The Great Indian Fraternity — Letter from an Indian to the Indian Diaspora
With the most cordial of salutations do I pen this rather involute letter to members of the Indian diaspora. Needless to say, I risk, by dint of this letter, earning caustic sneers. For who am I but an unknown blogger in a remote part of this nation; home to a sixth of humanity? How, pray, must my orison be audible amidst the wondrous din of this teeming mass of ebullience? With his rather prolix language, who would be interested enough in this insignificant person’s sermon?
Nonetheless, I must write, if only for my own satisfaction of having put forth a message. The air is redolent of anticipation, a sense of struggle and excitement as nations — their governments at any rate — await that momentous day of November when the next president of the United States would be announced to the world.
Courtesy of social media, people across barriers of nations and distances can communicate with one another in ways hitherto unprecedented. Yet, democratized as it has the public discourse — perhaps rather inordinately — one cannot help noticing the relative effacement of centrism and the increased segregation of people into the two famed camps of the Left and the Right. Not long ago, the image one would form upon audiovisual contact with the word, “president” was that of Ronald Reagan, and it was not inconceivable in those days of yore for healthy relations between those from opposite sides of the political spectrum. Could one, however, conceive a dedicated Democrat to be the best of friends with a dedicated Republican today? Could a dedicated supporter of the Indian National Congress look upon a dedicated supporter of the Bharatiya Janata Party as a fellow Indian deserving of his courtesy today? Such instances, it seems to me, are few and far between.
I, therefore, would like to appeal to the rational part of you; that bearer of logical compassion — a gleam of hope in this polarized world — as I deliver to you the following address.
Citizens as you are of your respective countries — democracies, I hope — it is not merely your prerogative but a national duty to vote for that candidate who your blend of reason and conscience deems fit. For the pure sake of demonstration, let me form the U.S. as the base of my contentions, with no disregard to our fellow Indian-origin citizens, resident in other nations.
With its rich cosmopolitanism, the United States is truly a microcosm of the world. It invites the best of the world to its land, who must invariably get involved in politics in one form or the other as must we all in our respective countries. Politics in the U.S. is characterized with aggregation and articulation of ethnic/national/religious interests in a substantial if not inordinate measure. For are we not often privy to the discourse that the Jews have a very strong influence in the political circles of the United States? On similar lines, the Muslims constitute a mesmeric ocean of votes by themselves, so do the Christians, and so do immigrants of particular nationalities regardless of religion. All of them vie for influence in circles of the U.S. government so as to promote their respective interests, and contribute to an increase of U.S. engagement with the countries of their origin. I put forth a genuine question sans malice, “Does the Indian diaspora contribute along such lines in any meaningful way?”
In the urban areas of the U.S. in particular, one is likely to have acquaintances across racial, religious, national and ethnic boundaries. Kushal Mehra who hosts The Cārvāka Podcast and Shambhav Sharma who hosts The Sham Sharma Show have both noted that there is, during such cosmopolitan conversations, a conspicuous absence of positive speech with regard to India by Indian-origin immigrants, whereas those of origins of other nations do not hesitate to offer positive points with regard to their respective countries of origin.
Eminent analyst Abhijit Iyer-Mitra describes this as the clinical inferiority complex of Indians vis-à-vis the West in general and the U.S. in particular. He also gave an example that I thought was interesting. The Government of India recently enacted the CAA; short for Citizenship Amendment Act, which seeks to grant citizenship to the persecuted minorities of India’s neighbouring theocracies, namely, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.
As Abhijit says, should the American city councils or the U.S. Senate pass resolutions condemning the CAA, the Indian diaspora, in an attempt to be “whiter than the white”, would be the first to say, “Condemnation does not suffice! Impose sanctions on India!” Such is often the ignominy a substantial percentage of the Indian diaspora feels with regard to its identity.
It is my personal understanding that the Americans do not look kindly upon individuals who bear no pride about their identity. The western society was built upon the celebration of individualism. Ergo, any attempt to forego one’s unique identity so as to “fit in” would be viewed by other Americans as a lack of self-respect.
I, therefore, would tell the Indians that you would be alienated on either side. The members of your fellow nationality and culture back in India would despise you for what they perceive as your hate against the Indian culture — gullible as they are — and the Americans would view you with contempt for your absence of self-respect.
Why is all of this relevant? It is relevant because self-respect forms the foundation of one’s endeavour to get increased U.S. government engagement with the country of one’s origin.
There is no other way to say it; Biden is no friend of India: Back in 1992, Joe Biden made sure that India does not get access to cryogenic tech for its space programme
Obviously, a 28-year-old stance alone cannot form the foundation to continue holding a grudge against Biden. But one would do well to not forget who his vice-presidential candidate is: Kamala Harris. The duo would inevitably have to pander to the influential Far-Left faction of its supporters which has allied itself with Islamists, and therefore be seen to do something that may well be detrimental to Indian interests. As I once wrote, the Far-Left would like nothing better than to see Prime Minister Modi evicted from power and the Muslims in India to take recourse to an armed revolt. It would rather see anarchy prevail than see an unapologetic Hindu wield power in India. It would not even appreciate seeing Muslims happy in India and living in harmony with their Hindu brethren. It thrives on conflict and conflict alone.
On the other hand, Trump’s relationship with India has been characterized with pecuniary interests and pragmatism. He does not concern himself with the nuances of the rise of Hindutva in India — something not quite as pernicious as the far-Left and liberal elite would like to depict. The worst one would see Trump do is to offer mediation between India and Pakistan with regard to Kashmir, but that would be an effort to be seen doing something for his own electoral benefit. Obviously, he cannot cater to Indian interests; his focus would be the U.S. But under Trump, it has by and large been a win-win situation for India and the United States.
So, which candidate in your view would focus what truly matters? Which candidate, in your view, would maintain a healthy relationship with your nation of origin?
As American citizens and Indian diaspora, it would be left to your prudence to find an equilibrium with the national interests of the U.S. and better engagement with your country of origin, should you so choose.
It is not uncommon to witness livid Indians castigating the Indian diaspora who choose to vote for a person the Indians believe to be inimical to India. They demand that the diaspora renounce its Indian heritage. That is unequivocally mean and ludicrous. Hindu heritage is not so flawed and bereft of strength as to rest on the fortunes of one presidential candidate. The very idea does not conform to reason for any culture to which diversity and liberty are both intrinsic. Some fine day in the future, India would have to deal with a Democrat in the Oval Office. What then? Trump cannot be president for ever, can he?
Someone may contend, “Why must engagement with countries of origin be a matter at all? Why not U.S. national interests alone?” Well, one must indeed not be compelled to concern oneself with engagements with foreign countries, and be made to feel ashamed for not being interested. Why must it be anyone’s business? But, given that the U.S. can engage with a radicalized nation such as Pakistan, courtesy of the remarkable synergy between the Pakistani diaspora and the Pakistani state, what harm could there be with a more profound and more positive engagement with a nation such as India, which is not hostile to the United States and whose citizens do not really hate America? India is a sizeable market for American businesses and technology and a good partner in terms of global security as evinced by the regularity of exercises with the U.S. Navy in the Indian Ocean. For all purposes, India is a friendly country; an ally. Would it not be a meaningful contribution on behalf of the Indian diaspora as opposed to the far-Left to be the centre of attention of the U.S. government so far as engagement with India is concerned?
I can certainly not compel you to vote for one candidate or the other, for that right is yours and yours alone. However, as is my prerogative, I can introduce an alternative viewpoint to you. Should you believe that Biden would be a better candidate, go ahead and vote for him by all means. It is nobody else’s business to judge you, me included. Your paradigm notwithstanding, however, I would at bare minimum implore you to consider the points I have so enumerated.
For eventually, the issue must transcend the barriers of political partisanship. The ideal endeavour is to ensure a congenial ambience with regard to India regardless of political party affiliations.
In a manner much similar, I would entreat the members of the Indian diaspora in other nations to shape a paradigm with reference to politics in a similar if not identical manner.
I do not exonerate the Government of India of its negligence of duty. To my mind, it has never been proactive enough to engage with the Indian diaspora in any country at all, and make them feel part of the Great Indian Fraternity, for lack of a better word. However, I am confident of the slowly yet steadily increasing awareness among the Indian citizens. I am hopeful of the state of affairs changing for the better; of Indians compelling Indian politicians to devise a comprehensive engagement programme with the diaspora.
Having thus entreated you all, I must now take your leave. Should one from the Indian diaspora come across this letter, I would certainly hope of him or her to share its goodwill with his or her compadres. I do not expect a response given my insignificance, but in that unlikely event, I would be most grateful.
