Introduction
Since prehistoric times, the mobility of human communities has been a defining characteristic that has enabled not only their settlement across different geographical regions, but also the circulation of goods, ideas, and information among diverse social formations. One of the key concepts within the theoretical framework that accounts for the ability of human groups to move across different regions of the planet is that of diaspora, a notion that has acquired particular relevance in modernity.
This concept is paradoxical. On the one hand, diaspora, as a term, was originally coined in Antiquity as a tool to define members of Greek poleis who founded colonies throughout the Mediterranean and Adriatic Seas. It was later adopted to refer to communities that experienced displacement against their will. However, the concept underwent a process of reconceptualization. With the expansion of globalization dynamics during the 1980s, the term began to provide a theoretical framework for understanding population movements intensified by technological advances in areas such as transportation, telecommunications, and the new forms of labor that emerged as a consequence.
In this regard, Kevin Kenny (2013) argues:
“Problems arise when diaspora is defined too rigidly, but also when its meaning is left open. Diaspora is best approached not as a social entity that can be measured, but as an idea that helps explain the world created by migration” (p. 2).
In his work, the author refers to the conceptual density of the term diaspora, based on a series of premises that do not necessarily apply to every case study. For instance, the involuntary nature of migration does not constitute an exclusive criterion for considering an emigrant community as diasporic. However, reviewing the methodology applied to the characterization of each diaspora is not the objective of this paper; rather, we seek to recover this complexity in order to characterize a diasporic network that will constitute our case study.
Therefore, this paper examines the Indian diaspora in the United States, considering the concept valid due to the following factors:
- The changing nature of its relationships with the Republic of India, the country of origin, and the United States, the host country.
- The role played by different companies and institutions in promoting transnational movements.
- The economic importance of remittances sent by Indians residing in North America, as well as the differences that can be observed in comparison with other Indian communities living abroad.
- The integration of Indians into American society throughout the last decades.
Formation of the Diaspora before Independence
Following the emergence of Islam in the 7th century CE, South Asia experienced, in the words of Manuel Gonzalo (2023), the transformation of the Indian Ocean into a meeting point among different communities. This circumstance facilitated the circulation of goods, ideas, and people throughout this geographical region. In subsequent centuries, the expansion of British rule across approximately one third of the world’s territory generated new dynamics of interconnection and mobility among human communities.
This brief historical overview is important to understand the formation of Indian migrant communities in different regions of the world prior to the beginning of the political struggle for the independence of the Asian nation, for two main reasons. First, it demonstrates that the settlement of Indians across different historical periods was a phenomenon that preceded British colonial rule. Second, it allows us to understand the terminological distinction emphasized by several authors (Bhatia, 2014; Dubey, 2011) between People of Indian Origin (PIO) and Non-Resident Indian (NRI).
During the prolonged process of Indian independence, the political party known as the Indian National Congress (INC) played a leading role. However, Gonzalo (2023) demonstrates that within this political organization coexisted the perspectives of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, whose views differed on several issues.
In this sense, Dubey (2011) argues that, regarding communities of Indian origin established across different parts of the world, the two leaders of Indian independence maintained opposing perspectives. On the one hand, Gandhi—who had worked as a lawyer representing these communities in South Africa—was concerned about their situation and envisioned an independent India as a relevant actor capable of protecting their interests. At the same time, he requested their support in order to provide greater visibility to the independence movement in their countries of residence.
On the other hand, Nehru, in a document entitled A Foreign Policy for India, considered these communities collaborators of the British colonial project, emphasizing the need for cooperation with the native populations of the territories where they had settled. Nevertheless, out of consideration for Gandhi, Nehru addressed a letter in the 1930s to the Indian community residing in South Africa, stating that, as soon as material conditions allowed it, India would protect them and provide them with shelter (Dubey, 2011).
These political disagreements allow us to observe the different approaches that successive governments in independent India would adopt regarding emigrant communities.
The Indian Diaspora in the United States: Between Independence and 2001
This section focuses on the study of Indian emigrant communities, particularly those groups that migrated following the independence of India in 1947. Undoubtedly, one factor that appears to have influenced population movements is the precarious condition of the newly founded nation after securing liberation from British rule. Furthermore, the Partition of India and Pakistan—whereby parts of the former British Raj were carved out to form a republic for Muslim inhabitants (Metcalf & Metcalf, 2003)—initiated a centrifugal trend in the region, which risked replication elsewhere as ethnic, linguistic, and religious differences between communities became increasingly politicized.
The aforementioned context prompts an inquiry into a question sparsely addressed by scholars in the field: How did the Partition of India impact the collective imaginary of those communities that had emigrated during British rule? Would Muslims of Gujarati origin orient their national identity toward the modern Republic of India or toward its Pakistani counterpart? Carolina Mera (2010) insightfully posits an affective bond between emigrants and their homeland. It would be worthwhile, in future research, to examine the impact of political dynamics in emigrants' places of origin and their ensuing repercussions on diaspora sentiments.
The political dynamics generated by Partition, compounded by the nation’s economic instability after nearly two centuries of British colonization, shaped the fledgling state’s relationship with its diaspora, beyond the questions raised above. Within the Indian National Congress (INC), following Gandhi’s assassination in early 1948, Jawaharlal Nehru assumed political leadership as Prime Minister. Influenced by socialist ideals and serving as a leader of the INC’s left wing, Nehru conceived economic development as the primary solution to the latent threats of balkanization (Gonzalo, 2023; Metcalf & Metcalf, 2003).
Accordingly, the Nehru administration prioritized industrial and technological development to achieve economic progress and raise living standards. Within the first five years of his tenure, inspired by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the United States, institutions known as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) were established to meet the needs of industry and the research and development (R&D) sector by training highly skilled personnel (Gonzalo, 2023).
Paradoxically, the training of these professionals ultimately fueled waves of Indian emigration to the United States during the Cold War era, facilitated by the repeal of entry bans targeting South Asians. U.S. realpolitik during this historical juncture highlighted the need to attract skilled personnel in science, technology, and medicine to ensure American victory in the Space Race and bolster Medicare domestically (Prashad, 2012).
As a result of these dynamics, Indians emerged as the third-largest Asian community in the United States, behind only the Chinese and Filipinos (Gonzalo, 2023). Immigrants arriving after 1965 encountered a nation requiring their expertise and offering legal equality, largely secured by the political struggles of the Civil Rights Movement. These migratory cohorts frequently attained high socioeconomic status, leading to the perception of Indian Americans as a "model minority" in the United States (Bhatia, 2007; Prashad, 2012). In this regard, Sunil Bhatia’s (2007) ethnographic interview research is particularly compelling, as it seeks to reconstruct the worldview of immigrants who arrived after 1965.
The majority of Bhatia's interviews reveal that migrants arrived in the United States pursuing employment opportunities and socioeconomic advancement. Furthermore, respondents did not attribute their career progression to affirmative action, but rather to their academic background—noting that their IIT training facilitated seamless integration into professional and academic environments. Moreover, interviewees perceived few significant differences between themselves and their American peers, though they cited subtle forms of discrimination, such as being urged to undergo accent modification to sound more North American (Bhatia, 2007).
Up to this point, race and religion were not primary categories defining a stark division between Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) and the host society. Indeed, Bhatia (2007, 2014) contends that these individuals integrated smoothly into both the workforce—often rising to executive positions such as CEO of major corporations like Google—and suburban neighborhoods, sharing geographic spaces with middle- and upper-middle-class Americans.
This process of successful socioeconomic integration coincided with a fundamental shift in India's diaspora policy. Facing an economic crisis that necessitated a structural adjustment program, India's political leadership turned toward its prosperous overseas communities to generate remittances and foreign investment, recognizing their strategic potential to secure critical capital (Dubey, 2011).
Continuity and Change in the Indian Diaspora Post-2001
In September 2001, a series of terrorist attacks occurred on U.S. soil—the first since Pearl Harbor and the first foreign attack on the continental United States in its history.
The hijacked aircraft did not merely strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; the fallout from these attacks perpetrated by Al-Qaeda-aligned fundamentalists inadvertently shattered the daily lives of South Asian migrants residing in the United States. Prashad (2012) underscores the paradox of persecuting South Asian and Middle Eastern immigrants by holding them responsible for attacks executed by individuals of Saudi and Egyptian origin who had spent most of their lives in Europe, save for a brief period in Afghanistan. Ironically, this "model minority" was racialized nearly four decades after the demise of the Jim Crow laws that had institutionalized racial segregation.
Prashad (2012) and Bhatia (2014) document numerous instances of violence against Indians and South Asians mistaken for Islamic fundamentalists. Members of the Sikh community bore the brunt of this wave of panic and violence due to their turbans (dastār) and the architectural similarities between their places of worship (gurdwaras) and mosques.
Among the events highlighted by these authors were an attack on a New York City taxi driver whose passenger explicitly voiced hatred for him and his turban; the murder of a Texas shopkeeper by an assailant claiming to defend America; and vandalism against gurdwaras. Additionally, South Asians faced heightened surveillance and scrutiny at transportation hubs regardless of citizenship status (Bhatia, 2014; Prashad, 2012). Prashad recounts the case of a Bangladeshi high school student who was detained and ultimately deported after a portion of her literary essay discussing suicide was misconstrued as a plot to carry out a suicide bombing at her school, profoundly disrupting her life (Prashad, 2012). According to Prashad, in the single week following the September 11 attacks, 645 acts of violence against individuals perceived to be "Arab" were reported.
Bhatia (2014) argues that following the terrorist attacks, South Asians living in middle- and upper-middle-class suburbs experienced a erosion of their local social networks. Interviewees reported that American neighbors and colleagues with whom they had maintained friendly relations began to distance themselves.
In response, these communities actively organized through various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to distinguish themselves from the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks in the eyes of the host society. Prashad (2012) highlights entities such as the South Asian Students Association, South Asian American Leaders for Tomorrow, and South Asians Against Police Brutality and Racism as prime examples of collective mobilization designed to advocate for community interests and civil rights.
Alongside collective organizing, scholars note individual strategies of self-preservation. To overtly demonstrate loyalty to the United States, many individuals displayed American flags and patriotic paraphernalia at their businesses and residences or adopted Americanized names—such as "Pradip 'Max' Kothari" (Prashad, 2012, p. 17). Through these actions, the Indian diaspora sought to reaffirm its place in American society during a period of overt hostility.
Despite growing animosity toward members of the diaspora within the United States, ties with India demonstrated remarkable continuity and strength. As previously noted, the foreign-exchange-deficient Indian state actively cultivated relationships with its overseas communities, particularly the most affluent. According to Gonzalo (2023), India became the world’s leading recipient of remittances. Similarly, Mukherjee (2017) conceptualizes remittances not merely as capital flows sent to the homeland, but as a mechanism for maintaining symbolic and cultural connections.
In this context, Dubey (2011) highlights specific economic and political measures enacted by the Indian government toward its diaspora. Notable among these is the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas, an annual convention held every January 9 since 2003—commemorating Gandhi’s return from South Africa—where delegates convene to address diaspora-related policy issues. The event also features the conferred Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Award to recognize outstanding contributions by NRIs and Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs). Furthermore, new legislative frameworks granted diaspora members preferred investment rates and administrative incentives in the Indian economy (Dubey, 2011).
Conclusion
The preceding analysis outlines the evolving relationship between the Indian diaspora, its homeland, and its host country, the United States. Following events beyond their control, South Asian communities experienced racialization, heightened hostility, and a partial breakdown of local social networks. Nevertheless, a community once lauded as a "model minority" in the post-1965 era utilized diverse individual and collective mechanisms to maintain its standing within American society.
In response to the wave of post-9/11 hostility, migrant groups reconfigured their position in the United States through civic engagement, NGO formation, and public expressions of national loyalty.
Concurrently, relations with the Republic of India transformed as the socioeconomic standing of the U.S.-based diaspora expanded, enabling the home country to leverage diaspora capital through remittances and foreign direct investment to support its developing economy. However, national identity and political processes remain dynamic and fluid. At times, Indian immigrants coalesced under a broader South Asian identity alongside other regional groups for collective defense; at other times, a distinct sense of Indianness served as the primary bridge for economic and cultural engagement with the homeland.
In summary, a paradoxical dynamic emerged: ties with the host country faced unprecedented strain while relations with the home country strengthened through globalization, investment, and remittance flows. The trajectory of the Indian diaspora illustrates the dynamic nature of transnational communities and highlights how diaspora identity is continually negotiated alongside broader political and economic shifts.
References
Bhatia, S. (2007). American karma: Race, culture, and identity in the Indian diaspora. New York University Press.
Bhatia, S. (2014). Finding refuge in culture: Race, place, and identity in the Indian diaspora. In O. P. Dwivedi (Ed.), Tracing the new Indian diaspora (pp. 137–158). Editions Rodopi.
Dubey, A. (2011). India and the Indian diaspora. In D. Scott (Ed.), Handbook of India’s international relations (pp. 254–264). Routledge.
Gonzalo, M. (2023). India from Latin America: Peripherisation, statebuilding and demand-led growth. Routledge.
Kenny, K. (2013). Diaspora: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Mera, C. (2010). El concepto de diáspora en los estudios migratorios: Reflexiones sobre el caso de las comunidades y movilidades coreanas en el mundo actual. Revista de Historia, (12), 11–26.
Metcalf, B. D., & Metcalf, T. R. (2003). Historia de la India. Cambridge University Press.
Mukherjee, A. (2017). Gulf migration and the flows of social remittances: A study of Barkas in Hyderabad. Sociological Bulletin, 66(1), 91–103.
Prashad, V. (2012). Uncle Swami: South Asians in America today. The New Press.
