It's also surprising because historically, the India caucus has been almost all Democrats. India's supporters were usually Dems and its critics were usually Republicans ...

It’s surprising given stats we’ve blogged before showing that up to 90% of desi American registered voters went Dem in the 2004 election.

1) remember that some of us were skeptical because it seemed only certain states were sampled

2) granted, it seems the good majority prolly still voted 'blue,' (based on the size of the states in question), but, 90% of a small number is a small number :) browns will make their voices felt through $$$, like jews, not through sheer weight of electoral numbers (new york, california and texas, for example, aren't exactly swing states).

3) though these points are weaker re: the india caucus obviously (assume higher % in their districts, more $$$ going to them).

So, IAs throw their support to the Democrats, and now find the Democrats uncooperative on an issue of importance to them. I guess IAs have more in common with African Americans than they thought ;)

The rich uncle contingent is dismayed:

Consider the snide remark noticed as well.

KXB -
So true. That was the first thing that came to my mind.
Hope the Indian Americans realize it sooner than the African Americans...

I understand the reasons of support for Democrats in the minds of Indian-Americans. However, it is a myth that Democrats are pro-India. The myth might have started with the landmark visit of JFK Jr. to India during his tenure and might have been a bit of a reality too because of the anti-India stance of Richard Nixon during the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war. Democrats might be pro-minorities as evident from the support they garner from the non-white groups, especially the African-Americans. This probably galvanizes other minorities to look up to Democrats for support in issues of importance to them.

As an Indian, who is more interested in pushing through interests of India, I prefer that India deals with the Republicans. Democrat ranks are full of sanctimonious, "Non-proliferation ayatollahs" who have made careers out of pushing a discriminatory policy like NPT down the throats of the rest of the world. They are not flexible enough to understand the changed geo-political scenario of the world because that would mean that their entire life's work had no purpose.

Similarly, in the field of economic cooperation and business opportunities, I feel that India can work better with the Republicans than the left leaning Democrats. John Kerry's rants about outsourcing during the last elections still rankles in the minds of Indians. If my memory serves me right, true to his "flip-flop" nature, Kerry did a u-turn on the issue on his latest India visit. Democrat thinking has not adjusted itself to the 21st century realities of globalization, economics, and terrorism. It is stuck in a time warp.

Regards,

Set up in 1993, 2-3 years after the H1B program was introduced in 1990-1991, the India Caucus has always had more democrats for the simple reason that this how the desi money & votes were targeted in those days. Desis are always looking for value for the money & it took them only a coule of years to notice that the neighbourhood congressperson was taking the money but paisa vasool was utterly absent - no change to the clear US foreign policy tilt towards Pakistan. At every diwali function, desis started asking awkward questions before the samosas were handed out. The Democrats were in a fix.

Q: How do the Democrats keep the money (votes were inconsequential) coming in but provide nothing tangible in return?
A: You create the India Caucus to absorb & deflect awkward questions. Gave uncles the impression that something was being done.

Q: What did the India Caucus do for desis?
A: It took all 163 members to defeat one Dan Burton year after year

The India Caucus has been taking the rich uncles for a ride - 13th straight year in a row.

I think this perfectly encapsulates the 1st and 2nd gen divide that Abhi is always talking about. As an Indian-American this is so far down the list of things that I care about it probably wouldn't even be on my radar were it not for Sepia. This tells me absolutely no new information about how I think Dems are on issues that affect minorities or economics that effect Idnian-Americans.

landmark visit of JFK Jr. to India

Aninda,

JFK never visited India, Mrs. JFK did.

I stand corrected from few months ago, Nixon did visit India in 1969 - It was a brief visit.

On individual level, everyone will respond with respect to their local needs and their percetption who does the best for them.

On collective level, one needs to court both sides.

Saheli,

I'll have to disagree - the nuclear deal can be said to affect us living in the U.S. Indeed, the opponents of the deal are arguing that allowing India access to the nuclear market will have the long-run effect of endangering the U.S. As a counterargument, I would say that a rapidly growing India burning fossil fuels is also a threat in the long run to my well-being of us in the U.S. Plus, a number of U.S. based Indians spend a great deal of time and effort to address development issues in India. I'd argue that improving India's energy supplies falls into that category.

On another level, there is the matter of discrimination - a nation which has a poor record of proliferation (China) can buy civilian nuclear technology from American companies, but a nation with a strong record on such matters (India) is punished?

Kush,

You are right. Apologies for the mistake. I agree with Saheli that second generation Indian-Americans will not identify with this issue. They will and should worry more about the domestic policies of Democrats rather than their "head inside the sand" foreign policies.

However, Indians like me in America, will judge the political parties based on their policies towards our country.

Regards,

think this perfectly encapsulates the 1st and 2nd gen divide that Abhi is always talking about. As an Indian-American this is so far down the list of things that I care about it probably wouldn't even be on my radar were it not for Sepia.

I'm not so sure of that divide. And honestly, I think there is a lot to be said about the emotional attachment many 2gens feel for India, and how India's place in the world affects their own self-image.

Eddie:>>how India's place in the world affects their own self-image...
...and how India's place in the world affects how others view them.

I (and many I know, including 2nd-genners) have noticed a marked difference in the way others at work/malls/schools/resorts look at us in just the last decade or so. As early as the mid-90's it was tough to be heard in meetings, conferences. Upscale stores in malls gave us poor service. Resorts would double check our credit card at the counter. And now... when we speak in meetings and conferences, heads turn with rapt attention. Upscale stores and resorts welcome us with a smile. Schools recognize the desi potential.

Yes - people must be treated as individuals and not as belonging to any group. That is the ultimate goal - but until then, this is just fine by me.

M. Nam

i think i disagree with saheli, and go with eddie and moornam on the issue of disconnectedness b/w I and II gen desis.

in any case, democrats have never been pro-india. republicans during nixon time started being anti-india, especially with their china tilt during those years and more so during the 71 war. didn't help with people like kissinger around. it is probably the reason democrats are given money by "rich uncles".

I (and many I know, including 2nd-genners) have noticed a marked difference in the way others at work/malls/schools/resorts look at us in just the last decade or so. As early as the mid-90's it was tough to be heard in meetings, conferences. Upscale stores in malls gave us poor service. Resorts would double check our credit card at the counter. And now... when we speak in meetings and conferences, heads turn with rapt attention. Upscale stores and resorts welcome us with a smile. Schools recognize the desi potential.

Thanks for the laugh.

to be said about the emotional attachment many 2gens feel for India, and how India's place in the world affects their own self-image.

I completely agree. The treatment of an immigrant community in the US, and its own self-perception does have a correlation with the international status of the "mother" country.

I personally think that many of the identity issues of people of all gens would resolve themselves to some extent if India had a much more positive image in the US. It would become more "chic" to be Indian and there would be less of a need to dissociate oneself from Indian-ness to be more "American".

Again, this is not meant to present a "choice" between India and US, for the 2nd genners. I only present the argument that better relations between the two countries, as well as a brighter image for India in the US, can only come down as a positive influence even at the individual level for anyone who identifies with both cultures.

As early as the mid-90's it was tough to be heard in meetings, conferences. Upscale stores in malls gave us poor service. Resorts would double check our credit card at the counter

A European friend of mine has been into Indian culture for a while, and started taking Hindi lessons while at grad school down here in Houston. She did not believe me about the 1st/2nd gen (or FOB/ABCD) "divide" until she encountered a couple of severe instances. However, she keeps pointing out interesting examples of how a campus environment can reflect things about the community as a whole. Over the last year or so, I see more and more 2-gens willing to participate in more activities with FOBS, and more FOBS willing to display their "Indian-ness".

I see it as a direct reflection of what's happening in India. Young urban Indians are getting more and more Americanized, have less and less of a accent when they arrive in the US, and seem to be a lot more confident as a whole. You see the same phenomenon among incoming chinese grad students too. That is bound to reflect on the respective communities as a whole.

I personally think that many of the identity issues of people of all gens would resolve themselves to some extent if India had a much more positive image in the US. It would become more "chic" to be Indian and there would be less of a need to dissociate oneself from Indian-ness to be more "American".

Since when has it ever been "chic" in the history of being an American to retain home country ties? We may be a nation of the melting pot, but we are also a nation that turned our back on the japanese-americans, and interned them when the war hit. The history of being an american is rich with ideas of assimilation and thinking that we can simply spin a "positive indian image" will make it any more "chic" disregards the 400 years of disavowal this nation is built upon.

I'm with Saheli- i don't really this issue is not at the top of my list- nor, amongst the thousands of 18-25 year old desi-americans I've come across- is this issue on their radar.

I'm just sayin'.

>

Since people starting coming over on planes, Taz? What is the US-British alliance except retaining home country ties? -- which is maybe not so chic at the moment...It's getting chic to be Indian is all.

Since when has it ever been "chic" in the history of being an American to retain home country ties?

Example 1
The entire foundation of Anglo-US alliance going back to all the World Wars and since then.

The WASP culture and the ruling elite of Amrika - Walk into anywhere in New England, you'll see it.

A tiny example: Rice U. is exactly modeled like Cambridge U.

Example 2
Cajuns in South Louisiana.

I can go on and on.

IAs throw their support to the Democrats, and now find the Democrats uncooperative on an issue of importance to them.

I guess IAs should just go running to the Republicans to thank them for that Sensenbrenner immigration bill, is that what you're saying?

Hardly - they should not express 100% loyalty to either party. But hey, nice attempt at changing the topic. Watching a lot of cable news, are we?

Thanks Kush- but I'll bite.

Do you have an example of non-anglo origins? As for as the Cajuns in LA, if taken into the context of where my quote was pulled from, you are saying that when the French culture is more popular in the US, it is easier for Cajuns to assimilate into being an American? I'm not one to know much of the Cajuns in the South, but I'm pretty sure alot of their issues of being Cajun weren't solved as simply as that.

I just finished reading a book by Ali Behdad- A Forgetful Nation, which talks about the the history of the immigrant community, how the ideas of being a citizen in this nation are based on "anglo" hegemony (only rich white landowners and tax payers were given the right to vote at first) and the need to disavow the immigrant experience to become a true American, thus pushing the POC community to the margins, never fully accepted. (totally paraphrased- it's a good read). It got me to thinking about how the SAA identity is heavily rooted in history of not just SA but in America and history contributes to the conflict bicultural identity we experience.

Point being (in regards to my original response), by having India being popular in America, is a very simplistic way of looking at identity and doesn't take into the real history of what it means to be American.

Saheli / Taz -

Several points in disagreement as outline below. I'll save the most important one for the next post.

1) First of all, one must care about this issue as an American because U.S. relations with India is the most significant foreign policy issue facing this country over the medium and long-term (other than possible relationships with China). India is happening and here to stay, whatever a bunch of limp-wristed dems have to say about it. How the U.S. chooses to engage India could well define its status as a global player within yours and my lifestyle.

2) Secondly, It would make assimilation far less important and less of a requirement to being here. Why, for example, are Britishers or French here in the U.S. seen as expats and Indians as immigrants (despite being second generation, I see myself as much more of the former than the latter).

3) Thirdly, from the perspective a Indian American (it is difficult to see this benefit accruing to non-Indians), this issue (and the overall emergence of India) is absolutely impactful to one's professional life. In their professional life, everybody brings with themselves a certain amount of "cultural capital" (that encompasses interests, education, etc. but most fundamentally personal background and ethnicity). It feels patently clear in the business world, the value of having Indian "roots" has increased proportionally with India's rising consequence in the world. The value of one's Indian heritage and what that brings to bear with respect to overall perception of one's business judgment is significant. A strong India clearly impact's one's personal professional positioning, particularly to the extent that one works in a global industry.

4) I would argue that India's rising consequence impacts working class Indian Americans the most. They are, after all, often at the brunt of the U.S. government's most repressive policies. Having a strong "mother country" would clearly make the government pause in its treatment of the ocassionally repressed Indian American working classes.

The most significant consequence of a strong India, for many Indian Americans, is the freedom to say f*ck you (to quote my former heroes at Motley Crue).

On a psychological level, it send a strong f*ck you to all the racists who discount an individual or their community for being "third world"

On a practical level, it provides the option to say f*ck you to the United States as a country and as a domicile, at any point that you choose to. Being a citizen of "one of those powerful and influential nations" (because no one really sees Indian Americans as Americans) gives you much greater global mobility, outreach and options.

Taz,

Your argument and ideas have considerable merit. I do not have non-Anglo examples.

I 100 % agree with you that Indian moniker in Indian-American does not have comparable currency, as WASP would have (same case for Japanese-, Hispanic- somewhat similar to Indian-). It is lot better than it used to be but still not even in the neighboring league with WASPs. In absolute scale, they all have seen huge improvement. Essentially, the core of US of A is still Protestant, and Calvinistic, and it has hundreds of years of history behind it (as you said).

In fact, I'll go a step further than your comments that the rules for Anglos and Protestants immigrants are/ always have been different than other groups in America, this also historically includes Catholics from Italy, Ireland, etc. I spent a lot of time being a campus rat in Amrika, and I try to carefully notice how fast a new student assimilates. I see Brits and Germans international students assimilating (sometimes even within hours - becoming drinking buddies with blue collar Americans, joining bands, etc.) in US more seamlessly than even other European counteparts - What do say about South and East Asians? Hispanics tend to shield themselves for safety. I have a German friend here who was doing field work (putting seismometers) for a month in rural Oregon. He got free lodging sometimes, dinners, and lunches from ranchers - Often they would tell him some link to German heritage for hospitality windfall.

Regarding Cajuns, I think for most part the geography (swamps) worked in their favor, and Louisiana at different point of history was governed by French, Spanish, and English. I think that might have made a huge difference. Till WW2, they also kept to themselves. Also very early on, even beofre Huey P. Long days, New Orleans being the hub of shipping industry and slave trade, and South Louisiana for plantation - I think they might had learned to lobby a special place for them.

I have a friend who is a historian by training and also a Cajun - I'll ask him. I think you might be totally right about their Frenchness being not welcomed early (they were kicked out of Canada in the first place).

Hari,

No doubt those are good reasons why "one must" be interested in these issues, but the majority simply don't.

Why? Personal preferences of individuals of course. Why further? Who knows, seems to be the core of the SAA debate on SM. I do know from the organizer perspective, it would be very difficult to organize 18-25 yr old demographics around this issues around your 5 points, unless they are totally into international policy, likely not. They (we) are simply not connected to this issue.

Chances are they are not wonks like us debating topics like these on blogs at midnight. :-)

Taz,

You clearly have a much stronger sense for this than I do. Its easy to be isolated in a wonkish ivory tower, wondering why people "just don't care" about one's pet topic du jour.

I'm sure you're fast asleep by now, but I'm curious to hear (and maybe you'll blog about it some day), what are the political issues that are significant for SAA's in the 18-25 timeframe. I'm only slightly older than that but I feel like, just younger than me, demographics and youth culture had an inflection ploit.

Can someone finally retire the phrase "non-proliferation ayatollahs" already and think of something less moldy? Just for creativity's sake?

Hari writes:
>>A strong India clearly impact's one's personal professional positioning, particularly to the extent that one works in a global industry

Careful Hari. Don't make AMFD laugh too much.

M. Nam

Guys,

Cynical Nerd is doing a lot grass-root work for the Indo-US Nuclear deal to succeed. It seems from the comments here @ SM, a lot of Indian-Americans want the deal succeed too.

Please do visit his blog and see if you have a common ground with him (them) and can assist their efforts. He is actively seeking help from Indian-Americans.

I think this perfectly encapsulates the 1st and 2nd gen divide that Abhi is always talking about. As an Indian-American this is so far down the list of things that I care about it probably wouldn't even be on my radar were it not for Sepia. This tells me absolutely no new information about how I think Dems are on issues that affect minorities or economics that effect Idnian-Americans

Guys,

Cynical Nerd is doing a lot grass-root work for the Indo-US Nuclear deal to succeed. It seems from the comments here @ SM, a lot of Indian-Americans want the deal succeed too.

Please do visit his blog and see if you have a common ground with him (them) and can assist their efforts. He is actively seeking help from Indian-Americans.

are u cynical nerd?

GGK,

No, I am not. Cynical Nerd had requested me to spread the word. In past, I have left comments on his/ her write-ups on Indo-US Nuclear deal/ politics on the blog.

It does need a lot of help from Indian-Americans - as they can keep the positives and the strengths about the deal repeated to the law makers. In its entirety, the Indo-US Nuclear will have limited effect on energy and business - more important is helping India see through an important strategic step which as you said will have road blocks - being a lambi race ka gohra (stallion of long races) as Amitabh B. said in Dewar

I'm with Saheli- i don't really this issue is not at the top of my list- nor, amongst the thousands of 18-25 year old desi-americans I've come across- is this issue on their radar.

It's correlated with foreign policy buffs who identify as Indian. Small numbers = no surprise, but mainly because there are are far more domestic wonks than international ones.

And to take the strict self-interest viewpoint,

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. There are all sorts of discretionary situations in which prejudiced attitudes are expressed, and they cut across all class boundaries: meeting new people, interviewing for a job, asking for a promotion, interacting with police. To the extent that South Asia is viewed with respect, so are South Asians...

Absent inoculations of mythology, New Age dogma, or personal interaction with South Asians, people's perception of South Asia itself determines how they treat us. In terms of strict self-interest, we South Asian Americans must change the perceptions of South Asia if we are to be treated with respect in this country. [Link]

Not to mention that the deal is good for America.

As for political ID, party affiliation is just a convenience for busy voters. Power voters unbundle and vote on individual candidates and issues. It's exactly what you do with other goods and services once you gain some expertise in an area.

e.g. Dems are retrograde on globalization (nearly French), and I trust fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republicans more in financial positions like controller and state treasurer. Conversely, as much as Dubya is pushing BigCorp's interests with the India deal... he's still Dubya.

Dayumn its Friday and things are slow at work. I guess not as slow as Bhattathiri's workplace.