On the heels of the recent outreach by Howard Dean, the website of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) announces the creation of an Indian American Council (IAC):
[On Sept. 15th], the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) announced the formation of an Indian American Council to provide the party with valuable insight on a broad range of issues important to the Indian American community.
Ro Khanna, appointed as chair of the Council by Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, said “The creation of this council is a historic step for the Indian American Community, and attests to the party’s appreciation for what the community has contributed to this country. Leader Pelosi has once again demonstrated her extraordinary vision in harnessing the talent, passion, and energy of the community…”The Council will be sponsoring an inaugural issues conference entitled “Innovate America: A Vision for the 21st Century.” The conference will initiate a dialogue between leaders of the community and the Congressional leadership about ensuring that our country remains competitive and generates high quality jobs and new opportunities throughout the 21st century. It will take place on October 1, 2005 in Fremont, California. [Link]
The council has been launched as part of the party’s Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) on the eve of the 2006 elections for the US Congress where it has no majority in the House or the Senate.But with controversial issues such as Iran’s nuclear programme where some Democrats accuse India of soft-pedalling, and US-India civilian nuclear cooperation against which a number of Liberal Democrats have spoken out, the party is going to be hard put to bring Indian Americans around.
Prior to the 2004 presidential elections, the Democratic Party had formed an Indian American Leadership Council at the Democratic National Committee (DNC). It is a sign of the increasing clout of this community that the Democrats have established the IAC as part of the more powerful DCCC.
See, this is where I get frustrated. I am a young liberal Democrat and I think India is soft-pedalling on Iran. I support some of the Democrats who are taking a hard-line against India on the nuclear issue. If this new IAC caters to older first generation Indian Nationalists living in America (there is no reason yet to believe they will), they will not have my support. As an American I want India to cut off support of Iran on all nuclear issues. Period. I do not want this newly formed committee giving into the demands of old Indian uncles living here simply because they control the purse strings for congressional donations. Khanna is also young and I hope his strategy shuns old first generation money AND issues if they run counter to American interests.
On another matter, I’d also like to ask why it is that all Indian newspapers assume that all Indian Americans are going to just blindly support issues that favor India. I have noticed this false assumption in nearly every on-line Indian publication I read. I am the opinion that reporters and editors over there just don’t get the changing realities that take place in a well-established NRI population. Take for example this quote:
Then there’s the question of US hardline policy toward Iran, where Lantos has been vehement in demanding that New Delhi toe the line with Washington, sharply criticising India for its alleged soft-pedalling on Iran.Even as they may try to bring around Congressmen like Lantos, Indian Americans are going to be lobbying “friendly” legislators rather than chasing those that are ranged against civilian nuclear cooperation, an issue a majority of the community wants to see move forward.
Where are they getting this information from? Where is the poll that shows this is true? Nobody polled me. I think Lantos had a point. I am excited to see what the IAC’s agenda will look like but I do not want to see yet another “Indian American” political committee that’s really just and “Indian” political committee.
They were not sent to internment camps like Japanese-Americans.
some were
However, this all was a white wash/ window dressing or just being with the right team.
no, it was pretty serious during ww I. remember, it wasn’t just last names. frankfurter turned into hot dog. i mean, there is a racial slur for germans, “kraut.” see here for how they were treated in ww I. i had an ex-gif whose family is from a german area of indiana. her grandparents and great aunts told her stories. her paternal lineage last name was changed from reichman to richman for obvious reasons.
I strongly believe that Americans carry their percetptions of one’s country of origin even if you are 8-9th generation.
i think it depends. most american whites are mixed, so it would have to be countries.
“i think it depends. most american whites are mixed, so it would have to be countries”
that is very true, very true. however, have you noticed that they all carry their ethnic mix on their sleeve. every european american friend has told me (or you) their ethnic mix down to mayflower (or later) at some point. they are quite proud of it.
razib, we both are digressing. intially, i wanted to be emotionally detached from this thread so that I could do some work – however, i could not resist whole energy equation and global politics.
i hope somebody let me audience to Lantos, maybe, I could brief him about China’s emergence as global oil and gas player and india is needed as counter.
every european american friend has told me (or you) their ethnic mix down to mayflower (or later) at some point. they are quite proud of it.
i think in part it is a mimicry of ethnic minority (non-white) rise in consciousness after the 1960s.
Abhi, Umm,what exactly has Iran’s acquiring nuclear weapons got to do with India’s relations with Iran? Are you implying that India is in the nuclear proliferation business? Even the most rabid non proliferation types in the US don’t try to make this case.
If you are so concerned about US policy, how exactly does India having friendly relations with Iran affect the US? Especially, to the extent that it is willing to jeopardise its relationship with India? If you believe that the US would gain by pushing India on Iran, you are mistaken. As others have pointed out, India’s energy needs are great, and holding US-India relations hostage to ties with Iran is going to damage US-India relations for a long time to come. If you believe that this is in America’s interests, then feel free to support the hardline policy.
Also, this agitation about Iranian nukes would be more credible if one was more consistent about the whole nuclear issue. The US has wonderful relations with one of the worst proliferators in the world-Pakistan, and has turned a blind eye to Chinese proliferation to NK and Pakistan for the better part of 20 years. To add to it all, its best buddy in the Middle East-Saudi Arabia has been busy financing both terrorism and nuclear weapons development in Pakistan.
A downturn in Indo-US ties would be bad for India, but it is preferable to India being starved of energy. However, do not be mistaken that there is no cost to the US if such a downturn occurs due to a hardline position in Iran. Its ability to maintain a stability favourable to it in the region would greatly reduce, and so would its position with China (not that India is going to toe the US line on China either). Its ability to influence policy in the Central Asian region would also reduce, because India would have no reason to align with the US in the region either-and given the need for energy, you can be sure that India is going to have influence and a presence in all these places.
Finally, I would point out that the US would be better off coming to an accomodation of some sort with Iran. Iran has considerable influence in Iraq, and the US is embroiled in a somewhat nasty insurgency. I think that an American citizen would probably be concerned about this little issue. And given that US policy has little or no morality when it comes to dealing with terrorist states, there is no reason why this should selectively apply to this case.
I actually think the 1.5/2nd gen community is increasingly disproportinately well represented in politics and other realms of American society compared to the interests of older folks, many of whom are probably not as adept at the quintessentially american skills of navigating power and pr and marketing and all the other nonsense that we do so well. I doubt that these are “old indian uncles” who tend to give money to vhpa or whatever politician will say something nice abuot india rather than form subsets of the dccc for indian americans.
If you’re interested in supporting electoral work from a more 2nd gen perspective, there’s Desis for Texas or other groups that work on voting rights issues (like registering voters) in the South Asian community like SAPAC in chicago. There are more conservative (in a global sense, not the bs political spectrum americans go by) groups like nasaba too.
But really, why be outraged that 1.5/2nd gen Indian Americans aren’t being represented–isn’t it the political perspective that’s at stake here? So just find people that are interested in the same issues as you and work with them–what is, after all, distinctively “Indian” about your “Indian American” perspective? You could work with other Indian Americans on areas of commonality.
Also, and just to add to what Umair said, about the anti-democratic nature of foreign policy (americn, included)–see this 9/12 article on the pentagon planning the option of pre-emptive nuclear strikes to destroy stockpiles of weapons. The issue here is not whether iran or the u.s. is “better” but how to stop proliferation on all sides (which I think you pointed to above). None of these people are helping.
What kind of political culture develops a populace totally ignorant of the horrendous acts of their government over the past fifty years to subvert democracies around the world (like when they allegedly tried to kill Nehru)? I think the latter is a bigger problem.
Anyway as for the fundamental basis of this thread there is none. India has never proliferated nuclear technology or materials to Iran. India has consistently asked Iran to stand by its IAEA obligations. If the issue reaches the security council three are 3 vetoe’s in Iran’s favor so all this argument is moot.
What Abhi is falling for is a campaign from the hardcore non-prolif community like David Albright and Gary Milhorin to muddy the waters on India’s no proliferation record.
Their motivations in doing this are ideological and find favor in branches of the US government that wants to gaurd some commercial interests in Iran.
Abhi doesn’t fall for anything (except a cute girl). He reads voraciously. One of his favorite books is A People’s History of the United States. Please stop assuming that people that disagree with you are ignorant.
A little of the main topic, which is mostly reasonable, but i thought the thread highlighted some interesting logic.
There is commotion is over the fact that India is cooperating with Iran over an oil pipeline. This will prop up an autocratic regime trying to acquire nuclear weapons .Words to that effect from the esteemed Lantos, among others.
But American companies doing business in Iran is presumably part of an effort that will broadly ‘engage the young people of Iran’. In Abhi’s words.
Similar examples of American hypocrisy abound, though hardly unique in the world. I guess that there should be little surprise that the big bully flexes its muscles. India is no saint in it’s own neighborhood.
But that’s not enough. American’s seem to want to be the Bully That Everyone Loves. How can anyone even think of comparing Iran to America without prejudice??? Shocking !!!.
How about a little less aggrieved, innocent hurt at the fact that the rest of the world doesnt roll over and wave it’s paws at America’s command?.
So Americans are worried about Iran getting their hands on nukes – fair enough. I’d be too! But hey, how about a quid pro quo – let the US help dismantle Pakistan’s weapons program and destroy all their warheads, and then India will unequivocally support referring Iran to the security council 😉
I couldnt agree more with the above. Just look at the jokes that are on Jay Leno (for a measure of pop culture). Now a lot of Jokes dealing with India are about .. “how Indians are taking away jobs”. From the “Apu of the Simpsons” stereotype Indians have gone on to a POSITIVE sterotype. Dont tell me that perception of Indians doesnt affect Indian-American 2nd or 3rd gen. folks.
IMHO, beyond all the sabre-rattling, there is little that can be done to stop proliferation in the true sense as long as certain powers hold on to their large arsenals while shouting from their pulpits about rogue states acquiring weapons. Libya may have caved in to due to pressure/pragmatic considerations, Iran is likely to be a different matter. Non-proliferation is now a pipedream that may help spawn outraged op-eds, but will achieve nothing. The reality is that some states acquiring nuclear capability is more dangerous than others, however, the genie is out of the bottle.
Sanctions in the past have also had other counter-productive effects, such as preventing energy starved countries from harnessing nuclear power (however unsafe it may be). Countries with the largest arsenals probably (not sure) have more access to uranium ore, for example. France gets a majority of its electricity from nuclear reactors, and I’m not sure if they produce their own uranium. India on the other hand, has reeled under sanctions, while being no worse than France as a proliferator (if at all).
It’s cool, Razib, I was just being melodramatic. 😀 Yes, the Saheli commenting on DeLong’s blog is me. As far as I know I’m the #1 Saheli on the blogosphere, though this chick seems to have snuck into my closet and stolen my dance costume, the better to masquerade as me. Chris Mooney struck me as having an exactly even keeled, low tenor voice. I’m not sure how deep you consider deep but you can hear him on the daily show or fresh air. He’s somewhat softspoken, of course. Did you get the book?
Saurav is back! Wowza, it’s like a family reunion around here. 🙂 But Saurav, I don’t think that’s particularly unique to America. Most people don’t know much about much. And some peoople know just a bit more. As Abhi has said, some of us were raised on Zinn and still find out more. (Zinn was my high school American history book, “balanced” by Litwack.)And any state has secrets. The question is–what’s the most efficient way to get more people to be more knowledgable and more involved?
I’d like to condense and restate my comment and toss it out here again, more as a question. If faced with two committees with identical, somewhat generic, agreeable political goals, one of which was Indian and the other one as a representative sample of the United States,
a) which one would you be more likeley to participate in? b) which one do you think the average Indian-American would be most likeley to participate in? I.e. create an average Indian-American in your mind, one who is 40% Born-here and 60% immigrant (I think that adds up to moved here at the age 16 for a 40 year-od?) or however you want to conceive of the average, and set this choice before this manas-putri of yours.
c) which one do you think more Indians would actually participate in? how much more? 50:50?
I am looking for unqualified guesses here. 😀
Please read the following:
1) Department of Energy – Country Analysis Brief for Iran http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iran.html
2) American University – Mandala Studies Iran-India-Pakistan pipeline in a broader context. http://www.american.edu/TED/iranpipeline.htm
3) Deal of the century – Beijing and Tehran
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK06Ak01.html
4) Iran and Iraq Too Big for Companies to Ignore – New York Times http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/iraniraq.htm
How come I have no clue – methinks?
Some Democrats along with Republicans are supporting India-Pakistan-Iran gas line
Quoted by Jim McDermott, a Democrat Congressman
“The landmark project,” he told, “represents smart energy policy in a region that is experiencing immense growth and it also represents a positive development between the two countries that have a long history of hostile relations.”
Has Republican and Democrat cosponsors……..there is some insightfulness, at last.
I enjoyed the discussion. This is very much designed to be a mainstream Council, and I agree that Indian Americans are Americans first. Most of our issues, and the issues the Council will focus on, are mainstream issues (education, innovation, immigration). I also urge second generation folks to participate. Please contact me if you’d like to be involved and attend our first conference in Fremont, CA.
Nice plug, Ro 🙂
Saheli, I think that there’s a level of ignorance about the conduct of the American government (particularly in the past fifty years but going beyond that) abnd history in general that permeates American culture. How many people in the U.S.; know where Armenia is, let alone about the genocide that happened there, or how the “rape of belgium” and the subsequent response played into appeasement of the Nazis and why that’s relevant in the context of Iraq (and other human rights abusers today). It’s like constantly swimming upstream in this country with regard to its own history, let alone about sturf like South Asia. btw, i’d suggest reading poor people’s movements by piven and cloward over people’s history of the united states, which i didn’t like the segments of which i read. the best history text i ever read on american history was the review section of the ap american history produce3d by rea–it had a great detailed 80 page or so summary of american history.
Whether or not it’s more strongly present in the United States than in other nations of similar standard of living and education is a matter for debate (i happen to think it is)–my point was merely that it’s a matter of greater concern to me than which indian-american elite agenda is being represented in washington right now 🙂
But to answer your questions:
a) which one would you be more likeley to participate in? b) which one do you think the average Indian-American would be most likeley to participate in? I.e. create an average Indian-American in your mind, one who is 40% Born-here and 60% immigrant (I think that adds up to moved here at the age 16 for a 40 year-od?) or however you want to conceive of the average, and set this choice before this manas-putri of yours.
c) which one do you think more Indians would actually participate in? how much more? 50:50?
I would almsot undoubtedly refuse to particiapte in an Indian-American organization because “Indian-American” tends to connote a certain politics that “South Asian” doesn’t–but it’s really the mentality and politicxs that underlie it that would matter to me. I also think the approach of lobbying people is useless for getting anything substantive done onb a long term basis. But if your question is whether or not I would paritcipate in a desi-specific endeavor vs. a multiethnic one,I would be more liikely to partipate in desi settings (although I’m working on that).
in answer to b, i think you’re eliding some fundadmental points here about the desi community–there are huge class divides which interesect with poverty, immigration status, etc. a more appropriate question would probably be, among the class of indian-american (or more broadly desi) people who have both the opportunity and possible interest to participate in some such thing, which one would they participate in–and i’d say the more their social circles and psychologies are separated by experiences and life from india, the more likely they are to participate in “american” settings vs “indian-american” ones (which is how i would reinterpret what you lay out). with the caveat that many of the strongest adherents of nationalism tend to be people who are utterly removed from their perceived “nation” and construct an imaginary homeland with an imaginary attachment to it (which they then may go on to make real in some for or another).