Two Ways to Belong in America
Joydeep Mitra
Two Ways to Belong in America
By BHARATI MUKHERJEE: September 22, 1996: New York Times:<let...@nytimes.com>
IOWA CITY -- This is a tale of two sisters from Calcutta, Mira and Bharati,
who have lived in the United States for some 35 years, but who find themselves
on different sides in the current debate over the status of immigrants.
I am an American citizen and she is not. I am moved that thousands of
long-term residents are finally taking the oath of citizenship. She is not.
Mira arrived in Detroit in 1960 to study child psychology and pre-school
education. I followed her a year later to study creative writing at the
University of Iowa. When we left India, we were almost identical in appearance
and attitude. We dressed alike, in saris; we expressed identical views on
politics, social issues, love and marriage in the same Calcutta convent-school
accent. We would endure our two years in America, secure our degrees, then
return to India to marry the grooms of our father's choosing.
Instead, Mira married an Indian student in 1962 who was getting his business
administration degree at Wayne State University. They soon acquired the labor
certifications necessary for the green card of hassle-free residence and
employment.
Mira still lives in Detroit, works in the Southfield, Mich., school system,
and has become nationally recognized for her contributions in the fields of
pre-school education and parent-teacher relationships. After 36 years as a
legal immigrant in this country, she clings passionately to her Indian
citizenship and hopes to go home to India when she retires.
In Iowa City in 1963, I married a fellow student, an American of Canadian
parentage. Because of the accident of his North Dakota birth, I bypassed
labor-certification requirements and the race-related "quota" system that
favored the applicant's country of origin over his or her merit. I was prepared
for (and even welcomed) the emotional strain that came with marrying outside my
ethnic community. In 33 years of marriage, we have lived in every part of North
America. By choosing a husband who was not my father's selection, I was opting
for fluidity, self-invention, blue jeans and T-shirts, and renouncing
3,000 years (at least) of caste-observant, "pure culture" marriage in the
Mukherjee family. My books have often been read as unapologetic (and in some
quarters overenthusiastic) texts for cultural and psychological
"mongrelization." It's a word I celebrate.
Mira and I have stayed sisterly close by phone. In our regular Sunday morning
conversations, we are unguardedly affectionate. I am her only blood relative on
this continent. We expect to see each other through the looming crises of aging
and ill health without being asked. Long before Vice President Gore's
"Citizenship U.S.A." drive, we'd had our polite arguments over the ethics of
retaining an overseas citizenship while expecting the permanent protection and
economic benefits that come with living and working in America.
Like well-raised sisters, we never said what was really on our minds, but we
probably pitied one another. She, for the lack of structure in my life, the
erasure of Indianness, the absence of an unvarying daily core. I, for the
narrowness of her perspective, her uninvolvement with the mythic depths or the
superficial pop culture of this society. But, now, with the scapegoating of
"aliens" (documented or illegal) on the increase, and the targeting of
long-term legal immigrants like Mira for new scrutiny and new
self-consciousness, she and I find ourselves unable to maintain the same polite
discretion. We were always unacknowledged adversaries, and we are now, more
than ever, sisters.
"I feel used," Mira raged on the phone the other night. "I feel manipulated
and discarded. This is such an unfair way to treat a person who was invited to
stay and work here because of her talent. My employer went to the I.N.S. and
petitioned for the labor certification. For over 30 years, I've invested my
creativity and professional skills into the improvement of this country's
pre-school system. I've obeyed all the rules, I've paid my taxes, I love my
work, I love my students, I love the friends I've made. How dare America now
change its rules in midstream? If America wants to make new rules curtailing
benefits of legal immigrants, they should apply only to immigrants who arrive
after those rules are already in place." To my ears, it sounded like the
description of a long-enduring, comfortable yet loveless marriage, without
risk or recklessness. Have we the right to demand, and to expect, that we be
loved? (That, to me, is the subtext of the arguments by immigration advocates.)
My sister is an expatriate, professionally generous and creative, socially
courteous and gracious, and that's as far as her Americanization can go. She
is here to maintain an identity, not to transform it.
I asked her if she would follow the example of others who have decided to
become citizens because of the anti-immigration bills in Congress. And here,
she surprised me. "If America wants to play the manipulative game, I'll play
it too," she snapped. "I'll become a U.S. citizen for now, then change back
to Indian when I'm ready to go home. I feel some kind of irrational attachment
to India that I don't to America. Until all this hysteria against legal
immigrants, I was totally happy. Having my green card meant I could visit any
place in the world I wanted to and then come back to a job that's satisfying
and that I do very well."
In one family, from two sisters alike as peas in a pod, there could not be a
wider divergence of immigrant experience. America spoke to me -- I married it
-- I embraced the demotion from expatriate aristocrat to immigrant nobody,
surrendering those thousands of years of "pure culture," the saris, the
delightfully accented English. She retained them all. Which of us is the freak?
Mira's voice, I realize, is the voice not just of the immigrant South Asian
community but of an immigrant community of the millions who have stayed rooted
in one job, one city, one house, one ancestral culture, one cuisine, for the
entirety of their productive years. She speaks for greater numbers than I
possibly can. Only the fluency of her English and the anger, rather than fear,
born of confidence from her education, differentiate her from the seamstresses,
the domestics, the technicians, the shop owners, the millions of hard-working
but effectively silenced documented immigrants as well as their less fortunate
"illegal" brothers and sisters.
Nearly 20 years ago, when I was living in my husband's ancestral homeland of
Canada, I was always well-employed but never allowed to feel part of the local
Quebec or larger Canadian society. Then, through a Green Paper that invited a
national referendum on the unwanted side effects of "nontraditional"
immigration, the Government officially turned against its immigrant communities,
particularly those from South Asia.
I felt then the same sense of betrayal that Mira feels now.
I will never forget the pain of that sudden turning, and the casual racist
outbursts the Green Paper elicited. That sense of betrayal had its desired
effect and drove me, and thousands like me, from the country.
Mira and I differ, however, in the ways in which we hope to interact with
the country that we have chosen to live in. She is happier to live in America
as expatriate Indian than as an immigrant American. I need to feel like a part
of the community I have adopted (as I tried to feel in Canada as well). I need
to put roots down, to vote and make the difference that I can. The price that
the immigrant willingly pays, and that the exile avoids, is the trauma of
self-transformation.
Bharati Mukherjee is the author of the novels "Jasmine"
and "The Holder of the World."
Dr. Jai Maharaj
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In the article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960922160011.
29842F-100000@post>, of Sun, 22 Sep 1996 16:01:09 -0400,
Joydeep Mitra <mi...@aecom.yu.edu> posted:
>
> Two Ways to Belong in America
> By BHARATI MUKHERJEE: September 22, 1996:
> New York Times <let...@nytimes.com>
> IOWA CITY -- This is a tale of two sisters from
> Calcutta, Mira and Bharati, who have lived in the
> United States for some 35 years, but who find
> themselves on different sides in the current debate
> over the status of immigrants.
Observing that the so-called debate over immigrant
issues, most of which are foci for election campaigns,
is really based on skin-color, it is not likely for
south Asians to be ideologically too far apart.
> I am an American citizen and she is not. I am moved
> that thousands of long-term residents are finally
> taking the oath of citizenship. She is not.
As more people take up U.S. citizenship, the same bias
which separated undocumented immigrants from green-card
holders will be used to separate non-white naturalized
citizens from U.S.-born, European background citizens.
That is considered "well-raised?" The holding back of
honest expression is being glorified? Pity, the scars
of barbarian British-style upbringing are only too
evident.
It seems that her anxiety is of a generally variety,
based on how the new laws may apply to all legal
immigrants. For, she herself has been described as one
not likely to be on public assistance. Generally, south
Asian immigrants are quite wealthy. Still, it is my
understanding that the changes will not affect certain
legal immigrants, and that the power now shifts to state
governments. Here are two noteworthy exceptions:
Immigrants who have worked in the U.S. for at least ten
years without receiving any federal aid will not lose
SSI or food stamps. Similarly, immigrants who are U.S.
military veterans, or were granted asylum as refugees
will not lose said benefits, with the exception that
refugees will be adversely affected after five years.
There is no progress without price, no gain without pain.
Jai Maharaj <j...@mantra.com> Jyotishi
%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:% *-=Om Shanti=-* %:%:%
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMkXuwulp/UA/8L65AQGllgP9FpqngVQrVvTQrl5tgyn+JipzxJXHtXm/
ptwzc7KE12vPrmNVWO2vQm1myefu3f4OF6JwzmtU0ZI+t2JKguN9ATFjyImWYD+R
0JxhLAdVUjJLnZjmKx5z12i/zR4wGo4oKOBP5jcHJyPmEZURBVUxA/N5XOReg1PG
NLAbnNHdkKI=
=6P1P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Indrani DasGupta
> Joydeep Mitra wrote:
> >
> > Two Ways to Belong in America
> >
> > By BHARATI MUKHERJEE: September 22, 1996: New York Times:<let...@nytimes.com>
> >
> > IOWA CITY -- This is a tale of two sisters from Calcutta, Mira and Bharati,
> > who have lived in the United States for some 35 years, but who find themselves
> > on different sides in the current debate over the status of immigrants.
> >
> > long-term residents are finally taking the oath of citizenship.
First of all, thank you Joydeep, for posting this article by
Dr. Mukherjee for us. As always...the richness of her experience married
to the biting clarity [thanks, Srabani :)] of her prose...made it a joy
to read.
Reading this piece was a bitter-sweet experience for me. I am afraid,
for me...it's pledge-time. Having fought against it tooth and nail for
sixteen years...I have, much like Mira, caved in. Last month I gave
my father a copy of my fingerprints and, a sullenly-tacit, permission
to officially log my request to pledge allegiance to the United States
of America. And, now, I ask myself: Was it so hard? Is it as dramatic as
I am making it out to be? Is it that big a deal?
The moment of the last, significant, day of my schooling in India that
is etched forever in my mind seems a bit trivial and childish. Everybody
had left. That is, everybody except durwan-ji at the gate and Mother
Superior in her office. She had come out with her usual whispery step,
taken a look at me perched on my favourite stunted tree trunk just below
the basketball hoop, probably smiled quietly, and gone back in. I'd felt
the swish of her habit but hadn't looked up. It was around 4:30 or 5 pm.
All my friends were probably home. Outside the school gate, Lenin Sarani,
still thusly named, droned on. But the school was deathly silent. Like my
heart. Durwan-ji had come inside a couple of times..."tumhaar ma aashbe,
na kaka?"...he'd quietly inquired. "Keu na...", I'd muttered. It seemed
to me that _everyone_ knew my plight. Except for the lack of suds, the
whole day had been like an Irish wake, for heaven's sake! Complete with
baloons and streamers, and false and gregarious gaiety.
Or...were they actually glad to see me leave?
Hmmmmm...come to think of it...Sister Henrietta...(yes!)..."Indrani, poor
child...she will _nevvver_ get the hang of physics!"...she'd warned my
dad, a mechanical engineer, during a P/T meeting...little did she know
that my attention during physics lab was trained not on her and the
bunsen burners but...right outside the huge bay windows...on Rishi and
Neetu in Khel Khel Mein...or Tariq and whats-her-name in HKSKN...and, the
worst possible distraction...Amitabh in Amar Akbar Anthony...Miss
Mariam...gym...(MmHmm!)..."you can't just play cricket you know...that's
_NOT_ the only damn (oops!) game there is!!"...and poor, tortured Mrs.
Mitra...(maybe)...in Bengali..."Indrani-i-i-i-i-i...phajlamo-r akta
sheema thaka uchit...eta ki peyechho...natyoshala!?!"...the pwim and very
pwoper Mrs. Palit...shrilly invoking Dante's divine wrath on fifty-four
conspiring heads while cannoning out of a chair graced by the presence of
three very juicily real, _not_ rubber, cockroaches...a feat by no means
unappreciated by Mother Superior in the hours to come. (Yes...yes...
yes...banish the girl!!!)
That was April 1, 1978. And we were in class nine, section A, of Loreto
Dharamtolla...
Time-transported to Teaneck High School in Teaneck, New Jersey, a little
over a year later...I made some, what now seem to be incredibly ghastly,
gaffes... right on the first day of class, tenth grade. I stood up as my
homeroom teacher entered and wished him "Good Morning Sir!"...the class
was politely silent...or maybe, speechless, for the first time in their
young lives. Then, as if that first rebellious act hadn't sated my soul,
I insisted on getting up every time when answering questions. The
teachers, of course, loved me. The students, of course, wanted me drawn
and quartered. The exact opposite of my school life in Calcutta. Was I
happy? No-o-o. Was I miserable? No. Was I lethargic? A bit. Nostalgic?
Very. Was I resigned? Indubitably.
My brother, three years younger, and I, proceeded to make a silent pact
with each other. We would become, on the outside, as American as we could
be. And, surprise! It was easier than we thought it would be. We watched
TV voraciously (not a difficult thing at all!), heard our accents undergo
an irreversible change over a matter of a few months, and went, with our
group of friends...a mixed American/Eurpoean/Indian bunch, to the Junior
and Senior Proms. We ate beef...for the first time in our lives...at the
school cafetaria...juicy little "mystery meat" burgers...addictive little
buggers, those...worked in DialAmerica...the Carter-Mondale election
campaign...the local PathMark...Prentiss Hall Press...the school
paper...went to New York City every weekend and hated it (and why not!)
...to the Greenwich Village Tower Records and loved it...to the Lexington
Avenue Curry in a Hurry (mmmmmm!) and Naghma House for copies of
SportsWorld...to Coney Island...to Great Adventure...on endless parallel
parking trips...took the driving license test with the usual impassive
examiner intent on psyching out our innermost "adolescent" thoughts while
muttering multiple "aha!"s into the dashboard...but who passed me/us
grudgingly..."young lady/man...I know you just _LO-O-VE_ to drive...but
there are _RULES_ !!!"...We started college...Rutgers...AU....
Then, during the summer of '84, we went home.
Eighteen boring hours and boom! We were home! Actually, not really home.
We were in Bombay. Born in Calcutta, Bombay is the city I spent my first
few years in. I love Poona. But, Bombay, somehow, does not make my heart
go a-flutter. Yet, there I was. Bombay. 1984. I was twenty. My brother,
seventeen. My mother, forever being mistaken for my older sister, had
accompanied us. My father, stubbornly, did not go back at the time.
My mother's dogged insistence on being served "amaader khabaar" yielded
a hideously delayed Air India flight that unapologetically dumped us in
Bombay at 11:30pm with no connecting flight to Calcutta in immediate
sight. Carted out of Santa Cruz, we, a straggling bunch of Bengalis, were
unceremoniously piled onto a minibus that would hopefully be, sometime
that week, on it's way to a nearby hotel. My brother was pretty much
asleep. My mother, a bit peeved, but slumberous. The other passengers,
I guess, hadn't the stamina to stage a comeback when the minutes, then
the hours, started rolling by.
I had dozed off for a while when, hearing a noise nearby, I jerked awake.
All around me, people slept fitfully. But the night was quiet. My heart
leapt against my ribs. I had no idea why. Trying to calm down...I focused
on my watch...it was probably way past two-thirty. And the bus had not
moved. My brother's head felt heavy on my left shoulder...I couldn't
really move. On my lap was the lead weight of my duffle bag. What _had_
I packed? I couldn't, for the life of me, remember. My head felt heavy
with the hint of a sonorous headache. My eyes itched and watered. The
air inside the bus sat upon me...and a dank and musty smell began to
invade my cringing olefactory nerves. A sound, subdued but brittle,
turned my head to the right. In the distance, my pupils focused onto a
scene not, perhaps, really seen....but felt. A "khatia"...a spotted
street-dog curled up under it...a man in a fetal curl on top of
it...something...a laundry line?...no...can't be...but ghostly strips of
textured threads blew a bit, in a sudden gust of wind, over the man's
blurred contours.
And the wind brought, with a sweet and piercing intensity, the tinny
sound of a transistor radio and the undulating melody of..."dil dhuNdta
haiN...phir wohi...phursat ke ra-a-a-t din..."
At that moment, I knew. I had come home.
Twelve years, many moons, many struggles, and many tax returns (but no
votes...here _or_ there) later, I find myself, yet again, resolute, but
not alone, in the sheer vulnerability of my situation.
In the backdrop of the current political atmosphere, my insistent
"so-what-if-I-am?isms" don't seem to wash against my father's (the only
American citizen in our family...no one else, again, stubbornly, from the
rest of our family in India has come to the United States) continuous
warnings of imminent socio-political second-class status for US
non-citizen residents. Mira, Dr. Mukherjee's sister, says that she will
"change back" when the right time comes. I find myself wondering. Does
pledging allegiance to one country automatically banish the other from
the heart? If not, why should it make much of a difference? Why should it
be this big a deal?
If (I am still hoping against hope) Judgement Day does arrive and I find
myself placing my hand on my heart...I will be true to myself. I will
pledge my allegiance...to where my heart belongs.
Indrani DasGupta.
Arnab Gupta
Indrani Dasgupta wrote:
> Joydeep Mitra wrote
..[deleted]..
Indrani, lekhata ayk kothai, oshadharon !
Thanks,
Arnab.
Kousik Chakrabarti
Indrani DasGupta wrote:
[....deleted]
For the past few weeks I couldn't visit SCB.As I was scrolling past
the articles today this one seems to touch my heart.The description is
so unforgetfully painful that I deleted the whole stuff before I could
add anything to the flavour.I could not but add a short story to make
this pain get its word.
************************************************************************
Lets name the story : "DONDYO."
Ami akte sonsher dekhte pache.Ak bridho.Tar chale,cheler bou,
nati, natni.Akhondyo jomita tader chasbash. Akte bolod, langol.Tader
akte poshe kukur chilo, akjore chagol.Sokalbela lathi dhore bridhyo bose
thakto polash gacher toley.Nati, natni, ter chagolduto lafia lafia khale
korto.Bridhyo bose bose dekhtyo ar majemaje kashto.Oi jomitukuta oder
sonser jokhon ar chole na, tokhon chaleti thik korle sa sohore
jabe.Sohore onek kaj, onek taka.Sami,stri dujoney khatbe.Bhalo thakbe,
bhalo khabe. Cinema dekhbe. Electric er aloyey rath jokhon jholmol
korbe, tokhon tare jhokhjokhe dokaner samne dia hate jabe.
Bridhyo bollen, 'Kajte bhalo hobe na.Akhane mati ache,akane
sorire sokti ache.Akhane santi ache.Akane amaader somaj ache.Akhane
simuler toley amder debote achen,akhane amre aksonghe nachi,gey, akhane
choitra polash lal dana male ura jate chay,boyshakhe krishnochura agun
dia akash sajey,tuy kritodash hober jonyo sohore jash ne.Sakhane soyten
manusher besha ghore.Mayare dehobabshe kore.Surikhane rojgarer sobh
poyesha kera ney.'
Chale bolle,'Akhane jol ney, Jomi jotote dite pare dey
na.Langoler foley dher ney.Boloder sokti ney.Bone siker ney.'
Ai bole tare akdin chole galo.
Bridhyo pore roylo bhite akre.Nijer joubonke firia aner
cheste kore.Bridhyo bolod langol tante pare na, nijer sirno hater durbol
chape langoler hal matite boste chay na.Bridhyo korun chokhe takia
thake.Matir toley sopno ache take jagate pare na bridhyo.Saredin bose
thake polasher toley duhathe oi lathita dhore.Ununa agun pore
na.Manusher bache thaker dhoye golapi hoye akasher dike othe na.Bridher
charpashe choria pore thake mrito polash, manusher buk thake chire ana
hridyoer moto.
Bridhyo durer dike takia thake.Baraker nodi jakhane bak nia
dhoya dhoya akashe haria gache.Otit theka bhesa asa madoler sobdo,
chader alor rater smriti nia.Dekhte pay ter chaler ma komor dulia nache.
Akdin khub sokale dekha gelo, bridhyo majeta pore
ache.Pranhin.Pashe sua ache sash obolombon oi lathi.Bridher buker upor
pore ache akti kather chiruni.Oi chiruniti ter chaler mayer khopayey
goje thakto.Bridyoke sobey mile nia galo Baraker nodir tire.Dhoye hoye
ura galo akte jug.
Kau ar fire alo na.Din galo.Onak onak din.Akhon jodi amre
kono sokale oi lathita tule ni, dekhbo dhuloy aka hoye ache akti
rekha.Chirunite tula nileo dekha jabe akte darikathe chap.Obosheshe
satao thakbe na.Thakbe sudhu dhulo.
***********************************************************************
Rajiv Shukla
It's really nice reading this thread, the compositions were great reading
material but one thing I am still confused about is why was it so necessary
to accept the US citizenship all of a sudden when apparently you're
fighting tooth and nails against it? Is it fear of getting second class
treatment or fear of not getting benefits or what? I can understand giving
up your Indian citizenship must have been painful for you just for the
emotional side of it but as per your claim you have been fighting against it,
then what made you change your mind, is it going to benefit you in some ways?
If it is then why are you so upset? You did whatever was good for you, isn't
it?
Rajiv
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajiv Shukla My opinions are mine.
ra...@ctt.bellcore.com I don't speak for my
Bell Communications Research employer.
Rishi Bhattacharjee
Wow, Very well written my dear. Eta anekdin pare ekta baro post porlam.
Fantastic. Erokom aro lekho.
Rishi Bhattacharjee
Rishi Bhattacharjee
Rajiv:
Bhaya, ota emotion re bhai. Artickle ta oi taretei bhaNdha. Ota oto
pragmatically dekhle to cholbena. Indrani mone danda cholechhe ar o setakei
ekta articlke-r madhyome amader bolar cheshta korechhe. Dekho, etai jodi
Buddhadev Guha likhten, anek bon-jangal eshob dhukiye diten ar taholei kintu
eta ekta excellent piece of golpo hoye jeto. Jehetu Indrani facts state
korechhe, I think we sghould give her the praise and the benefit of doubt.
Or moto amaro onekshomoy mone hoi (ei desh kharap eshob garbage ami bolbona,
sheta anektai dhop) tabe erokom bhabe likhe shobar shamne tule dhorte parini,
kenona erokom likhte parina, Bangla katha. Etai IDG ba Shoumya likhle arekta
angle hoto hoyto karon ei shom nostalgia/emotion/ sentiment deal korte hole
anekta deep bhabte hoi, well amar to shetai mone hoi. O or chelebelatake
sMriti romanthaner moto kore dhore tulechhe, ar ganta balo ---- o'rokom
ganoto ajkal ar paina, tumi jodi kothao boshe thako ar govir rate kane
orokom ekta shundar gaan ethertarange bheshe ashe, mairi amio o-rokom
nostalgic hoye anek kichhui (which I may regret later) bhabbo.
I hope I made sense, may be I did not. At least i tried.
Rishi Bhattacharjee
In article <52oloi$9...@athos.cc.bellcore.com>, ra...@ctt.bellcore.com says...
Indrani DasGupta
Rajiv Shukla wrote:
> It's really nice reading this thread, the compositions were great reading
> material but one thing I am still confused about is why was it so necessary
> to accept the US citizenship all of a sudden when apparently you're
Do you follow US politics? Check your daily newspaper for the answer to
this question.
> fighting tooth and nails against it? Is it fear of getting second class
> treatment or fear of not getting benefits or what? I can understand giving
> up your Indian citizenship must have been painful for you just for the
Correction. I haven't YET given it up. And, yes. It _is_ fear of getting
second class treatment _and_ not getting the benefits I _DESERVE_. It's
the same difference, if I may say so. I have worked in this country and
paid US taxes for over 10 years now. Do you think my fears (as well as
Bharati Mukherjee's sister's complaints) are groundless, under those
circumstances?
> emotional side of it but as per your claim you have been fighting against it,
> then what made you change your mind, is it going to benefit you in some ways?
I have no doubt that becoming a US citizen would be _beneficial_ to me,
politically. But the subtext of my posting was (in case I wasn't too
clear in my thrust) - why am I being forced to make a choice that I have
never wanted to make? Why can I not be _BOTH_ a US, as well as an Indian
citizen? Why can Pakistani citizens have their cake and eat it too, but
not Indian citizens?
> If it is then why are you so upset? You did whatever was good for you, isn't
> it?
Am I really UPSET? I doubt it. I _am_, however, resigned. Did I do
whatever was _good_ for me? I doubt that, as well. I don't think
"pledge-day" will be a particularly salubrious experience for me.
Anyway.
> Rajiv
The above were _serious_ answers to your questions. Thank you for your
kind words for my posting. I appreciate your posting in reply to mine.
Indrani.
Rajiv Shukla
In article <325087...@american.edu> Indrani DasGupta <id2...@american.edu> writes:
>
>Do you follow US politics? Check your daily newspaper for the answer to
>this question.
No I don't, the only pages that interest me are those belonging to the
sports section, e.g the first thing in today's paper I checked out was
Cowboys beat Eagles 23-19, yesterday I went to sleep after the first half
when Cowboys were leading 20-10, so that's about the only utlity of newspapers
in my life ;-)
Jokes aside, what exactly is happening, is the US govt. saying that
permanent residents won't get as much benefit as the citizens will get?
What are these benefits?
>
>Correction. I haven't YET given it up. And, yes. It _is_ fear of getting
I apologize, actually my question was not specifically targeted towards you,
it's kind of generic to all who shares your views.
>second class treatment _and_ not getting the benefits I _DESERVE_. It's
>the same difference, if I may say so. I have worked in this country and
>paid US taxes for over 10 years now. Do you think my fears (as well as
>Bharati Mukherjee's sister's complaints) are groundless, under those
>circumstances?
I don't know about the second class treatment in the work place, I have been
here for only 3 years, I have also paid taxes, everytime I get my paystub I
get very depressed ;-) one thing that nobody has mentioned that I'd like
to mention here, in these last three years the amount of knowledge (in my
are of expertise ) that I have accumulated and the exposure I got, I have to
say that will serve me for the rest of my life and I am grateful for that.
I have big time question about american culture, ethics etc. etc. in different
areas but I have come to realise gradually that's none of my business and it's
foolish to question them because you're not a part of them, that aside the
experience(academic and work) have been tremendous and far far superior to
those that I got in India, I thank my luck and my mother, both of whom forced
me to get out of India and come here and frankly speaking I don't mind a few
restrictions here and there, even in India we're not supposed to get equal
treatments, are we?
Before anyone jumps down my throat, I have still resisted the temptation of
applying for a green card and still hope to go back to India someday but not
before I make the full use of all the work and academic benefits that are
open and available to me, to me the benefit is about a good technical work
environment, opportunity to work, access to state-of-art technology and other
resources not a few bucks out of my social security fund when I am 65.
>
>
>I have no doubt that becoming a US citizen would be _beneficial_ to me,
>politically. But the subtext of my posting was (in case I wasn't too
>clear in my thrust) - why am I being forced to make a choice that I have
>never wanted to make? Why can I not be _BOTH_ a US, as well as an Indian
>citizen? Why can Pakistani citizens have their cake and eat it too, but
>not Indian citizens?
What's wrong with one citizenship, not everyone gets everything, why not
make the most of whatever you have?
I don't know what happens to Pakistani citizens, do they have a dual
citizenship concept or do you mean to say that they get all benfits in USA
even if they are not US citizens, if it's the former I have bigtime questions
about it and I wouldn't like to see a dual citizenship concept in India and
if it's the latter then I have nothing to say because I don't know how is it
possible.
>Am I really UPSET? I doubt it. I _am_, however, resigned. Did I do
>whatever was _good_ for me? I doubt that, as well. I don't think
>"pledge-day" will be a particularly salubrious experience for me.
I don't understand it, why are you resigned, unless I am mistaken much, you're
old enough to make a decision and not be forced.
>
>The above were _serious_ answers to your questions. Thank you for your
>kind words for my posting. I appreciate your posting in reply to mine.
>
>Indrani.
I enjoyed your composition, it's nice, I wish had the same expressive power,
writing skill and mastery over english laguage as you have.
Dadu
I couldn't help to get my self in- though I know i've to spend a couple
of sleepless night before I land up in Netaji Int'l terminal on Thursday
morning.
Indrani DasGupta wrote:
>
> > Joydeep Mitra wrote:
> > >
> > > Two Ways to Belong in America
> > >
> > > By BHARATI MUKHERJEE: September 22, 1996: New York Times:<let...@nytimes.com>
> > >
> > > IOWA CITY -- This is a tale of two sisters from Calcutta, Mira and Bharati,
> > > who have lived in the United States for some 35 years, but who find themselves
> > > on different sides in the current debate over the status of immigrants.
> > >
> > > I am an American citizen and she is not. I am moved that thousands of
> > > long-term residents are finally taking the oath of citizenship.
> > >She is not.*****************************************************************
>
> First of all, thank you Joydeep, for posting this article by
> Dr. Mukherjee for us. As always...the richness of her experience married
> to the biting clarity [thanks, Srabani :)] of her prose...made it a joy
> to read.
It is interesting to me 'cause, some how, quite a few threads-
"belonging to Jurassic park", "Shasudi'der ...", "Kavery thread...",
"Rabinrda Sangeet..", all that have same under tone. At least to me, I
don't know if they are the same way obvious to others.
I remember, Prativa Basu's article (?) "Smriti sototo:'i Sukher" after
Buddhadev popped off.
All these posts have a sort of nostalgia... seemingly or otherwise. It
has been all the time very intriguing, what these people doing for so
long time, in a country, where they spend their prime time- looking back
to Calcutta, to Jhal muDi, maachher chop, to Gariahaat, to Rabindra
sadan....
Is is the country is so strongly set in their (read our) heart- that,
the ambience doesn't affect other than making them eat beef ot having an
irreversible accent? Or, watching Lettermann show (might be quite an
experience!! I've watched them at least once every time my visit to US
of A). Then what they (read we) are doing here?
(Off records, I had my first bite of beef near Tolleyganj, where I used
to teach a ravishious kid near by (she might have been a mother of three
by now- probably on the pillion of a Taratola engineer! Oh, that made me
change my subject!!)
What this eldorado offers them to make them so strongly binding to a
country, they never feel their home? Is it financial affluence and
professional success which they can't afford back in India?
I remember 11.10.1981, I left Cal for Bangalore- 5.45 Corromandel
Express; I left Cal ever.
The "cholbe cholbe, cholbena cholbena", didn't allure me for long. I had
a hunch, probably, there is better football than these three Bengalees
(PK in speech, Moti Nandi in AnandaBazar, and AKG/Priya in politics)
play; probably, there are some other music than Subinoy Ray gang sings;
there might be even better whiskey than Mcdowell's Diplomat (one friend
presented me half a bottle yesterday; she has been preserving it for the
last three years for the worst enemy).
There might be a different life outside Cal. My early child hood was in
Bihar/UP; I had a hunch. I liked Thekua's, Littis, tilkuts; Chaaledaar
lassi in Mughal sarai was my favourite. RubDee from Ganga Prasad of Gaya
was our breakfast. Picking carrots, aakhs and chhola gaachh, in the dry
early summer was the biggest adventure. My father's peon- a strong
silent variety Muslim, bringging shikaar (goat meat) on Sunday's.
Chaha-BageDi's in Summer. Firni, mewa during IDD- for our parents, and
we kids are 24 hours invited to their home.
And toffee and marbles from Mrs. Remedius.
A bunch of kids, Usha, Najim, Rafi, Kishore... and yes, a Mini..
God. My early rub with the basic instincts were there!
I had a feeling, there is more life than in Calcutta. I just got swayed
with slogaans, posters, maachher chop, Debrabata Biswas...
My father almost chanting every evening about the Great Bose, Gagan
Babu, Prafulla Chatterjee. I thought, the begining and end of Physics
and Mathematics were there. On the other side of Ladies Park--
I saw Prof. Pathak's Lab; my first sight of a Bunsen burner- I
thought...
And an old aeroplane engine some where arround. I thought-
And girls in white and blue; white and orange; and white and green
dresses; at 10.00, and during Swaraswati Puja. The coy of Bengali girls
at their 15-s. Daulat, if you haven't been in Calcutta at your 18-s, You
missed something.
Then came some harsh reality. Bengal being ravaged by bunches of
hooligans day in day out. The more you are closer to Ballyjang, probably
the less you've seen it. East Bengal refugees flooding from Ranaghat to
Diamond harbour.
Charu Majumder, Basu on one side, Siddhartha Ray, Sunil Chowdhury-s on
the other side. Trampling over three dead bodies on average everyday.
And a new fasion of cultural "functions", every week. Najrul giti-r
aasor; Rabindra jonmotsob; Jalsha etc. for the middle class. Dover Lane,
Rabinrda Sadan for the more affluents.
A couple of writers, Samaresh Majumder, Shirshendu, became famous
writing the helplessness of Bengali-s. Mrinal Sen with his Cal. 71, a
naration of dukkho bilaas.
And the famous excavation of Patal Rail.
And Calcutta University. Boy, we had to answer 6 questions in four
hours. Each answer should be at least 16 pages long! That was Honours in
Physics in Calversity.
Now a days, a lot of Head Masters explaining in children's magazines,
how to improve your score in exams. Boy, if some body could tell them,
how not to molest children in the name of education!
Dil Dhundta hai phir wohi---
-------- phursat ke raat din---
----- Baithe rahein --
The only free air came- first in Topen Ray's lectures, when I went in
Jadavpur. His description of Bethe's lectures, I could visualise
Goetengen from Mujtaba Ali's writings. My first mentor! May his soul
rest in peace.
Then Papiyadi. And a lot stories of American universities. Frivolities,
friendship....
I still believed staying in India. After another disaster in M.Sc. I
went to Bangalore. 11.12.1981. Tata Institute. A complete different
atmosphere, B NV mess where all the Bongs hang arround, along with a
couple of deadpan face and big boob keralite girls. I understood
afterwards, they were the same confused as I was.
Big laboratories. Big people; ECG, Narlikar, Mukunda..CNR..
but what they were doing? Why HAL was thinking to produce sewing
machines?
If you've read 'Desha broti' at least a single copy, you'd'nt ever, the
country was bursting in to a total armed revolution. If you hear anybody
from Tata Institute, you'dn't have a doubt, all the technologies were
getting bred there. All the wind tunnels, the material science lab...
If you are stupid enough, Someday your belief would shatter.... But the
days were excellent. Some free money, and movies in Brigade Road, beer
with Cilonese Paratha and chicken curry... knock at the wine shops at
the dead of night for another bottle of IMFL at Yashbantpura....
Delhi in 1985. A dull IIT. Bunch of upstarts; they don't know, I'd have
been a senior to them long before, had I not chosen Physics (to discover
the third dimension of 'i').... But a few of Shivalikites would remember
the nights when empty bottles were smashed in their rooms...
I'm disillusioned about research. Need money to get married. I've been
planning it when I was 17. Govt. of India. "Class 1 gazetted". Three
thousand engineers sitting idle from 9 to 5, wandering what to do. Big
promises. Tea club. Grouping of Bongs. Saket to Indrapuri to CR Park to
IP College.
And witnessing 3000 Engineers in search of a meaning full work.....
Hey, some time one should wonder, what you're doing!
Jah phot! Kete poD before it's late.
By now, not only I had a hunch, I had a conviction. I've tried Tiramisu.
I met Abdus Salam, Federico Tosco.. I have seen Michelangelo and
Raphael; tested chianti on Adriatic coast; had a ride in my first
Mercedes Benz, a Ferrari.... listened Eros Ramazzotti..
And first time, I've been involved with non-Indians; Brazilian and
Argentinians who hated Italians; Bangadeshi-s who wanted Bangladesh,
W.Bengal and Assam be a single state ....
And Indians who wanted their paltry fellowships be saved by any means-
no wine, no travel, and chicken wings.....
And an American woman- who gave company for 23 days.... taught to see
things from the point of a person born in a developed country...
When I went back, probably for the first time, I wondered what these
guys doing in this country? No health, no education, no manners, not in
Cal, not in Bangalore, Bombay, Delhi....
even not a single whiskey worth chasing!
Dil dhunDta hai phir wohi----
What lies, a bunch of boasting beaurocrats, frustrated accademics,
undernurished footballers, corrupt politicians, a lower middle class
with incorigible habits; an upper class morally empty; a bunch of poors
who are psychologically alien like Martians...
And, the sweetest women of all the World. But, by then, I was getting
out of time for them also.
Before I decided to come out. Out of Physics, out of Bengal. This time,
out of India. It took so long to convince myself! A lot of broken
bottles, glasses, friendships, and surprisingly, some relationships as
well...
Aren't all of us came out for some thing or else? Meera, Indrani (or her
ancestors), Ganguly Babu etc. those who talk about it; and rest those
who definitely think about it?
So, what's the drive for retrospection?
No. The coming out of India is not the issue. Well, its never been an
exodus like Irish or Chienese do. We W.Bengali-s and Indians are best
intellectual 'beauties' of our country to reach this side or that, of
the pond, to get in to higher studies, better job, and some money. But
the other country "ShashuDi"-s is some what nirbodh, they don't
understand our vanity; It doesn't understand we still draw reverence
from our friends, relatives and neighbours. Could some body tell what is
their "aasli ruup"?
We long for maachher chop, jhaal muDi, Moglai. But We cannot go back
just like that. Just being another Indian- fighting to buy a Maruti,
buying a 1.5 cotta of land, and send our siblings to some English
medium, to learn, "Baa Baa blacksheep...."; we have been through that. A
Toyota or a Nissan is very well within reach. Nobody blames if we put on
a cK top on slagenger breasts; buy Lacroix ear tops for our sisters, or
a Zegna jacket for self. We could also have a sip to a wine or whiskey
or beer, mostly if available in some meeting or conference.
But still then, the ShashuDi's don't understand us. We can't be put to
the same pedestal.... Can somebody tell them, we are the beauties, the
best our country can offer ......
Why we don't go back? Why lament enough long to get old? Well!! Let's
not talk about it. We didn't try to suck the country we're in, instead
the country sucked us off. We had psychological problems to eat beef, to
chase beer, even to flirt, we look sickly compared to the blacks and the
whites; we are afraid of some body telling us no; we are even afraid of
spending money, in one night, what would have been our father's one
month salary.
All we got after our life long travel, is a lousy (to good) job, a never
dying, nagging shashuDi who insists us to become one of the immigrants,
and to get naturalised (or leave, if the competetion for a job is too
high). And loneliness which we never were prepared to face.
Hey, all these are BS. The issue is,
I'm going home. Tomorrow.
To enjoy my father carefully choosing 'bata maachh', or aadh kilo kata,
and my mother's tea, in the same old chipped cup, which I loved 14 years
back. Footbal by East Bengal/Mohan Bagan, science by Ashima Chatterjee,
Calcutta by Bam-front. With a smile. God, they don't know what they are
doing! I won't tell them, 'hey kids, you could've done better'! They
won't listen.
No body told me; I wouldn't have listened either.
But I'll witness one month of Bengal.
Dadu
Indrani DasGupta
Dadu wrote:
> I couldn't help to get my self in- though I know i've to spend a couple
> of sleepless night before I land up in Netaji Int'l terminal on Thursday
> morning.
Have safe trip Dadu. Beshi machher chop khaaben na!
Indrani.
Sutapa Chattopadhyay
Rajiv Shukla wrote:
>
> In article <325087...@american.edu> Indrani DasGupta <id2...@american.edu> writes:
> >
> >Do you follow US politics? Check your daily newspaper for the answer to
> >this question.
>
Indrani, if you are reading this, can you please email me the
original post? I thought you had posted Bharati Mukherjee's
letter to the editor of NY Times. But then reading subsequent posts.
I gathered that this was your writing. Sorry, for the
inconvenience..I am like a blind person these days. Tantalizing
follow-ups to stuff I have not read.
--
Sutapa Chattopadhyay
sayan bhattacharyya
Rajiv Shukla <ra...@ctt.bellcore.com> wrote:
>In article <325087...@american.edu> Indrani DasGupta <id2...@american.edu> writes:
>>
>>Do you follow US politics? Check your daily newspaper for the answer to
>>this question.
>
>Jokes aside, what exactly is happening, is the US govt. saying that
>permanent residents won't get as much benefit as the citizens will get?
>What are these benefits?
Rajiv,
For an answer to your questions, you may want to read the op-ed article by
George Soros, the Hungarian-born global financier, in today's (Wednesday)
New York Times (page A15) which deals with the issue.
Arindam Banerjee
Indrani DasGupta <id2...@american.edu> wrote:
the pwim and very
> pwoper Mrs. Palit...shrilly invoking Dante's divine wrath on fifty-four
> conspiring heads while cannoning out of a chair graced by the presence of
> three very juicily real, _not_ rubber, cockroaches...
I cannot let pass this injustice to Dante!
Dante is Christianity's greatest poet. It was largely through his brave
and pioneering effort that Christianity was transformed from a
religion of ignorance and bigotry to something based primarily
upon love.
In the final Canto 33 of "Paradise" (the last book of the
Divine Comedy), Dante through the intercession of the Virgin Mary,
gets to see the Face of God in the Tenth Heaven, the heartfelt wish
of every Christian.
Dante narrates that he does not have the words to describe the
experience. He is overcome by a sensation of overpowering love, such as
a Hindu can understand very well.
Christianity till then was characterised largely by vengeance and
repentance. That led to cruel treatment of the people, and permitted
all sorts of superstitions to flourish. Dante went through all the
Christian imagery accepted at the time, to make his work convincing
to the people - only at the end he made a conclusion which turned
the tide. The Christian belief that it was out of God's love for men
that God's son Christ died on the cross was emphasised.
So Dante really talked about Divine Love, not Divine Wrath, though of
course the latter is very much to be found in the bulk of his work.
Mira, Dr. Mukherjee's sister, says that she will
> "change back" when the right time comes. I find myself wondering. Does
> pledging allegiance to one country automatically banish the other from
> the heart? If not, why should it make much of a difference? Why should it
> be this big a deal?
It does not banish, but does make it secondary. You are a traitor
otherwise. It is a very big deal! You are choosing between opportunism
and principle. Opportunists often appear to do very well for themselves.
In this age of the anti-hero, opportunism appears to be the way to go,
but it does have its perils, such as a lack of inner satisfaction, at
least from the point of view of the principled.
>
> If (I am still hoping against hope) Judgement Day does arrive and I find
> myself placing my hand on my heart...I will be true to myself. I will
> pledge my allegiance...to where my heart belongs.
>
Very glad to hear that.
> Indrani DasGupta.
Arindam Banerjee
Disclaimer: My opinions do not involve my employer.
Indrani DasGupta
Rajiv Shukla wrote:
>
> In article <325087...@american.edu> Indrani DasGupta <id2...@american.edu> writes:
> Jokes aside, what exactly is happening, is the US govt. saying that
> permanent residents won't get as much benefit as the citizens will get?
> What are these benefits?
I posted a couple of articles that deal with this question. But, to make
a long story short - the benefits being talked about are basically that
of welfare and social security. However, it now appears that legal
immigrants who have been here for a while (and paid taxes) will not
have their benefits tampered with.
Actually, _my_ crib, if you like, :) is not that of the benefits being
taken away from _me_, but that of having to, because of a _possibility_
of my needing them, change my status.
> I have big time question about american culture, ethics etc. etc. in different
> areas
What are some of these, just for the sake of discussion?
but I have come to realise gradually that's none of my business and it's
> foolish to question them because you're not a part of them,
That realization didn't seem to have kept Ms. Mayo away. Did it? :)
And, neither should it keep us.
that aside the
> experience(academic and work) have been tremendous and far far superior to
> those that I got in India, I thank my luck and my mother, both of whom forced
> me to get out of India and come here and frankly speaking I don't mind a few
> restrictions here and there, even in India we're not supposed to get equal
> treatments, are we?
Very true. Nowhere can we actually _receive_ equal treatment. It IS an
imperfect world. But it can't hurt to hope, can it?
> Before anyone jumps down my throat, I have still resisted the temptation of
> applying for a green card and still hope to go back to India someday but not
> before I make the full use of all the work and academic benefits that are
> open and available to me, to me the benefit is about a good technical work
> environment, opportunity to work, access to state-of-art technology and other
> resources not a few bucks out of my social security fund when I am 65.
Let me ask you...if you had a "plum" or, at the least, interesting job
offered to you back home...would you go back? If so, why? And if not,
why not?
> >I have no doubt that becoming a US citizen would be _beneficial_ to me,
> >politically. But the subtext of my posting was (in case I wasn't too
> >clear in my thrust) - why am I being forced to make a choice that I have
> >never wanted to make? Why can I not be _BOTH_ a US, as well as an Indian
> >citizen? Why can Pakistani citizens have their cake and eat it too, but
> >not Indian citizens?
>
> What's wrong with one citizenship, not everyone gets everything, why not
> make the most of whatever you have?
True. If it was a question of making the most of what one has,
citizenship would not come into it. My question and inner conflict is
not that of the material, but of the emotional. What I did not talk
about in my posting was the way my brother and I (we were really kids,
mind you) were treated after we went back home for the first time, by
some people. It was is if they thought we were responsible for setting
American foreign policy or, at the very least, that we had a direct line
to the committee! Neither did they mind getting down and dirty. :)
> I don't know what happens to Pakistani citizens, do they have a dual
> citizenship concept or do you mean to say that they get all benfits in USA
> even if they are not US citizens, if it's the former I have bigtime questions
> about it and I wouldn't like to see a dual citizenship concept in India and
Why not? Could you please expand on this?
> if it's the latter then I have nothing to say because I don't know how is it
> possible.
As far as I know, Pakistani citizens who are legal immigrants to the US
are eligible for dual citizenship.
> >Am I really UPSET? I doubt it. I _am_, however, resigned. Did I do
> >whatever was _good_ for me? I doubt that, as well. I don't think
> >"pledge-day" will be a particularly salubrious experience for me.
>
> I don't understand it, why are you resigned, unless I am mistaken much, you're
> old enough to make a decision and not be forced.
In a way, my hand _is_ being forced. You see, I came here when I was
fifteen...a very difficult age for any kind of change...much less that of
this kind. I (for personal reasons) did not want to come here. Therefore,
for a long time, I carried a bit of a grudge against the circumstances
that brought me here. Well, now that I _was_ here, I decided, I _will_
make the best of it. And, I tried to do so. But, that did not entail
having to give up what I thought was mine. And my Indian citizenship _is_
mine, at least in my eyes. Mind you, I still don't _have_ to do it. And,
maybe, in the end, I won't. What I have tried to express is the inner
conflict that many of _us_ feel, even if _we_ do give it up. That, it is
_not_ an easy, blythely arrived at decision. That, there is a lot of
painful soulsearching behind this decision. That, there IS a struggle
against, maybe, the inevitable.
> I enjoyed your composition, it's nice, I wish had the same expressive power,
> writing skill and mastery over english laguage as you have.
Thank you.
> Rajiv
Indrani.
Chaitali Basu
Arindam Banerjee (a.ban...@trl.oz.au) wrote:
: Indrani DasGupta <id2...@american.edu> wrote:
: > Does
: > pledging allegiance to one country automatically banish the other from
: > the heart? If not, why should it make much of a difference? Why should it
: > be this big a deal?
:
: It does not banish, but does make it secondary. You are a traitor
: otherwise. It is a very big deal! You are choosing between opportunism
: and principle.
How does she become a traitor by opting for US citizenship? Citizens
of one country are not all traitors for the other country.
Also what principle is involved here exactly? Indrani has not voted
in India or in US. She has not been able to use her democratic
rights in either country. If she thinks she wants to use it to
do something (whatever it is, that's upto her) then its she who is
choosing principle. What opportunism are you talking about here?
: Arindam Banerjee
Chaitali
Arindam Banerjee
c0ba...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Chaitali Basu) wrote:
> : > Does
> : > pledging allegiance to one country automatically banish the other from
> : > the heart? If not, why should it make much of a difference? Why should it
> : > be this big a deal?
> :
> : It does not banish, but does make it secondary. You are a traitor
> : otherwise. It is a very big deal! You are choosing between opportunism
> : and principle.
>
> How does she become a traitor by opting for US citizenship? Citizens
> of one country are not all traitors for the other country.
>
I am afraid I have been misunderstood.
She does not become a traitor to India by becoming an US citizen!
She becomes one to USA if her primary allegiance remains with India after
pledging alliance to the USA. That is what I meant.
I regret using the term "traitor". It has too medieval and dramatic a
connotation. "Disloyal" would more meet the case.
> Also what principle is involved here exactly? Indrani has not voted
> in India or in US.
Oh, I was not talking about Indrani at all, only generally, based
upon an earlier article.
As for principle - well, I have just talked about it. I repeat, if
you pledge alliance to anything for personal gain, while you have
superior loyalties elsewhere, you are unprincipled and opportunistic.
This happens with any important agreement, such as marriage, or business
partnership, job, etc. There may be conflicts between two sets of
loyalties, such as job and marriage, that may still be reconciled
without loss of principle.
She has not been able to use her democratic
> rights in either country. If she thinks she wants to use it to
> do something (whatever it is, that's upto her) then its she who is
> choosing principle.
Of course. It is all up to her, and all others in her position.
No one else has any say.
What opportunism are you talking about here?
>
The kind which has been quite devastating in India. I do not wish it
to happen elsewhere. If you are an American with superior loyalties
for India, you do not do anyone any good, just as a few Indian Muslims who
have superior loyalties elsewhere do not do any good at all to the
rest who are loyal. Once a person takes the oath of American
citizenship, he or she does best for the country of her origin by
being as good an American citizen as possible.
Of course, all this is very ideal, and we may think irrelevant for most
practical purposes, perhaps. We are all as opportunistic as our
consciences will allow. Still, if we had no objective principles at all
(and loyalty is perhaps the most basic higher order need)
we would not know even the way to go.
> Chaitali
Hope I made things clear.
Rajiv Shukla
Indrani DasGupta (id2...@american.edu) wrote:
: I posted a couple of articles that deal with this question. But, to make
: a long story short - the benefits being talked about are basically that
: of welfare and social security. However, it now appears that legal
: immigrants who have been here for a while (and paid taxes) will not
: have their benefits tampered with.
Thanks a lot for posting those two articles, even though I find it hard
to relate to the problems 100%, I admit that such measures are not
fair to the people who have worked hard, paid their taxes, have been
law abiding and all that.
: Actually, _my_ crib, if you like, :) is not that of the benefits being
: taken away from _me_, but that of having to, because of a _possibility_
: of my needing them, change my status.
Well, you can't have it all ;-) Just for curiosity I have a question, it
seems that there are distinct facts here -
a) Non-US citizens will possibly be denied a certain number of facilities,
even though they have been every bit as hard working, law abiding and
tax paying residents as US citizens.
b) One may be forced to give up his/her citizenship with his/her country
of birth and have to accept US citizenship.
Even though in this case b) follows from a) but in reality you may have to face
situation b) for various other reasons, for instance, I know someone who
accepted US citizenship just because he has to visit Canada very often,
his in laws are residents of Canada, also he needs to visit Europe and
South America very often because of Academic reasons, he found it easier
to carry an American passport. This was just an example, will you be equally
upset if you ever face situations like this?
: Very true. Nowhere can we actually _receive_ equal treatment. It IS an
: imperfect world. But it can't hurt to hope, can it?
I come from a country where money=>connections=>justice, I am the last
person in the whole wide world to hope equal treatments for all everywhere.
: Let me ask you...if you had a "plum" or, at the least, interesting job
: offered to you back home...would you go back? If so, why? And if not,
: why not?
The only reason I hope to go back is my sense of belonging to a family
I grew up with, my Ma, dida, dadu, mama and mashira, I miss them and
I'd like to be with them.
I worked enough in India to be well aware of the fact that in my area
of expertise such a job will never be there, however, I have already
stated why I hope to be back and I hope that answers your question.
: some people. It was is if they thought we were responsible for setting
: American foreign policy or, at the very least, that we had a direct line
: to the committee! Neither did they mind getting down and dirty. :)
I am sorry to hear that.
: Why not? Could you please expand on this?
Yes, with very little knowledge that I have I can say that rich NRIs, granted
that kind of privilege, will most certainly abuse it, huge amout of foreign
money that can be pumped in to buy properties, lands, businesses etc., will
most certainly not benefit poor and middle class Indians.
I may be a bit inaccurate here but this is a possiblity.
: for a long time, I carried a bit of a grudge against the circumstances
: that brought me here. Well, now that I _was_ here, I decided, I _will_
: make the best of it. And, I tried to do so. But, that did not entail
: having to give up what I thought was mine. And my Indian citizenship _is_
: mine, at least in my eyes. Mind you, I still don't _have_ to do it. And,
: maybe, in the end, I won't. What I have tried to express is the inner
: conflict that many of _us_ feel, even if _we_ do give it up. That, it is
: _not_ an easy, blythely arrived at decision. That, there is a lot of
: painful soulsearching behind this decision. That, there IS a struggle
: against, maybe, the inevitable.
I came here when I was just about 26, born ,brought up, educated in India,
even I worked for some time in India, i.e I had had it with India ;-)
It's very hard for me to appreciate your position who came here against her
will and that too at the age of 15.
For me Indian citizenship is just a concept as to me India is all about a few
relatives of mine, if it so happens that I don't go back my heart will still
belong to India as long as they are there, that's why I was surprised by the
articles in this thread, if accepting US citizenship is a benefit then why
are you so upset, if you have enough ties you still belong to India, all that
has changed/will change is your passport.
Rajiv
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajiv Shukla My opinions are mine.
ra...@ctt.bellcore.com I don't speak for my
Bell Communications Research employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajiv Shukla
Chaitali Basu (c0ba...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu) wrote:
: : > Does
: : > pledging allegiance to one country automatically banish the other from
: : > the heart? If not, why should it make much of a difference? Why should it
: : > be this big a deal?
: :
: : It does not banish, but does make it secondary. You are a traitor
: : otherwise. It is a very big deal! You are choosing between opportunism
: : and principle.
: How does she become a traitor by opting for US citizenship? Citizens
: of one country are not all traitors for the other country.
I think you got it all wrong, Mr. Banerjee said "You are a traitor otherwise"
which probably means that if you accept US citizenship and India doesn't
become secondary(whatever that means) then you're a traitor to US.
: Also what principle is involved here exactly? Indrani has not voted
: in India or in US. She has not been able to use her democratic
She wouldn't be so resigned/upset if she didn't have anything against
giving up Indian citizenship and accepting US citizenship, probably that's
what Mr. Banerjee meant.
There is no concrete definition of principle,
if I do anything against my wish and that benefits me then surely I am chosing
between opportunism and principle.
If I do anything that benfits me that's opportunism.
If I didn't want to do that in the first place then it must be against *my*
principle.
2+2=4, easy, isn't it? ;-)
Chaitali Basu
Arindam Banerjee (a.ban...@trl.oz.au) wrote:
: c0ba...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Chaitali Basu) wrote:
:
: > : > Does
: > : > the heart? If not, why should it make much of a difference? Why should it
: > : > be this big a deal?
: > : It does not banish, but does make it secondary. You are a traitor
: > : otherwise. It is a very big deal! You are choosing between opportunism
: > : and principle.
: >
: > How does she become a traitor by opting for US citizenship? Citizens
: > of one country are not all traitors for the other country.
: >
: She does not become a traitor to India by becoming an US citizen!
: She becomes one to USA if her primary allegiance remains with India after
: pledging alliance to the USA. That is what I meant.
: I regret using the term "traitor". It has too medieval and dramatic a
: connotation. "Disloyal" would more meet the case.
I still fail to undersatnd how she becomes 'disloyal' to US. If
you are talking of a situation where clash of interest between the
govenment level decisions of the two countries may occur, she
or anybody else can support a decision he/she thinks is
correct. Just because I am an Indian citizen does not make me
essentially support all decisions of the govn. So similarly
when a conflict of interest may occur between anybody's
country of birth and their present place of residence, they
can decide to take a stand that is based on their own judgement.
: > Also what principle is involved here exactly? Indrani has not voted
: > in India or in US.
:
: Oh, I was not talking about Indrani at all, only generally, based
: upon an earlier article.
: As for principle - well, I have just talked about it. I repeat, if
: you pledge alliance to anything for personal gain, while you have
: superior loyalties elsewhere, you are unprincipled and opportunistic.
: This happens with any important agreement, such as marriage, or business
: partnership, job, etc. There may be conflicts between two sets of
: loyalties, such as job and marriage, that may still be reconciled
: without loss of principle.
I don't understand what personal gain you are talking about here.
As I see the citizenship gives you some rights together with some
duties. Is anyone takes the rights and refuses to do the duties,
that's oppurtunism taken badly. But if someone staying in a country
not his/her place of birth for many years feel that there are some
rights that he/she doesn't enjoy only because he/she is not a
citizen and so decides to take up the citizenship, then how do you
call that person as being unprincipled?
: What opportunism are you talking about here?
: >
: The kind which has been quite devastating in India. I do not wish it
: to happen elsewhere. If you are an American with superior loyalties
: for India, you do not do anyone any good, just as a few Indian Muslims who
: have superior loyalties elsewhere do not do any good at all to the
: rest who are loyal. Once a person takes the oath of American
: citizenship, he or she does best for the country of her origin by
: being as good an American citizen as possible.
:
: Of course, all this is very ideal, and we may think irrelevant for most
: practical purposes, perhaps. We are all as opportunistic as our
: consciences will allow. Still, if we had no objective principles at all
: (and loyalty is perhaps the most basic higher order need)
: we would not know even the way to go.
Do I essentially have to have loyalty in the sense you are talking
about? Can I not judge every situation or decision taken by one
govn. based on the merit of the facts known and rely on my own
judgemental power? Why do I have to be a blind follower of anyone?
In a case of a cricket match between India and Pakisthan, do I
have to support a country? Can I not appreciate good batsmanship,
bowling or fielding of individual players? Then possibly we
will not have the problems you fear are there in India.
: Arindam Banerjee
Chaitali
P.K.Purkayastha
Chaitali Basu wrote:
>
> Arindam Banerjee (a.ban...@trl.oz.au) wrote:
> : c0ba...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Chaitali Basu) wrote:
> :
> : > : > pledging allegiance to one country automatically banish the other from
> : > : > the heart? If not, why should it make much of a difference? Why should it
> : > : > be this big a deal?
I note with great interest this discourse on the subject of to change or
not to chnage one's citizenship, whether it is opportunism or in
principle. Really, given that we all have been staying in this country
for a long time and have enjoyed the fruits and facilities of this
place, is it then wrong to decide to change citizenship ? What have you
done for India and what has it done for you. In fact by your staying out
of the country you have helped others have a job and survive. I can
absolutely vouchsafe for the inconvenience and insulting behavior one
gets in most parts of the world because one carries an Indian passport.
Equally well I understand the struggle that Indrani devi is going
through on whether it is right to become a citizen of USA or not. I ask
when you have stayed here for most of your life because of the
conveniences you have had, why not become a citizen here and assure
some peace for your travels etc. You are not giving up your birth
country not your people. Believe me, you will still be badly treated by
the customs and imigration people in NY or in London. But at least you
will have the pleasure of passing through the lines quicker, no need for
visa ( even for France ).
I have not taken the step myself but have come to the conclusion that I
am not giving up anything by changing citizenship ( it is only a piece
of paper ) but I stand to make life a little easier for myself. My
loyalty, should it ever have to be challanged, will have to be with the
country whose passport I carry --- but I will continue to be an Indian
and be still loyal to it. Also by being a citizen I may be able to have
a voice in this coutry's policies towards India ( a-la Israel ).
Where India can help is by allowing dual citizenship as many countries (
Germany, Austria, Israel etc ). That way India gets the benfits and we
don't have to go,through this heartwrenching effort.
Prabal Purkayastha
Arindam Banerjee
> I still fail to undersatnd how she becomes 'disloyal' to US.
When you pledge supreme alliance to a cause, and secretly have
higher alliance elsewhere, then your pledge is not sincere, and so
you are disloyal.
If
> you are talking of a situation where clash of interest between the
> govenment level decisions of the two countries may occur, she
> or anybody else can support a decision he/she thinks is
> correct.
Certainly.
Just because I am an Indian citizen does not make me
> essentially support all decisions of the govn. So similarly
> when a conflict of interest may occur between anybody's
> country of birth and their present place of residence, they
> can decide to take a stand that is based on their own judgement.
They may not find it possible to do that. As American citizens they
may be drafted to fight people they do not want to fight - in any case
they will, like it or not, be identified with all the harm and evil
that Americans have done to other peoples. They will have to bear that
responsibility - taking the stand I-do-not-support-killing-of-Iraqis-
for-oil-but-I-am-proud-to-be-American may help them to live more peacefully
with themselves, but will not shield them from criticism.
> I don't understand what personal gain you are talking about here.
Money, comfort, convenience, prestige, health facilities, higher
education.... the list is endless. If you refuse American citizenship
and are therefore forced to return to India, that is the personal gain
you have to give up.
> As I see the citizenship gives you some rights together with some
> duties. Is anyone takes the rights and refuses to do the duties,
> that's oppurtunism taken badly.
Exactly! It is also not a question simply of duties. As an American
you have to be more proud of American values, American ideals and
American achievements than of anything else. If in your heart you
cannot be all that, you find other ideals, values and achievements
superior, you should not opt for American citizenship.
But if someone staying in a country
> not his/her place of birth for many years feel that there are some
> rights that he/she doesn't enjoy only because he/she is not a
> citizen and so decides to take up the citizenship, then how do you
> call that person as being unprincipled?
I do not call such a person unprincipled at all. I will only call such
a person unprincipled if he or she secretly holds higher allegiance
elsewhere.
> Do I essentially have to have loyalty in the sense you are talking
> about?
I am not sure whether you have comprehended the kind of loyalty I am
talking about. But very few people do, so please do not bother too much!
I am after all a completely antediluvian soul.
Can I not judge every situation or decision taken by one
> govn. based on the merit of the facts known and rely on my own
> judgemental power?
Your judgment is irrelevant. Whatever you judge, or not judge, is
immaterial. You as part of the US/India will be judged by non-US/non-India on the
basis of the actions of the US/India government.
Why do I have to be a blind follower of anyone?
No reason at all. But if you are drafted to fight, you do have to
blindly follow orders from your commanding officer.
> In a case of a cricket match between India and Pakisthan, do I
> have to support a country? Can I not appreciate good batsmanship,
> bowling or fielding of individual players?
Oh, certainly! But life is not all cricket, I am afraid. We have
hideous problems in Kashmir, for instance. The choices there are far
more difficult than supporting Imran or Kapil, or both.
Then possibly we
> will not have the problems you fear are there in India.
Certainly if everyone thought as you, and acted accordingly, we could
be much better off. What you are actually trying to propound is
internationalism. That would be a great idea, but I am afraid it cannot
take place unless there is a far greater degree of economic equality
among the nations. I believe that holding allegiance to just one
country is necessary for that to happen. Otherwise in the name of
internationalism or convenient bi-nationalism, the more able people
in the poor nations will simply shift permanently to the rich nations,
and the economic divide will continue.
In the complete absence of generosity from rich nations, where they
spend more on fishbait than foreign aid, and give 100 times more
importance to feeding dogs and cats than starving people,
to take away the spirit of nationalism is to doom poor nations to
eternal poverty.
Arindam Banerjee
Disclaimer: My opinions do not involve my employer.
>
> Chaitali
Shubu Mukherjee
>>>>> In article <539cj0$e...@newsserver.trl.OZ.AU>, Arindam Banerjee <a.ban...@trl.oz.au> writes:
AB> She does not become a traitor to India by becoming an US citizen!
AB> She becomes one to USA if her primary allegiance remains with India after
AB> pledging alliance to the USA. That is what I meant.
As far as I know the US allows dual citizenship, but India doesn't.
So, even if you pledge allegiance to the US, the US doesn't require
your allegiance to remain only with it. Hence you cannot call someone
a traitor if he/she pledges allegiance to both the US and India.
Anyway, its not clear what value there is to such allegiance in the
bigger context of socio-economic globalization.
-Shubu
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shubu Mukherjee University of Wisconsin-Madison, Computer Sciences
Jagtar Narula
>
> As far as I know the US allows dual citizenship, but India doesn't.
> So, even if you pledge allegiance to the US, the US doesn't require
> your allegiance to remain only with it. Hence you cannot call someone
> a traitor if he/she pledges allegiance to both the US and India.
I always that that the US requires you to renounce allegiance with any
other foreign country. That is what I seemed to remember from getting my
citizenship, but I could be wrong.
Jagtar
brao
In article <53emi7$9...@newsserver.trl.oz.au>,
Arindam Banerjee <a.ban...@trl.oz.au> wrote:
>
>> I still fail to undersatnd how she becomes 'disloyal' to US.
>
>When you pledge supreme alliance to a cause, and secretly have
>higher alliance elsewhere, then your pledge is not sincere, and so
>you are disloyal.
Interesting. What "cause" is this exactly? Having lived in America for
a long time, I see a huge variety of mutually conflicting causes,
almost on the same scale as in India.
Sure, there is a pledge of "allegiance" to the US and its
constitution. With the second part (the constitution) it may be easier to
identify whether one is being truthful or not. Presumably it means
that one has to have a belief in the constitution as a precondition to
becoming a citizen. However, what about someone who becomes a citizen
intending to fight for (say) a "right-to-life" amendment to the
constitution? Obviously he has a problem with the constitution as it
stands now, so does it mean he is being disloyal, untruthful, or any
of those awful things?
While the second part is itself problematic, the first part ("loyalty
to the US") is much harder. What does it mean, exactly? Should a
naturalized citizen forswear the right to fight against a
"anti-flag-burning" constitutional amendment, for example because it
would be "disloyal?" Or should he fight even more vigorously against
it because it would be even more loyal to support free expression? If
an American citizen thought his country's policy towards Ruritania is
wicked and inhuman, he will likely speak up. Or maybe another one would
spend his entire life to help Benightia, a wretched country
somewhere. Should a naturalized citizen meekly accept America's abuse of
Ruritania or deny himself the option of working for the betterment of
Benightia? Is there a rule book for naturalized citizens that spells
out how these decisions should be made? Otherwise of what use is this
"extra" allegiance that comes with becoming a citizen?
(I can see that some issues would be clear--when the US government
orders its citizens to take certain actions (e.g., avoiding trade with
Iraq or gathering at the US consulate overseas in an emergency), one
has to obey. Similarly, if there were to be a military draft, one
should be prepared to fight on the US side in a war (moot issue since
the military is now voluntary). )
The only remotely useful connotation of "loyal" seems to be a
emotional sense of "belonging." But the emigre' is always in an
in-between state of belonging-but-not-quite-belonging
everywhere he goes. By his decision to emigrating, the immigrant has
already entered this state from which there is said to be no escape.
Is he being loyal to India by remaining a non-voting Indian
citizen but depriving himself and India of each other? What kind of
loyalty is that? Maybe he feels that he has had enough of that kind of
distant loyalty, and experiences a need to bring his emotional state
in line with his physical state. How each individual deals with the
dichotomy of homeland and adopted land is entirely up to that
individual. I don't think it is useful to loosely bandy about
poorly-understood, even dangerous terms like "loyalty."
Taking a citizenship oath does not materially alter the expected content of
a legal resident's behavior--he is *already* being loyal: obeying the
law, paying taxes, contributing productively to the economy, being
available for compulsory military service in case of a draft, and
quite possibly being active in improving life around him. What he is
additionally doing is accepting the right (and responsibility) to have
a voice in his adopted country's affairs. Ultimately, this acceptance
is the only viable meaning of "loyalty."
If you look at history, citizenship is also an assertion of a right to
be a full-fledged member of society, as opposed to a slave or other
second-class entity. The denial of citizenship rights based on race or
ethnic origin has its philosophical roots in this very notion, namely
that it is a right that is conferred, and fought for, as opposed to
an onus that the host country is thrusting on one.
Recall the original war-cry of citizenship and freedom, "No taxation
without representation!"
My personal views.
(Subject to random change without notice on this subject. :-))
Bapa Rao
brao
...
>Exactly! It is also not a question simply of duties. As an American
>you have to be more proud of American values, American ideals and
>American achievements than of anything else. If in your heart you
>cannot be all that, you find other ideals, values and achievements
>superior, you should not opt for American citizenship.
I asked in an earlier post for a "rule book" to determine how
naturalized citizens should behave. This comes close, except it is a
rule book about how people should think. Here in America, it is
considered bad taste to be a foreigner living here (irrespective of
citizenship status) while constantly criticizing American values
etc. But as far as I know there is no requirement that one has to
deceive oneself and others by professing to embrace "American" values
that one finds distasteful. Do you consider such deception an example
of "loyalty?" On the other hand, true disloyalty may be to withhold
the benefit of your background and upbringing (if you happen to think
of them as positive and socially beneficial) to your adopted land out
of some residual sense that one is still "foreign."
Have you considered that if I became an "American" then my values by
definition would be one instance of "American" values, likewise my
religion, food etc.? So where is the dichotomy? Isn't it a little
servile to suggest that Indian values are "less fit" to be seen as
"American" values than European-derived values, which you are implying
by default?
My personal views.
Bapa Rao
brao
...
>They may not find it possible to do that. As American citizens they
>may be drafted to fight people they do not want to fight - in any case
>they will, like it or not, be identified with all the harm and evil
Points of fact--1. there is no selective service (draft) now.
2. Legal residents, not just citizens were subject to the draft.
Snehasis Ganguly
P.K.Purkayastha (ppur...@mich.com) wrote:
I must protest against this insult to Indian citizens.
India gave you the chance to get the basic education, food,
clothing,shelter so that one day you could come here.
A lot of countries in the world wouldn't give you even that.
The people who stay back could have very well survived
with you or without you. It requires lot of physical and
mental stamina to stay and survive in India.
In fact as my friend who went back to India after ten years
says, it is easier to come to USA these days with NIIT diploma+
bodyshopper than to get a job and raise children in India.
: of the country you have helped others have a job and survive. I can
: absolutely vouchsafe for the inconvenience and insulting behavior one
: gets in most parts of the world because one carries an Indian passport.
: Equally well I understand the struggle that Indrani devi is going
: through on whether it is right to become a citizen of USA or not. I ask
: when you have stayed here for most of your life because of the
: conveniences you have had, why not become a citizen here and assure
: some peace for your travels etc. You are not giving up your birth
: country not your people. Believe me, you will still be badly treated by
: the customs and imigration people in NY or in London. But at least you
: will have the pleasure of passing through the lines quicker, no need for
: visa ( even for France ).
: I have not taken the step myself but have come to the conclusion that I
: am not giving up anything by changing citizenship ( it is only a piece
: of paper ) but I stand to make life a little easier for myself. My
: loyalty, should it ever have to be challanged, will have to be with the
: country whose passport I carry --- but I will continue to be an Indian
: and be still loyal to it. Also by being a citizen I may be able to have
: a voice in this coutry's policies towards India ( a-la Israel ).
: Where India can help is by allowing dual citizenship as many countries (
: Germany, Austria, Israel etc ). That way India gets the benfits and we
: don't have to go,through this heartwrenching effort.
: Prabal Purkayastha
Indrani has done well to change the citizenship. If anyone
feels interested, they can do a lot of things for India even
with an American passport. It is meaningless not to have
the benefits because of Green card, when you are determined to
stay here for the rest of your lives.
Rajiv and Arindambabu : Well written articles.
Thanks
Snehasis
--
India-monsoon and marigold, dung and dust, colors and corpses ,
smoke and ash, snow and endless myth- is a cruel, unrelenting
place of ineffable sweetness. It is the most difficult and most
rewarding of places to travel.
-James O'Reilly
Kalpataru Barman
P.K.Purkayastha wrote:
>
> I note with great interest this discourse on the subject of to change > or
> not to chnage one's citizenship, whether it is opportunism or in
> principle. Really, given that we all have been staying in this country
> for a long time and have enjoyed the fruits and facilities of this
> place, is it then wrong to decide to change citizenship ?
> What have you done for India and what has it done for you.
********************************
India is full of Indians ( 930 millions). The question can be , what
have you done for Indians and what have Indians ( your fellow
countrymen ) done for you ?
>In fact by your staying out
> of the country you have helped others have a job and survive. I can
********************************
Your help was survival to one fellow Indian. So please dont ever think
of going back and kill one fellow countryman. Dont ask for dual
citizenship.
> absolutely vouchsafe for the inconvenience and insulting behavior one
> gets in most parts of the world because one carries an Indian passport.
*********************************
This is partly true for most of the poor/underdevloped countries.
If you cannot wait to get citizenship, throw the filthy passport away
and become refugee.
> Equally well I understand the struggle that Indrani devi is going
> through on whether it is right to become a citizen of USA or not. I
*********************************
Everyone has the right to ensure comfort in the rest of their life and
ensure it for their near and dear ones. So , nothing is wrong in
becoming a citizen of US. But then, please, forget India. You cannot
have comfort and sufferings together. If at all looking for dual
citizenship , why not try for Canada also ( No. 1 among developed
countries as far as standard of living is concerned )
>ask
> when you have stayed here for most of your life because of the
> conveniences you have had, why not become a citizen here and assure
> some peace for your travels etc. You are not giving up your birth
> country not your people. Believe me, you will still be badly treated by
> the customs and imigration people in NY or in London. But at least you
> will have the pleasure of passing through the lines quicker, no need for
> visa ( even for France ).
> I have not taken the step myself but have come to the conclusion that I
> am not giving up anything by changing citizenship ( it is only a piece
> of paper ) but I stand to make life a little easier for myself. My
> loyalty, should it ever have to be challanged, will have to be with the
> country whose passport I carry --- but I will continue to be an Indian
> and be still loyal to it. Also by being a citizen I may be able to have
> a voice in this coutry's policies towards India ( a-la Israel ).
> Where India can help is by allowing dual citizenship as many countries (> Germany, Austria, Israel etc ). That way India gets the benfits and we
************************
What benifits will India get ? You will try your best to change US
policies for India. But you ar an US citizen by then and you carry
their passport and you are loyal !
Chaitali Basu
Arindam Banerjee (a.ban...@trl.oz.au) wrote:
:
: > I still fail to undersatnd how she becomes 'disloyal' to US.
:
: When you pledge supreme alliance to a cause, and secretly have
: higher alliance elsewhere, then your pledge is not sincere, and so
: you are disloyal.
What does the term "supreme alliance to a cause" mean? Does it mean
blind faith? To have this do I have to shut off my own brain and
stop thinking and stop asking questions on decisions taken by
someone else ?
: > when a conflict of interest may occur between anybody's
: > country of birth and their present place of residence, they
: > can decide to take a stand that is based on their own judgement.
:
: They may not find it possible to do that. As American citizens they
: may be drafted to fight people they do not want to fight - in any case
: they will, like it or not, be identified with all the harm and evil
: that Americans have done to other peoples. They will have to bear that
: responsibility - taking the stand I-do-not-support-killing-of-Iraqis-
: for-oil-but-I-am-proud-to-be-American may help them to live more peacefully
: with themselves, but will not shield them from criticism.
Well it depends on who the criticism is coming from? Just like
any person should take responsibility of his/her own judgement
and action, similarly he/she has a right to ignore criticisms
coming from any and every quarter. For example presently I am sure
that I donot need to pay heed to criticisms from people saying
that "women should not work outdoors".
Regarding fighting against people who they donot want to fight,
the solution can be found elsewhere, namely is changing laws
against forceful conscription.
: you have to be more proud of American values, American ideals and
: American achievements than of anything else. If in your heart you
: cannot be all that, you find other ideals, values and achievements
: superior, you should not opt for American citizenship.
What do you mean by American values? All humans have a basic value
system. Why do I have to subscribe to anything other than that?
I can have a different culture or lanuguage but why should
value system change for citizens of one country from another?
Also as you have pointed out that there are people born and brought
up in US who do not support the Iraqi action and are possibly
not proud of this particular achievement of US? So are they being
less loyal to their country?
: I do not call such a person unprincipled at all. I will only call such
: a person unprincipled if he or she secretly holds higher allegiance
: elsewhere.
And what if that person holds allegiance only to his/her judgemental
power instead of any other external factors?
: > Do I essentially have to have loyalty in the sense you are talking
: > about?
:
: I am not sure whether you have comprehended the kind of loyalty I am
: talking about. But very few people do, so please do not bother too much!
: I am after all a completely antediluvian soul.
I can say I tried and am still trying to understand.
: Can I not judge every situation or decision taken by one
: > govn. based on the merit of the facts known and rely on my own
: > judgemental power?
:
: Your judgment is irrelevant. Whatever you judge, or not judge, is
: immaterial. You as part of the US/India will be judged by
: non-US/non-India on the
: basis of the actions of the US/India government.
I have nothing to say to this. I guess its more a problem of priority
now. To me if I think I am doing something right, its right regardless
of what others say. To you, it seems what others say is more important.
: Why do I have to be a blind follower of anyone?
:
: No reason at all. But if you are drafted to fight, you do have to
: blindly follow orders from your commanding officer.
Can I not protest against forceful conscription before already going
to the battle field?
: Certainly if everyone thought as you, and acted accordingly, we could
: be much better off. What you are actually trying to propound is
: internationalism. That would be a great idea, but I am afraid it cannot
: take place unless there is a far greater degree of economic equality
: among the nations. I believe that holding allegiance to just one
: country is necessary for that to happen. Otherwise in the name of
: internationalism or convenient bi-nationalism, the more able people
: in the poor nations will simply shift permanently to the rich nations,
: and the economic divide will continue.
: In the complete absence of generosity from rich nations, where they
: spend more on fishbait than foreign aid, and give 100 times more
: importance to feeding dogs and cats than starving people,
: to take away the spirit of nationalism is to doom poor nations to
: eternal poverty.
I am sorry for ill communication on my part. I was not propounding
something as great as internationalism but was putting a little bit
more stress on the good points of individualism as against trying
to form groups to find some superficial identification for oneself.
: Arindam Banerjee
Chaitali
Subhajit Sen
In article <SHUBU.96O...@providence.cs.wisc.edu>,
Shubu Mukherjee <sh...@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>>> In article <539cj0$e...@newsserver.trl.OZ.AU>, Arindam Banerjee <a.ban...@trl.oz.au> writes:
>
>AB> She becomes one to USA if her primary allegiance remains with India after
>AB> pledging alliance to the USA. That is what I meant.
>
>As far as I know the US allows dual citizenship, but India doesn't.
>So, even if you pledge allegiance to the US, the US doesn't require
>your allegiance to remain only with it. Hence you cannot call someone
>a traitor if he/she pledges allegiance to both the US and India.
>
>bigger context of socio-economic globalization.
I cannot predict the future but I do not foresee that socio-economic
globalization will continue at the same pace, if countries are not to disappear
from the map of the world and a borderless,passport-less homogeneous world appear
in its place which I don't see happening. As I see it, globalization is a basically
a migration pattern created
by economic demand and accentuated by improvements in mode of transport. India,
which has witnessed a so-called "brain-drain" to the West, has itself been the beneficiary
of migration of skilled artisans from Central Asia,Persia(Iran),Afghanistan since
historical times esp. from the Muslim period onwards and also I believe from the far East.
In that sense India is the original land of immigrants. The only difference is that
the pace was very slow: hundreds of years instead of decades. These people also had value
systems that were different and sometimes in conflict with that of the new homeland that
they adopted and were faced with the same conflict of loyalty that Indians of today face
when they take up US/Canadian/Australian citizenship. The question that comes to mind
is why did the migration stop. Some of the reasons I think are political and
economic instability created by wars and palace coups. The same goes for the present Indian
migration pattern to North America. Also the question of saturation of industrial
sectors is a factor(Microsoft does not need any more of those hot C++/Java programmers)
apart from the anti-immigrant lobbies e.g. those of Pat Buchanan
in U.S. and Preston Manning in Canada.
This is again a very personal and non-scholarly viewpoint of what is going on
and how we must understand immigration in order to be comfortable with loyalty/disloyalty
issue to India or to America if we decide to take up citizenship. Personally speaking,
though I do not intend to take up either American or Canadian citizenship, I am more
sympathetic with Bharati Mukherji's viewpoint than that of her sister.
Subhajit
Anil K. Sharma
brao wrote:
>
> In article <53emi7$9...@newsserver.trl.oz.au>,
> Arindam Banerjee <a.ban...@trl.oz.au> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >you have to be more proud of American values, American ideals and
> >American achievements than of anything else. If in your heart you
> >cannot be all that, you find other ideals, values and achievements
> >superior, you should not opt for American citizenship.
>
> naturalized citizens should behave. This comes close, except it is a
Have you considered just being yourself? This is afterall the melting
pot.
> rule book about how people should think. Here in America, it is
[snip]
>
> My personal views.
>
> Bapa Rao
--
-------------------------------------------
* ALL opinions/statements are my own. *
Anil K. Sharma
Computer Sciences Corporation
Systems Engineering Division
ash...@csc.com
-------------------------------------------
Chaitali Basu
brao (br...@pollux.usc.edu) wrote:
: Have you considered that if I became an "American" then my values by
: definition would be one instance of "American" values, likewise my
: religion, food etc.? So where is the dichotomy? Isn't it a little
: servile to suggest that Indian values are "less fit" to be seen as
: "American" values than European-derived values, which you are implying
: by default?
Could you please state some of these values which are above normal
human values and so can be classified as 'American values' or
'Indian values'?
: Bapa Rao
Chaitali
Anil K. Sharma
Snehasis Ganguly wrote:
[snip]
> --
> India-monsoon and marigold, dung and dust, colors and corpses ,
> smoke and ash, snow and endless myth- is a cruel, unrelenting
> place of ineffable sweetness. It is the most difficult and most
> rewarding of places to travel.
>
> -James O'Reilly
Yes but at least the food has taste.
Snehasis Ganguly
Chaitali Basu (c0ba...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu) wrote:
: brao (br...@pollux.usc.edu) wrote:
: : Bapa Rao
: Chaitali
An ideal is going begging- the ideal of world
citizenship. Aurobindo, Milton,Paine, Hugo,Heine, Tennyson,Tagore and
numerous others were eloquent in their plea for a world citizenship.
Today the basic fundamentals for the ideal exist, but the ideal itself
is virtually an orphan. Can it be that the greatest obstacles to world
citizenship is the lack of awareness that the ideal itself is not only
possible but mandatory?
If the existence of force can no longer serve as
the main source of nation's security, something else must replace it.
The new power is the power of human will-the power of consensus. Out of it
can come the energy and momentum for building a haven for human society.
Aurobindo realised this power and turned from his role of freedom fighter
to the role of harnessing this power through integral yoga.
Whatever our limitations, whatever great our
perpetuation of error, what has to be dome today is well within our
capacity. Every major problem in the world today calls for a world response.
It is thus necessary to transfer the United Nations into an effective
organization with primary responsibility for the conditions on planet
earth. A consensus in favor of a goverened world is not going to
take place overnight. But everything begins with advocacy and debate. just
in the process of arguing the great ideas, anew context for human situations
begins to emerge.
Snehasis
Andy Richter
If you are a naturalized US citizen from India -
Hypothetically, suppose that a war broke out between US and India. Would you
be willing to fight for the US?
Arindam Banerjee
c0ba...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Chaitali Basu) wrote:
>
> Arindam Banerjee (a.ban...@trl.oz.au) wrote:
> :
> : > I still fail to undersatnd how she becomes 'disloyal' to US.
> :
> : When you pledge supreme alliance to a cause, and secretly have
> : higher alliance elsewhere, then your pledge is not sincere, and so
> : you are disloyal.
>
> What does the term "supreme alliance to a cause" mean?
It means considering that cause to be higher all others.
Does it mean
> blind faith?
Often, yes, to others. But that may appear perfectly reasonable
to the person pledging the alliance.
To have this do I have to shut off my own brain and
> stop thinking and stop asking questions on decisions taken by
> someone else ?
Not necessarily. There is usually and in the case of American
citizenship certainly a very high amount of flexibility.
> Well it depends on who the criticism is coming from? Just like
> any person should take responsibility of his/her own judgement
> and action, similarly he/she has a right to ignore criticisms
> coming from any and every quarter. For example presently I am sure
> that I donot need to pay heed to criticisms from people saying
> that "women should not work outdoors".
Very true. But whether you work outdoors or indoors does not matter
to the non-American one little bit. What does matter to him is that
when you go to work you fill up with the tank with the blood of
Iraquis you paid your government to shed so that you may pay a few
cents less.
>
> Regarding fighting against people who they donot want to fight,
> the solution can be found elsewhere, namely is changing laws
> against forceful conscription.
>
Sure, let the poor whites and blacks do the fighting.
> : you have to be more proud of American values, American ideals and
> : American achievements than of anything else. If in your heart you
> : cannot be all that, you find other ideals, values and achievements
> : superior, you should not opt for American citizenship.
>
> What do you mean by American values?
I think the stereotyped ones are alas only too well known.
All humans have a basic value
> system. Why do I have to subscribe to anything other than that?
What is this basic value system? If it is human equality, then why
do not Americans open their borders to all?
> I can have a different culture or lanuguage but why should
> value system change for citizens of one country from another?
What exactly is this basic value system?
> Also as you have pointed out that there are people born and brought
> up in US who do not support the Iraqi action and are possibly
> not proud of this particular achievement of US? So are they being
> less loyal to their country?
Of course, exactly the way some Germans were about the Nazi govt.
Sometimes it is great to be disloyal. But then such persons are really
very highly principled, not lying self-seekers.
> : I do not call such a person unprincipled at all. I will only call such
> : a person unprincipled if he or she secretly holds higher allegiance
> : elsewhere.
>
> And what if that person holds allegiance only to his/her judgemental
> power instead of any other external factors?
Then that person should distance himself from all organised structures
and live like a hermit following Thoreau.
> : Can I not judge every situation or decision taken by one
> : > govn. based on the merit of the facts known and rely on my own
> : > judgemental power?
> :
> : Your judgment is irrelevant. Whatever you judge, or not judge, is
> : immaterial. You as part of the US/India will be judged by
> : non-US/non-India on the
> : basis of the actions of the US/India government.
>
> I have nothing to say to this. I guess its more a problem of priority
> now. To me if I think I am doing something right, its right regardless
> of what others say. To you, it seems what others say is more important.
No it is not a problem of priorities, it is a matter of others' perception.
I deeply regret to say this, but your idea of rightness is quite
identical to that of a spoilt brat. It is with this idea of rightness
that Vietnamese, Iraqui, and so many others have been persecuted.
I would think that what others say is more important when they are in
a better position to know the truth. Age and
experience helps. However no one knows you better than you yourself.
So you have the right to take your own decisions, if you are adult.
But you should not conclude that your own decisions are actually the
right decisions.
> Can I not protest against forceful conscription before already going
> to the battle field?
You may, but you still will have to go if you do not have influence or
do not wish to go to jail.
>
> : Certainly if everyone thought as you, and acted accordingly, we could
> : be much better off. What you are actually trying to propound is
> : internationalism. That would be a great idea, but I am afraid it cannot
> : take place unless there is a far greater degree of economic equality
> : among the nations. I believe that holding allegiance to just one
> : country is necessary for that to happen. Otherwise in the name of
> : internationalism or convenient bi-nationalism, the more able people
> : in the poor nations will simply shift permanently to the rich nations,
> : and the economic divide will continue.
> : In the complete absence of generosity from rich nations, where they
> : spend more on fishbait than foreign aid, and give 100 times more
> : importance to feeding dogs and cats than starving people,
> : to take away the spirit of nationalism is to doom poor nations to
> : eternal poverty.
>
> I am sorry for ill communication on my part. I was not propounding
> something as great as internationalism but was putting a little bit
> more stress on the good points of individualism as against trying
> to form groups to find some superficial identification for oneself.
No you were propounding internationalism though perhaps unintentionally.
You were writing how nice it would be if we could only admire individual's
merits. That is only possible in an internationalist perspective,
where there is genuine equality. Today your perception of any
individual's talents will be coloured by what your media, which
panders to your nationalistic pride, will make out. But why blame the
media alone? There are other institutions, such as the
Nobel Prize committee, which will never find merit in anything from
the Indian subcontinent, and thereby lower the self-esteem
of the people there. Fake internationalism has been disastrous.
The identification with groups, that you talk about, is anything but
superficial. Your stress on "good points of individualism" can be
only smiled at, when thinking how this individualism, surviving upon
punching some buttons, is based upon highly organised and
complicated structures. I see no individualism in USA. I see only a
homogenous group at the top of the food chain.
Bluefox
> If you are a naturalized US citizen from India -
>
> Hypothetically, suppose that a war broke out between US and India. Would you
> be willing to fight for the US?
Tough question. I don't think anyone in this world is eager to go
bomb their friends and family. Put yourself in that position. If
you had to go drop an A bomb on the US and kill your wife and child
there, you wouldn't be in high spirits either.
Of course it depends on what the motives for going to war was to
begin with. If India was like Germany of 39, then probably i would
go to rid the country of the dictator. But if it was US vs India
fighting over an oil field in the Indian ocean, i think most Indians
would like to keep out of it.
This isn't exculsive to any one ethnic community. When your
ansestors arrived in America, they probably had emotional attachment
to their homelands at least for the first few generations. Part
of the reason America entered WWI and WWII was because many were angry
at Germany having attacked their ansestral homeland (i.e Britain,
France and Holland).
Good question though.
Drew Beck
Bluefox <ar...@maloca.com> wrote:
>> Hypothetically, suppose that a war broke out between US and India. Would you
>> be willing to fight for the US?
>
> Tough question. I don't think anyone in this world is eager to go
>bomb their friends and family. Put yourself in that position. If
>you had to go drop an A bomb on the US and kill your wife and child
>there, you wouldn't be in high spirits either.
> Of course it depends on what the motives for going to war was to
>begin with. If India was like Germany of 39, then probably i would
>go to rid the country of the dictator...
That's the "funny" part of war--you don't go directly after the mean
dictator or the decision makers of the government; instead, young people
are (generally) conscripted from the lower & middle classes of society to
go fight the war against the soldiers of the "other side". On both sides
of the conflict, these soldiers are most often young people who are just
doing their duty and following orders with no say in why the fighting is
going on in the first place. This way, the politicians and other decision
makers who are actually causing the trouble get to keep their hands
relatively clean of the dirty/bloody job of warfare. Of course, it's
often the lower & middle class masses who have to send their children off
to war, and it's usually the same masses who suffer the side affects of
the fighting--bombs dropped on buildings, food shortages, radiation
poisoning, etc. Meanwhile, the politicians (whose sons & daughters
miraculously find ways to avoid getting conscripted) continue to make
decisions that escalate the conflict, or cause new conflicts to start...
>But if it was US vs India
>fighting over an oil field in the Indian ocean, i think most Indians
>would like to keep out of it.
I would hope that most Americans, regardless of their ancestory, would
resist killing other human beings over an oil field. Of course, I'm
being terribly idealistic about human nature :(
Drew
Indrani DasGupta
Snehasis Ganguly wrote:
> Indrani has done well to change the citizenship.
Correction, Snehasis. I have _NOT_, yet, changed it. Please, let this be
the _LAST_ time I say so. Karon, er aage-o eta onekbar bolechhi, SCB-te,
ebong email-eo, tomake. THAT is what my posting was all about:
"To pledge or NOT to pledge". Jodi kore-i phele thaktam, tahole mairi
oto koshto kore, raat jege, naki kanna-ta kNadlam-i ba kano, bolo?
Jakge.
Jokhon hobe, jodi hoy, I promise I'll have a _huge_ party
(naki shok-shobha?:)) here in DC. Kukri nikhoj. Srabani nishchoyi
mere diyechhe...ba Chaitali. Aar Sharmila-di mere diye thakle...
Shobbai-ke dawat roilo.
Indrani.
ps: ei thread-ta aadhkhapchha bhaabe follow korar cheshta korchhi.
NiHshash phyala-r shomoy nei. Kintu posting-gulo poDe mon-e koyekta
proshno jegechhe...kodin por-e shegulo guchhiye korbo.
Arindam Banerjee
br...@pollux.usc.edu (brao) writes:
>In article <53emi7$9...@newsserver.trl.oz.au>,
>Arindam Banerjee <a.ban...@trl.oz.au> wrote:
>...
>>Exactly! It is also not a question simply of duties. As an American
>>you have to be more proud of American values, American ideals and
>>American achievements than of anything else. If in your heart you
>>cannot be all that, you find other ideals, values and achievements
>>superior, you should not opt for American citizenship.
>I asked in an earlier post for a "rule book" to determine how
>naturalized citizens should behave. This comes close, except it is a
>rule book about how people should think. Here in America, it is
>considered bad taste to be a foreigner living here (irrespective of
>citizenship status) while constantly criticizing American values
>etc.
No doubt. Especially if the criticism is not constructive.
Or based upon one's past habits.
But as far as I know there is no requirement that one has to
>deceive oneself and others by professing to embrace "American" values
>that one finds distasteful. Do you consider such deception an example
>of "loyalty?"
No, no not at all. Deception is deception and quite the opposite of loyalty.
When you profess loyalty, you have the moral and material welfare of what
you are being loyal to in mind.
On the other hand, true disloyalty may be to withhold
>the benefit of your background and upbringing (if you happen to think
>of them as positive and socially beneficial) to your adopted land out
>of some residual sense that one is still "foreign."
Exactly. This brings us to a very important point in the American context.
Should Americans of Indian origin be Americanised, or should they
Indianise America? The latter approach is very challenging. If America is
Indianised (and why not, they are a nation of immigrants after all, so far
too much influenced by dead Greek and Roman influences)
then the USA will not appear so repugnant to other nations.
>Have you considered that if I became an "American" then my values by
>definition would be one instance of "American" values, likewise my
>religion, food etc.?
It would be one instance out of 250 million instances.
The statistical significance does not seem much, unless this instance
is very influential.
When we talk of "American" we talk of the average American who does not have
Indian religion, food, etc.
Of course, such un-American values could be useful in a cover up.
In any case the chances for their lasting growth are rather small.
So where is the dichotomy? Isn't it a little
>servile to suggest that Indian values are "less fit" to be seen as
>"American" values than European-derived values, which you are implying
>by default?
Implying by default in your own mind, not mine.
As for "fitness", see above.
As for dichotomy - if you claim to have both American and Indian values, as they
are popularly perceived, you are a schizophrenic. Your best chance is to find
out common elements and build upon them.
Arindam Banerjee
Disclaimer: My opinions do not involve my employer.
Arindam Banerjee
Disclaimer: My opinions do not involve my employer.
brao
In article <53udhn$q...@pegasus.trl.oz.au>,
Arindam Banerjee <bane...@newsserver.trl.oz.au> wrote:
...
>No, no not at all. Deception is deception and quite the opposite of loyalty.
>When you profess loyalty, you have the moral and material welfare of what
>you are being loyal to in mind.
If one is living in a place for any nontrivial length of time, I think
there is a moral obligation and an emotional imperative to be at least
mindful of the welfare of people around one. And one's citizenship has
no bearing on this. Hope you agree.
>Exactly. This brings us to a very important point in the American context.
>Should Americans of Indian origin be Americanised, or should they
>Indianise America? The latter approach is very challenging. If America is
>Indianised (and why not, they are a nation of immigrants after all, so far
>too much influenced by dead Greek and Roman influences)
>then the USA will not appear so repugnant to other nations.
>
>>Have you considered that if I became an "American" then my values by
>>definition would be one instance of "American" values, likewise my
>>religion, food etc.?
>
>It would be one instance out of 250 million instances.
>The statistical significance does not seem much, unless this instance
>is very influential.
>When we talk of "American" we talk of the average American who does not have
>Indian religion, food, etc.
>Of course, such un-American values could be useful in a cover up.
>In any case the chances for their lasting growth are rather small.
In my experience, people behave in a way that is comfortable to
them. They don't normally worry about whether they are becoming
Americanized or whether they are Indianizing America, what are the
relative probabilities of each, etc. Culture, on the other hand, is a
dynamic entity which evolves from the ongoing interaction of
individuals and institutions in society. I daresay that unless one is
some kind of a fascist, one doesn't consciously go around trying to
"build culture" of one predefined sort or another.
I don't disagree with your assessment about the chances of Indian
culture being sustained etc. It is just that we have to assume that
all these factors will play a part in a person's decision about where
he lives and raises a family. Once the decision is made, can we say
that undergoing certain formalities will make him a different person
inside? I am saying that I seriously doubt it.
(BTW it does look like South Asian culture is alive and well in the UK and
Canada (if not the US), and has given rise to some creative syntheses
in the second generation.)
A lot of your argument seems to be political--by becoming an American
citizen, one becomes a willing party to the less palatable aspects of
American global policies. I really don't see how you arrive at this:
1. Materialy, every taxpayer, whether student or citizen, bears some
responsibility. 2. How do you justify ignoring the significant
minority of American citizens who dissent from their country's
policies? You seem to be saying (in a diffferent article on this
thread) that if a natural-born citizen dissents, it is an act of
conscienct, but if a naturalized citizen dissents, he is being untrue
to himself and his adopted country. Can you help me make sense of
this?
(Out of curiousity, are you aware of the debt owed by the American
socialist movement to first-generation naturalized immigrants, mostly
European Jews? Now those were true-blue dissidents. And yes, they got
subjected to name-calling and a lot worse. Do you think they were disloyal
or sincere people?)
>So where is the dichotomy? Isn't it a little
>>servile to suggest that Indian values are "less fit" to be seen as
>>"American" values than European-derived values, which you are implying
>>by default?
>
>Implying by default in your own mind, not mine.
Not so glib, please. If you didn't mean European-derived values, did
you mean African-derived or Hispanic-derived, or Chumash-derived or
Cherokee-derived or Chinese-derived values? If you meant
any-or-all of the previous, why should Indian-derived values be
excluded from the list? Or do you mean capitalist or consumerist
values? If the latter, aren't they present in India?
>As for "fitness", see above.
>As for dichotomy - if you claim to have both American and Indian values, as they
>are popularly perceived, you are a schizophrenic. Your best chance is to find
>out common elements and build upon them.
Oh, so now we have to be restricted only to "popularly perceived"
values. Should I take a poll before choosing what values to adopt
(since those I am already equipped with are obviously no good)
or is it enough to watch daytime talk shows and derive my values from
them? Or maybe study the National Enquirer?
I didn't claim to have "both American and Indian values", did I? I
said I find the distinction meaningless, and the only sensible notion
of values is those of the individual, which are of course derived from
his social exposures.
Once again, help me understand why my personal values, derived from my
Indian heritage and upbringing, would not by definition be American
values (insofar as that term is useful) if I were to become an
American. Also please help me make the distinction between what you
are saying and the notion that I (or Indians generally, as opposed to
Italians, Poles, Germans, Irish, Chinese et al) have a particular
obligation to consciously mold myself to some measure of central
tendency of the population.
Rishi Bhattacharjee
Yes
Rishi
In article <53sff0$m...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, aric...@conan.ob.com says...
>
>If you are a naturalized US citizen from India -
>
Arindam Banerjee
br...@pollux.usc.edu (brao) wrote:
_ text deleted_
> Once again, help me understand why my personal values, derived from my
> Indian heritage and upbringing, would not by definition be American
> values (insofar as that term is useful) if I were to become an
> American.
Because they would not apply to most Americans. They would not agree.
Non-Americans too would not think your personal values to be
American values.
Thus if your personal values, derived from India, are non-violence
and vegetarianism, then that does not mean that most Americans
are non-violent and vegetarian. They will not consider non-violence
and vegetarianism to be part of Americianism.
Non-Americans will consider Americans to be non-violent and
vegetarian, just because you consider that your being a non-violent
vegetarian American makes America so.
As I said, however, your non-violence and vegetarianism could be used
for a cover up. By saying that such are American values, for purely
opportunistic reasons, the high ups can gloss over the violence and
meat-eating they may or do indulge in, by using your original Indian values
as a mask.
Also please help me make the distinction between what you
> are saying and the notion that I (or Indians generally, as opposed to
> Italians, Poles, Germans, Irish, Chinese et al) have a particular
> obligation to consciously mold myself to some measure of central
> tendency of the population.
I never made any distinction between Indians and others. I was always
speaking in general terms.
Arindam Banerjee
> BTW, exactly what countries are you referring to that find USA so
> repugnant? Certainly not to Indians, because they are arriving here by
> the planeloads (then again, maybe they like things repugnant....just
> kidding, don't flame me).
All countries, in various degrees. This is largely because the USA
is the richest and most powerful country in the world, and so envied
and hated, often with good reason when they demonstrate their moral
negligibility allied with naked self-interest. In India we have good
reason to, for their arming Afghan rebels despite our earnest
pleadings. Their policies have created havoc for Afghans, and
Kashmiris - and that bothers us no end.
Most people would want to come to USA, though, for most human
beings are guided by self-interest. But not everyone can get a visa,
even a tourist one. Those who cannot, are content to consider the
USA repugnant (for its policies, not as a place).
You may find it necessary to differentiate between the desires of
Indians and the stand of the Indian govt. - the latter represents
the vast majority who cannot get visas to the USA.
brao
In article <546dfo$9...@newsserver.trl.oz.au>,
Arindam Banerjee <a.ban...@trl.oz.au* wrote:
*br...@pollux.usc.edu (brao) wrote:
*_ text deleted_
*
** Once again, help me understand why my personal values, derived from my
** Indian heritage and upbringing, would not by definition be American
** values (insofar as that term is useful) if I were to become an
** American.
*
*Because they would not apply to most Americans. They would not agree.
*Non-Americans too would not think your personal values to be
*American values.
*Thus if your personal values, derived from India, are non-violence
*and vegetarianism, then that does not mean that most Americans
*are non-violent and vegetarian. They will not consider non-violence
*and vegetarianism to be part of Americianism.
I'm still having difficulties. First, you are implying that American
values is synonymous with "majority" values. If this is true, does
it mean that native-born Americans who are non-violent and vegetarians
are "less" American? If not, why make the distinction for naturalized
Americans? Also, please note that the two values you chose are
minority values in India as well: the majority of Indians are
nonvegetarians, and the number of Indians committed to ahimsa is very
small. So, an Indian who is non-violent and vegetarian and becomes a
naturalized American is not making a qualitative change in his
individual situation vis-a-vis the surrounding society. As I asked in my
earlier post, is there some obligation for an immigrant to embrace
only the popular elements of the culture as opposed to developing his
own values in the American context?
Second, you are focussing only on aspects of values that are
"minority" in nature--what about values that are actually shared with
the "majority", such as (e.g.) the work ethic, respect for the law
etc.? How do you justify ignoring important commonalities?
*Non-Americans will consider Americans to be non-violent and
*vegetarian, just because you consider that your being a non-violent
*vegetarian American makes America so.
*As I said, however, your non-violence and vegetarianism could be used
*for a cover up. By saying that such are American values, for purely
*opportunistic reasons, the high ups can gloss over the violence and
*meat-eating they may or do indulge in, by using your original Indian values
*as a mask.
By using terms such as "cover-up", "gloss over" etc. you are saying
that acknowledging (e.g.,) nonviolence and vegetarianism as being
(also) American is dishonest. Again, I have a difficulty with
this--people are free in America to follow their culture which may
differ from the mainstream, though the system doesn't guarantee that
it will be easy to do so, This being the case, what is dishonest about
America representing itself to the world as a society in which
nonviolence and vegeterianism also have a place? If, the audience to
the claim makes the mistake of imagining that these values are what
will drive America's or any other country's policy, then the burden of
naievete is on the auditors' shoulders, is it not?
*
*Also please help me make the distinction between what you
** are saying and the notion that I (or Indians generally, as opposed to
** Italians, Poles, Germans, Irish, Chinese et al) have a particular
** obligation to consciously mold myself to some measure of central
** tendency of the population.
*
*I never made any distinction between Indians and others. I was always
*speaking in general terms.
OK. I just got that impression because you seem to keep implying that
becoming American automatically requires that one has to be ashamed of
Indian values, and keep them hidden because they are not popular or majority
values, and where these values are acknowledged it is necessarily
motivated by dishonorable intentions. Since so-called American values
are actually an amalgam of various European, African, Asian
(non-Indian for our present purpose) etc. values, I drew the inference
that Indian values "enjoy" a special status in your eyes in the
context of America.
To set me straight, all you have to do is to confirm that a British or
Italian or Irish immigrant to America is also in qualitatively the
same situation as an Indian immigrant, namely he too has to feel that
his native culture is un-American, and any invocation of the elements
of his native culture as an ingredient of American culture is
necessarily opportunistic and meant to deceive.
Can you give me this confirmation?
Live Killer
brao wrote:
>
> In article <546dfo$9...@newsserver.trl.oz.au>,
> Arindam Banerjee <a.ban...@trl.oz.au* wrote:
> *br...@pollux.usc.edu (brao) wrote:
> *_ text deleted_
> *
> ** Once again, help me understand why my personal values, derived from my
> ** Indian heritage and upbringing, would not by definition be American
> ** values (insofar as that term is useful) if I were to become an
> ** American.
> *
> *Because they would not apply to most Americans. They would not agree.
> *Non-Americans too would not think your personal values to be
> *American values.
> *Thus if your personal values, derived from India, are non-violence
> *and vegetarianism, then that does not mean that most Americans
> *are non-violent and vegetarian. They will not consider non-violence
> *and vegetarianism to be part of Americianism.
The first Hindu's were a violent Carniverious(Meat Eating) people. A guy
named Gandhi and Buddhists are the culprits that influenced India.
.
Nidhi Singh
Live Killer wrote:
>
> brao wrote:
> >
> > In article <546dfo$9...@newsserver.trl.oz.au>,
> > Arindam Banerjee <a.ban...@trl.oz.au* wrote:
> > *br...@pollux.usc.edu (brao) wrote:
> > *_ text deleted_
> > *
> > ** Once again, help me understand why my personal values, derived from my
> > ** Indian heritage and upbringing, would not by definition be American
> > ** values (insofar as that term is useful) if I were to become an
> > ** American.
> > *
> > *Because they would not apply to most Americans. They would not agree.
> > *Non-Americans too would not think your personal values to be
> > *American values.
> > *Thus if your personal values, derived from India, are non-violence
> > *and vegetarianism, then that does not mean that most Americans
> > *are non-violent and vegetarian. They will not consider non-violence
> > *and vegetarianism to be part of Americianism.
>
> named Gandhi and Buddhists are the culprits that influenced India.
You mean omniverous, the first Hindus ate meat and vegetables.
They even ate cows. The most famous beef eater -- Vishwamitra.
Which goes to so you that modern day Indians aren't real Indians,
they're a bunch of tree hugging new age weirdos. And yes, the
first Hindus never shivered at the thought of war.
> .
Arindam Banerjee
br...@pollux.usc.edu (brao) writes:
>In article <546dfo$9...@newsserver.trl.oz.au>,
>Arindam Banerjee <a.ban...@trl.oz.au* wrote:
>*br...@pollux.usc.edu (brao) wrote:
>*_ text deleted_
>*
>** Once again, help me understand why my personal values, derived from my
>** Indian heritage and upbringing, would not by definition be American
>** values (insofar as that term is useful) if I were to become an
>** American.
>*
>*Because they would not apply to most Americans. They would not agree.
>*Non-Americans too would not think your personal values to be
>*American values.
>*Thus if your personal values, derived from India, are non-violence
>*and vegetarianism, then that does not mean that most Americans
>*are non-violent and vegetarian. They will not consider non-violence
>*and vegetarianism to be part of Americianism.
>I'm still having difficulties. First, you are implying that American
>values is synonymous with "majority" values. If this is true, does
>it mean that native-born Americans who are non-violent and vegetarians
>are "less" American?
Yes.
I not, why make the distinction for naturalized
>Americans? Also, please note that the two values you chose are
>minority values in India as well: the majority of Indians are
>nonvegetarians, and the number of Indians committed to ahimsa is very
>small.
Very interesting point! A few days ago, at a Rostrum meeting a gentleman
from China talked about Go. An Australian in the audience asked how
did Go rate with popularity with Chess in China, for Chess also originated
in China. The speaker talked about the Chinese version of chess. Nowhere
was it said that chess originated in India!
It may be that in a hundred years all Indians may become pure carnivores,
and the Americans vegetarians claiming that vegetarianism and non-violence
originated in the great USofA. Till then we have to go by general perceptions.
My perceptions are formed from my surroundings and upbringings. To many
Australians, I am supposed to be a vegetarian and practise non-violence.
So, an Indian who is non-violent and vegetarian and becomes a
>naturalized American is not making a qualitative change in his
>individual situation vis-a-vis the surrounding society. As I asked in my
>earlier post, is there some obligation for an immigrant to embrace
>only the popular elements of the culture as opposed to developing his
>own values in the American context?
What an immigrant should do, or not do, is the immigrant's business. In
general he can get away with as much of his indigenous culture as his
new country will allow. All I am saying is that his primary loyalty should be
to his new country. What values he chooses to retain or adopt is his own
affair. I take it as self-evident that his choosing without coercion (not
too much, at any rate) a new identity means that he considers the values
associated with his new identity superior to those he left behind, on the
whole. Unless he is superhuman being bent upon changing on his own the
direction of his adopted countrymen.
>Second, you are focussing only on aspects of values that are
>"minority" in nature--what about values that are actually shared with
>the "majority", such as (e.g.) the work ethic, respect for the law
>etc.? How do you justify ignoring important commonalities?
Did I ever justify ignoring important commonalities? He becomes an immigrant
in the first place because he valued them.
>*Non-Americans will consider Americans to be non-violent and
>*vegetarian, just because you consider that your being a non-violent
>*vegetarian American makes America so.
>*As I said, however, your non-violence and vegetarianism could be used
>*for a cover up. By saying that such are American values, for purely
>*opportunistic reasons, the high ups can gloss over the violence and
>*meat-eating they may or do indulge in, by using your original Indian values
>*as a mask.
>By using terms such as "cover-up", "gloss over" etc. you are saying
>that acknowledging (e.g.,) nonviolence and vegetarianism as being
>(also) American is dishonest. Again, I have a difficulty with
>this--people are free in America to follow their culture which may
>differ from the mainstream, though the system doesn't guarantee that
>it will be easy to do so, This being the case, what is dishonest about
>America representing itself to the world as a society in which
>nonviolence and vegeterianism also have a place?
Because so far as the rest of the world is concerned Americans are the
champion environment-destroying meat eaters, who can if they so wish blow
up the rest of the world a hundred times over. Anything which mitigates this
stark reality is deception and dishonesty.
If, the audience to
>the claim makes the mistake of imagining that these values are what
>will drive America's or any other country's policy, then the burden of
>naievete is on the auditors' shoulders, is it not?
Of course. That is why the rest of the world cannot rely on the
minority elements in USA (the 10% who opposed the Gulf War) since they
have no power or influence. They have sympathy and support, but nothing
more.
>*
>*Also please help me make the distinction between what you
>** are saying and the notion that I (or Indians generally, as opposed to
>** Italians, Poles, Germans, Irish, Chinese et al) have a particular
>** obligation to consciously mold myself to some measure of central
>** tendency of the population.
>*
>*I never made any distinction between Indians and others. I was always
>*speaking in general terms.
>OK. I just got that impression because you seem to keep implying that
>becoming American automatically requires that one has to be ashamed of
>Indian values, and keep them hidden because they are not popular or majority
>values, and where these values are acknowledged it is necessarily
>motivated by dishonorable intentions. Since so-called American values
>are actually an amalgam of various European, African, Asian
>(non-Indian for our present purpose) etc. values, I drew the inference
>that Indian values "enjoy" a special status in your eyes in the
>context of America.
Certainly, because I am an Indian. Those born Indians and not proud to be so
can jolly well choose whatever citizenship they can.
I can respect them if they adhere to the values they
have voluntarily chosen. If they still hanker unduly after Indian values and
customs I wonder why they chose citizenship.
>To set me straight, all you have to do is to confirm that a British or
>Italian or Irish immigrant to America is also in qualitatively the
>same situation as an Indian immigrant, namely he too has to feel that
>his native culture is un-American, and any invocation of the elements
>of his native culture as an ingredient of American culture is
>necessarily opportunistic and meant to deceive.
>Can you give me this confirmation?
I think it is much easier for British or Italian or Irish immigrants to
adopt American culture, because there is not that much to lose or gain for them,
culture-wise. I have no business to speak for them, though. Still I think
it will be much easier for a European to work in a butcher's shop than most
Indians.
For many Indians, it is very different. I see American and Indian values as
totally different. To find similarity, you have to go back to the nineteenth
century and study deeply "Little Women" and the writings of Mark Twain.
I must conclude by confirming that I would never be a citizen of USA.
At least, the way I perceive the USA to be today, a homogenous blob at the
top of the food chain, creating trouble everywhere, foisting bad and wrong
values to third world elites guided purely by greed.... they are much worse
than the British, at least the British conducted their imperialism personally
and in my opinion gave more than they took in India.
Arindam Banerjee
Disclaimer: My opinions do not involve my employer.
>My personal views.
>Bapa Rao
gangadevi
Arindam Banerjee <bane...@newsserver.trl.oz.au> wrote in article
<54p2gt$c...@pegasus.trl.OZ.AU>...
> br...@pollux.usc.edu (brao) writes:
>
>All I am saying is that his primary loyalty should be
> to his new country. What values he chooses to retain or adopt is his own
> affair. I take it as self-evident that his choosing without coercion
(not
> too much, at any rate) a new identity means that he considers the values
> associated with his new identity superior to those he left behind, on the
> whole. Unless he is superhuman being bent upon changing on his own the
> direction of his adopted countrymen.
>
Come on now, we are not stupid. Tell it like it is...it's riding around in
your air conditioned car, in your rented condo...eating your southern
California tacos under the cali sun that make you stay in this land of milk
and honey. Don't talk about superior and refer to the US. How is it
superior, because it can deploy troops anywhere around the world, why
because it can invade a country and destroy its citizens without breaking a
sweat. Or is it superior because you no longer have the accountability of
mommie and daddy on your back. Not to say all the aunties and uncles.
Stay in America, she needs more citizens like you.
Indrani DasGupta
Test. Please ignore.
Indrani DasGupta
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> br...@pollux.usc.edu (brao) writes:
> >I'm still having difficulties. First, you are implying that American
> >values is synonymous with "majority" values. If this is true, does
> >it mean that native-born Americans who are non-violent and vegetarians
> >are "less" American?
>
> Yes.
Please, for the rest of us "unenlightened ones", could you expand
on this unmitigated "yes"? Would this be in the eyes of these
unfortunates, or in the eyes of the state? And, would this "yes" hold
for the aborigines of _your_ adopted homeland?
> So, an Indian who is non-violent and vegetarian and becomes a
> >naturalized American is not making a qualitative change in his
> >individual situation vis-a-vis the surrounding society. As I asked in my
> >earlier post, is there some obligation for an immigrant to embrace
> >only the popular elements of the culture as opposed to developing his
> >own values in the American context?
>
> What an immigrant should do, or not do, is the immigrant's business. In
> general he can get away with as much of his indigenous culture as his
> new country will allow. All I am saying is that his primary loyalty should be
> to his new country.
This I have been dearly needing to ask ... ever since this particular
discussion was conceived: What, in this fast-changing world of shrinking
borders and blurred political ethics, do you define as "primary loyalty"?
What values he chooses to retain or adopt is his own
> affair. I take it as self-evident that his choosing without coercion (not
> too much, at any rate) a new identity means that he considers the values
> associated with his new identity superior to those he left behind, on the
> whole. Unless he is superhuman being bent upon changing on his own the
> direction of his adopted countrymen.
You mean like Ms. Sonia Gandhi?
>
> >*Non-Americans will consider Americans to be non-violent and
> >*vegetarian, just because you consider that your being a non-violent
> >*vegetarian American makes America so.
> >*As I said, however, your non-violence and vegetarianism could be used
> >*for a cover up. By saying that such are American values, for purely
> >*opportunistic reasons, the high ups can gloss over the violence and
> >*meat-eating they may or do indulge in, by using your original Indian values
> >*as a mask.
>
> >By using terms such as "cover-up", "gloss over" etc. you are saying
> >that acknowledging (e.g.,) nonviolence and vegetarianism as being
> >(also) American is dishonest. Again, I have a difficulty with
> >this--people are free in America to follow their culture which may
> >differ from the mainstream, though the system doesn't guarantee that
> >it will be easy to do so, This being the case, what is dishonest about
> >America representing itself to the world as a society in which
> >nonviolence and vegeterianism also have a place?
>
> Because so far as the rest of the world is concerned Americans are the
> champion environment-destroying meat eaters, who can if they so wish blow
> up the rest of the world a hundred times over. Anything which mitigates this
> stark reality is deception and dishonesty.
America is not the monolith you seem bent upon making it out to be. This
country leads the world in terms of the number of environmental lobbying
representation. You are right in that this country does hold the power to
"destroy and create". It has _made_ that power its own. Given half a
chance, every country on the face of this earth would. If the American
government (in your black and white world) chose to, and could, do
exactly as it pleased, believe me, the world _WOULD_ look and feel vastly
different. That is precisely why there is such a thing as a "reality
check". The environment is every country's responsibility, including
China. And we all know how hard it was to convince _that_ particular
country of _this_ simple fact. In this particular case, the only
difference between "hawk" America and "dove" China is, you guessed it,
those blasted environmental lobbying firms.
> If, the audience to
> >the claim makes the mistake of imagining that these values are what
> >will drive America's or any other country's policy, then the burden of
> >naievete is on the auditors' shoulders, is it not?
>
> Of course. That is why the rest of the world cannot rely on the
> minority elements in USA (the 10% who opposed the Gulf War) since they
> have no power or influence. They have sympathy and support, but nothing
> more.
They also have a constitution that guarantees representative rights, a
press that, cleverly manipulated and ably executed, promises a fair
hearing, and a court system that _functions_. It is our (the said
minorities) lazy attitude that has resulted in our reduced, and almost
non-existent, political power: people like me who, out of a deeply
emotional sense of "loyalty" to India - misplaced or not, have refused to
exercise their right of representation, here in America. Since I was
seventeen years old, I have worked, and still work, as a grassroots
political campaigner for the Democratic Party. That is because I
believe that the tenets of that party are much closer to my own
principles. And that, on the whole, India, and Indians everywhere, are
better served by the party of Jefferson. I love campaigning in this
country for various reasons. And, every minute I have done so, I have
wished that I had more (sometimes just _one_ other) colleagues from
India. And, I also know that if I was in India, I would have been
recruited a long time ago...and more power to that thought! I have lain
awake at night worrying, precisely, about your much-vaunted "loyalty"
question for these fifteen years. Tell me, sir, what Devil am I serving,
exactly? Am I, by remaining an Indian citizen, wronging myself, or India,
or America? If I change my citizenship, are my "loyalties" subject to
change forthwith? Could you tell me why (question of "as great a concept
as Internationalism" notwithstanding) I need to be "for one or the
other"? Why can I not (as you put it earlier - superhuman or not) try to
mold the gel to a certain _possible_ extent? Is that not the right and
aspiration of every responsible citizen, whether that of India, or
America? (I think I should leave China out of this one).
> Certainly, because I am an Indian. Those born Indians and not proud to be so
> can jolly well choose whatever citizenship they can.
Of course they can. That _is_ their constitutional right. Any Indian
citizen who supports Pakistan's military policy can change their
citizenship, or, if they wish, happily or unhappily, _REMAIN_ an Indian
citizen.
> I can respect them if they adhere to the values they
> have voluntarily chosen. If they still hanker unduly after Indian values and
> customs I wonder why they chose citizenship.
Do you mean to imply that your personal political world is so simplistic
as for you to be unable to accept the reality, and the honest dichotomy,
in the term "divided loyalties" ? In that case, I admire and envy you
your ability to sleep through the night.
>
> >To set me straight, all you have to do is to confirm that a British or
> >Italian or Irish immigrant to America is also in qualitatively the
> >same situation as an Indian immigrant, namely he too has to feel that
> >his native culture is un-American, and any invocation of the elements
> >of his native culture as an ingredient of American culture is
> >necessarily opportunistic and meant to deceive.
>
> >Can you give me this confirmation?
>
> I think it is much easier for British or Italian or Irish immigrants to
> adopt American culture, because there is not that much to lose or gain for them,
> culture-wise. I have no business to speak for them, though. Still I think
> it will be much easier for a European to work in a butcher's shop than most
> Indians.
You mean a butcher's shop that sells only beef? Or do you mean a
butcher's shop that sells buffalo, goat, rabbit, lamb, and, maybe,
chicken as well? Or is that all the crime a so-called "good Hindu" cares
about? That of cow-killing? Where, may I ask, in the food chain, do we
draw the line? When I make Spanakopita (Greek for Spinach Pie...a yummy
treat, btw) I am, in effect, destroying the environment. Or is there a
holy cow hidden in there somewhere?
> For many Indians, it is very different. I see American and Indian values as
> totally different. To find similarity, you have to go back to the nineteenth
> century and study deeply "Little Women" and the writings of Mark Twain.
And how far back, precisely, do we have to go as far as the classics of
India are concerned? Is Louisa May Alcott's Jo March really all that
different from Lalita in Tagore's Gora? Have they bifurcated so hideously
since then? Are the values of an American and an Indian really all that
different? How many Americans have you known "up close and personal", may
I ask? Theory is wonderful. But reality is believable.
> I must conclude by confirming that I would never be a citizen of USA.
Oh, come now! Not even in your untroubled sleep? :)
> At least, the way I perceive the USA to be today, a homogenous blob at the
> top of the food chain, creating trouble everywhere, foisting bad and wrong
> values to third world elites guided purely by greed.... they are much worse
> than the British, at least the British conducted their imperialism personally
> and in my opinion gave more than they took in India.
This is a whole new thread. And as much as my fingers itch...silence,
I reckon, is golden. And Rohan, no sniggering! :)
>
> Arindam Banerjee
> Disclaimer: My opinions do not involve my employer.
>
> >My personal views.
>
> >Bapa Rao
Indrani DasGupta.
sayan bhattacharyya
Indrani DasGupta <id2...@american.edu> wrote:
> Arnindam Banerjee wrote:
>> affair. I take it as self-evident that his choosing without coercion (not
>> too much, at any rate) a new identity means that he considers the values
>> associated with his new identity superior to those he left behind, on the
>> whole.
Arindam assumes that that there is one and only set of values associated
with each national "identity". This is clearly fallacious. There is no such
thing as generic "american" values, just as there is no such thing as
generic "Indian" values. The USA is the country of Ronald Reagan as well
as that of Noam Chomsky. Similarly, India is the country of Subhash Chandra
Basu as well as that of Bal Thackeray.
Indeed, the notion of "values" in the current sense of the term is a very
recent usage, dating only from the 1920s. I find the word "values" in this
sense of the term to be a meaningless notion.
The point is that _countries_ do not have uniquely definable specific
attributes shared by all/most countrymen. It is only _classes_ that have
specific attributes specific to each class, and the class interests
cut across country lines. Tata, Birla and Rockefeller have very similar
interests or "values", if you will. Similarly, a worker in India and a worker
in the USA have very similar interests (which is one reason why labor
organizations in the USA are increasingly forming alliances with labor
groups in Mexico -- they have similar interests).
>
>> At least, the way I perceive the USA to be today, a homogenous blob at the
>> top of the food chain, creating trouble everywhere, foisting bad and wrong
>> values to third world elites guided purely by greed....
Your characterization applies to the US elite, not to the entire US
population. For the past 20 years, the median real wage has been
_declining_ in the USA. All statistics indicate that while the top fifth
of the US population (the upper-classes) are getting more and more
rich, the rest are earning less and less in terms of real wages. The
new world order is benefitting the elite in _all_ countries and screwing
the poor in _all_ countries. The dividing lines are not national lines
any longer if they ever were -- the dividing lines are _class_ lines.
And what do you mean by "foisting" values on
third world elite? The third world elite are adopting the "values" quite
willingly because it is _in their class interest_ to do so!
Shivram
> >I'm still having difficulties. First, you are implying that American
> >values is synonymous with "majority" values. If this is true, does
> >it mean that native-born Americans who are non-violent and vegetarians
> >are "less" American?
> Yes.
Mr. Banerjee I think it's a mistake to assume that america is a homogenized society. What
are these values that are held by the majority and hence american. There are millions of
americans (anglo-saxon) who are vegetarians out of choice for a healthy living. Do you
suggest that they are less american than their 'beef and potatoEs' eating counterparts. Would
jeffrey dahmer be more american than john robbins.
> Certainly, because I am an Indian. Those born Indians and not proud to be so
> can jolly well choose whatever citizenship they can.
> I can respect them if they adhere to the values they
> have voluntarily chosen. If they still hanker unduly after Indian values and
> customs I wonder why they chose citizenship.
Customs/traditions.. are different from citizenship. This is like asking why jews in this
country celebrate yom kippur.
> I think it is much easier for British or Italian or Irish immigrants to
> adopt American culture, because there is not that much to lose or gain for them,
> culture-wise. I have no business to speak for them, though. Still I think
> it will be much easier for a European to work in a butcher's shop than most
> Indians.
> For many Indians, it is very different. I see American and Indian values as
> totally different. To find similarity, you have to go back to the nineteenth
Care to highlight? What are these values you speak of. What is so different in the values.
Are you mixing values with traditions/customs/priorities.
> At least, the way I perceive the USA to be today, a homogenous blob at the
> top of the food chain, creating trouble everywhere, foisting bad and wrong
> values to third world elites guided purely by greed.... they are much worse
> than the British, at least the British conducted their imperialism personally
> and in my opinion gave more than they took in India.
This is another thread.
*****************************************************
One good turn ... gets most of the blanket.
Two good turns ... you've fallen of the bed.
*****************************************************
c0ba...@capella.physics.louisville.edu
In article <324D3C...@american.edu> <3273C0...@american.edu> <3273C5...@american.edu> <3273EE...@american.edu> <551dri$7...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
bhat...@krusty.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) wrote:
> cut across country lines. Tata, Birla and Rockefeller have very similar
> interests or "values", if you will. Similarly, a worker in India and a worker
> in the USA have very similar interests (which is one reason why labor
> organizations in the USA are increasingly forming alliances with labor
> groups in Mexico -- they have similar interests).
Sometime back I used to hear a statement that "the values of the upper
class and the lower class are very same. Its the middle class which
is different". Would you like to comment on that please?
Chaitali
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]
Arindam Banerjee
bhat...@krusty.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
>Indrani DasGupta <id2...@american.edu> wrote:
>
>> Arnindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> affair. I take it as self-evident that his choosing without coercion (not
>>> too much, at any rate) a new identity means that he considers the values
>>> associated with his new identity superior to those he left behind, on the
>>> whole.
>Arindam assumes that that there is one and only set of values associated
>with each national "identity". This is clearly fallacious. There is no such
>thing as generic "american" values, just as there is no such thing as
>generic "Indian" values. The USA is the country of Ronald Reagan as well
>as that of Noam Chomsky. Similarly, India is the country of Subhash Chandra
>Basu as well as that of Bal Thackeray.
I do not think that you have understood what I had tried to say. I am
not interested in continuing this thread, and so this is my last post. Just
think though why there should be nations at all if any nation did not have
any sense of national identity, and identity is nothing if it is not related
to values. Further, the fact that I am 75.5 inches tall does not mean that
all Indians are tall, though I am an Indian who can give the naive exactly
that impression if I wished to be dishonest.
Values of course change with time and as they do the national identity changes.
So we have to fight strenuously, do we not, if we do not want to be perceived
as given to religious fanaticism. Still India is the land of Gandhi, not Bal.
USA is the land of Ronald Reagan, not Noam Chomsky. Chomsky belongs to
1920 Soviet Russia.
In statistical terms then, I am stressing on the mean mode or median and not
on the entire distribution. I do this because assuming the distribution is
normal, the mean and deviation give fairly reliable basis to predict various
probabilities. Whereas if you concentrate on just the tail end of the
distribution, not bothering too much about the central tendencies, you are apt
to come up with wrong predictions. If you take the central tendencies of the
tail to represent the whole distribution, then you are plain dishonest -
a statistician in the pay of politicians.
All politics is about pushing the central tendency here or there.
>Indeed, the notion of "values" in the current sense of the term is a very
>recent usage, dating only from the 1920s. I find the word "values" in this
>sense of the term to be a meaningless notion.
I do not so further talk is meaningless.
>The point is that _countries_ do not have uniquely definable specific
>attributes shared by all/most countrymen. It is only _classes_ that have
>specific attributes specific to each class, and the class interests
>cut across country lines. Tata, Birla and Rockefeller have very similar
>interests or "values", if you will. Similarly, a worker in India and a worker
>in the USA have very similar interests (which is one reason why labor
>organizations in the USA are increasingly forming alliances with labor
>groups in Mexico -- they have similar interests).
>>
>>> At least, the way I perceive the USA to be today, a homogenous blob at the
>>> top of the food chain, creating trouble everywhere, foisting bad and wrong
>>> values to third world elites guided purely by greed....
>Your characterization applies to the US elite, not to the entire US
>population. For the past 20 years, the median real wage has been
>_declining_ in the USA. All statistics indicate that while the top fifth
>of the US population (the upper-classes) are getting more and more
>rich, the rest are earning less and less in terms of real wages. The
>new world order is benefitting the elite in _all_ countries and screwing
>the poor in _all_ countries. The dividing lines are not national lines
>any longer if they ever were -- the dividing lines are _class_ lines.
>And what do you mean by "foisting" values on
>third world elite? The third world elite are adopting the "values" quite
>willingly because it is _in their class interest_ to do so!
Since I have no use for any "class" based discussion, bye! All American classes
supported the killing of Iraqis. They still do.
As for "foisting" values. The third world elite is not after their class
interest, they are after their individual interests primarily. That is known
only too well to first worlders. These people have created a set of needs
that were unknown to thirdworlders for thousands of years, and have indicated
bad ways to meet those needs. The result has been disaster in many parts of the
world.
To end on a light note, with Dante: traitors are consigned into the deepest
hell, and there Dante found Brutus and Cassius.
sayan bhattacharyya
Chaitali Basu wrote:
>Sometime back I used to hear a statement that "the values of the upper
>class and the lower class are very same. Its the middle class which
>is different". Would you like to comment on that please?
I will answer your question. But before I do, I request you to define
the way you are using the terms "upper class", "middle class" and
"lower class". I need to know this before answering so as to make sure
that we are not talking past each other.
Arnab Gupta
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>Yes, I suggest exactly that.
>American vegetarians may have American passports, and may fight for
>America if they have too, but really they belong to a different way
>of thinking. They belong to a kind of thinking that originated in
>India, and has been supported by eminent men elsewhere. This kind of
>thinking puts them at odds with rest of their countrymen. Ask any
>vegetarian in USA how many taunts he has received.
>Similarly, those Indians I knew in the seventies who wore T-shirts
>and spoke Indian languages with American accents, were actually
>Americans, as they identified with USA, though unfortunately they
>could have only Indian passports.
>It is a fact that USA is a much richer and stronger country than India.
>This has happened from genocide and slavery, resulting from violence.
>So it is wiser, perhaps, to identify with USA rather than India, if
>moral principles are not an issue at all.
>Definitely the majority of Americans are far too proud of their country,
>and believe that the rest of the world should suck up to them. So
>any behaviour, such as vegetarianism or pacifism, which goes against
>whatever made their nation great is perceived by them as anti-national.
>The lack of moral basis of such a stand is not unperceived by the
>intellectual elite of USA. That is why we have Star Trek. It is
>obvious to one who is familiar with the basics of Indian thinking how
>much the creators of Star Trek have borrowed, consciously or otherwise,
>from the rich stores of Indian philosophy and mythology. This will be
>even more clear if you read US Science Fiction novels of the fifties,
>when many intelligent Americans had their first glimpse of Indian thinking.
>Now Star Trek has been under constant attack from the majority of
>Americans, though it is still the most popular sci-fi program. It is
>the subject of constant controversy.
>Star Trek shows vegetarians committed to primarily non-violence, regard for life
>
and
>non-interference, with no regard for Christianity, and is based
>in the 25 century. It often shows contempt for modern USA. It defines the
>way for humanity to go. It is not modern American, it is Indian. Just as the Ind
>
ian
>concept of artistic intellectual property (no one knows who did it, it
>belongs to a school) follows from the great masters of Egypt.
>So all I am saying is that the Star Trek generation form a definite
>mode in the American distribution. In due course perhaps they will be
>the dominant mode. But at present they are not. Just as in the days
>of slavery in the USA, there were still people who hated it, and were
>un-South for that. Today the slavers (KKK) are in a minority, and
>do not represent the South (or so I hope).
>For the sake of the people fighting for the good cause, I do not wish
>to push the case of un-anything too far. I know the kind of
>trouble they experience from the majority, and they have to identify
>with the majority in many respects, for survival and self-respect.
>They have the problem that reformers always have.
>All I wanted to show was that any outsider should judge any nation
>by what its average citizen is thinking, voting and doing. When that
>nation, with powerful and influential media, puts up a minority view
>to represent the entire view, that should be described as deception.
>This is a very common kind of deception indeed - highlight the worst
>aspects of a culture (bride-burning) as the mean, and highlight the
>best aspects of another (whatever) as the mean, and then ask the world
>which way to go.
>
>I must say once again, this is my very very last post on this thread.
E to pagla dashu-ro uporey ayk kathi!!!! Patloon porley
shudhu ingreji shekha jabey tai-i noi, adopey ingrej-o hoye
jaoa jaabe!!!
Arnab.
Srabani Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee writes:
>I do not think that you have understood what I had tried to say. I am
>not interested in continuing this thread, and so this is my last post. Just
>think though why there should be nations at all if any nation did not have
>any sense of national identity, and identity is nothing if it is not related
>to values. Further, the fact that I am 75.5 inches tall does not mean that
>all Indians are tall, though I am an Indian who can give the naive exactly
>that impression if I wished to be dishonest.
>Values of course change with time and as they do the national identity changes.
>So we have to fight strenuously, do we not, if we do not want to be perceived
>as given to religious fanaticism. Still India is the land of Gandhi, not Bal.
Really? Given the fact that what we know as India, today, has always been a
land of bloody turmoil, it is less a land of Gandhi than of Thackeray -
whether you like it or not.
>USA is the land of Ronald Reagan, not Noam Chomsky. Chomsky belongs to
>1920 Soviet Russia.
He does?? Why?
>In statistical terms then, I am stressing on the mean mode or median and not
>on the entire distribution. I do this because assuming the distribution is
>normal, the mean and deviation give fairly reliable basis to predict various
>probabilities. Whereas if you concentrate on just the tail end of the
>distribution, not bothering too much about the central tendencies, you are apt
>to come up with wrong predictions. If you take the central tendencies of the
>tail to represent the whole distribution, then you are plain dishonest -
>a statistician in the pay of politicians.All politics is about pushing the central tendency here or there.
What, besides opinion, is the basis for your conclusion that anything that
deviates from the median in USA is un-American?
[...]
>Since I have no use for any "class" based discussion, bye! All American classes
>supported the killing of Iraqis. They still do.
Again, what do you base this on?
>As for "foisting" values. The third world elite is not after their class
>interest, they are after their individual interests primarily. That is known
>only too well to first worlders. These people have created a set of needs
>that were unknown to thirdworlders for thousands of years, and have indicated
>bad ways to meet those needs. The result has been disaster in many parts of the
>world.
>
>To end on a light note, with Dante: traitors are consigned into the deepest
>hell, and there Dante found Brutus and Cassius.
While on the subjest of `traitors', what would you say about Dante's
involvement in the turbulent political scenario of Florence at that
time? Wasn't he banished from Florence when the Guelphs (sp?) came to
power? So, who was `betraying' whom?
Srabani
Arindam Banerjee
Shivram <hal...@intelsat.int> wrote:
>
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > br...@pollux.usc.edu (brao) writes:
>
> > >values is synonymous with "majority" values. If this is true, does
> > >it mean that native-born Americans who are non-violent and vegetarians
> > >are "less" American?
> > Yes.
>
> are these values that are held by the majority and hence american. There are millions of
> americans (anglo-saxon) who are vegetarians out of choice for a healthy living. Do you
> suggest that they are less american than their 'beef and potatoEs' eating counterparts. Would
> jeffrey dahmer be more american than john robbins.
>
Arindam Banerjee
sayan bhattacharyya
Arindam Banerjee writes:
>
>
>>Just
>>think though why there should be nations at all if any nation did not have
>>any sense of national identity,
Indeed, there shouldn't be nation-states at all. The nation-states did
not exist throughout history. They came into being at a specific historical
juncture, when feudalism was falling apart and capitalism was being
consolidated. The nation-state has outlived its purpose and is no longer
very relevant today. In the age of globalization, the nation-state is a
largely outmoded institution.
>>Since I have no use for any "class" based discussion, bye! All American classes
>>supported the killing of Iraqis. They still do.
But did they do so out of their own volition, or were they manipulated
into doing so? I would say the latter. Remember, public opinion and media
are controlled by one particular class, which puts that class in a
specially privileged position to indoctrinate all other classes. (With
the rise of the internet and consequent decrease in monopolistic
dissemination of information, my prediction is that this will change in
the future.)
Arindam Banerjee
****
> >supported the killing of Iraqis. They still do.
>
The 80% popularity of George Bush after the Gulf War.
The persecution of Iraqis since, and today.
Whenever any American president wishes to improve his popularity,
the sure way is to bomb Iraqis, or whoever.
I have no wish to argue any further. I have done far too long. This is not a topic which
interests me very much. May someone else, if he or she wishes, address
your questions. I do not care to repeat myself.
c0ba...@capella.physics.louisville.edu
In article <324D3C...@american.edu> <3273EE...@american.edu> <551dri$7...@news.eecs.umich.edu> <8465297...@dejanews.com> <555itk$f...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
Now you got me in real soup. Anyway I will try. The "upper class" is
the class of Tatas and Birlas, as you said earlier. The "lower class"
is the class of the unorganised labour section, namely who work as
maids and daily wage labourers. The "middle class" is from where you
or I come. Note I am not making any division of the upper, middle or
lower sections of the middle class itself.
sayan bhattacharyya
Chaitali Basu wrote:
>> >Sometime back I used to hear a statement that "the values of the upper
>> >class and the lower class are very same. Its the middle class which
>> >is different". Would you like to comment on that please?
>
>> I will answer your question. But before I do, I request you to define
>> the way you are using the terms "upper class", "middle class" and
>> "lower class". I need to know this before answering so as to make sure
>> that we are not talking past each other.
>
>Now you got me in real soup. Anyway I will try. The "upper class" is
>the class of Tatas and Birlas, as you said earlier. The "lower class"
>is the class of the unorganised labour section, namely who work as
>maids and daily wage labourers. The "middle class" is from where you
>or I come.
This is a fair definition, but not rigorous enough. You are defining based
on enumerating instances, not by spelling out necessary and sufficient
criteria as a rigorous definition should. Here is my definition of the
terms:
First off, we must understand a concept called "surplus value". Suppose
you, Chaitali, are a shoe-factory owner. Suppose I am your employee (wage
earner) working in the shoe factory, making shoes. Suppose I make ten shoes
per day and suppose that the raw material, plant operation etc costs for
each shoe is Rs. 50. Suppose that each shoe sells on the market for Rs. 100.
Thus, the value I am adding to each shoe is Rs. 50. Now suppose that you
pay me a daily wage of Rs. 100 per day. So your profit, (after paying my
wages), is ( Rs. 50 x 10 - Rs. 100) = Rs. 400. Because of the fact that
you own the means of production (the factory) as you had invested capital
in the same, you are thus living off the surplus value I produce.
Once this concept is understood, it becomes quite easy to define
upper classes and lower classes in these terms. The "upper classes"
are people who do not produce surplus value themselves but live off
the surplus value produced by others. The lower classes are people
who produce surplus value.
The problem comes with the middle classes. For example, people like
teachers, lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc. They are in an ambiguous
position. Why? In most cases, they are wage-earners themselves. However,
unlike the shoe-factory worker in the above example, they can often
set up independent businesses themselves. For example, a lawyer can
work as an employee of a law firm (a producer of surplus value) but
often ends up being being a partner in the firm (a co-owner,
hence a consumer of surplus value). A teacher can leave the school where
she is an employee and set up a private "coaching center". In contrast,
usually the initial capital investment in a shoe factory is so high
that rarely will a shoe-factory employee be able to set up a factory
on his own.
This is the explanation behind the reason why the middle class is so
diverse, as you originally pointed out. You see, the class interests
of the "upper classes" (owners) and "lower classes" (permanent
wage-laborers) are clearly defined. But, the position of the middle
class is ambivalent and ambiguous. Sometimes he is a wage-laborer
and sometimes he is an independent owner, but there is always the
possibility or the threat that he might migrate to the other category.
This is why the middle class is very unpredictable. When class conflict
between the upper classes and lower classes arises, it is hard to
tell in advance which side the middle class will join -- it depends on
very specific and local factors. Thus, while the behavior of the
upper class and that of the lower class are largely predictable, that of
the middle class is not. The middle class can exhibit a much wider range
of behavior, which is why you rightly made the observation that you
did.
Indrani DasGupta
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> ****
> > >Since I have no use for any "class" based discussion, bye! All American classes
> > >supported the killing of Iraqis. They still do.
> >
>
> The 80% popularity of George Bush after the Gulf War.
> The persecution of Iraqis since, and today.
> Whenever any American president wishes to improve his popularity,
> the sure way is to bomb Iraqis, or whoever.
And the Kashmiri-s are just in it for the fun, eh!
>
> I have no wish to argue any further. I have done far too long. This is not a topic which
> interests me very much. May someone else, if he or she wishes, address
> your questions. I do not care to repeat myself.
>
> Arindam Banerjee
> Disclaimer: My opinions do not involve my employer.
It looks to me as if propagandizing was all you were interested in. This
topic "interested you" a hell of a lot before all the tough questions
were thrown your way.
Anyhow, have it your own way, Mr. Banerjee.
Indrani.
Apratim Sarkar
GUP...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (Arnab Gupta) writes:
>shudhu ingreji shekha jabey tai-i noi, adopey ingrej-o hoye
>jaoa jaabe!!!
>
>Arnab.
>
Haa...haa...haa! Eta unmatto diyechho Arnab!
Apratim.
--
Shei nimesh'r ashesh uttoriyo Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are
Shab ramoni'ke mone hoto ramoniyo are my own and shouldn't be construed in
Jadukarder mela boshe jeto swapane| any way to represent that of my employer.
- Arun Kumar Sarkar.
Sugato Bhattacharyya
In article <55hels$2...@news1.i1.net>, ro...@mail1.i1.net (Rohan Oberoi) wrote:
>
>My father once said to me that we Punjabis from the West Punjab were
>unlike almost anyone else in India in that everyone else had an
>ancestral village, or a small region, that they could go back to and
>say they came from.
I guess your father didn't fraternize much with Bengalis. I also do not
have 'an ancestral village or small region that I can go back to' etc.
etc. And there are plenty of others like me. The country was partitioned
on both sides, remember?
--
Sugato Bhattacharyya
Rohan Oberoi
Perhaps I should have been clearer... my father said that to me, perhaps
out of a sense of lacking moorings that he saw in other Indians; I would
never argue that it's strictly true that everyone in India who isn't
from the West Punjab can trace their roots back to some little village.
Consider the quote an anecdote, not an argument.
You know, it's funny that you thought you had to jump on that as
perhaps ignoring the sufferings of the Bengalis. Rajwinder and I
were having a beer with Indranil and Apratim some time back, and
if my memory was not clouded by the beer, I believe we had a small
argument over whether it was the Punjab or Bengal that had got a
lousier deal at the hands of the Central Government.
In "Punjabi Century" Prakash Tandon had a line that always struck me as
very powerful, about his village of Gujrat : 'Today we have no one left
in Gujrat. All the Hindus came away at partition. It is strange to
think that in all the land between Ravi and Chenab, from Chenab to
Jhelum, from Jhelum to Indus, in the foothills and in the plain down
to Panjnad, where the five rivers eventually merge, land which had
been the home of our biradaris since the dawn of history, there is
no one left of our kind." Not powerful because it's strictly true
(1. dawn of history ? 2. aren't the people who are still there
our kind as well?) but because it expresses the sense of loss of place
that generation felt. I'm sure the same was true of Bengal.
Since I'm quoting Tandon: 'An old Sikh, who was our company's wholesaler
in Peshawar, came to my office in Bombay because he had heard that we
had offered to help settle our uprooted wholesalers and staff on both
sides of the border. He walked into my office, worn out and bent, and
said that he was going to forget the past and settle anywhere he could.
I offered him our wholesalership in Cuttack, a town four hundred
miles south of Calcutta and over two thousand miles from Peshawar.
He thought that was wonderful, just he place he would like to settle
because he was sure that its air and water and business prospects
were excellent. He thanked me profusely and said that he and his
sons would take the first train to Cuttack. But as he was going he
turned to ask, "Tandon Sahib, where is Cuttack, is it on the upper
side of Hindustan or the lower; we haven't quite heard of it before
in Peshawar." He hoped I would forgive their ignorance, and it would
make no difference to their accepting the offer. It did not matter
how far it was, but he thought he would just ask where it was.'
That's probably the kind of feeling of being cut adrift that motivated
what my father said.
As to fraternising with Bengalis, Sugato, we lived in Calcutta five
years. Fraternised with too many damn Bengalis. :)
Rohan.
Sugato Bhattacharyya (sug...@umich.edu) wrote:
Indranil Dasgupta
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> >Star Trek shows vegetarians committed to primarily non-violence, regard for life
> and
> >non-interference, with no regard for Christianity, and is based
> >in the 25 century. It often shows contempt for modern USA. It defines the
> >way for humanity to go. It is not modern American, it is Indian. Just
Aren't you taking vegetarianism a little too seriously? Presumably the
village in Bihar where upper class landlords chop off children's fingers
before slaughtering them in front of their mothers is also predominantly
vegetarian. I have noticed that obsession with the so called "Indian
heritage" makes otherwise normal people insanely defend an eating habit
whose origin is in the rigid caste structure of the society where a few
people dictate the mores. Vegetarianism exists in India not because
Indians are extra-ordinarily civilized, but because Brahmins and Banyas
(in north India for instance) have developed an aversion to
eating animal flesh and lard through centuries of self deprivation. This
has never prevented them from treating the lower classes as worse than
animals. Which explains why, despite the fact that the lower classes
could never afford to be rigidly vegetarian,(indeed poverty sometimes
drives them to eat anything they can get their hands on, including
insects in some parts of India) their way of life is never granted a
place in those hallowed pages of "Indian heritage". They are not humans,
they are animals. Or worse still, they are "Americans".
IDG.
si...@ugcs.caltech.edu
ro...@mail1.i1.net (Rohan Oberoi) writes:
>[...]
>In "Punjabi Century" Prakash Tandon had a line that always struck me as
>very powerful, about his village of Gujrat : 'Today we have no one left
>in Gujrat. All the Hindus came away at partition. It is strange to
>think that in all the land between Ravi and Chenab, from Chenab to
>Jhelum, from Jhelum to Indus, in the foothills and in the plain down
>to Panjnad, where the five rivers eventually merge, land which had
>been the home of our biradaris since the dawn of history, there is
>no one left of our kind." Not powerful because it's strictly true
>(1. dawn of history ? 2. aren't the people who are still there
>our kind as well?) but because it expresses the sense of loss of place
>that generation felt. I'm sure the same was true of Bengal.
"Aren't those who are still there our kind too?" Tandon's
point is probably that, events had proven otherwise.
But what you write brings up an interesting issue. Was the
sense of loss experienced by East Bengalis in West Bengal
the same as that experienced by West Punjabis in East Punjab?
This would of course be a Function of the extent to which
they, the "refugees," were accepted in West Bengal and East
Punjab. One also wonders about the attitudes faced by the
"refugees" in East Bengal and West Punjab.
Supratik Das
On 3 Nov 1996, Rohan Oberoi wrote:
> My father once said to me that we Punjabis from the West Punjab were
> unlike almost anyone else in India in that everyone else had an
> ancestral village, or a small region, that they could go back to and
> say they came from. He believed it made us willing wanderers because
> it didn't make a difference where we went: anywhere was home (he said
> this in Oman, where he was working). I doubt that's true: you put
> down some roots wherever you go.
I guess that explains your idiosyncracies.
> Rohan.
Supratik
Indrani DasGupta
sayan bhattacharyya wrote:
>
> Chaitali Basu wrote:
>
> >Sometime back I used to hear a statement that "the values of the upper
> >class and the lower class are very same. Its the middle class which
> >is different". Would you like to comment on that please?
>
> I will answer your question. But before I do, I request you to define
> the way you are using the terms "upper class", "middle class" and
> "lower class". I need to know this before answering so as to make sure
> that we are not talking past each other.
Chaitali,
d'ont shoy-akar b'o-dhoy-akar dontyen-n'o!! :)
Indrani.
Indrani DasGupta
So what explains yours? C'mon...don't keep us waiting. :)
Indrani.