The global Indian community is one of the largest diaspora populations in the world. With well over 35 million people of the Tri-colour’s descent spread across the Gulf, Europe, Africa, and North America. The existence of a global Indian community is common in many metropolitan parts of the world. With this presence comes the weaving in of the global Indian identity into the socio-political fabric of the host country.
As the lives of global Indians continue to intertwine with the political structure of the nations that host them, so does their participation in said politics. This participation does not signal permanent disassociation with the politics of their host country. In fact, many first-generation immigrants and NRIs maintain a strong political identity between both countries.
However, the political ideologies that are maintained are often contradictory to the core. Many among the global Indian community tend to have left-leaning political views; these views are, however, often contradictory to the ones they express in their home country, where more often than not they signal pro-conservative. In this article, we will explore this paradox, why it occurs, and the significant repercussions it carries.
The Western Liberal Indian
For most of the global Indian community in the West, residence is one of two reasons. Employment or education, and often the latter eventually leads to the former. What this invariably means is that the vast majority of global Indians in North America and Western Europe are long-term if not permanent residents.
The major implication of this is that the local politics of their host countries aren’t just a theatre for the expression of their moral, philosophical, or socio-economic thought but something that has a direct bearing on the state and trajectory of their livelihoods. Thus, it stands to reason that where Indian immigrants in the West can affect the policies and politics of those countries, it is with vested interest.
It is a fact that the history of interactions between the West and other ethnicities is fraught with racism, from slavery, indentured servitude, colonialism, and Jim Crow laws. Racism and xenophobia have been ingrained in Western society; this prejudice, of course, has always faced strong opposition from liberals and those with left-leaning views. As such, many global Indians in the West naturally align with liberal ideology as the opposite end of the political aisle is more often than not at odds with their very presence in the West.
As such, for the most part, such an individual is not intrinsically liberal (if there exists such a thing). In fact, to call them liberal or left-leaning might not even be accurate, as those viewpoints and the school of thought that governs those viewpoints are not ones they believe in. However, they will vote for candidates who represent those values, as those candidates are the ones who believe in their personhood.
This is best exemplified across the United States and Great Britain, where there has been a rise in far-right popularity and anti-Indian sentiment. A sentiment that, by virtue of racism, is extended to all South Asians. For most immigrants from South Asia who can vote, the liberal candidate becomes a necessary tool of self-preservation even if they do not believe in all that the candidate represents.
The Hindutva Emigrant
Most of the global Indian community, particularly those preceding Gen Z, are conservative in both belief and political ideology. This manifests in a variety of ways, but most disturbingly in the manner of discrimination that is not too dissimilar to that prevalent back home. Casteism, racism, and Islamophobia all show up wherever a significant portion of the Indian population settles. This is not anecdotal, as several bodies in Canada have moved to ban caste based discrimination (A foreign country has had to ban a system of hierarchical oppression not native to it due to its prevalence within the community).
These right-leaning and conservative views are maintained by the diaspora as they are away from their country. This is further aided by the fact that the Hindutva political arm has gained more traction in recent years, riding the ultra-nationalist wave that is propagated by the current BJP government. Many in the diaspora who subscribe to this belief feel represented by the populist politics of their native India. Additionally, the nationalist language becomes conflated with patriotism, and many in the global Indian community who are removed from their homeland feel a necessity to be patriotic.
As such, a millennial Indian migrant holding an American citizenship living in San Francisco can vote democrat as well as attend a Modi rally in the space of a week without a feeling of conflict. Primarily because within them, there is no conflict.
The Dangers of the “Double Standard”
This double standard, if we may call it that, is not without dangerous repercussions. The most glaringly obvious one is that it fosters exclusionary politics, especially at home. Many of the people abroad, especially in high-income households in the West, live what is seen as an aspirational life. Their support and legitimisation of exclusionary and nationalist politics is of great detriment to religious and cultural minorities, both at home and abroad.
Additionally, it signals a sense of false allyship to minorities abroad. For example, it is an accepted reality to many leaders of black thought that popular electoral politics do very little to change the status quo if not challenged. This was most evident during the Civil Rights Movement, where the very livelihood of African-Americans was at stake, and though racism against the black populace is not at the blatant heights it was at in the 20th century, its presence is still very much felt by black communities.
Consequently, when people who claim or seem to vote as allies but are not willing to act as allies in their demand of the political system as long as it does not affect them, this allyship becomes dangerous. As Malcolm X once hyperbolically lamented, “The white liberal is the worst enemy to America, and the worst enemy to the black man.” Malcolm X did not mean that all white or cultural majorities who vote liberal were hypocritical, but rather wanted their reason for voting liberal to be interrogated.
Conclusion
This article is not an assault on the morals of the global Indians in the diaspora (although a question of morality should arise when exclusionary politics are involved). Rather, it aims to answer the paradox that is oftentimes self-evident. Furthermore, it does not ascertain that people whose lived experiences are discussed in this article are evil; that would be an oversimplification. But it does aim to interrogate the reasoning and highlight the many ramifications that exist when these questions are not asked.
