A Tragedy In Wisconsin And Some Debates

On Aug 5th Wade Michael Page, a member of a White supremacist group, went to a Gurdwara in Oak Creek, WI and killed, in cold blood fueled by racism, 6 people. He would have killed more but for a timely alert by kids aged 4 who saw him first. Page terrorized a group of peaceful worshippers until SWAT teams took him down. The Sikh community and Indian-Americans at large are still reeling from  the emotional aftermath. President Obama ordered a national day of mourning and assured India's Sikh Prime Minister that all will be done to protect Sikhs in America. Wisconsinites and Americans at large poured forth their sympathies. Rev Paul Armstrong of United Methodist Church in Oak Creek told Time "we are in this together..the community is saying we hold the Sikhs in high regard". A year ago Rev Armstrong had taken members of his church to the Gurdwara and was "totally impressed by their hospitality and their tales faith". (Below picture is of the community in Oak Creek mourning, courtesy Time magazine, more pictures at the bottom of the blog, also from Time )

The tragedy in Wisconsin took place within a month of another mad guy (now, medically mad) taking an assault rifle to a Batman movie and mowing down tens of moviegoers. That triggered a debate about America's vexing issue of gun control. Fareed Zakaria argued, correctly, in Time that America has a gun problem and really needs to look at the issue disappasionately. Zakaria went so far as to say that Americans who do not support gun controls are doing a disservice to the famous 'second amendment' which is cited for the 'right to bear arms'. The Wisconsin shooting took on another layer of controversy viz. 'racism'. Sikhs have been targeted, 700 times according to Sikh associations, since 9/11, being mistaken for Muslims. Some of those incidents were fatal.

Wade Page was a racist, pure and simple. He was a member of white supremacist gang and had an application for KKK, the most notorious racist organization in USA. Page, reports now reveal, was an avid listener to a certain genre of pop music that, NYT called, 'fueled hate'. Even music can be used to fuel hatred. Two op-eds appearing in Washington Post and NYT, by Sikhs, amongst others, have taken this racism angle head on.

Arjun Sethi, writing in Wash.Post, recounts painful incidents like being bullied in high school (pushed into girls toilet), profiled at courts, where he appeared professionally. Sethi points out how FBI for reporting hate crimes does not have an option for Sikhs to record. MLK Jr scolded America that its promissory note returned "insufficient funds". Sethi called for America to live up to its promise of equality for its diverse population since that is 'what drives immigrants here and what makes USA the envy of the world'.

Bhira Backhaus, writing in NYT, celebrated the century old Gurdwara in Stockton. Backhaus, like Gogol in Jhumpa Lahiri's 'Namesake', recalls growing up amidst a culture clash. He had married 'outside the Sikh community' causing a 'painful breach' with his parents until their last days. Backhaus is comforted that when his parents reached out to him at last he understood that he still "belonged to the community". Then he raised the question if the devotees would have been spared had they 'dressed' like the rest of Americans (almost all women folk in that Gurdwara were in Salwar) or talked like Americans.

That the victims were brown skinned was the only reason they were killed. No matter what dress they wore or what accent they spoke Wade Page would not have spared a single one of them. Backhaus concludes by saying "to wipe away what has come before, who we have been over the centuries, also means to forget who our own mothers and fathers were". This is where I differ. This is moment of great tragedy and the cause is clear, racism, hence I tread carefully on this 'assimilation' debate.

Active discussions are taking place on the fact that Sikhs, unlike other Indians, wear a visible sign of their religion. The turban and a beard for the menfolk. It is their religious precept and they should be free to do it without prejudice like a pastor wearing his cassock or a Jew wearing his yarmulke. Assimilating does not mean forsaking all that.

Backhaus would love for Americans, of all races, to respect his faith, his values and whatever goes within the amorphous term 'culture'. But he has no word to say about the fact that his parents, RIP, thought it was sacrilegious to marry outside his community. His parents had lived in US for decades and I am sure expected to be treated as equal human beings. Should not Indians show the same acceptance towards American culture? Why do Indians look at American girls as something less? Why do Indians advertise for their girls "need groom for Indian born American girl, BUT brought up with Indian values". What does THAT mean?

When I saw 'Bend it like Beckham' I was indeed thinking 'are Sikhs in UK that insular from their fellow British'. Acceptance is a two way street. I understand that the community is anguished and very angry but how come nobody thought it proper to even mildly acknowledge the fact that the country has rallied around them unlike their mother land whose leader, in response to 3000 sikhs being killed, said "when a huge tree falls the earth is bound to shake".

I've been shocked to hear Indians carelessly use derogatory words referring to Afro-Americans. The term 'racism' is loosely used and often refers to whites as the perpetrators. Afro-American council members in DC spoke in blatant racist terms about 'Asian groceries'. Criticizing media adulation for South Asian basketball sensation Jeremy Lin an Afro-American athlete spoke in racist terms.

I am a strong supporter of being assimilated into the local culture. America's prosperity, its secular fabric, its openness etc are all the result of American 'culture'. Indians should learn to become Americans. A woman of Sikh origin is the governor of a Southern state (South Carolina). Preet Bharara, Manhattan Attorney, featured on the cover of Time and listed by Time as one of the '100 most influential, is the scourge of Wall Street.

Many Indians wonder why not US ban hate speeches. White supremacists are often monitored by FBI but America's vaunted 'first amendment' protects a lot of speeches including some abominable ideas. Hate speech is protected speech too. FBI or Department of Justice usually act with care when they prosecute for hate speech. This political correctness and respect for constitution is hotly debated. Before Indians accuse US of racism in turning a blind eye to white supremacist hate groups let us remember the Fort Hood shooting. Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 people in an army base. Nidal Hasan was flagged for provocative ideas but was given a pass.

When a person wags his finger at Americans and asks "why should I forget my language, my culture, my homeland etc" it would be fair to be asked back "so why bother to come here". An H1B guy who sends an email 4 days after landing saying "the common man on the road has no morals in USA" I am appalled. Why do Indians, who desire to be treated as equals and as 'Americans', at the first available instance ready to look at America like they were guests examining the country seeking to pass judgments? Indians need to first look at themselves as Americans and not as 'visitors' with a smug look of ' I love your money as long $1=Rs50 and I hate everything else'. If they think so it is ok except when they eagerly seek green cards or citizenships. There are millions of Indians and other countrymen who would love to become Americans for the love of American culture and they deserve that green card more than the smug Indians. Weeks after 9/11 I was at a party where a Sikh, a millionaire franchisee owner of Pizza Huts, declared solemnly "America is a terrorist country". This, from a person whose motherland is yet to prosecute, let alone convict, 28 years later, a single person for a pogrom that killed 3000 Sikhs. He did not even demur that 3000 of his fellow countrymen were killed just weeks back. As much as we want Americans to accept us it is high time we thought about how accepting we Indians are of Americans.

I disapprove of Indians celebrating India's independence day in USA complete with a flag march and, of course, a Bollywood actress. Those celebrations in NJ/NY are a shame both for India and USA. There is place for only one flag in US, the stars and stripes. That Empire State building lights up in tri color is the magnanimity of Americans. That Diwali is celebrated in the White House is a sign of arrival for Indian-Americans. Schools in NJ and even offices elsewhere celebrate Diwali. the Aug 15th celebrations, rediff.com points out, is strongly Hindutva in character pushing away other Indians. North Indians do not treat South Indians, especially Hindi illiterate South Indians, as fellow Indians. An advertisement for A.R.Rahman concert in NJ states "there will be as few Tamil songs as possible". When ARR first visited US North Indians booed him when he played Tamil songs. Then Tamils returned the favor for Hindi songs leading to that kind of advertisement. Indian Americans are a fractious lot. Instead of this useless Independence Parade if Indians organize symposiums on India's greatest achievement, its Freedom struggle, it would make Americans proud of India.

America can certainly do better and it is my wish to continue to hold America to its promise but we also need to remember that Americans are human beings too. 19 hijackers belonging to one religion declared a religious war killing 3000 Americans and the story continues till today. The Times Square bomber, a Pakistani, was even made a citizen. Yet he chose to kill fellow Americans on American soil. In this climate very regrettable acts of profiling and hate crimes occur. To be fair they have not proliferated. Bush's Secret Service agent was asked to get off a plane because he was a Muslim. Later Bush appeared on live TV with the agent beside him to condemn that incident. Bush, it should be noted, invited a Muslim cleric to offer prayers in the National Cathedral along side members of other clergy in the wake of 9/11. America has actively prosecuted hate crimes.

Today a Wisconsin teacher says he will learn more about Sikhism and teach his students. We wish a tragedy does not have to be the reason for that learning but this is the only sane redemption a society can strive for.

Amsterdam: Anne Frank's home and Torture Museum

Tragedy struck a Jewish school in South France today when an unidentified gunman killed four an adult, 13 year old girl,a 7 year old and a 3 year old, six others were wounded. They had been shot at close quarters. They were shot because they were Jews and the school was a Jewish school. In 2008 Pakistani terrorist thugs who terrorized Mumbai specifically targeted a Jewish chabad for their killing spree. I shall reserve my comment on Israel's critics for a following blog but this provides a backdrop for my visit to the home of Holocaust's most famous victim, Anne Frank. Before that a brief on the Torture Museum.

A museum focusing on torture was very inviting. Though I am broadly familiar with the themes of torture, especially the use of torture by the Christian Church seeing the instruments of torture along with helpful notes was chilling. The Spanish Inquisition made a name for itself with Torquemada and the inquisition chair (below)

The accused has to sit on that chair and the screws would be tightened to maximize pain. This was mostly used on women accused of being witches. The rack pictured below (http://www.torturemuseum.nl/instruments-of-torture/) is another instrument the very sight of which is painful.

Religious minorities (mostly Jews), dissenters, minorities, gays, political prisoners and lots of women bore the brunt of these punishments. The museum, in European tradition, had the usual US bashing. Fleeting mention was made of Guantanamo. Guantanamo is picnic compared to the above.

As a deep admirer of Israel and Jewish history the holocaust remains an obsessive topic for me. In 2010 when I toured Amsterdam for a few hours I glimpsed the home of Anne Frank during a canal cruise. This year I made what can be called a pilgrimage to her home. Anne Frank's family and another family of 3, 8 Jews totally, hid in a secret annexe in a factory for 2 years during the war fearing deportation to extermination camps. The families were betrayed on 8th August 1944 and were deported first to Auschwitz. Anne Frank and her sister were later deported to Bergen Belsen. One has to really pause and digest this. Jews arrested in Amsterdam were transported to Auschwitz in Poland. Then two of them get transported halfway back into Bergen-Belsen in Germany. I visited a Gestapo jail in Cologne where a prisoner from Ukraine (!!!) had scrawled on the walls. Imagine the logistics needed for all these transports that had no strategic goal except hate. By the time the family was arrested Hitler's Third Reich was crumbling and his army was being beaten back by the equally murderous Red Army to the East and by the American and British forces from the West.

Anne and her sister Margot perished in the typhus epidemic that swept Bergen-Belsen. The sisters died a few days apart next to each other sometime in March 1945. Allied armies liberated Bergen-Belsen in April 1945. Only Otto Frank, Anne's father, survived from Auschwitz. Anne's mother had died too. Otto made his way back to Amsterdam and searched for his darling children. Finally he learnt that they were dead.

When the Frank family went into hiding Anne was 13. Anne received a diary as gift. While in hiding this girl, just entering her teens, wrote a journal of all that happened for two years. The last entry is on 1st August 1944. She has interest in movies, the helpers who hid the family get her movie magazines, Otto marks the growth of his daughters with a pencil mark (it is still there), a map is stuck to follow the progress of Allied army since Normandy landings, a radio keeps them connected, Margot still takes Latin lessons and sends her work for correction pretending  to be somebody else, a 16 year old boy (from the other family) kindles love in Anne, Anne has her first kiss, she writes of Gandhi too hearing from radio reports.

Otto Frank discovers the diary and publishes it to universal acclaim. The diary has been translated into tens of languages and has sold millions. Otto, with help, converted the annexe into a museum. A very touching photo is below. Here is Otto Frank, just before the museum is opened to public, looking alone and pensive at the floor where his children played and his wife walked. The pain is palpable and sorrow engulfs the viewer in an emotional embrace across time and space.

The photographer Arnold Newman who took the photo reminisced, "how could I ask this man to pose? I couldn't. Instead I just waited and Otto went into a deeply pensive mood. It was then I took the photograph". They cried and embraced after the photo shoot ended.

Anne Frank wrote in her diary, "One day this terrible war will be over. The time will come when will be people again and not just Jews!".

Whether it is Jeremiah Wright or Al Sharpton spewing explicit and implicit anti-semitism or this madman today today who killed children just because they are Jews the sad answer is Anne Frank's hope only lives on as hope.

I'll take this opportunity to answer in my next blog a few questions on Israel, Holocaust and Jews. Anne Frank was 15 when she died. And she died because she was a Jew. And only because she was a Jew did she and her family die.

Barack Obama: Steel Tempered in Chicago.

The assessment of Barack Obama’s rise is still in the stages of what could only be called “journalism”, a proper scholarly history is yet to be written and it may very well take a decade for that to come. This blog is the outcome of watching a documentary about Obama by “PBS Frontline”.

The rapid ascendance of Barack Obama is yet to be understood in its entirety, he is still very much “history in the making”. Obama could not even get a ticket to attend Al Gore’s 2000 Democratic Convention. 4 years later he was a keynote speaker in John Kerry’s 2004 convention. In what is an unprecedented consequence of a singular speech that speech propelled him to the US Senate, the 3rd Afro-American senator (by popular election) since Reconstruction. The dynamics of his decision to run for the senate yields some clues regarding his run for the Presidency barely a year after getting elected as US Senator.

During the heated South Carolina primary in 2008, ‘race’ became center stage. Until his historic win in Iowa caucus, where Hillary finished at a humiliating 3^rd place, Afro-Americans did not warm up to his candidacy in large numbers. Afro-Americans were deeply skeptical of America electing a black candidate, especially a freshman senator. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, civil rights icons, had run earlier, ending as ‘also-rans’. To complicate matters a Clinton was on the ballot. Bill Clinton was famously called by Toni Morrison, black Nobel laureate novelist, “the first black President”. The Clintons had cultivated a deep pocket of very committed supporters amongst the black community. Iowa changed all that and the black community rallied behind Obama for a historic candidacy.

Some supporters of Hillary asked her to bow out of the South Carolina primary citing the fact that more than 50% voters are blacks. Hillary refused and ploughed head long. During a CNN moderated debate exchanges became white hot between Hillary and Barack. Bill Clinton’s name figured prominently as Obama complained tartly “I don’t know who (which Clinton) I am running against”. Rumor mills started grinding. Charges of racism flew thick and fast against the Clintons and especially Bill Clinton. When any Clinton or Clinton campaign member questioned Obama’s experience the black community felt aggrieved. Some blacks openly voiced their anger that said those questions suggest that “Obama should wait his turn and let Hillary win now”. This trope of “wait his turn” and yield for a white American really rubbed hard. Bill Clinton was enraged. Hillary was given a drubbing in the primary. Barack Obama completely obliterated her. Standing on a tarmac staring into a microphone Bill Clinton, with an air of haughtiness, declared “well Jesse Jackson had won South Carolina primary before” (and lost the nomination thereafter with no other victories).  With that flippant comment Bill Clinton completely antagonized many blacks who were until then wavering at ditching a Clinton. Hillary lost a vital constituency in democratic primaries. The rest is history. However until recent times the black community felt aggrieved at what they perceived as racism by the Clintons. The community especially felt enraged at the “experience question” and felt it was code for “let the black candidate wait for his turn which the whites shall decide when”.

I watched a documentary of Obama recently and was struck by something very interesting. After completing at Harvard Law the fresh graduate came to Chicago to work at a law firm but keenly interested in electoral politics. Note that by now Obama had already garnered some attention as the first Afro-American President of “Harvard Law Review”. Alice Palmer a state senator herself decided to run for US congress. She tapped on Obama, her supporter, to run for her state-senate seat. Obama duly filed for nomination and announced his candidacy in 1996. However Palmer’s candidacy floundered and she decided to run for her own senate seat again. She and the black community ‘establishment’ leaders asked Obama to stand down. Obama, the documentary said, was flummoxed and enraged. Obama refused to back down and decided to give Chicago pols a dose, a very good dose, of their own hard knuckle politics. Obama had his team question the veracity of signatures in Alice Palmer's candidacy petition. This being Chicago it does not take a genius to figure out that most were fake. Obama's team then questioned the petitions of all other candidates. Finally all except Obama were disqualified and Obama won uncontested. 

If the story had ended there there would be no Shakespearean side to this. Obama got re-elected for state-senate in 1998. In true Obama fashion he wanted to move on. In 2000 Obama decided to contest for US Congress against a well entrenched establishment candidate Bobby Rush. The black community establishment politicians were shocked by the chutzpah of somebody they considered an upstart. Obama's ivy league education and bi-racial background came handy for a snide campaign. A black politician not forged in the civil rights battle was considered a presumptuous upstart by the veterans. 

A NYT article quoted Rush, “He was blinded by his ambition, Obama has never suffered from a lack of believing that he can accomplish whatever it is he decides to try. Obama believes in Obama. And, frankly, that has its good side but it also has its negative side.”

Obama's Ivy league education became a stick to castigate him with, Rush portrayed Obama as outsider, "He went to Harvard and became an educated fool. We’re not impressed with these folks with these Eastern elite degrees.” Added to that was the really snide campaign against Obama that he was not "black enough". On election day Bill Clinton, breaking tradition that a sitting President does not wade into his party's primaries, endorsed Bobby Rush. Rush won over Obama 2:1.

Having been chastised Obama nursed his wounds and rebounded deciding to run for US Senate. Very audacious for a candidate with a very thin record and no great funds to run for a state wide office. The genius of Obama, in my opinion, is choosing to run for a state wide office. Unlike a congressional race that is defined by narrow sliver of interests and narrow demographics a state wide office run is on a wider canvas. As much as there are challenges for running a state wide campaign there are advantages too. In US politics congressmen usually cater (or pander) to a very narrow section of population hence more prone to be partisan or ideological. Senators need to address a wider cross section and hence 'tend' to be a little less ideological. This is Dennis Kucinich, multi-term congressman from Cincinnati will never be president. This is why Christine O'Donnel lost the senate race in Delaware.

During the presidential race, in the very early days old black leaders who consider themselves as arbiters of black politics felt slighted by Obama. Rev Jesse Jackson in a very embarassing moment, thinking the microphone was switched off, muttered "I want to cut off his ****". Obama's relationship with the black community deserves an analysis by itself.

The other point worth reflecting, in the headwinds that Obama ran into, is how political establishment always fights a new comer. While commentators and blacks were ready to see a racial coloring to Clinton campaign and later McCain campaign not many recognized that black political leadership practically treated Obama worse, in fact more overtly than white Hillary or McCain could. The lesson here is that fighting for entrenched interests cuts across color. Often times men act like men always do, race has nothing to do with it.

With lessons learned from one of the toughest backyards in politics Obama met the calling of his lifetime, running for President. Incidentally Alice Palmer endorsed Hillary in 2008.

Is Electing Obama America's Litmus Test?

Not at all. Its pure stupidity to claim that if Obama gets defeated it would mean that racism is alive and kicking in USA. Nothing is farther from truth. Having said that let me clarify that human beings have innate biases, nobody can claim to be 100% unbiased. How aware of are we of our biases? Do we hold them in check (of course we need to know that we hold a bias in the first place)? Those are the questions we need to ask constantly.

Barack Obama could not even get a floor pass in 2000 Dem convention. In 2004 he was the keynote speaker and shot to stardom (very deservedly). Even so after that he dropped of the national media but for keen political watchers. Then in 2007 he again caught the nations imagination announcing his run for presidency. He had spent just 2 years in the senate. He was running against "THE CLINTONS" (adored and loathed depending on your political affiliation). He won all white Iowa thumpingly, pushing Hillary to an insulting finish. The rest is history. A political unknown Afro-American decimated the most feared political dynasty. If THIS is not redemption what else can be?

Oh well if McCain wins then again its because nobody wants to vote for a black so there is no redemption for USA UNLESS Obama is elected. What a crass stupidity. All opinion point to the fact that people are "more" uncomfortable electing a woman than a black. Yes there is a tiny (its just tiny) slice of population that will not vote for Obama just because of his color. To condemn a roughly 120 million electorate for a miniscule minority that cannot influence the outcome is not just wrong but plain stupid and shows how ignorant the person is about democratic elections.

Men were seen waving "Launder my shirt" in Hillary's events. Nothing of that sort happened to Obama. MSNBC's commentator got away with saying that the Clintons are "pimping" Chelsea. a metaphor he used only because Chelsea was a girl. Imagine anybody uttering anything like that about Obama. Apocalypse would seem like picnic compared to the outrage that would ensue. Nevertheless, Hillary lost for so many reasons of her own making than just because of sexism.

To say that America's redemption lies in electing Obama is to suggest that McCain voters are racist. Much is made of McCain's age and health almost making his age a disqualification. When McCain was delivering his convention speech CNN ran a ticker titled "Fact: If elected McCain will be the oldest President". The ticker flashed for like a minute, an eternity in modern day cable news.

Blacks have been elected governors, mayors, legislators, cabinet secrataries, Commanders etc. Yes, we wish we could see all that happen more regularly and with such regularity that the color of the candidate does not even get mentioned. When a reporter asked Denzel Washington how he felt, as a Black actor, winning the Oscar, he said "please report as just Denzel won an Oscar, not black actor Denzel" (those are not verbatim quotes, something close).

We should look at this with some perspective. Cory Booker, Black mayor of Newark-NJ, is very appreciated. Look at Kwame Kilpatrick of Detroit who is going down for sins of his own. Remember that Afro-Americans are an ethnic minority in USA. Which means we have a much smaller pool of population to find qualified people. Add to that the challenges existing in that community and it would dawn on us that not having some more qualified candidates is not ONLY due to "Discrimination". As Thomas Sowell would point out, if the "discrimination" as reason is tossed out the remaining reasons are very unpleasant to contemplate hence people harp on discrimination even none exists.

To make a contrarian argument, if Obama gets elected its because he has an advantage of being Black. The Obama campaign is making no bones about putting states like Louisiana, Georgia in play only because they hope to turn out the "black vote" by record numbers. Make no mistake I am not suggesting that it is reprehensible. Its admirable. If they can turn out their base its good for them. Also I perfectly understand the pride blacks have in this historical once in a lifetime oppurtunity. There is absolutely nothing wrong. Many Indian's felt happy when Bobby Jindal became governor just because he was of Indian lineage. There is absolutely nothing to be subtle about reaching to one's base and truly this is history in the making. Also in all fairness Barack Obama is as qualified as one can get.

A Brooklyn/Bronx town voted almost 90% for Obama despite Hillary having done all that needs to be done for that town, especially preventing the closure of a school. If one says well Hillary did it because she wanted their vote. I say, she worked to earn it, what she did is what we expect from a good poltical representative. She worked to earn the vote of that neighborhood and they voted for Obama for racial reasons. Again everybody appreciates the historical nature of the candidacy and racial pride this is racism too, though of a good variety.

I wish Barack Obama well. But I tell him "earn the vote". For those who say "if he does not win...", I say "get a life and if possible some understanding of elections".