October 03, 2007
The "India Community Center"Issues
Most of the ideas of Neela Banerjee’s recent New York Times article on Indian-American lobbying were actually covered in a blog post by KXB here a couple of weeks ago.
But what caught my eye was the bit about an India Community Center in Milpitas, California:
The India Community Center in Milpitas, Calif., represents the nonsectarian approach many Indian-Americans take to replicating the experience of American Jews. When Anil Godhwani began talking to other Indians in Silicon Valley about opening a center, “more than one person talked to us about making this a Hindu community center — sometimes in very strong terms,” he said. That was never his intention, though he was raised Hindu.
A Silicon Valley millionaire who sold his company to Netscape in the late 1990s, Mr. Godhwani said he and his brother envisioned a place that promoted the variety of Indian culture to Indian-Americans and non-Indians alike. The Godhwanis canvassed other ethnic centers and the Y.M.C.A. But the Jewish Community Center model resonated with them. It celebrated Jewish culture while avoiding the divisiveness of politics and religion. And it welcomed outsiders. The India Community Center occupies a 40,000-square-foot building that offers, among other things, free medical care for the uninsured, Indian language classes and Bollywood-style aerobics but keeps out religious activities. (link)
I would have loved to have something like this growing up — too bad there isn’t anything similar on the east coast.
More generally, I’m not surprised by the opposition Godhwani encountered as he was trying to put this thing together, though I am disappointed. Most people tend to presume that a South Asian community organized around entirely religion is an inevitable fact of nature, but does it have to be that way?
I’m not saying that Mandirs, Gurdwaras, Masjids, and indeed, Churches don’t have their place; they do. There are things our Gurdwara did well when I was growing up in Maryland, but it was pretty poor when it came to producing a sense of community oriented to aspects of life other than religion, which is what a community center like this is trying to do. They were also quite poor (back then) in language instruction — I learned very little Punjabi even after years of Sunday school. And very few non-Sikhs ever came in, even though Gurdwaras are technically supposed to be open to anyone.
There’s also strength in numbers, especially in parts of the country where the South Asian community might be smaller than it is in the Bay Area or New York/New Jersey. An India-, or perhaps even a “Desi” Community Center, could be a place with more critical mass.
I know, I know — I’m being idealistic again.
amardeep on October 3, 2007 02:53 PM in Issues · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
I find Gurdwaras do a better job of teaching culture and a far worse job of teaching religion.
Why is it disappointing that people want community center organized around religion? Isn't that what the YMCAs are, and they have proved quite beneficial for Americans as a whole.
The fact of the matter is most people are more likely to contribute money if they feel the organization reflects their values strongly. Given that most of the Indians in America are Hindu, it makes sense that most of these organizations would be also. Growing up, the Hindu temple in Aurora, Illinois and in Pittsburgh both provided valuable classes and services; unfortunately I lived too far away to take part on a regular basis. Luckily these days there are many more temples, which serve as a de facto community centers for Hindus.
The point about outsiders is salient. Personally I don't believe that Hindu temples should allow non-believers inside, so it stands to reason that some sort of secular community center would also be justified. With that being said, I think your idea of a "desi" or "south asian" center is overly idealistic and unrealistic in my view. Outside of SepiaMutiny, I have never met anyone who holds the South Asian identity above their dedication to their specific motherland (India, Pakistan, Nepal etc.)
I was somewhat confused by the last line in that article:
And it's being modeled after the JCC? I actually live close to the SF JCC, and I've worked in the SF Jewish non-profit world, and I understand there's a secular streak and a variety of "Jewish religions"...but [congnitive dissonance!]...How can you say "regardless of religion" when it's called the Jewish Community Center? I know, I know, it depends on whether you define Jewish people as a race or a religion, but I don't fully follow the logic although I do understand what they're saying.
As for Ennis's comment, I think the dearth of religious education at gurudwaras has much to do with the absence of a formal priesthood. The bhais at gurudwaras are often (not always) glorified groundskeepers who just learned a little kirtan so they could get immigration somehow. Unfortunatley, even if that is not the case, that's often how they're treated by the lay management. Having little respect for learning and learned teachers, the congregation and management are not willing to pay qualified pracharaks what they are worth, nor give them the deference and respect they deserve.
That said, I appreciate that aspect of Sikhi--the non-hierarchical, unmediated relationship with the divine, the do-it-yourself ethic. It appeals to my anarchistic tendencies. On the other hand, this great, non-hiearchical, democratic "everybody is equal" system allows morans [sic] to view themselves on equal footing with the learned and leads to the perennial challenge, "Tuu kohn haga?" (Who the heck are you?)
That's my 2p. I hope I'm not overgeneralizing or threadjacking.
Only works when you are just "tolerating" other religions---implies there are a miniscule number of others who you will not be taking into account anyway. Don't confuse tolerance and inclusion.
Why is it disappointing that people want community center organized around religion? Isn't that what the YMCAs are, and they have proved quite beneficial for Americans as a whole.
"organized around religion" is way too strong a word. to a large extent for many YMCAs the "C" is an artifact of history, just like the united negro college fund. anyway, iz complicated. see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YMCA#Secularism
And it's being modeled after the JCC? I actually live close to the SF JCC, and I've worked in the SF Jewish non-profit world, and I understand there's a secular streak and a variety of "Jewish religions"...but [congnitive dissonance!]...How can you say "regardless of religion" when it's called the Jewish Community Center? I know, I know, it depends on whether you define Jewish people as a race or a religion, but I don't fully follow the logic although I do understand what they're saying.
right. the fact that jews are a self-perceived ethnicity and that judaism is a religion complicated things. my understanding is that though you are a jew if your mother is jewish in the eyes of the orthodox tradition they tend to take a dimmer view of jews who convert formally to other religions (e.g., christianity) than they do of jews who are simply "non-religious" (which for them means being non-orthodox, whether you belong to a reform temple or are an avowed atheist).
This is generational, I think. Contrary to your assertion, my parents and their peers don't even identify as Indian--they would call themselves Sikh, Punjabi, Jatt, American, and Texan before they would identify as "Indian."
My generation, on the other hand, is carving out a Pan-South-Asian identity. I wonder how much of this is imposed by the generalizing gaze of "the other." I don't know if we're just more idealistic and truly care less for regional and religious distinctions or if we are viewing ourselves through the eyes of "white" America, which blurs those distinction on account of being ignorant of them in a "you all look the same to me" kind of way.
There’s also strength in numbers, especially in parts of the country where the South Asian community might be smaller than it is in the Bay Area or New York/New Jersey. An India-, or perhaps even a “Desi” Community Center, could be a place with more critical mass.
numbers are key. my fam arrived in 1980 and their circle of friends was very diverse within the brown community. the longer they've lived here the narrower it has gotten as each ethnic group has achieved "critical" mass so they can associate only with their own kind. if something is labeled a "south asian community" center but 85% of the members are vegetarian gujarati hindus that is going to color the nature of the organization no matter what you call it (e.g., consider the range of foods which are going to be acceptable at events).
Harbeer,
I think that is interesting, because my parents consider themselves Hindu first, South Indian second. They don't even feel they have much in common with the North Indians in our town, and given a preference socialize almost excluzively with other South Indians. I see that as being the future, as Razib said, as each regional group achieves critical mass they start to hang out only with each other.
The Pan South-Asian identity is something I only experienced in college, and to be honest had trouble relating to. I can see the whole "brown" connection, but my Pakistani friends' upbringings were so different from my own, that I can't say I have much more in common with them than I do with my white, black or other ethnic friends.
My generation, on the other hand, is carving out a Pan-South-Asian identity. I wonder how much of this is imposed by the generalizing gaze of "the other." I don't know if we're just more idealistic and truly care less for regional and religious distinctions or if we are viewing ourselves through the eyes of "white" America, which blurs those distinction on account of being ignorant of them in a "you all look the same to me" kind of way.
1) i think your point is correct. the pan-brown identity is a subset of gen 1.5 & 2s. i think its relevance is going to depend on the within group intermarriage. e.g., m. night shyamalan and bobby jindal are both examples of american brownz who married outside their ethnic group but within their self-perceived racial group.
2) also, 'we are viewing ourselves through the eyes of "white" America.' well, many ethnic identities emerge in this way. e.g., bengali literature was widely patronized by the pre-mughal muslim rulers, which helped it develop a separate identity as a written language from sanskrit.
I've thought the idea of an Indian cultural school was a good one for a long time now. I was searching on the net and found something called "The India School" (indiaschoolinc.com). It appears to be fairly similar in design to the one in California. The website states it's been running for 25 years in Bethesda, MD. I had never heard of it but I will probably check it out since I've now moved back to DC.
I see that as being the future, as Razib said, as each regional group achieves critical mass they start to hang out only with each other.
the future for DBDs living in the USA. not necessarily american brownz. the intermarriage rates with non-brownz is already high, and even if it drops it will never be THAT low (going dowm from 30-40% to 15-25% perhaps).
The Pan South-Asian identity is something I only experienced in college, and to be honest had trouble relating to. I can see the whole "brown" connection, but my Pakistani friends' upbringings were so different from my own, that I can't say I have much more in common with them than I do with my white, black or other ethnic friends.
your personal experience isn't generalizable. i don't socialize with brownz at all in my day to day life, it's a white world out there. but that's the experience of many here, and those who i have met through SM genuinely do maintain a "pan-brown" identity after college. to some extent this seems to go along with a more moderate religious outlook, or secularity. if you are hyper-muslim, hindu or christian you'll probably not drop into that tendency. as an analogy, there is a pan-east asian identity developing between koreans, japanese and chinese as can be attested by intermarriage rates, which are higher than expectation between these groups for asian americans. but obviously this isn't natural, there is a lot of animosity between the 1st generation of these immigrant groups.
I don't know anything about your specific circumstances, but I bet that one thing you shared in common with those Pakistani (and North Indians and probably even Central Asian) friends was the way you were treated by non-brown Americans. Here are a few examples from A N N A of the kind of thing I'm talking about.
ppl forget tha india is also a subcontinent wat i mean is letz say britain got 1 culture germany anotha totally dif so a european cultural centre wud lyk hav a buncha stuff n very dif ppl.
also many ppl dont tink as big south asian dey wud c as punjabi, bengali, tamil/sri lankan n stuff. funny tho pakistani mos ppl consider dem 1 group evn tho mosly rly punjabi n northern is pasto or sumtin basically northern pakistan is lyk white ppl but evn tha debatable.
i saw on net once tha many ppl wer considerin arabs as white so dey cud say jesus was white insted of arab or brown
Part of the reason that there is a greater emphasis on pan-Indian identity in the U.S. is that you have more cross-regional marriages. In my parents generations, everyone was married to a Bengali Hindu. But their children, born and raised here, did not - some have married Punjabis, others Tamil, there has also been the occasional Hindu-Muslim interrmarriage. Such couples, should they decided to become involved in the Indian community, may feel that a group that is solely Bengali or solely Gujarati will not meet their needs.
This can also apply to young couples moving to the U.S. from India. Indians from India in their 20's and 30's are far more mobile than my parents' generation, so a mixed couple from India would also find a pan-Indian organization more suitable than one that emphasizes just one region or language.
also i dunno abou america but in TO itz prty seperated lyk punjabi we do oua ting gujuz derz but from india itz mosly punjabiz who come. n whil many got cut hair still considered sikhz. who noz in a couple generationz if disl happen. cuz lyk black ppl from cariben n africa 1 dif is from africa dey got definite roots na mean lyk les say somali whil cariben itz dif so cariben c as bigger picture whil ppl from africa may na. na all but i sayn lyk from tha view lyk i seen ppl talkn abou it
Shymalan is a Tamil who married a Sindhi. But Jindal is a Punjabi who married a Punjabi.
That sounds more like the chicken than the egg, to me. I'd say there's more cross-regional intermarriage because there is a more fluid identity, not the way you stated it.
"Personally I don't believe that Hindu temples should allow non-believers inside, so it stands to reason that some sort of secular community center would also be justified."
As a hyper-Hindu I believe Hindu temples ought to be open to everyone. What is a believer versus a non-believer in Hinduism? But the temples should be run on Hindu terms with Hindu leadership. Our temple arranges garbas, Navratri, Diwali, Holi, free Gujarati lessons and free meals on Sundays. We attract lots of non-Hindu Desis which is perfectly alright. The problem comes when the non-Hindus try to secularize the temple and the Hindu festivals so they can participate without feeling as if they are losing their own religious identity.
I've been to the ICC in Milpitas a few times, once for a Goan related event and all religions were represented. I think it's fairly secular. Also is post #16 is a parody or am I just getting old ?
there's an indian association (no religious affiliation) in the town that i grew up in (central jersey) now. I don't believe they've gathered enough for a center just yet but it seems nice because many of the desis in that town are young parents/families who have children the same age. My parents moved there in the 80s and there were a grand total of three Indian families in the town when I was growing up.
I also reject the pan-South Asian identity. In my area there are a lot of young Pakistani men with long beards and Pakistani women in hijabs. I frankly don't feel I have a special "brown" connection to them. I find SM's idea of "Brown" identity very crude, boiling everything down to skin color, the hell with ideas, values, attitudes and culture. Why aren't Mexicans part of the Brown coalition?
Outside of the Guju community I feel more connected with Panjabis, Persians and East Asians than I do with Pakistanis or Bangladeshis. Most ABD Gujus I know are marrying other Gujus. And the minority that marry outside the community are usally marrying Panjabis.
Religion will forever remain salient. There will be pick-offs of Hindus (but not Muslims) by Christianity which will stregnthen the Hindu identity and engender movements for "revival." I heard that the HAF has been bad mouthed by some convert Indian-American politicians who resent the fact that they've usurped the "Hindu" viewpoint on the Hill.
Religion will forever remain salient. There will be pick-offs of Hindus (but not Muslims) by Christianity which will stregnthen the Hindu identity and engender movements for "revival." I heard that the HAF has been bad mouthed by some convert Indian-American politicians who resent the fact that they've usurped the "Hindu" viewpoint on the Hill.
1) religion will be salient for some people. the jewish american community is a good analogy for this, it spans the gambit from secular atheist to haredi.
2) as for picking off hindus more than muslims that is true from what i can gather right, but, there are plenty of trinidadians i have met who have "muslim" last names who are christian by profession, so you probably shouldn't project that far into the future.
But if you're antagonistic to people from that part of the world with long beards ... I'm in trouble, aren't I?
Outside of the Guju community I feel more connected with Panjabis, Persians and East Asians than I do with Pakistanis or Bangladeshis.
i'm curious as to the affinity for persians and east asians? i like east asians myself because they're generally not religious nuts, which generally is the case with many pakistanis and bangladeshis and a smaller minority of indians( though a substantial minority of young asian americans are going evangelical today they are still the most secular american ethnic group; see kosmin et. al., 'american religious identification survey'). but persians? they're usually muslim, though iranian americans are often jewish as well and the muslims are secular or irreligious (i know iranian american women who have converted to christianity via intervarsity and campus crusade).
JGandhi wrote:
Outside of the Guju community I feel more connected with Panjabis, Persians and East Asians than I do with Pakistanis or Bangladeshis.
How does that work? Most Pakistanis are Punjabi and most Punjabis are Pakistani.
2) as for picking off hindus more than muslims that is true from what i can gather right, but, there are plenty of trinidadians i have met who have "muslim" last names who are christian by profession, so you probably shouldn't project that far into the future.
Very interesting, but I'd still be willing to bet that the higher percentage of Christian pick-offs in the Carribean came from Hindus.
Another interesting thing in the article was the communal meeting between Hindus and Jews in which Hinduism was declared monotheistic. This may be the mid-life kicker that Hinduism needs in the west to retain market share amongst those growing up in an Abrahamic environment, though, imo, its not necessarily true to tradition.
I think most people who are on the anti-South Asian bandwagon dont really have a problem with Sri Lanka, Nepal or even Bangladesh. It might be their dislike of Pakistan/Pakistanis which makes them so Anti-South Asia.
Lets face it. Karachi is very similar to Bombay and Delhi is very similar to Lahore. People who have been to these 4 cities can vouch for the similarities in these cities. People should identify themselves in whatever way they like. But lets not pretend that people are that different in India/Pakistan.
I think that is interesting, because my parents consider themselves Hindu first, South Indian second. They don't even feel they have much in common with the North Indians in our town, and given a preference socialize almost excluzively with other South Indians. I see that as being the future, as Razib said, as each regional group achieves critical mass they start to hang out only with each other.
The Pan South-Asian identity is something I only experienced in college, and to be honest had trouble relating to. I can see the whole "brown" connection, but my Pakistani friends' upbringings were so different from my own, that I can't say I have much more in common with them than I do with my white, black or other ethnic friends.
my parents are attached to their linguistic identities primarily, and then a more general south indian identity (and straddling both of these is their hindu identities). but i wish there had been a community centre like this growing up - if only for the fact that it would have made me more aware of other groups. not only did my parents not expose me to other desi groups (sometimes explicitly, but usually implictly by their own lack of association) but they also passed on their wholly unsubstantiated (i.e. wrong) biases about these other groups.
it was only when i went to college that i started learning about other desi groups. it's been a very interesting process - and most of it was kicked off by acquiring friends of various desi backgrounds. i wouldn't say i have more in common with certain desi friends than others, though i think this is partly based on the fact that said relationships were not started because they are desi. it has been very fulfilling to learn about their cultures, just as it has been to learn about my non-desi friends' cultures.
but i wonder if this anti-pan south asian bias exists because people feel they are 'expected' to feel more connected with other desi people - i.e. why doesn't the same sentiment exist re their non-desi friends? that didn't sound very articulate, so maybe somebody else could re-word my thoughts for me:)
Gautham, in the context of the Bay Area a "Hindu" community center would be inherently exclusionary; there is a VERY large desi Muslim and Sikh population in the Bay.
I think the pan-South Asian identity is also a function of a political moment. It is strategic, and it leverages commonalities. That said, I don't think it even pretends to ask that we all share a culture or values -- what it asks us to share is common experiences along a whole lot of identity markers. Its inclusionary outlook is of course oppositional to a hyper-nationalistic (and by extension, exclusionary) outlook.
Also, I think traveling in community-specific circles is something you get to do when you've got a critical mass, like razib mentioned. When I was younger (and there were much fewer desi families, period) there was a higher propensity for cross-community and cross-religion friendships and social circles (although not really cross-class affiliations). The older I got, the narrower and narrower these circles became until they spun out not only into regional groups but within that into religious subdivisions. All that said, for some communities, events in India also shaped how they related to or perceived their "prime" identity.
I actually think the lack of adequate religious training has less to do with the lack of a formal clergy and more to do with a conscientious move away from home-based religious education. That and the dearth of seminary-style programs re: Sikhi in the west. There are actually several groups and funders trying to put together a "Khalsa college" of sorts, but because we're "late movers" as a community we are up against incredibly high real estate and infrastructure costs. All that said, gurdwara congregations and committees, in my experience, are much more likely to throw fundraising efforts and money behind putting an extra (and architecturally and physically unnecessary) dome on a building than investing in a quality Sunday school program.
the second para of my post 29 should have been in quotes, as gautham wrote it.
By the way, the Milpitas ICC is fabulous. Forgot to say that :)
"Lets face it. Karachi is very similar to Bombay and Delhi is very similar to Lahore. People who have been to these 4 cities can vouch for the similarities in these cities. People should identify themselves in whatever way they like. But lets not pretend that people are that different in India/Pakistan."
i think that's an important point, but it also works the other way. and bombay/delhi doesn't equal india. in college, it was mostly the pakistanis who completely avoided the south asian campus group and couldn't latch on to the south asian identity. it may have been because they were the smallest in number. also, karachi and bombay and lahore and delhi may be similar, but pakistanis are less likely to feel an empathy with other parts of india and more empathy with bangladesh than they are to sri lanka. on the other hand there are indians who feel more empathy with pakistan/bangladesh than they do with india's northeast.
But one could share the common experiences with other browns (from South America, Mexico) or other people (brown or not) from different countries across the globe who are living in the US. Isn't a South-Asian identity excluding those folks? :)
isn't this assuming the lack of multiple identities (pun unintended)?
Amit, I argue no :)
But, I am also someone who identifies as South Asian American and as a person of color and who works in both circles. So maybe I am the wrong person to ask?
Pan South-Asian as a concept is more suited for parades and naming associations on campus. It is a little bit like the simplistic term, Oriental cuisine, as if Thai, Japanese and Chinese cuisines were not fundamentally different.
We of the first-generation hard-core ethnicity obviously do not think in terms of South Asia. But do the more globally aware second and third generation browns - by which I mean most of you - really relate to other browns just because they are all Asians? Don't you relate much more readily to whites, blacks, and browns, or whomever you live and work with? I do. So why hold on to a Pan-South Asian identity? You are an American and an Indian, or American and SriLankan, or an American and Bangladeshi (I didn't forget you razib.)
Amardeep's post: "There are things our Gurdwara did well when I was growing up in Maryland, but it was pretty poor when it came to producing a sense of community oriented to aspects of life other than religion"
The religions of desh are adapting to local conditions. Look at the Sunday morning congregation in mandirs. Hinduism is very thin on congregations, and Sunday morning is certainly not the time back in India. Admitting Indian performers into the temples, teaching languages to the children, even the running of the mandir through elected boards and bylaws are all diasporic inventions. Maybe the community center dimension is not far behind.
having grown up in nyc, I belonged to the jewish y down the block from where i lived. this facility had a swimming pool, gym with basketball court, weight room, aerobic facility etc. my experiences with the y were that it served two purposes; 1. it provided the community at large an area to recreate, and 2. it provided jews in the area to come together for the purpose of interacting with one's own community and culture. these two functions seemed to be disparate, yet coexistant within the operation of the facility. However, as a place - especially for the young and the elderly to go to and have the opportunity to immerse themselves in their own culture this particular facility served its purpose. there are simaar jcc's all across the country that I have come to see. I think an indian cultural center is a wonderful idea.
Floridian, some of us don't identify by our parents' national identities. But, more importantly, the idea of a South Asian identity is self-generated. It's like the Asian American movement of the 1950s -- it's not trying to subsume regional identities, it's trying to build a critical mass around common issues that cut across communities. It's also about a shared experience of being (desi) brown in America. I would argue that it's also a great channel by which to think about what it means to be part of an immigrant community/tradition or a larger "brown" community in the U.S.
One of the reason people, especially the older generation may wish for a Hindu centre because political issues back home are top on their lists of discussions with other Indians. Any many issues today seem to be religiously colored than ever before.
Another reason might be that while Christians/Muslims of Indian origin have the larger Christian/Muslim community to draw their support from, for Hindus they do not really have such a larger community (maybe save for ISCKON).
BTW, I went to the website and saw that they have yoga classes. Now Yoga's founder is Lord Shiva himself. Is this indian culture or part of Hinduism?
Do the second generation desis really need a Indian or Pan South-Asian community center to learn/keep in touch with language,religion or popular culture like movies. Can't we learn just enough to satisfy our taste-buds by mingling with immediate family members or relatives in India ? Maybe the third/fourth/inter-racial desis need these centers (assuming encounters with "desi products" gets thinned as we go higher in generation numbering )
Rest assured that yoga is secular and south asian.
Although I don't believe in organized community centers, I respect the rights of South Asians to have them. I just hope that the abcd's who run them will not turn them into sextacy dens.
this center will never succeed. it does not seem to have a shalimar of india restaurant with a $6.95 lunch buffet on the campus, at least there's no mention of it in the article.
"i'm curious as to the affinity for persians and east asians? i like east asians myself because they're generally not religious nuts, which generally is the case with many pakistanis and bangladeshis and a smaller minority of indians( though a substantial minority of young asian americans are going evangelical today they are still the most secular american ethnic group; see kosmin et. al., 'american religious identification survey'). but persians? they're usually muslim, though iranian americans are often jewish as well and the muslims are secular or irreligious (i know iranian american women who have converted to christianity via intervarsity and campus crusade)."
My point is, affinity is more than skin color. "Brown" identity is a silly idea. Gujus and East Asians get along because they're both secular within the public sphere. Persians like Gujus also love to party and they party in similar ways: show up late, show up with a girl, gossip for an hour, rush for the food, dance like crazy and then abruptly go home. Invite a Pakistani or Bangladeshi, he's going to show up with 5 of his guy friends and they'll spend the night hitting on everyone's dates. I noticed Persians are also much more money-crazy like Gujus while Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are not.
To #25: I'm not antagonistic to people with long beards. I just don't feel a special "brown" connection to them. The beards and hijabs create a very austere environment for me and make the people wearing them seem very distant.
to #27: By Panjabi, I meant Indo-Panjabi (Sikhs and Hindus).
ak, sorry, your point was lost on me. Could you please elaborate?
The point I was trying to make was that if "experience in the US as a 1st/2nd/+ gen" is the common thread running through different flowers (so to speak) that Camille was taking about, then it goes beyond just South Asians in the US. So, a South Asian identity is exclusionary in some ways, because it doesn't include a brown from Mexico with the same experience.
I personally don't feel any need for myself right now to wear another hat called "South Asian," though if others feel that way and it works for them, then more power to them. I'm somewhat neutral towards it.
As a .5 gen Indian married to a fourth gen Indian, to answer the above question, yes we absolutely do. If you have kids or aging parents, its invaluable to have somewhere for them to go even if its once a month. It decreases the chances of your parents from feeling like shut-ins. It gives kids access to a broad range of Indian kids living in the area, as opposed to a few cousins/family friends. By opening them up to all, like the JCC, it increases acceptance of your community. I dont see any downside.
On one hand as indians become more westernized/globalized, inter-regional marriages become more common and on the other hand as more folks of different generations of desis in america want to learn/keep in touch more and more with desi products thru these community centers, I wonder what exactly will happen with the Indian and/or Desi identity in a globalized world ? I have already started hearing terms such "IBCDs" from many friends/cousins in India..
what i meant is that even if a south asian identity excludes other browns (as, by definition, it would), it's still possible for desis to have an identity as a brown person in general, not just as brown applies to desis. i.e. it's not a zero sum game - identifying yourself as a desi does not prevent one from identifying with people of other ethnic backgrounds. furthermore, what i was really getting at is that our desiness is not our only identifying factor - that people are fully capable of identifying with others based on religion, nationality, ancestry, lingustics, similar interests etc - and these various identities can co-exist without hindering any other.
as for exclusion vis-a-vis others - not everybody is going to be included in the things with which i identify - be it language, the arts, the subject matter of my career or desi culture (even other desis might not identify with my particular aspects of desi culture). it just highlights that we are different in more ways than just our ethnic backgrounds.
not for me. my desiness actually transcends that of my parents in many ways - it's something that i have discovered as much on my own than through my family. and some of the best things i have discovered - e.g. qawwali - i would never have come across if i had relied solely on my parents. although i love south indian culture, the more i learn about other aspects of desi culture, the more i realise that there are some things in them that are far more reflective of my own personality than the culture of my parents.It's ridiculous to have these centers Hindu centric. That's what temples are for. Now, if there are some activities that are culturally Hindu dominant like a Diwali celebration that doesn't shut out others, that's different. Also people can feel free to indulge in religious stuff in their own personal conversations or have like a little dinner.
I do not know how useful these centers can be for the indians in their 20s-30s. Maybe for kids and old people. I noticed a lot of old people come here to the US and are bored as hell during weekdays. A lot of their kids do not take the initiative to network them with other old people and arrange weekday group gatherings for a few old people in the city with the same care they plan their kids playdates. Actually I feel like these kids use their parents as a source of cheap babysitting in some cases.
There one or two India Centers, there are a thousand temples and several thousand mosques. The "South Asians" have voted, and its for religion.
43 · access code wrong
**Rest assured that yoga is secular and south asian. **
You have to be more convincing than that.
You see, if you start will yoga not being Hindu, then practically all Hindu stuff can be deconstructed... eg Shiva is pre vedic deity, meditation like TM is not Hindu, Vishnu is Aryan god, Murugan is Dravidan, Ayurveda does not have hindu origins.
Bharatnatyam is Indian not Hindu in origin.
I think most Hindus will say this is clear theft of Hindu intellectual knowledge. Using Hindu knowledge but not giving it its due!! Which is where I have a problem.
You cannot have the cake and eat it too.
I am curious about what issues/ themes SMers feel are common across india ( and which which are non-hindu in origin). It certainly is not language, cusine, music, or cinema, architecture, or wildlife. the only thing that comes to mind is Cricket -- and I doubt ABDs care two hoots about it.
But are there any common interests that both span across these India/Pak/SL/Bangladesh/Bhutan/Afghanistan/Nepalese and that are also exclusive to all these countries? If not, what sense does talk of a South Asian identity make.
As far as Yoga being secular -- sure it is, but only because Hinduism itself is kinda secular. (If Hinduism was a religion,then, by defination, it could never have included Carvaka at any point in time)
"I think most Hindus will say this is clear theft of Hindu intellectual knowledge. Using Hindu knowledge but not giving it its due!! Which is where I have a problem."
Its the secularization of Hindu culture. Its a way for non-Hindus to adopt Hindu activities while also rejecting Hinduism. The most absurd example is of course "Christian Yoga".
Another example is here in NYC a Christian Indian suggested that we remove all images of Durga for this years Navratri dances, to make it less exclusionary for non-Hindus. Of course the whole purpose of Navratri is to worship Durga by dancing! It is a religious holiday and its pretty damn presumptuous to demand people essentially give up their worship rites.
There was no word such as nation,democracy or secularism in the subcontinent's dictionary when yoga was invented. Today it may have become secular with more people discovering that alternative physical excercise is useful.
If non Hindus want to use some traditional Hindu customs, let them do so. If that includes a Hindu practice like yoga, who cares either way. I remember having a Christmas tree as a kid even though I never believed in Christ.
Guys, this is not a thread about whether the western appropriation of Yoga is a form of secularization or theft. The topic is: whether or not an India Community Center is a good idea.
Amardeep
The idea of an India centre is laudable. There should certainly be a meeting ground from all Indians. Having said that, it should also be honest. If you wish to keep religion, by all means do so.
In the Indian context, it is pretty tricky thing to do since Indian culture and religion are deeply intertwined. Nowadays even singing a national song Vande Maataram has given rise to controversies.
Probably some safe areas where one might not trample sensitive toes might be -- health, language, entertainment, sports, library, help/support groups, -- things of general interest (and probably western in nature too eg aerobics etc). I will only object to using things considered *Hindu" but dehinduising it and calling it Indian. That is not fair.
I wish somebody who has gone to the Indian centre narrates his experience.
Without alterations, does the center make more sense in uber suburban sprawl areas or ultra urban areas? I'm guessing Milipitas is more of a suburb than a close-knit urban center, right?
I grew up in a very rural area next to temples, community centers etc, that did incorporate a great deal of religions and those buildings just seemed to be a value-added bonus to the experience of just living there with 'community' members. Now considering most communities do not come together for the purpose of living some lifestyle, is there a bonus to throwing up a community center in an area where everyone has to drive 10-15 minutes to get there?
This reminds me of the Christmas tree and Nativity scene issue that pops up every holiday season.
**This reminds me of the Christmas tree and Nativity scene issue that pops up every holiday season.**
There is a slight difference, though. No Hindu will walk up to a church or community place and tell them to de-christianize it and make it secular and palatable to all.
dumb question, but how exactly are these generations: first, 1.5, .5, 2.5 etc defined? thanks.
Perhaps the Jewish Community Center model ought to be followed more faithfully. In other words, call it a Hindu Community Center, but keep it open to people of all faiths and all races. It's perfectly legitimate for Hindus to express a desire for a space they can explicitly identify as their own. When was the last time anyone expected Sri Lankan Christians or Pakistani Muslims to make the kind of choice Hindus are routinely expected to make for the greater good of imaginary South Asian/Desi/Brown community. I'm curious to know how inclusive of Bangladeshi Hindus are Bangladeshi American organizations.
So what is the point of a temple? Cant they have religious instruction and programs over there?
In London I stayed at the Indian YMCA. It ws a YMCA that served Indian meals (veg and nonveg) and provided lodging, exercise rooms and event halls. Most of the people who stayed there were Indian but it was open to all and I saw people of every race while I was there.
Perhaps, a Desi Center in America can do the same. Provide budget lodging for desis away from home.
An Desi community center has to fulfill a need that is not being met. For most desis the temple, mosque, church and gurdwara is fulfilling most of the community needs.
That's good to hear. I couldn't agree less with the person who wants to keep non-Hindus out of temples. This goes against Hinduism's best instincts and panders to its worst. But by the same token if Hindus in America are to thrive as a religious community--and not merely one bound by stories about uncool school lunches or whatever else passes for trauma here--then they will have to find a way to be assertive without being intolerant. This isn't India where eight out of ten people identify as Hindu. It's America, where the most prominent Indian-American running for office must explicitly reject the faith of his forefathers to have a hope in hell of being elected. Though I ought not to complain. Indian Community Center is far superior to Brown Community Center, or the almost as horrific South Asian Community Center or, heaven forbid, the Sepia Community Center.
The India Community Center occupies a 40,000-square-foot building that offers, among other things, free medical care for the uninsured, Indian language classes and Bollywood-style aerobics but keeps out religious activities.
************
Just curious, but would Mahatma Gandhi have fit in this India Community Centre. He was devout, wore his religion on his sleeves, but was secular, appealing and inclusive of all religions and races.
1. My question is why does religion have to be divisive. How does chanting a bhajan makes one divisive. Divisive would be if we indulge in hate talk, preach hatred for others. As far as I know, Hinduism has not concept of the *other* be it race, ethnicity or religion -- all are included in its pluralistic system.
Then the other question is -- that Anil Godhwani wants to recreate the Indian India here, when circumstances are totally different. I do wish him luck, by my final analysis will be that the Indian centre may do well, having its own niche segment.
But it not be able to push over the religious, and other ethnic based organisations.
To complete the above --- I guess there is space for all types of Indian organisations fulfilling various needs.
Let's not forget that, semantics and identity politics aside, there is a need for a place for seniors and retired folks to mingle with others in their age group. I'm glad the ICC was built with our grandparents generation in mind because they carry a less sectarian historical memory of their India than my parents generation. With the respect that age commands, the pre-groundbreaking debate sure went faster than it otherwise would have.
The reason I think temples should be restricted to Hindus is because they are places for quiet contemplation and meditation on the Lord. I am sick of going to the temple and seeing all these white people there talking loudly and indulging in some sort of sociological tourism, or people coming purely to eat the food. The food is subsidized by the people who donate like myself (and the other classes and programs as well) and we give money because it is part of our dharma to support the temple. Then you have all these people who don't believe and won't hesitate to exoticize or criticize Hinduism, but gladly partake in the benefits. I don't go to church suppers or go into a cathedral during mass to laugh and point at the altar, and I shouldn't have to deal with it.
As for the community centers, I honestly think racializing our identity is a step backwards, which is why I choose to identify strongly as Hindu but not South Asian. I am Indian because of political affiliation, and South Indian culturally, but when choosing who to interact with on a more day to day basis, I choose not to arbitrarily hang out with say Nepalese people just because white people view us the same way. There is some credence to the belief that all POC in America have a commong experience, but pushing it further beyond that into regionalizations just leads to the sort of Indian vs. Black racism that everyone is crying about on the other thread.
Ok, for anyone whose been to the Bay, there are MANY mandirs, masjids and gurdwaras. There is NO POINT in the Milpitas India Community Center being Hindu-only. While there are certainly more desi Hindus than any other group, there is a large minority of Jains, Muslims, Sikhs, and to a smaller extent Buddhists and Zorastrians. There are more than enough religious spaces in the Bay. I don't know why I keep finding the argument for a "Hindu Center" offensive, but I do. Maybe because there's an underlying argument that a space is only warranted if you're Hindu? Or perhaps you should only be considered "Indian" if you're Hindu? There is a difference between coming to a center designed to celebrate diversity versus coming to a space specifically for the purpose of worship that might also happen to do programming or community service provision.
What I like about the center is that it is cross-cutting and that it offers a lot of programs and services that are culturally relevant. It's even just doing basic things like ensuring that people's dietary needs or restrictions are met instead of treating these restrictions like an imposition. They do all sorts of things, from childcare, to dance classes, to ESL/citizenship classes, and they work really hard to provide as many desi language speakers/translators as possible. The India Center is ambitious, and generally successful from what I've seen.
They also provide a really lovely space for older generations who may live with their kids but cannot entertain their family friends. I don't know if this is true for others, but my parents and grandparents were always big fans of entertaining at home. The more they moved and the farther their friends were, the hardest this became. My grandparents, I think, would love a non-religious community space. It would certainly help them meet more people and feel more self-sufficient. It's also true that you can't just hold any event in a religious space -- it wouldn't be seen as appropriate. This provides a secular space to meet others and to also embrace the diversity of the des as well as the diversity of the ABD population in the Bay.
murali, Milpitas is somewhere between a suburb and an urban center, but it's part of the larger "Silicon Valley" swathe of the greater San Jose/lower SF Peninsula area. I think of it more like one of the cities in the greater LA area -- it's a region typified by sprawl and the necessity for a car to get around. There IS, however, a tasty South Indian restaurant near the center.
That can be easily fixed with a stare. I know many religious Indians who know less about the meaning of what they do compared to my agnostic relatives. This whole thing of excluding non Hindus from temples just seems counter to the way all the Indians I know were brought up.
"The reason I think temples should be restricted to Hindus is because they are places for quiet contemplation and meditation on the Lord. I am sick of going to the temple and seeing all these white people there talking loudly and indulging in some sort of sociological tourism, or people coming purely to eat the food."
As someone who's been refused entry to a temple simply based on the color of my skin, I take issue with this logic. How do you determine who's a believer and who's not. By perceived ethnicity? By skin color? By name?
I think an Indian community center is a great idea. I wish there'd be one around when I was a kid.
Camille:
I agree with you in that there relevant services that can be provided when you have an all encompassing "Indian" Community center. It is like a one stop centre. Most temples alternate as Hindu centers anyway.
Gautam:
In countries outside India, it is virtually impossible to restrict temples for Hindus alone. Many would find it offensive.
It is true that many westerners come to temples more for touristy/museum purposes which corrupts the temple's atmosphere.
thanks camille:)
"It is true that many westerners come to temples more for touristy/museum purposes which corrupts the temple's atmosphere."
but don't many temples encourage this and invite non-hindu community members to tour in an effort to foster greater understanding and lessen the inevitable misapprehensions that these "foreign" religions face in a country that often still finds it hard to wrap its head around anything other than judeo-christian beliefs?
Hey, how about a South Asian golf glub. No religious rancor whatsoever, just prosperous brownz getting the game on. I'd be down for a plate of chat and some mutton kebabs in the club room after a Saturday morning round of 18 :-) And the Jews do it too!
I could have sworn I did put that last paragraph into block quotes.
How does that corrupt the atmosphere?????
I must have grown up around a different set of Indians from some of you guys. I do not understand this exclusionary mentality. I know there are temples in India that allow foreigners. It is just not temples outside India. I know there are temples in inda that also exclude lower caste Hindus. About the only exclusionary thing I have seen is the caste stuff and that is something that affects other Hindus.
And so what if someone goes to a temple just to check it out as a museum. Have you ever been to Tirupati. I doubt everyone who goes or works there does so with the best possible spiritual attitude.
I can understand if you get pissed when a group of people come in and do not observe common courtesies.
did not put it into block quotes.
"just prosperous brownz getting the game on. I'd be down for a plate of chat and some mutton kebabs in the club room after a Saturday morning round of 18 :-) "
hmm. very exclusionary. what about the non-prosperous ones and the ones who don't want to be in the room when someone is eating a mutton kebab or the ones who can't stand golf?:)
Pravin, I'm with you. I think it's important for people to be briefed in what's considered "appropriate behavior," but beyond that I think it's much nicer to have (relatively) accessible religious spaces. I've had friends ask if they can come with me to gurdwara, and I totally bring them along -- I just brief them in the protocol/expectations ahead of time. My family's not Hindu, but we've definitely visited different mandirs before. Does that make us corrupting influences? :)
WGiiA?, no problem.
the one time i visited a gurudwar was for a wedding. i needed to keep my head covered, so i wore a turban. it was pretty sweet.
Hey, how about a South Asian golf glub. No religious rancor whatsoever, just prosperous brownz getting the game on. I'd be down for a plate of chat and some mutton kebabs in the club room after a Saturday morning round of 18 :-) And the Jews do it too!
Sounds good!
I think there should secular organizations like India/Desi community centers and religious organizations like Hindu/Sikh/Muslim/etc. community centers. The latter should be for who are more into into "serious" desi religious activities ( philosophy/prayers/rituals/etc. etc ). The former is best reserved for any "popular" desi activities and socializing. All complications arise when you mix both of these because then then there is question of funding, organizational resoruces and offending somebody
When I lived in Maryland there plans underway for a "gymkhana" club. Don't know if it ever got off of the ground.
When I lived in San Jose, I found the concept of the ICC great, but there were gaps in implementation. The "Indian" culture presented there was primarily filmi centric. I felt much more home at temple. It was too far from home/office to really make use of the fitness facilities. Hubby thought it would be neat to play carroms there, but realistically never got around to it. The BharataNatyam classes made me (and would make muralimannered) cringe.
There are tons of desi things going on the Bay Area. This is just another venue.
"I am sick of going to the temple and seeing all these white people there talking loudly and indulging in some sort of sociological tourism, or people coming purely to eat the food. The food is subsidized by the people who donate like myself (and the other classes and programs as well) and we give money because it is part of our dharma to support the temple."
I don't mind people coming to just eat the food. Eating is also a form of worship. For most Westerners, eating at the temple may be one of the few times they actually sit down to eat with other people without multitasking (watching tv while eating). Also, everytime someone eat's at a temple, they are eating a vegetarian meal and also for at least that day eating less meat. Doesn't this also further a goal of Hinduism?
I do think everyone who can donate, should donate even if its just loose change. Its amazing there are people who routinely spend $4 - $5 on coffee yet won't pony up $1 - $2 after eating a large full course meal at the temple.
ak, thanks for your response. Yes, I agree with you and I am aware that we all have multiple identities that co-exist, and depends on who we are interacting with. The way Camille phrased the definition and purpose of a "South Asian" identity, I found it confusing. I am happy under a POC umbrella in the US, and don't necessarily see the need for me to take on a "South Asian brown" identity, nor does the idea attract me. But if others are discussing it, obviously they feel such a need. Which is fine with me. Maybe it's a function of, or more common amongst 2nd gen and onwards, who have had different experiences than moi. I'm a 1st gen. *shrug*
Now back to the on-topic discussion. :)
There are plenty of temples and other various religious center all over the country for those who want to attend. The purpose of this center is something other than that. There is room both. Those who want religion can attend the religious centers, those who want a more wider cultural experience can attend centers like this one, and those who want both can go to both. No need to pit one against the other.
We would LOVE to have a pan-Indian community center here in NJ. But our perception is that it would never work in this area because there is a significant enough Indian population here that people can psychologically afford to divide themselves by region, religion and language (as compared to a smaller city in the midwest, perhaps, where numbers are smaller and people are more likely to seek other other browns regardless of those subdividing factors.
BY the way, can anyone point me to places in the area to learn Punjabi? The gurudwaras around here don't seem to offer language classes alone - it's combined with religion classes. Columbia University has a Punjabi class but it's 2x a week.
There's a place for a non-mandir Hindu center as well, where people can learn about Hinduism and also meet, greet, swim, and eat. Something less mandir-like than even the Arsha Vidya Gurukulam, which as Swami Dayananda Sarasvati says is not a mandir, but a place for learning. Ultimately whether it is a mandir or a cultural center, people who don't consider themselves Hindu will still frequent the place if they feel comfortable and welcome. I have known a mandir that atracts a very diverse non-Hindu audience for the annual garba/dandia. Some of these people make a pradakshina inside the murti hall (which now features a divine murti of Sri Mahavira as well), some others head directly for the community hall for the dandia. Now who am I to tell people what they can/should/must do? Maybe I who is so conscious about what others are doing am not mindful of my own lack of understanding.
off topic but... I've been invited to a Sikh wedding later this month and I'm totally clueless on what to wear to the gurdwara. I know I need to cover my head. My friend has a lovely sleeveless salwar kameez she can lend me-- is it kosher (ha) to wear a shawl that covers my arms and head?
if anyone wants to email me rather than derail the thread that'd be lovely. :)
That's possible. I didn't mean to imply that a person wakes up one morning and makes a snap decision to take on a new identity. :)
People's life experiences vary, and the gradual realization of identifying with a certain identity/group will vary from one person to another. Ask me in another 20 years and it's quite possible that I'll be a member of a local South Asian group. It has to be an organic process.
Well I don't think it's just an active/passive thing. Some of us actively reject the "South Asian" identity because it is at odds with the political climate that actually exists; it seems to be borne of navel-gazing ABDs and the like. I don't know if anyone that feels a strong connection with the motherland and its politics could truly consider themselves "south Asian" considering that the political goals of India, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc are directly in conflict with each other. If you consider yourself American first, perhaps, but people like myself that don't, well it's not just that we don't want to be "South Asian" but that we actively think that our presence in America should be under an Indian heading, and pursuing US diplomatic policy that benefits India rather than Pakistan.
Re: Punjabi
Here is a link to the first Punjabi language Network. It's a little dated, but it has very accessible old school tutorials and free-ware fonts.
There are language programs at both UCB and Stanford. I'll ask my family if they know of any concrete programs in NJ. Sadly enough, most gurdwara-based programs are not very well taught, probably in part because they're taught by lay-people without teaching experience and without good tools/reference materials.
sarah, it's totally appropriate to wear a sleeveless kameez. Your shawl/chunni/dupata should cover your head. Did your friend provide a dupata with the Punjabi-suit she's lending you? Other than that, just make sure your hands and feet are clean and that you take off your shoes. As a non-Sikh, you are not required to bow to the Guru Granth Sahib Ji unless you want to.
It's also possible, Gautham, that some of us reject the antipathies created in a post-Partition subcontinent. You mentioned having more in common with other southies than with northies. By the same measure, I have more in common with someone of Pakistani Punjabi descent than with someone from, oh, say Orissa. All that said, I do think there's a unique catalogue of experiences that a person experiences as a person of subcontinental/South Asian descent within the U.S. Not saying everyone has to sign up or ascribe to it, but I understand the rationale.
Amit, sorry I'm confusing :)