>>>* 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

Any guesses as to who implemented thinks like TADA or COFEPOSA in India? Hint: not NDA.