This is a post that I've wanted to write for some time. I kept going back and forth whether it was something I should write...and whether it would offend some people. I have finally decided that if I have a grievance, it's better to express it, and to express it in the most professional way I can, than to let it simmer and fester. As an American, a Hindu, and a citizen of the world, I have an obligation to not remain silent if I feel my identity is being represented in a poor light. Perhaps through this sort of expression, we can all learn to respect one another, and empathize with the suffering of others.
**********************************************************************************
Over this past holiday break, I visited my Appa back in my hometown of State College, Pennsylvania. The very first morning, I sauntered over to the kitchen where my father was making Dosa, a South Indian crepe often served for breakfast. My Appa turned around from the stove to serve me and I watched as his eyes glanced up towards my forehead. Confusion quickly flashed across his face.
"Yenna, Ippo Saami Kumbitiya? Did you pray this morning?" He asked.
I realized he was referring to the Tilakam, or sacred anointment, that I had applied to my forehead. He was surprised because I had only made it a habit of regularly applying a Tilakam to my forehead after I started graduate school.
"Yeah," I responded. "I always put it on in the morning nowadays. Even if I'm just going to class."
I expected my Appa, a devote Hindu himself, to react in the way he usually does. Perhaps a smile. Maybe a look of pride. However, instead he cocked his head to the side. Worry lines crisscrossed his forehead. He hesitated momentarily as he seemed to consider how to respond.
"Maybe...it's not good to bring attention to yourself like that," he suggested. "Maybe...that's not a good idea."
My father's concern about sticking out wasn't something that came about post-9/11 or after the election of Trump. He had moved to the United States in 1980 and had lived in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Charleston, South Carolina; and rural Central Pennsylvania. Although he had found significant Indian-American/Non-Resident Indian communities in all these places, they all were still largely ethnically homogeneous areas. And while he learned that certain characteristics, like our family's brown skin, his accent, or our predilection for spicy foods, were out of our control, it was best to assimilate and conform in the areas that we could control.
So, we "toned down our Hinduism." Although my family prayed twice a day, my Appa would never have Vibhuthi, or sacred ashes, on his forehead when he went to work. My Amma always tucked her Thaali, or marriage necklace, under her outfits when she worked or when she was outside of the home. For my parents, the problems one might face from others due to speaking Spanish, wearing a Turban, or covering your hair with a Hijab, in public, did not begin with the 2016 election; Those problems have always been here.
But as my Appa worries about whether a Tilakam might incite hatred or anger among those around me, I would argue that according to what I see, hear, and read on the news: There are no Hindu victims.
What do I mean by that? Well, as we stand mere days from the murder of Srinivas Kuchibhotla, I have seen commentary, both from liberal-minded friends and from liberal news outlets, that doesn't follow the typical method of confronting a hate crime committed on a religious minority in the United States.
How do these groups of individuals and networks typically react to an attack on a religious minority?
I. Confront messages in the media that make that religion seem exotic, scary, dangerous, foreign, or un-American. For example, any equation of Islam with Jihadist movements. Instead, highlight the positive elements of the faith to show how, indeed, the faith is compatible with the American culture.
II. Assert the religious identity of the victims, whether or not the perpetrator of the crime had thought they were a member of that faith. For example, attacks on Sikh Americans who were mistakenly believed to be Muslim. Make sure that other members of that faith know that they are not alone.
III. Oppose any attempt to "victim-shame," by relating the crime against this religious minority to actions other members of that religious group may have committed. Oppose any attempts to "justify the crime." Oppose any attempt to exaggerate the event by linking the crime to political or social decisions that other members of that religious group have made.
I am so sincerely disappointed in you, America. You did none of these things for the Hindu American community.
This past week, CNN decided to highlight the Hindu faith with a documentary about the Aghori, a fringe Hindu group. Their tagline?
“Eating human corpses? How far would you go to prove your faith? Enter the world of the Aghori,” (See https://twitter.com/CNN/status/838558532005933056). That would seem to fail my Characteristic Category #1.
There was also the Reuters article detailing the killing. After linking the crime against Kuchibhotla with the rise of Trump, the article decided to include a passage about how "Many Indians initially welcomed Trump's election, seeing his calls to restrict Muslim immigration as support for their Hindu-majority country. India has been at odds for decades with Pakistan, its mainly Muslim neighbor." (See http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kansas-india-idUSKBN1630LZ).
That would seem to fail my Characteristic Category #3.
These aren't fringe media sources like Trend Network that insisted on publishing an article about the irony of Hindus supporting Trump and now facing the consequences (See https://trend.network/2017/02/25/srinivas-kuchibhotlas-murder-should-wake-up-trumps-nri-bhakts/X4eFJJ-yC7k). This is Reuters. This is CNN.
And, of course, the complete silence about the religion of Kuchibhotla. News networks almost universally referred to him as the "Indian victim." Now, I'll be honest: That is entirely accurate. Citing it as so, also encompasses the dangers that now non-Hindu people of Indian descent face in the United States. I don't know Kuchibhotla personally, and I can only assume his religion by seeing the pictures of his father performing his last rites, and doing the Hindu rituals that typically are done the other way around...where a son performs them for his late-father. Kuchibhotla may have been a self-avowed atheist.
But even if Kuchibhotla wasn't Hindu, there are other instances where a Hindu has died in a hate crime, but their faith was for the most part overlooked by the media. Tarishi Jain, the University of California student who was killed in an upscale cafe in Dhaka, Bangladesh in 2016 was never referred to by her religion in any Western media articles. Her faith was however mentioned in a Times of India Article in which her uncle mourned her death with the words,"We don't want her to be cremated in the land where she was brutally murdered. Terrorists killed her for being a Hindu." A fair assessment, since eyewitnesses stated that religious tests of whether people could recite from the Quran were made before the terrorists decided who to torture. Or Sunando Sen, the man who was pushed in front of a subway in December of 2012. Erika Menendez, the woman who pushed him, even told police that she, "just wanted to hurt Muslims and Hindus" ever since September, 11th. All these victims were overwhelmingly referred to as Indians or Indian-Americans.
Why does it matter? Isn't it good that they are referred to by their ethnicity and not their religion?
It's a fair point that by describing the victims of these crimes as Indian, you are including the many, many diverse religious groups that comprise the Indian-American community, who also are at risk for hate crimes. Indian-Americans come from many religious backgrounds, including Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and even Jews. To an outsider, at first glance, we are the same, in the sense that we are all different from most Americans.
What bothers me is not the lack of references to the victims as Hindus, in itself. I can even ignore and forgive the fact that there has been no effort to console the Hindu American community as it mourns the loss of one of its members. I can overlook the fact that Hindu Americans now live in fear for the sake of their loved ones, and yet the media and my friends don't follow through on the three typical courses of actions they take when a member of another religious minority is killed in a hate crime. My concern is that victims are Indian, but offenders are Hindu.
What do I mean by victims being Indian but offenders being Hindu? Consider Priya-Alika Elias's Op-Ed about Kuchibhotla's murder, "Being a model minority will not protect you." (See https://theoutline.com/post/1187/being-a-model-minority-will-not-protect-you).
It begins with the following:
At a conference for Indian lawyers in New York two years ago, I remember
an attendee who said that “America should let in more Indians … After
all, we’re a model minority. We make positive contributions to this
country, unlike some other criminal minorities.” It was shamefully
obvious who he was referring to. His remarks were met with cheers by the
(largely Hindu) audience. This did not surprise me. Upper-caste Hindus
are far too invested in notions of class to believe that all Americans
are created equal. But I was curious about what they attributed our
“model minority” status to.
I won't even go into the number of assumptions made by her (Those Cheering -> Have to be Hindu -> Have to be Upper-Caste -> And because they are these things they don't believe in Social Equality).
What I found the most perplexing is that every time the victims were referred to, they were Indian. And every time there was discussion on a person, a cultural trait, or a political phenomenon that led to the rise of President Trump, who the writer of the article feels is the causative agent to the murder of Kuchibhotla...it was Hindu.
Is this an isolated phenomenon? Hardly. The aspects of Hinduism that people find undesirable somehow are intrinsically associated with Hinduism, while aspects of Hinduism that people might find favorable somehow have their connection with Hinduism mysteriously obscured. Even though organizations like the All-India Muslim OBC Front and Pasmanda Muslim Mahaz (Marginalized Muslim Front) were specifically created to confront discrimination faced by lower-caste Muslims at the hands of higher-caste Muslims...and even though there are stories of how Catholics in the Tamil city of Tiruchirappali constructed a wall in their graveyard to separate the graves of untouchable Catholics from higher caste Catholics...the Caste System, is and always will be, solely associated with the Hindu religion, and not the Indian culture. Sati. Misogyny. And now with the CNN broadcast, cannibalism. These things are Hindu.
But Yoga? The concepts of Karma and Dharma? The peaceful philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi? The greeting Namaste and all of its spiritual meaning? These aspects of Hinduism are always treated as "Indian" or simply "Eastern" artifacts.
Nothing highlights this more than when David Bowie specifically requested in his will to be “cremated in accordance with the Buddhist rituals of Bali.”
Bali is 83.5% Hindu. It is 0.5% Buddhist, consisting mostly of an ethnic Chinese minority. Anyone with a basic understanding of Hinduism, Bali, or Indonesia, or access to the wikipedia articles for any of them, could tell you that. But if it's something beautiful, peaceful, and inspiring...like the island of Bali...can it be Hindu?
So what I mean to say by this is that it feels as if the "Victim : Indian :: Offender : Hindu" analogy seems to go deeper into a "Good : Indian or Eastern :: Bad : Hindu" analogy. And I really hope this is just all a figment of my overactive imagination. I hope that I am simply reading into things. I hope I am just overreacting or just somehow picking and choosing certain facts, media input, and Facebook posts to think that that is the narrative. I hope that it is just a coincidence that the victim's religion is never mentioned when they are Hindu, but it is when they are ethnically South Asian or Middle Eastern but members of other religious groups. I really hope that it is unintentional that none of my Facebook friends have posted videos highlighting the positive aspects of Hinduism in the face of bigotry or intolerance. I hope that when I consistently see references to Hindus voting for Trump in articles about the deaths of the two Indian-Americans in the past few weeks, that they aren't somehow implying that Hindus are getting their comeuppance. I really hope that there isn't some sort of vestigial anti-Hindu sentiment in Western culture that is in the same vein as Winston Churchill's statements that Hindus are a "a beastly people with a beastly religion." I really hope that this is not the case.
But whether or not it is intentional, it is important to recognize that there is a concrete effect. If we do not tell Hindu-Americans that they need not fear, then they will be afraid. Because at the end of the day, the hatred that seems to be all around us today is at its very essence, a fear and hatred of things that are different from the White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, English-Speaking, Heterosexual, Cis-gendered, America. And we Hindus are different. And that difference is what makes Hindus afraid.
So I will give the benefit of the doubt to the media, my Facebook friends, and everyone, that it is my imagination that there is a possible anti-Hindu streak running rampant everywhere. But it doesn't change the fact that when my father considered the idea of me walking around Tampa all the time with a Tilakam on my forehead to proudly announce that I was a Hindu, all he could say was:
"Maybe...that's not a good idea."
**********************************************************************************
Over this past holiday break, I visited my Appa back in my hometown of State College, Pennsylvania. The very first morning, I sauntered over to the kitchen where my father was making Dosa, a South Indian crepe often served for breakfast. My Appa turned around from the stove to serve me and I watched as his eyes glanced up towards my forehead. Confusion quickly flashed across his face."Yenna, Ippo Saami Kumbitiya? Did you pray this morning?" He asked.
I realized he was referring to the Tilakam, or sacred anointment, that I had applied to my forehead. He was surprised because I had only made it a habit of regularly applying a Tilakam to my forehead after I started graduate school.
"Yeah," I responded. "I always put it on in the morning nowadays. Even if I'm just going to class."
I expected my Appa, a devote Hindu himself, to react in the way he usually does. Perhaps a smile. Maybe a look of pride. However, instead he cocked his head to the side. Worry lines crisscrossed his forehead. He hesitated momentarily as he seemed to consider how to respond.
"Maybe...it's not good to bring attention to yourself like that," he suggested. "Maybe...that's not a good idea."
My father's concern about sticking out wasn't something that came about post-9/11 or after the election of Trump. He had moved to the United States in 1980 and had lived in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Charleston, South Carolina; and rural Central Pennsylvania. Although he had found significant Indian-American/Non-Resident Indian communities in all these places, they all were still largely ethnically homogeneous areas. And while he learned that certain characteristics, like our family's brown skin, his accent, or our predilection for spicy foods, were out of our control, it was best to assimilate and conform in the areas that we could control. 
So, we "toned down our Hinduism." Although my family prayed twice a day, my Appa would never have Vibhuthi, or sacred ashes, on his forehead when he went to work. My Amma always tucked her Thaali, or marriage necklace, under her outfits when she worked or when she was outside of the home. For my parents, the problems one might face from others due to speaking Spanish, wearing a Turban, or covering your hair with a Hijab, in public, did not begin with the 2016 election; Those problems have always been here.What do I mean by that? Well, as we stand mere days from the murder of Srinivas Kuchibhotla, I have seen commentary, both from liberal-minded friends and from liberal news outlets, that doesn't follow the typical method of confronting a hate crime committed on a religious minority in the United States.
How do these groups of individuals and networks typically react to an attack on a religious minority?I. Confront messages in the media that make that religion seem exotic, scary, dangerous, foreign, or un-American. For example, any equation of Islam with Jihadist movements. Instead, highlight the positive elements of the faith to show how, indeed, the faith is compatible with the American culture.
II. Assert the religious identity of the victims, whether or not the perpetrator of the crime had thought they were a member of that faith. For example, attacks on Sikh Americans who were mistakenly believed to be Muslim. Make sure that other members of that faith know that they are not alone.
III. Oppose any attempt to "victim-shame," by relating the crime against this religious minority to actions other members of that religious group may have committed. Oppose any attempts to "justify the crime." Oppose any attempt to exaggerate the event by linking the crime to political or social decisions that other members of that religious group have made.
I am so sincerely disappointed in you, America. You did none of these things for the Hindu American community.
This past week, CNN decided to highlight the Hindu faith with a documentary about the Aghori, a fringe Hindu group. Their tagline?
“Eating human corpses? How far would you go to prove your faith? Enter the world of the Aghori,” (See https://twitter.com/CNN/status/838558532005933056). That would seem to fail my Characteristic Category #1.
There was also the Reuters article detailing the killing. After linking the crime against Kuchibhotla with the rise of Trump, the article decided to include a passage about how "Many Indians initially welcomed Trump's election, seeing his calls to restrict Muslim immigration as support for their Hindu-majority country. India has been at odds for decades with Pakistan, its mainly Muslim neighbor." (See http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kansas-india-idUSKBN1630LZ).
That would seem to fail my Characteristic Category #3.
These aren't fringe media sources like Trend Network that insisted on publishing an article about the irony of Hindus supporting Trump and now facing the consequences (See https://trend.network/2017/02/25/srinivas-kuchibhotlas-murder-should-wake-up-trumps-nri-bhakts/X4eFJJ-yC7k). This is Reuters. This is CNN.
And, of course, the complete silence about the religion of Kuchibhotla. News networks almost universally referred to him as the "Indian victim." Now, I'll be honest: That is entirely accurate. Citing it as so, also encompasses the dangers that now non-Hindu people of Indian descent face in the United States. I don't know Kuchibhotla personally, and I can only assume his religion by seeing the pictures of his father performing his last rites, and doing the Hindu rituals that typically are done the other way around...where a son performs them for his late-father. Kuchibhotla may have been a self-avowed atheist.
It's a fair point that by describing the victims of these crimes as Indian, you are including the many, many diverse religious groups that comprise the Indian-American community, who also are at risk for hate crimes. Indian-Americans come from many religious backgrounds, including Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and even Jews. To an outsider, at first glance, we are the same, in the sense that we are all different from most Americans.
What bothers me is not the lack of references to the victims as Hindus, in itself. I can even ignore and forgive the fact that there has been no effort to console the Hindu American community as it mourns the loss of one of its members. I can overlook the fact that Hindu Americans now live in fear for the sake of their loved ones, and yet the media and my friends don't follow through on the three typical courses of actions they take when a member of another religious minority is killed in a hate crime. My concern is that victims are Indian, but offenders are Hindu.
What do I mean by victims being Indian but offenders being Hindu? Consider Priya-Alika Elias's Op-Ed about Kuchibhotla's murder, "Being a model minority will not protect you." (See https://theoutline.com/post/1187/being-a-model-minority-will-not-protect-you).
It begins with the following:
I won't even go into the number of assumptions made by her (Those Cheering -> Have to be Hindu -> Have to be Upper-Caste -> And because they are these things they don't believe in Social Equality).
What I found the most perplexing is that every time the victims were referred to, they were Indian. And every time there was discussion on a person, a cultural trait, or a political phenomenon that led to the rise of President Trump, who the writer of the article feels is the causative agent to the murder of Kuchibhotla...it was Hindu.
Is this an isolated phenomenon? Hardly. The aspects of Hinduism that people find undesirable somehow are intrinsically associated with Hinduism, while aspects of Hinduism that people might find favorable somehow have their connection with Hinduism mysteriously obscured. Even though organizations like the All-India Muslim OBC Front and Pasmanda Muslim Mahaz (Marginalized Muslim Front) were specifically created to confront discrimination faced by lower-caste Muslims at the hands of higher-caste Muslims...and even though there are stories of how Catholics in the Tamil city of Tiruchirappali constructed a wall in their graveyard to separate the graves of untouchable Catholics from higher caste Catholics...the Caste System, is and always will be, solely associated with the Hindu religion, and not the Indian culture. Sati. Misogyny. And now with the CNN broadcast, cannibalism. These things are Hindu.
But Yoga? The concepts of Karma and Dharma? The peaceful philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi? The greeting Namaste and all of its spiritual meaning? These aspects of Hinduism are always treated as "Indian" or simply "Eastern" artifacts.Nothing highlights this more than when David Bowie specifically requested in his will to be “cremated in accordance with the Buddhist rituals of Bali.”
Bali is 83.5% Hindu. It is 0.5% Buddhist, consisting mostly of an ethnic Chinese minority. Anyone with a basic understanding of Hinduism, Bali, or Indonesia, or access to the wikipedia articles for any of them, could tell you that. But if it's something beautiful, peaceful, and inspiring...like the island of Bali...can it be Hindu?
So what I mean to say by this is that it feels as if the "Victim : Indian :: Offender : Hindu" analogy seems to go deeper into a "Good : Indian or Eastern :: Bad : Hindu" analogy. And I really hope this is just all a figment of my overactive imagination. I hope that I am simply reading into things. I hope I am just overreacting or just somehow picking and choosing certain facts, media input, and Facebook posts to think that that is the narrative. I hope that it is just a coincidence that the victim's religion is never mentioned when they are Hindu, but it is when they are ethnically South Asian or Middle Eastern but members of other religious groups. I really hope that it is unintentional that none of my Facebook friends have posted videos highlighting the positive aspects of Hinduism in the face of bigotry or intolerance. I hope that when I consistently see references to Hindus voting for Trump in articles about the deaths of the two Indian-Americans in the past few weeks, that they aren't somehow implying that Hindus are getting their comeuppance. I really hope that there isn't some sort of vestigial anti-Hindu sentiment in Western culture that is in the same vein as Winston Churchill's statements that Hindus are a "a beastly people with a beastly religion." I really hope that this is not the case.
But whether or not it is intentional, it is important to recognize that there is a concrete effect. If we do not tell Hindu-Americans that they need not fear, then they will be afraid. Because at the end of the day, the hatred that seems to be all around us today is at its very essence, a fear and hatred of things that are different from the White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, English-Speaking, Heterosexual, Cis-gendered, America. And we Hindus are different. And that difference is what makes Hindus afraid.
So I will give the benefit of the doubt to the media, my Facebook friends, and everyone, that it is my imagination that there is a possible anti-Hindu streak running rampant everywhere. But it doesn't change the fact that when my father considered the idea of me walking around Tampa all the time with a Tilakam on my forehead to proudly announce that I was a Hindu, all he could say was:
"Maybe...that's not a good idea."
