India-US News and Discussion

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 23 Jun 2010 04:42

A mayor is a very powerful position in US unlike India.
A mayor in his/her own city is 4th in precedence after President/VP, and Governor.
That means if there is a meeting between H Clinton/R Gates and a Mayor, the Mayor would sit at Head of table in his city.

Since in some bay area cities Mayor is by rotation, its relatively easy for a hard core Indic to become Mayor and be an Indic role model for all Indian-Americans i.e. a new age Vivekananda.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jun 2010 05:14

ramana wrote:There is deep irony that Nikki Haley, the daughter of immigrants is poised to become the Governor of a bible belt stronghold state.

ABC news had a segment on her this PM. Showed her Sikh parents (mentioned she grew up with meditation, etc), but that she is a convert and a member of the Tea Party ................. and of course, supported by Pallin. Exposure of her supposed two affairs seem to have actually given her a boost in local polls. Hey, Bobby seems to be doing well.

amdavadi · Post by **amdavadi** » 23 Jun 2010 05:47

Nikki Haley wins GOP governor's runoff...Yahoo headline

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Jun 2010 07:42

lsunil · Post by **lsunil** » 23 Jun 2010 10:26

Abhijit wrote:bj were to be a shaivite and had suddenly turned vaishnavite

Abhijit wrote:I submit that converting to xtianity is also (almost) equally indic because our ancestors allowed it and we can't turn that clock back.

Those are contradictory sentences. We agree that being under the indic fold will lead us to dharma. But you are assuming that dharmic and abrahamic(christianity) are the same when they are not.

Abhijit wrote:as long as they do not actively denigrate us pagans/heathens for our beliefs, or they do not actively oppose INDIAN interests, i would rather give them a benefit of doubt.

As someone who has hindu and christian parents and as someone who has close knits with either side of the communities, i can tell you that you are wrong.

Christians tend to live in isolation and it has something to do with self-loathness. They isolate themselves because they know they are rejected and not because they want to distance themselves from non-christian. Most urban one's are new converts, 1-2 generations old. And all of them have stories to tell. The miracle healing stories. These stories are what keeps them strong. Most of them regularly attend feats or go around visiting community members and start yapping out miracle stories.

Isolation gives hate and there is a lot of hate in them about hindus. I could detail them but it won't look good. I know you are looking at the christian wives wearing bindi's and saries and mangalsutras but that is just to mingle with the rest or some resistance to an extreme change from the roots. All i can say is that indian christianity is not indic. Actually, it is anti-indic.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 23 Jun 2010 10:35

If these people have made a personal choice why can't we just accept it and move on? If people see their election as a sign of the advancement of Indians in the US, they have the right to their opinion, if others want to think they are self-hating Indians, it is their right. This is even more absurd considering that neither BJ/NH have actually made any comments to show that they are antagonistic to India.

amdavadi · Post by **amdavadi** » 23 Jun 2010 10:40

NH today refer to herself as "minority women" in her speech.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 23 Jun 2010 10:45

ISunil's post contains information that is consistent with my experience. That Jesus worked a miracle for a Hindu proving he is stronger than the 3 trillion godlings of the Hindu pantheon. However I do not know if Xtians are anti=Indic....I have no reason to assume so. But I would be very interested in further insights.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 23 Jun 2010 11:06

lsunil wrote: As someone who has hindu and christian parents and as someone who has close knits with either side of the communities, i can tell you that you are wrong.

Christians tend to live in isolation and it has something to do with self-loathness. They isolate themselves because they know they are rejected and not because they want to distance themselves from non-christian. Most urban one's are new converts, 1-2 generations old. And all of them have stories to tell. The miracle healing stories. These stories are what keeps them strong. Most of them regularly attend feats or go around visiting community members and start yapping out miracle stories.

Isolation gives hate and there is a lot of hate in them about hindus. I could detail them but it won't look good. I know you are looking at the christian wives wearing bindi's and saries and mangalsutras but that is just to mingle with the rest or some resistance to an extreme change from the roots. All i can say is that indian christianity is not indic. Actually, it is anti-indic.

Maybe this is only one side of the story (I'm sure there are many well-adjusted Christians, too). But still, it is a valid side of the story.

Dharmics need to be more welcoming towards people who have been "lead astray".

Basically, the civilization went through a bad patch, and there was a lot of ignorance and darkness on all sides. There are stories of people being excommunicated for "crimes" as trivial as eating "foreign food" such as bread!

The factors which are leading more people in western countries to turn to Eastern philosophies will also be the cause of "lost sheep" returning to the fold in India.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 23 Jun 2010 17:16

I don't want to get into trouble with admins, but let me tell you this. I grew up in different Cantonment areas of Bangalore, and hung around with a lot of Indian Christians. Here are my observations: 1) Indian Christians are very deeply wedded to their faith; in other words, they are Christian first and Indians next. Of course, being culturally Indian (I mean it terms of mores & customs in raising kids, attitudes towards sex etc), one may not see this explicitly. I don't find anything particularly unpatriotic about this; after all, many Hindus are deeply wedded to their faith too, but since India is the birthplace of Hinduism, being Indian is just a natural corollary for a devout Hindu; no extra effort is needed. The next issue troubles me: 2) If you hang around with Indian Christains long enough, you will gather that most of them (given that most them are devout) have utmost contempt and disdain for Hindus; in fact many Christians see themselves as more modern, more western than atavistic Hindus. This attitude is what causes tensions to boil over from time to time.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Jun 2010 17:30

I knew of a Christian from Kerala, who used to study Yoga and Hindu scriptures. He told me, many were astonished, including Indian babus, when he told them what he does.

He had a very positive attitude towards Hinduism, Yoga, etc.

But I guess, he could be an exception. Even amongst the Hindus, only a minority study Dharma, so can't expect too many exceptions amongst Christians.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 23 Jun 2010 17:55

India and US should help Taiwan to develop Nuclear programmes in their country in case even arms to balance China as they tend to use proxy states to have nuclear sophistications. In future China will provide even Myanmar with a nuclear arm and also the North Korea which is quiet dangerous as the North Korean courageouly sunk the South koreans ship recently. It is not only for defence systems but also to be provocative in their ways pointing you cannot do anything with me though I will be naughty. The biggest problem for the next few decades will be Chinese red army not the chinese people. I hear that Hong Kong is gearing upto subversive with their democratic intentions and so on with Chinese. It is essential that Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are also counteractive against Chinese red army expansionist propaganda.

We need more from China than a flexible renminbi
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fcc39500-7d96 ... abdc0.html

Reassessing China's Role in North Korea
http://www.cfr.org/publication/22482/re ... korea.html

U.S., China differ on nuclear posture
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/internati ... 447545.ece

China is key to nuclear conflict solution
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010 ... ution.html

It's time to stop the Myanmar junta's nuclear ambitions
http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/ar ... 02/6220317

China's Hu heads to G20 amid pressure over yuan, N.Korea
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... yT70YXKB_g

China is terrorising the world with two things - first nuclear spreading without democratic and protective intentions
second it helps terror nations to obtain nuclear arms. Or use a threat of supplying a way to put pressure on US to achieve its ends.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 23 Jun 2010 18:07

CRamS wrote:The next issue troubles me: 2) If you hang around with Indian Christains long enough, you will gather that most of them (given that most them are devout) have utmost contempt and disdain for Hindus; in fact many Christians see themselves as more modern, more western than atavistic Hindus. This attitude is what causes tensions to boil over from time to time.

Let's keep in mind that there are many Hindus, too, who are "Hindus by accident". These kind of "modern" folks get undermined when they see the post-modern intellectual class of the US and Europe turn towards eastern philosophies.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 Jun 2010 20:17

CRamS wrote:I don't want to get into trouble with admins, but let me tell you this. I grew up in different Cantonment areas of Bangalore, and hung around with a lot of Indian Christians. Here are my observations: 1) Indian Christians are very deeply wedded to their faith; in other words, they are Christian first and Indians next. Of course, being culturally Indian (I mean it terms of mores & customs in raising kids, attitudes towards sex etc), one may not see this explicitly. I don't find anything particularly unpatriotic about this; after all, many Hindus are deeply wedded to their faith too, but since India is the birthplace of Hinduism, being Indian is just a natural corollary for a devout Hindu; no extra effort is needed. The next issue troubles me: 2) If you hang around with Indian Christains long enough, you will gather that most of them (given that most them are devout) have utmost contempt and disdain for Hindus; in fact many Christians see themselves as more modern, more western than atavistic Hindus. This attitude is what causes tensions to boil over from time to time.

I agree with this. I had one experience at the age of 15 when the principal of my school a Kerala Christian mocked at me, Hindus and yoga asanas. He did this privately in his chamber only to me. That is still in my memory and that set me up for life to explore the world why people hate others.

PS: My Mlore Catholic classmates helped me out and they were my closest buddies in school for over 10 years. Their father was a retired jawan from the Indian army and they used to tell me stories about the Indian Pakistan wars of 1965/1971. Even in college my other close friends were the Syrians.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 23 Jun 2010 20:50

Rod Blagojevic Ambassador to India

I suppose he'd fit right in and learn an entirely new level of corruption in Delhi.

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 23 Jun 2010 21:15

So we have eventually come around to bashing Indian Christians living in India? Wonderful. B Raman was not too far off the mark after all.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 23 Jun 2010 22:12

CRamS wrote: A liberal that I particularly like, and yet to find any major gripe with, is Rachel Maddow of Maddow of MSNBC, she is brainy, she is awesome.

She is truly awesome, Keith Olberman has become a pain in the neck now, he was good during the campaign. Big Ed is just too noisy. She has both beauty and brains.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 23 Jun 2010 22:17

Haley, Jindal and America's new religious litmus test

But listen to the buzz around Haley's improbable rise and Jindal's electoral success, and what is abundantly clear is that a politically post-racial America does not mean that a pluralistic America has emerged.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 23 Jun 2010 22:27

And in their absolute denial of their religious heritage, they deny something far greater: a society that privileges pluralism, that no one religion has the monopoly on Truth, and that Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Pagans, agnostics and atheists may invest differently towards the afterlife, but can live in this life with all of the humanity, generosity and yes, frailty of any of those that presume to lead our states or nation today.

Patent nonsense, truth is absolute and it ain't wearing a turban.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 23 Jun 2010 22:29

Nandu wrote:So we have eventually come around to bashing Indian Christians living in India? Wonderful. B Raman was not too far off the mark after all.

Although its not good to generalize about individuals, it must be recognized that religions are used as geopolitical tools by elites.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 23 Jun 2010 22:35

SwamyG wrote:
CRamS wrote: A liberal that I particularly like, and yet to find any major gripe with, is Rachel Maddow of Maddow of MSNBC, she is brainy, she is awesome.
She is truly awesome, Keith Olberman has become a pain in the neck now, he was good during the campaign. Big Ed is just too noisy. She has both beauty and brains.

I don't if you know it, but she is gay

. I didn't know it for a long time.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 23 Jun 2010 22:37

Your gaydar needs an upgrade.

She has a very large GCS.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 23 Jun 2010 22:38

Nandu wrote:So we have eventually come around to bashing Indian Christians living in India? Wonderful. B Raman was not too far off the mark after all.

You are right, we are going down a dangerous path. All said & done, Christians, like Hindus, have their prejudices, and in practical terms, they are as loyal citizens as anybody else; sans extreme nut cases like John Dayal or Dilip D'Souza who call for foreign intervention to 'save' some souls in India.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 23 Jun 2010 23:41

CRamS wrote:I don't if you know it, but she is gay . I didn't know it for a long time.

How can you not know it

? For some one to be so perspective in writing those 9 points you are...... just kidding. When you like or hate someone, the first thing you do is "google" them out

I used to listen to her on the radio before Keith "pompous" Olberman orchestrated her entry into MSNBC.

>>>>Your gaydar needs an upgrade.

She has a very large GCS.
Good one......

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 24 Jun 2010 00:05

Karna_A wrote:
Ameet wrote:Bay area is the only area in US that a hard core Indic can become successful in Politics without hiding behind a Christian gown.

There are exceptions; google up Satveer Chaudhary

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 24 Jun 2010 00:51

US troops don't like being restricted from using air/artillery support in fight against insurgents. Apparently, the restriction is to limit civilian casualties. But the GIs being used to firepower don't like the restrictions.

Compare that to our IA/BSF/CRPF forces.

General faces unease from 'handcuffed' troops

...
The doctrine, which has been supported by both the Bush and Obama administrations, rests on core assumptions, including that using lethal force against an insurgency intermingled with a civilian population is often counterproductive.
...
...
Since General McChrystal assumed command, he has been a central face and salesman of this idea, and he has applied it to warfare in a tangible way: by further tightening rules guiding the use of Western firepower — airstrikes and guided rocket attacks, artillery barrages and even mortar fire — to support troops on the ground.
...
..
The rules have shifted risks from Afghan civilians to Western combatants. They have earned praise in many circles, hailed as a much needed corrective to looser practices that since 2001 killed or maimed many Afghan civilians and undermined support for the American-led war.

But the new rules have also come with costs, including a perception now frequently heard among troops that the effort to limit risks to civilians has swung too far, and endangers the lives of Afghan and Western soldiers caught in firefights with insurgents who need not observe any rules at all.
...
...
Now, with fire support often restricted, or even idled, Taliban fighters seem noticeably less worried about an American response, many soldiers and Marines say. Firefights often drag on, sometimes lasting hours, and costing lives. The United States’ material advantages are not robustly applied; troops are engaged in rifle-on-rifle fights on their enemy’s turf.
...
...
Several infantrymen have also said that the rules are so restrictive that pilots are often not allowed to attack fixed targets — say, a building or tree line from which troops are taking fire — unless they can personally see the insurgents doing the firing.

This has lead to situations many soldiers describe as absurd, including decisions by patrol leaders to have fellow soldiers move briefly out into the open to draw fire once aircraft arrive, so the pilots might be cleared to participate in the fight.
...
...
Complaints about how they are allowed to fight are another matter and can be read as a sign of deeper disaffection and strains within the military over policy choices. One Army colonel, in a conversation this month, said the discomfort and anger about the rules had reached a high pitch.

“The troops hate it,” he said. “Right now we’re losing the tactical-level fight in the chase for a strategic victory. How long can that be sustained?”
...
...

In J&K, encounters lasts days sometimes, all because IA doesn't want too much collateral damage, and IA itself suffering in the process.

God bless the IA!

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 24 Jun 2010 01:04

General McChrystal out
IMO it is very very wise descsion by Obama. General are to stay under civilian control. Biggest threat for democracy are overconfident generals. I remmember that before 1971 war Mrs Gandhi made sure that Mac is not upto something else.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 24 Jun 2010 01:42

amdavadi wrote:NH today refer to herself as "minority women" in her speech.

She is still a racial minority (though part of christian majority).

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 24 Jun 2010 02:44

This is a good read: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa ... _mean.html on the discussion about Indian Americans in American Politics.

teaser.

The Indian American community may be politically mature enough to realize that Indian Americans in high office necessarily serve their constituency and not the ethnic community from whence they came. But the need to "prove" religious fidelity can be unnerving. In 2007, when 358 Christian, Jewish and Muslim members of the U.S. House passed a non-binding resolution recognizing the historical significance of the Hindu and Sikh festival of Diwali, Jindal, then a member of the House, was one of only a handful of legislators that publicly abstained.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 24 Jun 2010 02:56

^^ The above article nails it. It's not the mere fact that BJ or NH decided to take up Christianity that galls... it's their public, deliberate, repeated, emphatic distancing of themselves from any connection to Dharmic roots. Dharma has become, quite literally, Untouchable to these two.

It stinks of Malik Kafur, the more-Islamist-than-Allauddin-Khilji brigand whose vicious depradations are still visible in the ruins of many of peninsular India's temples today. We don't have a bad opinion of converts per se... but we have had some terrible experiences with converts who had something to prove. And that's the category into which BJ and NH seem to have wilfully counted themselves.

Would you REALLY want to see Bobby Jindal or Nikki Haley as President of the United States? I think the soul-harvest of our benighted subcontinent would take of in full spate, if that happened.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 24 Jun 2010 03:45

Rudradev,

We Indians are so argumentative onlee. I don't what proof is needed if any to show that NH/BJ are loudly proclaiming, albeit without saying so, you Indians please leave us alone, we have nothing to do with you. Its the fault of many Indians, including here on BR who cling to them as "successful Indians". Just wait till NH become governer, DDM, including CNN-IBN, NDTV, Toilet will go into a tizzy. Thoo.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 24 Jun 2010 04:04

Yes it is a cultural characteristic of Indians, we are like this onlee.

Just as Indians don't know what 'no' means, especially coming from another Indian. They just can't read between the lines.

Anyway BJ, NH jai ho.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 24 Jun 2010 07:30

Some yappy thing at NPR has decided to disbelieve Nikki Haley's conversion and offer their own alternative theory:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/tellmemore/201 ... conversion

I don't know why the NPRs and the BBCs hire these yappy chatterati.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 24 Jun 2010 08:15

One of the founders of the HAF writes about Haley's and Jindal's deliberately public renunciations of their former religious identities. Worth reading:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa ... _mean.html

Likewise, as an atheist, I wonder why atheist candidates are similarly shunned.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 24 Jun 2010 09:03

Al Gore, former US Vice President and Democratic Presidential nominee, Nobel prize-winner, inventor of the internet and environmentalism, and soon to be former husband of Tipper, may have a little more on his resumé than we previously knew:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/po ... 4gore.html

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 24 Jun 2010 09:59

Yo Sanajy M we atheists are the bottom of the barrel. They used to burn people like us at the stake. The last atheist was only released from an English goal in the early 1800s. Thank ye but I will take me chances among the backward Hindoos.

Now about conversions of convenience- I have never met an Indian Christian who was not born a Christian, I have met only one Sikh who is a convert to Christianity.

But for some reason the the probability of a Politician in the US South converting is close to 1.Any wagers on the next candidate? Of course politicians may be especially atuned to the word of God, in order to be able to do good deeds.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 24 Jun 2010 11:33

Interview with Nell Irvin Painter , the author of "The History of White People" .

http://bigthink.com/nellirvinpainter

Ambar · Post by **Ambar** » 24 Jun 2010 12:21

CRamS wrote:Rudradev,

We Indians are so argumentative onlee. I don't what proof is needed if any to show that NH/BJ are loudly proclaiming, albeit without saying so, you Indians please leave us alone, we have nothing to do with you. Its the fault of many Indians, including here on BR who cling to them as "successful Indians". Just wait till NH become governer, DDM, including CNN-IBN, NDTV, Toilet will go into a tizzy. Thoo.

+1 on that! Who remembers the media frenzy on Indian news channels when Sunita Williams was on board the 'Discovery' ? I vividly remember folks in her father's ancestral town 'praying' to the heavens just before her launch.Ofcourse,the 'prayers' were just a show put on by folks to get on TV,and what's worse,those folks probably had never even heard of S.Williams before our media started frothing and raving about an 'Indian' on her way to the space.It also reminds me of an incident on one of the Indian messaging boards (that i would rather leave unnamed) ,there were plenty of desi members ranting about Indira Nooyi for calling herself an 'American' (and rightly so).

I guess our reaction is mostly down to the fact that we have so few 'heroes' to worship in our country (not counting millions of unsung heroes,including our brave women and men in uniform),and the propensity of mostly 'news hungry' 24/7 cable channels.

Btw,like many recent members,i have been a lurker on this forum for a while now.The sheer amount of information,immense knowledge and sense of history/current affairs is nothing short of brilliant albeit a tad overwhelming! Glad to be here!

lsunil · Post by **lsunil** » 24 Jun 2010 12:46

sanjaykumar wrote:However I do not know if Xtians are anti=Indic....I have no reason to assume so. But I would be very interested in further insights.

The indic concept of multiple gods is to enable co-existence and tolerance. I know buddhists from nepal living in my neighbourhood who celebrate durga puja in there houses every year. This is not new. We tolerate sikhism or buddhism as we know they are part of indics and as they too believe in multiple gods, however ridiculous that idea is but the intention of such a bizarre idea is known.

BUT the abrahamics bring a concept of monotheist beliefs which goes primarily against the indic beliefs of multiple gods. The current state is, well, "semi-religious". We need to continue moving on this state to reach a state of "non-religious" which is basically "dharma", the righteous duties known to everyone as opposed to the so-called righteous indoctrination of the books.

CRamS wrote:1) Indian Christians are very deeply wedded to their faith; in other words, they are Christian first and Indians next.

It is a basic trait of abrahamic religions, "allegiance". Go to any facebook profile of an indian christian and look at their favourite pages. It will have "i love jesus" or "im a christian" page in there somewhere. It is interesting to see where the indian converts are going. It is one of the reasons why im so interested in mizoram. In mainland india, the IC's go through several pit-stops because of other religions around them but slowly but gradually continue on there path. The mizo's and the naga's however had no hindrances and now that state is 95+% christian. Some of their urges include distancing themselves from anything "indic", a close relationship of the society with christian principles. They blame all ill's on non-christian and tribal beliefs. Recently, many families in mizoram refused to entertain the survey people because of this

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jun 2010 12:52

buddhism and sikhism are technically monotheistic but have a live and let live philopsophy with no urgency or takleef to prove others wrong or harvest more into the fold. in that they are very similar to hinduism. all indic religions are like that. so too I believe is the far east 'religions' like daoism, shintoism and confuscianism (though it glorifies the ruler/patriarch/chief and asks subjects to be obedient for the sake of society).
afaik judaism and the ancient celt, roman, greek religions were also not very expantionist - wars took place for material conquest not religious goals.