NetIP 2005 Conference: Day 2, Part 1
After a healthy breakfast of fruits and eggs at the ungodly hour of 8:30, we filed into the Peachtree Ballroom for the plenary keynote session with Mohini Bhardwaj.
Mohini, an Indian-Russian, was the 2004 US Olympic gymnastics team captain and silver medalist. The session was organized like a talk show, complete with pre-scripted questions, large projection screens, perpendicular sofas and riveted audience.
What I learnt from the talk: China and Russia have a competitive edge in gymnastics, with their state-sponsored training centers, rigorous team-oriented approach to training and assured financial support for parents of successful athletes. In the capitalistic US, would-be Olympians have to fend for their own corporate sponsorships, usually train in isolation and make money off talks and training gigs post-victory. Mohini was (partly) sponsored by Pamela Anderson (the Pamela Anderson), who auctioned her car to give Mohini 50K for her training (apparently, the two had a lot in common, including a drive for the unconventional, vegetarianism and tattoos).
Mohini tried for the Olympics in 1996 and did not make it. Eight years later, she tried again, and went on to head the team and win the silver medal.
In response to the predictable question of India’s low involvement in the Olympics (“a billion people with such few medals”), Mohini postulated predictable reasons: low parental encouragement for a seemingly unviable career option, and dearth of college sports scholarships.
The keynote ended, and we moved on to the breakout sessions. Many party-aficiandos missed the entire morning session, waking from their bacchanalian stupor at noon.
At 11:30, there were breakouts on globalization, racial profiling and AIDS. I chose the one on racial profiling; globalization of the Indian economy has been overexposed to death in magazines and books before, and little reliable information exists about AIDS in India.
The Guilt by Association: How Profiling Impacts Desis in the US panel was attended by lawyers, civil rights activists, and victims. It opened with a NASABA representative showing some very disturbing footage: immediately after 9/11, a major news channel conducted an experiment in Ohio – they asked two sikh boys to attend a baseball game in their full turbans. A hidden camera recorded hidden glances, angry looks, taunts and even overt threats that these boys received as they were minding their own business. Though I have not faced such strong racism personally, the video did bring back unpleasant memories.
The NASABA representative presented compelling arguments to show that profiling does not work in deterring terrorism-related crimes. Also, almost all immigrants profiled and detained by the government have been for other crimes, not terrorism. Just reinforcing my belief that the Patriot Act is just a step away from the infamous Indian Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), which has also faced similar criticism until it was replaced by POTO, a slightly diluted version.
Two antipodal profiling views I gathered from conversations with single women during the convention (all part of research for this blog, I assure you): one set of women (the majority, unfortunately) was very particular that they wanted to marry someone from their own community (religion, geographic affiliation, caste – choose your clique). One (overt) look at your name tag and they would not even bother to talk to you. Most of these women hailed from a state in the north-western region of the motherland.
The other set of women admitted that their own community would be the last place they would look for a partner. A few failed hookup attempts with insular, chauvinistic, or uninspiring men convinced them that the holy grail lay outside their comfort zone. This was true across the geographical board: Gujratis, Punjabis, Bhaktas, Mathurs, and Tamilians concurred.
What I learnt from the talk: China and Russia have a competitive edge in gymnastics, with their state-sponsored training centers, rigorous team-oriented approach to training and assured financial support for parents of successful athletes. In the capitalistic US, would-be Olympians have to fend for their own corporate sponsorships, usually train in isolation and make money off talks and training gigs post-victory. Mohini was (partly) sponsored by Pamela Anderson (the Pamela Anderson), who auctioned her car to give Mohini 50K for her training (apparently, the two had a lot in common, including a drive for the unconventional, vegetarianism and tattoos).
Mohini tried for the Olympics in 1996 and did not make it. Eight years later, she tried again, and went on to head the team and win the silver medal.
In response to the predictable question of India’s low involvement in the Olympics (“a billion people with such few medals”), Mohini postulated predictable reasons: low parental encouragement for a seemingly unviable career option, and dearth of college sports scholarships.
The keynote ended, and we moved on to the breakout sessions. Many party-aficiandos missed the entire morning session, waking from their bacchanalian stupor at noon.
At 11:30, there were breakouts on globalization, racial profiling and AIDS. I chose the one on racial profiling; globalization of the Indian economy has been overexposed to death in magazines and books before, and little reliable information exists about AIDS in India.
The Guilt by Association: How Profiling Impacts Desis in the US panel was attended by lawyers, civil rights activists, and victims. It opened with a NASABA representative showing some very disturbing footage: immediately after 9/11, a major news channel conducted an experiment in Ohio – they asked two sikh boys to attend a baseball game in their full turbans. A hidden camera recorded hidden glances, angry looks, taunts and even overt threats that these boys received as they were minding their own business. Though I have not faced such strong racism personally, the video did bring back unpleasant memories.
The NASABA representative presented compelling arguments to show that profiling does not work in deterring terrorism-related crimes. Also, almost all immigrants profiled and detained by the government have been for other crimes, not terrorism. Just reinforcing my belief that the Patriot Act is just a step away from the infamous Indian Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), which has also faced similar criticism until it was replaced by POTO, a slightly diluted version.
Two antipodal profiling views I gathered from conversations with single women during the convention (all part of research for this blog, I assure you): one set of women (the majority, unfortunately) was very particular that they wanted to marry someone from their own community (religion, geographic affiliation, caste – choose your clique). One (overt) look at your name tag and they would not even bother to talk to you. Most of these women hailed from a state in the north-western region of the motherland.
The other set of women admitted that their own community would be the last place they would look for a partner. A few failed hookup attempts with insular, chauvinistic, or uninspiring men convinced them that the holy grail lay outside their comfort zone. This was true across the geographical board: Gujratis, Punjabis, Bhaktas, Mathurs, and Tamilians concurred.
