Mr. Obama Goes to India

Mr. Obama Goes to India

Huffington Post, Nov 5. 2010

Also in Florida Times Union, Nov 12, 2010

On the heels of a bruising election, President Barack Obama is undertaking his longest foreign trip that will take him to several Asian countries including India. Some media accounts of this trip, primarily Fox News and its affiliates, has focused on an un-sourced report that erroneously suggested the President's trip to cost $200 million per day. The fact is that the true costs of Presidential foreign trips are kept a secret for security reasons. The General Accounting Office, about a decade ago, had released one report on President Clinton's foreign trips. It showed that the cost of such trips total in the tens of millions nowhere near the exaggerated figure of $200 million per day. The hullabaloo over such triviality is once again robbing Americans of an opportunity to engage in a civic dialogue about India and its strategic importance to America.

India is not just an exotic country thousands of miles away. The Indian diaspora in the U.S. is 2.7 million strong. Over a dozen Indian Americans are part of the Obama administration and two Indian Americans have been elected Governors. India is neither the caricature on NBC's Outsourced nor the heartless gloom portrayed in Slumdog Millionaire. In his book The Argumentative Indian, Nobel laureate Amartya Sen presents a succinct description, "India is an immensely diverse country with many distinct pursuits, vastly disparate convictions, widely divergent customs and veritable feast of viewpoints."

India is the world's largest democracy. It is thus not coincidental that America, the world's oldest democracy, shares a bond with India, which transcends economics. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton alluded to this by assuring the people of India that they "should know they have no better friend and partner than the people of the United States." The Obama administration has stated that it wants to deepen its relationship with India on four strategic areas -- energy and climate change; economics, trade, and agriculture; education and development; and science, technology and innovation. And yet progress has been anemic.

Progress is complicated by a sluggish U.S. economy, particularly in the area of job creation. Politically it helps the President to rail against U.S. companies that outsource jobs to India but strategically such outbursts are not helpful. Outsourcing is not the reason why U.S. businesses, despite posting healthy profits, are not hiring. The fault lines remain in the banking and financial sector. Obsessing on the ills of outsourcing belies a pertinent fact that America is now the preferred destination for outsourcing. India is third. In 2007, 20% of InformationWeek 500 companies reported that they've taken back outsourced work. The recent rise of prosperity in India has dampened the lure cheap labor.

Beating up on outsourcing will only make Indians reluctant to open up their markets to American exports. President Obama has correctly identified exports as one of the major sources of new jobs in the U.S. The rising upper and middle class in India offers new opportunities to sell American products. This explains why the President has a large contingent of business leaders in tow. Companies such as Boeing, GE, Caterpillar and Harley-Davidson are all looking forward to seal large deals with their Indian counterparts. Hopefully, the President will be able to impress upon these businesses that such deals should ultimately generate employment in the U.S. The President's legacy and reelection depends on such successes.

During this trip to India, President Obama is expected to visit the tomb of Mughal emperor Humayun, which was commissioned by his wife Hamida Banu in 1562. The tomb is a UNESCO World Heritage site and is precursor to the architecture and vision that inspired the Taj Mahal. By visiting this site, President Obama is giving a nod to India's pluralistic history, a history shaped by a rich inter-religious and cultural interaction between Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity. This is not to suggest that the interactions between the faith communities have always been egalitarian. But the somewhat natural tensions between the faithful did not prevent them from cooperating to create great art, music, literature and philosophy. Prior to the British colonial rule, India was the world's economic superpower. Interestingly, Humayun's tomb also connects India to Pakistan. For it is here that many Muslims took refugee during their arduous migration to Pakistan. The symbolism is powerful as America's Af-Pak policy will partly hinge on the role India plays or does not play.

Disappointingly, President Obama will skip visiting the Golden Temple, the holiest site for Sikhs. To enter the temple, all male visitors are required to cover their heads. He fears that his head covering will be mistakenly linked to the persistent rumors that Obama is a Muslim. Caving into fear-mongers only emboldens them. Sikhs have paid an unfair price for their mistaken identity. They have been targets of anti-Muslim discrimination. And a few days after 9-11, a Sikh was killed in Arizona by a man who mistook him for a Muslim.

There is a lot riding on Mr. Obama's visit to India. Americans can and should hope that President Obama's visit opens up new opportunities for badly needed exports. Indians are hoping that President Obama will support India's bid to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, a step that will help solidify India's ascendency on the world stage.

Professor Parvez Ahmed is a Fulbright Scholar and Associate Professor of Finance at the University of North Florida. He is also a frequent commentator on Islam and the Muslim American experience.

Clarity Missing in Debate over Free Speech

In AltMuslim. October 27, 2010

Juan Williams is neither a racist nor a bigot. But by perpetuating negative stereotypes he breached the ethics of fairness, crucial ingredients to succeed as a journalist. His firing from NPR, while admittedly handled in a clumsy way, was ultimately the right action. At a time when public discourse has descended to freighting levels of incivility, holding professionals accountable to the highest ethical standards may not be a bad thing. We can and should have vigorous debates. But statements that perpetuate negative stereotypes simply have no place in a civilized society. Just as a doctor or teacher will be rendered ineffective if they were to express their “true feelings” about every situation they encounter, so is true for journalists. Like every other specialists we expect journalists to be professionals who provide us with accurate accounts and unbiased analysis of news. Public expressions of their own biases render them ineffective.

In firing Juan Williams, NPR did not violate his First Amendment rights. NPR asserted its right that the views of those who speak from its platform are consistent with its perceived brand of impartiality. In contrast, Fox News felt that Williams’ opinions were consistent with its brand of hard-charging opinion making and immediately acted to reward him with a lucrative contract. Thus both NPR and Fox made decisions that were consistent with their respective world views.

Consumers make similar choices. Those who prefer thoughtful discussions are likely to be supportive of firing Juan Williams, because they perceive that he violated his fiduciary duties. In contrast, people who enjoy the daily shout-fest at Fox News will welcome the addition of Williams to its all-star lineup of over-the-top opinion makers. NPR wants sanity, Fox News craves controversy. To each their respective audience. To each their own brand. The highest rated NPR show boasts over 13 million listeners while the highest rated show on Fox News averages slightly over 3 million viewers. In contrast, NBC Nightly News average over 7 million viewers. More Americans clearly prefer civility over rancor.

The firing of Juan Williams, has unleashed a firestorm of protest from the far-right with Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Newt Gingrich leading the charge to cut-off public funding of NPR. Yet they stood silent when for Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez and Octavia Nasr were fired/resigned for making stereotypical and insensitive comments about Jews. Also disturbing is the double standards of groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations, which recently honored Helen Thomas and yet lead the charge against Juan Williams. Either all such firings/resignations are an outrage, for they purport to curb free speech or they are the right thing to do because they preserve trust in journalism. One cannot have it both ways.

In the greater scheme of things such firings may not necessarily improve journalism. Because it only pushes harsh and insensitive opinion making to the margins without addressing the root causes that led to such erroneous opinions. Juan Williams expressed fear of people in a “Muslim garb.” What did he mean by “Muslim garb?” Did the 9-11 hijackers wear any “Muslim garb”? And even if they did, what connection does a dress have with criminal behavior? Besides the sheer idiocy of attempting to define “Muslim garb” Williams is also guilty of trying to legitimize the irrational fear of American Muslims, a group that is already negatively perceived and against whom hate crimes are on the rise.

Institutions such as NPR by trying to be impartial are attempting to build a firewall against this bigotry. Fox News on the other hand profits from fear-mongering. This election season we have already seen a spike in orchestrated demonization of Latinos and Muslims. So long as consumers reward Fox News for its incessant attack on whoever is the flavor of the day, Fox News has no incentive to change. The excuse that one is expressing their “feelings” is not a substitute for civility. A democracy suffers when our public discourses become loud, cantankerous and caustic. When moderate voices vacate the field we are left with extreme opinion making, which is unlikely to produce sustainable solutions for the many problems that confronts us as a nation.

Juan Williams to Helen Thomas: Clarity Missing in Debate Over Free Speech

In Huffington Post.

Let us get one thing correct -- Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez, Octavia Nasr and Juan Williams are neither racists nor bigots. By all accounts they are good journalists. But by expressing negative stereotypes about a racial or religious group they are guilty of breaching the ethics of fairness, crucial ingredients to succeed in journalism. Thus their forced resignation or firing from Hearst, CNN and NPR respectively is the right action. Having publicly expressed their biases they could no longer be viewed has having the credibility to be impartial arbiters of news.

In firing Juan Williams, NPR did not violate his First Amendment rights. It asserted the fact that his views were inconsistent with the NPR brand of impartiality much like CNN did with Sanchez and Nasr. In contrast, Williams' other employer, Fox News felt that his opinions were consistent with its brand of hard-charging opinion making. Fox News rewarded Juan Williams with a new and more lucrative contract. Folks who prefer thoughtful discussions will likely support the firing because they perceive Juan Williams to have violated his fiduciary duties. In contrast, people who enjoy the daily shout-fest at Fox News will welcome the addition of Williams to its all-star lineup of over-the-top opinion makers.

The firing of Williams, while the right thing to do, is also a lost opportunity to confront the kind of fears leads to the formation of stereotypical views about Islam and Muslims. It is likely that NPR, by doing the right thing, may have drawn more negative fire towards Muslims, a community already on the receiving end of some of the harshest criticism in this country. No other American ethnic or religious group elicits the kind of negative sentiments that Muslims do.

Juan Williams expressed fear of people in a "Muslim garb." What did he mean by "Muslim garb?" What makes him afraid of someone's dressing style or free expression of their religious beliefs? Did the 9-11 hijackers wear any "Muslim garb"? And even if they did, what connection does a dress have with criminal behavior? Besides the sheer idiocy of attempting to define "Muslim garb" Williams is also guilty of trying to create more fear about a group of Americans who are already negatively perceived and against whom hate crimes are on the rise. Such fear mongering hurts the type of reasoned discourse that NPR prefers. As Americans we can and should have vigorous debates. But bigotry simply has no place in a civilized society. Institutions like NPR, by trying to be impartial, are attempting to build a firewall against this bigotry. Fox News on the other hand profits from fear-mongering.

The firing of Juan Williams, has unleashed a firestorm of protest by folks like Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Newt Gingrich. Yet they stood silent when Thomas, Sanchez and Nasr were fired for essentially the same guilt of making stereotypical and insensitive comments about Jews. What is also disturbing is that groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (full disclosure, I served as its National Chairman from 2005 to 2008), honored Helen Thomas at their recent banquet and yet called on NPR to take actions against Juan Williams. Either all these firings/resignations are outrageous for they purport to curb free speech or they are the right action to take in order to preserve trust in journalism. One cannot have it both ways.

Are media outlets right in demanding its employees live up to journalistic ethics? Or is this excessive political correctness? Each case is different, but one thing is true that each business sets its own ground rules for what it will tolerate from people who speak in its name. NPR wants sanity, Fox News craves controversy. To each their own audience and to each their own brand.

In the greater scheme of things such firings may not necessarily improve journalism. Because it only pushes such harsh and insensitive opinion making to the margins without addressing the root causes that led to such erroneous opinions. The fact that Juan Williams has been rewarded by Fox News will make bigotry more commonplace in the public square. This election season has already seen a spike in orchestrated demonization of Latinos and Muslims. So long as consumers reward Fox News for its incessant attack on whoever is the flavor of the day, Fox News has no incentive to change. That to me is the biggest tragedy and lesson from the Juan Williams saga.

Professor Parvez Ahmed is a Fulbright Scholar and Associate Professor of Finance at the University of North Florida. He is also a frequent commentator on Islam and the Muslim American experience.