Letters April 2008

The article “What’s in a Name?” by Sagar Bapat ( March 2008) extols the virtues of Barack Obama for keeping his name while discounting the progress Kal Penn and Bobby Jindal have made because they chose to embrace the West by some vague description. I think the article is highly disingenuous.

Kal Penn may have made a slight change to his name to open doors for himself and Jindal may have embraced Catholicism, but they have never denied who they are or their roots.

Your article implies that somehow because they are of Indian original they are sellouts for adapting in their new homeland. Both Jindal and Penn are American, born and raised in this country. Perhaps it might come as a surprise to Bapat, but there is a substantial portion of the Indian population in the United States that believes in American values and like Jindal our values align closer to the people and community we are part of rather than our roots. And since when is having American values and still being Indian by culture mutually exclusive?

You also single handedly disregarded all those who have made it without changing their name or identity by obsessing over Kal Penn and Bobby Jindal. Let me shed some light on other Indians in the media who have not changed their roots and who by all means count as having “made it,” which seems to be the crux of the article. The very popular and very brown Sanjay Gupta of CNN is currently splashed all over Times Square on a massive billboard. Directors Shekhar Kapoor, M. Night Shyamalan and Jay Chandrasekhar. Astronaut Kalpana Chawla and Indra Nooyi president of PepsiCo, both of whom are the pinnacle of success. Politicians Kumar Barve, Swati Dandekar and Satveer Chaudhary all made it into politics with their names and Indian identities and by sheer hard work, tenacity and a love of public service.

A name change doesn’t take away the color of your skin or your roots. It also doesn’t do anything for you past opening a door the first time at most. Once you get your foot in the door you have to still work hard and go the rest of the way on your merit. You have to earn it.

The article, I think, is insulting to all those other Indians who have indeed “made it” through their struggles and hard work to achieve acceptance even though they constitute less than 1 percent of the U.S. population. According to Bapat, the fact that Indians are the highest educated group in the United Sates, the largest group in management in the United States and the highest earning income group seems moot, since he seems only interested in whether they have gained popular acceptance in the United States by virtue of their name. Next time Bapat should check his facts first.

Rupa Gawle-Kale, New York, N.Y.

I am writing in response to the piece “Indians Fastest Growing Illegal Immigrants?” in your March issue. If you read the Department of Homeland Security study carefully, you will find that there is a serious problem in the way the report calculates the number of “unauthorized” aliens. According to the DHS calculation, people who are currently adjusting their status to legal permanent residents would be termed “unauthorized.”

Due to the severe backlogs and country limits, there are obviously several thousand Indians who are in the U.S. legally, working based on their Employment Authorization Document (EAD), but they would all be counted as “unauthorized,” according to this report. Their calculation is basically: unauthorized population = foreign born population (from US Census) – legal residents.

This report doesn’t make it clear whether the “unauthorized” Indians are really “undocumented” immigrants or just EAD users! As a legally employed Indian immigrant I am extremely disappointed to see this interpretation of the report.

I and thousands like me who are here legally have gone through a great deal of time, effort and legal fees on this arduous legal immigration journey. To count “adjustees” as “illegal” is infuriating. Please do not allow your journal to propagate this flawed report.

Niloufer Bustani, Murphy, TX

It’s become habitual for the Aussies to torment players from the Asian subcontinent, especially, those who pose a threat to their winning streak (“Rebirth at Perth,” by Shekhar Hattangadi, Feb 2008). Few years ago, Sri Lankan spinner Muttiah Muralitharan, who constantly confused the Aussie batsmen, had to bear the brunt of the wrath of the the Australian players and the local crowds. Now Harbhajan Singh and young Ishaant Sharma, among the pick of the Indian bowling attack, are being targeted. The entire approach seems sadistic.

Perhaps, the world champions need to take lessons on the spirit of the game from stalwarts and thorough gentlemen like Allan Border and Steve Waugh. In addition, it’s International Cricket Council should avoid it slant in condoning Australian bullying behavior.

Padmanabh Subramanian, Mumbai, India