Sometimes, I'm not totally sure who I am.
Not in the crazy, lost my mind kind of way.
And not in the spiritual or philosophical kind of way either.
What I mean is that I don't always know how to categorize myself. New Yorker? American? Indian? Punjabi? Texan? Sikh?
In most cases, I don't struggle with these sorts of labels.
I'm well aware that general terms like this don't come close to capturing our particularities. I also understand that, like everyone else, I'm a unique combination of "all of the above."
Sometimes, though, we're forced to select one of our multiple identities, and that's when things get a little messy.
I was put into this sort of position just a couple weeks ago, and it's been pretty challenging for me.
To make a long story short, I was invited to be a representative at the Parade of Nations for the 2011 ING New York City Marathon. It's a huge honor, and the organizers were gracious enough to offer me the option of either serving as a delegate for the country of my birth (USA) or the country from which my parents immigrated (India).
While I feel extremely fortunate and humbled to have been selected, I also feel uncomfortable in having to choose between my national identities. I've never really had to make this decision so publicly before.
Indian or American? How could I choose?
Initially, I found myself leaning towards my American identity. I was born and raised in San Antonio, and even though I don't fit the profile of a typical Texan (10-gallon turban anyone?), it seems natural to me that I'd identify with America more than any other country.
As I thought about it a bit more, I weighed the pros and cons of representing India.
On the positive side, I figured I'd be more noticeable since the pool of Indians is so small. (South Asians aren't exactly known for being world-class athletes, so it probably doesn't come as a surprise that only a handful of us are running in the ING New York City Marathon.)
I also feel a connection with South Asia as the homeland of my parents, native language and religious tradition.
On the other hand, however, I would feel extremely uneasy representing a country like India that has demonstrated a consistent willingness to support and perpetrate human rights violations against its own citizens.
Space is limited here, so I'll just draw on a timely example that comes from the community I know best--the Sikhs.
On Oct. 31, 1984, the Prime Minister of India was assassinated by her two Sikh bodyguards. In response to this assassination, mobs swarmed the capital city of New Delhi and started hunting down Sikh civilians. Eyewitness accounts report that the mobs were led by government officials, who incited the crowds and provided them with weapons and addresses of Sikh household and business.
The mob violence continued unabated for three days following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and by the time the police finally intervened, thousands of innocent Sikhs had been killed.
Independent inquiries have clearly demonstrated the Indian Government's complicity in the mob violence, and with the help of first-person accounts, they have identified a number of elected officials who were directly involved in organizing the pogroms.
However, more than a quarter-century has passed and not a single person has been held accountable for the violence that India unleashed on its own citizens.
It's shocking that there are strong cases against three government officials--Jagdish Tytler, Sajjan Kumar, and Kamal Nath--yet each of them has been gradually climbing the professional ranks since participating in these atrocities.
It's even more eye-opening when one realizes that this isn't just a one-time thing. It's a pattern.
The Government of India consistently perpetrates and condones major human rights violations against its own citizens, and instead of punishing the leaders responsible for their crimes, it rewards them.
How could I allow myself to represent a country like that?
The United States is hardly in the same class as India, a country that's been described by Human Rights Watch as having "significant human rights problems."
I'm not saying the U.S is perfect. I don't agree with all of our political decisions, and I also realize that we're not entirely clear of human rights violations. There's a lot that can be improved.
Yet I find that the values and ideals of my religion, Sikhism, resonate more closely with those of America. Like the Sikh religion, the U.S. is founded on freedom, equality and justice. This is the appeal of America and it's precisely why my parents immigrated here.
Thinking through all this has helped me develop a deeper appreciation of how fortunate and proud I am to be American. It's also become increasingly clear to me that I don't identify with the Indian State.
To be totally honest, I don't totally buy into the whole nationalism thing. While it allows us to connect with others who belong to the same group, it also causes us to distinguish ourselves from people of other groups.
This distinction causes for a different kind of nation--alienation--and that's where things don't sit well with me. I don't buy the assumption that people are more valuable because they belong to a particular nation. For example, I don't believe that the life of an American is worth more or less than any other human life.
I'm proud to be American, but not at the expense of dehumanizing others.
I guess some people might think I'm taking things too seriously, and I'm sure that most people don't really care whether I serve as a delegate for the U.S. or India at the ING New York City Marathon's Parade of Nations.
But it matters to me, and I can't help but think that these issues are of global importance.
Just making a tiny bit of difference in the world, for me, would make all the difference in the world.
However there are objective standards that measure country corruption, civil liberties, and political rights.
In each of these measures, India falls short of the United States.
With 1 being the most free and 7 being the least free, Freedom House gives the United States a 1 in civil liberties and a 1 in political rights. India scored a 3 in civil liberties, and a 2 in political rights.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/
On a scale of 0 being very corrupt government to 10 being very clean government, Transparency International gives the US a corruption index score of 8 and India a score of 3.
http://www.transparency.org/
we humans love to identify with those like us. the herd effect is alive and well with most humans.
after we came from nature and we still have many of those nature attributes within us.
"the U.S. is founded on freedom, equality and justice"
stick around that is changing quickly. our children and grand children will live in a competely different america then the one we have known.
We conservative religious Hindus support the Sikhs.
What I find pathetic is that Hindus are often blamed for this, when its the anti Hindu Sickularist congress party and its hench men who committed this offense to a community that has given so so much to India. Particularly for India's defense. Its a shame that I can never forget!
The problem with the article is his generalizations. His article paints that GoI carried out human rights violations CONSISTENTLY. What happened to the Sikhs, in New Delhi was horrible. It should not have happened. But it was not the government or people of India as a whole participated in the riots. It was spearheaded by INC goonda ministers and officials in New Delhi. There were incidents around the country too. But much of the country did not hate Sikhs and neither carried out 'pograms' against them.
It is the author's usage of broad brush that I think is wrong as far as this episode.
As far as the rest of the country, Whelp! The majority seem to continuously support the vile family and party that has hijacked the nation and who support the perpetrators of this crime.
All Americans have (and should be proud of) their multiple identities. Neither the US government , nor your religion (unlike another one) forces you to be biased toward one identity.
And they grew up and the girl with Indian parents married a guy with parents from Portugal, while the guy with Chinese parents married the Puerto Rican girl...so forth and so on everyone gets over the ethnic hangups and open up Mexican-Chinese fusion restaurants, because that's what America is all about.
Some people just have a harder time assimilating than others; some others--Islamists--come here with no intention of ever assimilating, but to form a cultural/religious colony.
For them, America is just another culture to subvert.
To call India a republic is a joke! Its a faux democratic country.,
Maybe that's part of why we hyphenate sometimes. And we should possibly hyphenate proudly, cause that hyphen's one drawn by Lady Liberty, and made real by all of us, if we believe in what this place is supposed to be, most *especially* for the sake of our ancestors. That hyphen's a bridge, not a wall or fence. :)
Don't let anyone tell you different, or even make your indecision there about something *bad.*
I may find certain kinds of people scary, but I won't hold you being Texan against you. ;) (Mostly kidding!) :)
Seriously, though. Even a 'ten gallon' turban really is something that'd be like any other, whether you're new to this country or born here or whatever, Cause, you know, I'm three generations in, of a minority religion that doesn't have any particular associated necessary garb or whatever, but when I've got Sikh neighbors wearing turbans, the way I see it is, that's standing up for *all* of us being Americans.
So you can be as Indian as you please, won't make you any less American to me. That's what this is about. :)
I like pluralism and variety, but prefer the melting pot model to the cultural mosaic model. That’s the crucial difference between the United States and the United Nations.
It is no accident that no nation is modeled on the United Nations and many are modeled on the United States.
-----------------------
Not being afraid of your neighbors? Getting to know them? Being friends with them?
It is not India per se that was involved in the attack. It was particularly the Indian National Congress, that is headed by Sonia Gandhi - the daughter-in-law of the PM that was killed in 1984.
Your article is insightful and helps me understand myself more as well. Thanks for sharing.
I see how your analysis of the US is a bit more simple, but I think both analyses capture the essence of the different countries. Of course, both countries have their flaws but the flaws of internal corruption and poor political practices are much more prevalent and deeply rooted in the Indian system.
I wish it were easier for others to digest that I am simply an American (if you want to put a label on me). Yes, I'm a Sikh and my parents also immigrated from India, but if there is one place in the world I could imagine myself understanding and living comfortably, that place is the US.
Thanks again for sharing.