On April 16, a young Latin American singer/actress named Selena Gomez created some waves with her live performance at the MTV movie awards- a rendition of the song “Come and Get it” featuring a prominent bindi on her face.  A number of Indians and particularly Hindus were upset by this 20-year old American girl wearing the traditional female forehead accessory during a suggestive pop song and dance number.  As you may  know, many believe the bindi or “red dot” is supposed to be worn by married Hindu women only as a “third eye of wisdom.”

People emerged to publicly chastise the pop star and defend the honor of Indian women.  A Hindu leader named Rajan Zed whined to the media, “(The bindi) is not meant to be thrown around loosely for seductive effects or as a fashion accessory aiming at mercantile greed.  Selena should apologize and then she should get acquainted with the basics of world religion.”

We are going to dive into some sensitive and controversial waters here, so it is probably worth getting a few things out of the way up front.  I know little to nothing about Miss Gomez, have never heard her music or watched her on film before, and  I honestly never cared about her.  I am certainly not a fan.  But then I read about this silly controversy she caused, and decided that someone needed to forcefully and rationally defend her right to wear a bindi, even though I don’t think it looked particularly good or tasteful on her.  Secondly, I am a practicing Hindu, though I have never worn it on my sleeve or proselytized about my beliefs as some do.  I also don’t intend to do so here.  However, my understanding of Hinduism is going to shape what I’m about to say.  Finally, I have spent a great deal of time in both India and the United States, and this gives me a certain perspective on the situation as well.

Responses such as Zed’s are ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.  Nobody religious or otherwise has the right to demand that one cannot wear a particular fashion accessory, demand an apology for it, or shame someone into learning about their religion, or any for that matter.   I’m no stranger to bindis or what they are supposed to mean; my mother has worn one every day that I have ever known her while living in multiple countries- carrying its meaning wherever we went.  So here’s why this so-called moral outrage outrages me so much:

Hinduism is meant for all.   Some of the critics need to learn more about their own religion first.  Hinduism is considered the world’s oldest existing organized religion, and by no accident it has some of the most liberal views on lifestyles and society.  Anyone can be a Hindu.  A person who knows nothing about Hinduism can be a Hindu.  Even an atheist can be a Hindu- something that clearly separates it from other major religions at its core.  It’s not a special, exclusive club with traditions that cannot be shared.  Anyone can enter a Hindu temple anywhere.  Anyone can wear a bindi, sari, dhoti, or OM symbol without needing to convert formally or getting the equivalent of a “baptism.”  One could wear it for the simple reason that they think it looks cool.  The only exception here is for particular advanced traditions of the swamis or brahmin priests, such as wearing the sacred thread, and this requires passing through some proverbial gates as I have done.  These involve a status bestowed by others, and are not being questioned here.

Selena thinks she knows something about Hinduism, though her interview answer makes me think she might be confusing my Indians with the “other” Indians:  “I think the song has that Hindu, tribal feel and I wanted to translate that,” Selena explained. “I’ve been learning about my chakra and bindis and the culture … It’s beautiful.”   However much or little she knows is not the point though; she should be accepted by all Hindus without judgment or questioning of motives.

So what is the point?  Unfortunately, I know all too well what all this is really about.  Many Indians and Hindus are exceedingly insecure when it comes to their history and culture.  They are deathly afraid of the onset of modern culture at home and abroad, especially because young people are choosing it over their own in droves.  They are threatened by a Hispanic girl sporting it.  How dare a non-Indian girl wear a bindi seductively to make money off of it!!!  This controversy is really about Selena’s skin color.

Have you ever seen a Bollywood movie?  Indian pop tarts make piles of money strutting around seductively every single day with various bindis on, and just as tastelessly as Miss Gomez if not more.  So why single out this poor girl for it?  Are we so sure all those good little brown girls know the religion?  Why aren’t they being asked to apologize?  This is about racism, pure and simple.

We’ve seen this movie before, folks.  When Liz Hurley got married in India, a court case was opened against her by religious zealots for drinking alcohol and wearing shoes (heinous crimes, I know).  The subcontinental moral majority also came out of   the woodwork in full force when Gwen Stefani and Madonna decided to put on the bindi years before Selena even had her first menstrual cycle.   What’s the common thread here?  Yes, the prejudice extends beyond skin color; there is sexism going on too.  Perhaps Hindus are a little afraid of bindi-wearing foreign women because they might be rakshasis- roughly translated as demons in female form?  They are going to swoop in, steal away good Indian men and also ancient Hindu traditions!

You can’t speak for all of us.   This is America.  Like India, there is freedom of the press and speech in general.  This also includes freedom of expression, such as wearing whatever the hell you want.  By the same token, I respect the right of people to criticize Selena’s or Gwen’s little bindi experiments.  But fortunately for us, there are no popes in Hinduism, no grand leader that everyone has to listen to and conform to.  It’s a disparate sort of system, with millions of gods and over a billion adherents following various traditions.    When I claim to speak for Hindus by saying it’s OK for Selena Gomez to wear her bindi, I can say it with just as much authority and probably more adherents than those who would denounce her for it.  Keep doing it, Selena!

I look forward to a debate about this in the comments section; I’m quite certain some of you reading this would disagree.  I’ll be here.  If you want it, come and get it.

All I want for Christmas is to be taken seriously as a comedian and a politician too

There is a renaissance of sorts going on in American comedy for Indian and Indian-American actors.  We have come a long way from the time when the only Indian characters found in American film and TV were deep-accented  and exaggeratedly clownish minstrels whose entire purpose was to entertain audiences by mercilessly mocking Indian culture.

Even worse, the characters were sometimes played by white actors wearing heavy brown makeup, such as Peter Sellers in the (admittedly entertaining) 1968 film The Party.  This was in form with Hollywood’s penchant in decades gone by for casting white actors into Chinese roles such as Charlie Chan or the Native American Tonto.  Those days are now over, and the characters played by today’s Indian stars such as Kal Penn, Mindy Kaling, Aziz Ansari, Russell Peters, and Jay Chadrasekhar sport American accents and mainstream western behavior completely in line with their white or black castmates.  This transition says more about how America has changed than it does about the actors themselves.  

The transition did not happen overnight.  For example, before Kal Penn starred  as a normal American dude with only passing references to his Indian-ness in the Harold & Kumar trilogy of movies, he took his turn in the minstrel role as Taj in the Van Wilder movies: the stereotypical Indian nerd.  Russell Peters must attribute his initial success on the stand-up circuit with memorable lines where he made fun of ethnic minorities, including his own Indian family members.  These are still the backbone of his shtick.  And there is no question that these types of roles are still reliable for a laugh from American audiences, as demonstrated by the NBC prime time show Outsourced that ran in 2010 and 2011.  A large reason this show was short-lived is probably because making light of Indian culture, or any other for that matter, can only stay funny and fresh for so long.

Memorable roles by Indian comedians since then have little to no references to Indian accents or culture at all. Mindy Kaling had an absolutely hilarious cameo as the ex-girlfriend to Paul Rudd’s character in 40 Year Old Virgin.  Aziz Ansari plays a plain Midwestern small-town bureaucrat with an ambiguous name, Tom Haverford in the highly popular and critically acclaimed Parks & Recreation.  Jay Chandrasekhar is just another guy in the Broken Lizard comedy troupe’s films- such as a dopey cop in Super Troopers, or an accident-prone waiter in The Slammin’ Salmon.  Arj Barker was just another stoner in the Marijuanalogues stage show.  And in what stands till today as the most successful leading comic role by an Indian-American actor, Kal Penn played Kumar in the Harold & Kumar films as a frat-boy type who just happens to be brown.

All of this points to the new profile of today’s America.  In most towns and cities, a majority of Americans know Indian friends, neighbors, colleagues or classmates, whereas their parents probably did not.  Many of them grew up in the United States and have normal American accents.  Indians seem to be less and less exotic in pop culture as well as in real life.

Indian-Americans and Asian-Americans in general still face enormous hurdles in the acting business, because they experience relentless typecasting and pigeon-holing in Hollywood.  Available roles are often as computer scientists, cab drivers, or terrorists which are what still makes sense to many Americans.   But this trend is slowly changing.

The next step in the natural progression, and we are not there yet, is for Hollywood and the rest of America to see Indian actors simply as actors, even outside of comedy.  Kal Penn tried his hand at a more dramatic role (Superman Returns) as did Russell Peters (Source Code), while Frieda Pinto sure looked good as a heroine in Immortals.  But all were tiny roles.   There have been other stints like this, especially on TV, but none has launched any of these Indian actors into A-list, leading role territory in a dramatic film or action film as a major American mainstream release.   M. Night Shyamalan and others have already achieved this behind the cameras as directors.

When that does happen in front of the camera, the transition of Indians onto the pop-culture conscience as a completely normal piece of Americana will be complete.   Till then, we can look forward to the renaissance taking place in comedy to continue.  We know there are many other comedians we haven’t mentioned here today who are breaking onto the scene.

We have one example that has remained to this day the gold standard of an Indian acting in Hollywood: the British-Indian Ben Kingsley, whose portrayal in Gandhi stands as one of the great acting performances of our time.  The path has been paved for the next Kingsley to come along.

Mahanth Joishy is Editor of usindiamonitor.com

Photo courtesy the Tea Party Tribune

Mahanth S. Joishy is Editor of usindiamonitor.

Barack Obama is only the 17th human being in history to be re-elected President of the United States.   In most second terms, some cabinet members resign and new ones are hired or shuffled around in a predictable beltway equivalent of musical chairs.  2013 is no exception.  Prominent administration officials such as Hillary Clinton and Timothy Geithner are out.  Obama has recently announced four new replacement appointments that will have a major impact on US foreign policy in general, and on India in particular: John Kerry for Secretary of State, Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, Jack Lew for Secretary of the Treasury, and John Brennan for CIA Director.  

How should Indians view these men, all of whom will spend many hours thinking about India, send dozens of staffers to India on their behalf, host numerous Indian officials in Washington and New York, and probably take multiple trips back and forth to India themselves?  India is certainly a partner but the quality of the partnership over the next few years hinges largely on these four.

Any assessment should be made with Obama’s “pivot” toward Asia in mind as an overarching foreign policy North Star.  As important is the ongoing boom in bilateral trade between the United States and India under the administrations of Obama and Manmohan Singh.  America is also becoming a war-weary nation about to limp home from Afghanistan and unlikely to rush unilaterally into another theater of conflict again.  We expect all four appointees to support these trends further over the next few years.  It’s also worth looking at their past for clues.

John Kerry as Secretary of State.   Word in Washington is that Kerry has coveted this position for years, nearly as much as the presidency itself.  He certainly has the qualifications, and should have no problem getting confirmed.  Kerry has used his multi-decade perch in the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee to globe-trot and hobnob on behalf of the American people.  This multilingual Vietnam War veteran is no stranger to South Asia.  He possesses a particular expertise on Pakistan and cordially functional relationships with Pakistan’s top brass, which are extremely rare in American and even Western circles.  He has been a leading advocate for aid to Pakistan.

That is precisely what worries some Indians.  Kerry’s support of Pakistan is viewed as harmful to Indian interests, especially when there is evidence that US aid for Pakistan’s civilian development or to fight terrorism is being funneled to shore up strategic capability against India and strategic depth in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, Kerry’s record on India taken in isolation is mostly solid.  He has visited India numerous times for diplomatic and business missions since the 1990′s.  He agrees with Obama in supporting India’s bid for a permanent seat on the UN National Security Council.  During the confirmation hearing for Ambassador Nancy Powell, Kerry said “there are few relationships that will be as vital in the 21st century as our growing ties with India and its people.”   But Kerry has also in the past criticized the outsourcing of jobs to India and India’s nuclear weapons program.   In recent times he has either softened or quietly changed his stance on both.  In 2008, he supported the US-India nuclear agreement and even helped galvanize Indian leadership behind it.

Meanwhile, the American bid to keep ties intact with India and Pakistan simultaneously is both challenging and necessary, as I’ve written in Foreign Policy Digest.  It is not only Obama’s prerogative, but America’s bipartisan reality at this time.  It makes sense that Kerry will fall into line and not choose sides in Indo-Pak relations regardless of his past.  Kerry is also the type to favor diplomatic solutions over the threats and use of force, a policy that India claims to favor in its American partners.  But Kerry has big shoes to fill, and ongoing tensions over Iran-India ties to deal with.

Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense.  The Pentagon is less and less about the use of military power and technology.  Even where America is actively at war, such as in Afghanistan, the soldiers are more involved in politics, diplomacy, training, and local law enforcement than at perhaps any time in US history.  The nature and currency of force projection have changed.  These are the pillars of the new counterinsurgency strategy, because solutions to winning asymmetrical warfare are now seen as political in nature by American generals, politicians, and academics.  This was the lesson learned in Iraq as well.  Outside of presently unfathomable direct engagements against the governments of Russia or the EU, any new conflicts against foreign actors are going to be asymmetrical in nature.  In this environment, former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel makes a lot of sense as the next Secretary of Defense.  Like Kerry, he is a decorated Vietnam vet and sat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  His statements indicate he is not a hawk.  Critics say he is “haunted by Vietnam.”  That’s a good thing; we all should be.

Hagel’s confirmation will be more uncomfortable due to his criticism of gays that enraged the left, and criticisms of the Iraq invasion and Israeli policy that infuriated the right.  Neocons think he is squeamish about invading Iran.  However, we expect he will ultimately get the nod after a bit of squirming.  He is not in practicality anti-gay or anti-Israel despite the hoopla, nor would he refuse a Commander-in-Chief’s hypothetical demand to initiate conflict with Iran.

Hagel’s record on India is murkier than Kerry’s.  In 2008 he voted yea for the US-India nuclear agreement like Kerry (and unlike Senator Obama), as close to a litmus test as we have for American politicians’ support for India.  We aren’t clear on whether he has been to India or not yet, but we expect he certainly will visit at some point after being confirmed as Secretary.  Feel free to comment below if you know more about this.

The US-India bilateral relationship has a raft of security issues on the table, including unprecedented joint military exercise plans, tough decisions on Afghanistan, Iran, China and Pakistan, weapons sales from US manufacturers, and intelligence sharing related to terrorism.  America wants involvement on the Kashmir dispute but Obama and his predecessors have never figured out how to tackle this demon, while the man tasked with trying, Richard Holbrooke is no more.  Unlike commerce, defense issues are reactionary in nature and do not follow a clear path.  Security poses as many challenges as successes.  We will quickly find out how well Hagel and his counterparts navigate these choppy waters soon.

Jack Lew, Secretary of Treasury.  Lew is moving to Treasury from the White House Chief of Staff position and arriving at a time of great difficulty for the US government’s finances and the overall economy.  Unemployment remains high, markets and real estate prices are sluggish, and the national debt is unacceptably high.  There is a real threat of government shutdown on the horizon.

Many do not know that Treasury has a South Asia & Southeast Asia bureau under the International Affairs Office, which prove’s the region’s relative importance to the US economy.  This is loosely in line with other federal agencies’ structures including State and Defense.  One of my greatest criticisms of US foreign policy machinery would be the lack of coordination and standardization between these bureaus, but that’s another story for another day.

Lew is considered a reliably liberal, detail-oriented technocrat who wields immense power in the White House and a deep background in foreign affairs through his work at State and participation at the Council on Foreign Relations.  During the years that Lew worked at Citibank, the company invested heavily in India.  Lew has traveled extensively including through India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan in his official capacities.

Some observers hope that Lew will revive languishing efforts to create free trade agreements and promote trade better than Geithner did.  It’s certainly possible.  Having a foreign policy wonk at Treasury is a fine idea.  Obama’s economic team over his first term has been considered underwhelming by the American public, and rightly so.  Hopefully Jack Lew will become a key piece to the puzzle of getting the US and world economies fully back on track.

John Brennan, CIA Director.   Brennan was an intelligence honcho for the Bush administration, and was already once dropped out of contention for the position due to questions regarding his involvement in the “dark arts” at the Agency under Bush/Cheney.  This controversy has largely seemed to pass and Brennan has come out publicly against practices such as enhanced interrogation.  Brennan has been the president’s point man on counter-terrorism and in presenting the administration’s difficult positions on things like drone strikes to the press.  He has done so professionally and the successful record in counter-terrorism over the last four years is indisputable, crowned by the killing of Osama bin Laden.

For those who do not find drone strikes in Pakistan or Yemen palatable, Brennan usually isn’t much liked.  Indian leaders tend not to be among those.  Obama has made it clear this program will continue regardless, though we predict these paramilitary adventures will fall increasingly into the Pentagon’s lap as the CIA is asked to focus more on intelligence gathering.

The 25-year CIA veteran knows many people in Langley, knows the Middle East and South Asia well, and could offer the team some badly needed stability after David Petraeus’ resignation under scandal.

It’s worth noting that the CIA helped create India’s foreign intelligence service, Research & Analytical Wing (RAW).  Indians will be most interested in learning about Brennan’s plans for intelligence cooperation between the two nations, especially concerning common enemies such as regional terror groups.  Also of interest are the CIA’s nervous relations with the Pakistani ISI.  Brennan has no choice but to dance with both the ISI and RAW.  A conundrum will present itself when US troops pull out of Afghanistan, leaving the intelligence community with the largest remaining US footprint there.  This is also where fierce overt and covert battles between India and Pakistan for influence are already underway.  Will the US try and mediate this, and is it even able to?

There is too much in the intelligence world that we do not know to comment on it too intelligently.  We do know that the history of cooperation exists, and that Brennan is an expert on South Asia.  We expect US-India intelligence sharing will reach unprecedented levels as time goes on, more due to the Asia pivot than because of Mideast travails, though the timeline is murky.

The team.  Yes, they are all white males which seems to distress some Americans.  However, their boss is still very much an African-American.  More importantly they are all qualified for their appointments, and a chip off the Obama block: smart, pragmatic, moderate to a fault, and proven loyal to their Commander in Chief (with the dramatic exception of Hagel, who has no natural home on either side of the aisle).  The last quality is important because Obama is known for micromanaging foreign policy as an area of interest and expertise.

They will have to work together along with many foreigners both friendly and hostile.  The transition away from George W. Bush’s neocon team is absolute and complete.  Indians should be cautiously optimistic about the next four years working with this team.  With the exception of Hagel we can be sure that they know India.

We look forward to covering you, gentlemen.

There is a question that has taken on more and more meaning as India increases in importance on the world stage, while Indian-Americans are involved in American politics as never before.  Which candidate, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney would be a better president on issues that are important to India and Indians?

Predictably, both candidates have kissed up to Indian-American donors and speak highly of India when given the opportunity.  Both claim that India is an important ally and friend to the United States.  Strikingly, neither candidate discussed India in the foreign policy debate this week.  In truth, it is difficult to accurately forecast the answer to this question based on past records and statements.  It’s also unclear how much influence a president can bring to bear on these issues.  But it’s worth speculating on.

The primary challenge in this endeavor would be to identify the core issues that Indians consider to be important.  India is a vast and chaotic cauldron of democracy, with wildly varying views on religious, political, and social issues.  These variances have spilled over onto American soil as immigrants of Indian origin may be found supporting or participating in either political party.  For example, Aneesh Chopra and Kal Penn have worked in the Obama administration while Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley are staunch Southern Republican governors, and Dinesh D’Souza has savaged Obama’s psyche from the right.  That being said, as a longtime observer of the diaspora as well as US-India relations, I believe the issues that matter most are: trade policy, immigration policy, national security postures, hate crimes legislation, nuclear issues, and personal diplomacy.  Below is a breakdown of each.

Trade (Score: Romney)    As I wrote in an editorial on this site, Obama has bashed Romney mercilessly on outsourcing throughout the campaign, and specifically mentions Indian call centers in ads or on the stump in a negative light.  The Indian media has picked up on this and although it is more politics than policy, it’s ugly and clearly the wrong message to send from India’s point of view. But China gets it worse.  On any other trade metrics, the amount of trade between India and the United States has continued to boom under Obama’s administration.   When Obama made his first state visit to India, he took along hundreds of business leaders with him.  Meanwhile, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have pushed the envelope on nuclear supplier trade, as detailed below.

Romney is a bit of a cipher on this matter.  He talks tough on China’s trade policy, especially as relates to its currency valuation, but does not seem to  bring India into this discussion.  Ostensibly his business background and his Rolodex of industrialist/banker friends are all for free trade with India continuing unabated.  The company he used to run, Bain, has and continues to invest in Indian companies, including ones that do outsourcing, effectively bringing American money and jobs to India.   Unlike Obama, Romney does not bash outsourcing to India.

Immigration (Score: Obama)  In general, the Democratic party is more likely to promote policy favorable to immigration in general, and from India in particular.  Obama has spoken about loosening immigration rules which prevent foreign graduates from staying on in America, thousands of whom come from India to study.  He has actively sought an amnesty which would be favorable to illegal immigrants including those from India, but this legislation languishes in Congress.

Romney and his Republican party are more hostile to immigrants.  Any sort of amnesty would be less likely in a Romney administration.  For that matter, so would any new policy favorable to Indian immigrants, such as granting more H1B visas.

National Security (Score: Tie)  The two candidates have nearly identical positions on issues that are important to India’s national security.  Both have displayed concern for monitoring Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, and we all know that India is where most if not all of those are pointing.  Romney claims he would go after terrorist groups in Pakistan just as hard as Obama has, including with unmanned drone strikes.  Neither as president would come close to breaking relations with Pakistan- and rightly so as Pakistan remains an important US partner.  Both campaigns are for cooperation on defense with India, such as joint military exercises and weapons sales.  Obama and his national security team have prioritized India as a security partner, and we can expect that to continue under Romney.  Romney’s own advisers on foreign policy and national security are, while largely partisans, made up of professionals (including Indian-born ones) familiar with South Asian issues.  Both parties are trying to get India to buy more weapons, especially fighter jets, from American defense contractors but neither candidate has an edge on this truly bipartisan wishlist.  India is just as happy to buy jets from the French or Russians.

Hate Crimes Legislation (Score: Obama)  Indian-Americans have been the victims of hate crimes across the country in recent times, and in this case there is a clear-cut winner.  Obama has been a champion of this legislation, and has expanded it to include the LGBT community.  Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan have both been against legislation that further protects minority victims of hate crimes, in their home states as well as while campaigning on the national stage.

Nuclear Issues  (Score: Obama)    A high-level State Department official told me last year that US policy toward India’s nuclear weapons program has not changed from Bush to Obama, and Bush was universally (and unexpectedly) seen as a very good friend to India on nuclear partnership.  Obama and Secretary Clinton have in fact tried hard to push India to use American companies as suppliers for its nuclear program in deals that would benefit both sides, while India’s internal politics have slowed the prospects.  Meanwhile, India and the United States have experienced a great deal of friction related to Iranian oil coming to India, with plenty of back and forth about sanctioning India for continuing imports at a high level, and this helped stall the nuclear negotiations too.  This has been the biggest bugbear in US-India relations in the last decade.  In summer 2012 the two nations finally came to an uneasy truce on this issue, with India taking steps to reduce oil imports under pressure from the Obama administration.

Romney suggests he would be even tougher on nations importing oil from Iran than Obama has been.  That would include India and would probably result in a harsher line against India.  Meanwhile, Romney’s advisers have said that he would continue to push cooperation with India on its nuclear ambitions rather than going against them, just as Obama has done.  This is not surprising considering that it was a Republican president, Bush who initiated this framework.

Diplomacy & Personal Affinity (Score: Obama)  It was unclear in 2008 how good a friend Obama would be towards India.  However, he did visit India while a candidate, and even carried a Hanuman trinket in his pocket which caused millions of Hindus to view him in a favorable light.  Meanwhile, he has dispatched delegations from State and Defense repeatedly to India, with Secretaries Clinton and Gates notably making repeated stops there.  Bilateral strategy sessions are now annual.  Relations have been good aside from the battles over Iranian oil.  Manmohan Singh was the recipient of the Obama White House’s first state dinner- marred as it was by the sari-clad party crasher.    The Obamas also had a productive three-day trip to India that brought trade deals, and promises to endorse India for the UN’s Security Council and Nuclear Suppliers Group.  These are as concrete as any steps a US president can take to support India in the diplomatic world.  Obama is also a noted admirer of Mahatma Gandhi.

Candidate Romney has traveled to places like England and Israel but did not include India on his itinerary.  He speaks highly of India and Indian-Americans in very general terms, but there is no notable mention of it in his foreign policy speeches or his platform.  The Republican party did have a Sikh invocation during the Republican National Convention this year, with respect shown to the slaughter in Wisconsin.   However, one aspect of Romney’s foreign policy should give Indians pause: he uses hegemonic language and American exceptionalism as the basis of his worldview, which is in conflict with India’s recognition of today’s world as a multi-polar concert.

In the final analysis, Obama has more of a record in this area to stand on, and one issue where he has significant daylight with his opponent, on hate crimes.  However, India can expect a Romney administration to be largely as cooperative and friendly as Obama’s has been toward Indian interests.  But there is a metric which seems to capture the spirit of the times better than any other: Indian-Americans in polls indicate they will vote for Obama by a 3-1 margin.

Gandhi Statue in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

Mahanth S. Joishy is Editor of usindiamonitor.com

When did Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi transform from being just a regular guy to becoming the Mahatma (“Great Soul”), a transcendental figure of the 20th century?  The accumulated experiences of any man’s life are often credited with forming his character, some mysterious combination of nature and nurture. However, I would pinpoint a particular moment in time: the day he was forcibly kicked off the first-class train compartment by police at the Pietermaritzburg train station in South Africa, where Gandhi was traveling for work.  The date was June 7, 1893, and Gandhi was violently pushed out when he refused to disembark willingly because he wasn’t white, though he had a duly purchased first-class fare.  This incident burned within Gandhi and helped turn him on to the community organizing and rabble-rousing that would initialize the path toward becoming the founding father of the modern Indian nation.  Until then, he was a mediocre young lawyer at best and had led an unremarkable life by all accounts, including his own.

Much less discussed is the American connection at that fateful time, which Gandhi has recounted in his seminal autobiography, An Autobiography or the Story of My Experiments with Truth.  Gandhi was in serious need of help after a restless night at the cold station once the train had left.  He finally caught a different train to Pretoria the next day but was beaten en route by yet another railway guard who did not appreciate an Indian sitting in his compartment.  There was nobody there to receive a fatigued Gandhi at the destination.  Gandhi was concerned about how to find lodging in a strange new place in a foreign country, a highly prejudiced town that would not admit Indian guests at its inns.  And then came a semblance of humanity from an unexpected source.  To wit:

The station became clear of all passengers. I gave my ticket to the ticket collector and began my inquiries. He replied to me courteously, but I saw that he could not be of any considerable help. But an American Negro who was standing nearby broke into the conversation.

‘I see,’ said he, ‘that you are an utter stranger here, without any friends. If you will come with me, I will take you to a small hotel, of which the proprietor is an American who is very well known to me. I think he will accept you.’  I had my own doubts about the offer, but I thanked him and accepted his suggestion. He took me to Johnson’s Family Hotel. He drew Mr. Johnson aside to speak to him, and the latter agreed to accommodate me for the night, on condition that I should have my dinner served in my room. ‘I assure you,’ said he, ‘that I have no colour prejudice. But I have only European custom, and, if I allowed you to eat in the dining-room, my guests might be offended and even go away.’ ‘Thank you,’ said I, ‘even for accommodating me for the night. I am now more or less acquainted with the conditions here, and I understand your difficulty. I do not mind your serving the dinner in my room. I hope to be able to make some other arrangement tomorrow.’

I was shown into a room, where I now sat waiting for the dinner and musing, as I was quite alone. There were not many guests in the hotel, and I had expected the waiter to come very shortly with the dinner. Instead Mr. Johnston appeared. He said: ‘I was ashamed of having asked you to have your dinner here. So I spoke to the other guests about you, and asked them if they would mind your having your dinner in the dining-room. They said they had no objection, and that they did not mind your staying here as long as you liked. Please, therefore, come to the dining-room, if you will, and stay here as long as you wish.’ 

I thanked him again, went to the dining-room and had a hearty dinner.

The anecdote is an interesting one for several reasons.  Here was a nameless African American, unquestionably more disenfranchised by his home society and his adopted one in South Africa than Indians were, offering Gandhi an unsolicited helping hand both at the station and on his behalf at the hotel.  Gandhi was himself incredulous.  It wasn’t a South African white or black, or even another Indian who came forward.  Then there is the white Mr. Johnson who took Gandhi in despite the town’s backward customs and at the risk of losing business.  This same Mr. Johnson even felt so bad about barring Gandhi from his dining room that he took the initiative to ask his other guests to allow an Indian to dine near them.

All of these small acts of kindness may seem insignificant to some, a coincidence of minor gestures at best.  But I view them as incidents that just may have restored a little bit of Gandhi’s faith in conscience and humanity during a time of hardship that transformed him into a different person.  That he recalled the story 16 years later and chose to immortalize it in his book means that he never forgot.   It should make Americans incredibly proud of the decency displayed by two of our people in a foreign land in 1893 while others stood by.  Add Gandhi’s intense study of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and other American thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries and theory has matched practice.  We can start to see the outline of a bridge between two societies forming.

Gandhi of course returned the favor in spades as one of the spiritual and intellectual guiding forces of the US civil rights movement several decades after his death.

courtesy The New Yorker

Mahanth S. Joishy is Editor of usindiamonitor.com

The  fatal shooting of innocent people at the Sikh temple (Gurdwara) in Oak Creek, Wisconsin brought to the surface deep underlying tensions in American society. They may normally simmer below the surface, but last week we saw the worst of what can happen in modern America when latent hatred comes to a boil.  The incident also brought out the best in people, as evidenced by the heroism displayed by some of the victims and the local police.

The shootout resulted in the death of gunman Wade Michael Page.  With him perish hopes of ascertaining exactly what motivated his murderous mind, and whether he was sane or not.  We are left to debate and conjecture, but his life does offer up some clues.  We can be sure of the following: (1) It was a simple, lone act of terrorism (political killing of innocent people).  (2)  It was motivated by some combination of racism and religious bigotry.  (3)  Holmes had military training, and (4) known Ne0-Nazi leanings, including his role in a skinhead rock band.

It is early yet, and much evidence is to emerge, but below are the critical issues that will be in the news and part of political discourse in the weeks to come.

Yet Another American Shooter Re-Loads  Seven more dead, and others badly injured.  Gabby Giffords has not even recovered from being shot point-blank in Tucson last year.  The killing spree in a Colorado theater during the opening weekend of The Dark Knight Rises is barely out of the news cycle or our nation’s collective conscience.  And here is another fresh wound to deal with.  After years of watching shootings in places like schools (Columbine), post offices (Royal Oak), army bases (Fort Hood), universities (Virginia Tech), parking lots (Tucson), front yards (Beltway sniper), and now a theater and a place of worship, we need to confront this demon.   We need to admit there is something very wrong with us as a country.  Many are quick to attack video games, movies, poverty, or the ease of buying guns.  But none of these are unique to America, and we have lately had more of a history of mowing down random, innocent people in public places than most civilized nations.  Sociologists and other researchers need to isolate what this problem is.  This is a type of exceptionalism we cannot be proud of.

To Sikh or Not to Sikh   Page almost certainly confused the Sikh community of Oak Ridge with the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, or other militant types that we are at war with in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia.  Sadly, he would not be the first.  The post-9/11 period has been a bad one for American Sikhs, who were targeted and even killed because some are too ignorant to know the difference, and so zealous with hate that they would take the law into their own hands.   Sikhism is of course a completely different religion than Islam, and the two have very separate histories though they share a legacy of wearing turbans- along with many other groups among the world’s people.  We can only hope that a silver lining from this horrendous event will be a sorely needed increase in awareness of who Sikhs are, and how they contribute to the American fabric with the larger Indian community.  Unfortunately, our education system and media have done a poor job of educating the public in this area so far.

What to do about Hate Crimes  Hate crimes and wider, non-criminal discrimination are very real in today’s America, and can occur against gays, women, or ethnic and religious minorities.  Hate crimes legislation has always been controversial because conservative politicians have taken issue with a higher level of prosecution for criminals based on the discrimination motive, which can sometimes be difficult to ascertain or prove.  This is a legitimate gripe.  But it is now the law of the land, and prosecutors can use discrimination to help cement their cases.  Obama clearly elucidated the more liberal stance when he signed a bill that expanded the law to include sexual orientation.  “This law strengthens the protections against crimes based on the color of your skin, the faith in your heart, or the place of your birth. You understood that we must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones, but to break spirits — not only to inflict harm, but to instill fear.”   If there was ever such a case in history, we think Oak Creek fits the bill.

Legislation aside, the government cannot much regulate what is in people’s minds.  What children are taught by families and in schools, by blogs, militias, movies or Neo-Nazi rock bands are all protected by the freedom of expression that the government guarantees- and a freedom that ironically some Americans seem to want to take away from groups like Sikhs.  We can only hope that in the free flow of ideas, the message of harmony and peace will overcome the forces for hate and violence.

Gun Control  A predictable result of every front-page shootout is an outpouring of support for gun control laws at the grassroots level and by liberal politicians, mayors, and law enforcement.  Then the backlash by the NRA and proud gun owners about how it’s people that kill people, not guns.  Firearm enthusiasts also like to point out that common, upstanding citizens with guns could have counter-attacked against the shooter and minimized the casualties.   When all the dust settles and the debate cools down, nothing significant changes in gun control laws.  This has been the case for decades.

These debates often do not take into account the larger political and historical landscape.  Decade after decade, century after century, the right to bear arms has continued to march forward in the United States with only small hindrances, and has been vehemently protected by a vocal minority.  We live in a society with far more guns than people, and most people do not own guns.  This does not include the millions of arms our military establishment wields around the world.  As long as we continue to elect politicians who must bend over backwards to prove they are pro-gun rights, the debates will continue to be empty ones.

Supply and Demand  Not that higher regulation of guns would be the magic bullet, either.  Enforcement is not easy.  The United States currently has a prohibition on entire classes of drugs, and this has hardly dented the illegal drug trade.  Guns are quite easy to obtain without license as well, as there are simply overwhelming volumes of illegal inventory floating around.  Many gun shows and gun stores have also proven lax time and again in following regulations- hardly a surprise when the profit motive is enticing enough to cut corners.

Ultimately, the shooter problem appears to be something we must force ourselves to become used to.  Americans might have to accept that burying their innocent family members and friends is part of the “new normal,” because we are a society that allows deranged gunmen to shoot into random crowds again, and again, and again without anyone having a viable solution.  I dread the day when we won’t even bother printing these incidents on the front page any more.

CASE IN POINT:  Three more die today near Texas A&M University in a shootout.

And another video about Americans job-seeking in India.  The points brought up here highlight the entrepreneurial energy I found in India:

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and friends, please go somewhere to play so the adults can do their jobs.   We have enough real and difficult problems in America that our government, which unfortunately includes you, should be working on.  Your letter/attempt at character assassination of State Department Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin shows thinking that is completely decoupled from reality and astounding for its level of ignorance and xenophobia.  This letter should have been express-mailed to your therapists, not printed on U.S. Congress stationery.

Let’s call a spade a spade.  We all know what this slander against Huma Abedin is really about: racism and anti-Muslim sentiment against a brown female with a South Asian background for being successful in the US foreign policy establishment.  Shame on you.  I would take the background check conducted by the State Department over your ranting any day.  No, Abedin is not a national security threat or part of any conspiracy.   Quite the opposite, she is serving our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with distinction.  We somehow need you to “get right” with this fact.  Wrap your head around it.

It is YOU who present the bigger national security threat than poor Abedin.  YOU are the ones driving a wedge between folks using breathless language, riling up your bases shamelessly for the votes and to grab the headlines.  This is bush-league, sewage-drenched politics at its very worst.  You are the ones angering millions of Americans, Indians, Pakistanis, and Indo-Pakistani-Americans like Abedin with irresponsible rhetoric.  You are trying to pit your constituents against immigrants and vice versa.   Bravo to John McCain who has showed some spine by blasting his own party for their stupidity.

I have a response to your letter right here.  It may be one of the few things Indians and Pakistanis will ever agree on.

(I was going to make an Anthony Weiner joke here but felt it wasn’t in the spirit of the proceedings).

*******

7/18/12

Hon. Representatives Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Thomas Rooney, and Lynn Westmoreland

Congress of the United States, Washington DC, 20520

Dear Congresspeople:

Since you seem to not have gotten the memo, or the memo before that, or let’s say any memo since circa 1952, I’ve decided to write it out for you.

-  It is the year 2012 now.

- Brown women are allowed to get fancy titles in the workplace these days.

- Not every brown American is a national security threat, some sort of spy sent here to infiltrate the government.  Most of us love America just as much as you do, and all of us know more about America than you do.

- OMG.  We have cool stuff called religious freedom and freedom of expression in America, and it’s protected by the law, like in the Constitution, and stuff.

- You guys are all over the shop.  How does Palestine policy get into your letter?  You are starting to go after assorted types of brown people indiscriminately and desperately.

- I guess you aren’t a New Yorker like Abedin, or me.  New York and other big cities are these neat experiments in how people from all nations and faiths can share neighborhoods and raise families next to each other.  New Yorkers and Americans of all stripes will ALWAYS have the back of people like Abedin who are the target of discrimination.  Reminder: it’s 2012 now.  And New York is what all of America will look like in 2040.

- I hope the State Department’s Deputy Inspector General people, the Department of Justice people and the Homeland Security guys recycle your letter after they’re done laughing.  It’s better for the environment that way.

Respectfully Yours,

usindiamonitor.com

We thought it was very cool to find UC Berkeley students starting a new green agricultural business in Oakland instead of joining the ranks of drones at software companies, financial engineering firms, or consultancies which are more ubiquitous throughout the Bay.  Like their mushroom starter kits, Back to the Roots is growing and is now hiring for multiple positions.  We also wanted to get a sense of how this startup took a simple idea from a Berkeley science lecture and turned it into a national- and perhaps one day multinational- company.   Fortunately Nikhil was able to share his thoughts with us this week.  (And Nik, I got something for you on the green roof idea.)

The story of how your company started is very interesting. At what point in the process did you realize this would be a viable business model?

Arora: I’d have to say that the realization was a slow process, starting with the first successful bucket of mushrooms in Alex, my co-founder’s, fraternity kitchen. When we returned from spring break and found an overflowing bucket of mushrooms, we knew we were on to something. After we had support from Alice Waters of Chez Panisse, and the Berkeley Whole Foods, we realized it could absolutely be a viable business model and we had to go for it.

Most of us hear or read about hundreds of cool ideas every week but don’t do anything about them. Why did you make the transition from hearing about mushrooms growing in coffee grounds during a lecture to actually giving it a try?

Arora: We both felt somewhere in our hearts and minds, during those few seconds when the fact was brought up, that this had the possibility to not only be a successful business (not exactly sure how at that point!) and do good for the community at the same time. We both had passions for business, but I was also into environmentalism and Alex education; so this was the perfect chance to combine our passions for social justice and business!

Mushroom grower isn’t a traditional career path for Indian-American college students from UC-Berkeley. Did you face any resistance or ridicule from your community or elsewhere?

Arora: It’s definitely not a traditional career path for any student – Indian-American or not! I have been really fortunate to have amazing support from my family since Day 1- they were there from that first bucket, encouraging me to continue! I couldn’t have done this without them. There was definitely a ton of questions and doubt from some friends/others in the community, but luckily Alex and I had strong support from our closest friends and family who encourage us to continue!!

Do you think the business could expand to other countries, especially poor countries with food shortages such as in South Asia?

Arora: I do think the business can expand into other countries, and I hope eventually it does. Our main focus, though, is teaching people about growing their own, and inspiring them to do so. The mushroom kits represent an unlikely food source – waste – and they go to show that food can come from places where we least expect it. We don’t really expect the kits to solve food shortage problems, but we hope it inspires people to look for food in unlikely places and learn about growing their own instead of relying on others for food. That way, every one can be sustainable in that they are taking care of themselves and in that they are taking care of Earth and growing naturally.

Are there are other types of produce that might grow in coffee grounds and are you looking to expand into those? Or just stick with the ‘shrooms?

Arora: Other types of mushrooms can be grown in coffee grounds, but otherwise produce really needs natural soil. We are creating a new box that will have seeds embedded in the cardboard so that once a family is done with the box, they can plant the cardboard and grow a new garden with tomato, basil, and parsley. We’re also looking into creating other growing systems for vegetables and herbs.

Can mushroom growing be incorporated into green roofs?

Arora: Absolutely – if anyone is interested, shoot us an email!

What is it about coffee grounds that makes them so conducive to growing mushrooms? Are there other types of recycled material that might work as well?

Arora: Coffee grounds work really well because they’re rich in cellulose, already sterilized through the brewing process from cafes, and have the right moisture content needed to grow the mushrooms.  Other waste streams could be used – we really suggest reading Paul Stamet’s book on how to grow gourmet mushrooms – he talks about other mediums as well in there.

Can you describe the role of social networking in your business?

Arora: Back to the Roots is very active on Facebook with our One Photo, One Kit campaign. Social networking in this sense has been a great way to spread our mission of making food personal again because we can really engage with our customers and hear about their interests. For every photo that someone posts on our Facebook of their kit, we’ll donate a kit and sustainability curriculum to a school of their choice. We’ve reached over 10,000 kids this way, and we just crossed 10,500 fans on Facebook so we can’t wait to reach more! The mushroom kit timelapse video on Youtube also just crossed 2 million views, which is another neat measurement of interest in the kit and mushroom growing.

Are you concerned about competitors or copycats?

Arora:  Nope – we’re more excited to be at the forefront of a movement and encourage all to grow their own food at home! It’s been fun to develop a new product and take it to the mainstream. We also do have a patent on our design of the Mushroom Garden. Since our product is the first one of its kind – grows quickly, is small enough to be put on the kitchen counter – we’re not too worried about copycats or competitors because we’ve really dug in and built the first niche for the product. We also have a patent on the design of our mushroom kit. We’re also starting to expand our products, so even if someone else puts out a similar product, we’ll still have other offerings.

What advice would you give to would-be entrepreneurs based on your experience?

Arora: Hustle, Passion, and Focus. Starting something takes more work than you can ever imagine – be ready and excited for it. Be ready to live and breathe your product or idea – genuine passion is the best sales pitch possible – people will be attracted to that more so than your product. Focus: pick one thing and do it better than anyone else in the world – success will come quickly from that intense focus!

Ever had any luck foraging for wild mushrooms?

Arora: Surprisingly, no. That’s why we create Mushroom Gardens – for people like us who just want an easy, safe way to eat fresh mushrooms! We’re the first to admit, we wouldn’t feel comfortable foraging a wild mushroom without a foraging expert near by!

What’s your personal favorite way to prepare mushrooms?

Arora:  Mushroom tacos! Our warehouse manager – Osvaldo – is an incredible chef and he cooks up a delicious Argentian oyster mushroom taco recipe – I could eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner!

Excuse me while I go make myself a batch…

Conducted by Editor Mahanth S. Joishy