From: Vrn Parker Mailing-List: list vediculture@yahoogroups.com Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 02:11:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [world-vedic] Ms. Alisha N. Bhagat vs. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra wrote:Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:15:28 -0400 From: To: infinityinfo@gmail.com Subject: Debate: Ms. Alisha N. Bhagat vs. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra Debate: Ms. Alisha N. Bhagat vs. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra Following the defeat of the Leftist Prof. Vijay Prashad in a one on one debate with Mr. Malhotra, Can Ms. Bhagat do any better? Ms. Alisha N. Bhagat, Carnegie-Mellon University Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Indian American Intellectual/ Entrepreneur Dear Ms. Bhagat, I enjoyed our interactions during my talk at Carnegie-Mellon University two days ago, and feel that such dialogs are important to learn each others' perspectives. There are a couple of key issues raised by you which I wish to address further below: A question was raised on what is my basis and credibility for doing this study of the academy. I give the following reasons: 1. Corporate institutions are the backbone of American society, not Britney Spears' belly button. No understanding of American society is complete w/o a serious understanding of how its institutions work. I have extensive expertise to study America's corporate institutions, while liberal arts academics' training applies mainly to the study of pop culture. My contention is that most liberal arts scholars simply lack the necessary competence to be able to understand institutional mechanisms in US corporations, government, religious institutions, media, etc. I have had 35 years of hands-on successful experience inside American corporate from the lowest to the highest levels. This gives me an insight into America that the liberal arts cocoon is largely ignorant of. 2. I also have a serious involvement in academic Whiteness Studies, which goes far deeper than Postcolonial Studies in the understanding of American culture. Few Indians have had the courage to get involved in this field thus far, and I hope to bridge these two disciplines. (Please read my recent column on Whiteness Studies at: http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305959 ) 3. Diaspora donors are being solicited by US colleges to fund programs and chairs. Hence, we have a legitimate right to do due diligence on the academy, from our position as investors. I get frequent requests from potential donors seeking my opinion. 4. Indian students in US colleges are consumers, and their parents spend heavily on tuitions. I worked for Nader's PIRG in the 1970s to represent consumers, and I feel we have a similar right to critique what the producers of India Studies dish out. 5. Just as there is public scrutiny over political, business and media corruption, the public also has a right to review academic bias and transparency issues. On your friend's question about what is my `agenda,' I wish to point out that there are two diametrically opposite positions with respect to relationship with the West that are already well represented. One is that of India's intellectuals in US liberal arts, and the other is China's position. China favors investments by USA, but in the area of US human rights intervention, China is firmly opposed to any foreign involvement in its sovereign socio-cultural-religious space. India's intellectuals take the opposite stance on both matters: They are opposed to US investments, BUT FAVOR U.S. INTERVENTION IN HUMAN RIGHTS. This is very puzzling. They oppose Ford Motor Company's investments in auto production in India, but want Ford Foundation's interventions in human rights!!! My position is similar to China's, and opposed to that of many Indian intellectuals. Furthermore, there are a growing number of US think tanks, corporate and political leaders who now favor a stable India. I support this. I oppose those forces which prefer to erase Indian identity and problematize India's status as a nation state. The latter posture is where many Indians in the liberal arts are. My positions against fragmenting India are similar to those of many corporate people, US government policy makers, etc. But I do bring a few new derivatives ideas, such as the following: 1. The US Religious Right's ideologies are driving: (A) US Domestic politics, (B) Middle East policies, and (C) Proselytizing in India. Indian intellectuals attack A and B, but are allied with C. I examine this contradiction. Inadvertently, they are supporting the very imperialism they claim to be opposing! 2. I wonder: Are some Indian intellectuals positioning themselves as potential Chalabis in the future? 3. Do some Indian intellectuals have undisclosed links to political fragments in India? This amounts to a conflict of interest with respect to transparency of disclosure. 4. Many Indian intellectuals suffer from an identity crisis: whiteness is denied to them and they are ashamed to be Indian, forcing them into the identity-less space. Does this inferiority complex get projected on to their teachings and campus activism? 5. I wish to highlight the need for starting India Studies in India. 6. I wish to bridge Postcolonial Studies with Whiteness Studies. 7. To what extent is the liberal arts academy in the West the nexus of the growing mainstream American Hinduphobia? These are all issues which I wish to pursue and would appreciate any collaboration/debate available from any side. Furthermore, as a patriotic American, I am also concerned about the adverse implications of the fragmentation of India, as that could lead to eventual Talibanization and would become a US nightmare. You indicated that similar criticism of US culture also takes place in the academy. However, I wish to argue that it does not have equivalent effects to that of the academic attacks on India. My reasons are as follows: 1. All significant US political parties are fiercely patriotic, never representing separatists. (Fragments get a assimilated/diluted into the two parties.) However, India's three national parties (Congress, BJP, CPM) combined represent only half the parliament and popular votes. Hence, India's political forces are fragmented. Therefore, academic dissent against the US does not fuel sociopolitical fragmentation: Impotent scholars merely talk to one another. On the other hand, in India, intellectual dissent is linked to the realpolitik of social fragmentation on the ground. 2. In USA's case, No external enemies are represented in domestic political parties. Indian domestic politics is heavily invested/funded by foreign forces, making India more vulnerable. 3. In USA, corporate vested interests bring cohesion to political agendas. Both parties dance to the political funding sources in their own ways. Nader is right here. In India, the agendas are highly fragmented. 4. Maturity of the US nation state and its relative prosperity has stabilized the status quo of American society. India's socioeconomic distress pressures its national unity. 5. US Christianity is secure as the unifying ethos (unlike in Europe). In India, the social fabric of Hinduism is constantly under attack. 6. Discourse on US, even when it is against its culture, is under its own epistemic control. It is protected via white culture's domination and epistemic privilege. But Indians must play by the rules of Western epistemology to have a voice in the marketplace of ideas. Hence, the counter-discourse that offsets the criticism is weaker in India than in the US. 7. Furthermore, I wish to point out that my positions about identity and cultural projection in USA were developed after years of study of Japan Foundation, China Institute, Korea Foundation, and similar culture specific groups in the US. I invite you to study these, and then argue why Indian culture should be treated differently. 8. Finally, let us address the issue of identity: Many Indian scholars in US colleges argue against Indian identity using postmodern theories. Yet, they implicitly slip into structuralism when they promote South Asian identities and when they champion their favorite identity-ridden activists. I find this to be a contradiction. I respect your courage to disagree and to argue your case forcefully. I hope you also respect my right to do the same. Finally, you might wish to read my extensive on-line debate with Prof. Vijay Prashad that is posted on OutlookIndia.com, and that consisted of nine extensive essays posted by both of us. The opening piece links to the subsequent posts and is at: http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040115&fname=rajiv&sid=1 If a faculty member at CMU would like to initiate a similar debate with me, I would be happy to discuss further. Dialog which respects differences of opinion is something I have tried to foster and participate in, whenever the chance presents itself.