November 19, 2007
"Islamophobia has provided a unifying force..."Politics
There has recently been a number of articles in the press about the growing influence of the Indian-American lobby among Washington politicians. With the U.S.-India Nuclear deal taking center stage, the press began to focus more on the dynamics of this relationship. A number of parallels were drawn to the increasing similarity some of these groups share (or would like to share) with some Jewish lobby groups. A month old article in the NYTimes featured the Hindu American Foundation:
When the Hindu American Foundation began, it looked to groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center for guidance with its advocacy and lobbying efforts.
Indian-Americans, who now number 2.4 million in this country, are turning to American Jews as role models and partners in areas like establishing community centers, advocating on civil rights issues and lobbying Congress.
Indians often say they see a version of themselves and what they hope to be in the experience of Jews in American politics: a small minority that has succeeded in combating prejudice and building political clout. [Link]
As long time readers know, I have often (1,2,3) railed against some of the lobbying groups that purport to represent “Indian Americans” (USINPAC chief among those that receive my disdain). I do not feel that USINPAC represents my interests whatsoever and I wish the press would stop assuming they speak for all Indian Americans. Indolink points us to a new paper in the South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal (SAMAJ) which examines a number of “Indian-American” lobby groups and how closely they really represent “Indian-American” interests (as opposed to “Hindustani” interests):
The article addresses the issue of the growing influence of the Indian-American lobbies and even more importantly their internal divisions, giving way to the constant formation of new groups. In the face of these divisions, the author shows how Islamophobia has provided a unifying force, whose roots can be found in the articulation between local and transnational factors: especially in the context of the (American) war against terrorism and the furthering of the India-Israel-US strategic partnership. No wonder a spokesperson for USINPAC was reported as saying: “The terrorism directed against India is the same as that directed against the United States and Israel.”
Therwath reveals that fieldwork conducted in New York and in Washington “revealed virulent streaks of Islamophobia and hostility towards Pakistan amongst professional Indian American lobbyists.” The author adds: “While not absolutely systematic, this anti-Muslim sentiment has been prominent in most of the interviews that I conducted…” [Link]
I actually recommend reading the whole paper. It’s really quite fascinating and I had to stop myself from quoting the whole thing here. There are all kinds of gems in there that academically confirm things we all kind of knew:
When asked about their Muslim membership, USINPAC leaders seem embarrassed as they did not know the figure. In the end, they come up with a 10-15% estimate, a proportion that corresponds to the general proportion of Muslims in India and they think would hence enhance their representativity. They could not however mention one active Muslim member and none of them was Muslim either. Moreover, none of the 125 private donations made to USINPAC, since its creation, was registered in a Muslim name. The USINPAC members I met said they wish to defend India’s positions, oppose Pakistan and told traumatic tales of Islamic fundamentalism. Although a few of them directly experienced Partition, they all seemed to carry its stigma and have an Indo-centric approach, by contrast with the younger America-bred activists who focused on South Asian cooperation and local community issues. [Link]
There are also some rather harsh quotes by some of the interview subjects who were commenting on the internal divisions inside many Indian American groups:
…a young 32-year old Indian Jewish migrant working for the American Jewish Committee (AJC), one of the most powerful ethnic lobbies in the U.S., is very harsh toward Indian Americans. This deeply patriotic senior fellow in charge of international affairs and Indian-Jewish American relations is extremely critical and says that ‘Indians suck you. You should never work for Indian Americans because they exploit you. They are very individualistic and very poor as a community. There is little close cooperation. Where there is success, there is ego and this is a problem’. [Link]
What is perhaps the biggest factor contributing to Islamophobic elements within some lobby groups? As I’ve pointed out in past posts it is probably in large part due to a generational divide:
The second divisive factor is age, now that two generations of Indian Americans are professionally and politically active. Significantly, virulent critics of USINPAC include the 39 year-old President of the Indian American Leadership Initiative (IALI), the 29 year-old Executive Director of the Indian American Center for Political Awareness (IACPA) and the 29 year-old founding President of the now defunct South Asians for Kerry (SAKI). They have repeatedly pointed out the generation gap between themselves, born and raised in America, and the ‘uncle and aunties [who] don’t believe in this South Asian thing and who cannot see beyond the India-Pakistan and Hindu-Muslim communal conflicts. Although the younger generation is now entering the political arena, as Bobby Jindal’s 2004 election to the Congress has revealed, the older Indian Americans are still leading forefront organizations like USINPAC and claim to represent the community as a whole. The older generation of activists seems more influenced by subcontinental conflicts while the younger ones see the advantage of pan-Asianism or at least of South Asian unity and tend to form South Asian organizations in order to address a wider audience…The generation gap, aggravated by the fact that only 22.7% of Indian Americans were born in the U.S., all in the younger age group of course, provides a potent explanation about the pervading defiance against Islam encountered in USINPAC and other leading organizations. [Link]
There you have it (in the highlighted sentences above). Now you understand why there have been so many heated debates on SM (which is written mostly by the 22.7%) about this very thing. Bottom line as I see it? Unless our generation (through orgs like IALI, IACPA, SAALT) find more issues that we agree about and are willing to work hard to lobby Washington for, our “community” will increasingly be hijacked and represented in Washington by “long-distance Nationalists.”
abhi on November 19, 2007 07:59 PM in Issues, Politics, Religion · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Just to confirm, we *are* talking here about adherents to an ideology that deems unbelievers as subhuman and worthy of death, right?
Abhi, just curious, but have you ever read the Qur'an that you're labeling criticism of an ideology as a 'phobia' - an unjustified fear of something?
Abhi- What do you see as pan-South Asian domestic & international issues that we can come together on ? Assuming an immediate end to the Iraq war and crazy talk about Iran, what will bind our very disparate groups together? I am not seeing it...
Why do I need a Indian group to lobby for me? The only use I could find from it is if I get kicked off a plane for being brown and I need someone to back me up, but other then that I dont see any use.
The only other reason for these groups might be to lobby for tax credits for companies, who move to India and that is only lining the pocket of those individuals and not mine.
Abhi, Interesting article and post. As long as America is interested in advocating its interests in India and the sub-continental region and vice versa for the Indian government, it will be the 77.3% which will take center-stage. Consider the recent Pakistan-Cassidy-Clinton incident, there is a lot of money and stakes involved in ethnicity based lobbying. To that extent the 22.7% will stand out and can advance its interests only for local issues.
India=Hindu in terms of representation and outward political influence in America, PERIOD.
The US-Jewish-Indian alliance against Pakistan is real, and is a major threat towards Pakistan. Hence the reason why Benazir Bhutto is supported by these countries. The potential for her to roll back Pakistani Nuclear power is a major reality, and it would be great news for those three countries. Musharaf and the majority of Pakistanis recognize this. Do not think that All the Pakistanis are against Musharaf as this Jewish run media would like us all to think...He is still supported by the vast majority of Pakistanis. Benazir's party is much weaker.
In my opinion, fighting against fascism, which is how Islam in practice manifests itself in each and every country or conflict in the world today, whether it's Sudan, the Phillipines, Thailand, Nigeria, Chechnya, etc, is very much a fight I like to participate in, and one I consider to be as much a local fight as an international one. The bloody borders of Islam are a reality and equal rights for non-Muslims in Muslim-majority countries are worth fighting for, howmuchever people may wish to deny them and bury their heads in the sand.
Noo York: Pakistan is its own greatest enemy. I talk to tons of people who are critical of Israel and US policies in Iraq who point to Pakistan as the most significant source of terrorism. Indians and Israelis don't need to spend a dime on that one...
could therwath be mentioning islamophobia and hostitlity toward pakistan in the same sentance b/c it is he who wants to mimick the strategy of some members of the ADL?
Judaism != Israel, Islam != Taliban, Islam != Al Qaeda, Pakistan != Islam; And Indian != Hindu, Hindu != Hindutva, etc. But lobbyists aren't known for subtlety.
When asked about their Muslim membership, USINPAC leaders seem embarrassed as they did not know the figure. In the end, they come up with a 10-15% estimate, a proportion that corresponds to the general proportion of Muslims in India and they think would hence enhance their representativity. They could not however mention one active Muslim member and none of them was Muslim either. Moreover, none of the 125 private donations made to USINPAC, since its creation, was registered in a Muslim name. The USINPAC members I met said they wish to defend India’s positions, oppose Pakistan and told traumatic tales of Islamic fundamentalism. Although a few of them directly experienced Partition, they all seemed to carry its stigma and have an Indo-centric approach, by contrast with the younger America-bred activists who focused on South Asian cooperation and local community issues. [Link]
If you go to a gujurati association, a Tamil Association, a Kannada Association, or even a Malayalee Association, you won't find Muslims, even though Muslims are ~25% of Kerala! Perhaps the onus lies with the Gujurati/Tamil/Kannada/Malayalee Muslims to join the organization. NOTE: Every Kerala association will have Christians, mind you, and every Kannadiga/Gujarati assocation will have Jains and maybe other religious minorities.
I know for a fact that USINPAC does not discourage any people from joining based on his/her religion, caste/creed, linguistics, etc. They do, BTW, have Christians.
Why is it easier and more common for Indian Christians to reach out and join these organizations like USINPAC but not the Muslims?
NOTE: I am not at all anti-Muslim. I *LOVE* Muslims very much. I tend to support "Islamic" causes moreso than "Hindu" causes in India (i.e. reservation system, hate-crime laws to protect them, etc.). However, we should measure it with the same standard as we do other faiths.
hm.
1) obviously the DBD vs. ABD distinction is a real one. was funny a few years ago when some people accused abhi of being a traitor and going against the interests of india.
2) some of the islamophobia of some indian/hindutva nationalists is pretty primitive. as some know i've been accused as being a muslim anti-hindu by some of that element ;-) i think the accusation says less about me than it does other people.
3) that being said, i am islamophobic myself. you all know i think all religions are superstitious and rather silly for intelligent people to espouse. that being said, some are private affairs and personal choices, while others demand a lot of ostentatious public accommodation. some muslims, chrisians, jews, hindus, sikhs, etc. fall into the latter category. more muslims than any of the other groups in the united states. i think one needs to make a distinction between the muslim religion and muslim people. you can hate the sin without hating the sinner. just as i am wary of hindu/indian american attempts to mimic the jewish community (because of the political ghetto it fixes you within), i am also very skeptical of muslims attempting to mimic accusations of anti-semitism by jews. the analogy is weak in many ways, but the primary issue is that islam is a missionary religion. it isn't a people (though islamists talk of the 'islamic nation').
4) it isn't as if muslim brownz always want to associate with other south asians. the prejudice that some non-muslim brownz have toward muslim brownz is more than reciprocated (again, my name means that i can go "undercover" and listen to what some muslim brownz have to have say about "cow-shit eating" kufars). i've listened to NPR where pakistani americans call in and proactively say they identify as muslim americans, not south asian or asian americans.
5) and let's keep in real. i've been to several SM meet ups, and plenty of 'progressive' 'south asians' talk about indians and not south asians when they aren't conscious. i don't care myself, i'm not attached to any particular term.
H-1 warriors have some pretty interesting views. I was talking to a friend (not Indian) who works in the IT industry. He told me that he has worked at 4 different companies with a different group of Indians at each company and at least half of them at each place had pretty disturbing views about Indian Muslims. Of course such anecdotal evidence is of little value but IMHO there is something unhinged about a lot of the H-1 Indian patriots.
I would imagine that the Pakistani counterparts have equally disturbing views about India/Hindus but mercifully they have bigger fish to fry these days than India (US Imperialism, Jewish control of media and other 'threats')
I have also seen similar unhinged patriotism from Chinese, South Koreans and especially the Turks. Its just not an Indian thing.
I have also seen similar unhinged patriotism from Chinese, South Koreans and especially the Turks. Its just not an Indian thing.
yep. itz an asian thang.
(again, my name means that i can go "undercover" and listen to what some muslim brownz have to have say about "cow-shit eating" kufars).
The number of Islamist Pakistanis is on the rise in the US. In the last decade itself the Desi Muslim community has become more ostentatiously Islamic - arab style hijab is on the rise (nobody wears arab style hijab in south asia), I see more bearded men, parties are getting more segregated on gender basis, events are being interrupted by communal prayers (what happened to people praying alone?) and so on.
Its rather disturbing actually for those who see this rise of religious fervor as a negative (namely me).
I believe the article is not completely correct in its assertion that the '22.7%' are significantly more 'pan-asian' than our parents. Certainly our idea of community does NOT include East Asians, as is obvious if you visit any university South Asian Organization. I also believe, it would be near impossible to get figures on this, that in fact a majority of Indian American youth do not subscribe to a 'South Asian' identity, and as they age will be even less likely to do so. Clearly there are issues that we can tackle as 'South Asians,' particularly those related to minority rights, equal justice for all, etc. However there are some issues that Pakistani and Bangladesh(along with Indian-Muslim) issues that they will have to face alone. Not that the non-muslim South Asians are not sympathetic, but it is simply a fact that criticism of Islam, and 'anti-muslim' policy is not going to pry into the souls of non-muslim South Asians as much. Let us take for example the issue of 'respect' vs 'free speech.' If you took a poll, I would bet that there is a significant discrepancy in support of the "free speech" among non-muslims vs muslims, even among South Asian youth. If you ask a non-Muslim South Asian about US foreign policy, they would be more likely to name 'world poverty' or 'global warming,' as issue of concern while I would guess Muslim South Asians would be more likely to mention the war in Iraq, or Israel-Palestine.
There is one overarching reason why country specific lobbying groups tend to represent the militaristic 'right.' The Indian American community, like the Jewish American community, is large and inhomogenous. There are few issues that we are going to agree on at all. There will NEVER be a special interest group that represents us all with a unified voice. Such groups will converge only around issues on which a significant number of us agree, and MORE IMPORTANTLY are INTERESTED in. For example I understand the plight of the Palestinians, and if someone were to ask I would probably say that they are getting a raw deal. However I am not likely to take time out of my day to pursue the issue by contributing to a lobbying group for that purpose. Similarly MOST of us are not discriminated against on a daily basis to such a degree that makes us join civil rights groups. However, even removed by a generation, we DO have an attachment to our 'homeland.' We are interested in its continuing success. If a small, but significant, percentage of us are interested in an 'anti-pakistan' policy it has the possibility of being represented on the national stage in the form of special interest groups.
Putting Indian interests above Pakistani interests is what USINPAC is supposed to do. That doesn't make it "Islamaphobic." also, re: the "dividing line" --the HAF was founded entirely by second generation Indian-Americans (the 22.7%), not by uncles and aunties. The conflations at work in the paper, including the alleged supporting "field studies," reek of a hatchet job to me. Prema Kurien , who very similarly portrays Indian-American Hindus as fanatics, would be very proud.
The real dividing line right now, as I see it, is between people who identify as Indian-Americans (of whatever religion) and "progressives" who don't. If the progressives want a stake in India lobbying, they will have to give up some of their cherished shibboleths. viz., that India is an illegitimate construct, or that it's a cesspool of oppression, and openly identify as Indian-Americans. They will have to bring some money to the table too.
Also, as with the Indian-Americans, there are Jewish loony-leftists too, who think Zionism=Fascism, that Israel is an illegitimate construct, etc., but they are effectively silenced outside of campuses by the much richer pro-Israel supporters and lobbyists. There are also Jews who very lightly identify with Israel and think of themselves as Americans first. These guys marry out at a very high rate and in the long run don't matter to lobbying efforts, because their progeny won't care one way or the other. The same sort of spectrum will probably play out with Indian-Americans.
The broader issue is how comfortably transnational identity politics entrrenches itself in the American political environment, but that would involve many, many other ethnic groups. Check out the Armenian lobby.
Agree with Roger # 18.
If you ask a non-Muslim South Asian about US foreign policy, they would be more likely to name 'world poverty' or 'global warming,' as issue of concern while I would guess Muslim South Asians would be more likely to mention the war in Iraq, or Israel-Palestine.
Very true.
Another issue os the socio-economic disparity between muslim and non-muslim South Asians. It is not as pronounced here are in the UK, but it exists nonetheless, if you were to take a look at the Census figures. Perhaps if we were to look toward England we will see what we do NOT want to happen amongst our South Asian youth...a large and INCREASING polarization between South-Asians on religious lines. Right now I would say the muslim South Asians in the US still have a choice between a 'muslim' identity and a 'South Asian' one. I know some of you would say they are not mutually exclusive, and you are right. However in England, Muslim SAs are more 'Muslim' than South Asian, with noticeably poor results. While I believe than inevitably interests will diverge between real 'muslim' SAs and non-muslim ones, we have the chance now to work with the secular muslims and atheists born into Islam. That would be the only chance to salvage a 'south asian' identity before it is too late.
I know some of you would say they are not mutually exclusive, and you are right.
the two most frequent commenters of muslim origin on this weblog (myself and ACD) are not religious at all. i think that says something.
The paper quoted in the blog by Therwath sounds like a "collection of rantings". I don't see any proof of "Islamophobia" by the USINPAC.
I tried their link http://www.usinpac.com/ to see if they have issued any press releases or statements against Islam, but no luck. Of course, I could find a few statements that are anti-Pakistan. Like Manju said if that can be taken as an attack on Islam then there is some merit to it.
But I won't give much weightage to the USINPAC's attack on Pakistan. I understand that they are not named "US-South Asia Political Action Committee" like many "2nd gen progressive youngsters" (opposite of 1st gen. "regressive old nationalists" and other "H1-B warriors") in this website think they should have. :-)
I have found anti-India articles from the AOPP (association of pakistani professionals) before. It's fair game.
Razib, what i meant by 'muslim' is religiously observant, if you note I did say that secular and atheists of muslim descent are a different matter.
SM is more islamophobic than USINPAC?
I'm dumbfounded that you of all people want proof? I just assumed you were one of the Hindu Nationalists Therwath interviewed for the article.
Supportin Ponniyan's point about the AOPP, there are numerous Pakistani analogues of the USINPAC, you can just go online and search for them if you want.
I'm sure there are, but off-setting wrongs don't make a right. And Pakistani lobby groups are generally ineffectual. I'm hoping that younger Pakistani Americans also join orgs like SAALT.
I'm hoping that younger Pakistani Americans also join orgs like SAALT.
i think pan-islam is a stronger draw than hinduism. i'd like to see some data here, but this is all i got:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004156.html
a survey of doctors of various religions
Q: Do you agree more with the evolution or more with intelligent design?
A: More with Intelligent Design.
Muslim - 73%
Hindu - 23%
Q: What are your views on the origin and development of human beings?
A: God created humans exactly as they appear now.
Muslim - 43%
Hindu - 11%
Q: What are your views on Evolution?
A: Reject it.
Muslim - 40%
Hindu - 6%
Catholic - 6%
muslims are just more knuckle-draggingly religious.
muslims are just more knuckle-draggingly religious.
The contrast is even more stark when you look at the under 35 Indian Hindu v. South Asian Muslim population in the US. Sometimes when a desi Muslim Uncle just wont stop harping about Palestine, you gotta put your foot down and say 'Paki please' :)
I don't really care about any of the current INdian lobbies. Seems to be just a bragging rights thing for some to be part of it. Besides, I am not comfortable with foreign lobbies playing a big role in American politics. I hope Indian associations never become as obnoxious as AIPAC.
I do believe there is a threat of islamic expansionism in Asia. The Saudi types have total contempt for Hinduism and other religions. Iran is one of the few countries where the muslims do not have problems with Indians. Afghanistan is another friendly nation to India. Other than that, there is nothing wrong with a foreign policy which focuses on islamic regimes when you consider that makes up all of the non Chinese related security threats to India. India has no other threat.
However, I always wondered why there was little top level representation for Muslims in the central government. Even in the Congress government which has no problem pandering to muslims, I found it odd they don't seem to have high level muslim envoys to be the face of some of the negotiations with hostile islamic countries to ease tensions to reduce the Hindu - Muslim angle. Would Islamic countries not friendly to India actually treat their Indian Muslim counterparts worse because they feel more free to do so? Or would it be opposite. I am not exactly sure which holds true. But I thopught I would throw it out there to solicit opinions.
However, I always wondered why there was little top level representation for Muslims in the central government.
black americans are about the same % as muslims in india. where the top level representatives? one issue is that black american legislators represent other black americans (black majority districts) so there tends to be few with skills or record of appealing broadly.
here's another contrast between muslim and non-muslim brownz. as 'islamophobic' types note, much of the hostility toward non-muslim brownz is because they are confused with muslim brownz. non-muslim brownz in the USA have to take into account muslim issues because they are affected by them. so progressive non-muslim brownz take a broad interest in these topics because they are relevant. in contrast, muslim brownz can focus just on their own issues because their own community is the "issue," so to speak. i mean, some ignorant people accuse them of worshiping cows, but it isn't an existential crisis.
Ugh. Which should I choose? Is that all there is? Hinduism or pan-Islam? Is there no space for Christianity or Sikhism in this binary identity game?
By the way, I love how people are so sure of what young Indian Americans are doing and how they're identifying.
I disagree and I think it's strange to look for East Asians in a South Asian group, which is not to say that it won't happen...one of the most enjoyable aspects of Bhangra Blowout, back in the day, was seeing all the non-desi names on college teams. An AAPI student group would be more relevant. Especially for those of us from the Bay Area, where one out of every five people is Asian, there's less of this dreadful isolation between "us Asians" and "them Asians".
Convenient. ;)
I completely reject this. At the University of Michigan we were in each others culture shows in large numbers.
I found it odd they don't seem to have high level muslim envoys to be the face of some of the negotiations with hostile islamic countries to ease tensions to reduce the Hindu - Muslim angle.
Dude,
There are number of them (Indian muslim) who represent India outside.......Omar Abdullah (Deputy Foreign Minister in NDA Government), Mohsnia Kidwai (belongs to the inner most circle of Congress, and is often used as a negotiator), Najma Heptullah (she has held dozens of posts in last 25 years), Nafisa Ali (who is the cultural ambassador of India, sure she is a mixed race and married to Polo legend, Pickle Sodhi, a sikh).
Who can forget MC Chagla....who was India's permanent representative in UN during Kashmir debates in 1950s, and later served India Supreme court.
not any more. in the last two frequent visits to india, i see more and more women wearing hijabs in india, especially in the south. razib's data may be accurate, but from my own adhoc experience, hindus mostly agree with the scientific view of evolution (and some of them like it as it, in their mind, is another form of re-incarnation), yet when it comes to day to day religious activities (rituals, temple visits, food habits, etc..) they are found to be equally, if not more, religious as muslims.
I found it odd they don't seem to have high level muslim envoys to be the face of some of the negotiations with hostile islamic countries to ease tensions to reduce the Hindu - Muslim angle.
Dude. Are you kidding? Kush Tandon can probably school you on Muslim representation in the Central Govt. but check out Indian Ambassadors to Saudi Arabia. Not a single Hindu. Why? Saudi won't allow one!
Prof. Abdul Majeed 1948 to 1949
Dr.Manzar Ahsan 1949
H.E. Mr. Mustafa Kamil Kidwai Jul 1951 to Jan 1961
H.E. Mr.M.N.Masood Jul 1961 to Jul 1964
H.E. Mr.Midhat Kamil Kidwai Jan 1965 to 1968
H.E. Mr.T.T.P. Abdullah Dec 1968 to Aug 1973
H.E. Mr.Zaheer Ahmad Dec 1973 to Sep 1975
Mr.M.Hamid Ansari Nov 1975 to Apr 1976
H.E. Mr.M.A.Qureshi Apr 1976 to Jan 1978
H.E. Mr.A.K. Hafizka Jun 1978 to Apr 1981
H.E. Mr.T.T.P.Abdullah May 1981 to Feb 1985
H.E. Mr.Mahmood Bin Muhammad Feb 1985 to Mar 1987
H.E. Mr.Ishrat Aziz Apr 1987 to Jan 1994
H.E. Mr.M.Hamid Ansari Jan 1995 to Nov 1999
H.E. Mr. Talmiz Ahmad Jan 2000 to July 2003
H.E. Mr.Kamaluddin Ahmed July 2003 to Sep 2004
H.E. Mr. M.O.H. Farook Sep 2004
Ugh. Which should I choose? Is that all there is? Hinduism or pan-Islam? Is there no space for Christianity or Sikhism in this binary identity game?
to goat-beared muslims and hard-core hindus sikhs are hindus. as for christians, the dynamics are different. e.g., while the name 'razib khan' might elicit hostility from a hindutva hotel-patel the name 'robert thomas' would elicit more confusion (seeing as as christianity is not much of a brown religion in north india).
Especially for those of us from the Bay Area, where one out of every five people is Asian, there's less of this dreadful isolation between "us Asians" and "them Asians".
well, lots of east asians at the loins of punjab showing.
USINPAC obviously represents Indian-American interests, not South-Asian Americans. The Manju solution is to create a South Asian-American Foundation (Saaf) to represent the SAAs. That way everybody will be happy.
The Manju solution is to create a South Asian-American Foundation (Saaf) to represent the SAAs.
85% of south asians are indian americans last i checked. that's an issue.
south asian americans.
Abhi, Congratulations on a fine post. I haven't read your earlier posts on the subject, but I skimmed them just now, and they're spot-on as well. Thanks for blogging this important subject.
According to the breakdown of South Asians in the US that I had linked in before, Asian Indians outnumber Pakistanis 12 to 1. The 'Asian Indian' category might include people on H-1B and other non-immigrant visas. I would think such folks are a huge part of the 77% figure. Since many of them are not yet citizens, their identification with the Indian nationalistic rhetoric is very high, and they are the least sympathetic to any attempt to question the nature of the post-1947 Indian state and the Indian nationalistic identity. To the extent that some parts of the idea are questioned, it happens only around the margins. On linguistic issues, for example, 'Hindi' is resisted because it is supposedly 'North Indian'; not that, it is a largely artificially constructed language that substitutes ancient Sanskritic words for words of Persian, Turkish or Arabic in current usage - with the intent, among many of its proponents, of 'exorcising' supposed Islamic influences from India.
On another track - one of the reasons that the USINPAC-Indian-American-Hindu conflation can occur so easily, and indeed, also one of the reasons the mapping on to Jewish lobbying organizatons is so easy - is that Hinduism is also a constructed identity, and this construction has been seized by those with explicit political intent, from both the left and the right. (risible are you listening?) On a practical level, this constructed nature of Hinduism then makes it difficult to convincingly refute news items such as the one we discussed recently - "getting married to
dogsbitches in a 'Hindu ceremony'".Now, on yet another track - I happen to support the Indo-US nuclear deal, for reasons I've spelt out in various comments, though I also support a similar deal for Pakistan (some details might differ). Currently, the US-Pak nuclear deal is off the public and media radar, but I think it will happen sometime within the next five years, after the civilian government in Pakistan has properly settled down, and a few things like the AQ Khan issue are squared away. But if India for some reason dithers on it, I can see how it might be moved forward. :) Seriously though, I really hope the era of zero-sum games in the subcontinent is over for good, and the new era begins with the Indo-US nuclear deal. It does seem the poison in the Indo-Pak relationship needs a Shiva-like figure to drink it in and hold it - from outside the subcontinent! And with that forward movement 'back home', the antagonism between the Indian and Pakistani first generation diaspora(s) might also dissipate, and be replaced with a South Asian vision, but of the uncle-and-aunty flavor.
South Asian Foundation for Angry Indian Desis is another option.
#38 check out Indian Ambassadors to Saudi Arabia. Not a single Hindu. Why? Saudi won't allow one!
How do the Saudis handle the ambassadors from the US, Europe, China or Japan where there are not enough Muslims in the general population to fill the ambassadorial posts? Is it possible that India picks Muslim ambassadors to ensure the "comfort" factor of both the host and the diplomat?
Anna and Abhi. I think you are making the mistake of confusing what you would like to be the case with what is. Objectively there are very few traits we have in common with East Asians that we dont have with other minorities....we don't look alike, we speak different languages, are more and less assimilated in different ways. Our parents mostly came here speaking English, while theirs did not. This makes a huge difference, especially in areas where there are large South and East Asian comminities. Whereas amongst East Asians you often find the younger generation taking a the role of 'family spoeksman' and assuming the political identity of the family, amongst South Asians we do have to contend with the strong political personas of our parents. Abhi seems to criticise their role in this article, but having politically active parents, regardless of their view....which in the case of most Indian Americans anyway are quite liberal on issues not dealing with Pakistan, means that by nature we are more likely to be involved politically...which is a good thing. I completely disagree that our parent's generation is Islamophobic....most Desi parents I know take balanced views, and often support theoretically causes such as Palestine.
I think one thing all of us have to realize is that Indian Americans as a group are actually unique, and distinct from East Asians as well as other South Asians. Here are some reasons why.
1. 1st generation came speaking English(common with other SAs, not EAs)
2. From a country with many significant religions and languages(eliminates Pak, kind of Bangladesh/SL)
3. from a secular democracy( bye bye Bangladesh)
4. Socioeconomic Status...significantly 'above' even other asian groups in college degrees, income, etc.
5. We did not come as political refugees(like many Chinese, Vietnamese, Pakistanis, Tamil Sri Lankans)
6. We left with generally good memories of our 'homeland,' and therefore remain politically supportive of its aspirations
8. Physical Appearance (common to a high degree with other SAs, not EAs)
Anna, what does 'Asian' mean to you? I hardly see it as anything besides a continent, and an ethnic accounting error on the part of the US census wonks. Abhi you are right about one thing...I;m at Duke now and I was too heartened by the number of non-south Asian performers at the Culture show here....but there were Black and White as well as EA performerts...how does this link us more to one or the other?
In general it is good to 'assimilate' more and join different communities together on festive occassions...thats the American way. But this should not involve denying that as Indian Americans we do have a unique set of political circumstances, and in this way we can and often will act as an 'exclusive' community.
2. From a country with many significant religions and languages(eliminates Pak, kind of Bangladesh/SL)
argument would be credible if it wasn't wrong in so many specifics.
pakistan = lots of languages
bangladesh = second largest number of hindus in the world (~same number % as muslims in india).
btw, roger, why didn't you mention that east asians eat dog and we don't? that's surely a major difference you'd want to highlight! :-)
Is it possible that India picks Muslim ambassadors to ensure the "comfort" factor of both the host and the diplomat?
Saudis are surrounded by Hindus--they employ them as house servants and have no difficulty going to Hindu doctors? Why should their "comfort" be a concern in a diplomatic setting. Presumably diplomats are more cosmopolitan, on average?
Since many of them are not yet citizens, their identification with the Indian nationalistic rhetoric is very high,
I believe that obtaining US citizenship does not preclude retaining nationalistic sentiment. Either/or "loyalty" presuppositions like these are usually suspect with recent immigrants. More likely than your explanation is that they are from a class that within India itself that supports a similar viewpoint--the urban middle class that's bought into a certain idea of India, with strong feelings about Pakistan. BTW USINPAC's membership entry fees are quite high. I doubt most HI-Bs could afford it.
and indeed, also one of the reasons the mapping on to Jewish lobbying organizatons is so easy - is that Hinduism is also a constructed identity, and this construction has been seized by those with explicit political intent, from both the left and the right. (risible are you listening?)
All identities are constructed, that's nothing new. There is an interesting book out now about how the French identity came into being from "hundreds of microraces." Hindus in the US seem to be remoulding their faith into a confessional monotheism, replete with Sunday schools, producing such documents as "Ten commandments for Hindus."
Ruchira, "comfort factor" is an interesting way to put what is essentially discrimination. In the Muslim view, Hindus are essentially "idolators", the worst kind of sinners in Islam. Such people are by and large persona-non-grata in Islamic states. The truth is that non-Muslims are generally treated quite badly in Muslim countries, but bringing it up is condemned as "Islamophobia".
Another interesting example: From 1947 to 2007, the Hindu population in the newly Islamic countries in South Asia has gone down from ~13% to ~0%. Sikhs and Hindus and Christians complain of forceful conversions and constant societal pressure to convert. This pattern repeats in all Muslim countries. Kashmir is the latest, still under Islamic "processing". Pointing these facts out is again Islamophobia.
I'm sorry, I may be labeled Islamophobic but I still stand for justice and rights for non-Muslims facing the Islamic onslaught down the centuries. ABD's just don't understand what these countries that are on the frontlines are up against and have been fighting for time immemorial. Stay blind to it until it reaches your very doorstep at your peril, 9/11 notwithstanding.
I stand corrected on muslim envoys. Though risible's post wasnt what I was looking for as Ambassadors are not that high level. More interesting was Kush's.
Razib...the argument works as a logical 'AND' statement. I.E. Pakistan = 1 religion, many languages while Bangladesh = 2 religions, one language.
Another interesting example: From 1947 to 2007, the Hindu population in the newly Islamic countries in South Asia has gone down from ~13% to ~0%. Sikhs and Hindus and Christians complain of forceful conversions and constant societal pressure to convert. This pattern repeats in all Muslim countries. Kashmir is the latest, still under Islamic "processing". Pointing these facts out is again Islamophobia.
i am an islamophobe, but i'm not a factophobe. hindus have gone from 1/3 of east bengal's population to 1/10 of bangladesh's population, so your general point is correct. but it is transparently false to say that the % of islamic south asian countries is ~0%. it is closer to 5% (pakistan + bangladesh).
Razib...the argument works as a logical 'AND' statement. I.E. Pakistan = 1 religion, many languages while Bangladesh = 2 religions, one language.
ok, sure, but does the argument work for someone who left pakistan in 1968? it was then a multi-religious and multi-ethnic state? let's cut to the case. is a hindu bangladeshi or pakistani outside of the circle of acceptance? i doubt it. let's just keep it real ok?
being a non-hyphenated indian, i don't have anything invested in usinpac or other such groups and i'm sure prejudices do exist within all these groups mentioned. however, i tried to read this paper and must ask whether it's been translated from french, because it doesn't read very well in english. is fragilize a word in french? and some of it reads like tawdry gossip. the information doesn't come across as being presented in a very scholarly or professional manner.
this particular sentence seemed odd: "This deeply patriotic senior fellow in charge of international affairs and Indian-Jewish American relations is extremely critical and says that ‘Indians suck you. You should never work for Indian Americans because they exploit you. They are very individualistic and very poor as a community. There is little close cooperation. Where there is success, there is ego and this is a problem’. "
did she have to overdescribe the senior fellow as "deeply patriotic" (to who?, it's not clear) to then put what he says above reproach? substitute "Jews" or "Blacks" for indian-americans in the first two sentences and i wonder how many scholarly papers would let that pass?
also, why hasn't she named the people who have been quoted? it just makes everything seem so general and vague. she named their positions, so it would be easy for someone to link those to names. did they agree to speak to her only off the record? if so, she should say so. in short, it doesnt' really read as an academic paper but as an undercover expose of sorts.
No....they are not. But that is because they themselves tend to identify as Indian. Similarly most Indian Muslims do identify as Indian, rather than Pakistani or Bangladeshi. I don't think there is an active effort to exclude anyone. If even a Pakistani Muslim really identified specifically as an Indian American, then he or she IS an Indian American. However there are certainly some Indian Muslims who consider themselves to have been stuck on the wrong side of the border, and do not ID as Indian...
bangladesh = second largest number of hindus in the world (~same number % as muslims in india).
Hinduism is the second largest religious affiliation in Bangladesh, covering 10.5% of the population as of 2001 census [1]. In terms of population, Bangladesh is the third largest Hindu state of the world after India and Nepal.
Islam is the second-most practiced religion after Hinduism. There are approximately 174 million Muslims in India (according to government census 2001), i.e., 12.4%** of the population.[1][2]. India has the second largest population of Muslims in the world (the largest being Indonesia).
The current figures are close to ~14%
Similarly most Indian Muslims do identify as Indian, rather than Pakistani or Bangladeshi.
this is going to draw a lot of claps from the hindutva crowd, but indian american muslim doctors who socialized with my parents mixed pakistani and bangladeshi crowd would often lament that india was a hindu majority state. some of them lectured my father for defending secularism in bangladesh, after all, they had to deal with non-muslim rule and couldn't enact 'true law' in their own nation. these aren't goat-beards, but 'western' looking indian muslims. there might be selection bias in terms of the types of indian american muslims who would socialize with pakistanis and bangladeshis. but that's just what i noticed and observed.
That was Razib's quote: bangladesh = second largest number of hindus in the world (~same number % as muslims in india).
Similarly my parents have many Indian/Pak/Bdeshi muslim friends, and most of the Indian Muslim ones are strongly pro-India. However a lot are South Indian, if you think that might make a difference.
Yes, Bangladesh hasn't reached the Pakistan point yet, but it's well on its way. There are regular pogroms against Hindus in Bangladesh - just Google for it.
Proportion of Hindus in BD:
Year Percentage (%)
1941 28.0
1951 22.0
1961 18.5
1974 13.5
1981 12.13
1991 10.52
2001 10.5
there might be selection bias in terms of the types of indian american muslims who would socialize with pakistanis and bangladeshis. but that's just what i noticed and observed.
that is a bias in your social selection, or self selection to speak off.
in my social selection, on the other hand, most of the indian muslims, or even pakistani muslims** i know outside of indian subcontinent do not care one bit about "brown" solidarity, except for biryani and cricket.
most of pakistani undergrads i knew at cornell (20-30 or so), had white american girlfriends, and did not care about politics from back home, about except they all (indian and pakistani undergrads) got shit drunk together. i always thought indian undergrads looked up to pakistani counterparts at the undergrad level for social leadership......getting drunk, stoned, and laid.
** in general they were more out going, friendlier, and laid back......imran khan would be epitomy of it. now, imran khan is quite religious, and is on hunger strike.
now, imran khan is quite religious, and is on hunger strike.
in all this, his billionaire ex-wife jemina khan has found new love for him.
four degrees of separation
elizabeth hurley + hugh grant, imran khan + jemina khan, jemina khan + hugh grant, elizabeth hurley + who is that india dude.
the icon of islamaphobia (he was given NP in 2001, after being bypassed for dozens of years), and also hindutva darling, vs naipaul is married to a woman of pakistani origin
I guess I'm a little confused. Assuming that the article is correct and the methodology is sound --why exactly is hostility towards Pakistan amongst Indian-Americans considered a sign of outmoded and geriatric beliefs? The last accepted armed conflict between the two nations (i.e. what the rest of the world sees as a conflict) was in 1999, less than a decade ago. Before that, India and Pakistan had a history of some pretty direct and costly (lives and $) engagements over a 50 year period. And, if the recent pronouncements from people in the know are to be believed, the two countries came close to war in 2001 after the attack on India's Parliament. Yes, there have been significant strides towards harmony, but surely you can forgive certain people for wariness, if not hostility, to a historical enemy? And no, I am not saying that India is right and Pakistan is wrong--only that it takes time, and more than a couple of feel-good cricket matches, to erase some of the distrust amongst both nations. In a lobby group created to further Indian and American relations (as opposed to "Indian-American" issues), surely they are allowed to reflect the interests of, you know, India. If you also consider the historical U.S. tilt towards Pakistan (which I agree is changing, and which a number of people say is in fact due to such lobbying) how exactly is it improper for Indians to lobby for some counter-balance? I mean, if you're going to start bashing people for engaging in identity politics, it seems a little strange to start doing so on this site, no?
As for terrorism in the name of Islam being a joint problem facing Americans, Indians and Israelis--does anyone disagree with the statement that American, Indian and Israeli civilians have been the targeted for violence by groups who define themselves as Islamic and who state that their actions are done to advance or protect the rights of Muslims? If so, then how exactly are these guys far off in making the statement that all three countries face the same issues? Again, this is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists or that all terrorist acts against Americans, Indians or Israelis are by Islamists or even that those acts necessarily constitute "terrorism" as opposed to "freedom-fighting" or (finally) that Islam is evil and the world must be purged of the eeeeeeevil Mussalman. Rather it is to point out, that actually, the countries do share some commonality of experience, so poor set in his ways grandpa may be more on the ball than naive great-niece who, try as she might, just can't seem to find ANY pattern amongst recent world events. Of course, how the countries react to the issue is relevant (including to what extent they allow it to dominate and exclude other issues they are facing).
Look I think pan-Asian organizations are great and to the extent that one can found a group to lobby for those issues (and I'm sure this august can come up with a list of such issues if it tries), great. But I believe that it is inappropriate to assume that an issue must be pan-Asian (or pan-South Asian, or pan South Asian American) before it can have any validity. Because if a pan-Asian group decides to ignore or suppress potentially divisive issues in order to maintain harmony amongst its panoply of members, then those issues aren't being properly addressed and it falls to another group to make sure they are dealt with.
ok. having read through the entire "paper", i'll risk being accused of being a hindutva supporter/islamophobe by saying this is a terrible piece of "scholarship." i don't see how it can convince anyone who is neutral/not that interested in lobbies. this is not to say that there isn't truth in some of the things she says, but she does a terrible mish-mash job of putting it all together. the conclusion is a patchwork quilt grab-bag of all the standard lamentations, some gross generalizations, coupled with a most unacademic personal plea to pay more attention to ostensibly secular publications like samar and promise of india (can't find anything about it).
her paper is ostensibly about indian american lobbies (plural), but she only presents evidence (sort of) to back her claim for one lobby - usinpac - that too, three quotes from unnamed people and an anonymous conversation amongst usinpac members. she then seems to equate usinpac with indian american lobbies and uses the terms interchangeably (seemingly). what about her fieldwork with all the other indian-american lobbies? where are the quotes and background on these groups to bolster her claim that indian american lobbies are islamophobic?
did she interview any u.s. congressmen/senators who deal with usinpac to see what their views are on this 'islamophobia"? she accuses two of them of this: "Anyhow, the fact that the Legislative Assistants of Congressman Joseph Crowley and Congressman Joe Wilson (the two co-chairs of the India Caucus) never mention and never work with Indian Muslims, while they maintain frequent contacts with the Indian American lobbies, further hints at the penetration of a largely Hindu-bias in the Indian American political representation. " Anyhow? And what is her source for that?
and if only 125 made private donations (now 281) have been made to usinpac, then it doesn't really inspire much islamophobic fervour or much of anything in indian-americans (and not all the donations are from hindus if names are anything to go by.)
Kush, interesting stuff @63-64! risible, thanks for your response @50. BTW, in your list @38, did you notice that Hamid Ansari and TTP Abdullah had two terms each! And, I wonder if the two Messrs MK Kidwai are brothers, or father and son, or otherwise related? I looked up India's Ambassadors to the Holy See, and found that the Ambassador to Switzerland is normally also accredited to the Vatican, they haven't been all Catholic or anything.
However a lot are South Indian, if you think that might make a difference.
i would assume so. most of the ones my family knew were urdu speakers from UP or hyerdabad.
does anyone disagree with the statement that American, Indian and Israeli civilians have been the targeted for violence by groups who define themselves as Islamic and who state that their actions are done to advance or protect the rights of Muslims? I
this is a pedantic point, but one i'll interject just to clarify an issue: hamas and islamic jihad are obviously islamist outfits. the PLO is not. it is a secular nationalist organization with leftist roots in many of its branches. e.g., the communist predominantly greek orthodox flavored PFLP. not only did yaser arafat marry a woman from a christian background (she pro forma converted to islam), but christians have traditionally been prominent in the palestinian national movement. this is not to say that the religious aspect hasn't loomed larger of late, but we should be cautious about clumping things together and losing information. groups like the 1970s 'black september' as best thought of not as islamic terrorists, but left-wing nationalist terrorists.
Razib,
PLO has a very complex history, it did not start with 1970 black september (in jordan), but goes back to 1964
It has been different things in different times - a secular left organization with christian palestanians** involved in it too, at one time very close to USSR, being a darling of arab world, and at same hunted down by the arabs themselves, formenting trouble in jordan and lebanon, it has also been downright terrorist organization, and has had islamic frevor strain in it too (that is expected, and not to be surprised) - sure, compared to hamas today, it is garden variety. PLO is one of the most chameleon like (and corrupt too) organization, and that is why it lost its relevance.
** christian palestanians are very tiny in number, although majority align with palestanian arabs, but not all of them.
** christian palestanians are very tiny in number, although majority align with palestanian arabs, but not all of them.
those that reside within the territories are a tiny number. not the diaspora. the difference is an order of magnitude (e.g., 1.5% vs. 15% or so). and obviously the palestinians are a people for whom the diaspora counts a fair amount. also, re: the PLO, it's an umbrella organization. not a unitary one. so obviously it has all flavors.
p.p.s. re: the diaspora. it must be admitted that christian palestinians and arabs in general assimilate relatively easily into many cultures (e.g., in the USA, brazil, mexico, france, etc.) and lose their identity. so i would weight their relevance less than their numbers on paper.
3) that being said, i am islamophobic myself.
Razib, I respect your honesty
SM is more islamophobic than USINPAC?
Sepia Mutiny is not islamophobic at all.
I'm sorry, I may be labeled Islamophobic but I still stand for justice and rights for non-Muslims facing the Islamic onslaught down the centuries. ABD's just don't understand what these countries that are on the frontlines are up against and have been fighting for time immemorial. Stay blind to it until it reaches your very doorstep at your peril, 9/11 notwithstanding.
desidude I'm glad that you speak about this issue, as many in the South Asian community don't want to deal with this issue.
Another interesting example: From 1947 to 2007, the Hindu population in the newly Islamic countries in South Asia has gone down from ~13% to ~0%.
Proportion of Hindus in BD:
Year Percentage (%)
1941 28.0
1951 22.0
1961 18.5
1974 13.5
1981 12.13
1991 10.52
2001 10.5
The same misleading stats have a thousand lives on SM. Llyod Carr may have left Michigan but these same stats though refuted (on a conservative level at least 15 times) refuse to go away from SM.
The creed of the H-1 and (L-1 if working in a large multinational non-IT Company) warrior who are probably the most fervent supporters of USINPAC:
- India is the bestest place in the world. Everything Indian is awesome. The poverty in India is similar to the poverty we see in Appalachia but the Western media focuses on Indian poverty because it is biased.
- Caste based atrocities are a relic of the past and most Indians live in cities anyway where you dont even know the caste of the other person.
- Modi is a strong leader.
- Any American who is poor must be lazy or stupid and likely both.
- If not for Nehru, India would have a per capita GDP similar to South Korea at worse but probably closer to Japan's per capita GDP.
- All Indians in the US are extremely rich, successful and there are no poor illegal Indians struggling to make ends meet.
- Proselytizing Christians are the biggest threat to the sovereignty of India and only a strong leader like Modi can stop them.
Thanks for the "proof". Good luck to your "South Asian (progressive 2nd gen) solidarity" against "Islamophobia" and "Indian American lobbies".
ACfd,
Though I'm on a H-1 visa (and neither support / oppose USINPAC) I can't say I know what other people on H1/L1 visas think on these issues. Are you quoting from a survey or they are just your personal opinions (like the report by Therwath)?
Though I'm on a H-1 visa (and neither support / oppose USINPAC) I can't say I know what other people on H1/L1 visas think on these issues. Are you quoting from a survey or they are just your personal opinions (like the report by Therwath)?
Yes, they are my personal opinions. The above post was hyperbolic and tongue in cheek.
Ok.. I think you have a wrong idea of H1 folks, Only a miniscule minority are interested in politics (whether Indian or American) and it is possible that a few of them are "jingoistic". Generally you'd hear the H1Bs talk more about I-140 / I-485 / I-797 and all such immigration documents than India-US nuclear deal / USINPAC.
Razib, I absolutely agree about the PLO--which is one of the reasons I said that not all "terror" attacks were by Islamic groups. We can include a number of other "terror" attacks both on U.S. and Indian soil. I just wanted to point out that there were some commonalities between the experiences the three countries were facing-so it seemed a bit unfair to dismiss the issue as "inappropriate" or "Islamophobia" for the lobby group. And I'm using "terror" in the context of how the governments of the countries in question define such acts.
So because the USINPAC has the courage of its convictions to voice its opinions against a country that is directly responsible for countless acts of terrrorism in the country of their origin over the last 20 years, it is "islamophobic".
I get it, those uncool uncles bad, know-it-all "hipsters" on SM good. You 2nd gen. Americans of "south asian" origin are so much better than "those" narrow-minded Indian-Americans who happen to have a slightly different agenda than yours. The nerve!
Of course! They're old; and were born in a foreign country - that must be why they are so worked up about silly things like terrorism and mass murder. We chosen ones of the 22.7% are not like them. We will continue to perpetuate the myth that anti-Pakistan = anti-muslim without knowing any better.
Since this is quoted from a "paper", it must be true. Who cares if the quality of the research is not much better than that used by the Pat Robertsons of the world. Besides, since we "already kind of knew this to be true", it must be.
Hindutva isn't slightly different
Wolf,
Sure, go ahead tar everyone who disagrees with the "Hindutva" brush. How convenient for you.
Because generally speaking Muslims themselves feel they are Muslim first and Gujarati, Malayalee, etc, second. The "ummah" refers to a world wide community of Islamic brother and sisterhood. Many Muslims do not put emphasis on their national or cultural identity because it is part of the teachings of Islam not to. Many Muslims would feel more at home in an internationally diverse group of Muslims with the same religious practices, than in a group of people from their own country who have diverse religious practices.
I tend to agree more with Boston Mahesh
This article just give stats that Muslims are under represented and jumps to conclusion of Islamophobia
My take: If USINPAC has no fair representation of minorities then i would not consider it to represent Indian Americans. however if they do have fair representation of other minorities(Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists etc) except muslims then probably we need to look a little deeper.
If the Indian muslims are more participative in Islamic groups rather than Indian groups than there could be two possibilities
1) They associate themselves more comfortably with Islamic groups than with Indian groups. In this case i would treat USINPAC as fair representative and no case of Islamophobia. After all its their call not to participate.(No special preference to Indian muslims vis a vis other religious minorities)
2) They want to join Indian groups but are put off by anit-Muslim stance: Clear case of Islamophobic
And not a single woman either!
I don't get what Abhi is getting worked up about.
The article claims USINPAC having a pro-india & anti-pakistan stance along with significant non-muslim membership base means they are anti-muslim? How did the writer arrive at that conclusion?
I have a Pakistani-American fiancee and me being a Hindu makes it impossible for her parents to approve of our relationship even now. So, does that make her family Hindu-phobes? I would say not, its just their belief system says they under the laws of Islam from birth to death. So, if they have a right to keep to themselves and support their own country then Indian-Americans have the same rights.
Is being born in the US and being young (how young? in your twenties, thirties? forties?)the prerequisite to being liberal, egalitarian etc? I think you are over generalizing here
The gist of your argument here:
Young people of Indian/south-asian origin born in the US are egalitarian, liberal and all things good
People of Indian origin who were born in India are bigoted, Islamophobic etc.
The generalizations you trot out about DBDs are a tad offensive, I also don't think they are applicable to me and I don't think I am alone. I do agree that many of your criticisms of some of the older folk born back home, is on the money but as I see it, there no need to alienate every person of Indian origin in the US by tarring them with the brush of Islamophobia, chauvanism etc, because at least some of them agree with your point of view and are not necessarily happy with the current "leadership" of the community.