Kash Patel demonstrates the Indian custom of giving respect to elders
My now-husband, Jake, and I come from two different worlds. He is a Californian with German roots and I'm an Indian immigrant.
Recalling the moments right before I met his family, he told me to be myself and that they're going to love me. (It worked.) But when it was his turn to meet my big, fat Indian family, the list of expectations was much longer.
He did his best to keep up, like learning a few phrases in Hindi and not calling elders by their first name. But one deeply rooted tradition surprised him.
'When you see my grandmother, make sure to touch her feet,' I told him when he visited India last May. 'Her feet?' he asked me, his eyebrows raised.
I grew up with this practice as did those around me. What felt normal to me was obviously foreign to him. So I did my best to explain.
In India, it's common to bow down and touch an elder's feet as a sign of respect and a way to ask for their blessing. It's a gesture of humility and acknowledges the elders' elevated position in society, I told him.
Jake nodded before adding he needed to practice. He showed me several ways he could go about it and asked me questions about his form and whether he needed to touch the toes specifically.
'Don't overthink it. All you have to do is touch her feet and give her a smile,' I reassured him, or at least tried to, as he gave me a worried look.
When he met my grandmother, Maya, nearly 70 years old now, Jake did as he had practiced.
Maya, who was already smiling ear to ear after meeting Jake for the first time, instantly grew emotional and gave him a big bear hug. The language barrier did not matter and just like that, two different generations from worlds apart forged a connection.
This same gesture of humility and respect took center stage at Kash Patel's confirmation hearing on Thursday. He is Trump's nominee for director of the FBI.
As soon as he entered the room for his confirmation hearing on Thursday, he touched his parents' feet. The video went viral, with several social media users of Indian heritage sharing it and chiming in.
The Free Press' Rupa Subramanya in a social media post on X said that while she doesn't practice the ancient Hindu tradition, she respects it. 'And it's great to see Kash Patel touch his parent's feet before the hearing,' she added.
Patel, in his opening remarks, said, 'I'd like to welcome my father Pramod, and my mother Anjana, who are sitting here today. They travelled here from India. My sister, Nisha, is also here. She also traveled across the oceans just to be with me. It means the world that you guys are here.'
'Jai Shree Krishna,' he said while facing them. The widely used expression is used to greet people. It's a Sanskrit phrase, which translates to, Victory to Krishna, a Hindu God.
'I wouldn't be here today without their guidance, their unwavering support, and their relentless love. When President Trump informed me of his intention to nominate me as the director of the FBI, I was deeply honored,' he said.
Patel said he carried the dreams and hopes of his parents as well as Americans who value 'justice, fairness and the rule of law.'
His father fled Uganda during Idi Amin's genocidal dictatorship.
At least '300,000 men, women and children were killed based on their ethnicity, just because they happened to look like me,' he said. His mother is from Tanzania.
'She studied in India, as did my dad, and they were married there. They would later emigrate to New York ... where I was born, and we were raised in a household of my father's seven siblings, their spouses, and at least half a dozen children,' Patel said.
He continued, 'That's the only way we knew how to do things at the time, in the '70s and '80s, the Indian way, but we would soon learn the American way,' he said.
As the Deseret News reported, Patel's hearing Thursday was one of the most contentious ones so far as he faced tough questions about his professional experience and past comments as he seeks to be confirmed as the next director of the FBI.
Senate Democrats grilled Patel on a number of issues, claiming the Trump ally does not have the experience needed to lead the agency and airing concerns he would use the top agency position to exact revenge on those who have previously investigated the president.
Republicans pushed back on those accusations, including Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.
Tillis argued in favor of his expertise and commitment to the country.
'Kash's parents are Indian immigrants of Gujarati ancestry. They're up here in the front row. The Gujarat state is a melting pot of religions, including Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, with temples, mosques and other religious sites scattered across the state,' he said before noting his parents' upbringings.
'His parents raised Kash in the Hindu faith and they instilled in him the values of hard work and education,' Tillis said. 'Kash is a devout Hindu, and consistent with his faith, he's shown respect to people of all faiths.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
When the US Navy tried to send mail using a missile
What if Americans' daily mail could be delivered not by postal truck but by a cruise missile? On June 8, 1959, the U.S. Navy had a submarine try just that. It kind of worked. 66 years ago today the U.S. Navy tested out a concept previously known as 'rocket mail,' only in this case they used a relatively new Regulus 1 cruise missile. The idea of 'rocket mail' was first theorized in 1810 by German author Heinrich von Kleist. The initial concept was more artillery bombardment mail than rocket mail, with the idea being to fire the mail from cannons, using ballistic power and trajectories to route letters. Early, independent attempts were done in the 19th Century, but nothing widespread came out of it. However the idea picked up momentum in the first half of the 20th Century. Hobbyists and scientists in Europe and the United States gave it a shot, launching experimental rockets back and forth as a way of ferrying the mail. Some were even unofficial Post Office Department (now the United States Post Office) launches. Things changed in 1959. Then-Postmaster General Arthur A. Summerfield endorsed the idea of rocket mail, but he, with partners in the United States Navy, took things a step further, using modern missiles. In this case, the Navy and Post Office Department would use a SSM-N-8A Regulus, or Regulus I, nuclear-capable cruise missile that had entered service only a few years prior. It was modified, of course, to remove the nuclear warhead and replace it with the capacity to carry 3,000 letters. The Navy would fire it from the USS Barbero, a Balao-class submarine, to a naval station in Florida. If it worked, it would show the speed of 'missile mail' and the accuracy of the Navy's cruise missile. 'This peacetime employment of a guided missile for the important and practical purpose of carrying mail is the first known official use of missiles by any post office department of any nation,' Summerfield said at the time, per the USPS, 'Before man reaches the moon, mail will be delivered within hours from New York to California, to England, to India or to Australia by guided missiles.' Let's look at the selling points here. Rocket mail is fast — it uses missiles after all — and with the U.S. military, deep in the 1950s Cold War military industrial boom, as a partner, there is a reliable backer to this plan. So on June 8, 1959, the USS Barbero was in the Atlantic Ocean. The submarine was surfaced, with the Regulus 1 cruise missile perched well above the water. The letters were loaded in and the missile was prepped. And since this was an office Post Office Department shipment, the letters still had addresses marked on them, all to high ranking government officials including U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower. The missile fired, traveling through the air for just over 20 minutes, on a path towards the Navy's base at Mayport, Florida which was roughly 100 miles from the launch point. 22 minutes after take off, it landed on the runway in Florida. The mail was sorted and sent off to its recipients. As the number of mail trucks still driving around the United States today shows, missile mail did not become a standard part of the postal service. The USS Barbero's test was the only one the Navy would do and despite its success, the cost of the missiles and the limited carrying capacity essentially killed any further development. Navy SEAL Team 6 operator will be the military's new top enlisted leader Veterans receiving disability payments might have been underpaid, IG finds Guam barracks conditions are 'baffling,' Navy admiral says in email Navy fires admiral in charge of unmanned systems office after investigation The Pentagon wants troops to change duty stations less often
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Wales' papers: Fraudster nurse struck off and shock Ramsey move
Western Mail Daily Post South Wales Evening Post The Flintshire Leader South Wales Echo The Wrexham Leader South Wales Argus Abergavenny Chronicle Monmouthshire Beacon Brecon & Radnor Express Cambrian News Tenby Observer Barry and District News Penarth Times Free Press Series
Vox
13 hours ago
- Vox
First comes marriage. Then comes a flirtatious colleague.
is a senior reporter for Vox's Future Perfect and co-host of the Future Perfect podcast. She writes primarily about the future of consciousness, tracking advances in artificial intelligence and neuroscience and their staggering ethical implications. Before joining Vox, Sigal was the religion editor at the Atlantic. Your Mileage May Vary is an advice column offering you a unique framework for thinking through your moral dilemmas. To submit a question, fill out this anonymous form or email Here's this week's question from a reader, condensed and edited for clarity: My husband and I have a good relationship. We're both committed to personal growth and continual learning and have developed very strong communication skills. A couple of years ago we were exposed to some friends with an open marriage and had our own conversations about ethical non-monogamy. At first, neither of us were interested. Now, my husband is interested and currently is attracted to a colleague who is also into him. She's married and has no idea that he and I talk about all of their interactions. He doesn't know what her relationship agreements are with her husband. I'm not currently interested in ethical non-monogamy. I see things in our relationship that I'd like to work on together with my husband. I want more of his attention and energy, to be frank. I don't want his attention and energy being funneled into another relationship. I don't have moral issues with ethical non-monogamy, I just don't actually see any value-add for me right now. The cost-benefit analysis leaves me saying 'not now.' My husband admitted that he's hoping I will have a change of mind. I don't want to force his hand, although I am continuing to say very clearly what I want in my relationship. How do we reach a compromise? If he cuts ties with this woman, he has resentment towards me. If he continues to pursue something with her, I feel disrespected, and while I don't want to leave him I would feel the need to do something. Dear Monogamously Married, I want to start by commending you for two things. First, for your openness to discussing and exploring all this with your husband. Second, for your insistence on clearly stating what you actually want — and don't want. I think Erich Fromm, the 20th-century German philosopher and psychologist, would back me up in saying that you'd do well to hold tight to both those qualities. For starters, radical openness is important because, according to Fromm, the basic premise of love is freedom. He writes: Love is a passionate affirmation of its 'object.' That means that love is not an 'affect' but an active striving, the aim of which is the happiness, development, and freedom of its 'object.' In other words, love is not a feeling. It's work, and the work of love is to fully support the flourishing of the person you love. That can be scary — what if the person discovers that they're actually happier with somebody else? — which is why Fromm specifies that only someone with a strong self 'which can stand alone and bear solitude' will be up for the job. He continues: This passionate affirmation is not possible if one's own self is crippled, since genuine affirmation is always rooted in strength. The person whose self is thwarted can only love in an ambivalent way; that is, with the strong part of his self he can love, with the crippled part he must hate. So far, it might sound like Fromm is saying that to be a good lover is to be a doormat: you just have to do whatever's best for the other person, even if it screws you over. But his view is very much the opposite. In fact, Fromm cautions us against both 'masochistic love' and 'sadistic love.' In the first, you give up your self and sacrifice your needs in order to become submerged in another person. In the second, you try to exert power over the other person. Both of these are rooted in 'a deep anxiety and an inability to stand alone,' writes Fromm; whether by dissolving yourself into them or by controlling them, you're trying to make it impossible for the other person to abandon you. Both approaches are 'pseudo-love.' Have a question you want me to answer in the next Your Mileage May Vary column? Feel free to email me at or fill out this anonymous form! Newsletter subscribers will get my column before anyone else does and their questions will be prioritized for future editions. Sign up here! So although Fromm doesn't want you to try to control your partner, and although he suggests that the philosophical ideal is for you to passionately affirm your partner's freedom, he's not advising you to do that if, for you, that will mean masochism. If you're not up for ethical non-monogamy — if you feel, like many people, that the idea of giving your partner free rein is too big a threat to your relationship or your own well-being — then pretending otherwise is not real love. It's just masochistic self-annihilation. I'm personally partial to Fromm's non-possessive approach to love. But I equally appreciate his point that the philosophical ideal could become a practical bloodbath if it doesn't work for the actual humans involved. I think the question, then, is this: Do you think it's possible for you to get to a place where you genuinely feel ready for and interested in ethical non-monogamy? It sounds like you're intellectually open to the idea, and given that you said you're committed to personal growth and continual learning, non-monogamy could offer you some benefits; lots of people who practice it say that part of its appeal lies in the growth it catalyzes. And if practicing non-monogamy makes you and/or your husband more fulfilled, it could enrich your relationship and deepen your appreciation for each other. But right now, you've got a problem: Your husband is pushing on your boundaries by flirting with a woman even after you've expressed that you don't want him pursuing something with her. And you already feel like he isn't giving you enough attention and energy, so the prospect of having to divvy up those resources with another woman feels threatening. Fair! Notice, though, that that isn't a worry about non-monogamy per se — it's a worry about the state of your current monogamous relationship. In a marriage, what partners typically want is to feel emotionally secure. But that comes from how consistently and lovingly we show up for and attune to one another, not from the relationship structure. A monogamous marriage may give us some feeling of security, but it's obviously no guarantee; some people cheat, some get divorced, and some stay loyally married while neglecting their partner emotionally. 'Monogamy can serve as a stand-in for actual secure attachment,' writes therapist Jessica Fern in Polysecure, a book on how to build healthy non-monogamous relationships. She urges readers to take an honest look at any relationship insecurities or dissatisfactions that are being disguised by monogamy, and work with partners to strengthen the emotional experience of the relationship. Since you feel that your husband isn't giving you enough attention and energy, be sure to talk to him about it. Explain that it doesn't feel safe for you to open up the relationship without him doing more to be fully present with you and to make you feel understood and precious. See if he starts implementing these skills more reliably. In the meantime, while you two are trying to reset your relationship, it's absolutely reasonable to ask him to cool it with the colleague he's attracted to; he doesn't have to cut ties with her entirely (and may not be able to if they work together), but he can certainly avoid feeding the flames with flirtation. Right now, the fantasy of her is a distraction from the work he needs to be doing to improve the reality of your marriage. He should understand why a healthy practice of ethical non-monogamy can't emerge from a situation where he's pushing things too far with someone else before you've agreed to change the terms of your relationship (and if he doesn't, have him read Polysecure!). It's probably a good idea for you to each do your own inner work, too. Fern, like Fromm, insists that if we want to be capable of a secure attachment with someone else, we need to cultivate that within ourselves. That means being aware of our feelings, desires, and needs, and knowing how to tend to them. Understanding your attachment style can help with this; for example, if you're anxiously attached and you very often reach out to your partner for reassurance, you can practice spending time alone. After taking some time to work on these interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, come back together to discuss how you're feeling. Do you feel more receptive to opening up the relationship? Do you think it would add more than it would subtract? If the answer is 'yes' or 'maybe,' you can create a temporary relationship structure — or 'vessel,' as Fern calls it — to help you ease into non-monogamy. One option is to adopt a staggered approach to dating, where one partner (typically the more hesitant one) starts dating new people first, and the other partner starts after a predetermined amount of time. Another option is to try a months-long experiment where both partners initially engage in certain romantic or sexual experiences that are less triggering to each other, then assess what worked and what didn't, and go from there. If the answer is 'no' — if you're not receptive to opening up your relationship — then by all means say that! Given you'll have sincerely done the work to explore whether non-monogamy works for you, your husband doesn't get to resent you. He can be sad, he can be disappointed, and he can choose to leave if the outcome is intolerable to him. But he'll have to respect you, and what's more important, you'll have to respect yourself. Bonus: What I'm reading This week's question prompted me to go back to the famous psychologist Abraham Maslow, who was influenced by Fromm. Maslow spoke of two kinds of love : Deficit-Love and Being-Love. The former is about trying to satiate your own needs, while the latter is about giving without expecting something in return. Maslow characterizes Being-Love as an almost spiritual experience, likening it to 'the perfect love of their God that some mystics have described.' In addition to Polysecure, which has become something of a poly bible in the past few years, I recommend reading What Love Is — and What It Could Be , written by the philosopher Carrie Jenkins. I appreciated Jenkins's functionalist take on romantic love: She explains that we've constructed the idea of romantic love a certain way in order to serve a certain function (structuring society into nuclear family units), but we can absolutely revise it if we want.
