From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Subject: Re: Discrimination against Indians in the US-big deal!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:32:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug6.230351.11921@unixg.ubc.ca>, banarji@unixg.ubc.ca (Ajai Banarji) writes:
> 		Discrimination against Indians in the US?
> 
> 	Apparently not a single netter has thought it fit to comment on Mr.
> Haldar's long posting on discrimination against Indians in professional
> positions. This is not surprising, since this is generally a taboo subject
> among desis in the US.
> 	There are various reasons for this. The average first-generation
> immigrant is, of course, glad to be settled in a "better" country somehow
> and puts up with conditions which others would not. Another reason is that
> many immigrants from countries like India have seen too much discrimination
> at home and probably do not find conditions in the US too unusual.
> 	It is fashionable for certain writers on this net to feel that their
> caste/subcaste/religion/language is being discriminated against. The fact is
> that Indian (and indeed South Asian) culture is full of discrimination.

(Details of discrimination deleted ...)

> 	So, when our own society is built upon discrimination, no one is
> particularly concerned when others discriminate against us. Will things
> change in the next generation in the US? I wonder.
> 	We can, however, look to the South Asians in the UK as an indicator.
> It is true that there is discrimination there, but since many of the South
> Asians there are in business it doesn't matter too much. There are, in fact,
> a number of large companies there which are run by Asians which have succeeded
> in turning around companies which the Brits couldn't run profitably. (Also
> remember how the Marwaris in Calcutta have been successful in turning around
> companies which had been mismanaged by the "brown sahibs"-there may be a link
> somewhere). A recent report mentioned that 2 of the top 12 private limited
> companies in the UK were Asian-owned. The British business press frequently
> carries articles on people like Swraj Paul, Nat Puri and the omnipresent
> Patels-when was the last time you saw a South Asian name in Business Week?
> 	But then, the South Asians are something like 1.5% of UK's population
> and do have a few MPs. (Incidentally, in UK even non-UK citizens can vote
> if they are Commonwealth citizens). There are a number of constituencies where
> Asian votes are critical. For instance, the Labour party changed its stance on
> Kashmir when they realised that it would cost them Indian votes.
> 	This is not to say that Asians in the UK have sufficient political
> clout-but they certainly seem to have more power than their counterparts in the
> US. Even in Canada the BC provincial assembly has a number of Asian MLAs
> (including one rather high-profile minister, Moe Sihota). Though this is
> incidental, at least in Vancouver it is possible to study Punjabi and Hindi
> with government funding. I doubt that this is possible anywhere in the US.
> (Perhaps one should not read too much into this as Canada and the US have
> rather different policies regarding minorities.)
> 	Anyway, the South Asian community in the US is still too small (about
> 0.3%) and a rather large proportion do not vote as they are not US citizens.
> Do not expect the mainstream US politicians to care for South Asians
> if they cannot get votes (or at least money) from them. (Perhaps this situationwill change if India permits dual citizenship.) However, as the number of Asianbusinessmen grows their financial clout will increase. 
> 	It is nice to say that so many South Asians in the US are well settled 
> as doctors, engineers and the like-but frankly, unless they get into business
> and politics in a big way the US establishment is not going to care for them
> at all. This is, of course, not my own idea-local papers like India West have
> been saying this for years.
> 


You have put quite eloquently some of the specifics of discrimination 
with in India or south asia (henceforth refered to as intra-Indian/SA 
discrimination).

You have also justified why the western establishment particularly US
establishment does not care about Indians or for that matter south asians.

You also justify the apathy shown by Indians/SA about such neglect or
local discrimination against their fellow country men or women.

Your title suggests that it is not a big deal if they are discriminated
out of India/SA as well.

While you have analyzed the situation very well you seem to be apathetic
yourself about such local discrimination. 

Is such apathy (yours as well as those of other Indians/SA) really 
justified just because there is discrimination with in INdia/SA ?

I say NO.

I might add that most Indians or south asians realize or at least talk about 
the discrimination taking place in India/SA only after coming out of there 
to the western countries especially. 

I did not see very many intellectuals speaking about discrimination
in home countries when they were there.

By virtue of living in a different cultural/social environment where they
are racial/religious/cultural minority forces them to think about it,
talk about it, post long articles on sci or elsewhere on these issues.
A few of them go back to INdia/SA and actually work towards alleviating
some of this discrimination within Indian/SA societies.

For rest those who decide to stay in US or west, are going to face the 
discrimination practiced in these countries in addition to the intra-indian/SA
discrimination which comes as a 'baggage' from the homeland.

This baggage of intra-Indian/SA discrimination is the first thing they
need to address. This is in their control. This is independent of 
the numbers as percentage of the local population (US, Canada, UK etc.). 

It is do-able, it is needed and in a way it is a precursor to addressing 
the local discrimination levied upon Indian/SA community as a whole in the 
host countries.

Alok
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian