Amit writes:
you don't need to have brown skin to have empathy with India just as a brown skin does not automatically ensure empathy towards desh.
Obviously. Where did I state otherwise?
I was contradicting
your statement that Gupta was American and was treated as an American would have been.
I think not.
His position at McKinsey and his role in the liberalization of the Indian economy flowed out of his being an Indian and being perceived as an Indian
He identified culturally as Indian and had predominantly Indian friends.
Amit writes:
Coming back to Gupta and Rajaratnam, one needs to remember that they are at the end of the day citizens of their country and they made a conscious decision to play by the Amir Khan rules and they made a lot money by playing by those rules.
Again, that's a
very vague generalization. And somewhat inaccurate, in my humble opinion.
Rajaratham did
not play by the rules at all. He ran quite outside US law, overtly bribing people to reveal privileged information, using all kinds of shady methods.
It's arguable that one of his motivations for doing that was precisely because he, like Gupta, was a complete outsider and
wasn't getting treated like others in a place dominated by Anglos and Jews.
To make it really big, he was forced to play outside the rules.
But even if you don't buy that as a reason for what he did, it's certainly a reason for his fostering a separate South Asian financial network. He had to do that because he
wasn't part of the WASP or Jewish network.
A third aspect of his outsider status is that as an outsider to the Anglo world, his violation of the rules always had an element of "payback against the whites."
A final point against your argument that "he's just another American" Raj himself made very negative comments about the Indians who were part of his network, contrasting them unfavorably with Lankans. He not only saw himself as South Asian, as opposed to Westerners, he also saw himself as Lankan, as opposed to Indian....yet, he was also one of the first to help with Gupta's Indian philanthropy (whatever you think about that).
That's one reason Gupta turned to him for advice on finance.
So Raj's ethnicity (and identification as an ethnic) played a role in 4-5 different ways.
Same with Gupta.
Amit writes:
Gupta is a multi-millionaire - at least before his arrest. Rajaratnam of course is a billionaire. They made the money playing the system and got taken by the system.
No. They both
outwitted the system and were taken down for outwitting it.
Gupta was tripped up for allegedly insider-trading on Goldman Sachs, even though it's not clear he ever did.
What is clear is that Goldman Sachs is
in the business of insider trading, for a living! Yet, another Goldman director Byron Trott profited from insider knowledge and nothing was done about that.
He was American (WASP). So, again, the "they're all Americans" argument doesn't wash.
Amit writes:
I'd say if Gupta didn't have close friends in Goldman that's his bad, he shouldn't have been on the board. He certainly had a lot of good friends in McKinsey who helped him reach the top there.
Goldman's culture was a
trading culture and traders are the big shots (and the most corrupt players) in it.
Gupta wasn't a trader, but a manager. Traders and managers are at odds with each other in many ways on Wall Street.
Gupta was on the board of directors at Goldman only for a couple of years, long after Goldman's heyday, not in any way a part of the team like Blankfein.
So it's natural he didn't have friends there.
McKinsey is a consulting firm and deals with managers. It's a different world and Gupta had been in that world for decades.
Bottom line, the whole prosecution had nothing to do with his personal attributes. It had everything to do with his being Indian, being prominent in liberalizing India, and being Manmohan Singh's blue-eyed boy.
His prosecution was a clear, targeted attack on a certain sector of India.
Amit writes:
All this comes back to the point I'm making. Why is it that we expect that folks who have given up Indian citizenship and made a new life for themselves in another land (mind you I have no grudges against that) should somehow be beholden to Bharat and constantly show their gratitude?
Where did I say anything about people having to be beholden to Bharat?
However, if someone was educated in India at public expense, or very cheaply (in relative terms), and then made a lot of money, I don't see why there shouldn't be an expectation that he or she gives something back. It's the decent thing to do.
What's wrong with expecting people to behave decently to their own motherland?
Is that a crime?
Can't you safe-guard genuine American interests and also advance genuine Indian interests at the same time, without being unpatriotic or treacherous to either country?
Regarding Ulan Batori's point about the American India Foundation (I corrected the name in my earlier post, thanks), perhaps he is right and it's a purely self-interested group.
That's beside the point though, even though I think raising money for the earthquake victims is something that shows that Gupta was philanthropic, at least to some degree.
The main point is Gupta had a prominent
public persona as an Indian and was seen to have it.
He was a hero of the middle-class business school crowd.
That made him a target.
And
that's my thesis.
Not that he was a saint or a sinner or as good or bad as one of your friends, who's white.
His public persona is all I am discussing here and all I
can discuss.
His inner spiritual life, morals, and character are beyond my ability to judge. And yours too, I imagine.