[Reader-list] from undercurrents

[Monica]

Dear All on the reader-list

Interestingly, lists are porous entities and ideas and discussions spill
over. PP's posting was forwared to the undercurrents list by one of its list
moderators. It has evoked a thoughtful response which i think would make
interesting reading for all on this list as well.

best
Monica

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 15:15:35 +0900
Subject: Re: [undercurrents] homeland/immigrant rifts
From: Anjali Sagar <starchild at anjalika.demon.co.uk>
To: <undercurrents at bbs.thing.net>
Sender: owner-undercurrents at bbs.thing.net
Reply-To: undercurrents at bbs.thing.net
X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1 (http://amavis.org/)
Status:   

Dear Everybody, including the writer of the below piece,

I would be really interested to know what exactly Rathin Roy et al wrote
that prompted such a strong attack. Is this the same Rathin Roy that teaches
political economics at SOAS -the School of Oriental and African Studies in
London- who has organized anti-war demos and has been instrumental in
mobilizing an active response within SOAS since 9/11? It seems really
unlikely but it would be good to know for sure.

I understand the writers response towards Indian Americans who support Hindu
Fundamentalism from a distance in order to firstly ingratiate themselves
with White Americans, and then proceed to stand back from the consequences
of their actions. If indeed that is her/ his point. Actually, I am unclear
as to the writers point. Is support of Hindu Fundamentalism necessarily
about gaining grace and favour with White America?

It is clear to me that there is a vocal tendency within the Hindu American
community that is actively right wing. In a continuing series of attacks on
leftwing Indian activists, one example that occurs to me is the recent case
where a vociferous lobby of American pro Hindu-fundamentalists tried to
prevent my Uncle Anand Patwardhan's anti-nuke film War and Peace from being
shown at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

To me these clashes seem like another example of the complex antagonism
between diasporic metropolitan Indians and Indian nationals. From my
position  as a British Asian cultural practitioner working here in London, I
expect more from so called educated Indians from India, especially those
working in the arts who visit Britain. Why are their ideas are so fixed? Is
there no room for difference or fluidity?

Their ideas, or rather prejudices, seem to be class based. Since this forum
is an open field to articulate issues that are sometimes hard to deal with,
I would like to talk about a subtler prejudice that I continue to
experience.  So called leftist arty types from India  seem to have a real
problem with British Asians who do not conform to their expectations.

As a British Asian arts producer, my experience of these leftist Indian
curators and artists has been consistently negative. However leftist they
appear to be, they are in fact bloody snobs who revile  British Asians. They
only talk to you if you have relations who happen to be from the same class/
caste as them. My family happens to come from the same milieu as theirs but
if I choose not to mention my 'heritage', it is all too common to experience
unadulterated snobbery, avoidance of eye contact and other condescending
modes of behaviour. While they are busy ignoring me, they work overtime at
ingratiating themselves with the white colleagues sitting with me.

It seems to me that in a country like India, where fine art, in the
traditional western sense, has existed for only 60 years, art practice
inevitably involves educational privilege. The Indian art world has always
been practised and championed by an elite that has leveraged their cultural
capital into critical authority that has reserved the right to canonise
successive artistic generations. A cultural elite has developed that tends
to reward the art that illustrates and extends its own discursive
preoccupations.

When this cultural elite comes to Britain, an unholy class alliance develops
between them and posh white arts curators. Often communicated through
glances and body language, this alliance operates through the unspoken
assumption that British Asians(BAs) are somehow bamboozling white
institutions. This assumption in turn justifies their own activities. On one
hand, they behave as if it is necessary to hoodwink white institutions, on
the other hand, they work hard at establishing a common bond of class
snobbery. 

Indian curators are past masters at these kinds of psychosocial
transactions. The end result of these postcolonial games is to restrict the
field of communication. The field of action is constricted to a cosy little
debate that is all sewn up. Anyone outside this nice little social scene is
construed as an uncouth intruder. The entire process is designed to say
loudly and clearly to all BAs: 'Who the hell are you junglies trying to
muscle in on our territory? Stay out!'

Quite clearly, the aim of all these pathetic games is to squeeze out any
British Asian presence. BAs are supposed to be too dirty, too déclassé, too
inarticulate and too untrustworthy to join in these sophisticated little
cliques.

Indian curators are completely disinterested in the wide range of
contemporary arts practices of British Asian origin.

Perhaps they hate the current obvious and rather irritating fascination with
Bollywood. I too share their disdain. I have no sense of patriotism towards
Bollywood. However, Indian curators' fixed notions and class prejudice
towards British Asian popular culture is too often used to justify a
dismissal of all British Asian artists, whether 2nd Gen or 3rd Gen.

My own dislike of certain BA arts practices and of Bollywood stems rather
from a desire to see a new set of complexities emerging here in the UK.

In my research, I am interested in analyzing the full history of 20th
century Indian modernism. That means integrating the overlooked histories of
20th Century Indian feminism and its complicated relations to socialism,
nationalism, spirituality and sexuality. This implies an interrogation of
the consequences of these ignored histories within white and more
importantly diasporic culture.

I am opposed to all fixed notions of British Asian culture that comply with
the multicultural exhibitionist agendas of white institutions. My research
is aimed at identifying and creating cultural forms that upset and subvert
the expectations of mainstream institutions, snooty leftist Indian
curator-cliques and 2nd Gen BA artists hellbent on genuflecting towards an
imaginary India. What has art got to do with the inordinate varieties of
diasporic and homeland based patriotisms unless those patriotisms help us to
clarify and overturn the crisis India is in now?


Thank you Coco for posting the piece. I was inspired to respond by the anger
that the writer PP feels. I hope I have managed to traverse some of the
complexities involved in the questions of homeland without being too
general.


Best

Anjalika Sagar

on 24/5/02 8:24 pm, Animas999 at aol.com at Animas999 at aol.com wrote:

> Dear Everybody,
> The message below was on posted on the Sarai list today. It is a very
> disturbing and vitriolic version of some of the assertions that have been
> made in the past in the context of this list about American-based
> multiculturalism and its supposed relationship to fascism. The deratory
> reference to Chicanos is also quite disturbing. I am posting this here
> because I want to present it as a case study for our analysis. Clearly, this
> kind of tension exists between some Indians based in India and other abroad.
> But it is also representative of other rifts between exiled and/or immigrant
> populations and home countries. Having to live with the constant battles
> between Cubans and Cuban-Americans myself, I have first hand experience of
> how treacherous these issues can be, but I don't think that ignoring them
> will help at all.
> I would very much like to know what others on the list, particularly those
> not associated with Sarai, think about this.
> Coco
>