Last week Abhi did a post on Sonal Shah, who is working for the Obama transition team. Over the weekend, however, a controversy erupted over Shah, who has worked for the Center for American Progress and Google.org (the philanthropic arm of Google), and who has started, with her siblings, a do-good organization called Indicorps.

Vijay Prashad makes some very harsh accusations in an article in Counterpunch, basically suggesting that Sonal Shah is a supporter of a Hindu right organization, the VHP.

The accusations have been widely covered in the Indian media, including The Hindustan Times, TOI, and DNA. Most of those are simply echoing the statements made by Prashad. I have also been getting emails from left-leaning Indian academic friends, who are outraged about Sonal Shah.

I am skeptical about Prashad’s accusations. First, I think it’s important to keep a little perspective: Sonal Shah has been hired because of her experience with Google.Org and Center for American Progress, not because of her former affiliation with the VHP-A. She is also not actually working for the “Obama administration” — she is working on the team that will hire people to work for the Obama administration. If and when she has an official government post, and especially if that post has something to do with policy on India, this kind of scrutiny might be merited. Right now, it is not.

Second, Prashad’s accusations against Sonal Shah smell like a smear — not so different from Sarah Palin saying Barack Obama “pals around with terrorists.” I have no idea whether Sonal Shah is secretly sympathetic to the VHP or not; I do not believe so. [UPDATE: We now have a statement from Sonal Shah, through her brother: here. The statement has been verified through another source.] But given that she has not made a public statement in response to Prashad’s most recent accusations, We should probably respond to Shah based on her actions and verified statements, not on her parents’ beliefs (the worst kind of guilt-by-association), not on her past membership in the VHP-A (which is not disputed), and not on what Vijay Prashad says she said at some Desi conference years ago. In this decade, and in the work she is best known for, Sonal Shah has clearly been on the right side of things.

Vijay Prashad wants to paint a very particular image of Sonal Shah, as a kind of die-hard Hindu chauvinist, who continues to harbor secret communal hatreds, even if she has not made public statements to that effect, is not formally affiliated with any relevant groups, and has been doing valuable social work with Google.Org and Indicorps. But that is just one narrative. One could easily construct a counter-narrative along these lines: Sonal Shah’s parents are in fact supporters of the VHP, and are friends of Narendra Modi. As an ABD growing up in Texas, she had little awareness of the destructive and intolerant nature of Hindu nationalism, and when the opportunity came around to work with VHP-A to raise money for earthquake victims in Gujarat in 2001, she took it. But perhaps, with maturity, and as she took a higher profile role in the organization, she also began to gain an awareness of the costs of affiliation with the VHP, and left to found an organization that does similar work, but with a secular slant. [UPDATE/CORRECTION: According to her statement, even at the time, Shah did not subscribe to the message or ideology of the VHP. She characterizes her work as purely focused on humanitarian aid. She also clearly distances herself from the agenda of the VHP, and suggests she has had no involvement in Indian politics, nor intends to have any.]

That second narrative I have presented is admittedly speculation. But I put it out there because I think there is as much evidence to support it as there is to support the narrative that Prashad has put out in Counterpunch.

I do not have the time to write more at present; I may come back to this later tonight. In the meanwhile, comments are open for discussion. Read the Prashad essay — what do you think? Is he being fair? Also, do readers know more about Indicorps? And, finally, if anyone does know Sonal Shah personally, would you vouch for her (or perhaps, for what Prashad is saying about her)? Continue reading →

Well, whether you voted for him or not, history was made yesterday as Barack Obama was elected President of the United States by 52% of voters, a healthy electoral margin, and victories in Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, and probably even North Carolina. How was your election night?

A brief note on the Indian reaction: though some Indian papers are a little nervous about Obama’s anti-outsourcing rhetoric, for the most part India appears to be as enthusiastic as the rest of the world about the prospect of a President Obama. Manmohan Singh, for instance, described the victory as “extraordinary”. Also see this list of pros and cons in the Economic Times, and this story, which has executives from Wipro and TCS expressing satisfaction with Obama’s grasp of the realities of the globalization era.

Meanwhile, Ashwin Madia lost in Minnesota’s 3rd District to Erik Paulson. The numbers were something like 48% to 40%, with a curiously large 8% plus voting for “other” candidates.

It’s somewhat disappointing, but it is worth noting that Madia is just 30 years old, and he was running in a district long held by Republicans:

With a lack of real political experience, Madia, a former lawyer and Iraq war veteran ran on a campaign of ideals. Over and over again he told voters that he didn’t need experience in St. Paul, that he had experience in Baghdad. He often started his speeches with the tale of his parents’ immigration from India. They came here nearly 40 years ago with just $19, and today their son is running for U.S. Congress. The American Dream, Madia would often say, is still very much alive in this county.

His message did not change Tuesday night as he conceded. “Even though we lost this election tonight, we didn’t lose the debate,” said Madia, 30, as he addressed disappointed supporters in Osso. “Our message was right on. I may not have been the right messenger, but our message was right, this idea that our country can do better than what we have been doing.” (link)

We may have more to say about this once there is more data about why voters did what they did. Continue reading →

In my last post on the racial turn in the Minnesota 3rd District Congressional race, I left open the possibility that the rhetoric being used against Ashwin Madia might not turn into a pattern. Now there is no doubt.

On the left below are publicly available images of Madia. On the right, you see the images as presented in a recent Republican attack ad (“Running to Raise Taxes”; view it here):

From KARE 11, an NBC affiliate in the Twin Cities, Minnesota:

A Republican attack ad invites viewers to “meet the real Ashwin Madia,” but the still photos featured in the spot present a noticeably darker version of the 3rd District DFL congressional candidate.

“At least three of the photos of Madia were obviously darkened, using one method or another,” public affairs and media consultant Dean Alger told KARE 11.

He said the viewing public has grown accustomed to hearing distorted claims, or statements and votes used out of context. However, Alger asserts the altered images of Madia, the son of Indian immigrants, crosses a line. (link)

Just in case readers need a Razib-ian reminder of why this is bad, here is a bit more:

Continue reading →

Via Andrew Sullivan, a smart quote from Ross Douthat regarding Bobby Jindal’s prospects for 2012:

If anything, I think the way the McCain campaign has finished up — and the way the media has covered it — works to Jindal’s advantage in 2012: Conservatives are going to be extremely eager to prove that they only hate Obama because he’s a radical, not because they’re racist, and what better way to demonstrate that than to nominate a dark-skinned conservative with a funny-sounding name? Indeed, much of the current affection for Jindal among movement conservatives – and especially in talk-radio land – can be traced to precisely such a yearning for a conservative Obama: A multicultural prince who channels Ronald Reagan, and whose nomination would at least reduce the taint of racism that clings to the American Right.(Ross Douthat, link)

Yes, that’s why I thought, many months ago, that Jindal would have made a good VP choice for McCain. (I expect it will come out, in months to come, that McCain specifically asked Jindal to join the ticket this past summer and Jindal turned him down.).

The above argument is in response to a point from Christopher Orr at The New Republic that I think many on the left (including our own Ennis) have agreed with:

Though rarely explicit (and certainly not exclusive) a large portion of the GOP’s closing argument this cycle has been to stoke white, working class fear and suspicion of the Other. The dark-skinned man with the foreign-sounding name may be a Muslim, or a socialist, or a friend of terrorists, or a racial huckster, or a fake U.S. citizen, or some other vague kind of “radical.” You may never be sure which he is (maybe all of the above), but in your gut you simply don’t “know” him the way you know the other candidates. This is not, to put it mildly, a message likely to benefit Bobby Jindal. (Christopher Orr, link)

For Douthat, by contrast, the attempt to “otherize” Obama is a combination of things, involving not just his skin color and name, but also his academic background, history as an urban community organizer, and membership in a liberation theology church:

I think this vastly, vastly overestimates the extent to which the attempt to “Otherize” Obama has been about race qua race (and racism qua racism), and vastly underestimates the extent to which it’s been about the way Obama’s name, ancestry and skin color have dovetailed with other aspects of his background – from his liberation-theology church to the academic-lefty and urban-machine milieu in which he spent much of his early political career – that the GOP would have tried to play up against any Democratic candidate (and especially in a year when the party didn’t have much else going for it). (Ross Douthat, link)

All in all, an interesting exchange.

I think it is certainly true that the GOP has been stoking up xenophobia (have you seen this?) through its attempt to smear Obama as “palling around with terrorists” (Rashid Khalidi being the latest smear), and with the whole “Who is the real Barack Obama?” line of thought.

But Douthat’s point of view — that this is merely a cynical, tactical attack, not based on fundamental beliefs amongst the leadership — gives me some hope that this will not become a chronic line of attack should Obama win the election next week. Continue reading →