Brown’s “Dark” Comments on “Browns”: Apology Tendered, But Is the Problem Solved?

- Dr. Ramesh N. Rao

Tony Brown's Journal is the longest-running Black public affairs show on U.S. television and is aired weekly on the Public Broadcasting Service network. He is billed on his personal website as a TV journalist and commentator, a self-help advocate, a radio talk show host, a keynote speaker, media entrepreneur, a film director, educator, and an author. Among his chief goals is the economic empowerment of African Americans. He also seeks to promote positive values and images in African American families. On June 30, 2001 he broadcast a commentary on the Chicago radio station WLS 890 on Hinduism.

The show was timed, perhaps coincidentally, with three major congregations of Indians - the JAINA, the TANA, and the “Vedanta in the Third Millennium” conventions, all held in Chicago. On the air Brown proclaimed that Nazism emanated from Hinduism; that Hitler borrowed the “Swastika” symbol from Hinduism; untouchability is widely practised in India, which permits five percent of the three high castes to rule the rest of the one billion population. He went on to say that after the death of Mother Teresa, all Christian nuns in India were systematically persecuted.

Brown did not stop at that. He argued that female children and women of lower castes were forced into prostitution in India because of their status in society. As his diatribe continued, Brown chastised lawmakers “for allowing (Indians) to immigrate to the U.S.” And he blamed “the U.S. government for not being able to provide proper educational facilities for Americans, forcing the country to import thousands of computer experts from India.”

“Americans do not understand Hinduism,” said Brown. “...In India there are one billion people, of whom 500 million live in poverty. There is no such thing in the country as welfare system. That means, it is their belief that (lower caste people) should be persecuted and no one should help them. [The] caste system is... based on colour discrimination...” this “educator” asserted. Brown told his listeners that “a woman in India is never free. First of all she is under the control of her parents; when she gets married, she is under the control of her husband; and when her husband dies, she is under the control of her children. She doesn’t get free. And the concept of Hinduism is purity. Are you pure? If you are around (a person of an) impure caste, you have to go home and cleanse yourself. I am impure because you are around me. Women are impure. That is the theory. Black untouchables are impure. Foreigners are impure. The idea is to create system of segregation, apartheid, so that the pure people can be kept away from impure people.”

Brown added, “There are 300 million gods in Hinduism. You do not have to believe in God to be a Hindu. Christians have a Bible, Jews have a Bible, Muslims have a Koran, and there is no Hindu bible. There is no central creed what a Hindu believes. There is no hierarchy like the Pope, the cardinals and so forth.”

Sure enough the word spread about Brown’s “Hinduism and India101”, and a number of Hindu organisations and individuals began calling his office and sending him email. One of the persons who did so, and who was instrumental in getting Brown to apologise later was Ajay Shah, convener of “American Hindus Against Defamation” (AHAD). The group has spearheaded a number of initiatives to get corporations, businesses, and individuals who have misused or abused Hindus or Hindu religious and cultural symbols. Shah is also a standing committee member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America. Shah, who has a Ph.D. in Chemistry, and runs his own hi-tech company, was a member of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad in India, and recalls the numerous battles he fought with university administrators, city officials, and others in the cause of student welfare and rights. He is also one of the founders of the Hindunet.Org website.

I called Ajay Shah to find out how he was able to get Tony Brown to apologise for his brazen anti-Hindu propaganda. I asked if he had any formal training in negotiation and bargaining, or conflict resolution. Ajay told me that all that he has learnt is through practical experience as a student union negotiator and his work for AHAD. So, when faced with the kind of blatant propaganda and racist commentary by a Black TV and radio host how did AHAD approach the issue?

“Our aim is not to seek monetary damages and to sue people. We respect people’s First Amendment rights, but we also point out how certain kinds of images and commentary hurt the sentiments of Hindus”, he said. “Education, and not confrontation nor punishment, is our goal,” he said emphatically. But what if a person refuses to be educated, or a group is keen on confrontation? “Then we will bring economic and political pressure. A SONY Pictures or a Tony Brown cannot ignore the fact that there are more than a million Hindus in the U.S. and more than a billion Hindus world-wide. Would they like to lose them as customers or well-wishers? We point out that we can harness the opinion and the clout of this big group, and it would therefore be in the interests of the propagandist or the user of Hindu symbols to be aware of what they are doing and the economic and political consequences of targeting Hindus,” he elaborated.

Shah said that he first called the Chicago radio station and asked to speak to Brown, but was told that Brown was busy and would respond to an email if Shah sent one. So, a series of email exchanges led to Brown acknowledging that he had indeed relied on partisan and biased sources for his information on Hindus and Hinduism, and on the prevailing social/caste dynamics in parts of India. Shah said that when he talks or writes to people he never seeks to “corner” them. He always provides space for people to get out of a sticky situation.

When asked how he found out who and what were Brown’s sources of information, Shah said that Brown himself revealed his sources. Other than the usual American newspaper reporting on matters Indian and Hindu, and the reports of Human Rights Watch, Brown had also tapped into the “resources” of a variety of anti-Hindu organisations and institutions. Sure enough, after Brown expressed his outrageous views of Hinduism and Hindu practices and beliefs, he received mail from groups and individuals who wanted him (Brown) to pursue a fight against Hindus and specifically Brahmins.

Shah told Brown that he had four demands in the apology, and that Brown should say the following:

1. “My remarks against Hinduism were wrong and I apologise and will not say such things again or I should be subject to even greater criticism. I will discuss these issues with devout Hindus and find out what they really think first before presuming to tell the world what they believe.”
2. “I had built my opinion based on web sites and articles by perpetual Hindu-bashers and Hindu-haters who want to destroy Hindu dharma as a faith and India as a country.”
3. “I have now learnt that the caste in India is not related to colour of the skin. I now realise that my use of words ‘upper caste Aryans’ to describe Mr. Yatin Patel would indeed evoke racial prejudices against Indian-Americans. It was dangerous to inject terms like ‘Aryans’ in the program since they have racist connotations and hence can inspire hatred towards Indians and Hindus. The word ‘Aryan’ developed a racist connotation only after it was re-interpreted by Europeans. Such an interpretation was however inconsistent with the original meaning of the word ‘Arya.’ My opinion was based on the misinformation propagated by anti-Hindu, and anti-India groups that seek to drive a wedge between the global Indian community and the global African community, which have lived with mutual respect in Africa, the Caribbean, North America and elsewhere.”
4. “It was erroneous to link American immigration policy with caste politics of India because such a link has neither a real basis nor does it do good to any minority community of America.”

Brown apologised to Shah on the telephone, agreed to one, two, and three fully, with some reservations on 4, but said he would formulate a new apology and send it to Shah. Brown apologised to his listeners on the radio for his remarks on Hinduism, and said he was inviting Swami Atmajananda to his radio show to present Hindu dharma.

He said he would do commentaries and interviews on socio-political issues and invite AHAD, Human Rights Watch, and others to participate. Brown insisted that his fight was against the caste system. He also said that the AHAD letter was the first time he realised that India was doing something about caste based discrimination.

Shah told Brown that as a responsible media and community leader he ought to make sure that his shows and commentaries did not lead to another series of “Dot Buster” incidents. In turn Brown lectured Shah on the importance of removing injustices resulting from the prevalence of the caste system (which he compared to racism in the U.S.) in Indian society. Shah informed him of the strong affirmative action and reservation programs in India and that even the President of India was a “Dalit”.

Brown, according to Shah, repeatedly apologised for his comments, and expressed his willingness to learn from his mistakes. Although, his views on immigration may not change, Shah insisted that those views be de-linked from comments on the caste system: after all, in Brown’s initial apology he had himself said that every society has caste-ism. “In that case”, Shah told him “oppose all immigration on this basis, and then Hindus/Indians will not be hurt”. Brown asserted that that most immigrants who come to the U.S. from India are from the upper castes, to which Shah sought factual confirmation. Shah also pointed out that because of 40-50% or more reservations in engineering and medical colleges to the Scheduled castes and other Backward Castes there was no study which showed why the upper castes were the only ones who preferred to come to the U.S., or if indeed it was actually the case.

Brown, as he had promised Shah, invited Smita Narula of Human Rights Watch on his show (October 6, 2001), and was back at Hindu bashing. A friend reported: “This morning I watched the PBS show ‘Tony Brown’s Journal’. The topic was caste in India and the guests were Smita Narula of Human Rights Watch and Kenneth Cooper of The Boston Globe. Predictably, the show was a rehashing of the evils of Hinduism and Indian society. Brown himself tried to argue that Hindu philosophy was responsible for the oppression of Dalits. It was alleged that upper castes regarded themselves as ‘Aryans’ who were racially superior to Dalits. The treatment of Dalits in India was compared first to racism in the U.S. and finally to apartheid in South Africa. Nirula said that it was like apartheid but did not call for sanctions against India because it ‘would hurt the Dalits more’. The place of women in India was discussed and focused on the rape of Dalit women by upper castes, bride burning and sati. There was little effort to provide any sophisticated analysis to these issues. The only opposing view to be aired was a short clip from a Prof. Narasimhan who complained about reverse discrimination against Brahmins. Even Nirula seemed uncomfortable with some of the more outrageous statements but did little to temper them. The show may air again on PBS stations, so check your local listings.”

Has Brown learnt anything from Shah, and does Brown’s apology mean anything in the context of his latest Hindu bashing? Remember, Brown, schooled in the American “adversarial system” of politics and justice, does not think it is unethical to repeat views for which he has apologised before because his apology has no “legal” standing. No court has passed strictures on his anti-Hindu propaganda, for he hasn’t been dragged to the courts as any other group would have done faced with such virulent propaganda. But we are Hindus and we want to educate the world, not draw blood. The opposition knows it, and understands the paradox that we have created for ourselves. So, Ajay Shah has his work cut out: to seek another apology, waste more of his precious time to try to educate the uneducable, and to convince closed minds. Could you write to Ajay Shah, care of AHAD, and tell him that he has your sympathies for continuing the work of Sisyphus?

Ramesh N. Rao
October 9, 2001

Disclaimer