• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NRI Corner 2
^ Mudy could you clarify? Did not get your point?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Killed by America</b>
<i>Rajeev Srinivasan</i> (Pioneer)

The death of Maya Nand, besides showing the dark corners of the American legal system, proves India doesn't care for Indians abroad

Maya Nand had the misfortune to be on the wrong side of history three times: And so he died, shackled, untreated for diabetes, in a prison cell in Arizona. ("Family struggled in vain to help suffering detainee", International Herald Tribune, May 5, 2008).

Maya Nand, a legal immigrant or Green Card holder, made the mistake of applying for US citizenship. This was rejected on a technicality (a misdemeanor charge about domestic violence), and he fell into a Twilight Zone of the penal system. Without recourse to due process, he was incarcerated and essentially subjected to judicial murder in a privately-run prison.

This is startling because it seems like a huge miscarriage of justice, which legal immigrants to the most open and free society in the world should not be subject to. But there are three other aspects that stand out: That poor Maya Nand must have been especially cursed to be so violated by history, three times over; that on the fringes of the legal system of the US there are so many dark corners where people can become non-persons, to be brutalised at will; and that, yet again, the Indian state pays no attention to the oppressed among its diaspora.

<b>For, Maya Nand's ancestors were indentured labourers from India taken to work as near-slaves in the sugar-plantations of Fiji by the British. </b>Maya Nand himself must have suffered from serious discrimination from the indigenous Fijians and, therefore, moved to the US as a refugee. Finally, with no opportunity to defend himself, he was killed. This is an outrage.

But more alarmingly, it appears legal protections US citizens take for granted are not available to legal immigrants and residents. There are grey areas in the US judicial system that take away the fundamental rights of the individual, including habeas corpus, the right to a fair hearing in court. And the famous 'Miranda' rules available to even hardened criminals: "You have the right to remain silent, to an attorney, etc."

The story of Maya Nand, and a related story about European visitors ("Italian's Detention Illustrates Dangers Foreign Visitors Face", New York Times, May 15, 2008), show there are constructs that put non-citizens into a Kafkaesque No-Man's Land where they are legally not on US soil even though they physically are; and, therefore, normal US laws do not apply to them, even those that apply to illegal immigrants! Therefore, they can be held indefinitely without being charged, and there is no way that anxious relatives can even get reliable information about them.

In a strange way, this is the mirror-image of the rationale for the post-9/11 terrorist holding facility in the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. That is another fiction where the base is not quite considered to be on US soil, and detainees are not considered either enemy combatants or prisoners of war, whereby the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them (let me hasten to add that I make no assumptions about the innocence or otherwise of those detained in Guantanamo; I am merely observing the legal loophole used).

I must admit being shocked when I first read these stories. Accustomed as most of us are to the frequent proclamations about the US being the "home of the free and the land of the brave", I could not believe such things could happen to holders of the coveted Green Card. (Although, in passing, I know some people who lied about their existing Communist Party affiliations - a big no-no - in their Green Card applications. I am sure they worry someone will bring this little subterfuge to the attention of those grim Homeland Security types. Green Cards, and citizenship, can, and have been, revoked - ask the Indian immigrants who were stripped of citizenship in the early 1900s for being Caucasian but not White).

To some extent these excesses may be over-reactions to 9/11 and the real threat to America from terrorists abroad. But there is a totalitarian streak in the country, which explains how Japanese-Americans were put into concentration camps during World War II. There is also a tendency to apply the harshest methods to non-Whites. But then, America has a violent history, including the genocide and cultural extermination of the Native American.

Why does India not stand up for the rights of its diaspora and demand that the record be set right on historical wrongs? Four years ago, Indian-origin Sikh priest Khem Singh, 72-year-old and crippled, was starved to death in another American prison in Fresno, California. Before that, there was Charanjit Singh Aujla, shot dead by plainclothes policemen in Jefferson, Miss. And Navroze Mody, beaten to death in Hoboken, NJ, by racists chanting "dot-head", an epithet against Indians.

Then there have been many incidents of oppression, religious and economic, against Indian-origin people in Fiji; they have had no option but to flee. There was violence against Indians in Uganda, Kenya, etc, in East Africa, again turning many into refugees; and, even before that, Indians were ejected from Burma.

The Government of India has never raised its voice in support of its diaspora in any of these cases. Perhaps that was acceptable when India was a starving banana republic, holding out a begging bowl. But this is not acceptable when India aspires to be a major power.

Then there was the event that showed Indians that the British imperialists were truly evil: April 13, 1919, Jallianwallah Bagh. The Indian Government has never demanded reparations or even an apology from the British for this crime against humanity: 1,650 bullets, 1,579 casualties.

The Canadians recently decided to make a belated apology for the shameful Komagata Maru incident of 1914 when they denied Indian refugees succour. More such apologies must be demanded.

India deserves a Government that is proud of the country and leaves no stone unturned in protecting its citizens and its diaspora.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Indian immigrants slow to assimilate into mainstream: Study</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Immigrants born in Canada, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam have assimilation-index values higher than the national average of 28. 'This report introduces a quantitative index that measures the degree of similarity between native and foreign-born adults. It is the ability to distinguish the latter group from the former that we mean when we use the term assimilation,' the report said.

In terms of economic assimilation, immigrants from Canada, Cuba, the Philippines and Korea are indistinguishable from mainstream Americans; these four countries are followed by Vietnam and India. Immigrants from Mexico are the least economically assimilated of any group, with those from El Salvador a close second. Individuals born in the Dominican Republic and China also display economic assimilation levels at or below the national average.

When it comes to culture, Canadians are almost indistinguishable from native-born Americans. "Immigrants born in the Philippines and the Dominican Republic also show relatively high levels of cultural assimilation. At the other end of the spectrum, immigrants born in China and India show the greatest degree of cultural distinction from the native-born," the report said.

<b>Cultural assimilation was measured on a range of matrices that include the ability to speak English; intermarriage (whether an individual's spouse is native-born); number of children and marital status</b>.

"In terms of cultural assimilation, India's index value of 39 is the lowest among major origin countries for immigrants in the United States. When considering a wider array of origin countries, immigrants from Bangladesh have a slightly lower score, 38," Bridget noted.

In civic assimilation also, Indian immigrants don't perform as well as they ought to, the study found. Civic assimilation is a measure of immigrants' formal participation in American society, primarily through naturalisation. <b>"To some extent, civic assimilation is an even stronger indicator of immigrants' intentions than is cultural assimilation. The choice to become a naturalised citizen, or to serve in the United States military, shows a tangible dedication to this country," </b>the report said.

In terms of such civic assimilation, Vietnam tops the list with Philippines, Korea and Cuba following in that order; India is well down the list, bettering only countries like Mexico and El Salvador.
My desi study says: 40% of US MDs are Indian. Richest immigrant segment is Indian. Most educated segment is Indian.

Assimilation desi ishtyle!

I hope Indians never assimilate the Korean way: setting up christo churches, making their kids play piano and violin..
Indians are the ideal minority in US, why do the rest complain?
<!--QuoteBegin-shamu+Jun 7 2008, 09:47 AM-->QUOTE(shamu @ Jun 7 2008, 09:47 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indians are the ideal minority in US, why do the rest complain?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Same reason that the Indian communists can't stand the Dharmic population in India, or why China's communists will team up with missionaries to beat Chinese Buddhists down.

Because conscious heathens can't be assimilated. They are used to thinking for themselves and don't enter into the thought-patterns that the christo-conditioned follow. Thinking outside the box they draw around you is considered dangerous in autocratic societies - even the kind of societies that brainwashes people into thinking they live in a democratic, liberal environment.

That is why pseculars in India hate Dharmics too. For example, we don't agree with them on their view that history is something that should be negotiable or that it is okay to rewrite history to make factual, historical tyrants look good. Pseculars want to do so to make a future without the past and they find the burden of christoislamic intolerance rather troubling in fashioning India the way they want it. So they will blame something or other on the Dharmic populations to get the imbalance into a theoretical equal-equal situation and then argue that "therefore" we can start a clean slate by doing a negation on history.

They will then have to explain current islamic terrorism and will do so in terms of economics or modern social constructs, rather than admit to the real eternal reason: that of intolerant jihadi expansionism at the expense of a kaffiri population. Similarly, modern christian violent aggression is denied and in fact legitimised: "they have the right to convert" (that means no one has a right to protest their impinging on our personal space, let alone their militant terrorism in NE India and elsewhere).

Here's an example of the kind of scary Indians who argue for presenting a pristine feel-good history - "who cares if it's at the expense of historical facts". Look for one "Sanjeev Sabhlok" at
Scary person. To think that that (otherwise sensible) site supports this Sabhlok guy's political party in India.

The same mentality pushing communists and psecularists in India and the rest of the east also fuels the American discomfort about "non-integrating" Indians.
No terrorist acts, no calls for jihad or conversion, no civil disobedience or anything like that threatens the US or their government from the (Dharmic) Indian quarter. Yet they are scared. They are scared because Indians will not assimilate - inconvertible. Indians will be lawful citizens and to that extent seem to be docile, but still don't go the whole way into becoming an American mind, because in all other matters of life, many Indians remain who they are. Beyond surface similarities, we are fundamentally different in our mental makeup from the US.

American history is based on the fact that those who will not assimilate will be annihilated. Either openly (native N Americans) or with the propaganda war (e.g. Wendy Doniger and her spawn "children", WitSSel et al).
You need to know about America to understand its paranoia. The less the US talks about the native Americans, the more you know the murdered are haunting them. It is a great hush that is screaming on the other side of life.

Until they change Indian migrants' pattern of thinking - and they are certainly trying - they will not achieve the kind of absolute and total integration they seek. Like Dhu always says, the American advert for "individualism" is merely a blind for the fact that they want you to 'voluntarily' comply completely with their way of thinking and living. There is no true independence intended behind their notion.
<!--QuoteBegin-shamu+Jun 7 2008, 09:47 AM-->QUOTE(shamu @ Jun 7 2008, 09:47 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indians are the ideal minority in US, why do the rest complain?

Becasuse we have not let go of our senses, err dharma yet. They want to have that, yesterday, like Koreans, Bobby Jindals, et al....
This Freedom Team of India founder Sanjeev Sabhlok has no clue about desert cultoterrorism. He, in replying to me at Satyameva Jayate, said, "there are no predatory faiths, just predatory people" when I had said that Indians need to be more aware of the predatory faiths xtianity and islam.

I told him to go read up faithfreedom/xtian agg/koran/hadiths..

Then Shantanu, the SJ site owner (also a FTI member) had the good sense to see my side of the argument and said to SS: "There may be no predatory faiths, but there certainly are predatory ideologies". And he thanked me. Shantanu, in my opinion, is a real seeker after the truth. He has written on SJ about a lot of the stuff we write here. I have asked him to do a bit on Goan inquisition..
<!--QuoteBegin-Shambhu+Jun 7 2008, 11:31 PM-->QUOTE(Shambhu @ Jun 7 2008, 11:31 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->This Freedom Team of India founder Sanjeev Sabhlok has no clue about desert cultoterrorism.[right][snapback]82482[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Either that, or Sabhlok is playing communistics and ignoring what he learnt on purpose. After all, check out his Liberal Party of India (LPI) linked off from his own page (which in turn is linked to from Shantanu's Satyameva Jayate site).
Have often given people the benefit of the doubt: assuming ignorance of facts rather than deception on their part. But if Sabhlok can write a book and set up a political party, perhaps he may not be innocently ignorant in the way many another may be.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Beware of these communal parties
Communalism of the Congress and BJP | BJP are not true Hindus<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The two elements of the second line are links and the second contains for instance this unhistorical gem (must be Sabhlok's history rewriting again):

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->LPI’s rebuttal to Advani
"You and your predecessors CAUSED the partition of India by scaring Muslims. Many of your type resisted freedom. ....."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hysterical stuff. Where did they learn their history? Oh wait, it was probably from the novel "Indian history: our version of what would/could/should have happened" that they themselves wrote, then memorised and now parrot.
It was communists that were against India's independence and Hindus who fought for it. Congress for a long time never even asked for independence but merely requested "home rule, home rule". Meanwhile most Islamics in politics only agitated for their own independence so they could go back to their long-dead make-shift islamic "empire" in India and tyrant it out over Dharmics all over again.

Which links to this page where Opinion is substituted for History:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In my current <b>opinion</b>, it was not merely the events of 1906-1937 that led to a breakdown in relations between the two major religious groups in India; it was the thick headedness of the Congress in 1937 and the hatred displayed by the Hindu Mahasabha in 1939 that led to the subsequent and huge bloodshed of the 20th century in India - the partition, the violence in Punjab and Kashmir, and now the continuing bloodshed as Muslim fanaticism retaliates against Hindu fanaticism within India itself. The Muslim league had become effectively impotent many times in its few decades of existence, as the Congress leaders engaged with Muslims, particularly in the Khilafat movement. Engaging with the minorities is crucial in easing their fears.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There is sooooo much wrong in that one mini para I'm just going to let you read it.

These people do not merely want to make history all positive and nice (which would be an offence against History in itself), but they go even further: they like to twist matters around completely and make it look like
- islamics are merely 'retaliating' (to what? to Kaffirs existing in a distant land called Hindustan? Well, there's a name for that ya know - it's called <i>Jihad</i>...)
- and that partition was Hindus' fault <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> (Don't ask, I couldn't explain their weirdo logic even if I wanted to)

Also, with all these pages lecturing the Hindus and the BJP - where are the pages lecturing the christoislamiterrorists?

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Shantanu, in my opinion, is a real seeker after the truth.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Shantanu comes off as sincere. But why is he supporting these double-speaking history falsifiers?
He ought to investigate the dubiousness of the Freedom Team of India before endorsing them. They sound pretty much like the Lite version of the South Asian Communist Web (sacw) and of course the proudly communist whineblog "communalism-combat" in that they do not ask islam/islamics to change but only preach to Hindus that these should accomodate and accept (christo)islamiterrorism. Truth means nothing to communistas and psecularados. That is why in their view, history is merely a tool that is to be manipulated in order to then manipulate the present and future the way they want it. Dharmics, however, think of history as an objective list of what happened and when. Motivations should only be listed as factual if they were directly given by historical characters (or their narrators, as often happened with islamic tyrants regularly gloating in their chronicles over the mass bloodshed they caused) AND where these can be substantiated by other evidence such as archaeological indicators.
(The reason I added that "AND" portion was because the Romans were pretty nasty when it came to writing their "histories" on the conquest of the Celtic world. They never said straight out why they wanted to capture the Celtic strongholds like Bibracte - they preferred to pretend they were merely killing off "troublemakers" when what they really wanted was always kept carefully secret and has only been revealed by archeaology. So trusting to mere writings of historians and chroniclers is not always enough.)

What bothers me most is that Shantanu is advertising and endorsing these guys of the FTI/LPI when he seems like he ought to know better. And of course the fact that gullible Hindus may be wasting their precious votes on the likes of SACW-Lite.
Wow..I had not seen that LPI that Sabhlok has formed..looks like a confirmed psec/commie. Now that I think more about it, when he replies to you, he has that patronizing style, as if he knows everything and will be happy to politely guide you to the real facts.

I think Shantanu has jumped into Sabhlokcity without doing enough reading on LPI (just like he had linked some oyran endorsing site on SJ. But after being told about it, he looked at it and took it off SJ). I think the truth about LPI will dawn on Shantanu soon...

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)