The US has long since arrogated to itself the role of guardian of freedom of the whole world–remember Independence Day? In itsInternational Religious Freedom Report for 2007 on India, it lists its findings. An admirable job, really. But not accurate. At a minimum, the report reaffirms its biases. One would expect to find at least a modicum of fairness and objectivity in a report of this nature. The only reason that explains this visible bias is that the US government has uncritically bought the version of secularism that Indian secularists continue to peddle.
The refrain is deadeningly familiar: minorities are routinely persecuted in large numbers in large parts of India, sometimes with the active connivance of the state.
There was no change in the status of respect for religious freedom by the National Government during the period covered by this report and government policy continued to contribute to the generally free practice of religion; however,problems remained in some areas. Some state governments enacted and amended "anti-conversion" laws and police and enforcement agencies often did not act swiftly enough to effectively counter societal attacks, including attacks against religious minorities. Despite Government efforts to foster communal harmony, some extremists continued to view ineffective investigation and prosecution of attack son religious minorities, particularly at the state and local level, as a signal that they could commit such violence with impunity, although numerous cases were in the courts at the end of the reporting period.
The report criticizes anti-conversion laws numerous times in a brilliant display of ignorance of a host of aspects starting from the Indian Constitution to history to some grave realities. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean the right to impose a religion–either by force, fraud, or coercion–on the followers of other religions. The problem of conversion is both real and grave and dates to the colonial period. The Niyogi Commission report published about 50 years ago is a definitive record of the disastrous consequences that conversion has had on the cultural continuity of India and on its social fabric. Various secessionist movements in the North East can be traced to the work of Christian missionaries who continue to provide overt and covert support to militancy. This problem is not restricted just to India but extends to her smaller neighbours like Sri Lanka and Nepal.
It is also interesting that words like "extremists" are used to denote Hindu groups that have participated in religious violence. However, the word "terrorists" is used without the necessary "Islamic" prefix to denote people responsible for the Bombay train blasts and similar incidents.
The report seems to have swallowed wholesale the fiction of "Hindu" dominance perpetually engaged in oppressing the minorities when it writes
Many NGOs argue that state-level"anti-conversion" laws are unconstitutional and may reinforce the dominance of the Hindu majority.
In reality, the Indian state actively discriminates against Hindus: temple management is in government control while minority institutions are almost unaccountable to the government; Jammu and Kashmir–in a way–recently granted legitimacy to the Sharia, and the Indian secular government provides annual subsidy to the Haj pilgrimage.
Unsurprisingly, the BJP and most Hindu groups figure in the incidents the report unearths to support its claim of the majority oppressing the minority. The report generally concludes that there’s less religious freedom in all BJP-ruled states. That leads to examine how non-BJP ruled states are doing. This blog gives a rather scathing answer:
1. Jammu & Kashmir - which recently legislated Sharia as the civil law.
Hindus and Buddhists subjected to religious cleansing by muslim terrorists
2. Kerala - where Hindus constitute less than 50% of the population and
the Mullah/Missionary/Marxist government persecutes Hindus and interferes in their religious institutions.
3. Tamil Nadu - where the "Dravidian" monkeys persecute Hindus and openly encourage vilification of Hindu religion and Christian proselytisation.
4. West Bengal - where the Marxist comrades persecute Hindu believers and interfere in religious and cultural tradition. Hindus suffer great indignities under
Bangladeshi Mohammedan domination in several districts.
5. Assam - where Hindus are fast becoming a minority and where Hindus are routinely massacred by anti-national elements
6. Meghalaya,Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland - all christian majority states with
minuscule Hindu populations routinely subjected to terrorist attacks
7. Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura - fast becoming christian majority through forced conversion of local Hindus under duress
8. Andhra Pradesh - under the Samuel Reddy regime, which provides government funding for the construction of christian churches and supports evangelism by all means and in the most unlikely places, including jails, hospitals, hostels and Hindu temples.
9. vast Muslim majority stretches of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh where Hindus are reduced to a status of second class citizens.
In all, the report is appalling for its overt, almost perverse prejudice. Perhaps it is entirely consistent with its newfound agenda–propelled by the support of Christian fundamentalist groups that back Bush (also see the Tehelka report on a massive conversion plan that the US has for India). The same groups that ensured that Narendra Modi didn’t get to set foot in the US.
Finally, it is worth examining the United States’ own record of religious freedom in the same period that this report considers. The most recent record of an amazing performance is the disruption of a Hindu prayer in the US Senate (courtesy the same blog, you can view a video of the incident). The protesters’ defence provides a clue about the idea of religious freedom that the current dispensation of the US espouses:
…the Rev. Flip Benham, head of Dallas-based Operation Rescue/Operation Save America, tells The Hill.“For all of these years we have honored the God of our Founding Fathers. It wasn’t a group of Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims that came here. It was Christians.”
Pontificating on others is easier than cleaning the muck in our own compound.
Postscript: For an educative insight on why the US is so clueless about India, read this compelling series.
Crossposted on Desicritics.
Tags: Commentary, History, Indian Politics, International Politics, Media Watch, Pseudo Secularism Hall of Shame, Society & Culture, War on Communism, Weblogs
On 09.19.07 Palahalli says:
The situation is distressing for “Hindu” Nationalists in this country.
I am not sure if they are keeping pace with the goings on in the “liberal vs conservative” debate in the US.
What would suite us Indians…or at least “Hindu” Nationalists, best, would be to link up with US conservatives. This given their recent anti-Islam proclivities.But the problem is…with the “free” stuff you get along with such *US Conservative* support. White Christian supremacy, anti-immigration laws that don’t just include Muslims, but Hispanics and other colored peoples. Especially those that are or can be powerful and assertive in their own right. (The recent incident when the Canadian PM prayed in the Sikh manner in a Gurudwara, was not taken to kindly by conservatives in the US.) Add to this the olde’ anti-Black sentiment *racism*.
Interestingly, a fairly recent trial balloon that went up was the idea of disenfranchising women. The argument being that politics has acquired a “soft” underbelly due to political pandering of the female electorate. That this hampers action against Islamist terror and Muslim immigration, amongst other things.
The point is; If “Hindu” nationalists still choose the Conservatives, they will have to live with the above and pretty much play third fiddle. If they choose the liberals…well, then they have no reason to fight the “Sickulars” in India.
So, better to fend for ourselves…and come up with our solutions. *Hindu Nationalists and “Sickulars” alike*
But what I found funny in the above post was that evidently, “Hindu Nationalists” would have gone Rah! Rah! if the Americans had taken to task “Hindutva vadi” hate objects…such as Dravidian “Monkeys”, Indian Marxists…Christians..etc. not excluding the “Sickular gang”.
On 09.19.07 Anon says:
“attacks against religious minorities” repeated so often that it seems like an everyday regular activity. Sandeep no need for thos 9 points. Its plain and simple, if “attacks against religious minorities” are so frequent they should have been vanished from the small patch on this planet called India.But see the census of India. The number of “oppressed” “marginalized” “sidelined” “boundarized” “routinely attackized” “religiously highly sensitized and emotionalized” “non communalized” “Victimized all over the world” population. They still find some reason in all this highly “ized” India to breed.What reasons? Perhaps they don’t have anything else to do.
On 09.19.07 Ot says:
Comrade Halli,
One of the defining properties of commies is that they project their characteristics, prejudices and complexes on to their rivals. For example, for long, they have abused those who oppose tham as “fascists”; but critical scholarly examination is revealing the fact that Marxism is intrinsically fascist.
Likewise, commies see any alliance between them and non-commies as expedient and ncecessary, but if others pursue allainces in their own interest, they begin to fret and put up a mighty good perforamnce of frothing buckets at the mouth, just as you brilliantly have. Actually, the commies’ pet hate, the Hindu nationalists, have a lot to learn in this regard. I heartily recommend to them that they get trained by you, if you and Allah are willing. Quote them your price.
Now let me give you a nice example as to why Commies are best in the department of “we’ll sleep with anybody that serves our and China’s interests”. There is a commie bloke by the name of Kamal Mitra Chenoy. This guy is claimed to be an “eminent” historian. I bet you know this chap well. You must have run into him in one of those commie gatherings.
A few years ago, this guy flew to “depose” before that US “committe” on “religious freedom” as an Indian “expert”. You know, the “authentic” Indian voice. Subject? Gujarat “genocide”. It’s a bit of a mystery who picked up the tab for his jaunt: was it the capitalist Uncle Sam himself or the southern Baptists? Did he fly business class? Which hotel did they put him up in? We don’t know the detail. Regardless, it remains a fact that this guy made his services available to an outfit run and funded by Uncle Sam.
Fast forward to nuclear deal. The bloke was recently seen on the streets, denouncing lustily “US Imperialism”. I mean, no gratitude? The imperialists flew him all the way to Washington!
What has changed? The pecking order of priorities. Baiting India and Hindus is important, but making sure China’s interests are intact is EVEN more important.
These examples abound. Comrade Romila Thapar craves to be invited by US universities. Comrade Bidwai goes to the land of the Great Satan on all-expenses-paid trips to give “lectures” there to gatherings of handfuls of faithfuls. Many commies — SFI activists back in India — go to US for education, lust after GC, and in due course become learn to live with their hatred of Uncle Sam, but of course, the other hatreds they picked up back in the marxist seminaries of India remain. Comrade N Ram’s daughter is currently studying journalism in the hated land. Why didn’t the fellow send her to China or North Korea to get educated? Remains a mystery. Indeed, commies and Islamic fundies are very similar in this respect. Both want greenbacks, both want the prestige, recognition, luxury and the security that neither Islamic nor communist countries can provide, and yet they hate their hosts and adopted countries. You should read Irfan Husain, the one truly secular columnist in Pakiland:
“people are increasingly questioning why Muslims who hate their ways are allowed to enter and work in Britain. Several of those allegedly involved in these latest attempted attacks are doctors. This has horrified westerners who are more used to seeing doctors as peaceful professionals than as suicide bombers.
The question being asked privately in the UK is: “If these people hate us and our way of life so much, why don’t they just go back to where they came from?”
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/20070707.htm
If there’s any one reason why I respect blogosphere’s rabid commie, Comrade DSouza, it is that he chose to leave yankee land behind. Some consistency in his hate. But then who knows what other agendas exist? There’s always that pecking order of priorities.
On 09.19.07 Palahalli says:
Sheesh Ot! You scared me man! Thought you’d come up with something exceptionally new and brilliant! Whew..Thanks for the break anyways
“Likewise, commies see any alliance between them and non-commies as expedient and ncecessary, but if others pursue allainces in their own interest…”
So, you don’t see a qualitative difference between the commies allying with non-commies vs “Hindu” Nationalists allying with White Christian supremacists? You actually see the latter alliance as being in the “Hindu” Nationalist interest?? No wonder “Hindu” Nationalists are so adept at cutting off their own legs before a race!
Let me give you a good representative sample of your pals in arms - http://amnation.com/vfr/
This guy Auster…has got even Pipes on the run. He’s good…he’s really good.
On 09.19.07 Anon says:
Ot! What are you writing / talking man? See West Bengal and Kerala.Shining examples for the rest of India to emulate. I wish Communists were powerful all along.Its a huge loss for the country that they were not all pervasive before 1947. Really they along with Britishers would have converted India into “sone ki chidiya” See the prosperity and development in the Bengal and Kerala. But I fail to understand why people of India no no “Hindus” of India are still communal? Why are they not learning lessons in communal harmony from “minority” community? Why are “HINDUS” not learning lessons OF COMMUNAL HARMONY from Bangladesh,Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia AND TALIBANS?
On 09.19.07 Anon says:
I am pasting those comments here. Brahman Plahalli, it doesn’t matter in which post you are “teaching” us lessons. Your teachings have a universal charm. So why browse in another post to reply to your comments.
…………
#
Palahalli
Posted September 19, 2007 at 6:56 pm | Permalink
Ok.
Lesson No. 1 - Don’t assume. Back up your charges with facts.
When I am sure you’ve learnt this lesson, I will teach you some more.
#
Anon
Posted September 19, 2007 at 8:26 pm | Permalink
No! I am following you. When facts are presented, close your eyes and replace the issue with one of your liking and give “self adoring” facts.
On 09.19.07 Palahalli says:
Hey Anon….you guys must decide. Am I a Commie Comrade like Ot says I am…or am I a Brahman like you now take me to be?
“No! I am following you. When facts are presented, close your eyes and replace the issue with one of your liking and give “self adoring” facts.”
- On this, may I ask you to produce something that indicates, I “close” my eyes to Islamist terror? Some amount of brain should help to differentiate between “breast beating” *your forte* and practical alternatives.
You and your ilk are so full of bombast that all that “flash” blinds you to reality. Either that or you want to kill off all Muslims!
Take this “debate” on this thread . It is very clear that even though anti-US Indian folks like to go to the US and savour of various freedoms, the US also sponsors folks who can cause serious damage to pals in the Hindutva Parivar.We like to blame this “paradox” on Christian fundamentalism in the US. Unfortunately for our “Hindu” Nationalists…their anti-Christian Fundamentalist sentiments are shared only by liberals in the US. NOT the Conservatives. Stranger still, US liberals are ideological kith and kin to Indian “Sickularists”!
Rashness is in statements like these - “Likewise, commies see any alliance between them and non-commies as expedient and ncecessary, but if others pursue allainces in their own interest…”
Still better to “close your eyes” rather than talk and support such utter rubbish!
On 09.20.07 Anonymous says:
Yawn !
(rubbing of eyes) … “darn he is still loitering”….
On 09.20.07 Palahalli says:
Yup…still wide awake. With you guys…I gotta be
On 09.20.07 Ot says:
>>So, you don’t see a qualitative difference between the commies allying with non-commies
Commies allying with capitalists and imperialists, Comrade. Just as your eminence Comrade Chenoy has demonstrated, for example.
>> vs “Hindu” Nationalists allying with White Christian supremacists?
Are Hindu nationalists allying with White Christian Supremacists? Do Hindu nationalists have that much strategic skill to ally with those that hate them, and get something out of that alliance for themselves? I’ll be glad if they prove to be that smart, so can you tell us more detail about this alleged alliance? What interests of WCSes and HNs respectively is this alliance serving?
I sincerely hope you’re not under the influence of anythjng stronger than a Cuban (therefore communist) cigar, Comrade.
On 09.20.07 Palahalli says:
Well Ot;
“Commies allying with capitalists and imperialists, Comrade. Just as your eminence Comrade Chenoy has demonstrated, for example.”
- Is that not good for “Hindu” Nationalists?? Is that not a dilution of the Indian Commie “USP”? Our Commies also revel in the “fact” that they are not revisionists…and so they think they preserve their “purity”. If I were a “Hindu” Nationalist, I would drum beat such tie ups. It’s good for H-Nism!
Now, here is where the problem is. Much as you might want to think otherwise, H-Nism is not completely out of the shade of Cold War stupidity. H-N ideologues shudder to state upfront, that they will ally with the US and allies. Their “dominant” economic thought might be “Capitalist”…but think of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch. Favored Gurumurthy of the SJM had strong support from the Commies in many of their fights against “opening up”. Vajpayee and Shourie faced more opposition from the H-Nists than the real opposition! Have these issues been resolved yet? Nope.
With regards to the Chenoy character, let me ask you this. Why react to an American report? If such reaction is warranted at all, don’t H-Nists have enough intelligence to send in their own experts? Someone from the American Hindu Foundation maybe? I am serious. Why quibble when known enemies make hay while the sun shines? And then grumble when it hurts? That speaks more of the H-Ns than of their enemies.
In your latter remark, your seem to be saying that H-Ns have not taken any steps to align with WCSes. They have not done that yet, but they have indicated that they are not averse to a “Vatican” alliance, vide Togadia’s statement.
http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/13/stories/2006031307320400.htm
The point again is this, who will ally with the H-Nists and can all “enemies of their enemy” be bracketed as one and the same?
I sincerely wish you would think things through before commenting.
On 09.20.07 socal says:
Sandeep,
For some reason my post is waiting to be edited. Can you check?
On 09.20.07 Anon says:
Brahman Palahalli,
All arguments/facts/reasons… my micro almost non existent brain is capable of thinking is this:
“Twinkle twinkle little star,
how I wonder what you are?”
Only and only you are capable of “teaching” us the worms. All of us belong to lower caste.you are the supreme one. A true “HINDU” Brahman.
On 09.20.07 Palahalli says:
Whatever you say man.
On 09.21.07 Anonymous says:
Do u guys like “jalebi” ? Mouth watering isn’t it? round and round and round? can’t figure out the starting or the end of that sweet little monster.
Shouldn’t have too much though… heard it’s not good for kidney…
On 09.21.07 Kumar says:
The recent incident when the Canadian PM prayed in the Sikh manner in a Gurudwara, was not taken to kindly by conservatives in the US.
Check how the sickular brigade’s reacting to the fact that Salman Khan and his step mother brought home Ganesh idol in past week. There’s a fatwa on him now.
If “Hindu” nationalists still choose the Conservatives, they will have to live with the above and pretty much play third fiddle. If they choose the liberals…well, then they have no reason to fight the “Sickulars” in India.
Your argument assumes that
(“Sickulars” in India) = liberals and
“Hindu” nationalists = Conservatives
Isn’t this explanation too simplistic? Simple examples: Hindu nationalists are pro Uniform Civil Code which is hardly a conservative issue from US perspective. Both liberals and conservatives in US are pro-free market which doesn’t chime with chest-thumping sickulars of Bharat. And liberals in US would never advocate free a convicted criminal like Afzal.
Several more if you wish, but I guess you already know it.
On 09.22.07 Palahalli says:
Kumar: I will like to take your highlights as base to respond;
####The recent incident when the Canadian PM prayed in the Sikh manner in a Gurudwara was not taken to kindly by conservatives in the US.
Check how the sickular brigade’s reacting to the fact that Salman Khan and his step mother brought home Ganesh idol in past week. There’s a fatwa on him now.####
****My aim in bringing US Conservative thought to light was to show that they cannot be true friends of the “Hindu” Nationalists for obvious reasons as already explained above, although, they share anti-Muslim sentiments.
In the above “Gurudwara” case, pleas that the Sikhs in fact fought Muslims and were against Muslims were brusquely brushed aside. The Canadian PM had demeaned a high Western Office.
On Salman Khan, it was the Islamists who reacted with a fatwa that he re-read the Kalimas. The response from his family is interesting. What is the “Hindu” Nationalist position on inter-religious marraiges?
Here is the link - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Fatwa_against_Salman_for_attending_Ganesh_puja/articleshow/2388257.cms
*****
Your argument assumes that
(“Sickulars” in India) = liberals and
“Hindu” nationalists = Conservatives
Isn’t this explanation too simplistic? Simple examples: Hindu nationalists are pro Uniform Civil Code which is hardly a conservative issue from US perspective. Both liberals and conservatives in US are pro-free market which doesn’t chime with chest-thumping Sickulars of Bharat. And liberals in US would never advocate free a convicted criminal like Afzal.
Several more if you wish, but I guess you already know it.
******Kumar, the Uniform Civil Code is not an American issue. It is an Indian one. But let me dwell on it a little. What is the UCC? Who has dissected this animal and analyzed it’s entrails? Let me share some interesting views on the UCC.
(Organiser, 23 August 1972).
Malkani: Don’t you think that a Uniform Civil Code is needed to nurture the sense of nationalism?
Golwalkar: I do not think so. What I say on this issue might surprise you and many others, but this is my view. And I must speak out the truth as I see it.
Malkani: Don’t you agree that uniformity is needed to promote national unity?
Golwalkar: Harmony and uniformity are two different things. For harmony, uniformity is not necessary. There have always been limitless diversities in India. In spite of this, our nation has remained strong and well-organised since ancient times. For unity we need harmony, not uniformity. . . Nature does not like excessive uniformity. I think that diversity and unity can co-exist, and they do co-exist.
Malkani: Don’t you believe that Muslims are opposing uniform civil code only because they want to maintain their separate existence?
Golwalkar: I have no quarrel with any caste, community or section wanting to maintain its own individual identity or existence, until and unless this desire for a separate existence causes them to distance themselves from a feeling of nationalism. Many people insist on uniform civil code because they think that the Muslim population is growing in a disproportionate manner since their men are allowed to have four wives. I am afraid that this is a negative way of looking at the problem . . . There is no basic difference between those who favour appeasement and those who favour uniformity. So long as Muslims love this nation and its culture, they have a right to live according to their way of life.
Malkani: Is it proper to let our Muslim sisters become victims of purdah and polygamy?
Golwalkar: If your objection to Muslim customs is based on broad considerations of humanism, then it is proper. Reformist outlook in these matters is welcome. But it is not proper to try to bring about equality in a mechanical manner through the external instrumentality of laws. It is better that Muslims themselves reform their outdated laws and customs. I’ll be pleased if they come to the conclusion that polygamy is not good for them. But I would not like to impose my views on them.
In the same interview, Golwalkar warns: “Uniformity is a pointer to the downfall of nations. I am in favour of preservation of diverse ways of life. At the same time, we should pay attention to ensure that these diversities nurture unity of the nation.”
In his “Who is a Hindu?”, Koenraad Elst has discussed this issue from the perspective of “Hindu” diversity. He asks if it is in fact “Hindu” to have a Uniform Code. The Uniform Code is a Secular agenda. If you are promoting the need for a “Secular” State as against a “Hindu’ State, then the UCC is up to the mark.
Here is another perspective. - http://www.mid-day.com/columns/tariq_ansari/2003/july/59483.htm
As for being pro-free market is concerned, again an Indian issue is hardly party specific. If it doesn’t chime with the “Sickulars”, it also doesn’t chime with orthodox “Hindu” Nationalists too.
Liberals in the US are currently being hauled over coals by Conservatives, for what they say are “impotent” immigration laws that only help promote immigrant violence and delinquency…also with the liberals looking the other way or rationalizing the situation. All this of course, is the Conservative charge.
But I agree with you, it’s not a simple comparison.
On 09.22.07 Palahalli says:
And yes, it’s not the Conservatives that are demanding the shutting down of Guantanamo Bay.
On 09.24.07 Hari’s Corner » Blog Perambulations - third edition says:
[...] On a similar note, Seriously Sandeep writes about how Big Brother Sermonizes. Sandeep’s blog is essentially a political blog and his views are quite refreshing and different for people who’ve been fed on a diet of pseudo-secular crap found in the Indian English language media and Press. Once again, he highlights the hypocrisy of “religious freedom”. The real problem in the world is not a lack of freedom but selective freedom of religion which creates so much tension in society. [...]
On 09.25.07 socal says:
Sandeep,
Just wondering what happened to my post?! It’s been quite a while since its been pending for moderation.
On 09.26.07 Kumar says:
And yes, it’s not the Conservatives that are demanding the shutting down of Guantanamo Bay.
What one demands while not in power doesnt’ really match with what on implements while in power.
Any guesses as to who implemented thinks like TADA or COFEPOSA in India? Hint: not NDA.
On 09.27.07 Palahalli says:
Kumar : You are correct when it comes to “political pragmatism”.
However, political reputations are built and destroyed over stances that leaders adopt.
There is simply no doubt in my mind, that innately, the Congress is “liberal” while the BJP is “conservative”.
Not so long ago, people saw the BJP as the hard face of India…even though the Congress has had the Bangladesh war and emergency behind it.
On 09.28.07 socal says:
Sandeep,
“In all, the report is appalling for its overt, almost perverse prejudice.”
I found this observation quite disturbing. Though it is accurate the post above does not do justice to explore its origin or towards tackling the issue.
The report is going to be the same whether it is conservative republicans or liberal democrats(afterall this one was released during democratic leadership in congress).
Citing all the reasons you did is good but will be better if done in a different way, imo. The major accusation - an unfair one at that - is the anti-conversion laws impinging on freedom of religion of citizens. It is not difficult to articulate how this claim is unfounded.
The claim that needs to be made is to highlight that even in states with strictest laws, conversion is still possible, that is if a simple due process of law is followed. A case then needs to be made as to the necessity of this process, stressing the fraudulent and rather perfunctory nature of most conversions. The monetary motive of not only the converts but even those who convert; converts being duped on account of their inability to understand the philosophy of the new religion; the dubious nature of unkept promises made prior to conversion; and the security and social implications that such conversions entail(you’ve mentioned these of course) can all be said to buttress the formulation and necessity of such laws.
Despite all these it needs to be highlighted that conversion is veritably easy and possible.
Now, I don’t know who we have to mention our side apart from govt. agencies which usually carry less sanction than those NGOs parading as saviours of the hapless. It also doesn’t help that the media usually engages in shrill chorus advancing the missionaries’ dissenting view.
On 09.28.07 socal says:
contd. from previous…..
This can be significantly influenced and challenged if we get a formidable voice in US. And that in turn is possible if we align ourselves with a political group in US. Between republicans and democrats, the former seem to be an obvious choice. Democrats themselves shun the liberal label these days. Radical left is not an option because it dabbles with islamic apologists on a regular basis, not to mention its countercultural moorings that go against most of our beliefs. Besides we don’t bring any extra advantage to democrats. Money, they have it. Numbers - the Hispanics and Blacks overwhelm us, ours is significant.
Conservatives certainly have their share of bad apples but they form only one group of the various stream of conservatism. The realist factions- economic and political conservatives, the neoconservative faction- the ideological and social conservatives and the religious faction- the cultural(evangelical) conservatives. Paleoconservatives are obsolete so they need not be bothered. We can do business with the first two without a problem and we can make probably make peace with the third faction just as the neoconservatives did — that we are democratic, family-oriented, educated and
None of them is against legal immigration - illegal immigration is of little concern for us. Their economic aspirations and stress on family values coincide with ours, the latter to an extent at least.
On foreign policy, we can be an asset towards solidifying the anti-communist, pro-democracy alliance being forged by Japanese initiative.
We’ve far too many rivals in India- the notorious 3M axis. We can take on them in isolation, but not together, and our exigency demands a split between them. If we go with the conservatives in US, it might also spur intellectual exchange, hitherto a monopoly of desi leftists being fellow travelers. In time this can also free the nationalists among our intellectuals from their dependecy on the leftist apparatus and build institutions of our own.
We need our own conservative professionals to wage the ideas battle in India. For too long it has been dominated by a few semi-pro leftists, even less out-of-field leftists(Amartya) and mostly - regretably so - by argumentative amateurs. The last resemble the annoying, semi-trained bureaucrats of the NAM era.
The islamic offensive provides us with a unique opportunity to take on these elements, with a fair chance at victory. We were too weak during the Soviet days; that’s not an excuse now.
On 09.29.07 Palahalli says:
Well, US conservatives are NOT going to shy away from funding/backing missionaries in India. Hindutva-Vadis can try to bring sophistication to their currently crude opposition, but this will not be bought by the US Cons.
This is a plain and very visible truth.
Here’s another one; Anti-Islam stances are not taken by a Bush or his ideological “conservative” cronies. In fact, they have lost face pretty badly with the highly articulate anti-Islam ultra conservative voices. These ultra conservatives hold the anti-Islam stance that might tie in with H-Vadi paranoia. Unfortunately, these very cons also hold highly unpalatable positions on all non-white immigrants.
These are not easy choices for the Hindutva camp.
On 09.29.07 socal says:
Well, the priority is to get a voice in US and affect the debate in India, which the leftists have brought down badly. The leftist advantage has accrued through congress monopoly. That the US conservatives wil keep funding evangelists is to be expected and is not going to be affected by the status quo either.
The other point displays unfamiliarity with conservative politics in US. Anti-immigration, isolationist streak is dominant with paleoconservatives mostly, who are feckless. And the wider opposition is to Hispanic illegal immigration for obvious reasons. Te keyword being illegal. It is akin to demographic invasion by Bangladeshis and most Hindus can readily sympathize with that sentiment.
The battle against islamic fundamentalism has very wide support. Attempts to term it anti-islam are radical left and islamic apologist phenomeon, certainly not a Hindu concern.
On 09.30.07 Palahalli says:
Well, the priority is to get a voice in US and affect the debate in India, which the leftists have brought down badly. The leftist advantage has accrued through congress monopoly. That the US conservatives wil keep funding evangelists is to be expected and is not going to be affected by the status quo either.
* Not sure what is meant by this.
“Hindus” in the US may want to help with necessary footwork….but for “Hindus”(BJP) in India to use the US as leverage against Indian political opponents is not doing something very different from what Indian communists are being accused of today. Is this conceded?
And how does the Hindutva party hope to cope with continued evangelical pressure…now from “friends” in the US?
I say there has to be a change in “Hindu” BJP approach toward conversions.
*****
The other point displays unfamiliarity with conservative politics in US. Anti-immigration, isolationist streak is dominant with paleoconservatives mostly, who are feckless. And the wider opposition is to Hispanic illegal immigration for obvious reasons. Te keyword being illegal. It is akin to demographic invasion by Bangladeshis and most Hindus can readily sympathize with that sentiment.
- I agree with the correction on the first point. I believe I made an opposite assessement of the Paleo-Cons. But my reading of their growing influence stands. Today, the “Bush-Cons” have lost all credibility. There is an alternative Democratic upsurge. The Paleos also believe they are the future. In any case, they have “better” and much more articulate ideas that can grab anybody’s attention. In an environment of fear…they gain influence. Influence is key.
On Hispanic illegal immigration..the “Hindu” bloc in the US can surely take a “legal” and AmPatriotic stand. The “AmHindus” btw are not terribly known for their sympathies with Hispanics or Blacks or anybody non-White, in the US. How all this helps on the ground is anybody’s guess.
The connexion with B’Desh is interesting. The BJP does not mind B’Desh “Hindu” migration. Not so the Paleos and other Cons and I believe some Democrats too (Giuliani now (?) vis a vis Hispanics. Most Mexicans are more Christian than most AmWhites. Yet they seem unwanted.
The US was also built differently. The Mexicans believe they have a “right” to the US. (Some portions in anycase)
Again, such issues (Hispanic/B’Desh) can be better handled by intelligent and farsighted folks. Politicians seem no different in either country
*****
The battle against islamic fundamentalism has very wide support. Attempts to term it anti-islam are radical left and islamic apologist phenomeon, certainly not a Hindu concern.
- The first point, Yes.
The second point, I hope this is only true. Is there a consensus here, on this very blog, that it must be a fight against Islamic Fundamentalism and NOT Islam? Forget for now, about the US (Paleo) Cons and the “Hindu” Right.
Most certainly the strongest source of support for Bin Laden types is the utter confusion prevalent in the enemy camp. Stupidities/blunders like Abu Gharib and Guantanamo only feed Shri.Laden.
The Democrats…if they win, must be seen to be doing better vis a vis Islamic Fundamentalism. If not, I don’t see anybody stopping Paleo influence. That’s bad news for “Hindus”, US and India. Unless of course, we play third fiddle….and wait for manna.
Or we handle things differently, at our end. In the real “Hindu” manner.
On 10.02.07 socal says:
>>Well, the priority is to get a voice in US and affect the debate in India, which the leftists have brought down badly. The leftist advantage has accrued through congress monopoly. That the US conservatives wil keep funding evangelists is to be expected and is not going to be affected by the status quo either.
>>>* Not sure what is meant by this.
~ The funding for proselytization will continue whether Hindus align themselves with conservatives or not.
>>>Is this conceded?
No. Communists take funds from foreign powers while subverting Indian cause and Indian political system. How does intellectual co-operation resemble communist subversion?
>>> I agree with the correction on the first point. I believe I made an opposite assessement of the Paleo-Cons. But my reading of their growing influence stands. Today, the “Bush-Cons” have lost all credibility. There is an alternative Democratic upsurge. The Paleos also believe they are the future. In any case, they have “better” and much more articulate ideas that can grab anybody’s attention. In an environment of fear…they gain influence. Influence is key.
~An optimistic reading that should cheer up the paleos. However, paleos have never gotten over their anti-semitism or anti-Wilsonian international isolation, despite 9/11. That disqualifies them altogether. Besides Buchanan they don’t even have any formidable leader nor intellectual support, lacking any well-funded think tank or serious literal outlet. They were completely sequestered during Reagan era. Then they consolidated their isolation by opposing first Gulf war and ridiculous stances post 9/11.
>>>The BJP does not mind B’Desh “Hindu” migration.
Religious persecution favors Hindu migrants. Besides Bangladesh was part of India in a not so distant past. Sikhs from Afghanistan too have received similar concession…so Tibetans.
>>>Not so the Paleos and other Cons and I believe some Democrats too (Giuliani now (?) vis a vis Hispanics. Most Mexicans are more Christian than most AmWhites. Yet they seem unwanted
~Mexicans are mostly catholics, not very educated and insist on Spanish while shunning English vocally. That puts off even some liberals, though they don’t speak loudly on it but it is whispered nonetheless.
Giuliani’s is more of an election era turnaround. It will be interesting as to how conservatives solve the Hispanic conundrum. But the extent to which it will affect this Presidential election is unclear. It is still an open election.