Ms. Alisha N. Bhagat vs. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra

[Guest guest]

Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:15:28 -0400"\" \"" To:

infinityinfo Subject: Debate: Ms. Alisha N. Bhagat vs. Mr. Rajiv

MalhotraDebate: Ms. Alisha N. Bhagat vs. Mr. Rajiv MalhotraFollowing the defeat

of the Leftist Prof. Vijay Prashad in a one onone debate with Mr. Malhotra, Can

Ms. Bhagat do any better?Ms. Alisha N. Bhagat, Carnegie-Mellon UniversityMr.

Rajiv Malhotra, Indian American Intellectual/ EntrepreneurDear Ms. Bhagat,I

enjoyed our interactions during my talk at Carnegie-MellonUniversity two days

ago, and feel that such dialogs are important tolearn each others'

perspectives. There are a couple of key issuesraised by you which I wish to

address further below:A question was raised on what is my basis and credibility

for doingthis study of the academy. I give the

following reasons:1. Corporate institutions are the backbone of American

society, notBritney Spears' belly button. No understanding of American society

iscomplete w/o a serious understanding of how its institutions work. Ihave

extensive expertise to study America's corporate institutions,while liberal

arts academics' training applies mainly to the study ofpop culture. My

contention is that most liberal arts scholars simplylack the necessary

competence to be able to understand institutionalmechanisms in US corporations,

government, religious institutions,media, etc. I have had 35 years of hands-on

successful experienceinside American corporate from the lowest to the highest

levels. Thisgives me an insight into America that the liberal arts cocoon

islargely ignorant of.2. I also have a serious involvement in academic

Whiteness Studies,which goes far deeper than Postcolonial Studies in the

understandingof American

culture. Few Indians have had the courage to get involvedin 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 programsand

chairs. Hence, we have a legitimate right to do due diligence onthe academy,

from our position as investors. I get frequent requestsfrom potential donors

seeking my opinion.4. Indian students in US colleges are consumers, and their

parentsspend heavily on tuitions. I worked for Nader's PIRG in the 1970s

torepresent consumers, and I feel we have a similar right to critiquewhat the

producers of India Studies dish out.5. Just as there is public scrutiny over

political, business and mediacorruption, the public also has a right to review

academic bias andtransparency issues.On your friend's question about

what is my `agenda,' I wish to pointout that there are two diametrically

opposite positions with respectto relationship with the West that are already

well represented. Oneis that of India's intellectuals in US liberal arts, and

the other isChina's position.China favors investments by USA, but in the area

of US human rightsintervention, China is firmly opposed to any foreign

involvement inits sovereign socio-cultural-religious space. India's

intellectualstake the opposite stance on both matters: They are opposed to

USinvestments, BUT FAVOR U.S. INTERVENTION IN HUMAN RIGHTS. This is

verypuzzling. They oppose Ford Motor Company's investments in autoproduction in

India, but want Ford Foundation's interventions in humanrights!!! My position is

similar to China's, and opposed to that ofmany Indian intellectuals.Furthermore,

there are a growing number of US think tanks, corporateand political leaders who

now favor a

stable India. I support this. Ioppose those forces which prefer to erase Indian

identity andproblematize India's status as a nation state. The latter posture

iswhere many Indians in the liberal arts are.My positions against fragmenting

India are similar to those of manycorporate people, US government policy

makers, etc. But I do bring afew new derivatives ideas, such as the

following:1. The US Religious Right's ideologies are driving: (A) US

Domesticpolitics, (B) Middle East policies, and © Proselytizing in

India.Indian intellectuals attack A and B, but are allied with C. I examinethis

contradiction. Inadvertently, they are supporting the veryimperialism they claim

to be opposing!2. I wonder: Are some Indian intellectuals positioning themselves

aspotential Chalabis in the future?3. Do some Indian intellectuals have

undisclosed links to politicalfragments in India? This amounts to a conflict of

interest

withrespect to transparency of disclosure.4. Many Indian intellectuals suffer

from an identity crisis: whitenessis denied to them and they are ashamed to be

Indian, forcing them intothe identity-less space. Does this inferiority complex

get projectedon 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 ofthe growing mainstream American Hinduphobia?These are all

issues which I wish to pursue and would appreciate anycollaboration/debate

available from any side.Furthermore, as a patriotic American, I am also

concerned about theadverse implications of the fragmentation of India, as that

could leadto eventual Talibanization and would become a US nightmare.You

indicated that similar criticism of US culture also takes

place inthe academy. However, I wish to argue that it does not have

equivalenteffects to that of the academic attacks on India. My reasons are

asfollows:1. All significant US political parties are fiercely patriotic,

neverrepresenting separatists. (Fragments get a assimilated/diluted intothe two

parties.) However, India's three national parties (Congress,BJP, CPM) combined

represent only half the parliament and popularvotes. Hence, India's political

forces are fragmented. Therefore,academic dissent against the US does not fuel

sociopoliticalfragmentation: Impotent scholars merely talk to one another. On

theother hand, in India, intellectual dissent is linked to therealpolitik of

social fragmentation on the ground.2. In USA's case, No external enemies are

represented in domesticpolitical parties. Indian domestic politics is heavily

invested/fundedby foreign forces, making India more vulnerable.3. In USA,

corporate vested interests bring cohesion to politicalagendas. Both parties

dance to the political funding sources in theirown ways – Nader is right

here. In India, the agendas are highlyfragmented.4. Maturity of the US nation

state and its relative prosperity hasstabilized the status quo of American

society. India's socioeconomicdistress 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 itsown epistemic control. It is

protected via white culture's dominationand epistemic privilege. But Indians

must play by the rules of Westernepistemology to have a voice in the

marketplace of ideas. Hence, thecounter-discourse that offsets the criticism is

weaker in India thanin the US.7. Furthermore, I wish to point out that my

positions

about identityand cultural projection in USA were developed after years of study

ofJapan Foundation, China Institute, Korea Foundation, and similarculture

specific groups in the US. I invite you to study these, andthen argue why

Indian culture should be treated differently.8. Finally, let us address the

issue of identity: Many Indian scholarsin US colleges argue against Indian

identity using postmoderntheories. Yet, they implicitly slip into structuralism

when theypromote South Asian identities and when they champion their

favoriteidentity-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 consistedof nine extensive essays posted by both of us. The opening piece

linksto

the subsequent posts and is

at:http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040115&fname=rajiv&sid=1If a

faculty member at CMU would like to initiate a similar debatewith me, I would

be happy to discuss further. Dialog which respectsdifferences of opinion is

something I have tried to foster andparticipate in, whenever the chance

presents itself.