Probing Islamophobia and Indian-American Lobbying By Francis C. Assisi

Email this page Print this page

The article addresses the issue of the growing influence of the Indian-American lobbies and even more importantly their internal divisions, giving way to the constant formation of new groups. In the face of these divisions, the author shows how Islamophobia has provided a unifying force, whose roots can be found in the articulation between local and transnational factors: especially in the context of the (American) war against terrorism and the furthering of the India-Israel-US strategic partnership. No wonder a spokesperson for USINPAC was reported as saying: "The terrorism directed against India is the same as that directed against the United States and Israel."

Therwath reveals that fieldwork conducted in New York and in Washington “revealed virulent streaks of Islamophobia and hostility towards Pakistan amongst professional Indian American lobbyists.” The author adds: “While not absolutely systematic, this anti-Muslim sentiment has been prominent in most of the interviews that I conducted.”

The article goes on to claim that Islamophobia provides a unifying force for Indian Americans and their influential lobbies in Washington. Part of the reason, says Therwath, is due to the “leniency of many post-1965 migrants towards Hindu nationalist ideology’ along with their wish to ‘align with Jewish pressure groups in the context of the war against terrorism and to further the India-Israel-US strategic partnership.”

Therwath explains that the fact that South Asian Muslim minorities identify more with coreligionists than with people hailing from the same region of the world further emphasizes a largely anti-Muslim trend among Indian American lobbies. The post-9/11 environment in the US also seems to encourage this antagonism, but on the contrary, the Indo-Pakistani peace process, with its Confidence-Building Measures and ‘hands of friendship’, goes against this rhetoric.

Which are the Indian-American organizations involved in lobbying?

The author mentions the Association of Indians in America (AIA, founded in the mid-1960s), the National Federation of Indian Associations (NFIA, founded in 1971 under a different name), the National Association of Americans of Asian Indian Descent (NAAAID), the Indian American Forum for Political Education (IAFPE, also called the Forum), and the Indian American Center for Political Awareness (IACPA, 1993). In addition there are two major professional associations, the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origins (AAPI) and the Asian American Hotel Owners Association (AAHOA), which also devote considerable energy, time and financial resources to political lobbying.

The author however singles out the US-India Political Action Committee (USINPAC, created in 2001) as the latest addition in this mosaic of pressure groups. “For the media as well as for lobbyists belonging to other communities, USINPAC has now become the most important organization in terms of membership size (the paid membership amounts to 13,500 persons while another 27,000 are non-paying active members) and access to power centers (with gala events at the Capitol Hill and joint conferences with other influential groups). It even heralds itself as ‘the first and only Indian American political action committee registered with the Federal Election Commission’ and wished to project itself as the legitimate representative of Indian interests in the U.S., as the uncontested voice of a unified community. This, however, could not be further away from the truth.”

The author’s claim that “political lobbying was almost non-existent till the 1970s-1980s, when the Indian government started to instrumentalize its U.S.-based diaspora more aggressively and to hire private lobbyists to air its views in Washington” is questionable – especially in light of the documentation offered by Harold Gould in his recent book ‘Sikhs Swamis Students and Spies.’

Therwath points out: “Professional activists working directly with the India lobby also draw a sorry picture of the constant internal strife. For instance, a young 32-year old Indian Jewish migrant working for the American Jewish Committee (AJC), one of the most powerful ethnic lobbies in the U.S., is very harsh toward Indian Americans. This deeply patriotic senior fellow in charge of international affairs and Indian-Jewish American relations is extremely critical and says that ‘Indians suck you. You should never work for Indian Americans because they exploit you. They are very individualistic and very poor as a community. There is little close cooperation. Where there is success, there is ego and this is a problem.’”

Another divisive factor is age, says Therwath. "Now that two generations of Indian Americans are professionally and politically active. Significantly, virulent critics of USINPAC include the 39 year-old President of the Indian American Leadership Initiative (IALI), the 29 year-old Executive Director of the Indian American Center for Political Awareness (IACPA) and the 29 year-old founding President of the now defunct South Asians for Kerry (SAKI). They have repeatedly pointed out the generation gap between themselves, born and raised in America, and the ‘uncle and aunties [who] don’t believe in this South Asian thing’ and who cannot see beyond the India-Pakistan and Hindu-Muslim communal conflicts."

The USINPAC members that the author interviewed said they wish to defend India’s positions, oppose Pakistan and told traumatic tales of Islamic fundamentalism. "Although a few of them directly experienced Partition, they all seemed to carry its stigma and have an Indo-centric approach, by contrast with the younger America-bred activists who focused on South Asian cooperation and local community issues." Therwath suggests that the first generation Indian Americans are more prone to long-distance nationalism, and to what has been termed ‘Yankee hindtuva’ than the younger lobbyists. She argues too that the American political system provides "a safe haven for this long-distance religious nationalism."

Therwath points out that the Legislative Assistants of Congressman Joseph Crowley and Congressman Joe Wilson (the two co-chairs of the India Caucus) never mention and never work with Indian Muslims, while they maintain frequent contacts with the Indian American lobbies, which suggests the penetration of a largely Hindu-bias in the Indian American political representation. "However, the fear of the Muslim projected as the irredeemable Other could not have crept into the rhetoric of leading Indian American lobbyists had it not been supported by the American system, which increasingly considers ethno-religious affiliations as potent modes of political representations."

The author concludes that Islamophobia is not universal among Indian Americans, that there are academically-oriented secular activists who are able to blunt the work of New York or Washington-based ethnic lobbies, and finally that the idea of India is still fiercely debated among the diaspora.

Ingrid Therwath, who is on the editorial board of SAMAJ, is a doctoral student at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris and head of the South Asia section at Courrier International.

SAMAJ claims to be the ‘first online journal devoted to social studies on South Asia’ written by professional academics and doctoral students. The next issue of Samaj, due in Fall 2008, will address 'Outraged Communities: Investigating the Politicization of Emotions in South Asia'.

indiaspora@gmail.com