11-15-2006, 06:17 AM
came in email:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b>SIKHS, SWAMIS, STUDENTS AND SPIES
The India Lobby in the United States, 1900-1946
by HAROLD A GOULD, Centre for South Asian Studies, University of Virgina, Charlottesville </b> which is a fascinating history of the India lobby in America in the pre-independence era.
Could I please take the liberty of sending you a review by TCA Srinivasa Raghavan which appeared in Business Standard just two days ago?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Business Standard
New Delhi, 8 November 2006
Forgotten patriots
SIKHS, SWAMIS, STUDENTS AND SPIES
THE INDIAN LOBBY IN THE UNITED STATES 1900-1946
Harold Gould
Sage
Price: Rs 750; Pages: 460
Tca Srinivasa-Raghavan
New Delhi, 7 November
As soon as you start reading this book, the question comes to mind: why didnât some Indian historian write it? And the answer, of course, is that they are all still obsessed with colonial history. Hopefully, this book will lead to a gradual change in focus, and our prolific historians will start looking at the Indian encounter with America as well.
What makes this book doubly valuable is that compared to Indiaâs experience with Europe, there really isnât much to go on by way of source material. Yet Gould shows that you can make even that little go a long way. The end notes after each chapter are eloquent testimony.
When you are done reading this book, you are left with yet another question: if so few Indians in the 1930s and the 1940s, with such meagre resources, could be such effective lobbyists with the US Congress, why are we so bad at it now when there are so many more Indians there and far richer to boot?
The key difference, Gould suggests, is nationalism. Indiansâmostly Punjabi Hindus and Sikhsâwere driven by a fierce sense of nationalism and they took it upon themselves to further the cause of Indian independence. There was also racism, of course, that made them lobby so hard. They won the latter battle eventually in 1946, when their citizenship rights were restored and immigration was allowed under a quota.
Some of the things Gould revealsâor more accurately, reminds us ofâwill not be palatable. For example, he says there was a group of Indians who actively assisted the British in their propaganda in the US against Gandhiji and the Congress. He names them as Sir Girija Shankar Bajpai; Sir Firoze Khan Noon and Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar, both members of the Viceroyâs Council; Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan; and Sir Samuel Ebenezer Raghunandan. Here Gould adds ânote that all had been knighted and that many were Muslimsâ (page 336). When I read this, I wondered: would an Indian historian have pointed this out?
Gould also shows that the âmoleâ business is not a US prerogative. It turns out that there was a pro-Indian mole in the State Department as well. This man, a junior official by the name of Robert Crane, passed away only recently, in 1997. He had been brought up in Bengal as a child by his missionary parents.
In 1944, just a year after he joined the State Department, he leaked the letter written by the American envoy to India, William Phillips, to President Roosevelt. The journalist who was given the letter was none other than Drew Pearson, who was very influential.
The letter was highly critical of British policies in India. The British tried to counter the effects of the leak but without much success. Their efforts to show that they were wonderful rulers had no takers any more. From then on the US government also started putting pressure on the British to quit India.
Another major victory, in some ways more important, came when the Indian lobby won the right to immigration. Most of the US political establishment was not willing to let in people of colour. But effective and persistent lobbying finally won the day. We owe a lot to those forgotten lobbyists like J J Singh. It is truly amazing that India has forgotten them so comprehensively and that it takes an American to remind us about our debts of gratitude. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b>SIKHS, SWAMIS, STUDENTS AND SPIES
The India Lobby in the United States, 1900-1946
by HAROLD A GOULD, Centre for South Asian Studies, University of Virgina, Charlottesville </b> which is a fascinating history of the India lobby in America in the pre-independence era.
Could I please take the liberty of sending you a review by TCA Srinivasa Raghavan which appeared in Business Standard just two days ago?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Business Standard
New Delhi, 8 November 2006
Forgotten patriots
SIKHS, SWAMIS, STUDENTS AND SPIES
THE INDIAN LOBBY IN THE UNITED STATES 1900-1946
Harold Gould
Sage
Price: Rs 750; Pages: 460
Tca Srinivasa-Raghavan
New Delhi, 7 November
As soon as you start reading this book, the question comes to mind: why didnât some Indian historian write it? And the answer, of course, is that they are all still obsessed with colonial history. Hopefully, this book will lead to a gradual change in focus, and our prolific historians will start looking at the Indian encounter with America as well.
What makes this book doubly valuable is that compared to Indiaâs experience with Europe, there really isnât much to go on by way of source material. Yet Gould shows that you can make even that little go a long way. The end notes after each chapter are eloquent testimony.
When you are done reading this book, you are left with yet another question: if so few Indians in the 1930s and the 1940s, with such meagre resources, could be such effective lobbyists with the US Congress, why are we so bad at it now when there are so many more Indians there and far richer to boot?
The key difference, Gould suggests, is nationalism. Indiansâmostly Punjabi Hindus and Sikhsâwere driven by a fierce sense of nationalism and they took it upon themselves to further the cause of Indian independence. There was also racism, of course, that made them lobby so hard. They won the latter battle eventually in 1946, when their citizenship rights were restored and immigration was allowed under a quota.
Some of the things Gould revealsâor more accurately, reminds us ofâwill not be palatable. For example, he says there was a group of Indians who actively assisted the British in their propaganda in the US against Gandhiji and the Congress. He names them as Sir Girija Shankar Bajpai; Sir Firoze Khan Noon and Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar, both members of the Viceroyâs Council; Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan; and Sir Samuel Ebenezer Raghunandan. Here Gould adds ânote that all had been knighted and that many were Muslimsâ (page 336). When I read this, I wondered: would an Indian historian have pointed this out?
Gould also shows that the âmoleâ business is not a US prerogative. It turns out that there was a pro-Indian mole in the State Department as well. This man, a junior official by the name of Robert Crane, passed away only recently, in 1997. He had been brought up in Bengal as a child by his missionary parents.
In 1944, just a year after he joined the State Department, he leaked the letter written by the American envoy to India, William Phillips, to President Roosevelt. The journalist who was given the letter was none other than Drew Pearson, who was very influential.
The letter was highly critical of British policies in India. The British tried to counter the effects of the leak but without much success. Their efforts to show that they were wonderful rulers had no takers any more. From then on the US government also started putting pressure on the British to quit India.
Another major victory, in some ways more important, came when the Indian lobby won the right to immigration. Most of the US political establishment was not willing to let in people of colour. But effective and persistent lobbying finally won the day. We owe a lot to those forgotten lobbyists like J J Singh. It is truly amazing that India has forgotten them so comprehensively and that it takes an American to remind us about our debts of gratitude. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->