« Über Desis love to socialize with desis and consume desi food :+: Desi pitches for Obama on Oprah »

2008 Presidential Elections

Is India Democrat territory?

By: Santosh :+: Under: 2008 Presidential Elections
On: ⋅ April 4, 2008 ⋅  Email this post ⋅  Print this post ⋅ Post a comment
Discuss in our off-topic forums

Looks like you are new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Previous posts on Über Desi have discussed the predilection of South Asians in the US for Democrats (1,2). To sum it up, most young desis love Barack Obama, largely because of his charisma and ability to appeal to folks of all ethnicities and the older ones support Hillary Clinton, hoping for a return of the “good ole” Clinton years of the 90s.

Indians love Barack and Hillary

In this article in Foreign Policy in Focus, Sammy Loren, an independent journalist and a documentary filmmaker currently living in India, writes that even India as a nation seems to love Democrats more than the Republicans. [link]

Major Indian papers have taken to splashing their front pages not with the usual lubricious photos of Bollywood vixens and bad boy cricketers, but with two middle-aged, less photogenic Americans: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In a country where newsprint is almost exclusively reserved for the sexy and sporty, it begs the question: are Indians Democrats?

More on the “why”s after the jump.

Indians hate McCain proximity to Bush

Loren is of the opinion (not that I disagree with it), that most Indians hate the Bush administration for its reckless foreign policy.

To put it simply, yes. Indians of all stripes, from the Communist parties to the rightwing BJP party, see the past seven years of America’s reckless foreign and economic policies to have been perpetrated at their expense. Even back in 2004, half a million protestors greeted President Bush on his diplomatic visit to India. Four years later, Bush and the America he represents is about as appetizing to India’s predominantly Hindu and Muslim population as a stack of juicy T-bones and plump pork chops.

Loren points to the war in Iraq and the Global War on Terror as the bête-noir of Indians.

Grappling with its own host of religious fanatics and authoritarian neighbors, India, perhaps more than any other nation, recognizes the two quagmires of the Iraq War and the War on Terror as more than the products of some faulty intelligence or misplaced ambitions, but as absolute shams.

Much of the Indians’ antagonism comes from the US support to Pakistan, particularly militarily.

The hypocrisy became blindingly clear when in December 2007, The New York Times discovered that much of the $5 billion in military aid was not just underwriting a war against al-Qaeda, but one against India. Apparently, Pakistan figured it beneficial to divert the cash by buying arms suited to a conventional war with the Indian army rather than one with the bands of militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas

Sammy contends that this indignation with the Bush administration, is carried over to John McCain, the Republican Presidential candidate, who associates himself closely with the Bush administration, particularly the war in Iraq and support to Pakistan. This, inspite of the distrust of China which McCain and a large portion of India, shares.

A John McCain presidency offers much of the same for the Indian subcontinent, which may partly explain why the Republican primaries and his subsequent nomination hardly received any press in India. McCain publicly defended Pervez Musharraf after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, claiming in an Iowa café in December 2007 that, “prior to Musharraf, Pakistan was a failed state.” That may be true, but nothing irks Indians more than American bear-hugging of Musharraf. Furthermore, his undying support for the Iraq War and the War on Terror do not sit well with Indians eager to see a stabilizing posture to emerge in the United States.

On the other hand, explains Loren, Hillary Clinton is co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, speaks positively on US-India relationships, views Islamic militancy the world over as a major problem and in spite of her “anti-outsourcing” rhetoric, seems to represent a throwback to the pro-India financial policies of the Bill Clinton years. As for Barack Obama, Loren contends that his willingness to criticize Pakistan, his “yes” vote on the Indo-US nuclear deal and pro-immigrant stance as the offspring of one, seems to appeal to Indians.

Loren sums it up pretty bluntly - Indians love India and will support the candidate they see as most beneficial to Indian interests.

Like most nations whose everyday lives are affected enormously by American decisions, India has an enormous stake in the 2008 presidential election. Trade and of course America’s dealings with Pakistan all play a role in India’s crush on the Democrats. Hillary Clinton in the White House could mean continued economic growth in the India’s metropolises. An Obama win could mean security as military dealings with Pakistan would be scrutinized more closely. Both candidates have close relations with the growing community of Indian expatriates. This could translate into laxer family reunification rules and additional visas awarded to talented Indian engineers, doctors, and IT specialists who would like to come. For their family back in Bharat Mataki (Mother India) this will mean plumper remittances.

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming to have a cheap laugh at Loren’s sake. “Bharat Mataki”??? Bharat mataki… what? Obviously not being well versed in Hindi, the term “Bharat Maa” (Mother India) and “Bharat Mataki Jai” (Long Live Mother India) seem to have formed into a politically incorrect but amusing nonetheless “Bharat Mataki”. Luckily, for Loren, Indians are not Australians, or they would’ve misheard it as “Bharat Maaki” and accused him of racism.

Lost in translation and some general assumptions made by Sammy Loren, notwithstanding, I find it hard to disagree with much of what he says on why India loves Democrats. Living in India, Sammy Loren seems to be a lot more in tune with the feelings of the Indian population, media, intellectuals and political fiefdom than much of the Western media. To most Indians, McCain simply represents more of the last 8 years, Hillary seems to represent the pro-Indian Clinton era and Barack Obama, a breath of fresh air whose policies largely seem pro-India.

Thoughts? Opinions?

« Über Desis love to socialize with desis and consume desi food :+: Desi pitches for Obama on Oprah »
Discuss in our off-topic forums