archive: Activism Boosts India's Fortunes
Activism Boosts India's Fortunes
John Lancaster
Washington Post
October 9, 1999
Title: Activism Boosts India's Fortunes
Author: John Lancaster
Publication: Washington Post
Date: October 9, 1999
Politically Vocal Immigrants Help Tilt Policy in Washington
It's a long way from Kashmir to the booming high-tech corridors of
Northern Virginia and Silicon Valley. But you wouldn't know it from
the deluge of e-mails that flooded congressional offices in June.
As Indian troops fought to repel a Pakistani incursion in the disputed
Himalayan province, key staff members were bombarded with demands from
Indian immigrants -- many in the computer and software industries --
for a resolution condemning Pakistan's "aggression." Lawmakers
complied, and a few days later -- in a White House meeting on July 4 -
President Clinton cited congressional pressure in urging Pakistani
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to withdraw his forces, according to two
senior administration officials with direct knowledge of the
conversation.
"It was gratifying for many of us to see a clear pro- India tilt sweep
this city," Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.) told a gathering of Indian
Americans on July 20, after Pakistan had withdrawn its forces. "And
this unique phenomenon was made possible in no small measure because
of the political activism of the Indian American community."
The rise of Indian Americans as a powerful and effective domestic
lobby -- one that aspires to the level of influence that American Jews
have exerted on behalf of Israel -- coincides with the emergence in
India of a stable and increasingly self-confident government.
According to election results made public this week, the ruling
Bharatiya Janata Party of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has won
a solid majority in India's parliament, at least in part because of
India's perceived triumph over Pakistan in the latest Kashmir crisis.
The victory by the strongly nationalist BJP has strengthened the hand
of Vajpayee at a time of high tension with Pakistan and continued
diplomatic fallout in Washington over last year's Indian and Pakistani
nuclear tests.
Since the tests, which triggered U.S. economic sanctions against India
and Pakistan, Vajpayee's government has held a high-level dialogue
with Washington aimed at repairing relations. Indian Americans have
figured prominently in that effort, giving generously to political
campaigns and meeting with lawmakers and administration officials to
explain the security rationale behind the Indian tests.
During the final decade of the Cold War, Pakistan enjoyed cozy
relations with Washington by virtue of its central role in the
CIA-backed war to drive Soviet forces from Afghanistan and the charm
of its Harvard-educated Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. Indians
seethed that Pakistan's influence was far out of proportion to its
size and significance. Now, the tables have turned -- and the nation's
1.4 million Indian Americans have found their political voice.
The lobbying effort reflects a widespread belief in the Indian
American community that India has not been taken seriously in
Washington. It rankles many Indian Americans, for example, that India
is not among the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council
and that no American president has visited the country since Jimmy
Carter did so in 1978 (although Clinton has announced that he will
visit the region next year).
"Fairness means don't ignore 1 billion people," said Swadesh
Chatterjee, 53, president of the Indian American Forum for Political
Education, a nationwide group that aims to boost political
participation by members of the community.
Chatterjee, like many Indian Americans, sees no conflict between his
efforts on behalf of India and his patriotism as an American. "We are
very fortunate -- we have two mothers," he said.
His own life is a case in point. In 1979, he arrived in New York with
an engineering degree and $35 in his pocket. Now, he runs a North
Carolina industrial instrumentation firm with 40 employees. His
daughter, a graduate of prestigious Phillips Andover Academy in
Massachusetts, is pursuing a master's degree in international
relations at Johns Hopkins University. Yet Chatterjee has not
forgotten his roots: He returns often to Calcutta, his hometown, and
is troubled by what he regards as Washington's dismissive attitude
toward India.
But serving two mothers can be tricky. In 1996, an Indian American
lawyer, Lalit Gadhia, was sentenced to three months in jail after he
admitted funneling money from an Indian diplomat into U.S. political
campaigns. Allegations that China also tried to influence the 1996
presidential election, coupled with the investigation of a Chinese
American scientist suspected of passing nuclear secrets to Beijing,
have fueled fears among some Indian Americans that political activism
will brand them as foreign agents, said Debasish Mishra, the director
of the India Abroad Center for Political Awareness here.
"The biggest issue for our community is the perception that we don't
fully belong, that somehow we're not fully American," said Mishra, 26,
a University of Michigan graduate whose organization deliberately
eschews involvement in foreign policy issues.
Even without the efforts of Indian Americans, some improvement in
relations between India and the United States was inevitable after the
Soviet collapse. Despite close ties between the U.S. and Pakistani
armed forces, Pakistan increasingly is regarded in Washington as a
locus of Islamic extremism and instability. India, meanwhile, has
benefited from its courtship of Western investment while playing
successfully on its image as the world's largest democracy.
Although they did not begin arriving in this country in large numbers
until the late 1960s, after a change in U.S. immigration law, Indian
immigrants have emerged as one of the nation's most dynamic ethnic
communities. According to 1990 census data, Indian Americans have the
highest average household income - - $60,903 -- of any Asian-Pacific
ethnic group, a category that includes Chinese Americans and Japanese
Americans.
Indian entrepreneurial skills have had a spectacular impact in the
Internet and software industries, where Indian Americans have begun to
organize into groups such as the Indus Entrepreneurs and the Indian
CEO High Tech Council. The latter boasts a Washington area membership
of 165 Indian American chief executives whose companies employ nearly
20,000 people.
These software engineers and start-up specialists have not been shy
about translating their economic success into political clout. "In
politics, the power comes from money and business," said Reggie
Aggarwal, a 30-year-old lawyer and president of a Fairfax high- tech
firm who helped found the council. "A group like ours can meet with
all kinds of senators and congressmen. We're not just going to get you
active people, we're going to get you power players. Every event we've
had is a grand slam."
That is no idle boast. In September 1996, Indian American executives
and professionals held a fund- raiser for Clinton at the Mayflower
Hotel that raised a reported $400,000.
Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush has already benefited
from the largess of Indian Americans such as Krishna Srinivasa, 54,
who immigrated in 1969 and now runs a computer consulting business in
Atlanta. "We want better Indo-U.S. relations," said Srinivasa, who so
far has raised $150,000 for Bush at two campaign events and recently
met with the candidate at his Austin office. "There is no reason the
world's largest democracy cannot have a working relationship with the
world's greatest democracy."
Indian Americans' generosity to political campaigns has been
accompanied by growing support for India on Capitol Hill. The
Congressional India Caucus, founded in 1993, now has 115 members.
Ackerman, the group's chairman, has traveled to India six times and
employs an Indian American on his staff.
"They have helped a great many members of Congress to understand the
issues, and to focus a little more attention on an area of the world
that deserves more attention," said Ackerman, who receives
contributions from Indian Americans nationwide.
While groups such as the High Tech Council are focused primarily on
promoting business ties between the United States and South Asia, many
Indian Americans feel passionately about foreign policy matters such
as the Kashmir conflict.
Rajesh Kadian, for example, is a Great Falls gastroenterologist with
two daughters at the University of Virginia and a teenage son who is a
wide receiver on the Langley High School football team. But he is also
the author of several books on Indian military strategy and a firm
believer in the need to explain the Indian point of view to American
policymakers.
To that end, he organized a 1995 fund-raiser that netted $15,500 for
Sen. Charles S. Robb (D-Va.). He meets occasionally with State
Department officials and, in one instance, helped arrange a meeting
between the Indian ambassador and a key lawmaker -- whom he prefers
not to name - so they could discuss the nuclear test issue.
"India has never gotten the respect of the United States," Kadian
complains. "But this is a responsible, important country, and it has a
role to play in the world."
India's standing in Washington suffered a serious setback when it set
off an underground nuclear device in May 1998, prompting Pakistan to
respond in kind several weeks later. The blasts triggered economic
sanctions against both countries, though Clinton subsequently waived
some provisions for one year.
While Indian Americans were divided over the wisdom of the tests, many
nonetheless felt it was their duty to defend their native land against
accusations that its government had acted irresponsibly. The American
Association of Physicians of Indian Origin, for example, set aside
its customary emphasis on health care issues and circulated a letter
explaining the "context" of India's decision, according to a
spokesman.
India also got help from Chatterjee, the head of the Indian American
Forum, who parlayed his fund-raising activities on behalf of Sen.
Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, into a meeting between Helms and Foreign Minister Jaswant
Singh.
"We told him, 'India needs a fair hearing,' " said Chatterjee, who
attended the meeting along with Srinivasa, the Bush campaign
supporter.
Such efforts have started to pay off. At least twice this year,
India's supporters in Congress blocked legislation that would have cut
off its foreign aid. Similarly, when the House International Relations
Committee passed a resolution blaming Pakistan for last spring's
flare-up in Kashmir, the White House welcomed the move as "a useful
way of reminding the [Pakistani] Prime Minister and others that
Congress could use its influence in ways that were not in Pakistan's
interest," a senior official said.
But Indian Americans do not necessarily march in lockstep with the
Indian government. Congress, for example, is considering legislation
that would clear the way for a resumption of military sales to both
India and Pakistan. While the embassy opposes the move on grounds that
it would mostly benefit Pakistan, which needs spare parts for its
U.S.-made hardware, some Indian Americans favor lifting the ban to
help promote business and strategic ties with India.
"We have to look at what is good for the United States," said a
prominent Indian American businessman who spoke on condition of
anonymity. "We are not agents of the Indian government."
In the same vein, some Indian Americans are irked by what they
consider excessive efforts by the Indian Embassy to manipulate the
immigrant community. "In certain cases, I can tell you, we told them
they should back off, they should not get involved in this," the
businessman said.
It is sometimes difficult to discern the line between the embassy's
lobbying efforts and those of Indian Americans. Kapil Sharma, for
example, is a paid lobbyist for India at the law firm of Verner
Liipfert. He also serves as the unpaid political chairman of the
Network of South Asian Professionals (NETSAP), a nonprofit group that
regularly holds meetings on issues such as Kashmir.
"At any event that we do in NETSAP, there is no tilt toward any
particular agenda," Sharma said. "It's not like this is a forum for
the government of India. What I do professionally is what I do
professionally. . . . Our record [at NETSAP] clearly shows there is no
bias."
After the Lalit Gadhia campaign scandal, however, Indian officials
have grown more careful when it comes to involvement in American
politics. "We don't want Indian Americans to be perceived as Indian
agents," said Ambassador Naresh Chandra. "It's a delicate line."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-10/09/084l-100999-idx.html
Back
Top
|
