Achievers
Books
Business
Calender
Community
Controversy
Cuisine
Eateries
Education
Enterprise
Faith
Good Samaritans
Health
Infotech
Media
Memories
Movies
News Archives
Opinion
Specials
The Arts

Ashwin Mahesh

The spectre of imagined suffering

Among the stories doing the rounds in Indian-American as well as in Indian publications with a significant following among the expatriate community is one of a restaurateur in California now charged with, among other things, sexual exploitation of minors. At about the same time that the story broke, a number of software professionals were arrested in Texas on charges of immigration fraud and led away in handcuffs. A few weeks before that, Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker, spewing ill-will and poor judgement in liberal doses, included Indians among a laundry-list of his undesirables, asking, "How the hell did they get into this country?"

Predictably, the response was immediate and powerful even. Various groups took up writing on the Braves issue and protested against the racist remarks of the employer who ironically, later went to arbitration proceedings presided over by an ethnic Indian. Endless reams of print were devoted to the mindless racism of the Immigration and Naturalization Service with the repeated question: "How in the world does an agency determine that respectable middle class families from India can be treated as common criminals on a mere technicality of the law, especially given how little control they have over their employers' alleged abuse of immigration laws?

No doubt there are other instances where Indians (or ethnic Indians), have been treated unfairly, even discriminated against. Some of this has to do with unthinking application of the law by poorly trained officers with insignificant judgement and possibly their own dose of racism. Other instances have to do with individual acts of injustice where the victim merely happens to be Indian, with no particular motive assigned to the crime that is traceably Indian. But let's take all the stuff that one can count on the wronged side of the fence and label them 'Exhibit A' the case against America's treatment of desis.

Although it needn't be a particular part of the assessment, we might also include 'Exhibit B', to wit, evidence that America, contrary to what is suggested by outcries during individual incidents, treats Indians remarkably well and that within the spectrum of treatment afforded to us, we have found opportunities to establish ourselves as an economically vibrant group of people and have done so probably much faster than any other immigrant group.

At the leading edge of America's growing prosperity, Indian entrepreneurship in the information technology industry and in the sciences in general has established Indians as an enviable bunch. Many of us are justifiably proud of this no doubt and it will do us well to remember that the journey to prosperity has been possible in America perhaps even without the sort of hurdles that the Irish and the Italians endured.

And then there is Lakireddy, charged with the sort of crime that might pass nominally as imaginable perversion in India but is clearly outside the bounds of American cultural and legal norms, with the prosecution itself being conducted by another figure in part-desi armor. Of all the stories with Indian names and identities to them that have emerged in the last few weeks, this is the one that should really interest us.

From the good to the bad, from the crowning of British Columbia's ethnic Indian premier to the egregious outbursts of an idiot athlete and spanning everything in between, this is the tale that most vehemently pits one view of the Indian immigrant experience against another.

First to the popular notion. Rajeev Srinivasan, writing in rediff, had these to offer. One, that Lakireddy, like anyone else, is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Two, that as an alternative to being carted off to Mumbai's red light districts, the girls Lakireddy allegedly abused might have been 'economically, rationally and properly' sold to him. Three, a successful businessman like Lakireddy who has sated many appetites -- no pun here -- with his fine restaurants, might well be getting pulled down by jealous others. And four, that an apathetic Indian community is inviting trouble upon itself by not standing up for abuses, or potential abuses, against those of similar ethnic background.

Further, Rajeev offers anecdotal evidence that various Indians suffer indignities of every sort under the laws. Being stopped by the police for no reason, being ordered out of vehicles and made to lie on roads while they checked out incorrect data and other outright stupid premises. As well, he included details from the particular stories we're dealing with here. Racial discrimination in deciding who to haul away and who to excuse, being bundled into overcrowded vans and prisons, being denied access to proper food and enduring derogatory comments about Indian culture and customs.

Clearly, while the legal system went through its vast muddling, the unfortunate programmers from respectable families languished under uncivilised treatment while their employer wasn't even charged! And in further columns, the anecdotes continued. We heard of Charanjit Singh Aujla who was shot in the back of his head by sheriff's deputies in Mississippi during a sting operation.

For all the emotion behind Rajeev's writing on this subject and his reasonable call for action from the Indian community, there is a fundamental point in which my view digresses from his. As I see it, Rajeev Srinivasan is exhorting us to act in the name of a community of others who look like we do and who might, in some cases, hold passports similar to our own. These might be justified in the short-term, but they are ultimately self-defeating.

Nationhood and group identities are realities of the world and I will not take ideal-seeking opposition to that. If it can happen to some programmer in Houston, it could happen possibly in Silicon Valley and maybe in northern Virginia. If it can happen to store clerks in Mississippi, so too it can happen in a thousand motels across the southeast and in a thousand stores in Greater New York. Reasonable vigil against potential excesses in the criminal justice system is both necessary and useful. Ideally, of course, one would be similarly vigilant in all instances, not merely when they appeared to target a small sub-sect of brown-skinned vegetarians, but at the very least, we might begin with that.

The disagreement from Rajeev's view, however, stems from a different line of thought. One which exhorts us to act in such ways too, but not on the premise of shared identity with other Indians around this country and instead, in solidarity with those who are genuinely like we are. Beyond standing up for the rights of Indians, we must be able to see ourselves as integrated parts of the larger communities in which we live and work and additionally be able to sift criminal Indian elements from amongst us and hold them apart, so that the expression of ethnic solidarity is not confused with the appearance of apathy and collusion with lawbreakers.

Seen in that light, we might accept that what happened to the software programmers was regrettable, but in the absence of utopia, it possibly represents no more than a fair share of the smattering of indignities that every person is likely to endure at some point.

The immediate response I've received to that suggestion is that it happens only to minorities and that if it had happened to me, I'd feel different. Neither is true. I have known White people, from "respectable" families no less, who were pulled out of their cars by cops and beaten up for not driving within the right lanes during a traffic revision. I have myself been arrested without documents at the Canadian border and have been pulled over while driving no different than any other person in a red Mustang on a deserted Texas highway! In each case, I was treated well by the authorities and eventually let go without warning or punishment when it was discovered that neither was warranted.

I have been in other vehicles pulled over for driving in the dark without lights and the officer who came over merely suggested that we might have forgotten to do so. He didn't make snide remarks about women in saris, he didn't ask to see our passports, or wonder that we didn't speak in unaccented American English.

The anecdotal evidence then, is neither here nor there. Mistakes happen. The larger question then is one that seeks to establish how we might engage ourselves at each instance that is brought to our attention.

Individual instances of being dealt poor treatment by the authorities are usually taken up in the courts and addressed. Indeed, as the Lakireddy case demonstrates, some of 'us' are within the justice system itself and this affords a measure of comfort naturally. Media has its fair sprinkling of desis, so does the money machine on Wall Street, the corridors of power in numerous startups in infotech and biotech. Academia counts thousands of us, social activism ranging from gay and lesbian issues to the defense of Hindu culture is fairly established. Political lobbying groups also draw fairly strongly from our well-heeled lives and concerted action for pro-India policies on the hill are creating impact. Being myself deeply involved with one such action group, I see this often enough.

Where does that leave us? With particular incidents that are detrimental to the few who are sadly made to endure them and with a larger picture of general health which suggests no particular level of grief brought to bear on us by concerted action. And incredibly, this much has been achieved, as Rajeev himself says, without any real cohesive action by desis. Any honest assessment of the Indian immigrant experience, especially of the 1990s, must conclude that the spectre of suffering we are asked to beware of now is mostly imaginary. Nobody is out to get us, even if there were an "us" to begin with.

And that brings me to the last bit. Whereas it is often dismissed as unrealistic idealism and naivete, there will be a much greater payoff in identifying ourselves with those amongst us whose lives parallel ours, whether or not they are ethnically our brethren. Perhaps what can happen to another Indian can happen to me and that is cause for vigil, but what can happen in southeastern Virginia can happen to me too, and what can happen in my housing community will most likely happen to me.

Nearly five years ago, in the midst of a breakdown in the fire-retardant sprinkler system at 2 am on a December night, I found myself hastily cast out of my home without blankets or warm clothing while a deluge endured inside the apartment. A white fire marshall came by to attend to the matter and my Iranian neighbors sheltered me for the week while the apartment was cleaned up.

The Lakireddys of this world will be amongst us, now and forever. The impassioned call for the defense of one among us ignores the reality of restaurant-ownership among desis, which is that a fair number of the hired hands are indentured workers, whose livelihood, however improved it might be in comparison to alternatives in India, is nevertheless illegally held hostage by unscrupulous employers.

Ask for a show of hands to see how many ex-graduate students have moonlighted under such illegal terms and you'll see soon enough that the potential for abuse is immediately apparent and given that, it surely must occur often enough. This, we might call the "winked-at" truth in this case; maybe the man is innocent and maybe he's not, but how many of us would be surprised to learn that a desi restaurateur flouted the law and simply had under-aged girls over for a combination of his professional and personal interests?

In response to Rajeev's profiling of the man, we might say the following. One, that the presumption of innocence is a legal protection, it does not apply in the court of public opinion. In court, the accused certainly appears to be getting his due process and if anything, his money alone can buy the kind of legal defense that most of us cannot afford.

Two, the argument that slavery alone is preferable to slavery and prostitution together, is facetious. There is no excusing one transgression of the law on the proviso that others have not occurred. The notion that the girls were "properly" sold to the man should disgust us and the solution lies is working to its abolition in India too, not in offering it up as a defense here.

Three, whether Pasand restaurants serve palatable food is not in question and has no bearing on the case.

And four, apathy among Indians need not be worrisome if desis are nevertheless involved in the mainstream on ideological bases rather than race-based ones. There is every evidence this is happening. Frankly, the only reason to care about Lakireddy, or any other Indian who is brought before the law, is to ensure that proper procedures are followed, and that the ultimate outcomes reflect just treatment -- including punishment where necessary -- to all such persons.

The notion that our personal safety lies in embracing desi accused more than others is ultimately a call to separateness, one that urges us to pursue happiness and prosperity within the narrow confines of a group apart from the mainstream. Fortysix years ago, the nine wise men of this nation's Supreme Court wrote in a judgment that stands as a pillar of civil rights in this nation -- that it is unimaginable that a separate identity could ever be maintained with an implied inequality.

Remembering those words will make the immigrant experience fulfilling.

Ashwin Mahesh

ALSO SEE:

More on immigration, race and civil rights in America

'If I don't put handcuffs, you may grab a pen and kill me'

'Welcome to America. Now here are your handcuffs'

Previous: Stand up and be counted, Indians told

Tell us what you think of this column