Chances are if you're brown or live in DC you've read this piece on the emergence of the Indian-American political scene, which was published Tuesday in Roll Call. I don't normally read RC since I have access to the vastly superior CongressDaily, but this piece does not serve as a great introduction to their work.
The article covers familiar ground, dealing mostly in stereotypes and the same cast of desi Democratic insiders who should be familiar to anyone who lives inside the Beltway. Toeplitz discusses three desi Democrats (two of whom are doctors, of course) running for Congress next year and their varying levels of success in fundraising. Again, nothing new here. I would be interested to know the source for this statement, however:
Although Jindal is the highest-ranking Indian-American elected to office, the community as a whole leans to the political left, as demonstrated by the trio of Democratic Congressional candidates running next year.There's no link or reference, and it's not a quote, so I assume this is based on anecdotal evidence since I've never seen national polling or Census data on the of party identification of Indian-American registered voters. While it makes sense demographically for Indian-Americans as a whole to lean Democratic, my suspicion is that the fundraising numbers are much closer than one would initially think; many of the "Aunty and Uncle generation," as the article calls them, are professionals or entrepreneurs and lean Republican. Of course, Bobby Jindal is the only conservative name-checked; there's no mention of candidates like Nikki Haley or quotes from desi Republicans. It's almost like they don't exist!
There's also a mention of Iraq War veteran and Democrat Ashwin Madia, who lost a congressional race in Minnesota last fall. Despite his military background and raising over $2.4 million, Madia was soundly defeated in the general election. Aside from Jindal, Madia has been the most viable desi candidate for Congress in recent years thanks to his impressive military record. I was fortunate enough to meet him at a debate-watching party during the campaign last fall, but came away surprisingly underwhelmed.
The really interesting part of the article comes when we run into Maryland State House Majority leader Kumar Barve, one of the elder statesmen among desi Dems. Despite relying on them for financial and political support, Barve apparently doesn't have a very high opinion of people who look like him:
"In the Indian-American community, you have to have another person ask on your behalf in order to be successful," Barve said. "Because Indians don't want to give their money to anybody. We're cheap."Interesting. He should tell that to the desis across the country who've been coming together as their own unofficial little PACs for years now, including those back in my hometown. Not to mention the countless Indian-Americans who donate to other worthy causes. It's worth mentioning that the Maryland desi community is hardly reflective of some universal reality for Indian-Americans. It certainly doesn't speak to my experience growing up in Southern Michigan.
If I sound a little frustrated, it's because I'm tired of reading the same old article about how "Indian" used to equal "doctor" or "engineer," but now it encompasses all these other fun and exciting possibilities, like i-banking and politics! Then again, let's be serious: a couple doctors running for Congress is hardly the desi community finding its voice. More likely a few would-be politicans realized post-Obama that race and a funny name are no longer insurmountable barriers to running for office. Now that's a topic I would be interested in reading about. But we have no quotes on that.
The other problem with the simplistic, brown-people-finding-their-way-through-democracy storyline is how it ignores the deeply nuanced reality and varying levels of political engagement that already exist within the community. My own family is a perfect example. My parents probably fit the stereotype of first-generation Indian-Americans on the surface; they are both physicians, largely apolitical and uninterested in getting involved publicly beyond voting. If someone like Ashwin Madia or Manan Trivedi called them up and asked them for money, they would probably be justifiably skeptical, leading someone like Barve to call them cheap:
"In the '90s, it was like pulling teeth getting Indian-Americans to part with their money," Barve said. "They just didn't understand the importance of having one of their own at the table."Except that my parents aren't reluctant to donate because they are cheap or unwilling; it's because they realize that their political interests don't always coincide with a candidate's simply because their skin happens to be of the same hue. (Also, interesting use by Barve of the word "they" rather than "we".) Why exactly would a small business owner in Michigan care who represents suburban Minneapolis in the House? Beyond nebulous party loyalty that may or may not compel a donation, this seems mostly like a naked appeal to racial solidarity. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I don't think resisting tribalism makes you inherently cheap.
The article also includes the obligatory quote about emulating the Jewish community except that unlike the Jewish community, Indian-Americans have not developed a meaningful political coalition with defined policy goals. The one exception may be on U.S. foreign policy as it relates to India, which is understandably a concern for many first-generation Indian-Americans. Curiously, many second-generation Indian-American candidates seem to avoid engaging this topic, or at least to avoid espousing any particular support for India or its interests, despite the potential fundraising appeal. Barve seems to get the importance of the appeal, though I'm not sure how much influence you can have on foreign policy from the Maryland State Legislature.
Furthermore, my parents' lack of involvement in politics is not a consequence of them immigrating from India like the mark they all get from the smallpox vaccination. It's because both of them grew up with parents who were in public life, which soured them on the prospect. I have another friend back home whose father is one of the biggest political donors in the state. He's Indian and Gujju. I know, I bet I just blew Kumar Barve's mind. And despite my parents' lack of involvement in politics, they have two children who are deeply involved in it and even live in the DMV to make it our careers.
Through living in the District I've come to know a number of desis working in political jobs at every rung of the ladder, quietly helping decisions get made and laws get enacted. There are more of us coming up, but it's not because we suddenly comprehend the importance of politics. It's simply because there are more Indian-Americans now, many of whom were born here and can vote and take an interest in their country. If someone was writing their stories as individuals, I would be interested in reading them. I even pitched an article to The Atlantic about what I see as the real story on Indian-American political involvement, which is how people in American are funding parties that promote hate and divisiveness in India. I hope to write that article at some point in the near future. In the meantime, I'm open to suggestions for some better reading.
I had the same reaction to that article. And with regards to this:
"They just didn't understand the importance of having one of their own at the table."
I worked in politics in the 90s, and I interacted with the Indian American community quite a bit while I did. It's not that "they" didn't understand the importance of advancing the dreams of one of their own, it's that most were in a "head-down, work-hard, endure-so-my-children-succeed"-mode. The community has changed quite a bit in the last fifteen years.
Thanks for this, Gautham.
Most of my aunties and uncles are conservative/Republican so I was surprised that Roll Call made that blanket statement that the Indian community was primarily liberal. I certainly have not seen that in the New York/New Jersey community that I grew up in.
In fact, most of my older relatives (immigrants who came here in the 1970s and are between 55-70 years old now) don't really trust the Democratic party and believe the party leadership is reflexively anti-India. Things like the anti-outsourcing rhetoric that was such a big part of the 2004 election and the fact that most of the aid our government has sent to Pakistan has gone to the Kashmiri border really upsets people. So aunties and uncles have lots of valid reasons not to give their hard-earned money to Democrats.
Good luck with your article about desis funding divisive political parties in India. I've definitely noticed that too and would love to read your piece.
I wouldn't necessarily pick on Roll Call over their assumption. To the American audience, Indian translates as Hindu, which would mean that members of the White Christian party don't qualify as Indian. And certainly, most people I meet in first generation circles seem to favor Democrat candidates.
I am also wondering if there is any data on the political interaction with India in the first generation. For example, do the INOC and OFBJP recommend candidates that would advance the interests of their parent parties in India? And several Indian politicians are said have made large property and business acquisitions here. To what extent are they consequently involved in American politics through their proxies?
This is an interesting blog post. Some observations, not necessarily coherent:
1. Barve is wrong. Your line "I don't think resisting tribalism makes you inherently cheap" is excellent. That whole argument captures very well how many desi's react - as like most other people; spending their money where their mouth is.
2. I am from Silicon Valley and I do see many rich desi's writing good amount of checks to Political Parties. Many middle class folks contributed to Obama campaign (myself included).
3. You are right that Desi's are involved in many different layers and roles of American politics. Who stands for some state level elections is only one aspect. I toil myself on blog sphere (http://www.21stcenturypolitics.com/) and so many other Desi's too. Besides, there is West Coast and Texas where many Desi's are located. So what happens on East Cost and Mid-West; it is just regional to some extent.
4. Having all said this, there is one thing that overall participation of Desi's in American Politics is not commensurate with overall involvement of Desi's in American Life and Economy. As that famous observation by Dilip Padgaonkar (past Editor of Times of India); Indian community in America is essentially 'brahminical migration' of 'haves' from South Asia to North America. All these learned people came to North America because literally they were evicted from the modern Indian caste Politics. It is obvious that % of upper caste, privileged Indians in America is much higher than what is the normal distribution in India. In other words, if you are leaving India because there has been no place for you in Politics back home; why would you go again into that fire here? Besides for the first generation Desi folks; struggles of settlement in the new place are quite high too (especially stark loss of family network on which Indian life thrives back home). I cannot put all these Social Theories of Migration here, nor I am accomplished scholar in that. It is just that I want to point some of these things might have played a role in the under representation of Desi's in American politics. As demographic strata of migratory Desi's change, things here change too.
5. With Jewish community, there is a polemical historical context. With that kind of history (of 3 millennium and fundamentally linked with the history of Western Societies); it would have been a wonder if that community would not have come together so forcefully in USA. However, going forward I do see that futures of USA and India will be deeply inter linked; more than what steady growth of globalization demands. So I would expect that Indo-American community needs to be more assertive as well as cohesive to achieve certain specific foreign policy goals. (Kashmir problem could be one. Imagine India Pakistan border disputes are solved. Bombay Stock Exchange will go to moon, defense spending will be contained and it will be a fundamental boon to the prosperity in the sub-continent...) We will see how that shapes in days to come.
From the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund report on the Asian American Vote in the 2008 Presidential election --
"South Asian voters were enrolled in the Democratic Party at higher rates than all other Asian ethnic groups. Overall, 76% of South Asians were registered Democrats, including 69% of Asian Indians, 74% of Pakistanis, 85% of Bangladeshis, and 82% of Indo-Caribbeans. ... Ninety-three percent (93%) of South Asian American voters supported Barack Obama."
I'm Indian-American, I'm 41, and I've been very plugged in to the Indian-American political community since 1994.
And I can verify some things about which Gautham is wrong.
First, the Roll Call piece is correct that Indian-Americans lean left, and THERE IS POLLING DATA to prove it. The first scientific poll was in the mid-1990s, pre-internet era, and somewhere in the bowels of my house I probably since have a yellowing paper copy of it. My active Democratic Indian-American friends who then were graduate students at the Kennedy School at Harvard had the poll done. My recollection is that the poll, of "all adults," showed that, including the large minority who were non-citizens and therefore not voters at all, identified over 40% of the respondents as Democrats, with independents in the low teens and Republicans at a measley 7%. The rest, roughly 40%, were a mix of non-citizens and citizen non-voters.
Since that poll, exit polls conducted by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) continue to show Indian-Americans are hugely Democratic in voting behavior. The polls are available at aaldef.org. The most recent exit poll for 2008 included over 16,000 total respondents in 11 states, of which 32% were "South Asian" which includes Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Indo-Caribbeans. The poll showed 69% of Indian-Americans and 76% of all South Asians were registered Democrats, compared to 58% of all Asian-Americans who were Democrats. Only 7% of Indian-Americans and 6% of all South Asians were registered Republicans. And Indian-Americans voted for Obama over McCain by a stunning 91-8 margin, with other South Asian subgroups giving Obama the same or greater margins. The poll showed also that among all Asian-Americans, U.S.-born voters went for Obama 87-11, with immigrants at 73-26; so there is a generation gap, but all age groups are strongly Democratic. This actually supports Gautham's suggestion and my personal experience that older immigrant Indian-Americans are marginally less Democratic than younger Indian-Americans.
Finally, I'll note that the AALDEF exit polls were conducted in large metropolitan areas where one might argue that Asian-Americans are more liberal than elsewhere; however, comparing with the Asian-American subsamples in the NEP exit polls corrobates one-sided Democratic voting preferences, even if the margins are smaller, and in fact AALDEF exit polls consistently show Indian-Americans are more Democratic than Asian-Americans as a whole. The 2004 AALDEF exit poll corroborates this, showing 57% of all Asians but 74% of South Asians calling themselves Democrats.
An examination of Indian-American elected officials and candidates further proves Indian-Americans are heavily Democratic. Indian-American Democrats are in the state legislatures of Maryland; New Jersey; Ohio; Iowa; Minnesota; and Kansas; plus a recent term-limited retiree in Michigan. I'm pretty sure only South Carolina has an Indian-American state legislator. And if you look at losing candidates over time, the overwhelming majority of Indian-Americans who TRY to run for office also have been Democrats.
My second major point, regarding Indian-American money, is that you're mistaken to glibly dismiss Kumar Barve's comments. I've known Kumar personally for a long time, and he has 20 years of experience at this, having been elected in 1990. His one mistake, an observation Gautham made, is forgetting that what office you run for has everything to do with who gives you money. Kumar is a state legislator, and Indian-Americans outside Maryland just don't care very much. He does better in-state. Federal candidates more easily can raise Indian-American money nationally, but even then it's easier to raise money in-state and in-district than from outside. All that said, Kumar is right that there's been a certain stinginess among older affluent Indian-American immigrants to give money, moreso than exists with affluent Americans as a whole. I think Kumar overstates it somewhat, but it's been real, even if it's more recently receding.
Finally, I'll note that the media seems unaware that this massive Indian-American fundraising by Indian-American candidates happened in 1994. Then, too, there were three Indian-American Democrats running for Congress (in Maryland, Tennessee, and California), with two losing in primaries and one getting stomped in the general. It was a bad year to be a Democrat of any skin color, and each of those three candidates had his own defined flaws to doom him. Each of those guys raised 6-figures, overwhelmingly from national Indian-American donors. I personally was involved in all three campaigns, more closely in two and distantly in one. What we're seeing this cycle is Round 2 of the same fundraising strategy, but in a less unfriendly cycle and in better districts. But still I don't see anyone but Bera having a realistic path to victory at this point.
I do not subscribe to the theory that lack of Indian-American interest in politics is due to upper caste marginalization in Indian politics. This so called "driving out of upper castes" has only happened to the extent that middle and lower castes have begun to get some taste of power. But, the higher rungs of Indian politics are firmly upper caste. It is illustrative here to note that all Indian prime ministers have been brahmins and the Nehru-Gandhi family itself is brahmin. Further, any future lower caste pretenders like Kumari Mayawati, Narendra Modi and Nitish Kumar face long odds in breaking the upper caste monopoly on power.
On the other hand, the lack of interest can be explained by the state of politics in the mother country. Not only has Indian politics long been viewed as corrupt and exceedingly violent, but the State has been fairly competent in imprisoning political opponents on flimsy charges. This effectively meant that the demographic that made up the first generation of migrants brought a pathological distrust of politicians with them and wanted no part of involvement in politics. This is changing somewhat because commercial interests are driving the need to buy political influence, but then how many people tend to entrepreneurs and decision makers in business?
Ordinarily, I would not respond to an article like this, but I just can’t resist given the generally high level of discussion on this topic.
First to DCCyclone – thanks for coming to my defense!
Second, the article only used some of what I told the reporter, and what I told the reporter was only part of my thoughts on the subject. So, my quotes are a subset of a subset of my complete opinion on the matter. So let me take up a few irksome issues:
“Barve apparently doesn't have a very high opinion of people who look like him” – Please, Gautam! I would never say that of you or anyone else based on a quote in an article. I have the highest regard for Indian-Americans, otherwise why would I have said that the fundraising situation has changed since the late 1990s? Besides, my main point was directed only at a particular type of Desi.
There are numerous Indian-Americans who are more than happy to contribute to “typical” American politicians but not if they are of our community. Why would they contribute money to everyone but an Indian-American candidate?
One last thing here, during my career only about 15% of my money has come from our community. In my first campaign, when I really needed the help it was even less!
“Why exactly would a small business owner in Michigan care who represents suburban Minneapolis in the House?” – Other communities don’t have much trouble connecting the dots (see my comments at the end), but let me take a stab at it. In every legislature members become known for their interests, expertise and constituencies. Any issue involving the Asian or South-Asian community in Maryland ends up on my desk. Do I get to make the final decision? No, we’re a legislature and we govern by consensus (at best) or majority vote (in areas of disagreement). But nothing would happen without my input and opinion. Furthermore, following my opinion gives cover to other members who are less knowledgeable or less interested. “We ran it by Kumar” is enough to end any objections. Finally, having me at the table means that the discussion MUST take my point of view into account, even if I don’t prevail. And, if I lose, they might be made to feel that they owe me one. This principle works when I represent my constituents, the high tech community, and lots of other things, not just my ethnicity.
A non-Indian-American will never be an adequate representative for our community. Trust me.
One final thing on this point, members of Congress represent the interests of the entire nation, not just their districts. If Ashwin Madia had won, I would have considered him my Congressman with respect to ethnicity. That’s part of why I supported him (yes, with a $1,000 contribution).
“But he said "something clicked" in the late 1990s that changed the community's mindset. Nowadays, the community is a wealthy network with a sometimes unique way of delivering support for its own candidates.” – After I was interviewed I reflected on my quote in the original Roll Call article. What changed? The second generation is growing into middle age and taking the lead in politics. Young people who grew up in this country and understand the norms of American society are driving the train. For example, the poll from the mid-1990s that DCCyclone referenced was commissioned by Aneesh Chopra. Yes, the same Aneesh Chopra who is currently President Obama’s Chief Technology Officer!
“We’re cheap” – Does any Desi seriously question this? Really? Let me leave you one last example. When I won in 1990, I was not the only Asian-American to get elected to the Maryland House. I was joined by David Valderramma, a Filipino-American. We were both first-time candidates and we both were assumed to have a very small chance of winning. I had a funnier name (Prabhakar is my middle name), but he had a thicker accent. So why did his community contribute over $40,000 to has campaign as opposed to the $3,500 I got from Desis? His daughter now hold the seat he gave up several years ago, and guess what, she got more money from her community than I did, RUNNING FOR REELECTION AS MAJORITY LEADER!
Sorry Gautam, you’re just dead wrong.
Readers may find the following survey (largest of its kind) helpful, which not only covers Indian Americans in suburban areas, but also compares them to other Asian Americans. I was one of the principal investigators, and must say that the representativeness of the sample is one of the best one can achieve with dispersed populations like Asian Americans.
The bottom line: Indian Americans are one of the most Democrat-leaning Asian American groups, and are among the most likely to vote for Obama. Still, like other Asian Americans, many still have not decided/settled on a party identification. The image of the Republican-heavy Indian American is not even true among doctors, we have found.
Forgot to add the link to the previous post: here it is
http://www.naasurvey.com/
The 2008 National Asian American Survey is the most comprehensive survey to date of Asian Americans’ civic and political life in the United States, with 5159 interviews conducted over two months in 2008 in eight languages (English, Cantonese, Mandarin, Korean, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Japanese, and Hindi) and with large numbers of respondents from the six largest Asian national-origin groups (Asian Indians, Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese).
Quite a few prominent Indian-Americans and Americans are supporting a terrorist group called the Communist Party of India (Maoist) in India. Such supporters seem to be thick as flies in Ivy League institutions like Columbia. It would be good to get some insight into their motivations and whether their support includes any funding for the Maoists.
A partial list of such supporters can be found here:
http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/india-demand-a-stop-to-the-indian-governments-assault-on-the-cpi-maoist-and-adivasis-people/