Abhi: "...Khanna is also young and I hope his strategy shuns old first generation money AND issues if they run counter to American interests."

Nothing "wrong" with this statement obviously, but this would be a first for American politics don't you think? I mean, where would Irish-American and Jewish-American politics be if all that were being considered was "American interests"?

We are not towing the India line as you seem to accuse us but would rather see India develop a position based on it's interests not some ideals that in no way reflect the real world.

India has an interest in making sure that it's energy needs are met in the near future. China , US, Europe and India are involved in a zero sum game (as far as oil) i.e., there is not enough oil for all of them to keep growing at their current rate. We all know that Iraq is pretty much out of the equation. Iran is a major source of oil and not an enemy of India. We need to consider Indian interests while pursuing or not pursuing relations with other countires.

On the Iran issue, I read this intersting article in the NY Times .

but this would be a first for American politics don't you think? I mean, where would Irish-American and Jewish-American politics be if all that were being considered was "American interests"?

Maybe the cynic in me can acknowledge that you are right, but the idealist in me hopes for something better.

Abhi, I agree with you in principle. (I don't know enough about the current Iran-India nuclear relations, and often tend to take a more multifacted view on Iran than most people, totally independant of being "Indian.") An Indian-American committee should be an Indian-American committee--we already have an India Caucus (and any number of other caucuses involving relations with other countries.) People can participate in each as they see fit.

But given the recent influx of immigration, and the number of partially-American, partially-still-Indian households I encounter, I wouldn't be surprised if your stringently American take on Indian-American politics might be in the histogramatic tail of the desi-in-America population. Sure, a scientific survey would be nice (hey, that's your fight with Manish, right? ;-) ) and until we have one, I'm just guessing. But of all the desis in America, we fully American citizen-since-birth/childhood types are probably a minority, and even some of us may have stronger preferences for pro-India policies than others. (All else being equal, I certainly prefer pro-Indian policies--partially because I do have some affection and attachment to India, but also b/c I think on the whole America benefits from policies friendly to the world's biggest democracy.) If you eliminate India-centric issues from the IAC, someone has to be very articulate and very concrete about what you want the committee to be talking about.

Possible issues based on how I read your criteria:(not that I'm endorsing these, just extemporizing here)

1) Preserving and enhancing religious freedoms
2) Preserving and enhancing linguistic, satorial, and culinary freedoms.
3) Straightening out immigration regulations, particularly helping part-American families stick together.
4) Combatting racism
5) Promoting science
6) Promoting medical education, research, and access.
7) Promoting education.

Any ideas?

to believe that this organization will not cater to the old uncles/auntees with the purse strings firmly in their grasp may be a bit naive. american politics usually boils down to following the money, sad to say. this is true on both sides of the fence.

there's something about the tone of the announcement that gets at the idea that indian americans have finally come far enough to "deserve" this council that really bothers me. if we were not an economically significant portion of the population, i doubt we would see this type of attention. and even then, this is pretty miniscule in the bigger picture.

did anyone see this list on the press release?

Actively working alongside Ro Khanna will be important community leaders, including Malini Alles, Mike Amin, Hitesh Bhakta, Ram Bhojwani, Swadesh Chatterjee, Navneet Chugh, Lutfe Hassan, Rajat Gupta, Kamil Hasan, Talat Hasan, Sridar Iyengar, Kailash Joshi, Ramesh Kapur, Vinod Khosla, Subroto Kundu, Anmol Mahal, Kumar Malavalli, Sima Patel, Suhas Patil, Sunil Puri, Parag Saxena, Bipin Shah, Smita Shah, Rekhi Singh, and Deven Verma.

(my emphasis added on the successful ones i'm aware of from that list)

half of this list reads like a veritable who's-who of uber-successful (and uber-rich) indian entrepreneurs. sure they're indian americans, but i don't feel like this council will tackle socially relevant issues for 1.5G or 2G indian americans...

i agree with abhi's concern. hopefully we'll see something productive for the entire indian american community come out of this.

Possible issues based on how I read your criteria:(not that I'm endorsing these, just extemporizing here)

Yes, exactly. I want Indian American politics to address more mainstream issues like the ones you list. I am tired of us being a one-issue constituency that is easy (relatively speaking) to get money from if the only thing a politician (of either party) has to say is that he/she thinks Pakistan is bad.

Where are they getting this information from?

aktivists with time because they aren't in grad school :)

I mean, where would Irish-American and Jewish-American politics be if all that were being considered was "American interests"?

there is an interesting issue. some points.

1) the irish american lobby you are talking about is the irish roman catholic lobby. in other words, there are multiple intersecting identities here. likewise, the vast majority of american jews are ancestrally ashkenazi, from the former territories of greater poland-lithuania (later partitioned between russia, prussia [germany] and austria-hungary), as well as being religiously (at least nominally) jewish. it makes sense why they would have a tight homogenous focus (divisions between german jews and russian jews disappeared once the latter swamped out the former in the leadership by the 1920s). is that so for the indian american community? i mean, we are talking about a diverse group from all regions of india, speaking different languages, worshipping different religions and adhering to varied cultural traditions. obviously there is a common affinity, but how closely do the interests of a gujarati patel and a sikh from the punjab coincide? on the other hand, the formation of a commmon identity does seem to be happening among some born-in-america browns, taking bits and pieces and forming a central identity that transcends the ethnic divisions of their parents...but the 2nd generation people are also more firmly rooted in the united states. ergo, the analogy might be weak.

2) irish american and jewish american political activism as relates to their homeland (or armenian american or cuban american for that matter) is only relevant if there is a sharply deleterious effect on the rest of america because of their parochial interests. frankly, it sucked that the IRA was blowing people up in northern ireland and britain because of funds raised in the american northeast...but that was not a central issue for the health of the american republic. similarly, there is debate about the worth of the american-israel relationship (i for one think we should be betting a better deal!), but the debate is premised on the possibility of conditions where the interests of the two states might diverge. ergo, when america and india converge in their interests, there isn't an issue (containing pakistani terrorism), but there might be an issue when they don't converge (cooperating with the pakistani state to further inner asian interests). in the case of iran, the USA and india have two different interests it seems.

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.

Well, Iran is an "axis of evil" for US, Not for India.
My Question is whats wrong with India, being Softer with Iran, after all its in India's best interest. Why on the earth America can have a selfish Foreign Policy, favoring its interests and when someother country in the face of the earth does something simillar, its called a "Huge Mistake". Why double Standards?

Always remember this is Politics. In Politics there is nothing like Permanent enemy or Permanent friends, there is only Permanent Interests.

Possible issues based on how I read your criteria:(not that I'm endorsing these, just extemporizing here)

1) Preserving and enhancing religious freedoms
2) Preserving and enhancing linguistic, satorial, and culinary freedoms.
3) Straightening out immigration regulations, particularly helping part-American families stick together.
4) Combatting racism
5) Promoting science
6) Promoting medical education, research, and access.
7) Promoting education.

Any ideas?

To Saheli's list, I would amend #4 and include racial profiling in there. Since some don't consider racial profiling a form of racism, I think it deserves some of its own attention. I would also add targeted social services. There's a lot of abusive marriages in the Indian community and I don't think there's much knowledge of available services in the community. Education about these issues would help eliminate a bunch of the taboos surrounding this stuff too.

My Question is whats wrong with India, being Softer with Iran, after all its in India's best interest. Why on the earth America can have a selfish Foreign Policy, favoring its interests and when someother country in the face of the earth does something simillar, its called a "Huge Mistake". Why double Standards?

To clarify: India SHOULD be selfish. THEY should look out for THEIR interests. I am an American though and I want a political group representing ME looking out for MY interests. India's interests are not always MY interests.

I want Indian American politics to address more mainstream issues like the ones you list.

the list was pretty vanilla, i didn't see anything that was distinctively indian.

Why on the earth America can have a selfish Foreign Policy, favoring its interests and when someother country in the face of the earth does something simillar, its called a "Huge Mistake". Why double Standards?

did you read the post where abhi said it was an indian american political group??? india should do what is in its best interest, and that doesn't gel much of the time with the USA. it always has trod its own path since the non-aligned movement and its tacit pre-1991 alliance with the soviet union. but indian americans should focus on their homeland, the united states, first and foremost. at least that's what i think. i'm just a joe-blow brown american :) not even indian origin.

I happen to know a thing or two about oil and gas.

http://www.kushtandon.squarespace.com/journal/2005/6/9/where-is-oil-in-the-new-world-endgame.html

I have to agree with "an old uncle" and Natwar Singh. All India shining will come down crash landing if India does not build their own oil relationship, irrespective of any telling them what to do.

Israel and USA are very close and have always been - however Israel does not compromise (or manipulate) their own interest. Same holds for Ireland - Irish Americans, etc.

Kush

Israel and USA are very close and have always been - however Israel does not compromise (or manipulate) their own interest. Same holds for Ireland - Irish Americans, etc.

you have to be more precise here. i'm a skeptic of the israel-US alliance myself, but

1) israel is usually our toady in the UN (they always vote with us).

2) remember during the first gulf war when israel didn't respond to the scud missle attacks??? that was due to US influence.

3) if oil is on the line, i have no doubt that no matter what APEC says we would sell israel down the river if core interests were at stake.

4) do brown americans want to emulate the jewish example?

p.s. to be clear, if india was an assured ally like israel, it might be worthwhile to cave even on this iran issue in my opinion. but india is an incipient great power. the analogy is an awkward fit because of that.

Abhi: Re: "To clarify: India SHOULD be selfish. THEY should look out for THEIR interests. I am an American though and I want a political group representing ME looking out for MY interests. India's interests are not always MY interests."

Once again, that's a fair statement; but then what is INDIAN about the Indian-American identity? If (as I suspect) the "Indian-" comes about because of ethnicity, then I have long felt that might be an insurmountable gap between Americans of Indian origin and Indian immigrants. Because for the latter being Indian is not simply an ethnic issue (i.e. it is not an analogue to being black, or Hispanic, etc.), whereas for the former I seem to get the impression that is the case (which is why Americans of Indian origin are more likely by far to think in "South Asian" terms than Pakistani or Indian immigrants). Again no "better" or "worse" here, just that "Indian-American" hides a multitude of fissures.

To put it another way: Saheli's list is great, but I do agree with the commenters who say there's nothing "Indian" about it. I mean, I agree with that list (I'm a registered Democrat), but isn't that what we expect period? Why have an "Indian-American" group if it's agenda is not going to be "pro-India" in some way? We could have a "South Asian-American" grouping, but no way are old uncles with money going to sign up for that...

" 4) do brown americans want to emulate the jewish example?"

No, not at all.

Maybe, I should put this like this: "An Indian-American/ NRI/ PIO, especially Indian-American is under no obligation to blindly support the interest of the country of their (their forefathers) origin. However, they should be fully aware of the complexity of the issue at hand, and then make their own decisions"

From my experience of Irish-Americans, I think for the most (barring their financial support to IRA by some of them) part have been very instrumental in safeguarding the interest of Ireland vs. UK in USA and resurgence of Ireland as an economic power.

I just to want to bring up that oil and gas politics is not as simple as it might seem on the surface.

To clarify: India SHOULD be selfish. THEY should look out for THEIR interests. I am an American though and I want a political group representing ME looking out for MY interests. India's interests are not always MY interests.

Well what would you do if two friends doing business, whose interests are contradicting to each other. You find a better solution in the long term interests for a better relationship. I think thats what needs to be done in this case. find a better way to resolve the issue, so that both parties get what they want.

but indian americans should focus on their homeland, the united states, first and foremost

I completely agree on that part. After all the whole idea of this council is for solving the issues faced by Indian Americans.

did you read the post where abhi said it was an indian american political group??? india should do what is in its best interest, and that doesn't gel much of the time with the USA. it always has trod its own path since the non-aligned movement and its tacit pre-1991 alliance with the soviet union.

For me both countries have to go in the positive direction. Its just my selfish wish

To put it another way: Saheli's list is great, but I do agree with the commenters who say there's nothing "Indian" about it. I mean, I agree with that list (I'm a registered Democrat), but isn't that what we expect period? Why have an "Indian-American" group if it's agenda is not going to be "pro-India" in some way? We could have a "South Asian-American" grouping, but no way are old uncles with money going to sign up for that...

Umair, I believe there's a clear distinction between issues that concern India, and issues that concern Indian Americans. I think it's entirely possible to have an Indian American organization that is not "pro-Indian", in fact, I believe being anti or pro shouldn't even be a concern for an Indian American organization. (call it south asian if you want) My point is, while Saheli's list are issues and expectations that can be generalized in a multitude of ways, there are specifics and nuances that uniquely identify these problems in the Indian American community in my opinion. And in that vein, I would expect an Indian American organization to be acutely aware of those nuances and capable of addressing them in a political context.

Abhi,
Would you then support and work for the US completely cutting its ties with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Any such maximalist policy by the US w.r.t India will not meet with a pleasant response, and will materially affect the US's ability to leverage in the region, not just in India.
This maximalist policy is plain hypocrisy and damaging to India's energy and regional situation.

Once again, that's a fair statement; but then what is INDIAN about the Indian-American identity?

Umair, I agree with what you are saying but I am trying to figure a way out of that mold. A good issue would be Saheli's # 5. I'd like to see the Indian American, nay, the South Asian American community flex it's "muscle" on the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design issue. Indian parents always promote science and want to see their kids get into the best schools. Most would also want to promote secularism I would think, so as not to encourage religious discrimination. I dunno, just an idea. I hope that at the meeting in Fremont they discuss issues like this. I know as well as you however, that cash rules everything.

kush,

speaking as someone who is only mildly patriotic in the american sense, and not patriotic in any non-american sense, i don't have any problem with the USA being in a good place to aid india, and indian americans being primary facilitators of that relationship. the only issue where my brows rise is where there might be conflicts of interest...which is probably why abhi is focused on the iran case.

the fact is that i think an indian american political group might be essential oil to smooth the interface between the indian and american political classes, and perhaps further investment in that country. that relationship is good for both.

on the other hand, india will be a great power in the near future and likely begin to expand its influence outside of south asia, at the minimum because of chinese hegemonic rumblings. it stands to reason that india and the USA will sometimes be at cross-purposes, though i suspect most of the time the USA will try to use india as a counterbalance to china. but, the key here is use, and no doubt the USA will sell india down the river periodically when it is in the interests of america.

ultimately you have to look at the cost vs. benefit. if the cost to india is high and the benefit to the USA is minimal i can see even assimilated indian americans arguing that one should lean toward india in this case. i suspect that, right or not, american jews would argue that the america-israel alliance at its worst might be a minimal cost to the hyperpower of this age, but it is of existential significance to israel. barring pakistan engaging in a massive nuclear weapons program, i do not see any existential threats to india right now....

barring pakistan engaging in a massive nuclear weapons program, i do not see any existential threats to india right now....

hasn't this already happened? in fact, didn't the us deploy troops to pakistan to help them protect their nuclear infrastructure and assets during the afghanistan conflict? there is still a game of one-upsmanship going on in south asia...

For me both countries have to go in the positive direction.

we do not live in the best-of-all-worlds :( the fact is that the india-america relationship will be uncontroversial and any lobbying that might be done in its interests are going to be superfluous when the interests run in the same direction.

the israel and cuba lobby do not exist simply to facilitate legislation and policy which favors both nations, they exist (unfortunately) in part to work against the short term interests of america in a realpolitik game. farmers in the midwest, and the majority of americans, don't really care much about the embargo on cuba. similarly, we would probably gain a lot of short-term goodwill if we abandoned israel to the sharks.

but again, my major problem with this analogy is that ireland, cuba and israel are all relatively small states with a few critical foci of issues. within a generation the india-USA relationship will be one between two great powers, and i think that the reprecussions of perceived interests at work against the USA by diaspora communities could be nastier than in the irish, cuban or jewish models (ie; think the anti-german jingoism or anti-japanese racism prevelant during the first and second world wars, the magnitude of any hostility would be far, far, less because war is unlikely, but great-power relations are tricky).

I am an American though and I want a political group representing ME looking out for MY interests. India's interests are not always MY interests.

>>Then may the group dont represent you. there is nothing Indian about you. you never hold an Indian nationality. May this group is talking about the folks who were once Indians but are Americans now. You should protest if they are trying to include/represent your types.

What I have failed to understand is that under which law (or appearance of law) does US have the authority to ask Iran not to pursue N-porgram?

Why is it OK for US and Israel to have N-program and weapons and Iran cant have them?

I hope the argument is a little better than "Iran is evil".

Basically, US wants to continue its hegemony and more countries having N-power diminishes that.

hasn't this already happened? in fact, didn't the us deploy troops to pakistan to help them protect their nuclear infrastructure and assets during the afghanistan conflict? there is still a game of one-upsmanship going on in south asia...

do the math. india is a big country. israel is the size of new jersey. an existential threat against india needs to include several orders of magnitude more nukes than against israel. pakistan would have to also hit all parts of the country, does it have good rockets that can reach south india? i know that indian strategy always has contingencies for retreat and retrenchment in the south in case of chinese invasion from the north.

What I have failed to understand is that under which law (or appearance of law) does US have the authority to ask Iran not to pursue N-porgram?

That would be the Law of the Jungle: self-preservation. Is there any law more important?

" i suspect most of the time the USA will try to use india as a counterbalance to china. but, the key here is use"

I agree, Razib. Donald Rumsfeld made a very similar statement in Singapore a few months ago. In fact, this might be even a bigger factor than terrorism, and out-sourcing for the USA-India coming close.

Maybe, let's look into how Irish-Americans deal with this (again, no one is asking to copy cat them). I personally need to read on them more to be more intelligent and insightful. Little I know, the role of Irish expats is very powerful - it includes Kennedys and Ronald Reagan, amongst millions of others.

I understand Israel-USA analogy is a very case specific.

Basically, US wants to continue its hegemony and more countries having N-power diminishes that.

of course. american hegemony seems pretty good for americans. why shouldn't we want to perpetuate that???

in fact, didn't the us deploy troops to pakistan to help them protect their nuclear infrastructure and assets during the afghanistan conflict?

My understanding was that U.S. blackops wanted to make sure Pakistan's nukes were safe-guarded in case Mushie was overthrown in a coup by the ISI in response to his support of the U.S. in Afghanistan.

Maybe, let's look into how Irish-Americans deal with this (again, no one is asking to copy cat them). I personally need to read on them more to be more intelligent and insightful. Little I know, the role of Irish expats is very powerful - it includes Kennedys and Ronald Reagan, amongst millions of others.

irish roman catholic antipathy toward the united kingdom didn't block our "special relationship" with america's mother country. i have read that roman catholic irish americans were not particularly excited about fighting to save england during both world wars. but of course they did. they were americans after all before they were patties.

p.s. kennedy was a roman catholic irishmen whose grandfather was mayor of boston. reagan was a protestant whose family had assimilated long ago. those are the two types of irish in america, and though we tend to notice the first kind (boston-drunk-catholic :), the second kind is actually far more numerous.

also, a larger number of americans are scotch-irish, than irish proper. they are a different bag alltogether....

I'd like to see the Indian American, nay, the South Asian American community flex it's "muscle" on the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design issue.

this is not an Indian or Indian-American issue. it is an issue that divides people who want to bring faith into everything versus people who want to keep science and faith seperate. I think in this we definitely should bring all races, ethinicities together.

Now on to Saheli's points. How does this list differ from any minority's list. There is nothing inherently Indian or Indian-American about it.

now having re-read Abhi's post i see his point. He wants someone to represent the Indian-American. But, the queston should be what is that Indian-Americans want represented? Why is tt important that the person representing be Indian? Why not an African-American or Caucasian ?

the asian american activists have traditionally focused a lot on immigration. the reasons are obvious. similarly, indian american political groups could serve as focal points to dissemination of information and awareness. there are roles such groups could play. i just think moving into the foreign policy arena is a high risk strategy...because too often it is the hyperpower (us) vs. the world.

"Of 1.67 million Indian Americans in the country, about one million were born in India"-source

I think Lantos had a point.

This FOB totally agrees that the US should take a hard-line against India to support its own interests. However, taking a hard line does NOT mean that it's necessary or wise to call the Indian foreign minister "imbecilic" and "dense." The Bush administration had been handling India masterfully - all India needs is a little love - and Lantos comes along and uses words that he would never have used against Russia or China (no friends of the US, those). Whatever happened to good ol' diplomacy and RESPEK?

I simply don't understand the Indian American reluctance to facilitate more understanding for the Indian point of view in Washington WHEN IT DOES NOT GO AGAINST US INTERESTS (especially in light of the political histories of other major immigrant groups in the US). It would be beneficial for BOTH groups and needn't be done at the expense of excluding domestic issues. Israel may be a small state but it looms large on the international landscape, both in reality and in imagination. The Jewish community in America is about 5 million strong, if I remember correctly. Yet, their dogged pursuit of Israel's interests (arguably against US interests at times) hasn't harmed them in the least and they've still succeeded in hobbling together a platform of domestic and international positions that both parties fall over themselves to represent...

P.S. Rumors of India's ascendancy to great power status are greatly exaggerated. Americans who wring their hands about great power relations with India are, to paraphrase Bhagwati, like a doberman who starts to worry when it sees a poodle coming up the street.

That would be the Law of the Jungle: self-preservation. Is there any law more important?

Iran is also doing the same thing, IMO. Only jungle law can resolve this.

of course. american hegemony seems pretty good for americans. why shouldn't we want to perpetuate that???

See, you guys are smart Americans, so you dont claim moral superiority, but argue that the hegemonistic policy is only for "interests", which is a perfectly fine reason as far as I am concerned. But there are lots of not so smart people, who take US position as the morally superior position. The other problem is that hegemonistic policy leads to confrontation and that causes loss of lives. So when US lives are lost to maintain the hegemony or interest whatever you want to call it, Americans think that the enemy is a-moral and evil.

But there are lots of not so smart people, who take US position as the morally superior position.

sure, but this sort of idiocy is not limited to americans. stupidity knows no borders.

but....

So when US lives are lost to maintain the hegemony or interest whatever you want to call it, Americans think that the enemy is a-moral and evil.

not always. consider the case of vietnam. many americans oppose unmitigated hegemony. we are a pluralistic democracy after all.

many americans oppose unmitigated hegemony

Do you really think John Kerry would not have attacked civilian Afghanistan after 9/11 or backed out troops from Iraq were he elected?

You are combining a whole bunch of issues. "Hegemony" isn't a word to be thrown around loosely. Applying it willy-nilly to every situation concerning U.S. foreign policy isn't fair. I hate most of Bush's policies with a passion but I think that when history looks back on his Presidency, Afghanistan may be the one bright spot.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Why exactly is there a need to take a hardline against Iran?
Why should Iran not be allowed to develop nuclear technology if it so wishes? Who said the west should be allowed to dictate what third world countries should be doing?

Who said the west should be allowed to dictate what third world countries should be doing?

might (intersection) self interest.

also, many non-imperial non-republics (saudi arabia, the gulf nations, iraq, turkey, israel etc.) are pretty nervous about the possibility of nukes in the region. and i think most of the world is pretty cautious about the nukes in the hands of a quasi-democracy in the vicinity of 1/4 of the world's oil reserves. from an american perspective what the ideal situation is is a no brainer!

US's position with respect to Iran in its self-interest and in "jungle law" can be explained, but IMHO cant be justified (as its morally abhorrent).

but IMHO cant be justified (as its morally abhorrent).

if morals can be justified via propositional logic, than the justification is premised on axioms (norms). unless you agree on the axioms you are talking past each other.

i agree that some of the moral talk hypocritical, but i also think that the presumption that all polities are on equal moral ground is also a fallacy (this is the major weak point in many american arguments, because they refuse to deny the equivalence between a semi-idiotic semi-literate republican democratic semi-plutocratic polities vs. idiotic illiterate undemocratic polities).

and of course, democracy is not a panacea, cretinism is still an issue in much of the malnourished world....

Hello Sunny ol' chap. You have said something along the lines of what I was thinking, but wasn't sure how to phrase. It's really picking up on a small point Abhi made about nuclear capabilities and where he stands.

When India and Pakistan got the bomb the West was united in its condemnation. I have spent most of my life in Britain, support the England cricket team when they play India and have an English Dad, but I remember clearly feeling furious that countries like the UK and America to be condemning India for joining their club, it smacked of a colonial mentality. So I fully comprehend the finer points of being an NRI and I can empathise with those who find themselves divided between two countries on several issues.

If I defended India's decision to perform nuclear research, I can't attack Iran's. It's churlish to draw a definite line in the sand with India and Iran on opposing sides. India has a shady side, it's academic saying "yeah but Iran is WORSE" - neither are 100% clean. And neither is America, but since they had the bomb before anyone, nobody judges their right to own it - despite the fact they remain the only users.

I abhor warfare and of course the answer is simple - destruction of all nukes, which will, of course, never happen. Why? Because Americans will always live in fear. Commies, Islamists...a boogieman will be created and an excuse will always exist.

Because Americans will always live in fear. Commies, Islamists...a boogieman will be created and an excuse will always exist.

let me unfurl my mildly patriotic streak and offer that your countrymen and you might be speaking german (twice over) if it were not for my country and the "fear" we have toward the world.

myself, i was not particularly worried that india got the bomb. i was worried that pakistan got the bomb. making an equivalence between india, a nation which managed to maintain a semblence of democracy for about 5 decades before its bomb and iran, a nation which is predicated on perpetual islamic revolution, where the democratic republican impulse is supine at the feet theocrats and hard-line nationalists, seems churlish to me.

additionally, the fact is that the danger posed by the south asian bomb is not to americans, it is to south asians! i don't hold for a minute that the danger to south asians was the primary concern of the nuclear first world nations when they objected to the brown bomb, but it seems that neglecting this point when discussing this issue is like spiting the slave master by killing your family committing suicide. the danger from an iranian bomb would be to the interests of developed nations since iran is within shooting distance of 1/4 of the world's oil. this is a main issue. but the fears of neighboring nations, and their populace, shouldn't be discounted, and escelation if iran does go nuclear is almost a certainty. i am also skeptical that israel would not lose it send its airforce into iranian airspace if the program proceeds, which would cause problems for the whole middle east (political leaders, and nations, are not utility maximizers....).

i grant there are moral issues at work here. but hidden in abhi's spare prose i assumed we could all agree that there are implicit background conditions which bode ill for all, in particular for iranians. but i guess we can't all agree on these points (at least if sticking it to the yanks is at issue)....

Cheers BB, you said exactly what I wanted to, except in more detail. Shouldn't you be studying anyway :P

Let me add to this. There is a lot of hyberbole within the American press right now.

Iran is nowhere even near nuke capability. It is trying to make a nuclear power station first to boost energy supplies (though you might argue why when it has so much oil, but it might be more worth its while to sell that oil when the price is so high for arguments sake).

That nuke power station will give it the capability to process materials that may eventually help it to develop a nuke. We are still many years off, but it helps the American govt to keep eyes on Iran and make noises about nuke capability just so it can give the impression it is cracking down on "bad regimes" around the world.

I'm disappointed you guys have been sucked into this propaganda war and talking about India taking a hardline stance against Iran.

India has no need to do so, and neither should it just to appease the USA. And neither does it have any moral right to do so considering it also ignored American pressure before to carry its nuclear programme (as BB said).

Bong,

My story now. I used work for an oil and gas company in Texas when the recent nuclear Indian test happened. We had an animated discussion at the lunch. My two sentences then were:

"The nuclear test will create unnecessary arms race in India and Pakistan"

"It is not USA or UK business to tell who should/ who should not have nuclear technology"

Surprisingly, everyone (every American) on the lunch table agreed and respected me for my stance. I have talked to Arab-Americans and they echo same feelings, when Iran does not even depend on US for anything. Give Iran a breathing space and dignity.

As of India-Iran-Pakistan gas line deal, that is the smartest real politick India has ever undertaken since its independence. If India does not secure their oil and gas market share, they will "choking" themselves to dark ages.

All we will then talk about women relegated to different in certain parts of the month or Ravi Shankar or Salman Rushdie when comes to India. Energy needs holds the key to a country's survival - I cannot emphasize any more.

China is already in Iran with big $$$ investments, do you think Chinese-Americans are being upset/ conflicted about it. So is France (through TotalFina). BP (England) is waiting for the piece of pie as soon as the rhetoric goes down. So is ExxonMobil.......

Bottom Line: The fuel of the future is natural gas (even in hydrogen economy), and Iran has the third largest reserves in the world.

Abhi, is a US policy that covers up for (at the least) and encourges (if you believe the worst) nuclear profileration a sound one?

Ask yourself this question as an American.

Then think about the whole China-AQ Khan-Pakistan-N.Korea-Iran-Libya affair.

well said Kush, China, France and Russia have multi-billion dollar investments in Iran. Even US service companies like Schlumberger and Halliburton operate in Iran.

Here is a partial list of companies involved in the South Pars gas field in Iran:

Total-Fina-Elf (France)
ENI-AGIP (Italy)
Foster Wheeler (UK & US)
Toyo (Japan)
Statoil (Norway)

And people like Abhi save their invective for India.

Just to clarify companies like Foster Wheeler, Schlumberger and Halliburton operate in Iran via their non-US subsidary companies.

I would really like to get Abhi's view on this, shouldnt the US government try to stop US companies from operating in Iran before they stop others?

Bottom Line: The fuel of the future is natural gas (even in hydrogen economy), and Iran has the third largest reserves in the world.

Correction: Iran has the second largest natural gas reserves in the world.

Read Daniel Yergin's

Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power

Everyone wants the piece of action in Iran. - one way or other.

Sunny, exams have finished!

Razib, I expected better from you than that tired old yankee doodle line "You'd all be German". It's actually really ticked me off that you claim that American fear had anything to do with them joining either war. The first they got stuck in three quarters of the way through and the second only once the Japanese attacked them at home. Whilst I always try to refrain from painting all Americans with the same brush, its foreign policy is reliably consistent - selfish.

The point I was making is the same made by Michael Moore and Barry Glassner. That Americans have always existed in a state of fear.

Kush you make some good points and I defer to your superior knowledge about another field I'm not well versed in, energy. I harp on about China all the time - and you mention how they have lots of investments in Iran. China has also leapt ahead of much of the world by embracing many African investment opportunities. Africa is tipped to follow in India's footsteps with an economic boom. Zimbabwe remains a rich African country despite Mugabe's antics and who just met with him? Hu Jintao. India should not feel bound by some moral code imposed by the West.

The same standards must be applied to all countries - America, the UK, France and Germany have made billions from fear in Asia - stoking the fires of war to sell arms. Perhaps it's somewhat just that Asian nations adopting the same business ethics are creating fear in the West.

China is already in Iran with big $$$ investments, do you think Chinese-Americans are being upset/ conflicted about it.

That is a very relevant point!!! I am actually curious to know what are 2nd and 3rd gen. Chinese are feeling about it. If anyone has discussion with Chinese-Americans about this, please post it here, I would love to hear.

Just to clarify the Zimbabwe statement, it's an analogy.

The US used to control Iran, now they are worried other countries will help them out, yet they continue to have business ventures in Iran.

Britain used to control Zimbabwe, now they are worried other countries will help them, so they are recommending other countries avoid doing business with Zimbabwe. Jack Straw even suggested to the ICC to ban the Zim cricket team. But no British politicians are willing to actually do anything.

China has invested in both countries.

bongdongs,

You are right on the mark. This is one of few topics I can go on and on.....I need to my work.

You walk into the corridors of ExxonMobil and Shell in Houston office, they already preliminary plans for doing business with Iran. If they don't do it, then CNOOC, Total-Elf-Fina, BP will take them out of existence.

When I worked for Arco International Oil and Gas Company (100% American Company), there was an active Iran exploration group, waiting in the wings for action.

All this Iran rhetoric is not all that it seems - never was.

"Chinese are feeling about it. If anyone has discussion with Chinese-Americans about this, please post it here, I would love to hear."

I have many times - most of them hate the communist system but they are very dedicated to Chinese "proper" place in the world, culturally and politically. Most of my friends are in oil patch. Even the Taiwanese.

Iran is the top supplier of oil and gas to China - there is nothing relative about it.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/30/content_2157826.htm

I have a bunch of Iranian friends. I was out drinking with one and some white friends on Friday. When he was talking to them, the debate drifted onto nukes and terrorism and so forth. They were rather accusatory and seemed to assume that a nuclear power station would create a terrorist nuclear threat. It all got a bit ugly and bad-tempered.

But when he and I talk, we're far more friendly. He insists the Mughals were the best thing that happened to India and I demand the Peacock Throne back.

Who says the Indian relationship with Iran should be determined by anyone other than India and Iran?

Goodnight fellas.

if morals can be justified via propositional logic, than the justification is premised on axioms (norms). unless you agree on the axioms you are talking past each other.

I hope I made sense in the above statement. :-)

Why should Iran not be allowed to develop nuclear technology if it so wishes? Who said the west should be allowed to dictate what third world countries should be doing?

Because Iran is a terrorist state led by a theocracy. The "people" would not be in charge of the nuclear program like they are in a democracy. All possible means should be persued to prevent them from having the ability to produce Nuclear weapons. Nobody beleives that autocratic countries only develop nuclear technologies for peaceful use. I've seen the latest unclassified intelligence reports. I know that according to Mossad and CIA they are several years away. But I also know there is very little HumInt on Iran. Nobody knows for sure. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Democracies such as the U.S., U.K., and India is bad enough. A nuclear weapon in the hands of a theocracy or autocracy (like NK) is just asking for trouble. I'm certainly not advocating a military solution but applying (even hardline)diplomatic and economic pressure seems wise in my opinion.

Identity politics is tricky and historically has revolved around the marginalization of a particular community. Native Americans, African Americans, and Women have a significant history of being abused, marginalized, and oppressed. As a response, organizations representing their grievances and issues sprung up from a grass roots level.

Abhi, when folks from the subcontinent start to flex their muscles on more American centric domestic agenda, they'll cease to have the 'glue' that holds organizations that are based around an identity, in this case South Asian. You'll see Indian Americans particpate in mainstream and join those ranks, rather than rallying around an Indian American Political Action organization.

We don't have the historical 'baggage', so to speak, to have that common identity forged into the psyche of naturalized citizens or first, second, third, etc. generation immigrants. Such PACs will remain small, focused on very specific topics, and won't be mainstream such as a NAACP. Instead you'll see a Swaminarayan temple effect, where competing organizations with their own nuanced agendas sprout. The factors stand against such a union: Relatively small population, as a minority we've had it good so far, diverse backgrounds within the subcontinent.

Taking yourself as an example, the issues you've stated are things that many other Americans, regardless of their skin color OR native country have a stake in. It's an American issue. An example you stated:

I'd like to see the Indian American, nay, the South Asian American community flex it's "muscle" on the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design issue. Indian parents always promote science and want to see their kids get into the best schools.

You are making a sweeping assumption based upon a community and environment that you've been raised in. Sure Indian parents that you know, like their kids going the best schools, but do you know any people that didn't go to the best schools, or got decent educations, or even cared to do such. I know far too many. We aren't the academically focused (or active) superminorty many would like us to believe. There is a significant population of such folks (throwing out a number, say 50-50), but not enough to move the proverbial chains another 10 yards. This strong academic contingent has been visible, successful, and therefore much more well recognized.

I'll offer up my own family as an example (although on a micro level) to debate this.

My immediate family (parents,sister) fall squarely in the group you quote. I consider myself a strong moderate and frankly find intelligent design an abomination attacking the very fundamentals of scientific method and education. My parents got here in the 70's, my father was educated as an engineer...

My extended family got here in the late 80's. They weren't as well educated as my father was, their children (my cousins) aren't the prototypical desi academic type. It's a mixed crowd spanning the spectrum from shitty grade types to good ones. They weren't particularly involved from a PTA level, my parents always were. If you'd ask a desi uncle, particularly the crowd that came in the 80s and 90s, a strong sprinkling of labor business types (7-11, Motel, stores, etc.)you'll find that many really don't care. There is also a strong underclass of service industry workers that don't even have the luxury of paying attention to such issues(cabbies, food stand guys, illegal folks etc.)

My Aunt is an active member of the PTA at the local state ranked highschool/elementry/junior highschool, in the city you quoted: Fremont, CA. You know what her number one complaint is? No other Indian parents are really involved in the PTA, despite the significant population. Actually, not too many Asian parents (East Asians and South Asians). Most of the folks driving the agenda are traditionally whites and even latinos (who actually want more active involvement from Asians). The complaints in the grapevine are essentialy based around that the families only care about grades, not necessarily what material is really being investigated. Pump the kids in, get great grades, and move on the next step to college. Bottom line - this is an apathetic community that really doesn't have issues staring it in the face as a south asian collective. Hell, there are even people in the bay that want competing India Day parades because they can't get along.

The south asian community spans the spectrum culturally, socially, and economically. As such, we are actually a slice of Americana on every level. Your ideal of a pan-desi community flexing it's muscles, albeit a rich idea, is flawed. Your assumptions and conclusions only affect portion of this community. We aren't a major muscle group and most likely will never be in this country. I honestly believe we'll never have our version of the NAACP pushing an agenda that this America centric sprinked with south asian interests.

Anyone with more information how these things work in Great Britain? I'd really be interested. The historical dynamics are definitely different (atleast on paper).

My apologies for an overly verbose response.

And people like Abhi save their invective for India.

What the hell are you talking about? What "invective?" Why don't you actually read and respond to the arguments instead of making empty "people like..." arguments.

shouldnt the US government try to stop US companies from operating in Iran before they stop others?

Not in every instance. The U.S. has to engage the young people of Iran if they want them to eventually come to power. They can do this through business ventures. A non-military, non-nuclear engagement with Iran by any country (including India) is welcome and may eventually lead to the spread of democratic principles.

dude what is going to happen from what you all say here?

seriously you act like you're deciding the fate of the world

the posts i like are ones with facts i didn't know, like Kush's. everything else is crap.

save it for when you run for election as president of the world

Your ideal of a pan-desi community flexing it's muscles...

I have no illusions about a "pan-desi" community. Not for several generations at the very least. I am just hoping for a more cohesive Indian-American community that rallies around issues more significant to Indian-Americans than "Pakistan sucks," and Indian Nationalism.

"A non-military, non-nuclear engagement with Iran by any country (including India) is welcome and may eventually lead to the spread of democratic principles. "

What I have read is Lantos crowd (some of the Deanics) are upset about Iran-India-Pakistan gas line deal. That is a non-military, non-nuclear engagement - wouldn't you agree.

I read Condi Rice-Natwar Singh exchange very carefully. I thought Natwar Singh made his case very eloquently.

Abhi, My family and friends joke how "un-Indian", I am. However, I know that something that matters most to India is "energy needs for growth and survival", everything else is just a side show (fashion designers, food, philosophical discussion about religion, etc). I will stand up for that no matter.

Why don't you please research more about India's energy needs and oil politics?

What I have read is Lantos crowd (some of the Deanics) are upset about Iran-India-Pakistan gas line deal. That is a non-military, non-nuclear engagement - wouldn't you agree.

Yes I would agree (if it is true). I don't agree with that thinking. Just because I'm a Democrat doesn't mean I agree with everything Democrats say. Just because I am an American doesn't mean I agree with everything America does. In general I think the entire world's energy policy sucks.

Nobody beleives that autocratic countries only develop nuclear technologies for peaceful use.

I am no fan of Iranian Mullahs, but its not Iran who has invaded another sovereign country in the last 50 years. I cant say that for the democracy (where people are supposed to be in power) of America.

Also I am no fan of Iran's foreign policy towards India.

Why don't you please research more about India's energy needs and oil politics?

Why? I know all about India's energy needs. My question is an academic one. Why should I care. I am an American. Shouldn't America's energy needs be my prime concern and yours since you live here? The point of this post is that a group that represents me should not care about India's energy policy it should care about my country's energy policy.

What are some of the issues that a generic immigrant group couldn't address to cover Indian-Americans??
One of them, if the only, would be 'India'. The fact is that India plays a big role in the life of an Indian American in a multitude of ways, and this role is only going to grow stronger with shorter trans-atlantic flights, dual citizenships, BPO, shining India, Aishwarya Rai, and the likes of it. You are soon going to have nomads.
Yes, your view may not be always be pro-India, just like your borthers in the ole country towards the country of your choice. But for every such view there will be an organization on either side to bridge the gap..... For everything else, ya got MTV Desi :)

Abhi GujuDude wrote:

"Your ideal of a pan-desi community flexing it's muscles, albeit a rich idea, is flawed. Your assumptions and conclusions only affect portion of this community."

As do your ideas of a "Brown", "South-Asianist" block acting in its own enlightened self-interest. What a silly idea!

"Nationalists" (not all of whom are uncles--there are many second generation nationalists) have emotional, cultural and perhaps even pragmatic interests in seeing America's relationship with India (not that quixotic, good-for-marketing-MTV desi 'South Asian' category) prosper.

They have more chance of cohesion than virtually any other group, except perhaps professional/trade groups, and some religious groups. They will persist.

"Why? I know all about India's energy needs. My question is an academic one. Why should I care. I am an American"

Because, the stability (political, economic, and cultural) of India depends on continual growth. Say, hypothetically, India ran out of fuel - they will be mayhem, and armagadden - Mahabarta.

As an American, do you want India to splinter into chaos? For a stable democracy to survive and have some parity with China - India should be energy happy. Will USA want China be the unchallenged "champion" of the region? You know that were joint military exercise between China ad Russia last month.
[This would my reasoning if a Washington wonk aksed me - Maybe, you should introduce me to some Washington wonks (oops!! babes)]

God, I didn't do any work today, and did not even go to karate. Weren't you in Delhi (I have read you CV), you should know have how energy-starved/ energy-struggling India is?

PS: Maybe, Indian-Americans should market India as a counter-weight to China.

The point of this post is that a group that represents me should not care about India's energy policy it should care about my country's energy policy.

Exactly dude, let the Indians take care of their own sh**. If they gotta build some gawd damn pipeline let em do it. It ain't any of my biznes.

Because Iran is a terrorist state led by a theocracy. The "people" would not be in charge of the nuclear program like they are in a democracy.

Yes Iran funds some terrorist groups, but then so does America and has done for a while.

Also, just because there is a democracy doesn't mean there is more accountability and better information.

The UK was pulled into war with Iraq on false intelligence and consistently against the will of the people. Your assumption is that the Iranian govt can justify a nuclear attack on innocent people (presumably using Islam as a card) whereas the US can't. I call that Hogwash.

The US and UK have both mis-lead their people and yet gotten away with it. Both have killed innocent people and gotten away with it. I'm not saying Iran is better, but you seem to be making out the USA is some lovely nice country that should be judged on a different level to Iran. I don't share that view.

I'll compare them equally thanks, and still say Iran has a right to carry on with its program. I might not like it, but its their freedom. And any mis-guided idea of attacking Iran would just be plain stupidity (again).

God, I didn't do any work today, and did not even go to karate

Karate? dude, are you trying to subvertly intimidate Abhi here :)

Karate? dude, are you trying to subvertly intimidate Abhi here :)

I was on my college's boxing team so I doubt it :)

Yes Iran funds some terrorist groups, but then so does America and has done for a while.

Sunny, this is off the liberal deep end. How can you compare the U.S. to Iran?

Also, just because there is a democracy doesn't mean there is more accountability and better information.

Yes. Yes it does.

Your assumption is that the Iranian govt can justify a nuclear attack on innocent people (presumably using Islam as a card) whereas the US can't. I call that Hogwash.

No way. I'd be foolish to think Iran would attack anyone with a nuclear weapon. That would be the end of Iran. What if, Iran lost one of its weapons though. You know? They left the back door open and a weapon was just gone.

"you seem to be making out the USA is some lovely nice country that should be judged on a different level to Iran."

I'm not going to take that bait. Several people in this tread seem to want me to. I am an outspoken critic of the Bush Admin. That being said there can be no comparison between human rights in the U.S. and human rights in Iran. None.

any mis-guided idea of attacking Iran would just be plain stupidity (again).

I'm not sure who has advocated attacking Iran??

I have no illusions about a "pan-desi" community. Not for several generations at the very least. I am just hoping for a more cohesive Indian-American community that rallies around issues more significant to Indian-Americans than "Pakistan sucks," and Indian Nationalism

On a wish list level, all I can say is "Ditto".

Part of what I'm hypothesizing is that without a signifcant event/issue that rattles or threatens the South Asian community, even several generations down the stream, most of the issues facing us will the same facing most Americans, especially as the United States continues down its path of increasing diversity. As such, most will choose to act as Americans rather than a united brown front.

We'll fight these issues, just as a part of a more diverse and stronger coalition of people attacking the issue itself, regardless of background.

To be honest, very few ideas come to mind that would trigger a cohesive subcontinental group to take united action on a consistent basis. Jews rally around the survival of Israel, African Americans and Native Americans have deep issues particulary when it comes to acceptance, generating wealth, and opportunity. What do we have to rally around, as South Asians Americans, not just Americans?

"How can you compare the US to Iran?"

Abhi: this confuses two separate issues; i.e. just because the US is WAAAAAY better than Iran domestically, it does not follow that the two cannot be compared in the international sphere. In the last 50 years (taking Iran alone as an example)the US had deposed a democratically elected Mossadegh and had him replaced by an absolute monarch (for decades denying involvement until the 1990s the evidence became too much for serious people to deny); the US continued weapons shipments to Pakistan in the midst of the genocide in Bangladesh/East Pakistan, and the Nixon administration claimed that anyone who used terms like "mass killings," etc. was really pro-Soviet; I'm sure we all are aware of the US's rather shameful track record in Latin America; and finally the US sided with Iraq as opposed to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (take your pick; personally I think the Islamists in Iran have more of a claim to being democratic than the Baathists ever did).

The point is: it is no answer to say something is "off the liberal deep end"; Iran has a shitty foreign policy of exporting its revolution wherever it can. But the US (ostensibly less shitty) foreign policy, when combined with its vastly greater resources, means that the US possesses great power to do harm. And since 1945, in the so-called third world, it has more often than not been on the side of brutal dictators who can "deliver" (Mushie is the latest in a long line of favored autocrats). And more than just on their side: it has actively intervened, from Mossadegh in 1953 to air strikes on Iran in the 1980s, to a whole host of Latin American military men. What is "off the liberal deep end" about having a longer view?

this is pathetic. what sort of godforsaken thread has abhi as the militaristic-jingoist??? i recent saw a documentary where a german school-girl makes a comparison between the holocaust and the vietnam war (ie; yeah, germans killed 6 million jews, but look what you did to vietnam!). is this the norm the world over?

in a thread where the center of gravity seems to agree that america is equivalent to iran there really isn't much to add...except that i wonder how long the lines are at iranian embassies the world over to emigrate to that land....

I'm not sure who has advocated attacking Iran??

No one. Everyone who has claimed the US was about to, or thinking of doing so, is simply paranoid. Even the neocons recognize that Iran can't be dealt with a military solution. Especially in the current predicament.

What the Iranians have proven to be is excellent negotiators. You get what you negotiate for, and they know if they push hard they'll get a sweet deal. Europeans don't have the backone and our hands are full.

what sort of godforsaken thread has abhi as the militaristic-jingoist???

Wait until I tell all my Republican friends :)

Lol, no I think Abhi's intentions are good, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

He says: You know? They left the back door open and a weapon was just gone.

Dude - that has been happening with Russia for years now, and the American govt still hasn't woken up to it fully. If that really is the principle concern of the US govt or yours, then sadly you're worried about the wrong country.

Iran has none or very little nukes to lose. Russia has 1000s.

But...aahh... yes it's a democracy.

:|

Dude - that has been happening with Russia for years now, and the American govt still hasn't woken up to it fully.

That's not really a fair comparison. The U.S. doesn't have the leverage to do anything about Russia except offer them enticements so that they will police themselves better. America knows what is going on there they just can't do anything about it. That's the messed up reality. The world is messed up. You try and solve the problems that you can while you are still alive and pray that the rest work out. :(

UM,

i grant that the USA has been involved in some nasty events. i'm sure abhi would too. but what would you have us do? withdraw back into fortress amerika? it is a nasty world out there and i can't see the feasability of a morally guided (as opposed to influenced) international policy, there is a reason that sweden can stand on its high horse* about its clean hands, it hasn't done jack-shit in foreign policy since the napoleonic wars!

was the world better when the united states withdrew from the old world between WW I and WW II??? was the world better when we generally stayed out of old world events prior to WW I???

power corrupts all too truly. i for one would be glad if a coalition of european gov. offered to take american arms and become guardians of the UN and global justice for all. this whore is worn out, let the spinsters who criticize her step up and service the town drunks and see if they can keep their virtue.

i don't make excuses for the way america has behaved, the topics are all too complicated for me even to get a grip on what has occurred (one reason i am skeptical of saying america acted in its "interests" is that i'm skeptical diplomats and leaders understand the present well enough usually make rational decisions). but i deny the utility of gross generalizations like BB has made that our foreign policy is "selfish" or driven by "fear." such simple reductions are no different to me than the mindless "my country, right or wrong" formulae. howz that for equivalence???

* excepting the semi-voluntary cooperation with the nazis during WW II when they allowed the use of their rails and supplied materiel to the germans.

Bong Breaker! Long time no see.Kush Tandon does karate? Sweet. As Razib says, this is rapidly turning into a god-forsaken thread, unlike all our other deeply pious ones. :-D

I'm going to ignore the details of the whole Iran-Nuclear thing, b/c I'm still more interested in the principle of the thing. There is one small aspect of the particular issue that does seem relevant:

This FOB totally agrees that the US should take a hard-line against India to support its own interests. However, taking a hard line does NOT mean that it's necessary or wise to call the Indian foreign minister "imbecilic" and "dense."

So I'm more than willing to criticize India's policies on this or that, both from a "what's-best-for-India" pov and from a "what's-best-for-America" pov. The quibble I have with Lantos is exactly as stated above--not his point, but his tone. It was disrespectful. This bothers me. Irrationally? Perhaps. But also rationally--I think it's Manish who has pretty thoroughly articulated some of the motivations a SouthAsianAmerican community has to promote SouthAsianProsperity and appropriate respect for the various homelands.

Rationally, there are other considerations as well. According to Razib only about 40% of the Indian-American population is American born. While some significant portion of the other 60% may very well have become American citizens, I doubt they've cut all their emotional ties with India. (I'm sure my analysis extends equally well to other parts of South Asia, but I'm sticking with what I know and with what's immediately at hand.) We're an extremely mixed group. I know plenty of families where one parent is a citizen and the other is not, and the new sons and daughters-in-law may be a mix of born in in India and other ethnicities of American. I know families where one or more of the adults goes back to India for months at a time every freakin' year, but the kids get homesick for the states after two weeks. Blood, love, culture and religion are all very thick things and they tie =Americans--Americans like me, who will sass out any one who questions our Americanness with a "I'm just as American as anyone"--to wanting India to enjoy peace and prosperity. Denying this is unrealistic. Personally, I think it's a good thing. I think America is stronger when the various ethnic groups that combine to make it what it is maintain strong ties with the rest of the world, and are able to articulate their ancestral land's interests in the language of their homeland. Ties like culture and trade are a poor insurance against war and the "law of the jungle" taking over, but they are some insurance.

But everbody has to negotiate their interests and their stakes and their ties for themselves. Personally, I'm much more interested in and engaged with American politics and an American spin on global politics than a lot of the other commenters here. That's probably pretty obvious from my blog. That's just where I choose to sit. Ain't nothing wrong with sitting somewhere else, though. If we need a count of who sits where and who is willing to participate in what, well, that's what surveys and polls and ballots and participation is for.

Back to Abhi-when-he's-not-bragging-about-boxing:

"am just hoping for a more cohesive Indian-American community that rallies around issues more significant to Indian-Americans than "Pakistan sucks," and Indian Nationalism.

and Razib said,

the list was pretty vanilla, i didn't see anything that was distinctively indian.

Yep, pretty much. Except possibly for racial profiling and fighting the persecution of "idol-worshippers" I can't think of much that's very specifically Indian.

Which isn't very surprising to me at all. Reflexively organizing your politics around your ethnicity always struck me as somewhat inefficient.

So what's the point of these community groups? Well, I'd argue, not as much point as some people would have--but a still a very important thing to do.

Here's why:

Let us take a totally different special interest group. The mermbers of this special interest group are Neil Gaiman Blog Groupies. I am one such. Now this group has a pretty specific set of interests. Sandman. Devils. Rondels and Vilanelles. Satanic tomatoes. Graphical arts. Etc. There are a few politcal causes that this group specifially champions--a very few. Specifically, The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.

But does that prevent Mr. Gaiman from passing the cup every now and then, when say, a Tsunami strikes ( a part of the world where he very likeley has fewer readers than other parts?) Or a hurricane strikes? Or someone's house burns down? No! It does not. Why doesn't it? Because he has a built a community. This community is tied together over fun stuff. Goofy stuff. Not particularly important stuff. But tied together it is! And one of the things community is good for is to get people off their asses and out there doing good works. Those good works do not need to be directly tied to the group identity of the group in question for the group to use its group identity to mobilize action where otherwise none would be had. It's like, why do people go to fundraising parties? Why do people do AIDS runs? Why do people have pledge drives? They could just send the check in and then have their own party. But they're two great things that go great together. We are social creatures. We like to do stuff with social groups. The more you can inspire any given group--readers, environmentalists, scientists, musicians, artists, Indians, people-who-live-in-Fremont, runners, rock-and-roll-enthusiasts--to combine their chosen schtick with poltics or charity, the more likely you are to get them involved.

And Manish--wail!--allyour nifty firefox buttons are gone again. Just when I was getting used to them! :*-(

Razib: for the record, I was NOT suggesting America withdraw from the world, what I was questioning was Abhi's reflexive reaction that any comparison of Iran and the USA was crazy. And just to be clear, my argument is not as to which country treats its citizens better-- the relative lines outside the two countries' embassies speak eloquently enough. But in the context of foreign policy, even if one takes the position that America has no responsible choice but to engage with the world, that does not justify one taking the proposition as a "given" that Iran is not fit to be mentioned in the same breath as the US. A sober hard-headed analysis would show that Iran's Islamic Revolution has grave limits-- including those being put forward by the Iranian people (especially the young) every day. The US' ideology is far more to my liking, but it has been a greater source of instability in the "third world" for the last fifty years than Iran, because outside of Iran's own region, it's voice is non-existent. This is not about which country we'd rather live in, but which country has the greater potential to harm other countries in the world. The answer is not a done deal, but I was reacting against a (what seemed to me like a) knee-jerk reaction (sorry Abhi) that seems to see the question itself as illegitimate. That reflects a deference to privilege I am unwilling to extend.

On a different note: I won't respond to notions of "selfish" foreign policies because I am not sure how to comprehend such notions (in the sense that it's not fair to single the US out for its selfishness, as it is no more or less selfish than countries like France, India, China, Nigeria, etc.)

saheli,

great comment! btw, i always thought you were a dude (there are a lot of brownish names that i can't figure gender from, it isn't like there are many ramina's and muhammedina's around).

when i first started checking out this blog it was with a little trepidation, cuz i was worried that browns were following the jewish model in terms of politics and a-people-apart. but pretty soon i got less and less scared, because it seems pretty clear that that isn't ever going to happen, we just aren't as cohesive as jews, because well, we aren't really a people apart, we are peoples apart (more or less, as i have noted before, there is data out there that indicates that browns born here in the USofA have intermarriage rates that it too until the 1970s for jews to reach). i once stated that the model for brown people i would like to see develop as an identity-focused community would be more like italians or swedes, that is, focused on cultural ties that bind, rather than politically oriented, with a somewhat adversarial attitude toward the mainstream (like blacks and jews). reading SM has me convinced that the former is going to be the model that'll emerge, the "push" factors from mainstream society aren't what they were in the past for the latter two groups, and the "brown" group is too diverse to begin with to move forward as a cohesive group aside from a few core issues (religious liberty, profiling, etc.).

education attainment of foreign born by country (source):

india
less than 9th 4.9%
9th-12th 6.9%
hs 8.3%
some college 7.2%
associate 3.5%
college 31.1%
graduate/professional 38.0%

bangladesh
less than 9th 8.7%
9th-12th 13.2%
hs 15.9%
some college 10.2%
associate 5.6%
college 25.1%
graduate/professional 21.5%

pakistan
less than 9th 7.0%
9th-12th 10.9%
hs 15.3%
some college 10.0%
associate 5.5%
college 28.5%
graduate/professional 22.8%

sri lanka
less than 9th 2.3%
9th-12th 10.7%
hs 15.4%
some college 13.2%
associate 7.4%
college 22.3%
graduate/professional 28.8%

That educational attainment table is quite interesting; I wouldn't have thought there'd be such a big gap between the Indian and SL figures, given that SL's literacy rate is, I believe, higher...

adults goes back to India for months at a time every freakin' year

Saheli,

For last 5 years, I go every year. The best part most of the time, I do not pay for my ticket or any expenses. For this year, I am still looking for a sucker - funding agency. I get a real high from the heat and dust. About 2-3 dozen people have told me that I look fresher and younger since I started doing India high.

It is a personal thing - I learned it from some of the European American friends I had in graduate school, especially first generation ones. I know two 8-9th generation, Scottish/ Irish Americans, who go Scotland and Ireland to find their clan castles and their ancestors. That is why I was bringing up Irish Americans - for cultural/ emotional attachment.

It all boils down to finances. This is the smartest decision I have made, like India has for the gas line deal.

I read this somewhere but it is very important;

America treats its citizens of different enthicities, the way they perceive their country of origin. An Anglo-American, Sweede-American were/ is treated very highly because their "mother country" is held in high esteem by Amserica as a whole. One of the reasons, Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans were treated shabily because they were poor countries a while ago. Let's us introspect, how Americans have changed their behavior toward South Asians, since India has started merging as an economic heavy weight. Every one can vouch for that.

Therefore, for selfish/ randian reasons, South Asian-Americans should help South Asia prosper - have gas pipleines - so that they become astronauts and CEOs more easily. Selfishness, pure and simple.

Case in point, how African-Americans are treated different than African-Americans of South African origin. All South Africans I know in America are treated like gods for their confidence - I am not kidding.

PPS: I have no ambitions of becoming a CEO or an astronaut. I am trying to speak a language that an American will always understand.

Kush: hey, I wasn't meaning to make fun, just sayin' how it is. I would probably go to India every year if I could afford to. :-) Pass me some of those suckers when you're done with 'em. :-)

Razib,

btw, i always thought you were a dude (there are a lot of brownish names that i can't figure gender from, it isn't like there are many ramina's and muhammedina's around).

/Saheli wails.

/Saheli stops wailing and sniffles.

I guess that's what I get for having a Hindi name, which means, cough cough, female friend. My fellow Bengali still thinks I'm a dude.

And of course this means Razib never felt the need to visit my blog before. My genomics-fangirl ego is crushed. :-p

You're not the only one who thinks I'm a dude. Ah well. I'll just have to write the great American novel.

America treats its citizens of different enthicities, the way they perceive their country of origin... Therefore, for selfish/ randian reasons, South Asian-Americans should help South Asia prosper...

Yes:

What decades of cultural education and activism by Indians could not correct, economic power has righted in a fraction of the time. Anything that South Asian Americans do to aid our home countries economically has a direct, beneficial effect on how we are treated in the U.S... To the extent that South Asia is viewed with respect, so are South Asians.

And of course this means Razib never felt the need to visit my blog before. My genomics-fangirl ego is crushed. :-p

i did visit your blog before. but i didn't connect that the saheli at delong's blog was the saheli at SM. btw, does chris mooney have a deep voice?

Manish,

That is a great write-up. At least we agree on few things (another being that the hottest female scientists are 1st gens or phoreners). Too bad - we do not agree on Peter Sellers and Rudyard Kipling.

I have been here for more two decades in two instances (childhood and adult) - I have seen a dramatic difference in perception of South Asian origins in America in last 2-3 years. Never before, such thing like that. The other day, a coed wanted me to do research on she could coach 1-800-Indians in American culture in India. She was serious.

Kush

An Anglo-American, Sweede-American were/ is treated very highly because their "mother country" is held in high esteem by Amserica as a whole. One of the reasons, Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans were treated shabily because they were poor countries a while ago.

kush, this is perhaps one component of variation, but

1) much of scandinavia was relatively poor until the 20th century. i have read that in much of scandinavia half of the people born in the 19th century emigrated overseas, usually to america.

2) the irish a special case, because the irish catholic and irish protestants brought their fights to the new world and the local anglo-saxon protestant elites had contempt for irish roman catholicism. similarly, there was contempt for italian roman catholicism. additionally, the skillset that the italians and irish brought to the new world was probably a bit lower than some of the english groups (same as the scotch-irish, but lower than the quakers or puritans).

3) cultural distance in absolute terms matters. catholic germans were a positive menace in the late 19th century (when germany was rich by the way!), and distrusted even by the irish (english speaking) roman catholic church heirarchy because of their intention to preserve their language. my reading does not suggest that lutheran germans had as intense of a problem aside from the extremely conservative missouri-synod group.

4) which power comes fear. the distrust of german americans up through world war I was in part because of the rise of the german nation as a world power. many german americans changed their names during world war I and the german language schools all closed.

Therefore, for selfish/ randian reasons, South Asian-Americans should help South Asia prosper - have gas pipleines - so that they become astronauts and CEOs more easily. Selfishness, pure and simple.

you know, i don't give a shit about other countries, but i don't really care about south asian prospering to help america or me out, we're fat and happy as it is, let south asia prosper so the people aren't so destitute. three cheers for the future!

which power comes fear. the distrust of german americans up through world war I was in part because of the rise of the german nation as a world power. many german americans changed their names during world war I and the german language schools all closed.

razib,

yes, they did, so did Lord Mountbatten's father had to do. However, this all was a white wash/ window dressing or just being with the right team. I do agree a lot had to do catholic-protestant under-pinnings. Like Salma Hayek (this tells you who I pay attention to) said: "Only thing America worships is Green". Notre Dame U. priests love their bible but dollar (funding) more.

They were not sent to internment camps like Japanese-Americans.

Henry Ford, Charles Lindenburgh - maybe, a slap on the wrist.

I strongly believe that Americans carry their percetptions of one's country of origin even if you are 8-9th generation.

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 do not want to see yet another “Indian American” political committee that’s really just and “Indian” political committee.

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.

this is pathetic. what sort of godforsaken thread has abhi as the militaristic-jingoist???

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.

What Abhi is falling for is a campaign...

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 ;)

What decades of cultural education and activism by Indians could not correct, economic power has righted in a fraction of the time. Anything that South Asian Americans do to aid our home countries economically has a direct, beneficial effect on how we are treated in the U.S... To the extent that South Asia is viewed with respect, so are South Asians.

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. :-D 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. :-D

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).