the sense that at least these two Shah siblings are “doers” rather than “talkers.” In our conversation today, Anand repeatedly emphasized his desire to work with people of different political stripes, if it can result in positive outcomes for people in need. He seemed especially impatient with lefty academic types in the U.S., who tend to talk a lot about poverty over dinner at pricey restaurants in New York City. He sees himself bi-partisan in the Obama vein — if a conservative wants to work with him to get something done that will have a positive impact, he’ll go there. These folks are pragmatists, not ideologues.
Third, he stressed the need for second-generation South Asian Americans (the target readership for this blog, incidentally) to take charge of our own self-representation, and not leave it to people like Vijay Prashad. Many of us have complicated affiliations that don’t fit the Indian paradigm of “hardcore religious” or “hardcore secular/Marxist.” For example, some of us have strong connections to religious identity (and associations that come with those strong connections), but nevertheless also would want to be identified as tolerant and progressive when it comes to the broader social order. (I’m thinking of my friends over at blogs like The Langar Hall, or perhaps Ali Eteraz [who has stopped blogging]. And I’m also referring to the religious youth camps that I discussed in my previous post on “Yankee Hindutva”)
Fourth, he agreed with my assessment that all this close attention to an association in Sonal Shah’s past is a bit insane given the gravity of the ongoing communal problem in India, where a person’s political and religious affiliations generally are worn on one’s sleeve. (No one needs to snoop and speculate to find out what you really think; chances are, it’s right out there in the open.)
Sonal Shah, I’ll say again, has never been heard to say anything remotely intolerant — and she’s not exactly been a shrinking violet when it comes to speaking engagements over the past few years. It’s also not clear that she ever did anything for the VHPA other than this role as an earthquake relief coordinator in 2001 (which she describes as only one part of a larger effort involving a consortium of organizations). In her own narrative of this association, as well as her brother’s account of it that I heard in person today, this was not a sustained or major involvement. Their decision to found Indicorps emerged precisely out of a need to establish a mechanism by which second generation Indian Americans could channel their desire to do good secularly, specifically where it would be of real benefit in India.
I hope there is enough evidence out there now that Sonal Shah is not some kind of ideologue for the Hindu right (in fact, she is not an ideologue at all). Moreover, her role as a member of the Obama transition team has had no involvement with policy related to India, so why exactly are we still talking about it?
It’s by the standard of Indicorps that Anand Shah wants to be judged — and I for one am willing to give him that.
“rushback vilification of Vijay Prashad (who is among the most serious and insightful analysts of Indians in America, and not some cartoon FOB)”
Only in American can one shamelessly profit (nay, thrive!) from the very ‘systems of oppression’ that one routinely blasts in print. A Marxist professor occupying a chair endowed by George Kellner of Kellner-Dileo (that’s for you rob).
Anpana Nayagan, The Gujarat pogrom was terrible, but it doesn’t mean that I have to choose to be a commie.
54 · rob said
no, you don’t. and no, this isn’t a binary situation. Certainly you can find ardent capitalist hindus who don’t have such a short memory.
Nayagan, Neengalthan ennethu mihaviruppamana yidethu pakkhathu aal. 🙂
Please – provide a better argument. Why the obfuscation ? As is well known, the VHP is legal in India and no party is clean. So just own up and let us all get on with it. The first desi who is in contention to be in the USA cabinet and she has a questionable past and what is worse is prepared to hem and haw about it. The VHP is not a hindu culture organization – it is the Hindu equivalent of the Sinn Fein. Nothing wrong except that it provides cover for pogroms. Rob – if you are funding the VHP in India, the blood of Muslims killed in India is on your hands. No if and buts about it.
Anyways why do 2nd gen Americans feel the need to get involved in India – a country that they dont live in and rarely visit? I can understand if 1st gens get involved who are often emotionally and financially invested.
Rob, reflexively calling anybody who disagrees with you a commie even when their position is clearly articulated, makes you look even more stupid than your virulent defense of the VHP’s behavior. If your claim is that any Hindu who does not support the cramped, toxic agenda of the Sangh is a rabid lefty, you understand neither communism nor Hinduism, and are no better than the apologists and fanatical terrorists that your beloved organization claims to protect you against.
Radical hindu!
55 · Nayagan said
but one cannot help but admire the magnanimity (and the impeccable logic!) of somebody like rob who is willing to overlook something like the gujarat pogroms because of the capitalism (???) and liberalism (!!!) that is a fundamental pillar of the vhp.
53 · Nayagan said
If there’s one thing I have taken from Prashad’s writings, it is how fatuous these calibrations of ideological purity are (that applies to his take on Shah as well, if you actually bother to read it). And for eff’s sake, why this endless game of shoot the messenger? Even people who end up aligning with the position he staked out in his original piece, or elaborating/refining the points he made there, feel obliged to act as if he laid a huge turd in the parlor. The constant accusations of opportunism or “crab in the bucket” syndrome really annoy me as well — what he said in his piece is exactly consistent with what he’s been saying for years, before either he or Shah attained whatever stature they currently possess. And he was hardly the first or only person to express concerns about Shah. Take issue with the arguments if you must, critique the style politics if they bother you (they’re not everyone’s cup of tea, though clearly they make an impact), but please spare us the stale slogans.
And Amardeep, why this recurrent pattern of going into a huddle with Team Shah and emerging to parrot their talking points? At this point I have stopped taking you seriously as an honest broker in this debate.
51 · DizzyDesi said
Since it apparently cannot be said enough times:
@ 6:
She didn’t volunteer for a soup kitchen, she was part of the leadership team. There is a difference. And the history of the VHP’s association with religious violence and mayhem did not begin with 2002 (it goes back at least to Babri Masjid and Bhagalpur in the late 80s), so the exculpatory excuse of lack of prescience combined with the facile explanation of her name being expropriated by VHP’s publicity efforts for its earthquake relief, really insult the intelligence. This statement might be long, but it still wilfully (some might say, deviously) omits any explanation of her being part of the leadership team of the VHP-A and egregiously misleads on the timeline of the VHP’s reputation for communal violence.
@ 32:
Maitri, she was in the leadership of VHPA for at least 3 years, possibly longer. If you’re in the leadership of the American franchise of a group, and you don’t say anything about that group’s misdeeds until you have your arm twisted, and even then you complain about having to do so … well, what conclusion would you draw? The right analogy here isn’t some “muslim organization” but rather the leadership of L-e-T-America. Let me phrase it in terms of domestic politics – what would you assume about state leaders of the GoP? Unless they say otherwise, you assume that they share their party’s national platform, right? Why is that an unsubtle understanding? There is a direct organizational tie. If you don’t believe in the GoP’s national platform, then don’t lead a state party.
Ok rajesh, Why is the VHP legal in the US and the groups that I hate, like Hamas, LeT, LTTE, and Hezbollah illegal? Either I’m correct or my peeps have power. Beef, biceps, and Bhagavad Gita–boyyyzzz!!
18 · rajesh said
Thank you.
Look, I don’t know Sonal Shah from anyone else, and I would still like to know more about what’s happening/happened. The IRA was a mainstream organization in Ireland. Hamas is a mainstream organization in Palestine. Being mainstream doesn’t mean that your activity isn’t problematic or reprehensible.
The VHP is not a substitute for, or a unifying voice for, Hindu religious institutions. Again, I think the conflation of the organization with a broader, much more diverse community, is problematic. They are not the same kind of organization as CAIR, for example.
From what I understand there are two questions: 1) Are a person’s activities in diasporic politics relevant to his/her qualifications for appointed office in the U.S.; and 2) do we believe that this kind of participation does not compromise or undermine a person’s ability to serve?
63 · rob said
I notice you did not mention Jamaat ud Daawa or IIRO. So far, the VHP has kept its behavior local to India, which would also explain its absence on a list maintained by the US. I have no idea how a label by the US of which organizations it sees as a threat is relevant to this discussion unless you employ an expedient situational definition of the acceptability of massacring innocents. Heck, the Naxalites are not labeled a terrorist organization by the US, so they must be hunky dory, right?
Moonsamy,
I did read both the original and follow up pieces. And yes, he has consistently been a hypocrite all these years–else he would not have been able to eat and provide shelter for himself. Being a hypocrite is not, in and of itself, a bad thing–not acknowledging so, especially when you’re funded by ‘evil’ capitalists, is a dick move. If you wish to be a radical, then act the part and take the abuse. Why don’t you step off your stylistic horse and engage with the arguments that the non-hysterical are making?
Prashad certainly likes the standard of “guilty before proven innocent” and wishes it to be applied however much the rest of us dumb Yanks persist in the belief that the opposite model is superior.
I certainly hope you can find an ‘honest broker.’ Given your ludicrous standards for what constitutes an interview, as opposed to a barrage of softballs, the search might last a lifetime.
63 · rob said
reasonable people would’ve considered you a monumental asshole in 1996 if you had supported the then-legal LTTE.
(to be clear, i am not calling you a monumental asshole, since as a wing-nut commie lefty, i am clearly not reasonable)
And Amardeep, why this recurrent pattern of going into a huddle with Team Shah and emerging to parrot their talking points? At this point I have stopped taking you seriously as an honest broker in this debate.
How is it a recurrent pattern? I met Anand Shah for the first time today. I had no direct contact with him, or anyone close to the Shahs, until yesterday. In fact, other bloggers at SM either know her personally, or know people in her inner circle. I am a stranger and an outsider to this world, and I don’t think I stand to benefit from taking this position.
Also, I am not a “broker” in this debate, though I have tried to be honest. I am just one small person, who has a perspective on it. Others may disagree with it, and that’s fine. But notice that I have not made ad hominem attacks against Vijay Prashad (though the temptation has been there to do so).
I am also not saying that I think it is fine and wonderful that she was ever involved with this group. I just think it doesn’t accurately reflect who she really is, and I think defining her solely on that basis (without acknowledging the progressive and secular work she has been doing) is reductive and unfair.
68 · Amardeep said
however, her constant pattern of evasion and misdirection (to put it politely) is disturbing.
do you have tenure yet? 🙂 (to be honest, i admire your boldness – i don’t know if it is foolhardiness – to both blog under your own name and to take strong positions on issues, despite the fact it might risk your being relegated to a measly subaltern 🙂
9 · rob said
there are pro-market administrations/parties in india which are pro-market. the first wave of reforms in the 1980s, which many economists like bhagwati hold to be more effective than the 1991 liberaliation were initiated by rajeev gandhi, a congressman. the 1991 liberalization happened on the congress’s watch. in the 1990s, BJP was hand in glove with organizations Bharatiya Majdoor Sangh, VHP, and the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, which protested the presence of MNCs in India and actively vandalized foreign-owned chain restaurants like KFC. they criticized the congress for selling India out. but after the BJP saw that the liberalization reforms were a hit with the urban public, especially its base in the trader castes of the north India, it changed its tune and styled itself as a pro-market party and SJM quietened down a bit. chandrababu naidu, an andhra leader who belonged to the TDP, who was very pro-business changed perceptions in indian politics and showed that a leader with a pro-technology and pro-market image could be a viable and successful politician. he later entered into electoral agreements with the BJP. every federal government has consistently followed the new delhi consensus. the most popular pro-market finance ministers, trusted by the indian stock markets and FICCI are manmohan singh and p chidambram: both of whom do not belong to the BJP. even the left in india now styles itself as pro-union and pro-labor (strict labor laws in an otherwise free market) rather than anti-business (the maoists and naxals are different from the indian left who are relevant because of the seats they have in the parliaments; the bjp was besties one time with mamta bannerjee, their coalition partner, who as you know is famous for disrupting the nano project in West Bengal, although that complciated issue is a story for another time). nobody is against competition, although the leaders oppose the privitization of several PSUs because it reduces the reach of their portfolios. in fact, at the federal level several leaders (such as aviation, science and technology) are very pro-industry because it allows them to make a lot of money. for instance, it is well known that air india gets the least lucrative routes (eg it lost the most profitable chicago-delhi route)so that the minister can make a bunch of money from the private sector firms that want those nice business opportunities. even the poorest of the poor in india were not fooled by bjp’s ‘india shining’ rhetoric, and you, for all your ivy league degress are choosing to be in denial about a lot of things. rob, your bungling of facts is beginning to disappoint me. i liked you better you when were not an idealogue 🙁 and if you think that the VHP-A doesn’t have dirty hands, then go to its website. it clearly susbcribes to the policy of VHP in India. i’m going to make a separate post about that. and those who disagree with you are called opponents, not communists. i thought the US had learnt that lesson a long time ago. a lot of free-marketers in india are against the VHP. besides a lot of average folks, i wonder if there’s FICCI or CII leader who is also a VHP member. sincerely, p. manteau
do you have tenure yet? 🙂
Yes, I do have tenure… If not, safe to say I would be avoiding this topic with a ten-foot pole.
71 · Amardeep said
congrats!
damn! not so romantically foolhardy after all! 🙂
17 · Seahawks fan said
That’s the very picture from which I surmised she’s waaayyyy too old to be in her 40s. She’s got multiple wrinkles and huge under-eye bags to be in her 40s. My honest opinion is she looks more like she’s in her mid to late 50s.
comment # 70, Revised version:
there are pro-market administrations/parties in india which are not BJP. the first wave of reforms in the 1980s, which many economists like bhagwati hold to be more effective than the 1991 liberaliation were initiated by rajeev gandhi, a congressman. the 1991 liberalization happened on the congress’s watch.
in the 1990s, BJP was hand in glove with organizations Bharatiya Majdoor Sangh, VHP, and the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, which protested the presence of MNCs in India and actively vandalized foreign-owned chain restaurants like KFC. they criticized the congress for selling India out. but after the BJP saw that the liberalization reforms were a hit with the urban public, especially its base in the trader castes of the north India, it changed its tune and styled itself as a pro-market party and SJM quietened down a bit.
chandrababu naidu, an andhra leader who belonged to the TDP, who was very pro-business changed perceptions in indian politics and showed that a leader with a pro-technology and pro-market image could be a viable and successful politician. he later entered into electoral agreements with the BJP. every federal government has consistently followed the new delhi consensus. the most popular pro-market finance ministers, trusted by the indian stock markets and FICCI are manmohan singh and p chidambram: both of whom do not belong to the BJP.
even the left in india now styles itself as pro-union and pro-labor (strict labor laws in an otherwise free market) rather than anti-business (the maoists and naxals are different from the indian left who are relevant because of the seats they have in the parliaments; the bjp was besties one time with mamta bannerjee, their coalition partner, who as you know is famous for disrupting the nano project in West Bengal, although that complciated issue is a story for another time).
no party is against competition/markets as such (except a few left politicians), although several leaders oppose the privitization of several PSUs because it reduces the reach of their portfolios. in fact, at the federal level several leaders (such as aviation, science and technology) are very pro-industry because it allows them to make a lot of money. for instance, it is well known that air india gets the least lucrative routes (eg it lost the most profitable chicago-delhi route)so that the minister can make a bunch of money from the private sector firms that want those nice business opportunities. even the poorest of the poor in india were not fooled by bjp’s ‘india shining’ rhetoric, and you, for all your ivy league degress are choosing to be in denial about a lot of things.
rob, your bungling of facts is beginning to disappoint me. i liked you better you when were not an idealogue 🙁 and if you think that the VHP-A doesn’t have dirty hands, then go to its website. it clearly susbcribes to the policy of VHP in India. i’m going to make a separate post about that. and those who disagree with you are called opponents, not communists. i thought the US had learnt that lesson a long time ago. a lot of free-marketers in india are against the VHP. besides a lot of average folks, i wonder if there’s FICCI or CII leader who is also a VHP member. sincerely, p. manteau
There are other parties, but the others I can think of are all members of the Sangh parivar / allies. The overwhelming stance of these parties is secular in nature. They have even had prominent non-hindu leaders, although this is compltely useless from a electoral point of view. Unfortunatly the institutions in India are skewed so much that even moves towards secularism are opposed. (The Uniform civil code contraversy and half a dozen other examples comes to mind.)
Well… this is like 3rd or 4th post on ‘Sonal Shah’ and her VHP affiliations; comments are getting a little repetitive.
I really don’t care if Ms Shah gets a softie assignment in Obama administration, if she is offered a job she should take it, but only to network like hell for two-three years tops and then quit. Then she should start a Hindu Legal Defense Fund or start a lobby like AIPAC or something. Raise a ton of dough through special ‘poojas’ at BAPS temples and then push for a greencard for Modi. Once all that is done she should go after her enemies starting with this Prasad. Scare the crap out the school where Prasad is employed, have him fired, and haunt him until he is forced to live the frugal life of a Marxist.
Wow! What fun posts will all that engender on this blog. 🙂
63 · rob said
got beef?
well, rob at least you’re boys are animals right campaigns. who cares if poor people want to consume a cheap source of protein?
75 · KGB said
Why do you take it so personally if I say she’s way too old to be in her 40s? Am I supposed to say she’s so young looking and lovely even if I think otherwise? I think you demean yourself to call me names like dickwad just because I said she looks old for her age. You need to hold yourself higher than that. Thanks.
got constitution?
too bad some indians will be harassed on valentine’s day, but we in america should do what we can to support the war on terror. VHP buttons on backpacks! Let’s go smash the windows at wendy’s!
Here is the claim:
Here is the reality:
and
When did Vijay claim to ‘represent’ all South Asians? Lefty academics at pricey left wing restaurants? Sounds pretty ad hominem to me. I assume Amardeep is a lefty academic that eats only at ‘cheap’ restaurants? McDonalds?
portmanteau @78 and @80, i respond to you with my fingers in my ears and an insistent la la la la la!!!! the vhp and friends are so pro-capitalism and pro-liberalism!!!!
is the VHP-A definition of a Hindu a little too broad?
if i’m a practicing jew who respects buddhism, then i’m a hindu?
78 · portmanteau said
Cheap? Are you aware of how many pounds of vegetable fodder it takes to produce one pound of beef?
The most important point in this discussion.
I have very, very little respect for talkers, and still less for talkers who pick on doers. If you are just a talker, you have no right to criticise doers. In other words, the right to criticise a doer is not free, you have to earn it by your own good actions. Otherwise, you are just generating noise, which is part of the problem, and never a part of any solution.
The talk/do distinction is very useful to filter any rhetoric you come across. I am currently using this to filter the blogs I read.
I believe the ‘ad-hominem’ comment could be read as an allusion to Prasad’s first article in Counterpunch, where he describes Shah as “a product of the University of Chicago, shined her corporate shoes at Anderson Consulting (who was Enron’s accountant), which probably made it easier for her to go into Clinton’s Treasury Department, where she helped Robert Rubin put a U. S. stamp on the post-1997 Asian economic recovery” and his self admitted attempt to smear Indicorps at a conference(entirely without proof) as a result of his apparently rigorous investigation. All that was missing was a Naomi Klein-style connection of Shah to Milton Friedman, Satan’s arse and the oppression of no-logo pan-flute players in the Parisian metro.
84 · Homer Singhson said
and this relates to the cost of human consumable protein, how? unless you are claiming that cattle fodder is a good source of protein for humans, that is…
Thanks, Amardeep, for responding more temperately than I’d have expected you to, especially given the egregious misstatement in my previous post. I’ve looked back at your earlier posts and realize that I have fantasized prior contact between you and the Shahs, or possibly confused you with someone else. For that I apologize unreservedly. What I continue to see, on a second look, is a consistent solicitousness toward Shah; a consistent redirection of analysis away from what’s actually being debated (her implication and participation in an especially ugly and violent form of sectarian politics) and towards a framing of the issue that can only cast her in a favorable light (the good works performed by Indicorps); and, on a minor but not insignificant note, a consistent denigration and vilification of Prashad (you may not engage in ad hominem attacks per se, but the stream of putdowns, sneers, and imputations of base motives makes me think, “same difference”). It strikes me as hackwork.
Nayagan, I am happy to argue with you, but who are YOU arguing with, da? What interview laden with softballs are you talking about? I think you must have imbibed my own lamentable tendency to construct a fantasy interlocutor. In any case, I love the notion that the only authentic form of anti-capitalist critique must come from the lips of a naked, starving, jobless ascetic! That’s the kind of radical that will really shake the foundations, huh?
yes, you can’t condemn an axe-murderer if you’re a bed-ridden quadriplegic.
brilliant. is your aphorism factory next to where gayatri spivak and judith butler writes their papers? there must be some mysterious gas in the air there that causes people to produce garbled nonsense.
Captures Prashad rather nicely.
84 · Homer Singhson said
land which is not fit for agriculture can be used for pasture. the diet that is best for the environment is one that is locally-produced, seasonal, and a strategic mix of vegetarian and non-vegetarian. personally, though i am vegetarian because i cannot afford an all-local diet for a variety of reasons.
you can’t ban some food items because individuals from other religions are against them (unless one lives in a theocracy, which india is not). will america ban pig slaughter if the muslims are offended? also, other sources of protein in india (except lentils) such as dairy products are much more expensive than beef. if a muslim or christian in india wants to but beef from the commercial market, then why must she be denied that pleasure? because some Hindu actvists are offended?
environmental protction is only one consideration in a plural society. several other priorities probably trump that consideration now. for instance, we could impose limits on the number of flights a personal can take each year but we don’t. because at this point, we as a society feel that commerce and free movement are higher priorities than environmental preservation. take the issue of nuclear power. it could be cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient. but at this point, americans are worried about the potential of contamination from nuclear waste. the french, however, are okay with deriving most of their energy from nuclear sources.
90 · DeweyFan said
it actually also describes the feebleness of your powers of logical deduction quite nicely. but let’s not use words used to describe disability as slurs. it doesn’t say very nice things about us, does it?
88 · Moonsamy said
well-said. that is an important point. i don’t think prashad is a great academic myself, but then we should demolish his points, rather than him.
if a democrat criticizes rahm emanuel for his stratgies for winning the house (which has been done), it’s silly to say that she is a hypocrite because she still continues to be in democratic party.
i’m not a marxist, but i will never deny that the modern welfare state owes a lot to marxist criticism. when average folk thought it was ok for kids to work in factories for 16 hours or for fathers to send their kids to factories to settle their debts, it was engels and co. that pressed for the modern day legislation for children’s rights. engels was certainly not working class, but a guy who cared about how factories were destroying the bodies and minds of kids. certainly, it is silly to be anti-markets now, but we should remember the time of real exploitation in english factories. facing valid criticism head-on (regardless of its source) is ultimately in our benefit.
91 · portmanteau said
The Chinese govt. banned restaurants from selling dog meat during the olympics. I give them props for being sensitive to the feelings of their western guests.
Also let us not forget still-president Dubya’s prescription to Indians to eat less meat.
94 · Homer Singhson said
i applaud the sensitivity of one of the most authoritarian governments of the world. premier <3s puppies suddenly? how come they’re not so touchy-feely when it comes to their own dissenting citiens or tibetans?
it’s easy to provide concessions if they’re temporary and not very significant. a lot of olympians protested against china’s handling of tibet. a lot of chinese citizens resented the displacement of their homes and business to make the olympic venues prettier. did the chinese government even make a statement in response to those two points?
similarly, if a few states ban cow-slaughter (especially those that are hindu majority by far and have a strong tradiion of vegetarianism, unlike kerala here people like beef), i might not mind. but i do mind if the federal and state government cannot respond to the larger and more significant issues: controlling mob violence from the extremist-du-jour, or abuse of constitutional provisions by extra-legal elements, whatever their political and religious affiliation. law and order violations and actions contrary to the constitution of india are unacceptable, regardless of their perpetrators. this is the one cliche i’m not prepared to abandon.
Port, you generated the not-nice imagery, to caricature a perfectly valid opinion. So you can take it back. And BTW, it was not a deduction, analogies are not part of deductive logic.
Here is my not-very-ad-hominem take on Prashad, with more classy imagery.
There is only one thing of value in the academy: insight. Closely related to this is the ability to inspire. Academics who don’t have either of these tend to be rated poorly by peers, and generate a lot of noise and confetti to ward off irrelevance. Here are some confetti strategies in use, with exemplars:
1) The Tom Green Strategy: Say atrocious things and try to pass them as originality. (Dawkins in his old age)
2) The Paris Hilton strategy: Suck up to the media, and be famous for being famous. (All those talking heads on TV.)
3) The Bono Strategy: Latch on to a perceived-as-good cause. Or even better, create one. (Nicolos Negroponte)
4) The Bruce Willis strategy: Get into trouble and come out a celebrity. (All those guys who research mafia gangs or land in jails in Iran and China)
5) The Poke-the-Snake strategy: Pick on other academics and start a bogus debate. (Ramachandra Guha)
6) The Black-Swan strategy: Change your camp one fine morning. A covert version of the above. (Hitchens)
….and many others.
Prashad, with his hindsight on nurses and immigration, is somewhere between 1 and 2. Closer to the latter. So not only is he just a talker, he is an irrelevant talker.
Dewey Dewey, should I pay attention to your comments? They seem to be a lot of talky doo-doo, and no real do. also please educate me on the minimal amount of do required for talk to be good according to the DEWEY GUIDE TO IRRELEVANCY.
Yes, but talky doo-doo on other talky doo-doos. Hence valid.
How about as much as done by the person you are picking on?
With all due respect:
You know, as I’ve been reading SM posts on the Sonal Shah issue written by Amardeep, I can’t help but feel that Prashad–whether you agree with his views or not– has become the punching bag for this entire Shah discussion and the perfect excuse for deflecting issues that could be engaged with in a meaningful way– like that other post by Amardeep regarding Yankee Hindutva which copiously quotes Prashad, Prashad, Prashad instead of engaging with Hindu politics as a subject matter in the US (not even linking and quoting from the VHP-A websites, or mentioning other academics who have written about Hindu politics in the US) (I enjoyed Ennis’ posts, however, because they really did interact with the issue that the Shah case brought forth). First, Prashad’s take is regarded as THE take on Hindu politics in the US, and now, apparently, he’s “representing South Asian Americans.”
What do Anand or Amardeep mean “not leave it to people like Vijay Prashad”? Amardeep and Anand, you dudes realize that Prashad is just one amongst other American Desis who get published, get airtime, get quoted, get interviewed, and perhaps it’s really you guys that keep thinking he is representing South Asian Americans, maybe you notice his name a lot more than the others and blow his exposure out of proportion because you simply see him as some kind of idealogue whom you disagree with? I’m not saying that one cannot take issue with Prashad or disagree with him (I for one disagree with a few points found in his writings), but I don’t understand how slamming him on an ideological basis (“hardcore Marxist”) is even legitimate.
And w/r/t Shah, I am still wondering why, if she wanted to do some kind of humanitarian work for the Gujarat earthquake victims, why she did not chose a nonreligious human rights organization to gather and channel funds, which would have even been more practical if it had global name brand (like Human Rights Watch). I’m glad she repudiated the activities of VHP-I, though. But I still want to know how she, as a grown woman who surely knew about the political dynamics of Gujarat and India, the role of the VHP in that, and how some of their ideas may have leaked into the VHP-A.
As a second generation South Asian American of specifically Indian origin, here are my complicated affiliations that don’t fit the “Indian paradigm” (BTW, I thought we were talking about South Asian American paradigms in the American context, how did it suddenly become Indian?). By now, I could care two shits about the ideologically motivated political name calling that pervades much of first generation attitudes (like frothing or automatic dislike of “Marxists”). I’m sick and tired of having first generation folks run the show in Indian American politics specifically, whose attitudes are more often than not black and white and see India as the focal points of all of their political opinions, conceptions, and advocacy. I am frustrated that many second generation folks pick up and put on the same lens as their first generation counterparts– whether on the left or right– to view politics both in the US and in India. I could give a rat’s ass about religious organizations as well, like Sikh halls, Hindu forums, whatever. I’m fed up with privileged first and second generation American desis nauseatingly exuding the “American dream” and American Creed crap that is so tightly intertwined with them feeling like they truly are a “model minority” and tying it into their politics in the US, most of which I cannot relate to because I myself am not middle class. I have developed a dislike of special interest politics based on identity and wish that we could have a more globally, glocally, and nationally integrated awareness that informs each person’s politics– like being aware of what is going on up and down and across the various social statas we have in the US, what’s going on in Latin America and the US’ involvement in it, our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our roles in Georgia and countless other places, what is going on in SOUTH ASIA (like Nepal, Bhutan, etc, not just India) and yes, what is going on in India too.
Sorry for the rant, and no doubt, the “SM Intern” will pop up to say that the comment is too long and I should probably start up my own blog if I really have this much to say.
also what do is good do? by your quantity of doo-doo guideline, should i stop reading “angler”? i mean, dick cheney has pretty much all living humans beat…
100 · Desi Italiana said
doesn’t glitterglasseswhatsisface have that market cornered?
100 · Desi Italiana said
to be honest, i hadnt heard of prashad till i started reading sepia, at which point i got all hot and othered.