Let’s start with the funny. Prem Panicker, on his blog, gives a list of public statements from Rajan Zed, the “acclaimed Hindu American spokesman,” during the month of August (go to Prem’s blog for links to the original news stories):
Rajan Zed fears a Julia Roberts-starrer will depict Hinduism in bad light. [A reference to “Eat, Pray, Love”]
Rajan Zed says that ‘namaste’ is a greeting that symbolizes love and respect.
Rajan Zed asks that the makers of the Cities of Love series [New York, I Love You, etc.] include Mumbai in the list because it is home to the largest movie industry.
Rajan Zed wants prominent Australian entertainers to respond to AR Rahman’s gesture and hold concerts in major Indian cities.
Rajan Zed urges celebrities to explore the spiritual side of yoga.
Rajan Zed believes AR Rahman opening a studio in LA will help further popularize Indian music.
Rajan Zed argues that the Oscars will gain added credibility by introducing a Best Bollywood Movie award [the gent clearly hasn’t heard of Marathi, Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu, Orissa, Bengali and other vibrant language movie industries] where Hindi movies can compete among themselves. (link)
Looked at one way, Rajan Zed sure seems awfully preoccupied with Hollywood, movies, and entertainment, much more than one would expect of an “acclaimed Hindu American spokesman.” Of course, Zed isn’t the author of these articles; he’s getting called by reporters for a brief comment, and he can’t help it if reporters want a quote about Julia Roberts rather than the Rg Veda.
That said, remember that though he does have one great achievement to his credit (the invocation in the U.S. Senate), Rajan Zed is not exactly Swami Vivekananda. (You can see a little bit of his CV on Wikipedia, and decide for yourself whether “acclaimed” is the right adjective.)Along with Rajan Zed, via our news tab I came across a column by another Hindu American spokesman, Aseem Shukla in the Washington Post, on the recent decision of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) to put India on its “watch list.” Shukla’s column is a very defensive piece, with its own biases. Among other questionable statements, Shukla characterizes the people who murdered Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati as tied to “fanatic missionaries,” when in fact they were actually Naxalites/Maoists.
In general I actually agree with Shukla that it doesn’t make sense to put India on a religious freedom watchlist, by comparison to many, many other countries that are markedly less tolerant. India, for its flaws, does religious freedom better than many of its neighbors in Asia.
On the other hand, according to the USCIRF’s own system, the “watch list” countries are places where religious freedom could be better protected, but they are nevertheless better off than “Countries of Particular Concern” (CPCs). Current Watch List countries are: India, Egypt, and Russia. Some current Countries of Particular Concern are: China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
Also, the USCIRF is still certainly right when it says:
“It is extremely disappointing that India, which has a multitude of religious communities, has done so little to protect and bring justice to its religious minorities under siege,†said Leonard Leo, USCIRF chair. “USCIRF’s India chapter was released this week to mark the one-year anniversary of the start of the anti-Christian violence in Orissa.†(link)
Indeed, as often happens in cases of communal violence in India, not much has happened to redress the violence that occurred in Orissa last year. (Nor should we expect a whole lot, given the history of the past 25 years.)
But all this is somewhat beside the point. What Shukla doesn’t really address is the fact that the USCIRF, as an independent commission, has no weight on U.S.-India policy. If anything, the U.S. State Department has been distancing itself from this press release, as Jacqueline Salmon says in another column in the Washington Post:
Yesterday, a State Department spokesperson stressed that the commission is an independent federal commission. “It doesn’t speak for the U.S. government,” she said. “While the State Department considers its recommendation very carefully, it is not bound by them.” (link)
In short, it may be defensible to disagree with the decision of the USCIRF to put India on its religious freedom watch-list, though one should bear in mind that a “watch list” is not the same thing as “condemnation,” as Aseem Shukla interprets it — especially since the USCIRF itself has the more severe, CPC designation (which has Pakistan on it, ok? Remember to breathe. Try Yoga.). It is also not defensible to completely exonerate India of failures regarding religious freedom, as Shukla wants to do.
But even as we do all that, we should keep some perspective: the USCIRF is not an official organ of the State Department; it has no clout. It does not make sense to explode with defensive outrage over this. A better response would be to think about ways to actually address the problem it mentions.
To be able to provide security to all its citizens is the least of its problems. There is no need to attribute to malice what can be explained by sheer incompetence.
Uh no, every state has an obligation to protect its citizens — it’s not the least of its problems, it’s the primary reason for the state to exist. Secondly, no one is talking about malice on the part of the Indian government. More like neglect, and a judicial system that doesn’t seem to work well enough to produce results in these kinds of cases.
Finally, if the State Department says, “It doesn’t speak for the U.S. Government,” I think it’s fair to say they don’t have a lot of clout.
Amardeep, Great post, and I’m glad someone decided to mention Rajan Zed after all. To see him first time on in the U.S senate standing up against hecklers made me support his endeavor, but my respect for him was short lived (very, short lived). Most news associated with his name since the past 12 months has been only with celebrities or taking out his guns on flop movies like MIke Myers- love guru, or talking about the the injustice to Roma’s in Europe – all mostly in the name of religion. It almost seemed like the ‘acclaimed statesman’ was on a spree to market himself as the protector of Hinduism by protest against everything and anything remotely sensitive (or senseless).
What ticked me off was
(http://www.gantdaily.com/news/12/ARTICLE/58525/2009-08-05.html) , where Rajan Zed calls playboy apparel in India, crude westernization. For god’s sake, HE IS in the western world, ever since he started putting his name in the news. I don’t understand the logic of this report when it says – ‘Indian-Americans” protesting against playboy apparel in India. Clearly, Rajan Zed is no position to speak on behalf of NRI Hindu’s or Indian-Americans in any respect..
ahh, too many typos in the post above, didn’t read it over before clicking on submit, but I hope you get the point..
It’s not clear to me how Zed was elevated to this role. I think the media wanted to cast a buffoon to play “King of the Hindus” and they got one instead of going to the many other superior candidates in this country.
It’s not clear to me how Zed was elevated to this role. I think the media wanted to cast a buffoon to play “King of the Hindus” and they got one instead of going to the many other superior candidates in this country.
I tend to agree about there being better potential spokespersons. A productive use of this thread might be to put forward some names of people who might be good names for reporters to call. A few journalists read this blog (starting with present and former bloggers), so it might actually help in some small way.
The judicial process in India is unfairly long and slow across all kinds of cases: “Supreme court chief justice Balakrishnan said that over 3.11 crore cases were pending in trial courts and high courts across the country. He said that 52,592 cases were pending before the Supreme Court, over 40 lakh cases in the high courts and a whopping 2.71 crore cases in the subordinate courts.”
No one disagrees with the fact that there is quite a lot that needs to be done with judicial process and law enforcement in India. The impression that this report creates is that the religious minorities in particular are actively targeted by the state, which I think is a biased view of what is happening. The fact is everyone without the necessary clout/money is sometime or the other a victim in India, an essential consequence of an inefficient and corrupt law enforcement.
Jujung, I don’t think the Press Release says that. Here is a long quote:
Last year in Orissa, the murder of Swami Saraswati by Maoist rebels in Kandhamal sparked a prolonged and destructive campaign targeting Christians in Orissa, resulting in attacks against churches and individuals.These attacks largely were carried out by individuals associated with Hindu nationalist groups, and resulted in at least 40 deaths and the destruction of hundreds of homes and dozens of churches. Tens of thousands were displaced and today many still remain in refugee camps, afraid to return home.Any country that is designated on the USCIRF Watch List requires “close monitoring due to the nature and extent of violations of religious freedom engaged in or tolerated by the government.â€
The other countries currently on USCIRF’s Watch List are Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Laos, the Russian Federation, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Venezuela. “India’s democratic institutions charged with upholding the rule of law, most notably state and central judiciaries and police, have emerged as unwilling or unable to seek redress for victims of the violence. More must be done to ensure future violence does not occur and that perpetrators are held accountable,†said Mr. Leo.
Similarly, during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, India’s National Human Rights Commission found that the Indian government not only failed to prevent the attacks against religious minorities, but that state and local officials aided and participated in the violence.In both Orissa and Gujarat, court convictions have been infrequent, perpetrators rarely brought to justice and thousands of people remain displaced.
What exactly in this strikes you as unfair or incorrect?
obviously, this rajan zed needs to change his name to rajan zero…
I guess he is latest “identity entreprenuer” to try to make a buck out of this, after all if there are entire organizations like CAIR or al sharpton who make a living from this bakwaas, why not poor rajan?
I question the locus standi of a US federal government body sitting in judgement of religious freedom in other countries. It is meant to be used as a stick and a leverage by the state in it’s diplomatic relations with other countries. Anyone who believes otherwise is being naive.
Rajan Zed is a buffoon and his statements everyday could not be better tailored to caricature the Hindu tradition. I think he is funded by the Colbert Report! If reporters want a spokeman, they could perhaps look to Anju Bhargava, who is the convener of the Hindu American Seva Charities and a member of the President’s Council on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In reality though, American reporters need to understand that there is really no one person who could talk authoritatively for the multiple Hindu traditions in the US. It would be more ridiculous than any X,Y or Z speaking for all Christians in the US.
One thing to keep in mind is a bias within the media itself. Most of them come from social circles that are not especially religious and are of the opinion that religious people in general are superstitious and prone to making a fuss over inane things. This is furthered by the fact that superficial people who are prone to getting their panties in a wad are more likely to make a lot of noise. So when someone tells Joe Journalist to get “the Hindu perspective” on something it stands to reason that he’s going to hear the opinions of some histrionic loudmouth and not think twice about how representative it is because, in his mind, all religious people are histrionic loudmouths anyway. They do the same thing to Christians. How else do you think Pat Robertson and James Dobson end up being assumed by the media to speak for all White Evangelicals?
We all know that most religious disputes in India, especially within the tribal belt, are really ethnic/caste disputes in disguise. Insofar as the adivasis are concerned, the Maoists and the Missionaires both minister to the same groups of people. On top of that, most of the missionary activity that targets the tribals is based on “liberation theology” which has an essentially Marxist outlook anyway. So it’s not hard to put two and two together here.
You’ve got a bunch of poor, downtrodden, underserved people. On the one hand you have missionary organizations giving them access to public goods (schools, medical services, etc.). On the other hand you’ve got Naxalite/Maoist insurgents indoctrinating them into the belief that the Indian State (and by extension upper-class/caste Hindus) are their enemies. These beliefs aren’t mutually exclusive and many of the tribes which buy into the Christian ministries are also prone to buying into the Naxalite/Maoist propaganda.
Amardeep, two points:
-One important point that Shukla made was the composition of USCRIF: ” Examine the makeup of the USCIRF: Six members are Christian, one is Jewish and one Muslim. Not a single non-Abrahamic faith is represented. The chair is Vice President of the far-right Federalist Society, and another commissioner is an executive at the evangelical Southern Baptist Convention, which publishes material which calls Hinduism grand festival of Diwali “devil worship.”
Personally I feel that Indian Christians (esp those in Kerala and Northeast), and Indian Muslims who has had a thriving life in India with no sense of persecution (and I know a lot of them who love India) should speak out against such non-sense propounded by USCIRF. And Indian hindus should disown the hundu fundies more and more (some indication was there during the recent elections).
This is not exactly true; the missionaries active in Orissa are not catholic liberation theologians. Otherwise they would not selectively provide services only to converts (liberation theology de-emphasizes conversion in favor of social uplift; one of the reasons, among others such as the cold war, why they were so hated by the Catholic hierarchy in the 80s) . On the other hand the state definitely shares a much larger blame that any of these other actors. The state allows this to happen by (a) not giving a damn about tribals unless of course they are sitting on mineral resources (b) allowing fundamentalist Hindus to capitalize on schisms within tribal communities (though this is probably more due to its weakness; on the other hand there are also reports of collaboration). But notice that in either case (at least) the state is a necessary condition for the troubles. It is obviously more culpable in cases where the police in cahoots with mineral prospectors are trying to remove the tribals….
Grossly OT, but anyway: How about the US being placed on a ‘watch list’ for atrocities committed in the last half a century, all in the name of freedom? No? The mind boggles.
Great point, Locus.
We are doing similar things
Hopefully, these pressure groups will cancel one another out.
The link in Post 16 should be this one
No questions on what happened in Orissa last year – it was indeed deplorable. But what irks me is that USCIRF (how much clout it has is besides the point) or any such organization take it upon themselves when Christians are being the targets, whoever be the offender, why are they so silent about the genocide and mass displacement of Hindu Pandits in Kashmir, the current genocide of Hindus in Bangladesh and the anti-Hindu attacks by the Malaysian Government. They are a commission for inter religious freedom, after all right – not Christian freedom or is that the subtext that I failed to read / infer?
A-Kay,
Malaysia is one of the countries that should be on their list, but isn’t at present. The story of the Hindu Pandits in Kashmir also deserves attention, though I get a little annoyed that some readers bring up this issue in response to any and everything.
At any rate, if you glance at the 2009 report on Pakistan, you’ll see there is a concern about various religious minorities, not just Christians. On the first page, I saw this sentence: “Discriminatory legislation, promulgated in previous decades and persistently enforced, has fostered an atmosphere of religious intolerance and eroded the social and legal status of members of religious minorities, including Shi‘a Muslims, Ahmadis, Hindus, and Christians.”
Full USCIRF report on Pakistan here (PDF link)
I have respect for what the HAF does for Hindus outside of India and in “disputed Kashmir”, but it is standing on weak ground on Orissa and on Gujurat. The HAF should focus on actual GOI policy that discriminates against Hindu institutions instead of dismissing these atrocities. It doesn’t matter at the end of the day if there were provocations against the majority community, in the end the GOI fails to maintain law and order and it is right that it is called out on it. Is the make up of this board disconcerting, yes. Does it make India’s inclusion on the list less valid, no.
Yoga Fire:
I am not so sympathetic here, Robertson buys media time and speaks for a significant chunk of America, so is by no means an accidental spokesperson. Where I am sympathetic to Christians is when the arch-atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens tend to point to them as typical of Christianity when there is no comparison in terms of intellect/compassion with a Desmond Tutu or the current achbishop of canterbury. I’m agnostic but recognize these men are not even in the same genus
Grossly OT, but anyway: How about the US being placed on a ‘watch list’ for atrocities committed in the last half a century, all in the name of freedom? No? The mind boggles.
See ethnic clensing and mass-murder happened in the U.S. in the 19th century, when these norms had not developed yet (well, you had a few liberals in England making intermittent noises, but not much). In the 20th century, you get a free pass if you murder others (i.e. people from other countries), unless of course they happen to be stronger than you and murder people from your country. But it is bad if you mistreat “your own citizens,” as in “Saddam was cruel; he gassed his own people” (its another matter that, as a famous person has pointed out, the Kurds were “Saddam’s people” in the same sense that the Indians were “Andrew Jackson’s people”).
I know, does not make any rational sense, but this is the best we have; and still is an improvement over 19th century norms when it was ok to mass murder people who were according to you “inferior.”
How can you be sure of that Robertson does speak for a significant chunk of America? Is there an objective way of measuring it? Can that same way be used to determine whether Rajan Zed speaks for a significant chunk of Hindus in America?
Incidentally, lawyer Preeta Bansal was on the USCIRF for six years (from 2003).
She resigned this past February, to go work for the Obama Administration.
She had been involved with earlier reports. It’s possible that they simply haven’t gotten around to finding someone from a non-Abrahamic background to replace her yet. So Aseem Shukla is a bit disingenous in criticizing them over this; she just left a few months ago, after being on the committee for six years.
Wow, reading about him reminds me of The Goyal.
Skeptic: I would say 20% of the Christian population that identifies as evangelical is significant. Robertson has a television channel which isn’t exactly cheap and he has 100% name recognition and has had ready audiences with Reagan and Bush administrations. I don’t feel it necessary to dig deeper, but I encourage you to do so if you find my assertion suspect. None of the temple going Hindus I know have heard of Zed before his recent activity, but if you are not satisfied then you can avail yourself of Surveymonkey and other free tools.
Given Mrs. Bansal’s background I assume she was brought in for her legal expertise moreso than any insights she may bring on Hinduism.
Having one person in there of a non-Abrahamic faith who happens to be the only person who was ever there of a non-Abrahamic faith doesn’t go that far in undercutting Mr. Shukla’s assertion of institutional bias. Rajiv Malhotra has a vast body of work detailing all the ways America’s legal and academic structures tend to short-shrift non-Abrahamic religious traditions like Hinduism, but also traditional East Asian traditions and any kind of Buddhism that isn’t of the lukewarm Hollywood variety.
Amardeep,
Thanks for the response and the link. I will go over the report later today perhaps, when I am not using my work bandwidth 🙂
I know the “Hindu Pandit” card has been brought out quite a few times, here as well as in other forums. Unfortunately, I don’t think the Govt (be it GOI that has the responsibility to act or any other Govt watchdog agencies) act on their behalf – not sure why. When Omar Abdullah can tender apology for messing up in handling the Shopian murders, which cannot be excused and I don’t intend to make light of that situation, nothing has ever been done for the displaced Hindus, and they don’t even get the attention they deserve – that is not FAIR.
Given Mrs. Bansal’s background I assume she was brought in for her legal expertise moreso than any insights she may bring on Hinduism.
Why not both? Anyway, it is Shukla who brought up the constitution of the committee.
Having one person in there of a non-Abrahamic faith who happens to be the only person who was ever there of a non-Abrahamic faith doesn’t go that far in undercutting Mr. Shukla’s assertion of institutional bias
But what evidence is there of any institutional bias to begin with? Thus far I haven’t seen anyone point to a specific claim made by the USCIRF in their current India press release that is factually incorrect. At most, people are saying, “but what about the Kashmiri Pundits, Bangladeshi Hindus…” To which one can respond yes, but look at the extensive work they are doing on religious minorities in Muslim countries.
Incidentally, there has also been at least one Bahai on the committee: Firuz Kazemzadeh. Could also have been some other people involved in non-Abrahamic faiths (can’t always tell from a name): here is the full list of former commissioners
I started out today kind of lukewarm on the USCIRF’s decision to do this, but as I’ve learned more — and continued to see people making baseless statements against them — I’ve become more enthusiastic.
According to Wikipedia, Bansal’s major contribution during her tenure at USCIRF was: “As Chair of the USCIRF from 2004-2005, she presided over nationally and internationally acclaimed Commission studies on human rights guarantees in the national constitutions of predominantly Muslim countries, and on the expedited removal process for U.S. asylum seekers.” I do not know how accurate Wikipedia is here, but if so clearly it seems like important work.
I’m not attributing this to the likes of Zed/Shukla, but if Newsweek is to be believed, we Americans are increasingly aligning towards Hinduism, something I’ve come to suspect over my last 2+ decades here.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/212155?GT1=43002
What convinced me of this trend was being able to stop worrying about vegetarian options when dining out, meeting more people joining yoga and meditation programs and the trends toward cremation and open-mindedness w.r.t. the afterlife. I think environmentalism and resource awareness fits very well within the Hindu philosophy (as does Buddhism, atheism, and a plethora of other views).
Good on you louiecypher!
Rajiv Malhota is also insecure and paranoid, and his opinions and academic work reflect that. Like Zed, he is quick to take offense and perceive slights. Other people might choose to resolve these conflicts of opinions through debate, but Malhotra resorts to vilification and disruption.
A-kay, You are right, it isn’t fair in the broader context. But it isn’t really for this committee to address it. The Kashmiri Pandits are the victims of religious violence perpetrated by their neighbors & the Pakistani funded terrorists, not the GOI. This report addresses rights abuses where the central governments are ultimately responsible for the discrimination and can take action to rectify. How India handles its “internally displaced” is beyond the scope of this org. I understand your frustration and I share it, perhaps if there were a venue to express our concerns over the exporting of hate across borders (e.g. Wahabism, Kashmiri Islamism) which the progressives are so shrill about when it comes to Hindus (e.g. “Stop Funding Hate” campaign)
louiecypher:
Thanks for the survey results. They bring a modicum of objectivity into these discussions.
Malhotra was basically right about the California text book controversy to the extent that other religions are introduced without critique or touching the more problematic aspects of their earlier history (ie. the growing number of academics who now feel that the Jews were henotheists until exposed to Iranian Mazdaism/Zoroastrianism during the Babylonian captivity) or colonial transgressions. Why the emphasis on the geographical origins of the Rg Vedic culture? I actually am a believer in the view of early Indian history put forth by Witzel and the academic mainstream , but without a doubt Hinduism was the only religion showed in a skeptical/critical light in these entry level text books. Malhotra is right some of the time
Skeptic, I am not standing in the way of the truth. I’m just lazy about challenging things that are as obvious as gravity. Google is free to use, find the stats that show Robertson is a fringe player like Zed and share them with us.
Okay, louie, ok! You don’t have to take a hammer and hit me on the head with it!
He brought it up to illustrate concerns about institutional bias. When you write letters and press releases it helps to provide quick, easy to process examples that make your point rather than putting up long, discursive explanations that no reporter of secretary will bother to read. That’s what lengthy reports are for.
As for “why not both” it should be pretty obvious. Unless she was raised in a religious household or was actively involved in religious issues or even Indian issues more generally, I don’t see how she would have any detailed expertise to dispense. She may have a less cursory understanding than many of her peers, but it would still be cursory. This is in contrast to the very religious backgrounds of others there, some of whom actually were involved in religious organizations. Maybe she has the expertise, but I see nothing in her Wiki entry or her CV to indicate that she is interested in religion (as a spiritual thing rather than a civil rights thing) or in Indian/South-Asian history or politics more broadly.
Overall the primary thrust of his letter was to assert that their listing India is a response to India’s refusal to allow them in followed by an explanation of some of the various ways in which the GoI was right to do so. Everything leading up to their request and the nature of the request itself, as outlined in Mr. Shukla’s letter, would seem to suggest that their interest in India was dictated more by complaints in the popular press rather than dispassionate research on what was going on. Indeed, the fact that they didn’t seem to care about or exhibit much knowledge of communal issues outside of the oft-cited post-Godhra/Kandhamal duo only go to further indicate that the fact-finding mission was little more than an attempt to legitimize a preordained conclusion. The GoI, for its part, has always had a consisted MO on such matters. They have always been dictated by an attitude of “Who do they think they are telling us how to run our business?” Which, honestly, is the right tack for any self-respecting country with pretensions towards great-power status to adopt. Lord knows India has a vibrant and active civil society including plenty of free-press and religious advocacy that can handle these concerns.
As for “proof” of institutional bias what exactly are you looking for? It’s no secret that the US government and its organs are and have always been biased towards the interests and concerns of White Christian Males (prioritized in that order and less so now than before). The discourse about religious issues and matters of religion in public life are likewise dominated by distinctly Judeo-Christian understandings of what religion is and how it works.
What have you learned that gives you such certitude? Has there been anything else which you haven’t included in your post or this thread?
In what way does it make you more enthusiastic about something to hear people casting doubts about whether the committee is acting fairly in the matter? At most you could hear an unsubstantiated (or “baseless” to use your word) claim, disprove the statement and be left in a neutral position. Alternatively you could verify the statement and be less enthusiastic. But under no circumstances do I see increased enthusiasm being a logical outcome to hearing an unsubstantiated assertion. I say this with all due respect, but I worry that you are basing your level of enthusiasm for this based not on the merits of the arguments or weightiness of the issues, but in your level of support/disapproval of the people making the arguments. It’s a natural reaction to which I myself am no stranger but we should nevertheless be on our guard.
All that said, the problems the USCIRF are concerned with aren’t issues with religious discrimination, they are issues of law and order. Whether it’s an organized ethnic cleansing in Kashmir, riots in Kandhamal, the Godhra incident, the post-Godhra riots, the Babri incident, the post-Babri riots or whatever. It’s all an issue of India’s state and central governments being unwilling to rock the boat by nipping problems in the bud early on and instead letting them fester until they turn into massive outbreaks of violence. The busted legal system and lackadaisical and untrained police forces contribute only partly because they don’t capture and prosecute the perpetrators of the violence. The much bigger problem is that they are so backlogged and moribund that there was never a credible legal outlet for redress of grievances beforehand the issues broke out. Without steady dispensation of justice and curtailments of the routine abuses caused by communal tensions in areas the social cleavages just fester until they explode. That’s an issue of improving governance and building a more constructive civil-society that works on lifting each other up rather than beggaring each other. It is not an issue of overt religious persecution and certainly not something into which the US or any other country has any business poking its nose unless specifically asked.
No! It would be the ‘country of most concern’(USCIRF terminology) at present for all the war mongering and wanton killing and destruction of people around the world, their religion be damned. It spends $640 billion/year on military offense (not defense), not including spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan war. It spends more than the next 40 countries combined to maintain ‘The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases’ to maintain it’s hegemony. (Where is the peace dividend from the Cold War? Where is the swords to ploughshares change that was talked about?)
The GOI should not be defensive but completely ignore the USCIRF and dismiss it’s reports like ‘the bark of a dog at the sun’. Without the watchdog role of the open Indian media and our judicial processes, would the USCIRF even have any material to compile a report? It is meant to give the US state the moral high ground when dealing with other states including India and used for hard bargains in negotiations. So in that context it would be very easy for the GOI to throw back all the muck of the US military machine at them and capture the higher moral ground and so is relevant and not OT as you think.
As for “proof” of institutional bias what exactly are you looking for?
I’m not looking for any proof of bias. It was asserted by Shukla, but not supported. Incidentally, saying it is “well known” that there is a “white Christian male” bias in U.S. foreign policy is not a valid mode of argument, but a premise.
Anyway, what Shukla complained about was not pro-Christian bias (which would be strange considering that a number of Muslims and Jews have been on the committee, and continue to serve there; the current chair of the committee is Jewish) but bias against “non-Abrahamic religions.” The only support he had for that was the presence or absence of any non-Abrahamics on the committee, which it turns out, only became true a few months ago.
In what way does it make you more enthusiastic about something to hear people casting doubts about whether the committee is acting fairly in the matter? At most you could hear an unsubstantiated (or “baseless” to use your word) claim, disprove the statement and be left in a neutral position. Alternatively you could verify the statement and be less enthusiastic. But under no circumstances do I see increased enthusiasm being a logical outcome to hearing an unsubstantiated assertion.
The main thing I learned about is their 3-tiered system for monitoring different countries. It does seem to be well-thought out on the whole. Also seeing the different countries for which they are producing reports, not to mention the reports themselves, is quite helpful. I read a few pages of the Pakistan detailed report, and was favorably impressed by how thorough it is.
Amardeep, do you offer online classes. My language skills seem to be failing me. For some reason, I keep thinking “While the State Department considers its recommendation very carefully.” is not the same as “no clout”
If they did not have influence, wouldn’t their backers will remove their funding? Oh wait, they are funded by the US govt? If they had no clout, they would not exist.
I am guessing then that 10 Janpath is built like a fortress, as it seems to have weathered the siege pretty well.
It is also the one year anniversary of the murder of Swami Lakshmanananda The report conveniently avoided mentioning that it was a christian group that did it. And that been seriously injured by a Christian mob prior to that.
I have found Rajiv Malhotra’s writings insightful and on target. Actually much of what he says should really be said by liberals and secular elements.
“I’m not looking for any proof of bias. It was asserted by Shukla, but not supported. Incidentally, saying it is “well known” that there is a “white Christian male” bias in U.S. foreign policy is not a valid mode of argument, but a premise.”
You have been looking up past members of the commission, devouring wikipedia, googling but have not looked at the bio (on the USCIRF website nonetheless) about the one who Shukla calls the far right Fedralist!
http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=215&Itemid=1
“Michael Cromartie is the Vice President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., where he directs the Evangelicals in Civic Life program and the Media and Religion program. The Ethics and Public Policy Center was established in 1976 to clarify and reinforce the bond between the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and domestic and foreign policy issues.”!!!!
Come on man, what more do you want? No matter how its existence and creation is colored, USCIRF is an agency commissioned by Evangelicals and ironically funded by non-believing tax payers like you and me. Instead of chasing a non-entity like Shukla, you should be attacking the over arching message this report sends – that India is some dangerous place (Like Somalia) where Muslims and Christians have gone underground and face dire consequences. There are instances of religious intolerance but that hardly shadows the fact that Muslims and Christians have been largely flourishing and leading safe and secure lives. Not just Shukla, but all well meaning Americans should protest this agency’s reinforcement of Judeo-christian morals! And as far as Indians, again not just Shukla but all well meaning Indians should feel “defensive” about this slanted report just like these Indians do:
Orissa Christians reject USCIRF report, defends ‘secular’ India
http://in.christiantoday.com/articles/orissa-christians-reject-uscirf-report-defends-india/4382.htm
Come on man, what more do you want? No matter how its existence and creation is colored, USCIRF is an agency commissioned by Evangelicals and ironically funded by non-believing tax payers like you and me
Robin, I don’t know what the point of arguing with you might be if you can jump from Michael Cromartie’s Evangelical connection to that statement. Now please explain how Felice Gaer and Imam Talal Y. Eid are part of an Evangelical conspiracy too. Then you will have really shown me up.
Bansal got the commission to condemn the destruction of Hindu temples in Malaysia by its govt. If it were not for the lobbyin efforts of Rajiv Malhotra and the HAF, that likely would have never happened. I personally think its important to have Non-Abrahamics on the panel, to boost its credibility if for no other reason, Otherwise the whole spectacle of evangelists and federalist society minions passing judgement on India through an essentially toothless agency can easily be dismissed.
“Incidentally, lawyer Preeta Bansal was on the USCIRF for six years (from 2003).
She resigned this past February, to go work for the Obama Administration.
She had been involved with earlier reports. It’s possible that they simply haven’t gotten around to finding someone from a non-Abrahamic background to replace her yet. So Aseem Shukla is a bit disingenous in criticizing them over this; she just left a few months ago, after being on the committee for six years. “
Interesting tid bit…while interning for a regional journal four years ago, there was a public conference of academics specializing in the region, and one of them more less accused Preeta Bansal of being responsible for blocking India from the list. The anger was over the fact that Vietnam was considered a “CPC” and India wasn’t.
Also, on another side note, this does seem to be a bit regionally tied…while anti-Christian violence is a problem in Orissa and Gujarat, it would be laughable to say they’re being oppressed in other states like Andhra or TN. In fact, take the road from Chennai to Tirupati and the churches easily outnumber the temples. In much of coastal Andhra, its similar. They weren’t there ten years ago.
I am missing the logic there. There are definitely way more non-Abrahamic Federalist Society “minions,” including top ones, than there are, say, committed Islamic Federalists.
“Malaysia is one of the countries that should be on their list, but isn’t at present.”
Really Amardeep? So, let see- Hindus killed Christians ( remember Christians are missionaries and fanatics) and Muslims ( Muslims are terrorists and they broke the mighty Bharat into pieces) because they had reasons and justifications – quoting the HAF’s spokesliar; and when temples were destroyed in India – there must be legal reasons for that but when it comes to a Muslim country like Malaysia ( hint from Indians – Muslims equal bigots,Srivijaya was a great Hindu kingdom but Hindus never killed and conquered others), temples must be destroyed there because the bearded wahhabis were running amok – according to the select few points disgorged by the Malaysian Hindu fanatics in this blog.In a country where there are 17,000 temples and thousands and thousands more shrines – some of them built on roadsides,on someone’s else land, under trees and parks ILLEGALLY- Malaysia unlike India must learn to accept this rampage as part of her pluralistic call. Heck,if she doesn’t – her true Muslim color is slipping away.
Given the call by ZEE for Indian Muslims and Christians to speak against the report,I wonder whether Malaysian Hindus also have the onus to speak against your slander on Malaysia:http://balankumarpremakumaran.blogspot.com/2008/11/hindraf-then-and-one-year-later.html
An American observation of Malaysian Indians(http://www.amren.com/ar/2008/10/index.html): “Indians do not feel emotionally Malaysian. I asked several whom they would root for if a Malaysian team met the Indian team in the Olympics. For the Indian team, of course, they explained—though not in public. National loyalty goes only so far, however. When I asked Indians why they don’t go back to India, they invariably explained that even with its bumi problems, Malaysia has “better finance†than India, meaning they can make more money there than in India. “
You have been accused as Khalistanis before by Hindutvas here yet you only took the words of the Hindus when it comes to Malaysia.Ironic.
.In a country where there are 17,000 temples and thousands and thousands more shrines – some of them built on roadsides,on someone’s else land, under trees and parks ILLEGALLY- Malaysia unlike India must learn to accept this rampage as part of her pluralistic call.
I can’t respond to all of your comment right now, though the basic idea is this: the temples are declared illegal by the government, even if they’ve been in place for decades. Many of them aren’t declared illegal because Malaysian Hindus have an irresistible need to put temples in inappropriate places, but because the government has decided it wants fewer Hindu temples around.
I blogged about this a while ago here. You might just say “oh, he’s taking the word of a Malaysian Hindu,” but I’m pretty sure that what I said in that post is verifiable and factually accurate.
“I can’t respond to all of your comment right now, though the basic idea is this: the temples are declared illegal by the government, even if they’ve been in place for decades. Many of them aren’t declared illegal because Malaysian Hindus have an irresistible need to put temples in inappropriate places, but because the government has decided it wants fewer Hindu temples around.”
Yes Indeed. I have to take everything you said as facts.The government of India must then have destroyed temples because they want to limit the number of Hindu temples there. Nice logic!!
Fact about temple demolition if your are looking for one – beyond the propaganda by Hindraf and its stalwarts. http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=6037 “Even on the demolition of a Hindu temple in Shah Alam on 15 November 2007 — the one issue that triggered a massive emotional backlash against the government — Hindraf leaders and their supporters have been less than honest. It was not widely made known within the community that the temple was on private land and that the developer had offered cash assistance to the temple committee to build a new temple on an alternative site. The temple was not the only place of worship that was brought down; a surau was also demolished. In most instances, when temples or other places of worship are forced to yield to development projects, alternative sites are made available. “
Disparate, Sorry if I am missing something, but what is there to attract one to Malaysia? It sounds like one should go with India (if one wants authentic “culture”), or else stick with the West, to make some serious $$. As a Jain, I don’t see anything that would pull me away from Bharat other than $$, and surely Malaysia is not offering that in any interesting way, compared to the USA/Canada/UK. In fact, it would degrade me to go live there.