University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Political incorporation and transnationalism: a study of South Asian immigrants in the United States

(USC Thesis Other)

Political incorporation and transnationalism: a study of South Asian immigrants in the United States

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

POLITICAL INCORPORATION AND TRANSNATIONALISM:
A STUDY OF SOUTH ASIAN IMMIGRANTS IN THE UNITED STATES

by

Sangay K. Mishra

______________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(POLITICAL SCIENCE)

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Sangay Mishra

ii
Acknowledgements

I want to thank my advisors Ann Crigler, Janelle Wong, and Juliet Musso for their
valuable support in developing this dissertation project. Ann Crigler has been a great
source of support and encouragement from the very beginning of my graduate work at
USC. She constantly encouraged me to engage with the broader questions and challenged
me to theorize creatively from the existing empirical material. Professor Crigler was
always willing to sit down or pick up the phone to have long conversations about this
project.
Janelle Wong has been an incredible source of support and encouragement all
through graduate school. She provided great inputs in conceptualizing and developing
this project and made me appreciate the value and uniqueness of this project. Janelle
helped me to find a structure and coherence for this project. I thank her for being always
available through this daunting process. I thank Juliet Musso for her support and input
into the project. Her comments have been very helpful in clarifying and further
developing my arguments.
I thank Michael Preston, Howard Gillman, Mark Kann, Alison Renteln, Jeb
Barnes, and Ricardo Ramirez for their contributions in shaping my research skills and
also for their support during graduate school. Judith Grant and Marita Sturken also helped
in broadening my intellectual horizon and developing an interdisciplinary sensibility. I
thank Karthick Ramakrishnan for his comments on one of the chapters and also for his
constant support. My thanks to Jody Battles, Veronica Pete, Alex Venegas, and Randa
Issa of Political Science department and graduate school at USC for their help at different
stages of this process.
iii
Family, friends, and well wishers in India and the United States have made this
journey more meaningful. I want to thank my parents, Rangnath Mishra and Chandrakali
Devi, who always encouraged me to do well. Their love and affection have been a source
of strength. My family in Bihar has been a source of constant support and
encouragement. My in-laws, Bidyut and Manoranjan Mohanty, have provided me great
emotional and intellectual support and their encouragements have been a big part of this
journey. The family in Los Angeles- Berkeley Sanjay, Brinda Vasisht, Adya, and Raeva
– has been most closely involved with the trials and tribulations of graduate school. They
provided much needed space and comforts outside USC and remain a constant source of
encouragement and affection. Rickie, Mita, and Minnie Patnaik at Los Angeles have also
been a part of our lives in this period.
I want to thank my friends in India for providing long distance warmth and
encouragement. Amit Bhattacharya, Kishore Jha, Honey Oberoi, Yogender Dutt, Subhash
Gatade, Shiv Shankar Prashad. Vipin Negi, Amiti Sen, Ravi Sinha, Anjali Sinha, Ritu
Mishra, Aditya Nigam, Nivedita Menon, Pratiksha Baxi, Janaki Abraham, Shahana
Bhattacharya, Suman Bisht, and Kumar Rohit have been a part of this journey in one way
or the other. Thanks to my teachers from Psychology days at Delhi University- late Ajit
Pal and Professor Ashok Nagpal- who taught me critical thinking. I also want to thank
Uma and Anand Chakravarti for their concern and encouragement.
Friends at USC have been fellow travelers and their friendship and support have
made this journey easier. I thank Archana Agarwal, Sangha Padhy, Charles Lee, Seda
Unsar, Jillian Medeiros, Art Auerbach, Raechelle Mascarenhas, Lata Murti, and Bhavna
Devani for their friendship and support. I also want to thank Ashok Prasad and Ramaa
iv
Vasudevan for being a part of our lives from Boston, New York, and now Fort Collins.
Madhvi Zutsi, N. Jacob, Jayeeta Sharma, and Daniel Bender have been a great source of
support and friendship.
Friends and colleagues at Drew University have been quick to provide warmth
and support and made dissertation writing less daunting while away from the familiar
environment of graduate school. I want to thank Deb Leibowitz for her support and for
pointing me to resources and people who helped transcribe my research interviews. I
want to thank Carlos, Tiffany, Andrea, and Tom for their friendship and to the entire
political science department at Drew for being so welcoming. I also want to thank
Richard Greenwald for providing me the opportunity to teach while I was working on my
dissertation.
Very special thanks to friends and comrades of South Asia Solidarity Initiative in
New York City and New Jersey. All of you are a part of our attempts to bring the realms
of understanding and engagement closer.
My partner, Jinee Lokaneeta, has also been a fellow traveler in graduate school
and she has not only been a life companion but also a true mentor. Jinee encouraged me
to think about joining graduate school and she provided great emotional strength and
support at each stage of the process. She remains a great believer in my abilities and
never tires of pointing to my strengths.
This dissertation would not have been possible without the active support of
friends who provided initial contacts in the South Asian community for research
interviews both in Los Angeles and New York. I thank Robin Khundkar, Nishanth Balaji,
Berkeley Sanjay, Biju Mathew, and Saurav Sen for pointing me to people who were
v
willing to become a part of this study. I also express my heartfelt thanks to all those who
took time out from their busy lives to sit down and go through the lengthy interview
process for this dissertation. The participants in this research have shown incredible
generosity by not only taking time out but welcoming me to their houses and treating me
to good food.

vi
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ii

List of Tables vii

Abstract viii

Chapter I
Introduction 1

Chapter II
Racial order and Belonging: South Asians in Pre and Post- 9/11 U.S. 48

Chapter III
New Immigrants: Limits and Boundaries of Political Engagement 93

Chapter IV
Transnational Attachments and Political Participation in the United States: 134
An Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Data

Chapter V
The Possibilities and Limits of Transnational Political Engagement 179

Chapter VI
Conclusion 208

Bibliography 221

Appendix 233

vii
List of Tables
Table 1.1: The Number of South Asian Immigrants in the United States and
Their Rate of Growth 29

Table 1.2: Proportion of Foreign Born and Naturalized Citizens among South
Asian Immigrants 30

Table 1.3: Educational Attainment of South Asian Americans (25 Years and Over) 33
Table 1.4: Language Spoken at Home and Ability to Speak English 33

Table 1.5: Occupational Distribution among South Asians (16 Years and Over) 34
Table 1.6: Interviewees and their Country of Origin 44
Table 2.1: History of the classification of the Asian Indians by the Census Bureau 54

Table 2.2: Discrimination among Different Ethnic Groups in the Post-9/11 period 67

Table 3.1: Percentage Distribution of Political Participation by Ethnic Groups 101

Table 3.2: Percentage Distribution of Political Participation by Ethnic Groups
Among Those Eligible for Registration and Voting 101

Table 3.3: Indian Americans who Contested for State and Federal Level Offices
and Racial Composition of their Districts 110

Table 4.1: Attachment to the Country of Origin 174

Table 4.2: Political Participation in the U.S. 174

Table 4.3: Explaining Political Participation in the U.S. (Political Activities other
than Voting) 175

Table 4.4: Explaining Citizenship (with interaction of South Asian and
Transnational attachments) 176

Table 4.5: Explaining Political Participation in the U.S. (Political Activities
Other than Voting) 177

Table 4.6: Explaining Citizenship (with Interaction of South Asian and
Discrimination) 178
viii
Abstract

This dissertation studies the political incorporation process of South Asian
immigrants. The dominant paradigms of immigrant and minority political incorporation
have been shaped by the experiences of European immigrants and African Americans at
different points of U.S. history. The extensive study of these groups led to the
development of two contrasting models of political incorporation: the pluralist model and
the minority group model. These two models have greatly influenced the subsequent
studies of immigrant and minority political incorporation.
This study questions both models of political incorporation and argues that the
centrality accorded to ethnic and/or racial mobilization by these two models fail to
explain the political incorporation trajectory of groups such as South Asians. Neither the
ethnic mobilization of the kind experienced by European immigrants nor the grassroots
mobilization undertaken by African Americans on the basis of a common racial identity
explains the political incorporation experiences of South Asian immigrants. This study
argues that internal distinctions such as class, religion, and country of origin play
significant roles in shaping the political participation and mobilization patterns among
South Asians. The new model of political incorporation requires going beyond the
frameworks which exclusively emphasize ethnic and /or racial mobilization at the cost of
including internal distinctions into the analysis. This dissertation further argues that
political incorporation of South Asians relies primarily on a selective elite mobilization
which is largely bereft of racial and ethnic identities based mass mobilizations prescribed
by both the dominant models.
ix
Finally, the study moves beyond existing models of political incorporation by
giving centrality to transnational attachments in analyzing the political incorporation
patterns and points to the possible transnational dimensions of citizenship among
immigrant communities.

1

Chapter I
Introduction
The United States is currently undergoing one of the largest waves of immigration
in its history. Since the liberalization of immigration policy in 1965, the number of first-
generation immigrants living in the United States has more than tripled, from about 10
million in 1970 to about 32 million, more than 11 percent of the U.S. population
(U.S. Census Bureau 2001). First generation immigrants now account for more than one
in every ten residents in the United States and more than one out of every five residents
living in the United States is an immigrant or child of an immigrant (Ramakrishnan
2005). Given a significant increase in the size of foreign born population along with an
accompanying rise in the number of second generation immigrants, the issue of
immigrant social and political inclusion has become critically important not only for new
immigrants but also for the functioning of American democratic institutions.
Political incorporation of minority and immigrant groups has been a longstanding
issue of scholarly investigation. There are two major approaches to political incorporation
which grew out of studies on different immigrant and minority groups: the pluralist or
assimilationist model and the minority group model. Traditionally, the literature on
immigrant political inclusion was shaped by the experiences of European white ethnics
during the early to mid twentieth century. The assimilation framework in sociology and
pluralist incorporation framework in political science emerged out of European ethnic
experience. The pluralist framework emphasized the openness of the political system for
newcomers. Analyzing the political incorporation trajectory of European white
2
immigrants, the pluralist model argued that these immigrants were able to enter into the
political process through ethnic mobilization. Furthermore, with passage of time and
advancement in economic and educational status, European ethnics were able to blend
into the mainstream political process (Dahl 1961). The other significant model of
political incorporation research, which presents a contrasting view of minority and
immigrant political incorporation, has emerged out of political incorporation experiences
of African Americans. The minority group political incorporation model, which emerged
in the post-civil rights movement period, emphasized the difficulties for and resistance to
minority political inclusion. These two contrasting frameworks emerged out of the
distinct political incorporation experiences of European white ethnics and African
Americans and they represent the dominant frameworks most often used to understand
contemporary non-white immigrants as well.
The study of contemporary non-white immigrants is relatively new and scholarly
attention to political incorporation of Latino, Asian, and Caribbean immigrants has been
fairly recent. This dissertation is a part of the recent research efforts to study political
and social incorporation of contemporary non-white immigrants who came to the U.S.
after the immigration reform introduced by the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965. The pattern of
immigration changed fundamentally after the 1965 immigration reform. European
immigrants have given way to immigrants from Latin America, Asia, and the Caribbean.
The majority of first generation immigrants in the United States today trace their origins
to countries outside of Europe. In 1900, about 86 percent of the foreign born population
came from Europe whereas that proportion is a mere 15 percent now. The contrast is
evident in the number of immigrants from Asia and Latin America who now constitute 26
3
percent and 51 percent of first generation immigrant population respectively
(Ramakrishnan 2005, 30). The Asian American population has grown from 7 million in
1990 to more than 10 million in 2000 and more than 60 percent of them are immigrants.
Similarly, the U.S. Latino population has grown from 22 million in 1990 to more than 35
million in 2000 with 40 percent of them being immigrants (Wong 2006, 4).
As the data discussed above suggest, Asian Americans are the fastest growing
immigrant community in the U.S. and the proportion of first generation immigrants is
much higher among Asian Americans compared to Latinos. Because of their
demographic characteristics- the highest proportion of foreign born or first generation
immigrants-Asian Americans are an important group to study the issue of political
incorporation. This dissertation studies the political incorporation of one segment of
Asian Americans namely the South Asian immigrants, a fast growing immigrant group
within the broader racial category of Asian American. Within South Asians, the growth
rate of Asian Indians- the largest group among South Asians- between 1990 and 2000
Census was 105. 87 percent, the highest among Asian American groups. I focus on South
Asian immigrants to study political incorporation because the characteristics of the group
pose important challenges to the dominant models of immigrant political incorporation. A
large section of South Asian immigrants belong to higher income and educational
echelons, hence, presenting an interesting combination of high socioeconomic status and
non-white racial status for studying political incorporation. South Asian immigrants are
also extremely diverse in terms of their socioeconomic background, religion, and
language and they maintain high levels of social, economic and political contact with
their country of origin. I argue that the existing models of political incorporation fail to
4
address adequately the complex interplay of race, class, religion, and transnationalism
which shape the political incorporation process of South Asian immigrants.
The central question this dissertation asks is whether South Asian immigrants
follow either of the two dominant models of political incorporation and their contrasting
predictions about how and to what extent new immigrant groups will become a part of
the political process. To answer this broad question, the dissertation analyzes the impact
of race, socioeconomic status, transnational attachment, and religion on political
incorporation of South Asian immigrants. More specific questions which relate to each of
these variables being studied here include: What are the ways in which racial and ethnic
identity impacts the political incorporation of South Asian immigrants? How does
socioeconomic variation among South Asians impact their political incorporation? In
other words, do class distinctions lead to different patterns of political participation
among South Asians? How does religion affect political mobilization among South Asian
immigrants? This question focuses on the ways in which religious distinctions within the
South Asian immigrant community impact political mobilization. Do high levels of
transnational attachments lead to lower levels of South Asian political participation in the
United States? What are the ways in which transnational attachment influences the
political incorporation trajectory of South Asian immigrants? Finally, the dissertation
analyzes the ways in which these transnational attachments shape the way in which
citizenship is viewed and practiced by South Asian immigrants.
The Concept of Political Incorporation
The concept of political incorporation has emerged from broader research on
political participation. More specifically, the concept gained currency from research in
5
the field of urban politics on immigrant and minority political participation (Browning,
Marshall, and Tabb 2003; 1997; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995; Dahl 1961). There
is no widely agreed upon definition of political incorporation and scholars have tended to
use the concept loosely. However, scholarship on political incorporation has most often
referred to Browning, Marshall and Tabb’s definition of the concept. They define
political incorporation as “the extent to which group interests are effectively represented
in policy making.” They elaborate further,
We measure the political incorporation of a group by the extent to which it is
represented in a coalition that dominates city policy making on issues of great
concern to the group……. Political incorporation as a measure thus refers to a
range of possibilities for group presence in city government. At the lowest level, a
group is not represented at all …. At next level there is some representation, but
on a council dominated by a coalition that is resistant to minority interests.
Finally- the strongest form of incorporation –a group has an equal or leading role
in a dominant coalition that is strongly committed to minority interests
(Browning, Marshall, and Tabb 2003, 11).

This definition of political incorporation is framed in the context of minority groups’
participation in city politics. The concept evolved out of the attempts to understand and
analyze African American and Latino participation in city politics. Thus, incorporation in
this context is assessed by the level of political representation and influence over policy
making in city governance. This framework of political incorporation used by Browning,
Marshall, and Tabb does allow for greater operationalization of the concept. Political
incorporation of minority groups in this framework can be concretely assessed through
measures such as registration, voting, descriptive representation, and policy influence.
However, it has been critiqued for emphasizing on elite representation at city council and
other policy making levels. Notwithstanding this critique, their conception of political
incorporation is useful as it refers to different stages in the process of political
6
incorporation including group mobilization, protest, electoral participation,
representation, and policy influence.
Browning, Marshall, and Tabb were studying political incorporation of minority
groups in the post-civil rights movement era when the focus was to go beyond protest
politics and analyze the participation of these groups in the electoral arena and their
representation in decision making bodies. In contrast, the studies on political
incorporation of new immigrants are largely focused on immigrant groups which are
comprised of a significant number of new citizens and noncitizens and who are just
beginning to participate in the political process where electoral participation and
representation may not be their exclusive focus. Scholars studying political incorporation
of these new immigrant groups have therefore tried to broaden the concept by making it
applicable to different settings, particularly to new immigrant groups who may not
necessarily be at the stage of electoral mobilization and group representation through
electoral process. For instance, Reuel Rogers, building on earlier conceptions of political
incorporation, defines it as “the process through which new groups begin to participate in
politics and eventually achieve representation and influence in government” (Rogers
2006, 17). This conception of political incorporation has a broad spectrum of political
outcomes ranging from naturalization, registration, voting, and representation to non-
electoral forms of political participation such as involvement with civic associations,
participation in active forms of mobilization such as protests, and union activities. More
importantly, the political incorporation process is seen here as a learning trajectory for
new immigrant groups. Explaining this learning trajectory, Rogers writes:
7
During the incorporation process, newcomers learn the rules of the game: how to
identify and define themselves, how to frame their policy interests, where to draw
alliances, where to position themselves within the party system, and where their
ideological allegiances lie. Incorporation is, in short, a political learning process
for new groups to American democracy (Rogers 2006, 18).

This conception of political incorporation moves away from more traditional
political incorporation literature that focused on outcome measures such as naturalization,
rates of registration and voting, group representation, and policy benefits (Browning,
Marshall, and Tabb 2003; 1997; Mollenkopf, Olson, and Ross 2001; Ramakrishnan
2005).The focus of political incorporation literature on outcome measures such as voting
and representation has undoubtedly contributed to greater operationalization of the
concept. However, the emphasis on outcome measures has resulted in less focus on the
process of political incorporation. Political incorporation scholars such as Michael Jones-
Correa (1998) and Reuel Rogers (2006) who study new immigrant groups have thus
underlined the importance of studying the process of incorporation along with outcomes
like naturalization, registration, voting, and formal representation. As noted earlier, Reuel
Rogers underlines the importance of considering political incorporation also as a process
of learning and socialization through which new immigrant groups adapt to the political
routines of the U.S. society. According to this perspective, the process of political
incorporation can be analyzed by studying the ways in which groups adjust or negotiate
with the norms of the U.S. politics which, in turn, shape their prospects for participation
and representation. Michael Jones-Correa’s study of political incorporation of Latinos in
New York City emphasizes the importance of the process of political incorporation by
focusing on the ways in which first generation Latino immigrants express hesitation in
becoming naturalized citizens. This hesitation and resulting in-between status contributes
8
to their marginality in the U.S. political system as they negotiate their place between
country of origin and the host country. The focus on the process of political
incorporation is especially productive in studying new immigrant groups because they are
still at the margins of the political system. In other words, exclusive focus on
incorporation outcomes alone fails to understand the dynamic processes through which
new immigrant groups become a part of the political process.
It is important to note here that the conception of political incorporation is an
evolving one and there is no consensus over the precise ways in which concept is
understood and operationalized. Even though the framework and operationalization of the
concept of political incorporation suggested by Browning, Marshall, and Tabb remain
central to any theorization, recent works by the scholars discussed above have tried to
broaden the concept. Reuel Rogers’ rendition of the concept emphasizes the learning
trajectory of immigrant groups through which they undergo the process of political
incorporation. Such conceptions of political incorporation are broader and less easily
open to operationalization than the traditional conception deployed by Browning,
Marshall, and Tabb and others. This dissertation is fully cognizant of the evolving nature
of the concept of political incorporation and has used the concept in a broader sense
which not only includes easily measured indicators such as registration, voting, and
descriptive representation but also encompasses broader meanings of incorporation.
Thus, the study includes the process of acquiring an identity in relation to other groups,
sense of belonging and identification with the nation and the political process, forming of
organizations and alliances, and development of ideological and policy interests. This
9
broader conception of political incorporation thus pays equal attention to both the
outcome and the process dimension of political incorporation.
Models of Political Incorporation
As noted earlier, an overview of scholarship on political incorporation suggests
that there are two dominant models which explain minority and immigrant political
incorporation: the pluralist model, which is also termed by some as assimilation model,
and the minority group model. These two models which emerged out of different
historical experiences suggest contrasting path of political incorporation for immigrant
and minority groups and have become the dominant frames to analyze political
incorporation of new immigrant groups such as Latinos, Asian Americans, and Caribbean
immigrants.
The pluralist model of political incorporation, based on the experiences of
European immigrants, holds that the current non-white immigrants will overcome initial
prejudice and barriers to political incorporation as their European counterparts did.
According to this model, ethnic mobilization will be an important part of the
incorporation trajectory. With the achievement of economic stability, contemporary non-
white immigrants will achieve full political incorporation in a gradual manner without
any radical disruption to the political system. The classic pluralist model therefore
suggests that ethnic identity and mobilization decline in significance with the passage of
time and upward mobility of the groups and immigrants start displaying mainstream
political attitudes and behavior. The political parties and institutions, the model argues,
positively facilitate this process of political incorporation (Dahl 1961; Portes and
Rumbaut 1996; Alba and Nee 1997).
10
Precursors of the pluralist model of political incorporation were early discussions
on immigrant assimilation and ‘Americanization’ campaigns. The classical model of
assimilation was based on the notion that immigrants would gradually adapt to the social,
economic, and cultural ethos of the host society and would do away with the cultural
baggage transported from the country of emigration (Milton 1964). As immigrants
continued on their endeavor of acquiring formal membership in the host society, the
logical culmination was a single nation state citizenship, characterized by a unitary
political cultural core in the dominant position. Robert Park and Ernest W. Burgess of
Chicago School framed the issue of immigrants in the U.S. at the turn of the 20
th
century
as a question of assimilation. Park’s ‘race relations cycle’- with four different stages
termed as contact, conflict, accommodation, and assimilation- was the most influential
paradigm to analyze immigrant incorporation. The emphasis was not on the study of
differences but on the necessity of assimilation. Migrants were viewed as “people who
have abandoned the political allegiance of the old country and are gradually acquiring the
culture of the new” (Park and Burgess1969, 734). A political counterpart of this
assimilation process was the imagery of the political boss who would receive immigrants
when they first got off the ship and recruit them as a part of the city’s political machine
(Handlin 1951). The urban political machine was an Americanizing institution for
European immigrants- the entry of immigrants was made possible by immigration policy
but the machine made them voting citizens (Erie 1988).
Pluralist analysis of minority political incorporation has partly drawn upon this
assimilation framework in sociology. Pluralism has been the dominant perspective in
political science research on U.S. politics since 1950s and it has also been a significant
11
trend in analyzing minority political participation. There are several important features of
the pluralist perspective which get deployed in analyzing minority political participation.
According to this perspective, there are multiple centers of power in society as well as in
politics and thus power is widely dispersed among a variety of groups and institutions.
The availability of resources to a number of groups and multiple access points to the
political system makes it possible for minority groups to enter the system in an
incremental manner (Dahl 1982; Lindblom 1980). In his classical work Who Governs?
Robert Dahl deployed the pluralist framework to explain political incorporation of
European immigrants. Dahl argued that new immigrants take their first step towards
political incorporation by starting to view themselves as part of a cohesive group. He
argued that immigrants from the same country often identify with each other as outsiders
or foreigners in the new nation confronted with similar challenges. These shared feelings
bring them together and provide the basis for a common ethnic group identity.
Incorporation among the European immigrants, Dahl argued, began with the emergence
of ethnic politics and the local political parties played an important role in the
incorporation process of European ethnics. According to this framework, ethnic group
politics was a transitional phase in the incorporation process and as groups achieved
upward economic mobility and political integration, their ethnic loyalties gradually
melted away. For Dahl, ethnic identity and politics was a transitory phenomenon and
European ethnics were able to move gradually beyond ethnic group identity and become
a part of the mainstream society and political process.
Dahl’s pluralist analysis has been criticized for its failure to explain African
Americans’ story of political incorporation- which he bracketed as black exceptionalism
12
in his New Haven study- and for not giving race and skin color due importance in his
model. The fact that contemporary immigrants are primarily non European and non-white
is not addressed adequately in the pluralist model. This points to the limits of the pluralist
framework of political incorporation in understanding the incorporation story of new
immigrants. The critics of the pluralist model argue that race is an important part of the
contemporary immigrants’ experience and these immigrants will not replicate the
experience of European immigrants as far as overcoming racial barriers is concerned
(Pinderhughes 1987; Hero 1992). In addition, institutional resources such as the
supportive role of political parties are not available to new immigrants in the same
manner as they were to European immigrants (Wong 2006).
More recent works on political incorporation of non-white immigrants, following
the broad assimilation paradigm and pluralist framework of Dahl, have continued to
replicate similar conclusions with minor modifications to the pluralist model (Portes and
Rumbaut 1996; Skerry 1993; Portes and Stepick1993; Chavez 1991; Alba and Nee 1997).
Following Dahl’s pluralist prescription of different stages of political mobilization among
European ethnics, Portes and Rumbaut argue that contemporary non-white immigrants-
specifically elaborating on the case of Mexican Americans- have also followed the path
of ethnic mobilization for greater political incorporation. They argue, “ by mobilizing the
collective vote and by electing their own to office , immigrant minorities have learned the
rules of the democratic game and absorbed its value in the process”( Portes and Rumbaut
1996, 139). They predict the political incorporation of Mexican Americans through a path
of ethnic mobilization. Similarly, Min Zhou argues that Asian Americans, similar to
European immigrants, incorporate through building solidarity by living in ethnic enclaves
13
and mobilization on ethnic lines and this path has proven to be effective for Asian
Americans incorporation. The only difference between contemporary Asian Americans
and earlier European immigrants is that ethnic identity, mobilization, and enclaves are
more enduring features than they were for European immigrants (Zhou 2004).
In their work based on the broad principles of the pluralist framework to analyze
social and political inclusion of contemporary immigrants, Richard Alba and Victor Nee
discuss the distinctions and similarities between European immigrants and contemporary
non-white immigrants in their work on social and political inclusion of contemporary
immigrants. They point out that racial perception of most disparaged European ethnic
groups gradually shifted and Irish and other groups who “initially struggled to put some
distance between themselves and African Americans,” were eventually able to overcome
the perceived distinctiveness from other whites once they climbed the socioeconomic
ladder and moved into mixed neighborhoods (Alba and Nee 1997, 845-46). Alba and Nee
see no reason why a large section of contemporary non-white immigrants should not be
able to achieve the kind of assimilation which European immigrants achieved earlier.
They particularly refer to Asian and light skinned Latinos to make the argument that
these new immigrants will broadly follow the same path of assimilation and political
incorporation as the European immigrants. Discussing racial barriers to social and
political incorporation of new immigrants, they argue that often dark skin color has been
suggested as a possible barrier to social and political incorporation; however, it is not the
dark skin color per se but the similarity and connections to the African American group
which raises the most difficult racist barriers. There is a striking closeness between
Dahl’s analysis of white ethnic incorporation where he bracketed African American
14
experience as exceptional and Alba and Nee’s argument that racial barrier to
incorporation is more true for groups which appear to be connected to African Americans
than for non-whites per se. For both Dahl and Alba and Nee, a large majority of
contemporary nonwhite immigrants are destined to adopt the path of political
incorporation which European immigrants followed earlier.
The pluralist model views traditional political institutions like political parties as
important agents in the political incorporation of immigrants. Dahl argued that party
organizations and elected officials courted immigrants as ethnic constituencies and
brought them into the political system. Political parties also fielded ethnic candidates for
public offices to give the immigrants symbolic recognition and an opportunity at
descriptive political representation. The pluralist model paints a charitable picture of
political parties and presumes that competitive electoral politics will generally push
political parties towards new immigrant groups and parties will play an important role in
bringing these groups into the political process (Dahl 1961).
The pluralist model of political incorporation, because of its moorings in classical
assimilation literature, largely views transnational ties as negative influence on political
and social incorporation of immigrants in the United States. The pluralist model does not
engage with the impact of transnational attachments on immigrant political incorporation
beyond rejecting them as hindrance to immigrant political participation and
incorporation. However, recent scholarship on new immigrant groups suggest that
immigrants maintain strong and continued transnational attachments and these
attachments are not only confined to family connections but include broader social and
political realms as well(Jones-Correa 1998; Rogers 2006; Levitt 2001).
15
The other dominant model which has been quite influential in the political
incorporation literature is broadly termed as the minority group model. In its classical
form, this model takes inspiration from the experiences of the civil rights movement and
it illustrates the difficulties and resistance faced by African Americans as the
paradigmatic case of obstacle to minority political incorporation. Since the majority of
contemporary newcomers to the United States are non-whites, scholars following the
minority group incorporation paradigm argued and predicted that their path to political
incorporation also will be slow, incomplete, and greatly influenced by American racism.
These scholars have used the African American experience to develop an alternative
model to pluralism in order to understand the relative difficulties and uncertainties of the
political incorporation of non-white immigrants (Hero 1992; Browning et al. 1997;
Takaki 1989; Kim 2001; Tate 1994; Pinderhughes 1987). Different variants of the
minority group model have predicted that these non-white groups will also follow the
path adopted by African Americans in their attempt to full political incorporation:
grassroots mobilization, demand for resource redistribution and political reform, and
heavy reliance on group identity or linked fate (Hero 1992; Browning et al. 1997).
In one of the important studies which supported the framework of minority group
model, Diane Pinderhughes analyzed the experience of African Americans in Chicago to
argue that African Americans’ path to political incorporation is very different from white
ethnics such as Italians and Poles. She argued that black political and social incorporation
is not amenable to incremental changes and gradual progress suggested by the pluralist
model. Analyzing the labor and housing market in Chicago alongside political
participation trends, she argued that blacks faced more extensive and enduring barriers in
16
comparison to Italian and Polish ethnic immigrants in Chicago. Foregrounding race as an
analytical tool to understand black political incorporation, she argued:
Because race is a highly evocative American social characteristic that provokes
deep political and economic divisions, it is too broad and controversial a matter to
be the subject of meaningful trading, or bargaining. It does not, in short, fit a
pluralist analytical framework. When political institutions handle racial issues,
conventional rules go awry, individuals react irrationally… (Pinderhughes 1987,
261).

The minority group model suggests that prominence of race in African American
economic and social life has led to a political orientation among the black community
where the primary imperative in politics is to advance the political interest of African
Americans as a racial group (Barker 1988; Pinderhughes 1987; Walters 1988). African
American political behavior is shaped powerfully by their perception of group interest-
often termed as linked fate- and what is perceived as good for the group as a whole
continues to play a dominant role in shaping African American partisanship and political
choice (Dawson 1994).
Rodney Hero (1992), in his study of Latino political incorporation, has also
followed the broad parameters of minority group model. He reinforced many of the
insights from the research on African American political incorporation and extended
them to Latino immigrants in a compelling manner. Critiquing pluralist model of political
incorporation, Hero argues that minority groups are incorporating in a system which can
be termed as two-tiered form of pluralism. This form of pluralism allows full
incorporation for whites but only marginal inclusion for Latinos, African Americans, and
other minority groups. Minorities face unique racial barriers and inequalities that make it
17
difficult for them to become a part of the political process. Describing the implications of
two tiered pluralism for Latinos and other minorities, Hero argues:
… Certain basic equalities and rights apply to all Americans, but because of the
distinctive historical experiences and structural features of some groups, and
because cultural or racial deficiencies are alleged to exist, equality is largely
formal or procedural, not substantive. Significant political and social
achievements are the exception, not the rule, for Latinos and other minorities…..
Part of what two tiered pluralism means is that there is a marginal inclusion of
minorities in most or all facets of the political process (Hero 1992, 190).

The effort on the part of minority groups to wield political influence, Hero
argues, is consequently seen as taking the form of redistribution and asking for significant
changes as opposed to incremental and regular politics. Hero also distinguishes among
different non-white groups by positing a continuum of racial disadvantage for the non-
white groups relegated to the second tier of American pluralism. On this continuum,
African Americans are on the far end and Latinos in the middle. The two tiered pluralism
in case of African Americans has led to the development of parallel institutions of blacks
and greater residential segregation leading to enhanced representation in local level
politics. Hero argues that Latinos have a tenuous relationship to the U.S. compared to
African Americans due to the past history of forced occupation by the United States and
their immigrant status. But Hero stops short of specifying the implications of this
relationship for Latino political incorporation. Hero’s analysis seems to suggest that
although all non-white groups are relegated to a second tier of political incorporation,
there is a need to look at the differences in experience of different non-white groups to
have a better analysis of political incorporation process of minority groups.
The broader assumption of minority group model – continued barriers to political
inclusion of minority and immigrant groups- has similarly been echoed by scholars
18
studying Asian Americans. Claire Kim analyzed the placing of Asian Americans in U.S.
racial hierarchy and argued that historically Asian Americans were kept out of civic life
through exclusion laws and denial of citizenship rights. Even though Asian Americans
were valorized as a model minority vis-à-vis blacks in the post-1965 period, they
continued to face civic ostracism as “perpetual foreignness” is imputed to them.
Analyzing the contemporary barriers to Asian American civic incorporation, Kim argues:
Although the bar on naturalization was lifted in 1952, White opinion makers
continue to police the boundary between Whites and Asian Americans by
imputing permanent foreignness to the latter. They do not overtly deny civic
membership to Asian Americans; yet their skepticism about the legitimacy of
Asian American participation in public life and their readiness to see Asian
American public figures as agents of a foreign power constraint what civic
privileges Asian Americans enjoy(Kim 1999, 126).

The long history of Asian American civic ostracism, Kim suggests, is indicative of
persistence of barriers to political incorporation of Asian Americans. Kim’s argument
about persistence of barriers to civic incorporation for Asian Americans is very different
from the pluralist argument which sees these barriers only as transitory.
The broader claims of minority group model have also been supported by scholars
analyzing the institutional barriers to minority political incorporation. For instance,
analyzing the role of political parties and civic associations in political mobilization of
Asian Americans and Latinos in New York and Los Angeles, Janelle Wong argues that
political parties, in contrast to their role in political mobilization of European immigrants,
have largely been absent from the task of mobilizing and bringing new immigrants to the
political process. She attributes this absence of political parties to weak local party
structures and changed campaign tactics, strategy of selective mobilization and reliance
on existing party coalitions, and prevailing assumptions of political parties about
19
immigrants. She suggests that it is grassroots civic organizations and labor unions that are
trying to fill the place of political parties in bringing new immigrants into the broader
political process (Wong 2006, 199). Wong’s analysis supports the minority group
model’s argument of continuing institutional barriers and points towards the existence of
parallel grassroots efforts to enhance Latino and Asian American political incorporation.
Traditionally, because of its focus on African American incorporation
experience, the minority group model has not placed much emphasis on transnationalism
in theorizing the political incorporation of non-white immigrants. However, some recent
scholarship on contemporary nonwhite immigrants, which have followed the broad
import of minority group model, has started questioning the conventional analysis of
immigrant transnational attachments and argued that transnational attachments and
transnational political engagement of immigrant groups do not necessarily lead to a lack
of civic and political participation in the U.S.( Jones-Correa 1998; Desipio 2003;
Guarnizo 1997; Guarnizo, Portes, and Haller 2003; Guarnizo and Portes 1991; Lien et al
2004; Ramakrishnan 2005; Wong 2006). Despite these important scholarly interventions
to engage with the importance of transnationalism in the lives of recent non-white
immigrants, there is very little theorization on the ways in which transnational attachment
of immigrant communities impact their political incorporation experience in the United
States.
These two models in their classical forms stand in for two opposite ends of the
spectrum of political incorporation of new groups into the political system. Even though
these two models of political incorporation are generalizations drawn from the specific
experiences of European white ethnics and African Americans, they are heavily used
20
frameworks to explain and understand the political participation and incorporation
processes of recent non-white immigrants such as Latinos, Asian Americans, and
Caribbean immigrants. These works fail to recognize that these two dominant
frameworks may not be as useful for understanding the political incorporation of
contemporary immigrants. This is because the contemporary nonwhite immigrants, who
came primarily after the 1965 immigration reform, are very diverse with immigration
patterns that are different from the previous waves of immigration. Due to their diverse
immigration patterns, these groups seem to follow different trajectories of political and
social inclusion in the U.S. Most of these groups do not neatly fit into either of the two
models because of their specific immigration histories, racial status, socio-economic
profile, and religious background. For instance, scholars working on Caribbean
immigrants have pointed out that the pattern of social and political inclusion of
Caribbean immigrants is different from native African American population and neither
the minority group model nor the pluralist model fully explain their incorporation
experience (Waters 1999; Rogers 2006) . Similarly, Asian Americans are incredibly
diverse in terms of their immigration history, country of origin, socioeconomic status,
and religious affiliations. The trajectory of political incorporation of these groups is
shaped by their unique group position in the United States and their continued
transnational attachments that requires scholars to go beyond the conventional models of
political incorporation.
This dissertation seeks to go beyond the existing models of political incorporation
by analyzing the case of South Asian immigrants. The dissertation argues that existing
models of political incorporation do not take into account the specificities of a group such
21
as South Asian immigrants. These immigrants are non-white but they have had a very
different immigration pattern which has resulted in a significant section of economically
affluent members who maintain very strong transnational connections to their country of
origin. Their religious differences from the dominant Judeo-Christian religious landscape
of United States also make them different from other immigrant groups. Given the
unique position of South Asians as a non-white minority group with a significant
population of high income and education, strong transnational attachment, and religious
diversity, they make a compelling case for revisiting the existing models of political
incorporation.
Political Incorporation and Citizenship
Revisiting the debates on political incorporation also has broader implications for
the conception of citizenship and its implications for immigrant communities. These
implications are particularly compelling in the case of new immigrant groups such as
South Asians. The process of political incorporation begins when immigrants start
developing a sense of inclusion and belonging to the U.S. society and politics, long
before the actual act of naturalization The act of naturalization is undoubtedly a
significant step toward formally becoming a part of the political process, but scholars of
immigrant political incorporation have pointed out that the legal act of acquiring
citizenship is just a step in the long process of political and social inclusion of
immigrant groups. Hence, the study of immigrant political incorporation needs to go
beyond the legal acquisition of citizenship and look at the broader meanings attached to
citizenship in terms of inclusion, belonging, and participation to understand the ways in
which different meanings of citizenship shape the process of political incorporation. This
22
becomes even more important in case of immigrant groups because they maintain
multiple attachments – both to the country of origin as well as the country of settlement-
which traditional conception of citizenship do not take into consideration. Drawing upon
Linda Bosniak’s conceptualization of four dimensions of citizenship - citizenship as legal
status; citizenship as rights; citizenship as political activity; and citizenship as a form of
collective identity and sentiment- this dissertation focuses upon citizenship both as
political activity and identity in order to go beyond the legal and right based discussion of
citizenship (Bosniak 2000).
Theorists ranging from Machiavelli and Rousseau to Michael Walzer and Will
Kymlicka have emphasized the importance of participation in political activity and
deliberation as critical elements of citizenship. However, political participation and
deliberation is traditionally viewed and studied in terms of participation in local
institutions and activities within the framework of a nation state. The associational
networks of immigrant groups across the nation states and their engagements in
transnational networks at different levels are not considered to be a part of political
engagement as visualized by civic republican and participatory democratic tradition
(Bosniak 2001). The literature on immigrants’ social and political lives suggests that
participation and deliberation in case of immigrants is not confined only to the
boundaries of nation state (Levitt 2001). Hence, the meaning and expression of
citizenship for immigrants cannot be understood by only looking at local and national
networks, associations, and forms of participation. The transnational networks and
participation are bound to be significant parts of immigrant citizenship.
23
Apart from citizenship as political participation, citizenship as identity or
solidarity expresses the sense of belonging and identification with the country. It is
broadly identified as the psychological dimension of citizenship, the part which expresses
affective ties of identification and the quality of belonging which represents the felt
aspect of community membership. The classical rights based notion of citizenship
emphasizes common culture and presumes that the expansion of citizenship will include
all marginal sections within the ambit of common culture. However, the question of
cultural identity assumes importance in case of minority and immigrant groups even
when they have the same formal citizenship rights as others. A historical analysis of the
universality of citizenship suggests that many groups-- ethnic, racial, and religious
minorities, immigrants, women, aboriginal people, gays and lesbians-- feel excluded from
the common culture despite having the common rights of citizenship. They feel excluded
not only because of their socioeconomic status, but also because of their socio cultural
identity (Kymlicka and Norman 1994). Iris Marion Young, one of the most important
theorists of cultural pluralism, argued that a universal notion of citizenship that
transcends group differences is unjust because it oppresses historically excluded groups
(Young 1990). However, even this more inclusive understanding of citizenship
propounded by Iris Marion Young does not break away from a nation state bounded
vision of citizenship. The cultural pluralist framework of Young continues to posit the
nation state as the sole framework to understand cultural differences. Even though the
framework provides space for differences in cultural identity and argues for a citizenship
theory which affirms these differences, it does not go beyond the boundaries of nation
state to incorporate the identity emerging from attachment to the country of origin in case
24
of immigrant groups. The more inclusive notion of citizenship needs to analyze how
transnational ties- affecting both identity and engagement - are an important aspect of
citizenship among immigrant communities.
As discussed above, the sense of belonging or identification with the nation and
participation in political deliberations and activities are two important aspects of
citizenship. The concrete forms of political participation and deliberation are linked to
multiplicity of belonging and identification. This dissertation analyzes the belonging and
identification dimension of citizenship in light of continuing transnational attachment of
South Asian immigrants, with a focus on understanding the ways in which it shapes the
process of political incorporation of new immigrant groups.
South Asian Immigrants in the United States
The term South Asian in the U.S. is traditionally understood as inclusive of seven
countries namely Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.
According to American Community Survey, 2006, there are approximately 2.9 million
South Asian immigrants in the United States. Asian Indians are the largest block of South
Asian immigrants followed by Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants. Asian Indians are
also the third largest ethnic group among Asian Americans following Chinese and
Filipino Americans. Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi immigrants are also the fastest
growing groups in terms of percentages among Asian Americans.
Most South Asians in the U.S. are either immigrants who arrived after the
passage of 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act or they are born to parents who
came after that period. However, it is important to note here that there is a long history of
South Asian migration to the U.S. The early history of immigrants from India can be
25
traced back to about 1900s when peasants from Punjab province of undivided India
started reaching the West Coast looking for work in Washington’s lumber mills and
California’s agricultural fields. The early immigrants from India were undifferentiated
and homogenized in the eyes of native population. Even though most of these immigrants
were Sikhs and a few were also Muslims, they were all termed as ‘Hindoos’ (Jensen
1988). The early immigrants from India faced severe discrimination as they were not
allowed to naturalize because of the racial prerequisite law which required a person to be
white to acquire the U.S. citizenship.
1

South Asian immigrants of different national origin share a commonality rooted
in the history and culture of the South Asian region and South Asian identity has emerged
in the U.S. over the last few years as an important panethnic category to encompass
immigrants from this region of Asia. However, the term South Asian in the U.S.
academia as well as popular discourse has often been used interchangeably with Asian
Indians (Kurien 2003). The inability of scholars working on South Asian immigrants to
address the diversity within the category has been underlined by some scholars working
in this field. Writing in the context of locating South Asians in the broader field of Asian
American studies, a group of scholars working on South Asian Americans noted that
even while talking about South Asian Americans, their concentration exclusively on
Indian Americans emanated from the gap in their knowledge about South Asia and South
Asian Americans. These scholars acknowledged their inability to even pose the right
questions when studying the members of other South Asian nationalities like Pakistanis,

1
The racial naturalization laws were applied to all non-white immigrants and the issue ultimately reached
the Supreme Court in 1923 case of Bhagat Singh Thind v. U.S. The court ruled that immigrants from India
are not eligible for citizenship because they are not white. Ian-Haney Lopez (1996) has discussed these
cases carefully and linked them to the construction of ‘Whiteness’ in legal discourse
26
Bangladeshis, and Srilankans (Dave, Dhingra, Maira, et al. 2000). There is not only a
lack of inclusion of South Asians of different national origin, but even within Indians the
focus has primarily been on Hindus from India while studying South Asian immigrants in
the U.S. The Muslims and other religious minorities among South Asian immigrant have
been marginal to this scholarship. Given the narrow focus of the existing scholarship on
Indian immigrants, the need to focus on the broader South Asian category by bringing
immigrants from diverse national origin and religious groups cannot be overstated.
The present phase of South Asian immigration started with the passage of
Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 which was instrumental in repealing of the
racial restrictions on immigration.
2
The legislation, which was deeply influenced by the
civil rights movement for racial equality, was a part of an effort by the United States to
shore up its scientific and military technological capability during the cold war by
allowing skilled scientists, doctors, and other professionals from other countries to come
to the U.S. (Prashad 2000). There were two major waves of post- 1965 immigration of
South Asian to the U.S. The first wave came under the special skills provision of the act
which attracted a large number of doctors, engineers, and scientists from India and, to a
lesser degree, from Pakistan. These immigrants were highly educated, proficient in
English, and mainly from urban background. Among Pakistani immigrants, a significant
section came to the U.S. from Britain and the Middle East where they had moved earlier

2
The single most important piece of legislation for South Asians seeking to enter the U.S. was passed in
1965. The proposal, initiated by presidents Kennedy and Johnson, led to the reversal of a half century old
policy of discrimination against Asian immigrants. The 1965 act led to the abolition of national origin
quota and was replaced by quota for areas outside western hemisphere at 170,000 under which a maximum
of 20,000 visas may be allocated to the people of a single country in a given year. Also, the special
restrictions regarding Asians were removed; the act prohibited the exclusion of any immigrant on the basis
of race, sex or nationality. The act also established new criteria for the issuing of visas: familial, financial,
and occupational
27
from Pakistan because of less restrictive immigration policies of those countries. These
highly educated immigrants mostly entered into professional and managerial careers in
the U.S. The second wave of South Asian immigration took place primarily in 1980s, and
it was sponsored under the “family reunification” provision of the 1965 act which
brought family relatives of the first wave immigrants (Mazumdar1989; Prashad 2000).
This group of immigrants did not have the same level of educational or professional
training as the first wave and they were more likely to settle in the lower rungs of the
professional ladder. More recent wave of immigration beginning in the 1990s has also
seen a large influx of software professionals from India to meet the demands of the
information technology boom in the United States. The Silicon Valley in Northern
California has witnessed a number of start-up technology companies in this period by
South Asian immigrants (Saxenian 2002). In addition, a steady and progressively
increasing number of students from South Asia (India in particular) have been coming to
the U. S. for the past several years for higher studies. According to a report published in
2007, students from India have been the largest single group of international students in
the United States for the last six consecutive years (International Student Enrollment in
U.S. Rebounds, 2007). A significant section of the student population from South Asia
eventually settles down in the United States after finishing their education. Even though
affluent South Asians tend to define the nature of the community, a steady number of
Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi immigrants have been joining the ranks of taxi
drivers, restaurant and construction workers, and other sections of the working class
population in the last several years. Hence, there is a significant and growing section of
working class South Asian immigrants in the United States.
28
The immigrants from Bangladesh have a more recent history in the United States.
Among Bangladeshi immigrants, there is a very small number which came to the U.S.
under the special skills provision of the 1965 immigration act. Immigration from
Bangladesh started in significant numbers only after its independence from Pakistan in
1971 as there was very little migration to the U.S. from this part of erstwhile Pakistan
before Bangladesh came into existence.
3
A significant section of Bangladeshi immigrants
belong to working class employed in different service sectors of the economy.
According to American Community Survey (ACS), 2007, there are approximately
3 million people of South Asian descent in the United States and more than 80 percent of
them trace their origins to India. According to the ACS data, there are 2.7 million Asian
Indians followed by 213 thousand of Pakistani descent and 76 thousand of Bangladeshi
descent (Table 1.1). These three South Asian groups are followed by relatively smaller
groups from Sri Lanka and Nepal. In addition, a significant population of South Asians
traces their origin to various African nations, Canada, Caribbean, Europe, the Middle
East, and the Pacific Islands. In 2000 census, the three top places of birth for South
Asians from the diaspora were Guyana, the United Kingdom, and Trinidad and Tobago.
4

3
The history of Bangladeshi immigrants is very different from Indian and Pakistani immigrants in the U.S.
People from Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and several other countries from across the globe were
allowed to apply under a provision which was started as part of an immigration diversity initiative by the
U.S. government in 1990 to diversify immigrant inflow. The number of Bangladeshi immigrants increased
dramatically in this period as Bangladesh ranked very high in terms of qualifying for diversity visas among
the countries which were eligible for diversity quota immigration. The profile of Bangladeshi immigrants is
very different from that of Indian and Pakistanis as the majority of Bangladeshi immigrants did not come as
professionals and they tended to join blue collar professions and lower rungs of the service industry.

4
In nineteenth century when India was a British colony, a large number of Indians were taken to various
British colonies to work as indentured labor on plantations. These British colonies included Fiji, Surinam,
Guyana, Mauritius, Trinidad, and South Africa among others. A section of South Americans who came to
the U.S. from these countries trace their origins to India.
29
In the last 15-20 years, there has been a very sharp increase in the number of
South Asians in the U.S. This sharp increase is evident when figures from the 1990
Census are compared to 2000. Between 1990 and 2000, Indian, Pakistani, and
Bangladeshi immigrants increased by 106, 89, and 249 percent respectively (table 1.1).
The trend of sharp increase continues as reported in ACS, 2007.

Table 1.1: The Number of South Asian Immigrants in the United States
and Their Rate of Growth

1980 1990 2000 Percentage
Increase
From
1990 to 2000
ACS
2007
Indian 387,223* 815,447 1,678,765 106% 2,765,81
5
Pakistani 81,371 153,533 89% 213,800
Bangladeshi 11.838 41,280 249% 76,048
Sri Lankan 10,970 20,145 84%
Note: Based on Census data and American Community Survey, 2007
* Race Alone. Rest of the figures are race alone or combination.

An overwhelming majority of South Asian immigrants are foreign born and a
significant number of them are not citizens of the United States. With the influx of new
immigrants from South Asia continuing, the community is a combination of U.S. born
and foreign born and includes people who have been here for several years as well as
those who are recent arrivals. Data from ACS, 2006 suggests that approximately that 72
percent of Indians, 69 percent of Pakistanis, and 75 percent of Bangladeshis are foreign
born. The proportions of naturalized among Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis are 33,
39, and 38 percent respectively (table1.2).

30
Table 1. 2: Proportion of Foreign Born and Naturalized Citizens among
South Asian Immigrants

Race Alone or
in
Combination
Total population Foreign Born Naturalized
Indian 2,662,112 1,905,318
(72)
867,042
(33)
Pakistani 2,11,356

145,719
(69)
81,423
(39)
Bangladeshi 69,687

52,157
(75)
26,423
(38)
Note: Based on American Community Survey, 2006

In terms of demographic location, even though a majority of South Asian
immigrants live in major metropolitan areas, the population is generally not densely
concentrated. The Los Angeles and New York Metropolitan Statistical Areas are two
important concentrations of South Asian immigrants. According to ACS, 2006, the
number of Asian Indians in Los Angeles-Long Beach- Santa Ana Metropolitan Area is
127,930. The corresponding figure in New York Metropolitan Statistical Area is 566,418.
The New York Metropolitan Area has the highest number of Indian Americans where as
Los Angeles Metropolitan Area is fourth after the San Francisco and Chicago
Metropolitan Area. These two locations have significant number of Pakistani and
Bangladeshi immigrants also, albeit much lower than Indian immigrants. New York
Metropolitan Area has highest number of Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants (ACS
2006). The Los Angeles area has the second highest number of Bangladeshi immigrants
after the New York area. It is important to underline here that South Asian immigrants
are quite scattered in these two big geographical units and there are very few cities or
counties with large South Asian population concentration. The reason for this pattern of
settlement lies primarily in the pattern of South Asian immigration in the U.S. which has
31
mostly been driven by professional immigrants who generally settled in both urban and
suburban areas in a scattered manner. Alluding to this demographic reality, scholars have
pointed out to this important difference between South Asian immigrants and other Asian
immigrants who are far more concentrated. Despite being scattered demographically,
South Asians have developed commercial areas catering specifically to South Asians
which have become important sites for constructing and maintaining ethnic identities in
cities such as Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago (Shukla 2003).
5
This demographic
characteristic of South Asians- the lack of population density- has important implications
for their political incorporation which will also be explored in the remaining chapters.
The educational and economic profiles of South Asian immigrants are important
factors that explain why the existing models of political incorporation do not speak to the
experiences of this group. The broad macro indicators of income and education among
South Asian immigrants suggest that a large section of the community is economically
well off with a high level of education. The median household income of Asian Indians is
$ 76,172 which is higher than the median household income of Asian Americans
($62,738) or whites ($62,518). Compared to Asian Indians, Pakistani and Bangladeshi
Americans tend to demonstrate lower incomes. The median household incomes of
Pakistani and Bangladeshi Americans are $56,745 and $42,404 respectively.
Approximately 67 percent of Indian immigrants have bachelor’s degree or more and the
figure is higher than Asian Americans (48 percent) or Whites (28). The figures for
Pakistani and Bangladeshi Americans are 54 and 52 percent. A significant number of

5
Artesia in Cerritos county, Los Angeles and Jackson Heights in Queens, New York are prime examples
of commercial centers which serve South Asian communities and they are a critical part of the construction
and maintenance of particular ethnic identities.
32
South Asians are proficient in the English language- the percentage is higher than most
other Asian American ethnic groups (ACS 2006). The fluency with the English language
because of their British colonial history is a distinctive feature of the South Asian
community. The residential settlement pattern among South Asian immigrants suggests
that they usually tend to settle in urban areas as well as suburban areas, and a significant
number of them live in either mixed neighborhoods or primarily white areas. However, as
noted earlier, the later waves of immigration brought working class sections of South
Asians to the U.S. under family reunification provision, immigration diversification
quota, and other such programs resulting in a significant section of South Asian
immigrants who occupy the lower rung of socioeconomic ladder as service workers and
small business owners. Despite a large number of professionals and entrepreneurs, South
Asian immigrants remain a very diverse group in terms of their professional and socio-
economic background. The tables on education (table1.3), occupation (table1.5), and
ability to speak English (table1.4) demonstrate the educational and occupational diversity
among South Asian immigrants. The data on occupational distribution show that Indian,
Pakistani, and Bangladeshi communities have a significant section which is employed in
higher echelons of job ladder (management professionals and related occupations), but
they also have people in service, construction, and transportation which represent lower
rungs of the occupational ladder(table1.5). The proportion of management professionals
and related occupations is higher among Asian Indians (61.3) than Pakistani (40.2) and
Bangladeshi (33.9) groups which also show the socioeconomic and occupational
difference among different South Asian groups. The diversity within South Asians is also
evident in their ability to speak English (table 1.4). In all three South Asian communities
33
there are significant numbers of people who speak English less than very well. The
numbers are higher among Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities in comparison to the
Indian community. Thus, the overall data on education, occupation, and ability to speak
English demonstrate that there is a high level of diversity among South Asians in the
United States in terms of their socioeconomic background.
Table 1.3: Educational Attainment of South Asian Americans (25 Years and Over)
Level of Education Indian
(Percentage)
Pakistani Bangladeshi
Less than High School 10 12.8 13.8
High School Graduate 11.9 16.1 18
Some College Associate
Degree
10.9 16.5 15.8
Bachelor’s Degree 31.8 31 30.9
Graduate or Professional
Degree
35.5 23.6 21.5
Note: Based on Data from ACS 2006
Table 1.4: Language Spoken at Home and Ability to Speak English
Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi
English Only 23 15.1 9.5
Language Other than English 77 84.9 90.5
Speak English less than very
Well
22.1 29.9 45
Note: Based on Data from ACS 2006
34
Table 1.5: Occupational Distribution among South Asians (16 Years and Over)
Occupations Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi
Management Professional
and Related
61.3 40.2 33.9
Service 7.6 9.4 17.5
Sales and Office 21.2 29.1 30.9
Farming, Fishing, and
Forestry
.2 .1 .0
Construction, Extraction,
Maintenance, and Repair
2.3 4.3 4.1
Production, Transportation,
and Material Moving
7.5 17 13.6
Note: Based on Data from ACS 2006
The diverse characteristics and immigration history of South Asian immigrants in
the United States pose four specific challenges to existing dominant models of political
incorporation. These challenges revolve around the ways in which race, socioeconomic
status, religion, and transnationalism impact political incorporation of South Asian
immigrants. Neither of the models of political incorporation discussed above- the
pluralist/assimilationist nor the minority group model- fully take into account an
immigrant group which is racially non-white but comprised of a large number of highly
educated and economically well off members. The pluralist model draws upon the
European immigrants who joined the lower echelons of the economic ladder and
gradually worked their way up. The pluralist model holds that economic and educational
advances among European immigrants gradually led to their full political incorporation.
The barriers they faced because of their ethnic and religious origins (Eastern European,
Irish, Jewish) also declined as they climbed the economic ladder and moved to mixed
35
neighborhoods. However, a significant section of South Asian immigrants do not follow
this trajectory because they have entered into the U.S. society as professionals who are
economically well off and a large number of them live in mixed neighborhoods from the
very beginning. Given this economic and educational profile of South Asian immigrants
and their relative proficiency in English, the pluralist model predicts that South Asian
immigrants should easily and more quickly become a part of mainstream political process
of the U.S. However, the experience of South Asian as well as other Asian immigrant
groups with similar socioeconomic profiles does not suggest a quick and easy political
incorporation (Lien, Conway, and Wong 2004; Kim 1999). Yet the minority group model
also does not provide an analytical framework to explain the political incorporation
experience of South Asian immigrants because it does not deal with the experiences of
groups which are educationally and economically well off. The unique combination of
nonwhite racial status and relative prosperity of a section of South Asian immigrants
presents an interesting and challenging case which requires immigration and political
incorporation scholars to go beyond these two dominant existing models of political
incorporation.
One of the important issues for South Asians is that dark skin color and phenotype
have remained a source of differential treatment and discrimination against them.
Historically, they were excluded from citizenship on the basis of their racial status and
skin color (Haney-Lopez; Jensen, 1980; Prashad 2000; Mazumdar 1989; Kibria 1998).
The incidents of hate crimes, racial profiling, and discrimination against South Asian
immigrants after the twin towers attack on Sep. 11
th
2001 were also a stark reminder of
their place in the racial hierarchy and the outsider status attached to them. The attack on
36
Muslims, Sikhs, and other South Asians shows the vulnerability of an immigrant group
which is targeted both because of their racial features-phenotype- and religious beliefs.
The pluralist argument that these new immigrants, due to their high socioeconomic
profile, will blend in quickly and become a part of the mainstream political process was
once again questioned by the spate of post- 9/11 incidents of hate crimes and
discrimination.
The particular placing of South Asian immigrants in the U.S. racial hierarchy as
nonwhite immigrants and the experiences of racial discrimination undoubtedly put them
in close proximity to the other nonwhite minority groups. Based on their nonwhite status
and continuing discriminatory treatment of South Asian immigrants, the minority group
model would predict that South Asian immigrants will mobilize on the basis of a shared
racial and ethnic identity and this mobilization will accelerate given the treatment of
South Asian immigrants after September 11
th
. However, South Asian immigrants do not
seem to fit the minority group model especially in terms of grass roots mobilizing based
on a shared racial and/or ethnic identity against discrimination and in favor of resource
distribution and better representation of the group. Hence, different variants of the
minority group model do not help us to understand the political incorporation process of
South Asian immigrants who are close to other minority groups in terms of their placing
in the racial hierarchy but do not completely share the economic and educational profile
of most minority group populations. This dissertation argues that distinctions along the
lines of class play an important role in shaping the political and mobilizational response
of South Asian immigrants. Besides class, other distinctions such as national origin and
religion also shape the political response of South Asian immigrants.
37
South Asian immigrants, like other immigrant groups in the U.S., maintain a high
level of contact with their country of origin. A preliminary analysis of the Pilot National
Asian American Political Survey (PNAAPS) data suggests that the group maintains a
higher level of connection to home country compared to other Asian immigrant groups
who are also known to maintain close connections to their home country. The scholarship
on new immigrants and political incorporation suggests that transnational attachments are
a significant part of immigrant social and political lives and they play important roles in
shaping their broader social and political behavior (DeSipio 2003; Guarnizo, Portes and
Haller 2003; Chang 1988; Jones- Correa 1998; Karpathakis 1999; Graham 2001; Rogers
2006). Transnational attachment has traditionally been seen as an impediment to
immigrant political participation in the U.S. While the pluralist model of political
incorporation looks at transnational attachments as the vestiges of the past, the minority
group model of political incorporation has not engaged with the issue of transnational
attachments in a significant manner. However, some recent works on the relationship
between transnational attachment and political participation in the U.S. have suggested
that attachment to home country does not necessarily lead to a lower level of political
participation in the U.S. (Jones-Correa 1998; DeSipio 2003; Lien, Conway, and Wong,
2004; Wong 2006). The existing literature has mostly addressed the question of the
impact of transnational attachment on political participation in terms of whether or not it
depresses immigrant political participation in the U.S. This is an important contribution
in terms of seriously engaging with the issue of transnationalism while studying
immigrant political behavior but it does not go beyond the limited analysis of the relation
between the two.
38
In this study, I focus on the ways in which transnational attachments shape the
political incorporation of immigrant communities as well as create a particular trajectory
of political engagement for immigrant groups in American politics. For instance, interest
in the politics of home country and active engagement with the political process of home
country pursued by immigrant organizations based in the U.S. could also be seen as a
way to engage with the political process in the U.S. For immigrant groups, engagement
with home country issues might also mean approaching and influencing different power
structures in the U.S. to influence political processes back home. In fact, for many
immigrant groups mobilization and activism in the U.S. around the issues of the country
of origin has been the first brush with the political structure in the U.S. This dissertation
explores the link between involvement in the political process of the home and the host
country through an analysis of different South Asian immigrant organizations in the U.S.,
and demonstrates how transnational political engagement could be an important element
of the group’s political incorporation in the U.S. Building on the analysis of transnational
social and political engagement of South Asian immigrants, this dissertation suggests that
conventional notions of citizenship based on identification and engagement with a single
nation state does not fully represent immigrant political behavior. The dissertation thus
explores the import of transnational social and political engagement on the existing
debates on citizenship.
The dissertation also argues that active political engagement with home country is
pursued only by a small group of immigrants who show the ability and maturity to
engage with the political processes of both the U.S. and their country of origin. They
make the case for multiple engagements and demonstrate that in a globalized world the
39
political involvement in multiple sites can only enhance the quality of political
participation. However, transnational political engagement tends to be focused on a very
limited range of issues which might not help in breaking away from the continued
marginalization of the community in the U.S. This remains an issue of concern in
immigrant communities. The limited range of issues taken up by the community elites is
generally bereft of any grass-roots mobilization which, in turn, has important
implications for the political incorporation of the community. This dissertation goes
beyond the limited analysis of relationship between political participation in the U.S. and
transnational attachment and sheds light on the complex and multiple ways in which
transnational attachments continue to shape the political incorporation of South Asian
immigrants in the U.S. The political incorporation model of non-white immigrants, the
dissertation argues, has to be inclusive of the transnational aspect of immigrants’ social
and political life and the multiple ways in which political involvements of immigrant
communities are shaped by transnational attachments.
South Asian immigrants are also different in terms of their religious beliefs as
they constitute the largest minority group coming from non Judeo-Christian religious
traditions. South Asian immigrants are incredibly diverse in their religious backgrounds,
which include a significant number of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs along with Christians
and Buddhists. The religious differences of South Asian immigrants from the dominant
Judeo-Christian tradition of the U.S. work as an additional barrier to their social and
political incorporation. The post-9/11 hate crime and targeting of South Asians indicated
how the religious difference contributed to their treatment as “foreigners” and
“outsiders.” The contemporary political discourse on the “war against terror” has further
40
resulted in the marginalization of a significant section of Muslim South Asian
immigrants. The religious diversity within the South Asian community suggests that non-
white immigrants in the U.S. are not homogeneous. Hence, there is a need to expand the
existing models of political incorporation of immigrants and minority groups to address
the religious differences and their role in the political incorporation of immigrant
communities. Thus, the dissertation also analyzes the impact of internal religious
diversity within the South Asian community on political mobilization of South Asians.
Methodology
This dissertation uses a multimethod approach- a combination of quantitative and
qualitative methods- to analyze South Asian immigrant political incorporation. The
dissertation analyzes the first ever multi-city, multi- lingual and multi-ethnic survey of
Asians in the United States- the Pilot Study of the National Asian American Survey
(PNAAPS) completed in 2001. For this survey, a total of 1,218 adults of Chinese,
Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese, Filipino, and South Asian descent residing in Los
Angeles, New York, Honolulu, San Francisco, and Chicago metropolitan areas were
randomly selected and interviewed by phone between November 16, 2000 and January
28, 2001. The questions this pilot study aimed to answer included the extent to which
Asian immigrants have adapted to the U.S. society and culture, the forms of ethnic and
panethnic identity and consciousness that Asian Americans express, the views that Asian
Americans hold about the U.S. political system, and the participatory habits, political
habits, and partisanship of Asians in the U.S. political system.
6
The PNAAPS survey also

6
The sampling design had a final sample of 308 Chinese, 168 Koreans, 137 Vietnamese, 198 Japanese, 266
Filippino, and 141 South Asians. It is important to emphasize here that sample size is modest for certain
subgroups, particularly for Koreans, Vietnamese, and South Asians.
41
measured ethnic in-group feelings, national and transnational attachments that Asian
Americans form, and adaptation and acculturation they exhibit over time in the United
States. It examined Asian Americans’ transnational attachment to the people and culture
of their country of origin through the following indicators: news attention to events in
Asia, frequency of contact with people in the country of origin, most recent visits to the
country of origin, language used at home and to conduct business transactions. The
analysis of the survey data is important in developing a preliminary account of some of
the important aspects of South Asian immigrants’ political participation and transnational
attachments.
Since the survey dealt with only a limited number of respondents and a limited
range of questions pertaining political incorporation, this dissertation employs qualitative
methods of structured open-ended interviews and participant observation to gain a fuller
understanding of the impact of racial barriers, socioeconomic variation, religion, and
transnational attachments on the political incorporation process of South Asian
immigrants. Sixty in depth interviews were conducted with leaders and community
members of Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi descent in the Los Angeles and New
York Metropolitan Areas between March 2006 and February 2007. It is important to
note here that the representation of Bangladeshi and Pakistani subjects in the sample is
higher than their proportion in the population (Table 1.6). This was done to get a sizable
number of Bangladeshi and Pakistani subjects in order to give adequate representation to
these groups in the data. Approximately half of the interviewees were community
activists and leaders associated with different South Asian immigrant organizations and
the other half were regular members of the community. Each of these interviews lasted
42
between forty-five and ninety minutes. Half of the subjects for these interviews were
drawn from a list of South Asian organizations which was prepared in consultation with
different South Asian organizations and researchers and community activists with
expertise in the South Asian community. The other half of the subjects who were regular
community members were identified through contacts within the community who led to
others in the community in a snowball sampling fashion. However, steps were taken to
ensure variation in social networks and socioeconomic profiles following the initial
snowball contacts. Different chains of contacts were established to avoid replicating one
particular demographic. The leaders/activists as well as regular community members
interviewed for this research represented different sections of the community in terms of
class, country of origin, religion, gender, political orientation, and the length of stay. The
activists interviewed for this dissertation were involved with different kinds of
organizations including ethnic or nation of origin based- Indian, Pakistani, and
Bangladeshi- as well as Panethnic which represented the broader South Asian category.
These organizations were diverse in terms of socioeconomic and professional background
of their members and they represented working class South Asians as well as
professionals and entrepreneurs. The organizations included those that are primarily
focused on issues and activism around the U.S. based local themes and others that are
concerned with issues relating to the countries of origin. Most of these interviews were
conducted in English except three where either Urdu or Hindi was used. Even though a
large number of South Asian immigrants are proficient in English, a small number of
interviews conducted in languages other than English might be a possible shortcoming of
43
this study. The data might be less representative of those South Asian immigrants who
are not proficient in English.
The socioeconomic and professional diversity of the interviewees was carefully
considered while selecting them for the interviews. Since a significant section of South
Asians in the United States belong to the upper economic stratum and come from either
the professional or entrepreneurial class, special care was taken to include interviewees
from lower income backgrounds and from working class and blue collar professions. The
interviewees belong to very diverse professions including entrepreneurs, engineers,
software consultant, small business owner, taxi drivers, and low-end service workers. It is
important to point here that a significantly larger number of interviewees of Bangladeshi
descent were from working class back grounds in comparison to interviewees of Indian
and Pakistani descent. This is a reflection of the socioeconomic profile of Bangladeshi
community in the United States. However, the socioeconomic and professional diversity
among Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi interviewees was also carefully maintained to
the extent possible.
As discussed earlier, the activists and community leaders interviewed for this
dissertation also belonged to a diverse set of organizations and special care was taken to
make sure that organizations catering to different segments of South Asians were
represented in the sample. The organizations included in the sample represented all three
national origins as well as those representing a broader South Asian identity. A number
of organizations included in the sample were geared towards serving poor and working
class South Asians along with the undocumented sections of the community. South Asian
Network, Desis Rising Up and Moving, New York Taxi Workers Alliance, Council of
44
People’s Organization, and Coney Island Avenue Project are some important examples of
organizations which serve and represent lower income South Asians. The sample also
included a significant number of organizations which represented the professional and
entrepreneurial sections of Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi community. Organizations
such as Council of Pakistani American Affairs, Organization of Pakistani Professionals,
Global Organization of People of Indian Origin, and Friends of South Asian American
Communities are some examples of formations included in the sample which primarily
represent the professional and entrepreneurial sections of South Asian community.
Table 1.6: Interviewees and their Country of Origin
Community
Leaders
Community
Members
Total
Indian 10 11 21
Pakistani 11 7 18
Bangladeshi 9 13 21

The other qualitative method used in this dissertation is participant observation. I
attended ten community events each in Los Angeles and New York to observe how the
questions of political involvement, transnational engagement, discrimination, and identity
were approached and discussed by South Asian groups. I also attended two conferences
of the Indian diaspora organized by the government of India in New Delhi in January
2006 and in New York City in September 2007. Both these conferences were attended by
a large number of Indian Americans and the question of economic, social, and political
engagement with India as well as the United States were prominent issues of discussion
45
It is important to point out here that qualitative methods, in general, are not
considered to be useful predictive tools like standardized surveys. However, qualitative
methods allow theory building through respondents’ own self interpretation and the
observation of their everyday practices. Qualitative approach is best suited to study an
ethnic and racial group such as South Asians for which there is very little of quantitative
data available. The qualitative approach may discover theoretical questions which later
may be formalized into hypotheses to be tested by quantitative social science methods.
The qualitative method does not assume links between the variables as quantitative
research does, it can rather draw responses from actors showing how they link these
variables in their minds (Jones-Correa 1998). A combination of quantitative and
qualitative method is the best way to study a research question and a group for which
there is very little existing data.
This dissertation contributes towards theorizing political incorporation beyond the
existing models by analyzing the impact of transnational attachments, racial
discrimination, class, and religious distinctions on the incorporation process of South
Asian immigrants. This study of South Asian immigrants’ political incorporation also
contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the ways in which transnationalism
expands the meaning and practices of citizenship through continuing engagement of the
group with the country of settlement as well as the country of origin.
Chapter II analyzes the issue of racialization, and racial discrimination to argue
that the experiences of South Asian immigrants fit neither of the two models of political
incorporation. It specifically analyzes the post-9/11 period to understand the impact of
racial discrimination on the political incorporation process of South Asian immigrants.
46
The chapter argues that despite continued racialization of the group, there is very limited
effort to mobilize against this racialization and discrimination. The chapter also analyzes
the role of religion in both the racialization and mobilization of the South Asian
community. Chapter III argues that there is very little mobilization among South Asians
by political parties and candidates. There is a limited attempt on the part of the South
Asians to mobilize at the grassroots level to enter the political process as an ethnic or
racial group. Instead, there is a selective political mobilization of South Asian immigrants
in the United States which centers on a narrow socioeconomic elite section of the
community. Chapter IV analyzes both quantitative and qualitative data to contend that
transnational attachments and engagements do not impact the South Asian immigrants’
political participation in the U.S. negatively. Furthermore, the chapter explores the
impact of transnational engagements on citizenship to argue that a new form of
citizenship rooted in transnationalism is emerging among immigrant communities.
Chapter V examines the involvement of Indian immigrant groups with the U.S.-India
Civil Nuclear Deal, 2006 to note that engagement with the issues of home country often
becomes a part of engagement with the political process in the U.S. In other words,
engagements with issues of home country are not confined only to the home country but
they also become a vehicle for the group to engage with the U.S. political institutions.
The chapter further argues that participation by a limited number of elites is promoted by
actors on both sides of the transnational political arena – the policies advocated by the
Indian state as well as the Indian American groups active in the United States- which
promotes a political incorporation trajectory that relies on a narrow section of elite among
47
the Indian American community. Finally, Chapter VI outlines the broad findings of this
dissertation and provides a framework for a new model of political incorporation.

48
Chapter II
Racial Order and Belonging: South Asians in Pre and Post- 9/11 U.S.
Issues of race and racial discrimination have been an important part of the
scholarly work on political incorporation of minority groups and new immigrants. The
experiences of both European white ethnics and African Americans suggest that their
relative placing in the American racial hierarchy has played a pivotal role in shaping the
political incorporation experience of these groups. While both groups faced racial
discrimination, the impact of racial distinctions endured in the case of black Americans.
In contrast, European ethnics gradually melted into the white population after
overcoming initial prejudice and barriers as evident in the cases of Irish and other eastern
and southern European immigrants. The persistence of racial barriers for African
Americans is thus a strong counter example to European ethnic experience (Pinderhughes
1987). These two contrasting experiences of political incorporation of new groups are
further complicated by newer immigrant groups such as Asians, Latinos, and Caribbean
who do not easily fit into the dominant models of political incorporation.
The two models of political incorporation lead to contrasting predictions about the
impact of racial and ethnic difference on the path of political incorporation followed by
new immigrants. As noted earlier, the pluralist model holds that the current nonwhite
immigrants will overcome initial prejudice and with achievement of economic stability
they will achieve political incorporation in a gradual manner without significant
disruption to the political system. The pluralist model argued that minority groups in
general will follow the path of European immigrants. This model assumes the openness
of the political system as far as incorporating newcomers is concerned and holds that
49
racial and ethnic difference is not an enduring barrier to political incorporation.
According to this framework, ethnic group politics is a transitional phase in incorporation
process and as groups achieve upward economic mobility and political integration, their
ethnic loyalties gradually melted away (Dahl 1961; Portes and Rumbaut 1996; Alba and
Nee 1997).
In contrast, the minority group model gives centrality to race and argues that the
new non-white immigrants will face racial barriers similar to African Americans and their
political incorporation experience will also follow the similar path. Since the majority of
contemporary newcomers to the American cities are non-whites, this model has argued
and predicted that their path to political incorporation also will be slow, incomplete, and
greatly influenced by American racism. These scholars have used the African American
experience to develop an alternative model to pluralism to understand the relative
difficulties and uncertainties of the political incorporation of non-white immigrants (Hero
1998; Browning et al. 1997; Takaki 1989; Kim 1999; Tate 1994). Based on this
framework, they predict that these non-white groups will also broadly follow the same
path in their attempt to full political incorporation as African Americans, namely heavy
reliance on racial group identity or linked fate, grassroots mobilization, demand for
resource redistribution and political reform.
This chapter analyzes the issue of race, racialization, and racial discrimination in
the case of South Asian immigrants to argue that experience of South Asian immigrants
fits neither of the two dominant models of political incorporation. The chapter argues that
barriers to social and political inclusion emerging due to race and racial discrimination
continue to remain an important part of the group’s experience defying the predictions of
50
pluralist or assimilationist model of political incorporation. However, the minority group
model does not explain the experiences of South Asians entirely. This is because the
distinctions based on religion, class, and nation of origin play an important role in how
different groups within the South Asian community are racialized differently. Thus, there
are distinct ways in which race is experienced by groups such as South Asians.
Furthermore, group mobilization based on a common ethno-racial identity or linked fate
is far less common than predicted and emphasized by the minority group model.
The chapter analyzes the historical placing of South Asian immigrants in the U.S.
racial hierarchy by looking at debates on the census classification of Indian immigrants
and their racialization. The chapter argues that the analysis of racial targeting of South
Asians in the post-9/11 period is integrally linked to how South Asians were placed in the
racial hierarchy historically The survey data and interviews analyzed in this chapter focus
on both the pre and post-September 11
th
period, although the interviews with the leaders
and community members evoked more conversations around the issue of race and racial
discrimination after September 11
th
. The post-9/11 period thus assumed a critical
importance in this analysis because the incidents following the attack brought the issue of
racial difference to the fore for South Asian immigrants. However, the historical analysis
of the placing of South Asians in the U.S. racial hierarchy is important for analyzing the
post-9/11 period.
Based on the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, the chapter argues that
even though the racialization of South Asian immigrants as outsiders has been continuing
for a long time, the post-September 11
th
incidents have intensified and brought this
racialization process to the fore. The chapter supports the arguments made by a number
51
of Asian American scholars that the status of outsider or foreigner is an important part of
racialization and it holds true for South Asian immigrants as well. Furthermore, the
chapter goes a step further and argues that internal distinctions within South Asian
immigrant community become important while analyzing the impact of racialization and
discrimination on their sense of social and political inclusion and belonging. The analysis
suggests that since there is no monolithic South Asian identity, the process of
racialization has to be understood by taking internal distinctions such as class, religion,
gender, caste, and language into consideration. The chapter in particular focuses upon
religious and class distinctions as examples of internal distinctions. The chapter
concludes by arguing that South Asian immigrants do not follow the traditional minority
group model in terms of the patterns of political mobilization predicted by the model
precisely because of this internal difference. Post-9/11 racial targeting and hate crimes
against South Asian immigrants did not lead to mobilization based on ethno-racial
identity. There was rather a fragmented response which was shaped more by religious,
class, and nation of origin divide within the community. This pattern of mobilization in
response to the post-9/11 environment also points to the routine mobilization patterns for
social and political incorporation among South Asian Americans.
South Asians and U.S. Racial Hierarchy
Race is one of the most important categories that the South Asian immigrants
confront when they come to the United States. While they have inhabited the categories
of class, caste, and ethnic identities in their country of origin, such is not the case with
race. The process of acquiring an identity in a new country is a troubling process for an
immigrant group and South Asian immigrants have problems dealing with the category of
52
race (Kibria 1998). South Asian immigrants bring with them the notion of race and racial
division passed on through a long western colonial history and more specifically about
U.S. society through the mass media and popular culture (Prashad 2000). They are also
very quick to adopt some of the dominant stereotypes about different racial groups
prevalent in the mainstream culture. However, there are no easily available
categorizations for South Asian immigrants in the racial hierarchy. Scholars have pointed
out that there is often an attempt by the group to avoid the racial categorization
altogether.
7
As sociologists and political scientists have argued, there is always a tension
between identity assigned to a group and the identity that is asserted by them. A process
of negotiation goes on between the identity categories immigrants bring with them and
those to which they are assigned (Cornell and Hartman 1998).Indeed, The history of
racial classification of South Asian immigrants suggests that the group has gone through
this process like other immigrant groups and has at various points contested the
categories assigned to it (Koshy 1998).
In the U.S., there is a long history of racialization of South Asian immigrants in
the U.S. Historically, they were barred from acquiring citizenship because of the racial
prerequisite laws. The Supreme Court Judgment in Bhagat Singh Thind v United States
(1923) pronounced that Indian immigrants did not fulfill the prerequisite of citizenship
because they could not be considered white. The Court wrote at length about the
prevailing science of race and the relation between white and Caucasian. The Court
argued that even though Indian immigrants were considered Caucasian according to the
prevailing anthropological knowledge, the common sense understanding of race

7
Indian Immigrants have often tried to avoid being categorized as a racial group to circumvent the costs of
racial marking and felt more convenient about the ethnic label (Kibria 1998).
53
suggested that Indian immigrants were not whites and hence not eligible for citizenship
(Lopez 1996).
8

Due to the debates on whiteness, the census classification of South Asian
immigrants- Indian immigrants in particular- was in flux for a long period of time. In
fact, the history of census classification of Indian immigrants in the U.S. shows the
capricious and socially constructed nature of the classification system. Indian immigrants
were classified at different points as non-white, Hindu, white and Asian Indian before
they became a part of the Asian American and Pacific Islander category in 1980.
Ironically enough, they were classified as white in 1970 census, the category which was
denied to them when they tried to naturalize in this country by claiming whiteness on the
basis of their supposed Caucasian status in the 1920s. The classification of Indian
immigrants as white in the 1970 census came in the context of a series of civil rights
legislation which codified certain special benefits for minority groups. Indian immigrants
were classified as whites to make sure that they were not eligible for benefits set aside for
minority groups. It was only after a sustained campaign by Indian immigrant
organizations that the group in the 1980 census was classified as Asian Indian as a part of
the broader census category of Asian American and Pacific Islander.

8
The Plaintiff in the Thind v. U.S.(1923) tried to claim citizenship on the basis of Caucasian status because
the Court in another judgment argued that a Japanese immigrant could not be granted citizenship because
he was not Caucasian.
54

Table 2.1: History of the Classification of the Asian Indians by the Census
Bureau

Census Year Census classification
1910 Other/Non-white/Hindu
1920 Other/ Hindu
1930 Hindu
1940 Hindu
1950 Other/Non-white/Asiatic Indian
1960 Other/Non-white/Hindu
1970 White
1980 Asian Indian
1990 Asian or Pacific Islander/Asian Indian

Note: Census classifications are taken from the categories listed on the census
form as responses from the categories listed on the census form for the questions
on race or color; these categories are indicated in boldface type. Census
classification into sub-categories is drawn from the instructions to the
enumerators and the definitions and explanations of terms published in the census
(Koshy 1998).

The complex history of census classification of Indian immigrants is ultimately
linked to the placing of a group in the racial hierarchy in relation to the other racial
groups. Many have observed that given their economic and educational status, South
Asian immigrants- specifically referring to Indian immigrants- might be conceptualized
as “honorary whites.” This perspective suggests that they do not have much in common
with other minority groups (Kibria 1998). Dinesh D’Souza in his book The End of
Racism argues that the implication of success of South Asians and Asian Americans in
the United States is that they do not face racism in this country. However, research
suggests that like all immigrant and minority groups, South Asian immigrants are
racialized in the U.S. on account of their appearance, skin color, foreign origin, religion,
55
and language, and culture. Scholars working on South Asian immigrants have always
struggled with the complexity of trying to reconcile the non-white status of South Asian
immigrants with the relatively high socioeconomic status of a significant section of the
group (Koshy 1998; Prashad 2000; Vishweswaran 1997).
A similar complexity of relationship between race, class, and immigration is
observed among some other Asian groups as well (Ong 1999). Thus, the discussions on
the placing of Asian Americans in the U.S. racial hierarchy provide a useful framework
to understand the South Asian case as well. South Asian immigrants not only share a
formal census classification with other Asian American groups, but they also share, to a
large extent, their diverse socioeconomic profile and immigrant status. The
conceptualization of race in the U.S. has been framed for a long time by bipolar racial
categories of black and white that still exercise powerful influence on the ways in which
Asian Americans are placed on the racial hierarchy as well as racialized in relation to
these two poles. Theorizing in relation to bipolar racial categories of black and white,
some Asian American scholars have made the argument that Asian Americans are in the
middle of the racial hierarchy. Gary Okihiro (1994) has argued that Asian Americans
have been rendered an intermediate group in America’s bipolar racial scale. Mary
Matsuda’s (1993) characterization of Asian American as “racial bourgeoisie” also
suggests a middle position for the group in comparison to blacks and whites. Kamala
Vishweswaran, building on the theory of intermediary placing of Asian Americans,
argues that South Asian immigrants occupy a mediating position between black/Latino
communities and whites, and in the process achieve a status of model minority which has
multiple implications for the understanding of different racial and minority groups and
56
their relationship to each other and whites. Vishweswaran uses Aiwa Ong’s concept of
flexible citizenship to underline the continuing flux of South Asian immigrants as far as
their racial positioning is concerned (Vishweswaran 1997). Eduardo Bonilla -Silva also
refers to the middle status of South Asian in his theory of tri-racial order by classifying
Asian Indian and some other Asian American in the category of “honorary whites.”
According to Bonilla- Silva’s scheme, they fall between whites and collective blacks and
they use the strategy of racial mobility through whitening of the kind seen in Latin
America and the Caribbean (Bonilla- Silva 2004).
Recent theorizing on Asian Americans and U.S. racial order, however, has
critiqued the notion of a single hierarchy of race. Claire Kim’s theory of racial
triangulation of Asian Americans is quite instructive in this regard and it provides a
useful framework for understanding the placing of South Asian immigrants too. The
racial triangulation theory questions the placing of racial groups on a single hierarchy of
status and privilege and argues to look at Asian Americans on at least two axes –
superior/inferior and insider/foreigner. Asian Americans are racialized on both these axes
in relation to each other. Kim argues that racial triangulation of Asian Americans takes
place through two types of simultaneous and linked processes: first, the process of
“relative valorization” whereby the dominant group (whites) valorizes subordinate group
(Asians Americans) relative to another subordinate group (blacks) on cultural and/or
racial grounds in order to dominate both groups, but especially the blacks. Relative
valorization is precisely the process which produces the discourse of model minority by
claiming that Asian Americans are culturally inclined to strive hard and achieve better
economic and social standing as compared to Blacks. Secondly, there is simultaneously
57
the process of “civic ostracism” whereby whites construct Asian Americans as
immutably foreign and inassimilable with whites on cultural and /or racial grounds
thereby “ostracize them from body politic and civic membership.” In Kim’s schema, on
the axis of foreigner-insider, Asian Americans fall closer to the foreigner side of the axis
whereas Blacks and Whites fall closer to the insider dimension of the axis. Kim argues
that the most striking feature is the historical persistence of this racial triangulation of
Asian Americans since its inception in the 1800s. It has only undergone cosmetic changes
in the post-1965 era in “keeping with the contemporary norms of colorblindness” (Kim
1999, 107).
Kim’s theory of racial triangulation is equally applicable to South Asian
immigrants. Scholars writing on South Asian immigrants argue that the ascription of
model minority status to Indian immigrants shapes their self perception as well as their
perception of other minority groups. Vijay Prashad, for instance, points to the importance
of class in the construction of South Asian American identity and argues that there is a
strong notion among a large section of South Asians that their class status works as an
effective barrier against racial discrimination in this society and provides immunity from
racialization of the group (Prashad 2000). However, post-9/11 reactions of racial
targeting and hate crimes against South Asians and Arab immigrants brought the issue of
“foreignness” to the fore which started shaking the notion of immunity from racialization
due to class status. Claire Kim’s framework of racial triangulation thus provides a very
useful lens to analyze the racial positioning of South Asian immigrants by simultaneously
looking at their perceived cultural traits of success and hard work in relation to other
minority groups and their perceived outsider status in comparison to these groups.
58
In this chapter I develop Kim’s schema further to argue that the new immigrant
groups can be racialized on multiple axes and based on the analysis of interviews with
South Asian immigrants I add another axis of racialization which distinguishes South
Asians from other Asian Americans, namely the religious difference of South Asian
immigrants from the dominant Judeo-Christian religious tradition of the U.S. that is often
used to further cast them as outsiders. The predominance of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs
among South Asian immigrants make them distinctive from the Christian majority of the
United States. This religious distinction of South Asian immigrants came to the fore
acutely in post-9/11 environment when they were racialized and targeted on the basis of
religious difference among other things.
Race, Discrimination, and Belonging
The post-9/11 environment of hostility, racial discrimination, and hate crimes
against Arabs, Muslims, South Asians, and others who “appeared like terrorists” was not
the first time that South Asian immigrants of different countries of origin and religious
backgrounds came face to face with racial hostility and discrimination in the United
States. Thus, the incidents of hate crimes, racial profiling, and targeting of certain groups
were not merely a product of emotions generated by extraordinary nature of incident on
September 11
th
, 2001 but rather a continuation as well as accentuation of racialization of
South Asians and other immigrant groups in the United States.
As discussed earlier, the long history of racialization of South Asian immigrants
was reflected in the naturalization laws in the early 20
th
century which prevented them
from acquiring citizenship in the U.S. However, the post -1965 phase of South Asian
immigration was taking place in a different context where legally stipulated forms of
59
discrimination were no longer in existence. There is very little macro-level data of the
post-1965 period on South Asian immigrants and racial discrimination. However, the
limited existing surveys and case studies suggest that racial discrimination has always
been an issue of concern despite the fact that it may not have always found clear public
articulation. A survey conducted in 1976 among Indian immigrants in Chicago reported
that 44 percent of the participants had experienced discrimination in some way. Over half
of those who reported discrimination said that these acts of discrimination were related to
being passed over for raises and promotions in corporate America in favor of White
Americans , and around one third were related to a refusal to rent houses or apartments
clearly on the market.(Fisher 1980). Similarly, the analysis of PNAAPS data (the survey
was conducted before September 11, 2001) showed that 38 percent of South Asians
personally experienced discrimination. The percentage of the overall sample (the total
Asian American sample) which reported discrimination is 36 percent. Among those
South Asians who reported to have personally faced discrimination, the highest
percentage (63) said they felt discriminated while dealing with strangers in public places
whereas 54 percent reported discrimination in jobs and promotions and 46 percent that
they faced it while dealing with business or retail establishments. These numbers clearly
suggest that even though racial discrimination was not an overwhelming concern, it
remained an issue of concern for South Asian immigrants in different spheres of life even
before September 11, 2001(Lien, Conway, and Wong 2004).
Even though racial classification had been an issue since Bhagat Singh Thind
days, the question of racial classification and discrimination became a particularly vexing
issue after a critical mass of South Asians arrived in the U.S. after the 1965 immigration
60
reform. A campaign was launched in the late 1970s by a group of Indian immigrants for
census reclassification of the group. The debate was whether to press for reclassification
of Indian immigrants in the U.S. census from the census category of white to Asian
American. This debate was reflective of the community’s thinking on the issue of race
and discrimination. The Association of Indian Americans (AIA) in its 1975 submission to
the Federal Interagency Committee on Education (FICE), the governmental committee
dealing with racial and ethnic definitions, argued in favor of reclassification on the basis
of racial status of Indian immigrants in the U.S. The group argued:
The language of the Civil Rights Act clearly intends to protect those individuals
who might be disadvantaged on the basis of appearance. It is undeniable that
Indians are different in appearance; they are equally dark skinned as other non-
white individuals and are, therefore, subject to the same prejudices…. Indians are
disadvantaged, we believe, for reasons of racial discrimination (Fisher 1980, 129).

AIA further argued that as Indian immigrants became permanent residents and
citizens, they were able to bring their family members to this country and that section did
not exactly fit the demographic profile of a highly educated professional worker and thus
could be discriminated against because of their skin color and appearance. However,
there was no unanimity within the community on this issue. For instance, there were
opinions expressed in India Abroad – one of the first major ethnic newspapers published
by the Indian immigrant community in the U.S. - which suggested that the community
should not foreground the issue of discrimination and avoid comparisons with other
minority groups. The fear about asking for minority status and preferential treatment was
that it might lead to a backlash against Indian immigrants (Fisher, 1980). The
ambivalence of the Indian immigrant community toward U.S. racial categories and the
61
anxiety about identifying with a particular one were reflected intensely in this debate.
However, the debate also suggested that there was a growing realization in the 1980s
among professional sections of the community that racism was a reality in the United
States with which the community had to deal with.
The issues of race and racial discrimination among South Asian immigrants have
also been coupled with the discourse on model minority in the community. For instance,
Vijay Prashad (2000) and Nazli Kibria (1998) have noted that Indian immigrants are not
comfortable with racial labels and the model minority discourse provides them with a
framework to deal with this stigma of minority identity. Prashad aptly describes how
South Asian immigrants very quickly became a part of the model minority discourse vis-
à-vis other minority groups-blacks in particular- after their entry into the United States
following the 1965 immigration reform. He argues:
The entry of desis(South Asians) in large numbers after the passage of the Civil
Rights Acts not only brought them into model minority category but also set the
terms for desi( South Asian) view of Black liberation. It did not take long for the
media to add desis to the model minority category. Here was a community with
phenomenal demographic data: Almost everyone had an advanced degree, and
almost all the migrants imbibed bourgeois values of education and a work ethic.
There was little recognition in the media that this was an artificial community,
that most of those who migrated came through the filters of the INS. This was the
cream of the bourgeois South Asian crop, and it was certainly going to make an
impact despite its small numbers (p 169).

This particular construction of South Asian immigrants- highly educated
professionals with strong work ethic- fed into the myth of model minority at the cost of
ignoring the economic, social, and educational diversity within the community. The fact
that there is a significant section of working class and poor South Asians - among
62
Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi immigrants- is completely ignored in this continuing
model minority discourse.
Despite the hold of the model minority myth among South Asian immigrants, the
issue of racial discrimination and hate crimes became practical concerns for South Asian
immigrants in the 1980s as a section of South Asian immigrants started operating small
businesses in some parts of the U.S. and a section of working class also emerged within
the community. Small clusters of Indian immigrants started living in neighborhoods
giving them a distinct Indian neighborhood reputation. Some of the incidents of overt
racial hostility came to public notice in this period. One of such series of incidents, which
received a lot of media attention, took place in New Jersey. In separate incidents which
took place within a short span of time in 1987, an Indian man, Navroze Mody, was
beaten to death in Hoboken, New Jersey; another beaten into a coma, and two women
assaulted at a bus stand near Jersey City. The local media reported the local white youth
saying, “It’s white people against Hindus” and “Heights (Jersey Heights) is for whites.”
There were also other incidents in the area during the same period which involved
spitting on Indian women, hurling trash and stones on Indian houses and businesses
(Marriot 1987; Mazumdar 2003). The Jersey City incidents in 1987 brought the issue of
discrimination and hate crime against Indian immigrants into limelight. These incidents
also questioned the myth that all South Asian immigrants were professionals living in
suburbs and completely insulated from any kind of racial hostility. However, South
Asian immigrants stopped short of embracing this issue fully. Sucheta Mazumdar,
analyzing the racial attacks on Indian immigrants in Jersey City, argued that Indian
immigrants generally chose to avoid the politics of race in United States and never
63
worked towards building the coalition of minority groups to counter racial discrimination
and hate crime (Mazumdar 2003). The above analysis strengthens the view that South
Asian immigrants show strong ambivalence about the issue of race and racial
discrimination and even though campaigns on racial classification took place there has
been little mobilization and organizing within the community around this issue.
Post-September 11
th
: South Asians, Racial Targeting, and Outsiders
September11, 2001 was a watershed moment for South Asian and Arab
communities in the United States as far as their perception, acceptance, and treatment in
U.S. society were concerned. The issues of race, religious difference, and foreignness
came to the forefront immediately after September 11
th
. An analysis of the impact of
Post-September 11
th
events on South Asian immigrants suggests that race, religion, and
foreignness remain a significant part of how South Asian immigrants are perceived and
treated in the U.S. My analysis also suggests that the post- September 11
th
period
foregrounded racial, ethnic, and religious identities of South Asian immigrants in a
manner which made them targets of suspicion, discrimination, and hate crimes. The spate
of racial targeting in the post -9/11 period was a continuation- though in a much more
accentuated manner- of the racialization of immigrants groups such as South Asians. The
post-September 11
th
reaction of hostility against South Asians and Arabs may have
subsided in the months and years following that incident, but it provides a rich empirical
site to understand the issue of race and racialization of South Asian immigrants and how
the group itself viewed the issue of racial hostility and discrimination vis-à-vis their
social and political incorporation. The interviews conducted with activists and
community members from South Asian community very clearly suggested that
64
conversations around the issue of race, religion, and inclusion invariably evoked
references to 9/11 and a large number of respondents talked about discrimination and
inclusion in the context of events of hate crime and racial targeting in the post-9/11
period. The analysis of responses by South Asian immigrants to the post-9/11
environment of hostility thus provides an understanding of how South Asian immigrants
view the issues of racial discrimination, their continued perception as foreigners, and
religious differences. Furthermore, the analysis also provides an answer to the question
whether there is a possibility or attempt to mobilize the group on such issues.
The reactions immediately after the September 11
th
attack were indiscriminate in
terms of targeting of people of Arab and South Asian descent of different religious
persuasions-Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians- along with other brown
skinned people who looked like “foreigners” and/or “terrorists.” The violence was
targeted at these people solely because they shared or perceived to be sharing the
nationality, religion, and background of those who were involved in the September 11
th

attack. The appearance, dress, and perceived religious background became important in
targeting groups and individuals. It was in this context that South Asian immigrants
became a target of attacks in the immediate aftermath of the September 11
th
attack.
The racial hate crimes started even before the U.S. government released any
information about those involved in the 9/11attack. Within hours of the attack on the twin
towers, a Sikh was being chased down the streets of New York City by a group of young
people. He could save his life only with great difficulty. Various media reports pointed
out how Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus became the targets of hate crimes following the
9/11 attacks. A Sikh immigrant, Mr. Balbir Singh Sodhi, was shot dead in a parking lot in
65
Mesa, Arizona. Human Rights Watch reported local Police officials saying that Mr.
Sodhi’s killer was heard saying in a bar that he would kill the “ragheads” responsible for
September 11
th
attacks (Singh 2002). On October 4, 2001, Mr. Vasudev Patel, a 49 year
old Hindu immigrant from India, was shot dead at his convenience store in Mesquite,
Texas. His killer, Mark Stroman, later said in a television interview that anger over the
September 11
th
led him to attack any store owner who appeared to be Muslim. Waqar
Hassan, a 46 year old Pakistani Muslim immigrant, was also killed at his grocery store
near Dallas, Texas on September 15, 2001. Although no money was taken from Hassan,
the local police believed that it was a case of robbery. His family, however, believed that
it was a hate crime because no money was taken and it happened so soon after September
11
th
. This case remained unsolved until Mark Stroman- the same person who killed Mr.
Vasudev Patel in Mesquite- Texas admitted to killing Mr. Hassan to a fellow prison
inmate in 2002(Singh 2002). The dynamics of racialization of South Asian immigrants in
the wake of 9/11 on the basis of their appearance, skin color, religion, and nation of
origin was unmistakable. They were all lumped together and seen as a possible threat to
the United States. South Asian immigrants as well as the other targeted groups were
shocked to see the intensity of hostility, and suspicion generated by this incident.
A report prepared by South Asian American Leaders for Tomorrow
(SAALT), based on news items which appeared in media organizations serving large
communities in the United States, found that there were 645 bias incidents in the time
span of just one week-between September 11
th
and September 17
th
, 2001. The report
noted that these incidents ranged from racial jokes to serious hate crimes like arson,
attack, and shooting. The report pointed out:
66
Perceptions played a major role in determining backlash victims, as evidenced by
many cases in which victims included Sikhs, Hispanics, a Greek American and
others. South Asians were involved in 81(13 percent) of the reported incidents.
Practicing Sikhs, in particular, with their distinct religious traditions were among
those who were singled out.
9

Immigrant Americans from different nations of origin were targeted based on
their appearance, skin color, religion, accent, etc. In a comprehensive review of attacks
on South Asians and Arabs, the Human Rights Watch noted:
The Sept.11 hate crime backlash confirmed the fears of Arabs and Muslims in the
United States: a major terrorist attack gave rise to a nationwide wave of hate
crimes against persons and institutions perceived to be Arabs and Muslim. Unlike
previous hate crime waves, however, post-September 11
th
backlash distinguished
itself by its ferocity and extent. The violence included murder , physical assault,
arson, vandalism of places of worship, and other property damage , death threats,
and public harassment.(Singh 2002, 14)

The surveys conducted after September 11 reported that the South Asian
community was greatly affected by this environment of suspicion and hate crimes and
they were more likely to report facing discrimination in comparison to other groups. A
survey of 1000 California adults by New California Media and USC Annenberg Institute
for Justice and Journalism between July and August of 2002 provided evidence of how
different communities felt about racial discrimination after September 11.
10
The tables
below show how different ethnic groups responded to the following question: Do you
think you have been the victim of racial or ethnic discrimination more often, less often, or
about the same as before September 11(table 2.2).

9
South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow, American Backlash: Terrorists Bring War Home in more
Ways Than One (Washington, DC: SAALT, 2001).

10
http://www.ncmonline.com/media/pdf/911survey.pdf

67

Table 2.2: Discrimination among Different Ethnic Groups
in the Post- 9/11 period.

Ethnic/racial group More Often( Percentages)
Middle Eastern 58
Asian 16
Hispanic 13
African American 3

Ethnic/racial group More Often ( Percentages)
Pakistani 80
Iranian 60
Arabic 57
Indian 44
Afghan 42
Source: New California Media and USC Annenberg Institute for Justice
and Journalism Survey, 2002

The data show that an overwhelming majority of Pakistani immigrants (80 percent) and a
significant number of Indian respondents (44 percent) reported that they faced more
discrimination after 9/11. A comparison with other minority groups- African Americans,
Hispanics, and Asian Americans- shows that Indian, Pakistani, and other Middle Eastern
groups felt more targeted and subject of discrimination than the other groups.
68
Another survey conducted by the New York City Commission on Human Rights
between December, 2002 and April, 2003 also provided insight into how the South Asian
and Arab communities felt about the post 9/11 environment. The survey, conducted
primarily with the help of different community organizations to reach out to the affected
communities, included a total of 956 respondents from New York City of which 47
percent were Arab and 39 percent were South Asians. It is important to note here that the
survey did not use random sampling method to select the respondents but it was a large
scale operation which included a significant number of community organizations to reach
out to different sections of South Asian and Arab communities. 69 percent of respondents
said that they faced incidents of discrimination or bias-related harassment. 79 percent felt
that their lives were negatively affected by 9/11, regardless of whether they believed they
had directly experienced any discrimination. They reported having felt more afraid and
minimizing their contact with the general public or making their religion and ethnicity
less evident. Further analysis of the survey suggested that the most frequent (37 percent)
discrimination came in the form of religious and ethnic insults. The bias related incidents
ranged from spitting, yelling, and vandalizing to physical attacks. Employment
discrimination (26 percent) and public accommodation related discrimination (25
percent) were the other two major categories reported by the respondents.
11
These
surveys confirm the media reports and accounts which suggest that South Asian
immigrants of different religious persuasions and countries of origin were targeted and
experienced increased racial discrimination and hate crimes in the post-9/11 period.

11
http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/pdf/sur_report.pdf
69
The analysis of interviews conducted with activists, and community members of
Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi immigrant communities in the broader Los Angeles
and New York metropolitan area provides further insight into the ways in which South
Asian immigrants looked at the issues of race, inclusion, belonging, and discrimination-
both pre-9/11 and post-9/11 . The interviews not only confirms the accounts of blanket
targeting, racial profiling, and hate crime, but also suggests the ways in which South
Asian immigrants connect the post -9/11 targeting to their racial status and to the issues
of inclusiveness and belonging to the social and political process in the United States.
One of the most recurring themes through these interviews is the image of outsider or
foreigner being ascribed to South Asians. In the context of post-9/11 U.S., this image of
foreigner/outsider is easily perceived as threatening and is collapsed with the image of a
“terrorist.”
The trope of foreigner, of course, is an old one in U.S. immigration history and it
has been used on both European as well as non European immigrants. European
immigrants of late 19
th
century and early 20
th
century –particularly Irish, Italian, and
Jewish immigrants- also faced this stereotype but unlike Asian immigrants they were able
to shed off their “foreigner” stereotype once they moved up the economic ladder.
However, the Asian immigrants of 19
th
century were racialized as outsiders and
inassimilable which evolved and persisted as what scholars term as “perpetual foreigner”
image of Asian immigrants. Historically, the non-white immigrants have been impacted
differently by the foreigner/outsider discourse than white European immigrants and race
becomes an important marker in the case of Asian immigrants.
70
The continuing treatment of certain immigrant groups as outsider strikes at the
very core of the inclusiveness of social and political process as far as new immigrants are
concerned. Despite having equal legal and political citizenship rights, the continuing
rhetoric of outsider/ foreigner creates deep barriers to political inclusion of immigrant
groups. South Asian immigrants, however, realized the actual depth of the outsider
perception in the post-9/11 period. A 65 year old woman New Yorker of South Asian
origin, who has lived in the U.S. for more than 25 years, referred to her family’s
experiences after 9/11. She said:
I must say that the community felt frightened in the beginning…. My son did
have an unpleasant experience. I mean unpleasant verbal abuse, let me put it that
way. He was at Princeton….. He is dark, he looks like a Palestinian actually.
Every body thinks he looks like a Palestinian. …. my son is sort of dark skinned.
He and his wife were coming out of a restaurant … and some white kids, who
were obviously very drunk , started abusing him and saying go back to your
country , what are you doing here. I think what it did to my son, who came here
(U.S.) when he was not even three and who has never seen himself as black…..
But he said for the first time, I looked at myself and realized that I was not white.
They were seeing me as something different……
12

It is obvious here that appearance and color of skin were directly linked to being seen as
outsider/ foreigner led to the comment “go back to your country.” The racialization of
certain phenotype as foreigner/outsider, irrespective of the length of stay and place of
birth, and self identification is unmistakable here.
The backlash after September 11
th
came as a surprise for South Asians because of
the intensity with which they were made to feel outsiders. A 41 year old male Pakistani
immigrant based in New York City expressed aptly the deep sense of exclusion which
South Asian immigrants were confronted with after 9/11 attacks. He noted:

12
Interview, New York City, NY,10 February 2007.
71
When I came in (U.S.) I was like, yes! I belong here. I felt like I am in the right
spot and right society. This is the society where I should be. But the 9/11 incident
has changed it a little bit. For a couple of years (after 9/11) I really thought I
should move back to Pakistan, although I am an American citizen. But life was so
miserable, here not so much by the public. Yeah, there was public anger and
bashing, but more by the government agencies, the FBI and INS. I live in
Brooklyn, in the middle of the community and people were being picked up right
and left of me. If you go home and you see a couple of blocks where FBI agents
are all looking around, basically for those guys who ran out of their (immigration)
status . … they have done no criminal activity what so ever. All they were guilty
of was that their status ran out, which is true for millions and millions of
immigrants of different ethnicities. So only one ethnicity was being targeted,
which totally made me feel not being welcomed. Not so much by the public but
by the government actions….. I totally felt like I don’t belong here any more….
Now things are getting back to normal, but not in the real sense, not like pre-
9/11. This is a totally different America we are living in…..
13

One of the repercussions of September 11
th
was thus a particular construction of
certain ethnic and immigrant groups which in popular imagination carried a resemblance
to the terrorists and perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. In the days following 9/11, there
were attempts on the part of South Asian immigrants to distance themselves from the
image of a threatening outsider or foreigner and they felt forced to make gestures which
could show their patriotism and commitment to the United States. There were a number
of reports suggesting that minority businesses made sure that the American flag was
displayed prominently to stave off possible hate crimes or racial targeting. Talking about
the reaction of the South Asian community in New York Metropolitan Area immediately
after 9/11, a 30 year old Indian immigrant woman from northern New Jersey,
commented:
One of the things I could see was a lot of South Asians putting the American flag
on their cars. A lot of shops and businesses, they hung the American flag …… I
saw that more intensely among South Asian people living around me than non

13
Interview, New York City, NY, 7

March 2007

72
South Asians. One of the people I know, who did it, was my brother. He still has a
five foot American flag stuck outside his house. He is the only South Asian in his
community, everyone else there is white, and he does experience the unease of
being out of place. That was his first move. I think a couple of days after
September 11
th
he went out and got the flag and hung it. I think that was an
obvious marker of how South Asians in specific and non-white Americans in
general might feel the need to articulate their belonging and support.
14

Sentiments expressing the continued perception of South Asian immigrants as
outsider/ foreigners were expressed by interviewees from all three countries of origin
being studied for this project. A 40 year old woman immigrant from Los Angeles, who
came to the U.S. with her parents in the 1970s from India when she was small,
expressed the continuing outsider perception in the following words, “I would say for a
long time it was not just so much as a person of color, but as a foreigner. And I think my
parents even to this day continue to feel that status, more than just being a person of color
versus a white person.”
15
The sense of being a foreigner/ outsider is shaped by multiple
experiences including by how welcome South Asian immigrants feel in civic and political
spaces. Many of the interviewees pointed out the limited acceptability and openness of
various civic and political spaces. A 55 year old Indian immigrant woman in Los Angeles
spoke about the limited acceptability of South Asian immigrants in civic spaces. She
argued:
The nation (United States) may have made a lot of strides, every thing else may
have and legally too, but the individual still finds you a different person from a
different country and still has not taken you to be one of them because of your
color and your race that you come from. How do you break that barrier? No, you
can not? It is an individual who has a problem. ….. I do not know if it will ever
happen.
16

14
Interview, Madison, NJ, 11 November 2006

15
Interview, Los Angeles, CA, 13 May 2006

16
Interview, Orange County, CA, 16 May 2006
73

The racialization of South Asian immigrants as outsiders thus has important
implications for their civic and political engagement. Many of the interviewees talked
about the invisible barrier to inclusion in different civic and political spaces. They are
treated as outsiders who can not really fully become a part of civic spaces along with the
local people. Even though the prevalence of multicultural ethos encourages organizations
and institutions to be inclusive of people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, the
interviewees in this study point that the inclusiveness is only formal and that such
inclusiveness stops short of giving them equal space and voice. The woman immigrant
from India quoted above goes on to detail the implications of outsider/foreigner
perception for civic participation by talking about her personal experience. She noted:
When my son was younger and in school, they would have some meetings where
they would say the parents have to come….. You have an opinion, you stand up
and say something, and you feel you are being condoned or I would say
condescending- oh! that is very good, great. But then you feel you are not a
participant. That is how a lot of us have felt, even though you’ve been very active
trying to get into it…. Same thing in the politics also… in the mayoral election in
Irvine…. we’ve been participating in that, and campaigning…You do the things
which are required, you send mailers and stuff, you go for a meeting, but when
you are there, it is very difficult. … always felt that anything I said was
considered to be great but it was not an opinion to be seriously thought about. I
hope you understand what I mean. It is not that they look down on you, but at the
same time, it was always, oh good, at least she said something. And some of my
friends don’t mind that… But for a personality like mine… if this is how it is,
then sometimes I would withdraw.
17

The racial difference in terms of skin color and appearance along with language
and religion were seen by South Asian immigrants as major markers that cast them as
outsiders. The post -9/11 environment only aggravated the racialization of South Asian
immigrants and for many of them it was the first time when the meanings and

17
Interview, Orange County, CA, 16 May 2006.
74
implications of racial difference were starkly conveyed to them. The racialized
differences were expressed by one of the interviewees in terms of the difficulties of
acquiring the unmediated American identity. A young Bangladeshi immigrant from Los
Angeles said:
I know that I could never be American or American American…….. Because
color of my skin and my look. My children born in this country, I know that they
will speak better language (English), better than me. They will have a better
future. This country is a land of opportunities. But they will still have a look…
maybe in future somebody will point at them and tell them hey, you are not
American, you came from this and that. Because after 9-11, a lot of people face
problems just because of their look, regardless of their religion or whatever. They
could be Christian or Hindu or Buddhist, but they do have a look like they are
Muslim. They think they are all terrorists or something. So my kids will face the
same issues, I know that.
18

A 45 year old Pakistani immigrant based in Los Angeles echoed similar
sentiment: “Of course…… because of the color of our skin and the way we look and talk,
we are still seen as foreigners, even though we may be born here. Still there is this
perception that you are not an American. I think there is still some bias against people
who are not white in this country.”
19

Thus the racialization of South Asian immigrants has a long history in the United
States that started even before the naturalization laws of early 20
th
century which barred
immigrants from South Asia from acquiring U.S. citizenship. The racialization of South
Asian immigrants continued even though legal discrimination became a thing of the past
after civil rights movement in the 1960s. The post-September 11
th
events, however,
brought to the fore the issue of exclusion, racial discrimination, and targeting which
South Asian immigrants as a group faced before but something which they had wanted to

18
Interview, Los Angeles, CA, 7 July 2006.

19
Interview, Los Angeles, CA, 23 June 2006.
75
ignore and wish away. The events following September 11
th
primed the racial, ethnic,
cultural, and religious identities in a stark way which triggered racial hostility. The post-
September 11
th
period thus demonstrates that the racial, cultural, and religious identities
of South Asian immigrants have always been used to mark them as outsiders and the
social and political inclusion of South Asian immigrants is constantly impacted by the
ways in which these identities are used for exclusionary purposes.
The experiences of South Asians thus directly challenge the
pluralist/assimilationist model of political incorporation based on the classic presumption
that with passage of time and upward economic mobility immigrant groups become a part
of the social and political fabric of the U.S. and they no longer remain at disadvantage as
compared to the mainstream society. In contrast, the experiences of South Asian
immigrants suggest that their racial status remain a major basis of difference and their
non-white racial status accentuates the outsider perception. One of the major ways in
which pluralist/assimilationist model fails to understand the South Asian immigrants’
social and political incorporation process is to account for the persistence of the outsider
status despite educational and economic progress. The analysis of survey results and in-
depth interviews suggests that South Asian immigrants continue facing exclusion and
discrimination despite relatively high educational and economic status of a segment of
the community. The exclusionary and discriminatory practices became much more
prominent in the post-9/11 period as compared to the times preceding that. The
heightened incidents of discrimination and racial targeting in the post-9/11 period suggest
how certain contexts aggravate the preexisting stereotypes and perception about minority
groups.
76
The framework of perpetual foreigner and civic exclusion advanced by Asian
American scholars and its subsequent reformulation by Claire Kim in her racial
triangulation theory does speak to the experience of exclusion of certain minority
communities based on their racialization as outsiders which persists for generations.
However, the experience of South Asian immigrants suggest that even these minority
communities are not monolithic and different sections of the community are impacted
differently by the process of racialization, discrimination, and exclusion. Clair Kim’s
theory of racial triangulation while being useful in acknowledging the persistence of
foreigner status of Asian Americans, stops short of taking into account the internal
distinctions within the community. The experience of South Asian immigrants thus
suggests that internal distinctions add further complexities to this process of racialization,
and an analysis of religious and class distinctions within South Asian community
demonstrates that monolithic treatment of a minority group does not provide an adequate
understanding of the process of racialization and exclusion as well as political
mobilization within the community.
Being Muslim and Immigrant is a “Double Whammy”
20

Religious difference among the South Asians played an important role in the ways
in which they were treated in the post-9/11 U.S. Even though all South Asians were
target of suspicion in the days following September 11th, 2001, Hindus, Muslims, and
Sikhs were impacted differently. A 52 year old Muslim immigrant from India based in
New York Metropolitan area talked about the challenges of being a Muslim Immigrant in
the post-9/11 U.S. He said:

20
The expression was used by one of the interviewees to describe the status of Muslims in the post-9/11
United States.
77
…Especially the Muslims are affected very much. I think in the immediate
aftermath everybody was painted with a broad brush, whether you were Muslim
or not, as long as you are brown. As long as you looked different, you were
looked at with suspicion and everything. I have seen Sikhs with posters saying we
are not Muslims. It was shocking actually, but I guess I could understand, they
were the ones targeted most. So that way everybody tried to distance themselves
from Muslims, within the community…. definitely there is a big change. Less
tolerance towards Muslims, towards immigrants. So if you are an immigrant
Muslim, it is a double whammy. You have to work through two hurdles.
21

Besides the blanket public targeting of brown skinned South Asians and Arab
immigrants after September 11
th
, the various state and law enforcement agencies started
targeting Muslims immigrants from different countries in a very systematic manner.
Vijay Prashad, commenting on the treatment of Muslims in the U.S. after September 11
th
,
writes:
The government began to play the game of six degrees of separation, picking up
anyone who knew one of the hijackers or worshipped at the mosque they
attended, or whose name appeared in their address book, or whose name came up
in interrogation of anyone picked up for these reasons, or again anyone who had
been under the government’s dragnet as radical Islamists in one form or the other.
And then there were those Muslims who became accidental radical Islamists –
pilots, students with expired visas, and youth with criminal records (Prashad
2005, 585)

The racial profiling of Muslims was too obvious to be missed in the post-
September 11
th
United States. Shortly after the September 11
th
attack, FBI and INS
conducted sweeps all over the U.S. to detain individuals with possible terrorist
connections and most of them were Muslims.
Muslims constitute a significant section of South Asian immigrants. An
overwhelming majority of Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants are Muslims and there
is a significant section of Muslims among immigrants from India. Thus, Muslim
immigrants from South Asia constitute a significant section of American Muslim

21
Interview, New York City, NY, 7 February 2007
78
population. There are different estimates of ancestry of Muslim Americans but South
Asian Muslims are second highest after African American Muslims in the United
States.
22
South Asian Muslims also have significant presence in prominent American
Muslim organizations (Leonard 2005)
Given the significant presence of Muslims among South Asian immigrants, the
profiling and targeting of Muslims in the United States has impacted a significant section
of South Asian immigrants. A New York based Muslim South Asian immigrant from
Pakistan referred to the specific targeting of Muslims by law enforcement agencies in the
post-9/11 period. He argued:
Early on I think it was true for everyone (South Asians), but it looks like the law
enforcement agencies have gone through their training and they have been told:
this is a Sikh turban and this is a Muslim turban, so be aware. If you get this
turban, let them go, but this turban, stop them. So they went through that change
of their manual of training and it is now mostly the South Asian Muslim
community.
23

The specific targeting of Muslims of both Arab and South Asian descent sent
shock waves among these communities all over the United States. American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) gave the harrowing details of indiscriminate arrest, police
abuse, lack of legal support, and family separations resulting from large number of
deportations.
24
The government agencies also accepted indiscriminate nature of arrest and

22
According to one estimate , African Americans are 42 percent of the American Muslim population
followed by South Asians( 24.4), Arabs(12.4), Africans(6.2), and Iranian( 3.6). This estimate is based on
The Muslim Population in the United States: A Brief Statement by of Fareed H. Nu’man. Another estimate
by Ilyas BaYunus and Moin Siddique (1999) puts the number a little differently: African Amercan( 30),
Arab(33), and South Asian(29). These numbers suggest that South Asian Muslims constitute a large part of
the immigrant Muslim population in the United States( Leonard 2005).

23
Interview, New York City, NY, 3 March 2007

24
America’s disappeared ( 2004) ; World’s Apart: How Deporting Immigrants After 9/11 Tore Families
Apart and Shattered Communities (2004).
79
deportations in that period when ACLU and other civil rights organizations pressed them
to disclose the number of people who were arrested in the aftermath of September 11
th
.
The Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) report in 2003 accepted that the arrests were
“indiscriminate” and “haphazard” and also that Immigration and Naturalization Services
regularly arrested people who had no connection to criminal activity, let alone terrorism.
25

The report said:
Even in the hectic aftermath of the September 11 attacks, we believe the FBI
should have taken more care to distinguish between aliens who it actually
suspected of having a connection to terrorism as opposed to aliens who, while
possibly guilty of violating federal immigration law, had no connection to
terrorism” (Office of Inspector Genral Report 2003, 70).
A majority of those who were arrested in these large scale sweeps after 9/11 were
Muslims and an overwhelming majority of them were South Asian immigrants. A large
number of Muslim South Asian immigrants were picked up just because they fitted a
certain profile which was constructed primarily on the basis of religion, physical
appearance, and country of origin. The FBI agents picked them up on the flimsiest of
“tips” provided by public and sometimes even as a result of chance encounter. The OIG
report said that many of the arrests were based on tips such as “ two Arabs rented a truck
and returned it only minutes later” or “a grocery store was being operated by numerous
Arab men” (Office of Inspector General Report, 2003).
The government went a step further in targeting Muslim immigrants when it
announced the infamous program of Special Registration Drive in August 2002- the
National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). As a part of this mandatory

25
The September 11 Detainees: A Review of the Treatment of Aliens Held on Immigration Charges in
Connection with the Investigation of the September 11
th
Attack.
80
drive, the Justice Department required for all non-immigrant aliens entering from certain
designated countries (all of them Muslim majority countries except Korea) to register
with local Immigration and Naturalization Services offices. The rule stated that
nonimmigrant males 16 years and older from these countries would need to make report
to INS upon arrival; 30 days after arrival; upon events such as change of address,
employment, or school; and upon departure from the U.S. Between September and
December of 2002, nationals or citizens, aged 16 years or older, from 25 countries with
predominantly Muslim population were asked to report to their local INS by a given date
for interrogation and fingerprinting.
26
Special registration was presented as neutral and
benign, but it unfolded in a way which led to painful consequences and created an
environment of strong fear among the Muslim communities across the U.S. In December
2002, Los Angeles office of INS arrested around 400 people who came voluntarily to
comply with the requirements of special registration but were arrested on the grounds of
various immigration violations. The presence of a substantial population of
undocumented immigrants in the United States is a matter of public knowledge and
Muslims immigrants are no exception to that. Most of the people who were arrested on
the grounds of visa violations in the process of the special registration drive were in the
process of getting their stay legalized through proper immigration channels. The special
registration drive thus became a tool for selectively enforcing immigration laws on the
Muslim community (Aizenmann and Walsh, 2003). When the process of special
registration was completed, 13,000 men out of the total 83,000 who complied with the

26
All the twenty-five countries included in special registration were predominantly Muslim countries from
Africa, Middle East, South Asia , and South-East Asia with the exception of North Korea. This program
was scrapped subsequently.
81
special registration were set to be deported. A large number of those who were deported
or scheduled to be deported hailed from Pakistan.
One of the communities which saw this entire episode of racial profiling,
detention, and deportation played out was Brooklyn’s Midwood neighborhood known as
little Pakistan in New York City. What happened in Midwood, Brooklyn in the months
and years following September 11th 2001 was recounted, written about, and reported to
South Asian immigrant communities all over the U.S. Before September 11
th
2001, an
estimated 100,000-120,000 Pakistanis lived in Brooklyn, concentrated in Midwood and
Bryton Beach. Different sources and community activists put the number of those who
were deported or left the country voluntarily between 15,000 and 20,000 people (Elliot
2003). It started after the September 11
th
attack when FBI began indiscriminately
searching houses and arresting residents. A large number of those who were arrested
were deported to their country of origin. Others simply left for their home country or
places such as Canada and Europe when special registration was announced. Many who
followed the government directives and went for mandatory registration were arrested on
technical grounds of visa violations. According to the Council of People’s Organization,
a local South Asian community group, more than 30 ethnic businesses were forced to
close down either because owners of the businesses were part of the exodus or there was
not enough business due to people leaving the community. A local community leader,
involved in community mobilizing after September 11
th
in the area, in an interview for
this study recalled:
… INS officials just came and picked up people. If they were looking for Mike
Smith, they will pick up Jane Smith and John Smith. What was happening in the
community was because after 9-11 there was a fear, the businesses lost their
82
business like 10 to 15%. Once special registration came into play, they even lost
25 to 40% and were shutting down. We asked the businesses why did this
happen? They told us that it was because people left. We calculated that over
20,000 people left just from Brooklyn because of the fear of special registration.
We found out that people went back to Pakistan or to Canada or another country,
especially to Pakistan. The value of land in certain parts (of Pakistan) went up.
27

The profiling and targeting of Muslim immigrants has continued long after the
initial hyper vigilance and large scale detention of Muslims all over the United States
stopped. A recent report, published by Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at
NYU School of law, presented evidence to show how naturalization process itself is
discriminatory against certain groups based on their religion, ethnicity, and country of
origin. The report argued that immigration policy after September 11
th
, 2001 has
consistently discriminated against “immigrants perceived to be Muslim, Arab, Middle
Eastern, or South Asian on the basis of their name, race, religion, ethnicity, or national
origin.”
28
The expanded security check in the citizenship application process which
includes FBI name check- a list which contains, among others, a large number of Muslim
names collected on the basis of profiling of Muslims and also through special
registration- has made the process daunting for Muslim applicants. This cumbersome
process of security clearance by matching the names with existing database creates delays
for all groups of immigrants but Muslim immigrants are particularly selected for
additional scrutiny and the likelihood of their names matching with the existing names in
FBI database is generally high. The report concluded that profiled groups are faced with
inordinate delays in the naturalization process as a result of these new policies after

27
Interview, New York City, NY, 12 March 2007.

28
Americans on Hold: Profiling, Citizenship, and the War on Terror. 2007. Center for Human Rights and
Global Justice, NYU School of Law.
83
September 11, 2001.
As discussed earlier, South Asian immigrants of all religious and national
backgrounds have faced the stereotype of perpetual foreigner and outsider and it became
more intense after September 11
th
, 2001. However, South Asians Muslims and Sikhs are
affected much more by this stereotyping than the other South Asian immigrants and the
internal distinctions within the community on religious lines is critical to understand the
ways in which racialization and exclusion works differentially. Any discussion of
political incorporation of South Asian immigrants thus has to account for the role of these
religious distinctions in racialization and exclusion of South Asian immigrants.
Religious identity among Muslim and Sikh South Asians has also become a
resource for active political engagement in the U.S. political process. One of the
significant fallout of post-9/11 targeting of Muslims was an attempt on the part of South
Asian Muslim organizations to find ways to intervene in the political process. These
interventions started with the explicit goal of protecting Muslims from racial
discrimination and hate crimes but they also evolved into a broader attempt to have a
Muslim voice in the political process. A Pakistani community leader in Los Angeles
identified 9/11 as an important moment that pushed Muslim Americans toward greater
engagement. He said:
Yes, I think it (9/11) has been an awakening.. I repeatedly say to the community
that the reason we see this discrimination of the Pakistani community is because
we kept too quiet, we kept aloof….. many other communities made the same
mistake. When they came to America, they did not make sure that one part of
their involvement would have to be the political involvement …. This community
did not do their homework prior to 9/11. They are doing that now. A little bit late,
but they are doing it now. And they have to do a lot more.
29

29
Interview, Los Angeles, CA, 20 March 2006
84
Anny Bakalian and Mehdi Bozorgmehr in their book Backlash 9/11- Middle Eastern and
Muslim Americans Respond argue that hate crimes and targeting of Muslim Americans
has ironically led to an attempt on the part of Muslim Americans for greater political
engagements and that religious identity is an important part of this push towards
participation( Bakalian and Bozorgmehr 2009).
Class Distinctions and Racialization among South Asians
The analysis of interviews with South Asian community members and activists
suggests that class distinctions also shape the ways in which racialization impacts the
process of marginalization and exclusion among different segments of the South Asian
immigrant community. Even though the entire South Asian community was racialized
and targeted as foreigners/outsiders after September 11, 2001, class played an important
role in how racialization impacted different sections of the community. This differential
impact was well reflected in a report published by the Human Rights Watch. The report
pointed out that the section of South Asians and Arab immigrants in the U.S. who were
owners of small businesses or clustered in jobs like taxi driving, running convenience
stores, gas stations, and motels became easy targets of most of the hate crimes as the
nature of their jobs made them particularly vulnerable to such attacks and racial slurs
(Singh 2002). The media and human rights group reports brought out the racial targeting
cases of South Asians working at gas stations, 7/11 stores, and similar work situation.
Furthermore, a large number of South Asian immigrants who were detained as a result of
FBI and INS sweeps across the U.S. in the wake of 9/11 attacks and those affected by
subsequent special registration drive were working class immigrants and a significant
number of them were also undocumented. They were the ones who bore the brunt of
85
special registration drive and the tightening of immigration rules. A number of
community leaders and activists familiar with working class South Asians pointed out
that a number of families decided to leave United States because they feared that their
immigration status adjustment may not come through because of the tightening of
immigration process and special scrutiny for certain group of immigrants.
Talking about the impact of 9/11 on South Asian immigrants, a community leader
pointed out the class dimension and said:
Clearly there has been an impact…everything has changed in our lives, especially
for the working class- in the sense that immigration procedures have tightened.
For the middle class (Professionals), it has not made that much of difference. I
think if you are on H1B (professional work visa) or F1 (student visa) and green
card track, you are fine. I think the US understands that labor market very well.
The significant impact has been on the working class if you take a narrow domain
like immigration. Large segments of immigrant population, even in the city like
New York, get naturalized over a period of time. The difference between them,
the working class South Asians who are not naturalized, and middle
class(Professionals) South Asians is that the working class entry into the
naturalization process has become much more limited ….. their naturalization is
based on political asylum cases and thing like that and not clearly guided labor
market structure like professionals. The immigration and naturalization process
for working classes have fallen apart. The level of scrutiny has just gone up…
30

There are other ways as well in which immigration system is more punishing and
discriminatory towards working class South Asians. Since working class South Asians
are more likely to go through different immigration status adjustments, they are more
likely to be further target of suspicion. A community leader pointed out how a tighter
immigration and antiterrorist monitoring impacts the professional and working class
South Asians differently. He said:
Let’s put it simply this way. Five out of ten of the poorer working class people,
let’s say simply, if you are going to JFK airport and zap your green card, let’s say
you even have a green card. It brings up your whole immigration record. There is

30
Interview, New York City, NY, 6 November 2006.
86
a very very high chance that a large number of working class folks have gone
through all sorts of immigration status adjustments. So the immigration officer in
this particular frame, this moment, is going to look at them more. So, they get hit
more.
31

When talking about discrimination and treatment as outsider, a number of
interviewees spoke about class becoming critical in understanding how racialization
impacts different sections of the South Asian community. A South Asian woman, while
speaking about discrimination, said:
No, in my personal circle I do not hear that, I have not faced discrimination; my
friends have not faced discriminations. In the social setting I am fitting into, I do
not face any discrimination at all……I would say I am part of the middle class. I
work in what you would consider a white collar job, not manufacturing. I am in
the middle class, an immigrant in the middle class and I have not faced any
discrimination.
32

A Pakistani immigrant, responding to the question whether South Asian
immigrants face discrimination because of their appearance and skin color, said,
It is more to do with economics than anything else. When we came here (U.S.)…
my husband was quite wealthy and we lived on Park Avenue and my kids went to
private school. And we were immediately integrated here, there was no problem.
But I do see families that are living out in Queens and have a more humble way of
life and it is not easy for them….. If you have money you cross the boundary
quite easily but if you don’t it is quite harder.
33

Many other interviewees talked about the ways in which socioeconomic status provide
resources and confidence to negotiate racial barriers.
The distinctions based on religion, class, and nation of origin are important
divides which shape the impact of continuing racialization of South Asian immigrants.

31
Interview, New York City, NY, 6 November 2006.

32
Interview, New York City, NY, 14 October 2006.

33
Interview, New York City, NY, 16 October 2006.
87
More importantly, these distinctions shape the response of the community in terms of
political mobilization or lack of it.
Political Mobilization against Racialization and Marginalization
The preceding section has argued that there has been a continuing racialization of
South Asian immigrants based on their skin color, appearance, language, and
immigration history. The post-9/11 period has brought the process of racialization and
marginalization to the fore and the responses of South Asian immigrants have shown that
the process of racialization is mediated by other identities such as religion, class, and
nation of origin. The minority group political incorporation model predicts that nonwhite
immigrants who face racialization and marginalization in U.S. shall engage in grassroots
mobilization based on a common group identity or perception of linked fate to raise
issues which impact the community to gain political influence and incorporation.
However, the response of South Asian immigrants in the post-9/11 period suggests that
there is very little mobilization based on a racial or panethnic identity against hate crimes
and racial targeting of South Asian immigrants. The political and mobilizational
responses of South Asian immigrants in the post-9/11 period were shaped much more by
religious, class, and nation of origin based distinctions. Post 9/11 targeting of South
Asians was a moment when the entire community felt the gaze of suspicion and that was
a political moment when community could have involved in grassroots mobilizing
against racial profiling and targeting. However, this study illustrates and argues that
religious, national, and class distinctions within the community trumped a common
panethnic identity and linked fate. For instance, there was an attempt among a section of
Indian immigrant to foreground Hindu religious identity as distinct from Muslims to
88
make sure that they were not confused with Muslims and hence not associated with
terrorists. Asked about the possibility of united campaign against racial targeting of the
type which followed September 11
th
, a seasoned New York based first generation
community leader from Indian immigrant community, said:
Hindus must be supporting Sikhs on that sort of campaign but I don’t see any
way that Pakistanis, Indians, and Bangladeshi can meet. The religion is a big
divide- it really is. It is not only a feeling, but it is there in practical life also Even
in India, I think, Hindus don’t trust Muslims, whether they (Muslims) would for
India or for Pakistan. This is really a problem, though it should not be, but it is
and that can be reflected here also. Religion is a big factor.
34

This statement points to possible fault lines within the South Asian community. The
mobilization against racial targeting and environment of hate did not lead to a wider
South Asian mobilization. Most of the mobilization and sustained campaign against racial
targeting of South Asian immigrants has been done by Muslim organizations comprising
of South Asian and non South Asian Muslims and Sikh organizations alongside other
civil rights organizations.
35
However, there has been only sporadic mobilization on the
basis of broader panethnic South Asian identity. The nation of origin based identity –
Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi- and religious distinctions took precedence over a
panethnic identity.
A grassroots mobilization within South Asian community based on a common
panethnic identity and linked fate is further compromised by class differentiation within
South Asian community. The class distinction put limit on the possibility of grassroots

34
Interview, Long Island, NY, 13 November 2006.

35
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is one the leading civil rights organizations active
among American Muslims on issues of racial profiling and hate crimes against Muslims. Sikh Coalition
and Sikh American Legal and Educational Fund(SALDEF) are some of the leading Sikh civil rights
organization.
89
mobilizing of the entire community on the basis of a common identity. There is a greater
class division within the South Asian community which is often ignored when we look
the community as a whole. Even a cursory look at organizational landscape of South
Asian organizations suggests that there are a large number of professional organizations
and associations along class lines. Some of the examples are American Association of
Physicians of Indian Origins (AAPI) - one of the strongest associations of Indian
immigrants with approximately 42 thousand memberships. The Indus Entrepreneurs
(TIE) –an association of primarily Indian American Entrepreneurs founded in 1992 after
the Internet boom, and Association of Pakistani Professionals. On the other side, there are
working class organizations and those working among poorer South Asians- New York
Taxi Workers Alliance, The newly formed Taxi Workers Association in Los Angeles,
Desis Rising and Moving(DRUM), and South Asian Youth Association(SAYA) serving
working class south Asians in Jackson Heights, New York. This study argues that such
wide class variation within the South Asian community drastically reduces the possibility
of grassroots mobilizing based on a common panethnic identity and linked fate. The
mobilization against racial targeting in post-9/11 period thus reflected the class
distinctions within the community where affluent sections of the community continued to
feel that they were insulated from any kind of racial discrimination due to their economic
status.
It is important here to point out the existence of parallel trend of organizing, albeit
small, based on a broader South Asian identity. A number of organizations both in Los
Angeles and New York area organized after 9/11 using panethnic South Asian identity
but these organizations have only limited influence within South Asian communities. For
90
instance, the South Asian Network (SAN) in the Los Angeles area worked with a few
Muslim and Sikh organizations and together played an important role in responding to
post-9/11 hate crimes and the general atmosphere of fear among South Asian immigrants
in the area. Similarly, South Asian organizations such as Desis Rising and Moving
(DRUM), Coney Island Avenue Project, New York Taxi Workers Alliance, Council of
People’s Organization (COPO), South Asian Youth Association (SAYA), and many
small advocacy and service organizations in New York City actively mobilized against
racial targeting of South Asians, special registration, and deportations. These
organizations intervened both in individual cases as well as at the level of community in
mobilizing South Asians against hate crime to stop law enforcement agencies from
targeting particular communities. Similarly, organizations such as South Asian American
Leaders of Tomorrow (SAALT) actively intervened on this issue in Washington, D.C.
and coordinated with other civil rights and ethnic organizations at the national level to
highlight the cases of racial targeting of South Asian and Arab immigrants both by public
and law enforcement agencies. However, these still remained a more marginal attempt at
mobilizing South Asians against post-9/11 phase of racial targeting and hate crimes.
Conclusion
The continuing racialization and marginalization of South Asian immigrants as
outsiders has significant implications for their political incorporation. The discourse of
outsider has assumed even more importance in the post-9/11 period and has got linked
to the discourse on “war against terror” which has impacted Muslims and Sikhs more
than Hindus within South Asian community. The post-9/11 treatment of South Asian
immigrants has also demonstrated that religious identity is a central part of the
91
racialization process. The two existing models of political incorporation –the pluralist
and minority group models- do not adequately address the implications of this
continuing racialization of South Asians as outsiders for their political incorporation.
The pluralist model considers racialization as only temporary and predicts that non-
white immigrants should be able to overcome racial barriers with passage of time and
economic and educational mobility. The analysis of survey data and interviews with
South Asian immigrants, however, suggests that perception of outsider or foreigner is
one of the primary ways in which the group is racialized and the process has intensified
after September 11, 2001. The analysis also suggests that continuing discrimination and
exclusion based on racialization as outsider is deeply connected to religious and
cultural identity, language, and phenotype-skin color and appearance.
The racial triangulation theory does help to understand the racialization of South
Asian immigrants by pointing to the triangulation of the group where South Asian
immigrants are seen as model minority but at the same time seen as perpetual
foreigners. However, this process of racialization as outsider and its implication for
political incorporation can not be fully grasped without looking at the internal
distinctions within the group. Neither the racial triangulation theory nor the existing
models of political incorporation addressed the issue of internal distinctions within the
group. This chapter argued that religious difference played an important role in
racialization and exclusion of South Asian immigrants where Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim
South Asian immigrants have been impacted differently. Similarly, the class
distinctions within South Asian community are also evident in the ways in which post-
9/11 targeting affected certain classes of immigrants more than others.
92
According to the minority group model of political incorporation, the continuing
racialization of South Asian immigrants should lead to grassroots mobilization based
on common group identity. However, the analysis of post-9/11 period suggest that
South Asian immigrants did not engage in grassroots mobilizing based on a group
identity and feeling of linked fate. The distinctions within the South Asian immigrant
community based on religion, nation of origin, and class are important factors which
shape the political response of the community and they point to the possibility that the
group may not enter the political process based on a group mobilization rooted in
linked fate or common group identity.

93

Chapter III

New Immigrants: Limits and Boundaries of Political Engagement

South Asian immigrants have a substantial representation in lucrative professions
such as medicine, engineering, finance, business, computer, and software, yet the
political participation and representation of the group remains limited and sporadic. Like
other non-white immigrant groups, South Asians are marginal to the political process.
Traditional theories of political participation have often emphasized the importance of
socioeconomic status and education in influencing the level of political participation, but
the case of South Asian immigrants suggest that these factors do not explain their lower
level of political participation. Another explanation often put forward to explain the
lower level of political participation among new immigrant groups is their high level of
involvement with the home country. However, as I discussed in chapter four and five, the
engagement with home country politics does not necessarily negatively impact the
political participation of the group in the United States. Even though political interest and
engagement with home country shape the political attitudes and behavior of South Asian
immigrants, it does not fully explain the marginal political participation of the group in
the U.S. politics. This chapter focuses on the implications of the two dominant models of
political incorporation for understanding the political participation of South Asians.
Robert Dahl in his seminal work Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an
American City emphasized the openness of the political system for newcomers. In his
analysis of political power in New Haven, Connecticut, Dahl argued that European
immigrants were able to gain political power through the mobilization of ethnic votes
94
because they had high numbers and political parties and candidates were interested in
including these immigrants in the political process. Dahl saw the emergence of political
power of immigrants as supportive of his pluralist theory of power which argued that the
political system was open for all groups to compete and gain power. Dahl’s pluralist
theory painted a picture of the political process which was very egalitarian and open for
new groups.
In contrast, the minority group model of political incorporation emphasizes the
structural barriers to political incorporation of immigrant and minority groups. As
discussed earlier, the political mobilization of African Americans is the classic case of
political mobilization which was an organized response to racial barriers that prevented
black Americans from participating and achieving representation in the political process.
The minority group model predicts that contemporary nonwhite immigrants groups,
which face racial and other institutional barriers to their social and political inclusion like
black Americans, will also engage in grassroots mobilization to achieve complete social
and political inclusion (Hero 1998; Browning et al. 1997; Takaki 1989; Kim 1999; Tate
1994). A mobilization pattern similar to African Americans is thus expected among
minority group such as Latinos and Asian Americans.
This chapter challenges these models to argue that political incorporation of
South Asian immigrants does not follow either of the predictions discussed above. The
chapter demonstrates that there is very little ethnic mobilization by political parties to
incorporate the group into the political process as predicted by the pluralist model.
Neither is there any grassroots mobilizing in the face of racial targeting and participatory
barriers as predicted by the minority group model. Instead, there is a selective political
95
mobilization of South Asian immigrants in the United States which centers on a narrow
socioeconomic elite section of the community. Political parties, candidates, and
community groups contribute to this selective elite mobilization that leaves the larger
sections of the South Asian community out of the process of political incorporation.
Based on sixty interviews with South Asian community members and activists,
participant observation of a number of South Asian organizations in Los Angeles and
New York area, and analysis of other relevant data, this chapter identifies three trends of
political engagement and mobilization which require going beyond the dominant models
to understand the political incorporation patterns of South Asian immigrants. First, there
is a strong presence of groups and networks among South Asian immigrants that engage
in lobbying activities primarily related to home countries. The primacy of lobbying
among South Asian immigrants from different countries of origin promotes a particular
kind of political mobilization and engagement which generally does not rely on
grassroots mobilization or greater engagement of the community at large. Second,
campaign contributions are a significant part of the involvement of South Asian
immigrants in the political process. There is a strong opinion among a section of South
Asians that the community can gain political influence by using its financial strength.
This strategy of gaining political power through the use of financial strength of the
community suggests a path of political incorporation which requires going beyond the
existing models of political incorporation. Third, as far as political representation is
concerned, a small but growing trend of South Asian candidates contesting and wining
from predominantly white electoral districts suggests a model of political incorporation
which does not rely primarily on ethnic mobilization. This chapter will elaborate on these
96
three distinct trends and discuss their implications for the political incorporation of South
Asian immigrants.
Political Parties, Participation, and Representation: Ethnic Mobilization or Post-
Racial Politics
36

The pluralist model of political incorporation has traditionally argued that new immigrant
groups engage in ethnic mobilization and enter into the political process as a group.
Political parties are considered to be important instrument in this mobilization and they
facilitate the group’s participation and representation in the political process. In contrast,
the minority group model underlines the barriers to political participation and
representation of new immigrant groups and predicts grassroots mobilization on the basis
of linked fate or common racial-ethnic identity to have greater participation and
representation into the political process. Both models predict ethno-racial mobilization
even though they differ sharply on the final outcome. Existing political mobilization
patterns among South Asian immigrants show a more complex trajectory of mobilization
which requires revisiting the dominant models discussed above. The analysis of South
Asian political participation and mobilization patterns suggests that broader political and
institutional context, which includes the general level of political participation in the U.S.
and changed role of political parties in mobilizing new voters, shape the political
incorporation trajectory of the group. The analysis also suggests that distinctions such as

36
The term post-racial has been used widely in recent times to broadly convey the phenomena of going
beyond race. Paul Gilroy was the first to characterize the current moment as post-racial in his book Against
Race: Imaging Political Culture Beyond Color Line. Gilroy’s use of the term referred to post racial
humanism and the need to go beyond race. Others have used the term to communicate a particular
understanding of race politics which claims to go beyond race. Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1994)
refer to the politics of colorblindness as a conservative reaction to affirmative action and race based
organizing. The Post-racial has been termed by some scholars as an extension of colorblind politics and a
neo-liberal response to the progressive politics of racial equality.
97
class, religion, and nation of origin also shape the political incorporation path of South
Asian immigrants.
Scholars studying political incorporation of new immigrant groups have pointed
out how broader political and institutional context shape the political incorporation
patterns of new immigrants (Skerry 1993; Rogers 2006). Peter Skerry made the argument
that institutional and political context created by the civil rights movement shaped the
political mobilizational strategy of immigrant groups such as Mexicans; consequently the
Mexicans followed a race based mobilization strategy which was a product of the
particular political and institutional context created by the civil rights movement. The
broader import of the focus on institutional and political contexts is to underline the ways
in which the changing role of political parties has fundamentally affected immigrant
political mobilization and participation. Past waves of immigrants-the European
immigrants in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century- were incorporated in the
political process in a political and institutional context where political parties, candidates
and other groups- especially the urban political machines- were at the forefront of
mobilizing these immigrants. Immigrant groups were an important part of the expansion
of political parties in major urban areas and there were systematic efforts by political
parties to mobilize new immigrant groups (Cornwell 1960; Dahl 1961). The political
recruitment of immigrants had thus become the centerpiece of American political parties
in the early twentieth century. The scholars of that period have argued that politicians
made it easy for immigrants to naturalize, encouraged groups of immigrants to register to
vote, mobilized them to become a part of the local party structure, and generally helped
them to deal with the challenges of poverty. It was quite common among political parties
98
and local leaders to offer jobs and patronage to immigrants for their loyalty in the voting
booth (Dahl 1961; Andersen 1979). A historical overview of political parties also
suggests that the golden age of political parties coincided with the height of European
immigration to the United States.
One of the most important developments in the last few decades has been a
decline in the role of political parties at the local grassroots level. Scholars of political
parties have argued that a general decline in local party strength was, to a certain extent, a
product of the progressive era reform (Skocpol 1999; Wattenberg 1994). This trend
continued through the 1960s and 70s when immigrants from Asia and Latin America
started reaching the United States in large numbers. The rise of candidate centered
campaigns and the professionalization of electoral campaigns reduced the central role of
political parties and their networks in the political process. Political parties started relying
on sophisticated phone and direct mailing techniques which selectively targeted groups
that were likely to support a particular candidate and issue (Conway 2001; Wattenberg
2001). The use of party activists to reach out to people at the neighborhood level has
declined drastically. The progressive increase of the electorate who identified themselves
as independent is also reflective of the declining influence of political parties.
Notwithstanding the upward movement in voting percentages in the recent election, the
overall long term trend of decline in voting over the years is indicative of the apathy of
the general population towards the political parties as well as the political process.
37

37
The voting percentages in presidential elections have seen a progressive decline except a modest
upswing in the last two presidential elections- 2004 and 2008. The voting percentages have gone down
from sixty percent and above in 1960s to less than 55 percent from 1980s onwards. In 2000 presidential
election, the voting percentage was 51.3 and it has gone up to 55 percent and above in 2004 and
2008(http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html).
99
Scholars studying historical evolution of political parties argue that party organizations
no longer dominate the electoral process (Cigler and Loomis 1986; Conway 2001;
Wattenberg 1998). This is a very different institutional and political context compared to
the early twentieth century when European immigrants were being actively courted and
mobilized by political parties.
Given the institutional and political context discussed above, the difference in
political participation rates among different racial groups and immigrant generations is to
some extent expected. The data clearly point to the lower levels of political participation
among Asian American and Latino immigrants. For instance, Karthick Ramakrishnan’s
analysis, comparing levels of political participation among immigrant groups in
California during the 2002 election cycle, looked at political participation indicators such
as voting, signing petitions, attending local meetings, writing to elected officials etc. The
data suggest that the rate of those who voted regularly was significantly lower among
Latino and Asian immigrants than white immigrants. The difference persisted in three
generations for which the data were reported with the gap closing in the third generation.
The gap was most glaring when it came to voting, with participation gap being less on
non voting measures of participation. The multivariate analysis of the data suggests that
differences in participation persist even after controlling for factors such as age,
education, income, gender, and home ownership. Some of these variables reduce the gap
but they do not fully account for the gap (Ramakrishnan 2005, 140-60). If we specifically
look at Asian American political participation, studies using Census Bureau and other
survey data find that voting-age Asian Americans register and vote at rates lower than
their counterparts in all other major racial and ethnic groups (Uhlaner, Cain, and Kiewiet
100
1989; Nakanishi 1991; Lien 2001; Cho 1999; Junn 1999). Since there is very little survey
data on South Asians as a group, the rate of political participation among Asian
Americans provides a good sense of the participation rate of South Asian immigrants in
comparison to other racial groups.
The PNAAPS data does provide a comparative look at participation rates among
different Asian American ethnic groups. If we look at registration and voting, the analysis
of PNAAPS data suggests that South Asians have lower levels of registration and voting
compared to other Asian groups. Thirty-nine percent of South Asians registered to vote in
comparison to 75, 62, and 49 percent of Japanese, Filipino, and Chinese respectively.
The rate of voting is also a little lower among South Asians compared to other Asian
American groups. However, South Asians are high on participation beyond voting (which
includes signing a petition, calling a public official, participating, etc.) with 57 percent of
South Asian participating as compared to 55, 50, and 39 percent of Japanese, Filipino,
and Koreans respectively. The pattern of voting, however, completely flips when the
analysis is limited only to immigrant voters. 73 percent of South Asian immigrants voted
in 2000 in comparison to 47, 40, and 39 percent among Filipino, Vietnamese, and
Chinese immigrants (See table 3.1). When eligibility for registration and voting is taken
into account (the analysis is confined to citizens only), South Asians are closer to other
Asian American groups in terms of registering. However, once registered, South Asians
turn out to vote at a higher than some of the other Asian American groups (Table 3.2).

101
Table 3.1: Percentage Distribution of Political Participation by Ethnic Groups

Total
Registered
Total
Voted
in
2000
Total
Partici-
pation
Beyond
Voting
Immigrants
Registered
Immi-
grants
Voted In
2000
Immi-
grants
Partici-
pation
Beyond
Voting
Chinese 49% 41% 35% 46% 39% 35%
Japanese 75 63 55 24 20 21
Korean 48 34 39 46 33 38
Vietnamese 43 39 33 44 40 34
Filipino 62 47 50 59 47 47
South
Asian
39 36 57 34 73 54
Note: Distribution does not take into account eligibility requirements for
registration or voting. Table based on Lien, Conway, and Wong 2004

Table 3.2: Percentage Distribution of Political Participation by Ethnic
Groups among Those Eligible for Registration and Voting

Registered to
Vote
(Among Citizens)
Voted in 2000
(Among Registered)
Participation in
Activity
Beyond Voting
Chinese 78 84 35
Japanese 88 83 55
Korean 87 71 39
Filipino 79 76 50
Vietnamese 65 92 33
South Asian 78 93 57
Note: Table based on Lien, Conway, and Wong 2004

As noted earlier, the current scholarship on immigrant political mobilization
unequivocally suggests that there is a persistent gap in mobilization of racial minorities
by established political parties (Jones-Correa, 1998; Ramakrishnan 2005; Wong 2006).
The pluralist vision of immigrant political incorporation, which presumes an important
role for political parties and elected officials in new immigrant groups’ political
incorporation, therefore has been critiqued on this account. In contrast to the European
102
wave of immigrants when parties were central to political mobilization, the contemporary
Latino and Asian immigrant groups have seen community organizations of different
kinds- social service organizations, labor organizations, ethnic organizations, and
religious associations- playing a more important role in bringing immigrants into the
political process. These organizations work towards broader political involvement of
immigrant groups rather than focusing exclusively on registration and voting (Wong
2006). However, the activities and mobilizations of immigrant community organizations
are mostly focused on the lower socioeconomic stratum and they can not match political
parties and their allied organizations in mobilizing and bringing new groups to the
political process. A related aspect of this continued trend of non mobilization of
immigrant communities by political parties is that even when political parties and
candidates are forced to go to new groups due to the competitive dynamics of electoral
process, they are very selective in mobilizing only certain segments of the immigrant
population. The extent of immigrant mobilization by political parties is limited to
registered voters and, in the case of presidential elections, those located in battleground
states (Wong 2006). The immigrant groups such as South Asians, which are numerically
not big and are not densely concentrated, have almost negligible influence on electoral
outcomes and, as a result, they are even more overlooked and marginalized by political
parties and candidates.
South Asian immigrants’ political incorporation in the U.S. is faced with this
broader institutional, political, and demographic context. Referring to this restrictive
political and institutional context, a New York based South Asian community leader said:
103
I would argue that the U.S. presents for anybody, including the white Americans,
one of the most restrictive political spaces for engagement. Just look at what is
happening across the U.S. In what ways are Americans actually involved with
politics? Leave alone immigrants and all that, but in what ways are fully
nationalized fifth or eighth or tenth generation Americans involved with politics.
…. It is a fairly depoliticized community as a whole. As a nation and a
community, this is a community that is tremendously depoliticized. So, with that
as a context now let’s ask the question what chances does an immigrant stand in
terms of really getting engaged in American politics. It is a very difficult task ----
in this kind of context one really needs to ask is the immigrants’ distance from
political involvement here is really surprising.
38

The broad trend of secular decline in voting-with a few recent exceptions- and
other forms of political participation over the years alongside the declining role of
political parties in mobilizing citizens collectively do not create an environment
conducive for political engagement of new immigrants. The experience of South Asian
immigrants confirms the findings of other scholars that political parties are generally
reluctant in mobilizing new immigrants even though they are supposed to mobilize all
segments of the citizenry irrespective of race, class, gender, sexuality, and immigration
history. In my interviews for this study, a number of South Asian community leaders
pointed out that while political parties- both Democratic and Republican- do not reach
out to new immigrants, they are open if people from the community wanted to reach out
to them. Commenting on the approach of political parties to South Asian immigrants, a
community activist based in New York City said:
I don’t think they (political parties) are going around and asking for us to
participate, because the system is well established and they don’t see any reason
to bring anybody new into the fold. If you are involved in politics in our country
(India), you know we go around and try to get everybody…Here they do not have
to do that because there are only two parties. Secondly, in any election not even
35 percent of the people participate. The rest of the people either do not care or
they do not have the time to care. So political participation itself is relatively low

38
Interview, New York City, NY, 10 February 2007
104
and that is why parties are not that much active. …they are not actively pushing
people to join them. There is no push. I have never seen that push to make
members, no. That is why they are not coming to look for Indians or Pakistanis.
They are not looking because they have a system in place...
39

When asked about the experience of South Asians who approach political parties
to get involved, he said:
I don’t think it is a bad experience….. I live in a place called Westchester County;
it is not a city, it’s a suburb. There are not that many minorities there. Because I
have political ambitions or whatever you can call it and I was in a political party
before (in India), so I wanted to join some party here. So I talked with the
Democrats and they were happy to take me into their party and they started
inviting me. I think if you go there and say that I wanted to get involved, they
would be very happy to take you in.
40

The experience of South Asian immigrants suggests that political parties in
general are reluctant to mobilize and bring new groups into the political process. In fact,
the political parties do not see the need for bringing new groups into the political process
as long as their voting blocks and coalitions are intact. Recent works on Latino and
Caribbean immigrants in New York City also point to this trend (Jones-Correa 1998;
Rogers 2006). The onus is on the group and the individuals from the group to initiate the
process of political engagement and approach the political parties if they want any kind
of political recognition and representation. However, direct participation in the electoral
system requires mobilization of voters and this mobilization starts with registration
campaigns among new voters coming from the immigrant community. As discussed
earlier, the rate of voter registration and voting among South Asian immigrants has been
relatively low and there has not been any sustained attempt on the part of political parties
and other institutions to bring new voters to the political process. A south Asian

39
Interview, New York City, NY, 3 March 2007

40
Interview, New York City, NY, 3 March 2007
105
community leader of Bangladeshi descent, who unsuccessfully contested the state
Assembly election from Queens, New York, talked about the unsupportive role of
political parties in mobilizing South Asian voters:
Political parties are afraid, they don’t want to see people (new immigrants)
registered. I am a commissioner, one of the commissioners in New York City for
the voter assistance commission. Even in the budget, we don’t get enough money
from the system … the people in the system don’t want to see more people getting
registered, because then somebody new will come and beat them. And again, I
can talk about New York City, because the majority of people in the
neighborhood now are colored people, immigrants. If they will become registered,
the power equation will be changed, so they don’t want it. They say yes, we have
to do this but when practicality comes, they don’t give any money, they are not
encouraging you.
41

Scholars working on immigrant political participation of Latino, Asian, and
Caribbean immigrants have described similar reactions suggesting that there is very little
mobilization among immigrant groups by political parties and candidates (Jones-Correa
1998; Rogers 2006; Wong 2006; Ramakrishnan 2005). Latino and Asian immigrants,
depending on their location and concentration, may occasionally be targeted by political
parties. As argued earlier, the literature suggests that these groups are only on the radar of
political parties and candidates in the so called battleground states because of the
competitive nature of the contests and demographic concentration. However, South Asian
immigrants are even more marginalized because of their demographic reality- there are
no major population concentrations of South Asian immigrants. Many of the
interviewees spoke about the double marginalization of the community because of being
minority alongside the fact that they are not in big enough numbers in particular areas to
affect the electoral process in any significant manner. A South Asian community leader

41
Interview, New York City, NY, 12 March 2007
106
of Indian descent from New York City, talking about the community’s involvement in
local politics, said:
Getting involved in local school district politics and city council politics, I think,
is a matter of building concentration and density. This politics works only if you
build density……… South Asian community is dispersed unlike Mexican
immigrants --- or Chinese community which is significantly concentrated in
certain locations …those densities are not available to South Asian immigrants,
therefore, the process is much slower.
42

The lack of density creates both internal constraints in terms of developing a
critical mass to intervene effectively in the political process as well as external
constraints in terms of the ability to attract political parties and candidates to engage with
the group at a sustained level. Many South Asian community leaders feel that political
parties are not interested in them because the community does not have numbers to
deliver. A South Asian community leader, explaining the reluctance of political parties to
engage with the community, said:
I don’t think political parties are making enough attempts to bring the community
into the political process- absolutely not. May be because they don’t feel we have
numbers –like Hispanics or African Americans. Yes, if any of us has a real
ambition then, yes, they will probably say, alright, let’s involve him. But on their
own, I don’t see anybody approach our people to join politics.
43

There have been sporadic attempts by South Asian candidates in the New York
Area to enter into the electoral process.
44
Los Angeles has also seen some attempts by

42
Interview, New York City, NY, 6 November 2006.

43
Interview, Los Angeles, CA, 7 July 2006

44
Morshed Alam, a first generation immigrant of Bangladeshi descent, contested election for New York
state assembly from Queens County (25th District) in 2006. Zahid Ali Syed, a first generation Pakistani
immigrant, contested for state assembly from Long Island (17th District), New York in 2006. Both the
candidates lost but they were notable in terms of attempts at mainstream political representation by South
Asian candidates in New York Metropolitan Area.
107
South Asian candidates to enter into the electoral fray at different levels.
45
However,
most of the South Asian community leaders feel that the community does not have
demographic concentration to command any significant influence over the electoral
process and political candidates. Overall, there is a strong opinion within the community
that they are marginal to the political process and they have not been able to graduate
from achieving economic stability to creating a space in the political process.
Given the lack of density and relative lack of mobilization by political parties, the
mobilization of South Asian immigrants for political participation such as voter
registration, voting, etc. has been minimal and their attempts at descriptive political
representation has also been very slow. However, the analysis of interviews and other
available data on South Asian political representation does suggest that there are growing
examples of South Asians contesting and succeeding from areas and electoral districts
which are primarily white majority with a small minority and a negligible South Asian
presence. A number of interviewees, speaking about South Asian Americans contesting
for political offices across the U.S., cited Bobby Jindal, the current governor of
Louisiana, as an example of the success of South Asians in the political realm. An
analysis of Indian American candidates who ran for state and federal offices suggests that
the majority of Indian American candidates ran from areas which did not have a
significant South Asian or Asian American population (table 3.3). The table gives the
racial composition of the electoral districts from where Indian American candidates either
ran or won. Most of these electoral districts are overwhelmingly white and Asian
Americans are only a small part of the population. The states from where these

45
Peter Mathews has unsuccessfully contested the primary from 37
th
congressional districts, Long Beach,
California in 2008. He also contested assembly election earlier from the area.
108
candidates contested and succeeded included Georgia, Ohio, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland,
and New Jersey. Commenting on this trend among South Asians to run from places
where the South Asian population is very low, a community leader from New York said:
Now we have a young man from Louisiana (Bobby Jindal) and we have four or
five assemblymen from different states- New Jersey, Maryland, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, etc……we have won elections from areas where there are very few
Indians. They (South Asians/Indian Americans) could do it because they are
educated people. Take an example of Louisiana- there are not too many Indians
there, there is no support for Indians there. Similarly, the assemblyman from New
Jersey is not from a constituency with a high number of Indians. If he can win
from a non-Indian community to state assembly, the people who really work hard
and have the same goal to get what they want, I think they can get it.
46

There is an implicit belief reflected in this statement that if a candidate of South Asian
descent is talented enough, s/he has equal chance to win from a primarily white district.
This belief is supported by claims that South Asians are highly educated, hard working,
and have done very well economically, and on the basis of their education and talent they
can succeed in elections. A Pakistani American mayor of a primarily white majority
New Jersey town argued on similar lines, when he explained his victory by recalling how
his contribution to solving the problems of local schools was an important consideration
for people who voted for him. He said:
I felt somehow that people resonated with my ideas and they were more interested
in that. They were seeing that I was interested in the best quality education, that
my own educational background with a Ph.D. degree was a plus for them. That
they heard from someone who was an educator, because I was also teaching. I
would teach economics and other courses at Rutgers or other universities. And
now I’ve been teaching for seven years at the University of Phoenix online. So
recognizing my professional background, I believe, was more important for
people.
47

The view that South Asians can succeed in politics because of their education, economic

46
Interview, New York City, NY, 7 February 2007.

47
Interview, Northern New Jersey, NJ, 10 February 2007.
109
status, and ability to provide solution to problems facing the community comes with the
belief the race and color are no longer barriers for the political representation of minority
groups. There are a number of examples which suggest that South Asian aspirants for
public offices have been able to win from primarily white areas without any significant
ethnic mobilization. Analyzing the election of Mr. Harvinder Singh, the new Indian
American mayor of a prosperous New York town Long Island Village which is 95
percent white, The New York Times wrote, “... He is a part of what political analysts see
as new pattern: while minority candidates are usually propelled into office from densely
populated enclaves of their own ethnic groups, a small but recently growing numbers of
Indian American officeholders has been getting elected in communities across the nation
where they are the tiniest of minorities”(Vitello 2007). According to The New York
Times, a high level of education, ability to speak English, and cross over appeal are some
of the characteristics of this group which put them into a position to succeed in the
electoral competition.
This experience of South Asian Americans in the electoral arena is also shared by
other Asian American groups. The current scholarship on Asian Americans and their
political representation points out that most Asian American candidates outside the state
of Hawaii follow a strategy of mainstream or crossover appeal which is in complete
contrast to other minority groups such as African Americans or Latinos. There are
examples of cross over candidates among African Americans and Latinos but that has not
been the dominant trend among these two communities. Elected representatives from
Asian American communities in the mainland United States have emerged from districts
which have much less than 50 percent of the Asian American population. In fact, of the
110
Table 3.3: Indian Americans who Contested for State and Federal Level
Offices and Racial Composition of their Districts.
Name Electoral District Racial Demographic ( Percentages)

Tony Patel (D) 47 District Georgia State House 79(W), 20 (B), 14( AS)
(State House Rep.)

Harmeet K Dhillan ( R ) 13
th
District ,San Francisco, CA 56( W), 10( B), 21( AS)
(State Assembly)

Ashwan Madia( D ) 3
rd
District, Minnesota 89 (W), 4( B), 4( AS)
(Congress)

Raj Goyale * ( D) 87
th
House District, Kansas 75 (W), 11(B), 7 ( AS)
(State Representative)

Paul Chadha ( D) 26
th
District, Illinois 26(W), 67(B), 4( AS)
( State Assembly)

Jonathan Bedi (D) 5
th
District, Illinois 24(W), 65( B), 3 (AS)
(State Senate)

Subodh Chandra (D) Ohio 85( W), 12(B), 1(AS)
(State Attorney)

Raj Peter Bhakta ( R ) Pennsylvania 13
th
district 87(W), 6 (B), 4 (AS)
(Congress)

Shyam Reddy ( D) Georgia 65(W), 29(B) 2(AS)
(Secretary of State)

Jay Goyal * ( D) 73
rd
District, Ohio 87 (W), 10 (B), 4 (AS)
( State House of Rep.)

Jay Rao ( R ) North Carolina 72 (W), 22 (B), 1.4 (AS)
(Secretary of State)

Supriya Christopher ( D) District 84,Virginia 68 ( W), 20 ( B), 7 (AS)
(State House of Delegates)

Swati Dandekar * ( D) House District 36 IOWA 97(W), 0.5 (B), 0.5( AS)
(State Representative)

Bobby Jindal * ( R ) Louisiana 64(W), 33(B), 1.2( AS)
(Governer)

Upendra Chivukala *( D ) District 17, New Jersey 56 (W), 20 (B), 14 (AS)
(State Assembly)

Kumar Barve * ( D ) District 17, Maryland 62( W ), 12( B ), 14 (AS)
(House of Delegates)
* Indicates successful contestants
Note: Based on USINPAC data and 2000 Census; W= White; B= Black; AS= Asian
111
50 mainland congressional districts with the largest Asian Pacific American Population,
only two were represented by an Asian Pacific American in 105
th
Congress. A majority
of state and federal level Asian Pacific American elected officials on the U.S. mainland
represented non-Asian districts (Lai, Tam Cho, etal. 2001). This trend is in complete
contrast to the research on African American and Latino elected officials where
representatives from both these groups are elected from districts with substantial number
of African American and Latino electorate. Among African American federal elected
representatives in 1982, 14 out of 17 representatives came from districts where African
Americans were 40 percent or more of the population. Among Latino elected officials in
1982, seven of the ten Latino Congressional representatives were elected from districts
with 50 percent or more of Latino population (Espiritu 1992; Moore and Pachon 1985).
In contrast, the current trajectory of Asian American representation relies heavily on
mainstream or crossover appeal where the ability of Asian American candidates to appeal
to different racial groups is highlighted (Rodriguez 1998). Asian American scholars have
identified this trend of political representation rightly but they stopped short of spelling
out its implications for political incorporation of Asian Americans as a group.
The small but significant trend among South Asian Americans to seek political
offices from primarily white majority areas is indicative of new ways of political
incorporation by the minority groups. This emerging pattern of political representation
among South Asian immigrants is a complete break from both the pluralist model which
presumes ethnic mobilization for political representation and the minority group model
where political representation is preceded by grassroots mobilization based on linked fate
to overcome racial barriers. This trend of political representation requires new ways of
112
understanding the political incorporation process of South Asians and Asian Americans.
The trend represents relative increase in descriptive representation of South Asian
Americans but it is very limited in terms of influencing the larger political incorporation
of South Asian immigrants. Since these South Asian candidates are not relying on co-
ethnics for votes, there is very little attempt to bring the South Asian immigrants into the
political process. The increased representation is not necessarily linked to push for
greater naturalization, voter registration, and voting among South Asian immigrants. The
nature of ethnic mobilization in such cases is at the most limited to mobilization of
campaign contributions from co-ethnics. However, this kind of ethnic mobilization for
campaign funds is limited to a small section of the group which results in an extremely
narrow ethnic mobilization. Thus, unlike the pattern of ethnic mobilization suggested by
the pluralist model or linked fate grassroots mobilization suggested by the minority group
model of political incorporation, this trend does not trigger processes which may lead to
greater and wider political participation of South Asian immigrants. Moreover, a closer
look at the electoral strategy of many of these candidates suggests that these campaigns
draw heavily upon the rhetoric of post-racial politics of the U.S. society where race and
color are not considered that important. The implication of this trend of representation,
which is based on very limited racial and ethnic mobilization, is significant for political
incorporation of South Asian and Asian American immigrants. It challenges the
conventional understanding that greater descriptive representation in itself is a product of
greater ethnic participation and that it will necessarily lead to a greater incorporation of
the group.

113
Ethnic Organization, Political Participation, and Lobbying
There are a significant number of organizations active among South Asian
immigrants both in the broader Los Angeles and New York Metropolitan area. These two
areas have witnessed a large scale settlement of South Asians since the current phase of
South Asian immigration that started after the 1965 immigration reform. The
organizational landscape of the South Asian community is full of small ethnic
organizations which cater to specific ethnic identities. These ethno-cultural organizations
range from those based on regional identities such as Tamil, Telugu, Gujarati, Punjabi,
and Sindhi to more broader nationalistic identities such as Indian, Pakistani, and
Bangladeshi. The primary purpose of the ethno-cultural organizations has been to create a
space for people from similar linguistic and cultural background to share, celebrate, and
maintain their common identities in the United States. These organizations also serve the
purpose of creating a social network among immigrants coming from same linguistic and
cultural backgrounds. These networks serve important functions ranging from
professional and business connection to social spaces for arranging marriages.
48
Even
though these organizations do not explicitly pursue the goal of advancing the political
participation of the community, it is common for them to invite political leaders to their
annual programs from both the United States as well as from their country of origin. It is
also important to note the persistence of caste identity among Indian immigrants in the

48
Telugu Association of North America (TANA) is an example of ethno-cultural organizations. TANA, an
association of immigrants who have connections to Andhra Pradesh in India, organizes yearly conferences
where high profile speakers and performers both from India and United States are invited. The 2007 annual
conference was organized in Washington, D.C. where the main speaker was the former Prseident Bill
Clinton. The event also had a number of cultural and political figures form Andhra Pradesh . TANA is
constituted of a number of state and area level Telugu associations active all over the United States. Similar
organization of Gujaratis, Bengalis, Marathis, Oriyas and others are active in the United States.

114
United States. Even though broader ethno-cultural and linguistic identities are more
prominent in South Asian communities and most of the organizations are formed on the
basis of these identities, caste remains an important social category for Indian
immigrants. The importance of caste in the social life of immigrants is particularly
reflected in the existence of caste based organizations among Indian immigrants in the
United States. Indian immigrants have traditionally belonged to the “upper castes” and
only in recent years immigrants from oppressed castes and erstwhile untouchable and
backward castes have started registering a presence in the United States. Organizations of
oppressed castes working towards the elimination of caste oppression in India are also
being formed as a result of the increased presence of oppressed castes in the United
States.
Another set of organizations that play an important role in civic and associational
life of South Asian communities are those which primarily represent South Asian
communities in different professions. They play an important role in developing a
network among South Asian immigrants from specific professional fields. The American
Association of Physicians of Indian origin (AAPI) is one of the most well known
professional organizations among Indian immigrants. Association of Physicians of
Pakistani Descent of North America (APPNA) is the Pakistani counterpart which
represents physicians of Pakistani origin in the United States and Canada.
49
The 1980s
and 90s saw the formation and growth of more professional organizations among Indian,

49
American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI) was founded in 1984 “in the midst of
challenges that physicians of Indian origin have faced due to cultural barriers and bias against international
medical graduates”( www.aapiusa.org). The organization represents 41,235 physicians and 12,000 medical
students, residents and fellows of Indian origin in the U.S. Association of Physicians of Pakistani Descent
of North America (APPNA) was founded in 1977 and represent a large number of physicians of Pakistani
origin. APPNA has recently also taken up the issue of profiling of Muslim doctors and hurdles faced by
them in getting visa and green card, etc ( www.appna.org).
115
Pakistani, and Bangladeshi communities in the United States. Asian American Hotel
Owners Association (AAHOA), an organization of hotel and motel owners of Indian
descent, the Indus Entrepreneurs (TIE), a group of Indian American entrepreneurs, The
Association of Pakistani Professionals (AOPP), American Association of Bangladeshi
Engineers and Architect (AABEA) are some of the newer organizations which represent
professionals from different South Asian communities. Most of these professional ethnic
organizations are constructed around national identities. However, the recent
development in the sphere of ethnic professional organizations is an attempt to build
organizations on the basis of a broader South Asian identity rather than a nation of origin
based identity. South Asian Bar Association (SABA) and South Asian Journalists
Associations (SAJA) are prime examples of such organizations. Again, these
organizations do not explicitly work to encourage political participation among their
membership but they do lobby or support political campaigns related to their country of
origin as well as issues pertaining their co-ethnics and co-professionals in the United
States
Besides these professional organizations with their limited goal of representing
co-ethnic professionals, there are associations which are organized on the lines of
national identity. Organizations such as National Federation of Indian Americans
(NFIA), Indian American Forum for Political Education (IAFPE), Associations of
Indians in America (AIA), Association of Pakistani Professionals, National Council of
Pakistani Americans (NCPA), Pakistani American Public Affairs committee (PAKPAC),
and Federation of Bangladeshi Associations in North America (FOBANA), United States
Indian Political Action Committee (USINPAC) are important examples. Most of these
116
organizations engage in transnational politics by maintaining a strong and continual
contact with political parties, leaders, and government officials in their respective
countries of origin and also lobby with the U.S. Congress and policy making bodies on
issues relating to their home countries. These organizations reflect, to a certain extent, the
nationalistic ideology of their respective home countries which also creates a basis for
distance and distrust among South Asian organization from different nations of origin, a
theme which I discuss further in chapter five.
50

The organizational landscape of the South Asian community suggests that most
organizations are conceived and developed under the framework of either a narrow
ethno-cultural and linguistic identity such as Tamil, Telugu, Gujarati, Punjabi, and Sindhi
or nation of origin based organizations such as Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi, and
Srilankan. The panethnic organizations based on a broader South Asian identity are
relatively recent and constitute a smaller part of the organizational landscape among
South Asian immigrants. The professional organizations have also developed on
nationalistic lines for the most part. Most of these organizations are not directly
addressing the questions of South Asian political participation and representation.
However, these organizations contribute to the broader associational life and civic
engagement of South Asian community. The interviews with leaders and community
members in both Los Angeles area and New York Metropolitan Area suggest that a large
part of South Asian community’s engagement is confined to ethnic organizations which

50
There is a long history of conflict and military rivalry between India and Pakistan which influences the
approach of Indian and Pakistani immigrant organizations in the U.S. Bangladesh and Pakistan also have
had a very complex history which has been largely defined by Bangladesh’s struggle to gain independence
from Pakistan. Bangladeshi and Pakistani immigrant organizations in the U.S. reflect this troubled history
between the two countries.
117
give a limited primacy to political participation and representation of the community in
the U.S. political process.
One of the most important forms of political engagement undertaken by the ethnic
South Asian organizations is lobbying around the issues concerning the home country
(Kurien 2007b). Historically, Indian and Pakistani American groups have lobbied with
the U.S. Congress to influence the American foreign policy towards their home countries.
This form of political engagement has been one of the salient forms of political
engagement on the part of South Asian organizations in the United States. Lobbying has
been one of the important forms through which South Asian groups have been engaged
with the political institutions of the United States. However, the significant use of this
form of political involvement on the part of South Asian organizations suggests a
selective mobilization and limited political engagement which centers on elite and
wealthy sections of the community.
Some of the most active and powerful organizations among both Indian and
Pakistani immigrant communities are based in Washington, D.C. and they actively
engage in lobbying to support their respective countries of origin. As discussed earlier,
USINPAC is one of the most important groups representing the Indian immigrant
community in Washington, D.C. It routinely organizes fundraisers on a bipartisan basis
for candidates contesting for congressional and other offices, and aims to wield influence
with policy makers. For instance, USINPAC played a major role in lobbying for the
passage of India-U.S. Civil Nuclear Deal in 2007 which shall be discussed at greater
length in Chapter five on transnationalism and political participation. The Pakistani
118
Affairs Public Action Committee (PAKPAC) represents Pakistani Americans and is
organized on similar lines as USINPAC. PAKPAC defines itself as:
a nationwide, membership based, non-profit lobbying organization…. PAKPAC’s
mission includes advancement and strengthening of U.S.-Pakistan relations. It is
organized to be a unified voice on issues and concerns common to the Pakistani
American community. PAKPAC’s focus includes an active environment to foster
greater political and civic engagement amongst the Pakistani Americans.
51

PAKPAC also primarily lobbies with the U.S. Congress and administration on
issues relating to Pakistan.
The dominance of lobbying activities among different South Asian groups has
been a longstanding feature of their political engagement in the United States. Political
engagement such as lobbying is largely an activity which involves the selective elites of
the community. It does not lead to engagements or participation of the wider sections of
the community and, hence, does not encourage the processes which lead to increased
level of political participation among the broader South Asian community.
Political Power through Economic Strength
As argued earlier, there is a lack of mobilization by political parties and
candidates among immigrant communities. For the most part, the political parties are
content with their existing voting coalitions and do not encourage new voters to enter into
the political process. However, this lack of mobilization simultaneously co-exists with
selective targeting of certain sections of the South Asian community for one kind of
political participation, namely campaign contributions. The literature on immigrant
political incorporation has not really looked at marginalization coupled with simultaneous
selective mobilization of an immigrant group. A significant number of community

51
www.pakpac.net/
119
members as well as leaders interviewed for this study brought up the issue of selective
targeting of South Asian community by political parties and candidates for campaign
contributions. Given the economic profile of the community, South Asians of certain
socioeconomic profiles are generally approached by political parties and candidates to
make political contributions.
Journalistic reports in ethnic as well as mainstream newspapers have often noted
that there has been a significant trend of organizing political fundraising events within the
South Asian community. The stereotypical stories of influential and wealthy first
generation South Asian immigrants getting photographed with political leaders and
candidates by making hefty political contribution or organizing fundraisers are abound
within the South Asian community. The extent of involvement of Indian Americans in
political fundraising was reflected in a recent spat between the presidential campaigns of
Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over fundraisers organized by Indian
Americans for Hillary Clinton where she jokingly made a remark alluding to her
closeness to the Indian American community: “I can certainly run for the Senate seat in
Punjab (India) and win easily.”
52
The Obama campaign in a memo titled ‘Hillary Clinton
(D-Punjab)’s Personal Financial and Political Ties to India’ criticized Clinton for
fundraising from the Indian American community on the grounds that she co-chairs the
Senate’s India Caucus and has favored outsourcing of jobs to India in return for the large
scale campaign contribution by Indian Americans.
53
The Obama campaign had to

52
www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/15clinton.htm

53
This line of criticism of Hillary Clinton campaign by Obama campaign was reminiscent of the
controversy over campaign contribution by Asian Americans to the Bill Clinton presidential campaign in
1996. The controversy was centered around the presumption that contribution by Asian Americans
120
ultimately withdraw the memo because it had collapsed the distinction between Indian
Americans and India as a nation and by implication suggested that Clinton was bound to
represent the Interest of India since she was taking contribution from Indian Americans.
54

The South Asian community, particularly the Indian American community, has
come to think of campaign contributions as an important way of developing political
influence for the community. A significant number of interviewees pointed to this
emerging trend within the South Asian community and argued how this could be a
possible way to counter the lack of political influence resulting from a relatively small
number of South Asians combined with a lack of population concentration. Some
community leaders look at the fund raising ability of Indian American community as a
way to quickly gain leverage for the community in the political system. There is a widely
shared view within the South Asian community that the way to political empowerment of
the community lies in exploiting the financial leverage of the community and that the
financial strength of the community should move quickly from asserting cultural and
religious identity to developing political clout. According to this view, the political
parties and candidates may not care for community’s votes but they will certainly care
about its ability to contribute. An Indian American community leader from Los Angeles
area puts the relationship between political incorporation and fundraising within the
South Asian community in the following words:
… Our strength is the finances, the funds we can raise for them, more so than the
votes that we can deliver them…. I would say so far, our majority strength lies in
our ability to raise funds for them. The Indians are professionally, business wise,

represents the interest of Asian capital in the Pacific Rim and that tainted offshore Asian money is coming
through Asian Americans to buy political influence in the U.S.
54
www.newser.com/story/3248/obama-sorry-for-hillary-memo.html
121
everywhere; but in the political process, we are not so much in the process from
grassroots section working upwards. Most of our strength comes from raising
funds for the political people…… we are not there at the stage where we can
demand power from our voting rights, our voting power. Even though we try to
throw in a number there; that number is still very small for a political person to
depend mainly on us. We are too spread apart, so at the local level we cannot play
any role at all in terms of votes… Money wise, yes, we do, because for whatever
reason, Indians do donate for political parties. And with that strength, you can sit
with them and talk to them… is that the way to go? No, I don’t think that should
be the only way to go, but it always helps.
55

A similar trend can be seen in Pakistani American community as well. Both Los
Angeles and New York area Pakistani immigrant community leaders report that their
votes are not as much a target of mobilization as their money is. A Pakistani American
woman activist form Los Angeles, speaking of the trend of fundraising in Pakistani
community, said:
Money is more important and that is what they (political parties and candidates)
are targeting- they are not going out for the vote. I have not seen anyone going out
to try to get more votes from our community. Again, Pakistanis are dispersed.
You are not going to see them in one area. South Asians maybe more so, but
again, politically when they (Political candidates) come in, I see more emphasis
on fundraising.
56

This view is in sharp contrast to other minority groups such as African Americans and
Latinos and also differs from the historical experience of European ethnics.
Wandy Cho and Suneet Lad in their analysis of political behavior of Asian
Indians argue that there has been a steep increase in the volume of contribution to federal
campaign, PACs, or party organizations by Asian Indians. Analyzing the contribution
figures from 1980 to 2000, they show that contribution by Asian Indians has burgeoned
from almost negligible to approximately 8 million in a single election cycle. The number

55
Interview, Los Angeles, CA, 5 July 2006

56
Interview ,Los Angeles, CA, 23 June 2006.
122
of contributors also rose from a few hundred to approximately 8000 separate
contributions (Cho and Lad 2004). A rising trend of campaign contributions suggests that
the community is giving importance to this form of political engagement and possibly
sees this as a way to gain political leverage.
Analysis of campaign contribution trends in the 2008 presidential primary
elections gives further insight into the level of involvement of South Asian immigrants in
fundraising efforts for both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. An
analysis by an ethnic Journal titled Little India focuses upon what is known in political
fundraising or journalistic parlance as “bundlers” (Mehra 2008). As federal law caps
individual election contributions to a candidate in an election cycle to $2300, the bundlers
become critical to the candidates for raising bigger amounts.
57
These bundlers typically
package and bundle donations from friends, family, business, and professional associates
by organizing private and public fundraising events. This kind of contribution constitutes
a significant part of the funds raised by candidates in any election. An analysis done by
Little India of 2,493 bundlers reported by the public interest watchdog group Public
Citizen during presidential primaries of 2008 revealed that there were 21 Indian
Americans in that list along with a few Pakistani American bundlers. Almost half of these
Indian American bundlers raised money for Senator Hillary Clinton, the rest of them
were divided between Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, Gov. Mitt Romney, and Senator
McCain. Similar patterns of fundraising at the state and congressional level elections
have been reported by ethnic newspapers. Apart from prominent business people and
professionals from the South Asian community who organize fundraisers on a regular

57
The federal rule stipulates a $ 2300 limit for an individual to candidates of all federal offices. Each
primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election.
123
basis, organizations such as U.S.-India Political Action Committee (USINPAC) and
Pakistani American (PACPAK) also play an important role as far as political fundraising
is concerned. USINPAC and PACPAK have both contributed large amounts to
Congressional candidates on a bipartisan basis.
Indian Americans and, to a lesser extent, Pakistani Americans are playing an
important role as far as political fundraising is concerned. Given the overall number of
South Asian Americans in the United States and the level of political participation and
representation of the community, their share in fundraising activities seems to be quite
high. Most of these fundraisers organized by South Asians primarily rely upon members
of the community to contribute. The prevalence of this form of political engagement,
which primarily relies upon the wealthy sections of the community, suggests that there is
a wide gap between the share of the South Asian community’s contribution to fundraising
and their involvement with other forms of political participation.
As discussed earlier, there is a very strong discourse within the South Asian
community- Indian Americans in particular- of gaining political voice through the
economic clout of the community and this discourse is largely rooted in the belief that
Indian Americans as a community are economically powerful. It is relevant to note here
that this discourse of political influence through economic clout is also linked to the
discourse among South Asians which views the American Jewish community as a model
to achieve political empowerment in the U.S. The influence of the Jewish lobby in the
United States is often cited by Indian Americans as a model for achieving political
influence through the use their economic clout. A Los Angeles based community leader
of Indian descent argued for the need to make campaign contribution a central plank of
124
Indian American political engagement in the United States. He exhorted the community
to follow the Jewish model and move from making contributions for building temples to
political contribution for developing political influence:
The Indian community was not used to giving political contribution in India. Only
some very high level people gave any political contribution in India. They (Indian
Americans) still think that giving to political party or candidate is useless or that
contributing to temple is better. If the Indian community has a fund raising event
for a congressman, we have to pull them to come and attend the function. Look at
the people who have mastered the art of political involvement, the Jewish
community. And look at their control. The Indian community with their financial
strength could do better. However, there is a difference. Whereas the Jewish
community has already built their temple, the Indian community is contributing
heavily to build their temples. The next generation or third generation when the
temples are built, maybe the importance will be the political contribution to
control their agenda.
58

The mainstream media has also noted the Indian American groups’ fascination
with the Jewish lobby. Mira Kamdar, writing in an op-ed in The Washington Times,
argued that the recent debates following the publication of highly controversial book on
Israeli lobby may have generated some questions about the undue influence of Israeli
Lobby in U.S. politics but for a large section of Indian Americans this lobby is highly
inspiring.
59
She wrote further:
With growing numbers, clout and self-confidence, the Indian American
community is turning its admiration for the Israel lobby and its respect for high
achieving Jewish Americans into powerful new force of its own following
consciously in AIPAC’s (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) footsteps,
the India Lobby is getting results in Washington- and having a profound impact
on U.S. policy…” (Kamdar 2007).

The success of the Jewish community in establishing itself as a community with a
strong voice and influence on the American foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel has struck a

58
Interview, Los Angeles, CA, 22 June 2006.

59
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy ( 2006) by Mearsheimer, John and Stephen Walt
125
chord with some of the Indian American organizations. The parallels between the two
communities are also seen in their high socioeconomic profile which can be used to
develop political clout. Commenting on this perceived similarity between the two groups,
a report in The New York Times noted, “Indians often say they see a version of
themselves and what they hope to be the experience of Jews in American politics: a small
minority that has succeeded in combating prejudice and building political clout”
(Banerjee 2007).
The Indian American community members and activists interviewed for this
research often referred to the Jewish experience and how that should be a model for
Indian immigrants. This reference was more common among Indian American
interviewees than Pakistani and Bangladeshi Americans. The discourse of Hindu/India
and Jewish/Israel alliance against the threats of Islamic terrorism has also strengthened
the admiration for the Jewish lobby (Prashad 2005; Kurien 2007b). An Indian American
community activist based in Los Angeles exhorted the community to follow the Jewish
model but feared that Indian American community may not be able to follow the Jewish
model:
Look at the people who have mastered the art of political involvement- the Jewish
community – and look at their control. The Indian community with their financial
strength could do better…… That may never happen because for the Jewish
people, Israel is going to be a continuous source of attraction. But India, that is
not a source of attraction..(for) second generation Indians, no way. That is why I
have come to a point where I have been stressing this to organizations, to the
government of India, to Ministers in India- spend money on internship of young
people... thousands of young people should be traveling to India, even if the
money needs to be invested… once they stay there for two three months, they will
always be a part of India.
60

60
Interview, Los Angeles, CA, 23 June 2006.
126
The centrality of India and the need for continuing attachment to India figure
prominently in this discourse. Obviously, there is a clear realization that there are
significant differences between the relationship of the Jewish community to Israel –
which has come to acquire a pivotal role in shaping Jewish identity- and the Indian
American community to India.
It is important to point out here that the invocation of the Jewish community and
Jewish American experience of political incorporation is done in a very selective manner
by some of the Indian community organizations in their quest for political power. This
selective invocation completely ignores the early history of grassroots mobilizing and
multiracial alliance built by the Jewish American groups against racial and religious
discrimination and the role played by the community in building up different progressive
alliances and movements in different American cities (Sonenshein 1993; Glazer and
Moynihan 1970). What gets invoked is the centrality of Israel in contemporary Jewish
mobilization and how the community’s political clout rests upon the economic strength of
the community.
The importance of fundraising and contribution to political campaigns among
South Asian immigrants suggests a dominance of a particular kind of political
engagement which does not rely upon the mobilization and engagement of the broader
community. The dominance of this mode of political engagement suggests a path of
political incorporation which relies primarily on the affluent and the elite of the
community. Both the pluralist and the minority group models of political incorporation
therefore fail to account for this mode of political engagement which relies on selective
mobilization on the part of the group.
127
Towards a Politics of Social Justice
Parallel to the above discussed three dominant trends of political engagement
which rely upon selective mobilization, there are a number of service and advocacy
organizations of South Asians that are geared towards promoting grassroots civic and
political engagements among South Asian immigrants. These organizations- mostly
501(C) (3) or non profit – are primarily focused on working class, underprivileged, and
undocumented sections of the South Asian community and they provide different kinds
of services to the community as well as engage in advocacy on their behalf. Both Los
Angeles and New York have a number of such organizations which are active among the
South Asian communities. South Asian Network (SAN), South Asian Public Health
Association (SAPHA), SATRANG, and South Asian American Voting Youth (SAAVY)
in Los Angeles area are some examples of organizations dedicated to service and
advocacy. The number of such organizations in the New York Metropolitan Area is much
more than in Los Angeles. Some of the important New York based South Asian
organizations in this category are New York Taxi Workers Alliance, AWAAZ,
ANDOLAN, Desis Rising Up and Moving (DRUM), SAKHI, and MANAVI.
South Asian Network (SAN), Los Angeles, founded in 1990, has been working on
issues including health awareness, domestic violence, immigration related services,
workers’ rights, discrimination, and racial targeting of South Asians in both the pre and
post-9/11 period. SAN is particularly focused on low income sections of South Asian
immigrants, a significant number of which are either undocumented or facing
immigration related issues. As a part of its outreach efforts among low income South
Asian immigrants, SAN has been working among Bangladeshi immigrants in the
128
Koreatown neighborhood of Los Angeles on issues relating to housing, health, domestic
violence, immigration, and race relations. According to SAN, the number of Bangladeshi
residents in Koreatown is estimated to be 10,000 to 15,000 but the community has
remained largely invisible and the issues faced by them remain unaddressed because of
the lack of organizations and agencies which understand and respond to their needs. SAN
has joined with other Asian American organizations and a larger coalition of immigrant
organizations to build resources and networks to provide services and mobilize
underserved sections of South Asians on important issues facing them. The organization
is also a part of a broader coalition of organizations working for comprehensive
immigration reforms.
61

In New York City, there are number of organizations active among working class
and underserved South Asian communities and they reach out to common South Asians
on issues such as housing, health, racial discrimination, domestic violence, and
immigration. Desis Rising Up and Moving( DRUM), based in Queens, New York,
identifies itself as an organization “ founded in 2000 to build power of South Asian low
wage immigrant workers, families fighting deportation, and youth in New York City.”
62

DRUM has worked among South Asian immigrants to stop deportation, educate and
mobilize South Asian youth in Queens against unfair immigration policies and for better
educational facilities for the immigrant youth. The targeting and detention of South
Asians in the wake of September 11, 2001 attack was opposed by DRUM in alliance with
other New York based South Asian organizations such as Chayya, Coney Island Avenue

61
www.southasiannetwork.org

62
www.drumnation.org
129
Project, Andolan, Council of People’s Organizations, and New York Taxi Workers
alliance along with other human rights organizations. These organizations highlighted the
indiscriminate nature of detentions and deportations and worked toward providing legal
help to individuals and families affected by the crackdown. The New York Taxi
Workers Alliance (NYTWA), which was formed in 1998 and represents the interests of
Taxi workers in New York City, is one of the important organizations of South Asian
immigrants since a large number of Taxi drivers in the city are South Asian immigrants.
NYTWA is one of the first organizations which started labor organizing among South
Asians immigrants. These organizations have initiated processes which are aimed at civic
and political empowerment of the underprivileged sections of the South Asian
immigrants.
The organizations discussed in this section represent a trend of civic and political
engagement among South Asian immigrants that is different from the modes of political
mobilization discussed earlier in the chapter. Their primary focus is on working class,
underprivileged, undocumented, and marginalized sections within South Asian
community and these organizations can be broadly categorized under the rubric of
organizations working towards social justice. It is also important to note that the primary
arena of their activities is non electoral and they attempt to mobilize the community for
political and civic participation which go beyond the electoral arena. Even though these
organizations are relatively new and confined to large metropolitan centers, their attempts
to influence the political process is reflected in a recent initiative by a number of South
Asian organizations all over the United States to form a national coordination body to
build a close coalition to advance their work. In June 2008, 32 South Asian organizations
130
from 12 regions of the United States came together in New York City to announce the
formation of National Coalition of South Asian Organizations (NCSAO). The coalition is
a result of attempts by many of these organizations over the last several years to develop
a comprehensive agenda and coordination among South Asian organizations working in
different regions of the United States. The important issues identified by the coalition
include equal and full participation in civic and political process for all, enforcement of
civil rights and civil liberties for all, gender equality within the South Asian community,
immigrant rights and reform, rights for gays and lesbians, and empowerment of South
Asian youth.
63

The organizations active among South Asians under the broad framework of
social justice represent a trend different from the dominant forms of political mobilization
among South Asian immigrants which relies mostly on elite mobilization of a narrow
section of the community constituted exclusively of the economically better off. The
politics of lobbying, strategy of building political influence through campaign
contributions, and representation and electoral trend of contesting election from white
majority area using mainstream and cross over appeal do not involve bringing rank and
file South Asian immigrants into civic and political process. The other kind of political
engagement- based on a framework of social justice politics- is an attempt to bring a
broader South Asian immigrant community into the civic and political space but it is not
the dominant trend in the community. Both these trends are not yet fully evolved and
separated but they do point toward the broad trajectories of political incorporation which
are evolving among South Asian immigrants.

63
http://www.saalt.org/pages/Meet-the-National-Coalition.html
131
Conclusion
The analysis of political incorporation experience of South Asian immigrants
suggests that the political incorporation of the group is taking place in an institutional
context that is characterized by a decline of political parties. There is very little attempt
by political parties and other institutions to bring contemporary non-white immigrants
into the political process. South Asians as a group are marginalized in the political
process as a result of lack of this institutional attempts at incorporation combined with
what many interviewees described as a lack of significant South Asian population
concentration. However, this lack of mobilization and inclusion of the broader South
Asian community in the political process simultaneously co-exists with selective
targeting and mobilization of narrow segments within the community which results in a
particular trajectory of incorporation relying on elite mobilization.
The minority group model predicts that nonwhite immigrants who face
discrimination and barriers are likely to engage in grassroots mobilizing based on their
racial and ethnic identity. However, the analysis of interviews and other data suggests
that there are three major trends of political engagement among South Asian immigrants-
the focus on lobbying, prominence of campaign fundraising as a strategy for gaining
political power, and descriptive representation from white majority districts. The analysis
suggests that there is very little grassroots mobilizing within the South Asian community.
Political mobilization is only limited to certain forms of engagement which do not require
the mobilization and engagement of the broader community. All three trends identified in
this analysis end up reinforcing selective mobilization within the South Asian community
which preclude large sections of the community from getting drawn into the political
132
processes. This strategy of political mobilization is in complete contrast to what the
minority group model predicts for nonwhite immigrants to achieve full political
incorporation. Hence, the political incorporation of the group is not following either the
pluralist model- where immigrants are mobilized on the basis of their ethnic identity by
political parties which help bring them into the political process- or the minority group
model where grassroots mobilization against discrimination and racial barrier on the basis
of shared racial identity is the path to political incorporation. In the case of South Asian
immigrants, the political incorporation process is bereft of any large scale community
grassroots mobilization. Instead, it mainly focuses on a narrow section of the community
which is able to make campaign contribution and engage with groups involved in
lobbying activities. Political parties and candidates also tend to focus on the section
within the community which is wealthy enough to make political contributions or engage
in mobilization to raise more political contribution from the community.
A strong discourse of achieving political power through economic strength of the
community speaks to this trend of political engagement. This discourse contributes to a
particular kind of political mobilizing within the community which relies completely
upon the money power of the community and does not engage in any kind of grassroots
mobilizing for political incorporation of the community. The trend of descriptive
representation of South Asian immigrants from primarily white areas also contributes to
the nonmobilization of South Asians for political incorporation at the grassroots level.
This chapter suggests that we need to go beyond the existing models of political
incorporation- the pluralist and minority group model- which do not fully explain the
process of simultaneous marginalization and selective incorporation which South Asian
133
community is undergoing.
Finally, the chapter also argues that there is an emerging trend of political
engagement within the South Asian community which relies upon marginalized sections
within the community and works under the broad rubric of social justice politics. This
parallel trend of political engagement is different in terms of its constituency and reach.
These groups are taking political issues to the marginalized sections of the community
and trying to bring new voices into the political process. The social justice oriented
politics still remains a small trend in terms of its reach and impact, but it has shown the
potential of forging alliances with other groups to advance progressive politics.

134
Chapter IV
Transnational Attachments and Political Participation in the United States: An
Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Data

September 25, 2006, New York City. Outside a hotel in Manhattan, hundreds of
Pakistani immigrants were assembled in two separate groups on the eve of Pakistani
President’s visit to New York City to attend the U.N. general assembly meet. The two
groups were there to express their views about the prevailing conditions in Pakistan,
particularly about the legitimacy of military rule being led by President Pervaiz
Musharraf. Those opposed to the military rule and President Pervaiz Musharraf’s regime
were being led by Asian- American Network against Abuse of Human Rights (ANAA), a
non-profit U.S. based group of Pakistani immigrants for restoration of Human Rights in
Pakistan. The group held a meeting earlier that day to discuss the ways to highlight
human rights violations in Pakistan through lobbying and activism in the United States.
Pakistani immigrant activists from all across the U.S. had traveled to join the meeting and
protest against the military regime in Pakistan. The counter protest to express support for
the current regime was also attended by a significant number of Pakistani immigrants
64
.

……………………………………………………

May, 3, 2006, Washington, D.C. Around 200 Indian Americans from all across
the U.S. attended a White House briefing led by Karl Rove on the importance of the U.S.-
India Civil Nuclear Deal for both U.S. and India. The group traveled to Washington, D.C.
to meet the members of Congress from their respective areas to lobby for the passage of
U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Deal. The effort was a part of the lobbying campaign launched
by various organizations of Indian immigrants to push for the passage of U.S.-India Civil
Nuclear Deal through the U.S. Congress.
65

………………………………………………………..

The above examples highlight the extent to which transnational attachments and
transnational political engagement are part of South Asian immigrants’ social and
political life in the United States. The political incorporation of South Asian immigrants
in the United States cannot be completely explained without looking at the transnational
dimension of their civic and political engagement. Both the quantitative and qualitative

64
Based on participant observation of the day long activity on the part of various Pakistani American
groups in New York city on 25 September, 2006.

65
http://in.rediff.com/cms/print.jsp?docpath=//news/2006/may/12ndeal3.htm
135
data analyzed in this chapter suggest that transnational attachments are a major part of the
social and political lives of South Asian immigrant community in the U.S. These
attachments encompass different arenas which include familial, social, cultural, religious,
and the political. The chapter challenges the dominant notion about the negative impact
of transnational attachments on political participation of South Asian immigrants in the
U.S. In contrast, it argues that transnational attachments and engagements need not be
seen as adversely impacting South Asian immigrants’ political participation in the U.S.
The chapter suggests that South Asian immigrants find it easier to engage with groups
constituted by their co-ethnics who also take interest in the politics of home country. The
inability of mainstream U.S. political institutions to engage with such ethnic groups
contributes to South Asian immigrants’ lack of engagement in the U.S. political process.
The chapter further argues that transnational engagements with the issues concerning
country of origin are not only about country of origin but such engagements also provide
avenues to engage with U.S. political institutions. The chapter concludes by analyzing the
implications of increased transnational social and political engagement on the conception
of citizenship- as viewed and practiced by South Asian immigrants.
Historically, immigrant communities in the United States have maintained strong
connections with their country of origin (Guarnizo and Smith 1998; Foner 2000;
Jacobson 1995). The literature on European immigration to the United States analyzed
the level of attachment these immigrants maintained by pointing to the volume of return
migration. A very high number of immigrants returned to their country of origin in the
first half of the twentieth century. This historical work suggested that many European
immigrants were quite ambivalent about the United States. They viewed their stay in the
136
U.S. as temporary and maintained ties to their family and friends in the country of origin
through letters and remittances (Jacobson 1995). The classical pluralist model of political
incorporation, however, did not pay much attention to these connections and networks; it
only emphasized the desire of the immigrants to assimilate into the American
mainstream. The pluralist model, which drew heavily on assimilationist approaches to
immigration, viewed the continuing attachment and linkages to home country as factors
which slowed the immigrant incorporation into the U.S. social and political mainstream.
Building on the pluralist view of political incorporation, Alejandro Portes and Ruben
Rumbaut argued that even though many European immigrants did not return to their
countries of origin, they remained uninterested in the American political process because
they remained focused on the idea of returning (Portes and Rumbaut 1996). This view of
immigrant political incorporation has continued to see a zero sum relationship between
attachments to home country and political participation in the U.S.
The conventional wisdom, drawing upon the assimilationist and pluralist
approach to immigrant incorporation, contends that immigrants’ deeper attachment to
their country of origin acts as a barrier to their civic and political incorporation in the
United States. This framework is based on the assumption that engagement with the
issues and polity of the country of origin is a reflection of disinterest and apathy toward
American politics (Huntington 1997, 2004; Schlesinger 1992; Glazer 1983). The pluralist
model further argues that attachment to home country is a lingering effect of past
attachments that slowly disappears as immigrants become incorporated into social and
political life of the United States.
137
The minority group model of political incorporation, because of its focus on
African American experiences, has also not placed much emphasis on transnationalism to
understand the political incorporation of non-white immigrants. However, recent
scholarship, following the broad import of the minority group model that non-white
immigrants face racial barriers leading to slower political incorporation, have started
questioning the zero sum relationship between transnational engagement and political
participation in the U.S. These scholars argue that transnational attachments of
immigrants do not necessarily lead to decreased participation in U.S. politics ( Jones-
Correa 1998; DeSipio 2003; Guarnizo, Portes, and Haller 2003; Lien et al 2004;
Ramakrishnan 2005; Wong 2006).
Guarnizo, Portes, and Haller (2003), in a seminal survey based study on the
transnational political activities of Colombians, Dominicans, and Salvadorans, argue that
transnational political action, regularly undertaken by a small minority, is socially
bounded across national borders and occurs in quite specific territorial jurisdiction but
also appears to reproduce preexisting power symmetries. They found that greater
transnational political participation is positively associated with a range of indicators
such as expectations to return home, more education, male, married, and length of stay in
the U.S. The transnational political activities surveyed included membership in the home
country political party, donating money to the home country political party, and
participation in home country political campaigns and rallies. Their results indicate that
transnational political activities, contrary to expectations, are not the domain of
marginalized or poorly educated immigrants. Length of residence in the United States or
acquisition of citizenship does not necessarily reduce interest or involvement in the home
138
country. In fact, increases in the length of stay may actually increase transnational
political participation. Their research points out that there is no inherent contradiction
between “assimilation” and transnationalism because it is the better established and more
secure immigrants who engage in transnational activities (Guarnizo, Portes, and Haller
2003). The exclusivist views of the supposed trajectory of assimilation are contradicted
by other findings which argue that immigrants most involved in transnational activities
are better educated, longer residents of the host societies, and more likely to be involved
in the politics of the host society ( Smith 1998; Landolt 2001). Louis DeSipio (2003),
analyzing survey data of Latino immigrants from three different countries, reports that
transnational political engagement is a phenomenon confined to a small minority of the
immigrant population but he does not find a relation between the political engagement in
the home country and engagement in the U.S. These findings question the conventional
wisdom about the relationship between transnational engagements and political
participation in the U.S. and assert that the two are not necessarily negatively related.
This literature makes an important contribution to the ongoing debate on immigrant
political incorporation in terms of questioning the prevailing assumption about the
relationship between transnational engagements and political participation in the U.S.
However, the literature largely does not go beyond questioning this prevailing
assumption. It does not look into the different ways in which transnational attachments
and engagements shape and become a part of the political participation of immigrants in
the U.S.
Some recent works on transnationalism and immigrant political incorporation do
attempt to go beyond a rather simplistic debate of whether strong transnational
139
attachment depresses immigrant political participation in the U.S. Analyzing this
relationship through a study of Caribbean immigrants in New York City, Reuel Rogers
points towards a more complex patterns of relationship between home country ties and
political participation in the U.S. Rogers, based on his interview with Caribbean
immigrants in New York City, argues that immigrants whose home country engagements
consisted primarily of personal and social ties “ tended to have postponed naturalization
for many years and did not participate in American politics much after they finally
became citizens” ( Rogers 2006, 163 ). However, he found a different pattern among
those immigrants whose home country ties also involved civic activity targeted at their
home countries. The immigrants who were civically engaged with their home countries
also tended to participate in the politics of the United States. This finding echoes the
broad results of other studies which found that civic engagement with home country
related issues contributes to participation in U.S. civic and political arena (Wong, Lien,
and Conway 2005; DeSipio 2006; Karpathakis 1999; Graham 1997). The study by
Rogers, thus, suggests that transnational attachments of immigrant communities work
differently for different segments of the immigrant population as far as civic and political
participation in the United States is concerned.
Transnationalism and South Asians
Even though the scholars of European immigration to the United States have
discussed and analyzed the existence of transnational attachment for a long time, the
nature of contemporary transnational attachment has changed drastically. One of the most
important factors which has transformed the nature and intensity of transnational
relations between immigrant communities and their home countries is rapid changes in
140
communication technology. The interviews conducted with South Asian immigrants in
Los Angeles and the New York Metropolitan Area provide important insights into the
changing nature and intensity of transnational connections among immigrant
communities. Most of the interviewees spoke about the rapid transformation in the nature
of transnational connections in the last 10-15 years due to the increased availability of
cheaper and faster modes of communication. For instance, the cost of making telephone
calls to South Asian countries, like other parts of the world, has gone down drastically
and has transformed the ways in which immigrants maintain contact with family and
friends in their home countries. A Bangladeshi immigrant in Queens, New York,
expressed the increased ease of communication in the following way:
…With a five dollar phone card you can buy for one dollar now and you can talk
for an hour or so. The last few times it was more than two hours. Nobody can talk
more than two hours every week… Now you have a regular contact with friends
and family back home.
66

Similarly, the Internet has become a powerful means of communication across the
globe and has deeply impacted the ways in which South Asian immigrants- with a large
section of middle class which can afford and use this mode of communication
comfortably- maintain connections with home countries. The Internet is not only used for
personal communication but it also provides instant access to newspapers from South
Asia. Many civic and politically inclined community members are also a part of different
Internet based list-serves that focus on social and political discussions concerning
different issues in their countries of origin. Talking about the ways of keeping in touch
with her country of origin, a Bangladeshi immigrant from Los Angeles said:

66
Interview, New York City, NY, 12 December 2006.
141
I talk regularly with my family and sometimes with my friends and ex-colleagues.
We use a lot of phone cards. And everyday I go to Bangladesh newspapers on the
Internet; that is my habit, I have to do that. I have Bangladeshi television channels
at my home. So we do not feel that actually we are very far from there, we see
every day the news and everything. So we are very much up on what is going
on.
67

The easy availability of ethnic television channels which relay political, social,
and cultural programs focused on countries of origin round the clock has brought the
home countries closer for South Asian immigrants, making transnational connections
much more intense than ever before. A significant number of interviewees spoke about
the ways in which these television channels have intensified the level of connection with
their home countries. Respondents from all three South Asian communities- Indian,
Pakistani, and Bangladeshi- talked about the availability of 24 hour television
programming focused on home countries and the ways in which that has transformed the
nature of connection with home countries. Another important indicator which reflects the
level and intensity of transnational connection is the growing level of remittances
reaching the home countries. Recent data show that the flow of money in the form of
remittances has grown alongside an increasing trend of economic investment in home
country. According to a World Bank Report, India is the top recipient of remittances in
the world in terms of absolute value and the Indian immigrants in North America are the
largest contributor to the flow of money through remittances (Chisti 2007).
68
Bangladesh

67
Interview, Los Angeles, CA, 6 June 2006

68
The World Bank estimate for 2005 put India in the lead at $ 23.5 billion with China and Mexico close
behind at $ 22.4 billion and $ 21.7 billion, respectively. The contribution of Indian migrants settled in
North America to the total remittance is highest with approximately 44 percent coming from North
America followed by 24 percent from the Gulf countries.
142
and Pakistan have also shown similar growth in their remittances in recent years.
69
The
evidence suggests that the nature of transnational attachment among contemporary
immigrant groups has changed drastically compared to earlier waves of immigrants. The
recent literature on transnational linkages of different immigrant groups also confirms the
changing and intensifying nature of these linkages (Rogers 2006; Jones Correa 1998;
Portes and Rumbaut 1996; Basch et al. 1994).
An overwhelming number of interviewees for this study spoke about the deep
interest of the South Asian communities in the politics of their home countries. The
interviews suggest that immigrants from all three South Asian communities- Indian,
Pakistani, and Bangladeshi- follow closely the broad political developments in their
countries of origin. The medium used to follow political news in home countries range
from community newspapers published in the United States, the Internet, South Asian
television channels to phone conversations with family and friends in the country of
origin. Reflecting on the extent of political connection to home country, an Indian
community leader in Los Angeles said:
I think Indian community is still connected. We are recent immigrants…. and the
local newspapers and the Internet and all the TV channels kept us tuned into what
is happening in India. I still see a vast majority of people who still want to know
what is going to happen to BJP and what are the prospects of Congress.
70

69
In the first seven months of the fiscal year (July 2007–January 2008), Pakistan received $3.26 billion in
remittance inflows, a 22.4 percent increase from the same period last year. Inflows in January stand at $557
million, a 42 percent jump year-on-year. The largest remittance inflows come from the United States, Saudi
Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries.
(http://migrantremittances.typepad.com/blog/2008/03/remittances-to.html)
In Bangladesh, remittances hit a record $5.98 billion in the 2006/07 financial year that ended in June,
24.52 percent higher than the previous fiscal year. The remittances from United States were the second
largest contributor to the total amount reaching Bangladesh.
(http://in.reuters.com/article/asiaCompanyAndMarkets/idINDHA19219820080101)

70
Interview. Los Angeles, CA, 3 April 2006.
143
Bangladeshi and Pakistani community members also reported a similar kind of
political connection with the home country. They reported that there is a high level of
interest in the political and social developments in the country of origin. A young
Bangladeshi immigrant from Queens, New York, speaking about the level of interest in
the home country politics, said:
I think for people of Bangladesh, politics is an integral part of their life. Not every
one is in politics, but everyone has some knowledge. Of course, after coming
here, the scenario changes because it is a hard life here. Still, I can tell from their
activities, they take active interest in Bangladeshi politics. They want to know the
daily chatter, or on weekends when they meet the conversations are around
politics. It is a significant topic.
71

It is important to note here that the high levels of transnational attachments in
terms of maintaining contacts and following political developments in the home country
do not translate to high levels of participation in transnational political activities. The
issue of active political engagement with the country of origin is a complex one. Both the
quantitative and the qualitative analysis suggest that active transnational political
participation is confined to a relatively small segment of the immigrant community. The
qualitative data does suggest that there is a high level of interest in the politics of home
country but most of the interviewees observed that the section which actively gets
involved with the politics of home country is rather small. The views expressed in the
interviews about the low level of active participation as opposed to high level of interest
in following the news regarding the politics of home country also confirms the broad
trend indicated by the quantitative PNAAPS data and several other studies. In most
quantitative studies, examples of involvement with home country politics included
participation in organization and activities related to the home country politics, and active

71
Interview, New York City, NY, 5 February 2007.
144
connections with political groups in the home country. However, many of the
interviewees made a distinction between engagement with politics in terms of partisan
politics expressed in the form of associating with political groups in the home country
and/or their affiliates in U.S., and engagements with issues relating to development and
various social causes in the country of origin. In other words, there is a wider level of
engagement in the South Asian immigrant community with the issues related to the
country of origin which are not explicitly political in terms of party politics. The
distinction is important for this analysis because transnational political engagement
measured in most surveys by participation in a narrow set of activities related to party
politics fails to capture a broader range of transnational activities which fall under the
broad rubric of charity, civic, and political engagement. The qualitative data suggest that
the level of transnational political engagement is much wider if this broader rubric of
political and civic engagement is used. One of the ways in which this broader rubric of
transnational political and civic engagement can be understood is by analyzing the nature
and activities of organizations which engage in transnational political activities among
South Asian immigrants.
Based on a range of participant observations in Los Angeles and New York City
and interviews with South Asian community members and activists, I propose that there
are three kinds of organizations which either directly or indirectly get involved in
transnational politics. First, there are lobbying organizations that are active on the U.S.
foreign policy issues relating to the home country. One of the most prominent examples
of this kind is USINPAC which claims to represent the interest of Indian immigrant
community on the Capitol Hill and gets heavily involved in lobbying on issues related to
145
India. One of the major planks of USINPAC has been to represent the interest of India in
the United States. This commitment of USINPAC has been reflected in its important role
in lobbying with the Congress in 2006 for the passage of the U.S. - India Civil Nuclear
Deal. On similar lines, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee (PAKPAC) claims
to represent Pakistani Americans and lobbies with Congress on certain issues related to
Pakistan. Bangladeshi immigrants have also been involved in attempts to create a group
which can speak on behalf of Bangladeshi Americans in Washington, D.C. and can also
support and lobby for Bangladesh on important issues.
The second category of South Asian groups engaged in transnational politics
comprises of those who are connected to political parties and groups in their countries of
origin. For instance, among Indian immigrants in the U.S. there are groups which support
two of the major political parties of India- the Indian national Congress Party (INC) and
the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The U.S. based Indian National Overseas Congress
(INOC) and Overseas Friend of BJP (OFBJP) support the Congress party and Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) in India, respectively. They work toward mobilizing support for these
political parties among Indian immigrants in the U.S. In the last 10-15 years, BJP and its
affiliates such as Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh
(RSS)- the groups that espouse a political ideology aimed at transforming India from a
secular state to a theocratic Hindu state and engage in virulent anti-Muslim politics as
well- have been able to establish organizations and associations in different parts of the
United States to mobilize resources and support in favor of their political program and
ideology. The active presence of these organizations in the Indian immigrant community
is indicative of one kind of transnational political engagement of the community.
146
Besides involvement with these direct party related formations, there are other
ways in which political engagement with India is manifested in the community. Most of
the ethno-cultural organizations such as Gujarati associations, Telugu associations, and
Tamil associations in the U.S. invite political leaders from their respective provinces in
India for yearly conferences and maintain strong relationships with these political parties
and leaders. The political engagements and connections at provincial levels is an
increasingly important part of transnational engagement of immigrant organizations. The
Indian ethnic newspapers published in the U.S. are filled with news about political
leaders from India visiting Indian immigrant communities in different parts of the U.S.
Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrant communities also have similar kinds of political
formations. In the case of the Pakistani community, a significant number of interviewees
observed that due to a long history of military rule, political parties are not that strong in
Pakistan and that gets reflected in a relatively weak presence of Pakistani political parties
and their affiliates in the U.S. However, Pakistani political parties such as Pakistan
Peoples Party (PPP), Pakistani Muslim League (N), and Pakistani Muslim League (Q) do
have their U.S. based formations active in the community. The Pakistani community has
also been deeply divided on the question of military rule and has a number of campaigns,
rallies, and political meetings in the U.S. either in favor or against a former military
general who retained both the presidency and his military office until very recently.
Bangladeshi immigrants are relatively new to the United States and an overwhelming
number of them are very new to this country. There is a very distinct pattern of
transnational political involvement among Bangladeshi immigrants which is reflective of
an intense engagement of the community with the political process in Bangladesh. The
147
intensity of engagement is reflected in the presence of major Bangladeshi political
parties- Awami League, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), and Jamaite Islam- in all
the major U.S. cities where Bangladeshi immigrants are settled. There are city and state
branches of these formations and the intense political rivalry and factionalism of
Bangladeshi politics is played out in the U.S. as well.
The third category of organizations which are involved in transnational politics is
different from the earlier two because these organizations engage in transnational
activities that do not concern with formal political process in a strict sense. There are a
number of organizations active in all three South Asian communities which focus on
developmental work in their respective countries of origin. Interviews with leaders as
well as community members from all three communities suggest that a large majority of
South Asian immigrants do not engage with the political process in their home countries
in terms of joining groups and participating in activities related to political parties.
However, a significant number of them do get involved in developmental or charity work
aimed at specific projects and areas in their country of origin. Among Indian immigrants,
the presence of organizations such as ASHA, Association for India’s Development
(AID), and India Development and Relief Fund (IDRF) along with many smaller
initiatives is indicative of the engagement of the immigrant community in the social and
developmental process.
72
Among Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants also there are
similar organizations which focus on developmental work. Organizations such as

72
Asha for education is a secular organization dedicated to change in India by focusing on the basic
education with the goal of providing education to underprivileged children. It has 45 chapters in the U.S.
which work towards mobilizing resources for around 385 projects across India. Asha has developed a
network of volunteers and donors in different U.S. cities for its projects in India. (http://www.ashanet.org/)
Association for India’s Development (AID) is a volunteer organization promoting sustainable, equitable,
and just development in India. AID has several chapters in different U.S. cities where volunteers meet to
discuss, fundraise, and support different AID projects in India.
148
Development in Literacy (DIL) and Human Development Foundation (HDF)carry out
similar work among Pakistani community. Organizations working on similar lines among
Bangladeshi immigrants influence and enhance transnational engagement of these
communities.
73
These developmental organizations are nonpolitical in terms of their
professed distance from different political parties and groups and their focus on economic
development and social issues. Their engagement is largely construed as non political but
a closer look at these organizations suggests that these organizations are involved in a
broad array of philanthropic, charity, civic, and political work in their countries of origin.
Moreover, there is no strict separation between political and non political engagement.
The example of India Development and Relief Fund (IDRF) is illustrative of this point.
The work of resource mobilization by IDRF among Indian immigrants in the U.S for
developmental projects in India became highly controversial when a watchdog group of
South Asian immigrants – Campaign to Stop Funding Hate (CSFH) - came out with a
report concluding that IDRF was funneling all its money to charity organizations that are
linked to the Hindu right wing groups such as RSS, BJP, and VHP which believe in
virulent anti Muslim and anti Christian ideology. The transnational work of IDRF was
criticized by CSFH and other such groups for contributing to the politics of hate and
communal violence in India.
The presence of a significant number of organizations which actively engage
with political, social, and developmental issues in the country of origin suggests that it is
a significant part of the South Asian community if a broader view of transnationational

73
Development and literacy (DIL) is a U.S. based non profit launched in 1997 by Pakistani Americans by a
desire to improve the dismal state of education in the underdeveloped areas of Pakistan. DIL currently
operates and manages around 150 schools across Pakistan (http://www.dil.org).
149
political involvement is taken. The qualitative method allows for a broader view of
transnational political engagement and the analysis suggests a larger presence of
transnational political engagement as compared to the quantitative data. The wide range
of South Asian organizations involved in different kinds of transnational activities are
indicative of the deep engagement of the South Asian immigrants with political process
of their countries of origin. Given the importance of transnational engagement among
South Asian Americans, their political incorporation in the U.S. can not be disconnected
from transnational engagement.
Transnational Attachments and Political Participation in the U.S.: Evidence from
the Quantitative Analysis

The relationship between immigrant transnational attachments and political
participation in the U.S. has been one of the most contentious issues among social
scientists studying immigrant political behavior. This section analyzes the relationship
between transnational attachment and political participation in the U.S. using a data set
on Asian Americans which includes South Asian immigrants. The analysis is based on
data generated by the Pilot Study of the National Asian American Survey (PNAAPS)
completed in 2001. A total of 1,218 adults of Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese,
Filipino, and South Asian (Indians and Pakistanis) descent residing in Los Angeles, New
York, Honolulu, San Francisco, and Chicago metropolitan areas were randomly selected
for this survey and interviewed by phone between November 16, 2000 and January 28,
2001. The questions this pilot study aimed to answer included the extent to which Asian
immigrants have adapted to the U.S. society and culture, the forms of ethnic and
panethnic identity and consciousness that Asian Americans express, the views that Asian
150
Americans hold about the U.S. political system, and the participatory habits, political
habits, and partisanship of Asians in the U.S. political system.
74
The survey also
measured ethnic in-group feelings, national and transnational attachments that Asian
Americans form and pattern of adaptation and acculturation they exhibit over time in the
United States. The survey measured attachment to the country of origin through the
following indicators: attention to news regarding events in Asia, frequency of contact
with people in the country of origin, participation in the activities related to the politics of
the home country, most recent visits to the country of origin, language used at home and
to conduct business transactions. The political participation and adaptation to the U.S.
political system is measured by the rate of U.S. citizenship, voting turnout, level of
political interest, and participation in activities beyond voting (Lien, Conway, and Wong
2004).
This quantitative analysis is based on a relatively small subsample of PNAAPS
data to look at the relationship between transnational attachments and political
participation in the U.S. among South Asian immigrants. Since the South Asian
subsample is relatively small (141) in the PNAAPS survey, it is important to underline
here that the generalizability of the results is limited. However, given the fact that there is
very little systematic study of South Asian immigrants and there is no other existing
survey data on this group, this analysis provides a preliminary understanding of South
Asian immigrants’ political participation in the U.S. in relation to their transnational

74
The sampling design had a final sample of 308 Chinese, 168 Koreans, 137 Vietnamese, 198 Japanese,
266 Filipino, and 141 South Asians. It is important to underline here that sample size is modest for certain
subgroups, particularly for Koreans, Vietnamese, and South Asians.
151
attachment. Moreover, the quantitative analysis is complemented by the qualitative study
based on in-depth interviews with South Asian community members and activists.
To analyze the data on South Asian immigrants in comparison to other Asian
Americans, a dummy variable was created by dividing the sample into two categories-
South Asians and the other Asians. Similarly, dummy variables were created for each of
the indicators of transnational attachment and political participation in the U.S. The three
different measures of transnational attachment used for this analysis were frequency of
contact- either by phone, mail, or in person- with people in respondents’ country of
origin; attention to news in the country of origin; and participation in political activities
related to the country of origin. The U.S. political participation measures used for this
analysis were the rate of voting among registered voters, participation beyond voting,
interest in politics, familiarity with the presidential election, membership in ethnic
organizations, citizenship, and willingness to acquire citizenship.
To understand the broad patterns of transnational attachments and political
participation among South Asians in the U.S., a range of bivariate analyses were
completed. The results of the bivariate analyses reveal the differences between the South
Asian and the rest of the Asian sample on different measures of transnational attachments
and political participation in the U.S. If we look at the transnational attachment in terms
of frequency of contact to the country of origin, the analysis shows that South Asian
immigrants have a remarkably high level of transnational attachment in comparison to
other Asian groups.
75
The data analysis suggests that 76 percent of South Asian

75
The dummy variables created for the transnational attachment category of ‘frequency of contact to the
country of origin’ include : those who maintained high level of contact- once a week or more, 2 or 3 times
a month, or at least a month- and those who maintained low level of contact-once a year or less.
152
respondents maintain high levels of contact in comparison to 59 percent of the rest of the
Asian respondents. The difference is significant at .01 level of significance. The data
suggest that South Asians are significantly more likely to maintain close contacts with
their country of origin than other Asian Americans (table 4.1). The analysis of qualitative
data discussed earlier also confirms that South Asian immigrants maintain high levels of
contact with the country of origin.
The second measure of transnational attachment used in this analysis is attention
to news stories in the country of origin. South Asian respondents who followed the news
very closely are slightly lower in comparison to rest of the Asian respondents. 57 percent
of the South Asian respondents paid very close attention to news in the country of origin
in comparison to 63 percent of the rest of the Asian respondents. This difference,
however, is statistically not significant. Hence, South Asians are almost equally attentive
to the news in their country of origin as compared to the rest of Asian Americans. The
overall number suggests that the proportion of South Asian respondents paying close
attention to news in the country of origin is high (table 4.1). The qualitative data based on
interviews also suggest a high level of attention to the news related to home country.
Moreover, the interviews suggest a widespread use of the Internet, phone, and ethnic TV
channels focused on coverage of South Asia to keep in touch through news and other
cultural productions.
The third measure of transnational attachment used in this analysis is participation
in activities concerning the politics of the home country. The overall pattern of response
to this question suggests that there is a very low level of participation in political
activities dealing with the country of origin. Only 6 percent of the respondents in the
153
whole sample indicated that they participated in any political activity regarding the
country of origin. The South Asian subsample also shows the same proportion of
respondents indicating participation in political activities related to home countries. The
literature on transnational political participation also suggests that participation in the
political activities related to the home country is low among immigrants and only a very
small group of immigrants are involved in political activities of the country of origin
(DiSepio 2003; Guarnizo, Portes and Haller 2003). Similarly, the quantitative analysis
demonstrates a gap between the high level of contact and attention to news in home
country and the low level of active political engagement with the issues of the home
country. The qualitative analysis and participant observation, however, suggest that South
Asian immigrants participate in a range of activities related to the home country, which
pertain to different social and developmental aspects that are not explicitly political, but
are a part of a broader political and civic engagement with the country of origin. The
qualitative data also show a rich array of organizations that are involved with different
issues relating to the home countries. Based on the earlier discussion of these
organizations and their activities relating to home country, it can be argued that political
and civic engagement- defined broadly- with the country of origin is deeper and more
extensive among South Asians than suggested by the quantitative data. However, it
should be noted that the gap between active transnational political participation and other
forms of transnational attachments is confirmed by qualitative data also.
The next part of the bivariate analysis compares South Asians to the other Asian
American groups on different indicators of political participation within the U.S. The
analysis suggests that South Asian immigrants are high to moderate on different indices
154
of political participation. Almost 90 percent of the registered South Asian voters cast
their ballot in the presidential election of 2000 in comparison to 82 percent of the rest of
the Asian American registered voters in the sample. However, the difference is
statistically not significant. On the measure of participation beyond voting (signing a
petition, calling a public official, participating in a protest etc.), there is a distinct
difference between the participation rates of South Asians and the rest of the Asian
American population. Fifty-five percent of South Asians engage in one or the other form
of nonvoting participation in comparison to 38 percent of the rest of the Asian
population. The difference between the two groups is statistically significant at .01 level
of significance, and the level of participation of South Asians in terms of absolute
number also is also fairly high (table 4.2).
Another indicator of political participation used for this analysis is the extent of
interest in politics and in the affairs of the government in general. A higher number of
South Asian respondents (72 percent) take interest in politics as compared to rest of the
Asian sample (61) and the difference between the two groups is statistically significant.
Similarly, on the question of knowledge about presidential election, a remarkably high
percentage of South Asians (92 percent) show high familiarity with the electoral process
for presidential election in comparison to the rest of Asian sample (72 percent). The
difference is statistically significant, affirming a relatively high level of political interest
and participation on the part of South Asians. South Asians (25 percent) are more likely
to become a member of ethnic organizations- another index of political participation- in
comparison to the rest of the Asian groups (11 percent). Again this is a statistically
155
significant difference indicating a higher participation on the part of South Asians
although the absolute numbers are not very high (table 4.2).
The other important indicators of political participation used for this analysis are
related to citizenship. There are two measures used in this analysis which relate to
citizenship: expectation to become a citizen in the near future, and the rate of
naturalization. The results suggest that there is no difference between the South Asian
subsample (74 percent) and rest of the Asian American sample (72 percent) on the
expectation to become citizen in the near future. Both groups are high on the expectation
to acquire citizenship which is the first important step to be able to participate in the U.S.
politics. Citizenship is generally considered to be the prerequisite to become a full
member of the polity. The two groups, however, differ on the rate of naturalization. The
data on citizenship shows that a lower number of South Asians (44 percent) are citizens
in comparison to the rest of the Asian groups (62 percent). The difference is statistically
significant at .01 level of significance. This result is contrary to the general pattern of
high rate of political participation of South Asian immigrants on the rest of the indicators
of participation (table 4.2).
The bivariate analysis suggests that South Asian immigrants show high to
moderate level of transnational attachment and also exhibit relatively high to moderate
levels of political participation in the U.S. The only exception to high levels of
transnational attachment is participation in the political activities related to the home
country. This analysis suggests that South Asian immigrants display both strong
transnational attachment as well relatively high levels of political participation with the
156
sole exception of naturalization where they lag behind the naturalization rate among other
Asian immigrants.
To further analyze the relationship between political participation in the U.S. and
transnational attachment among South Asian immigrants, a multivariate regression
analysis was also conducted. Although the cross-tabulations presented above highlight
important trends, they do not allow to control the influence of factors such as education,
income, length of stay, and other variables. Two separate analyses were completed to
understand the relationship between political participation in the U.S. and transnational
attachments among South Asian immigrants. The first examines political participation
beyond voting among South Asian immigrants. The second examines naturalization
among South Asian immigrants. The naturalization analysis includes only those
immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for five years or more.
76
The first dependent
variable is political participation beyond voting and the second dependent variable is
citizenship or naturalization. The independent variables of interest are South Asian,
transnational attachments, and discrimination; other variables including age, income,
education, length of stay in U. S., and citizenship (in the analysis of participation beyond
voting) served as controls.
South Asians are more likely to participate in political activities other than voting
compared to other Asians in the sample even after controlling for standard demographic
variables such as income and education. The multivariate regression analysis shows that
the relationship between South Asians and political participation is statistically
significant at the .10 level (Table 4.3). In other words, South Asians are more likely to

76
The five year cut off point is due the provision of five years of permanent stay in the U.S. to be eligible
for naturalization.
157
participate in political activities beyond voting than the other Asian Americans. However,
it is important to point out that the positive relationship between the two variables is not
very strong given the level of significance (.10). Given the higher median income and
higher level of education among South Asian immigrants, an argument can be made that
South Asians’ higher level of political participation rates is primarily due to their higher
income and education. But, the multivariate analysis suggests that South Asians
participate at higher rates than other Asians even while controlling for education and
income.
The other variable which is of interest in this context is transnational attachment.
Two measures of transnational attachment are included in the analysis: first, frequency of
contact with the country of origin and second, and attention to the news in the country of
origin. The regression analysis shows that among all Asians, those who maintain high
levels of transnational attachments to their countries of origin are also likely to be high on
political participation beyond voting in the U.S. The relationship is statistically
significant and it clearly goes against the common understanding that continuing
attachment to the country of origin is detrimental to political participation in the U.S.
The interaction effect of South Asian and transnational attachment is positive (.242) but
not statistically significant (Model II, table 4.3). If we closely look at these relationships,
it is very clear that being transnational does not limit South Asian political participation
in the U.S. However, the interaction effect between South Asian and transnational
attachment is negatively related (-1.074) to acquisition of citizenship and the relationship
is statistically significant. South Asians who are more transnational are less likely to
naturalize than those who are less transnational (table 4.4).
158
The multivariate analysis suggests that South Asians participate in U.S. politics
(measured by participation beyond voting) at a higher level than other Asian immigrants
even after controlling for other variables. It also suggests that a high level of transnational
attachment among South Asians does not negatively influence their participation beyond
voting. However, the analysis does suggest that for South Asians the relationship between
transnational attachment and naturalization is negative, and South Asians who are high
on the measures of transnational attachment are less likely to naturalize. This lag in
naturalization among new immigrants has been discussed by immigration scholars
working on Latino and Caribbean immigrants. Michael Jones-Correa in his work on New
York City Latino immigrants argued that Latino immigrants generally postponed their
decision to naturalize because in their minds naturalization in the United States was a
major step towards severing their ties and possibilities of going back to their home
countries. He termed this mind set as politics of “in-between” where immigrants do not
want to commit to one place at the expense of the other. Reuel Rogers also argued in his
work on Caribbean immigrants in New York City that a number of them took longer to
naturalize because of their persistent belief that they might decide to return to their home
country. However, both these authors also point out that postponement of naturalization
does not necessarily mean complete non engagement with civic and political processes in
the U.S. Even though they are not fully a part of the formal political process because they
have not acquired citizenship, they do get engaged through the various civic and political
associations. Similarly, South Asian immigrants show a higher level of civic and political
engagement than other Asian Americans. The data suggest that their high level of
transnational attachment does not lead to lesser political participation in the U.S. The lag
159
in naturalization, hence, is not indicative of a complete lack of civic and political
engagement. Rather, it suggests attachment to both the countries and in some senses
resistance to perceived breaking off from the country of origin.
Transnational Attachment and Political Participation in the U.S.: Evidence from the
Qualitative Data

The interviews conducted with South Asian community members as well as
leaders and activists similarly question the presumption that there is a negative
relationship between political participation in the U.S. and various forms of attachments
and engagements to the country of origin. With multiculturalism becoming a part of the
larger social and political discourse, different ethnic identities, cultural practices, and
transnational attachment of immigrant communities are more acceptable than they were
during the European phase of immigration. The Americanization campaign aimed at
European immigrants in the early 20
th
century, with assimilation being the reigning
credo, was much less tolerant of ethnic and linguistic identities and transnational
attachments. The new environment created by multiculturalism has provided more space
for the assertion of ethnic identities and acceptance for transnational attachments and
engagements. The opinions of South Asian community members and leaders reflect this
increased acceptance of transnational engagement in the U.S. A significant number of
interviewees, when asked about the acceptance of their transnational attachments by the
U.S. society, responded that it was acceptable to engage with the country of origin and
that they felt comfortable with their dual engagement. This general view about
acceptability of transnational engagement, however, was calibrated by the post-9/11
environment when the needle of suspicion was on South Asian and Arab immigrants,
160
particularly Muslims, leading to increased scrutiny of their transnational connections and
ethnic and cultural practices.
A majority of interviewees spoke about the need to be involved with both the
country of origin and the United States and how both these involvements come naturally
to South Asian immigrants. Talking about political participation in the U.S. and
connection to the country of origin, a Bangladeshi community activist based in Los
Angeles said:
In my opinion Bangladeshi immigrants should not sever connection from their
country of origin. The reason being that keeping in touch with the country of
origin doesn’t stop any one from getting involved in this society- both in politics
and everything else….. most of the countries in the third world have a very huge
percentage of their revenue coming in from their expatriate workers and many of
them have their family back home and they send money back home and
Bangladesh is no different….immigrants from country such as Israel are very-
very active in the politics of Israel. They vote in Israeli election, people from our
part of the world at least do not vote, they may take interest in the politics of
home country. I think people who connect most actively with the country of
origin are people from Israel. They vote, lobby, fight for it, and I have not heard
any body criticizing that……
77

The statement draws upon the history of different immigrant groups in the United States,
specifically the Israeli immigrants, to make the argument that there is nothing wrong with
keeping strong links to Bangladesh and that does not necessarily effect their political
engagement here. When asked whether Bangladeshi immigrants participate adequately in
the political process here, the community leader responded that there is not much
participation because Bangladeshis are the most recent immigrants and a majority of
them are still in the process of settling down. The reason for lack of participation, he
argued, was not however because the community is strongly attached to the home
country.

77
Interview, Los Angeles, CA, 17

April 2006
161
A second generation community leader of Indian descent in Los Angeles,
commenting on political participation in the U.S. and attachments to home country, said:
I do agree that when you make a new country your home, you should play an
active role in the political process here…….. but that does not mean that you
check out your identity, your background, your heritage. I believe you can do both
and there is no conflict between the two whatsoever. You can play an active role
in your adopted country as well as play a role in your country of origin………
Just because we come from certain country that does not mean we should deny
our heritage and wherever we came from ….. There are people of diverse
background in this country and they celebrate their cultural heritage…. The
American tradition is that no one has to forego one’s identity.
78

Clearly, there is a connection being made here among attachment to the home country,
political participation in the U.S., and ethnic and racial identity. Attachment to home
country is being seen as part of the group’s racial and ethnic identity. It is important for
South Asian immigrants’ identity, particularly when they are seen in this country as
“different.” The statement underscores the need for immigrants to get involved with local
politics but does not necessarily see attachment to home country as an impediment to
involvement here.
As discussed earlier, the qualitative data also confirm the quantitative findings
that engagement with the politics of home country is not a mass phenomena and it is
confined to a small group. Interviews with South Asian community members and leaders
suggest that there is no large scale mass political engagement with the country of origin.
There is only a small part of the community that actively engages with the politics of the
country of origin. However, the active involvement of this small section is accompanied
with a great deal of mass interest in homeland politics which indicates that the South

78
Interview, Los Angeles, CA, 20

June 2006
162
Asian community is concerned about politics and related developments in their countries
of origin. A Pakistani community leader from Los Angeles pointed out:
A very small number of people here (in Los Angeles area) get involved in the
politics of Pakistan …….. but community in general is at the top of what’s going
on in Pakistan…… there is not a lot of participation but the interest is there to
have a healthy political cycle in Pakistan ….. it is my advice to all the people
coming from our part of the world that they must be aware of and be a part of the
political process here……But it is also an unwritten responsibility for all
immigrants to do something for their country of birth…. It is a part of human
responsibility…. Whatever you achieved in this country because of your abilities,
a small part of that success belongs to your country of origin, birth.
79

Similar sentiments were echoed by a woman immigrant from India who has lived in the
U.S. for the last 30 years. She argued:
I would say that when you come to this country and become a citizen of this
country, you have to belong to this country and participate in the political process
……… but at the same time it does not mean that you can forget from where you
came, because everything is global….there is no question of my country is this
and the other is that …. It is a question of accepting the fact that you belong to
both the countries and you have responsibility to both countries….
80

The South Asian community members and activists often cautioned against
noninvolvement in the U.S. politics and they reiterated the need for more involvement in
local politics. A Pakistani community member said:
If someone tells me that remove Pakistan part from yourself, I can’t do that. But if
someone says get involved here (in the U.S.) then I would agree with that person.
I totally disagree with people who consider this country as money milking
machine and do not get involved in anything locally….. To me a politically aware
person should be involved on both sides….. I vote here, pay attention to politics
and decide issues based on current events. This does not stop me from getting
involved or paying attention to the politics in Pakistan.
81

79
Interview, Los Angeles, CA, 13 June 2006

80
Interview , Costa Mesa, CA 14 July 2006

81
Interview, Irvine, CA, 7 June 2006
163
Thus, the qualitative data indicate that South Asian immigrants think that
attachment to the country of origin can coexist with political participation in the U.S. The
interviews also suggest that South Asians do not think about the two in a way where
engagement with home country comes at the cost of engagement with the U.S. political
process. The argument that immigrants have to sever ties with their country of origin to
become a part of the U.S. political system is questioned by the data which support a more
complementary relationship. Thus both the quantitative analysis and the qualitative
analysis point to the reality that South Asian immigrants in the U.S. have a high level of
attachment to their home country and that does not come at the cost of political
involvement here. The quantitative data as well as the interviews with community
members and leaders also suggest that there is a low level of direct participation in the
political activity related to the country of origin, although the interest and attention to
politics is high.
To understand the issue of transnational attachment and political participation in
the U.S. further, it is important to note here that many community members and activists
did express concern about lack of participation by South Asians in the U.S. politics.
Many of the interviewees felt that the community is more oriented towards homeland
politics than local or national U.S. politics. However, it would be incorrect to argue that
interest and orientation towards homeland issues and politics is the reason why South
Asian immigrants participate at a lower level in U.S. politics. As argued in the previous
chapters, there are multiple reasons for lack of participation by the South Asian
community in U.S. politics including an overall institutional and political context of
general low political participation, racial barriers, lack of mobilization of South Asian
164
Americans by the political parties, outsider status, and the preoccupation of immigrants to
work towards economic stability as first generation immigrants. The analysis of
interviews suggests that South Asian immigrants who are oriented towards political and
civic engagement find it easier to get involved with South Asian ethnic organizations.
These ethnic organizations, in most cases, have strong relationships with the issues
relating to the country of origin.
A Bangladeshi immigrant in New York City, talking about participation in U.S.
politics, said, “[There is less participation] here because may be they don’t know English
or they can’t follow the political process of this country, perhaps, they don’t understand
it….. I see too much Bangladeshi Politics here and very little of American politics.”
82
The
majority of immigrants are apathetic to the political process but those who get engaged
have to deal with institutions and organizations central to the U.S. political process and
they do not find it welcoming and inviting. Another Bangladeshi immigrant in New York
City, talking about the inclination of the community to get engaged with organizations
oriented towards home country, said:
They are not confident. They do not feel comfortable associating themselves with
mainstream America. I think it is because of their personal upbringing …they
may think that it may not be easy for them to find a comfortable position or place
in mainstream American politics….. It is much easier for them to take interest in
Desi (South Asian) politics. Because for them, the mainstream American politics
is a completely new arena. And they are afraid they may not be recognized or, I
mean, may not be able to make any impression -very hard for them. Whereas in
Desi (South Asian) politics, many of them were already involved in politics
before coming to U.S. …. So, when they come here, it is easier for them to carry
on with their political mission with Bangladeshi politics rather than taking interest
or joining mainstream American politics.
83

82
Interview , New York City, NY , 6 February 2007.

83
Interview, New York City, NY, 12 March 2007.
165
Even though this statement was made in reference to Bangladeshi community, similar
opinions were expressed about Indian and Pakistani immigrant communities as far as
engagement with mainstream U.S. politics was concerned.
It seems easier and more natural for South Asian immigrants to engage with
ethnic organizations as compared to mainstream American political organizations and
institutions. Given the proclivity of South Asian ethnic organization to have a strong link
to home country, the immigrant community also finds it harder to engage and become a
part of the mainstream U.S. political organizations and institutions. Here, a comparison
with early 20
th
century European immigrants and its analysis by the pluralist model is
quite instructive. The pluralist model argued that European immigrants were first
mobilized on ethnic lines and political parties and other political institutions courted these
ethnic organizations that played an important role in political incorporation of European
ethnics. The experience of South Asian immigrants, however, suggests that ethnic
organizations are not being approached by contemporary political parties and they are
much more isolated from the mainstream U.S. political process than the ethnic
organizations of European immigrants. The pluralist model would have us believe that
ethnic organizations are the vehicle through which new immigrants gain entry into the
U.S. political process but the experience of South Asian immigrants and their ethnic
organizations suggest that they face relative isolation from mainstream political groups
and institutions. The other side of this relative isolation and nonengagement is their
ability and ease to connect and engage with home country political groups and
institutions. The connections of South Asian immigrants to groups and institutions of
home countries have intensified in recent years with changes in the approach of home
166
countries as well as the United States towards maintaining dual political and legal
attachment.
Citizenship and Transnationalism: Towards Transnational Citizenship
The engagements of South Asian immigrants in different social and political
transnational activities have profound implications for the conception and practice of
citizenship as far as immigrant communities are concerned. South Asian immigrants in
the United States engage in various acts which are reflective of the transnational
dimension of citizenship. These include newly acquired dual citizenship like provisions,
political engagement with the U.S. as well as countries of origin, and an identity which is
more transnational in terms of affiliation and engagement with both countries.
The reality of immigrants’ connection to more than one nation state has an
important bearing on the way immigrant communities view and practice citizenship.
Political and legal theorists have questioned the classical liberal notion of citizenship
which presumes that citizenship can be visualized and enacted only within the confines of
a nation state (Bosniak 2000; Faist 2000; Soyasal 1994). Drawing upon the experiences
of immigrant communities across the globe, these authors have advanced different
variants of claims regarding denationalization or post nationalization of citizenship.
Linda Bosniak argues that citizenship- conceptualized as a legal status, as a system of
rights, as a form of political activity, and as a form of identity and solidarity- exceed the
bounds of nation to a certain extent and she underlines the need for theorizing citizenship
in a way which is inclusive of these dimensions of citizenship beyond nation state
(Bosniak 2000, 452).Thomas Faist argues that increasing acceptability of some form of
dual state membership or dual citizenship puts a question mark on the conventional
167
notions of citizenship. Dual citizenship can be being a citizen in two states where “less
fully fledged forms could mean being a citizen in one state and a settled immigrant with a
sort of denizenship in another. At a minimum it tolerates immigrants close ties with the
country of emigration” (Faist 2000, 209). The transnational dimension of citizenship
finds its expressions in both the legal, political, as well as the identity and solidarity
aspect of citizenship.
Scholars writing about transnational citizenship point out that dual citizenship
have become much more acceptable in recent times and that a number of nations have
come to recognize some form of dual citizenship. The emergence of dual citizenship like
provision is dependent on the asymmetric relationship between countries of emigration
and immigration which gives more power to the latter in determining dual citizenship
policies. If the country of immigration allows dual citizenship, the emigration state also
follows suit. In recent years many countries of emigration have introduced dual
citizenship like provisions catering to its expatriate population (Faist 2000). The earlier
U.S. policy had been to forfeit citizenship of a newly naturalized citizen if he or she voted
or held public office in another nation-state. The laws have not changed since then but
U.S. does not check on the dual state membership and there is an unstated acceptance of
different variations of dual citizenship rights.
As discussed earlier in the chapter, South Asian immigrants in the United States
have always shown strong inclinations to maintain enduring connections despite the
geographical distance from their countries of origin. In recent years, India, Pakistan, and
Bangladesh have come up with provisions which recognize some form of dual citizenship
rights, albeit very limited in comparison to many Latin American and European countries
168
which have gone to the extent of giving voting rights to their expatriates. The South
Asian countries have taken only small steps in that direction. Dual citizenship in the
context of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh is broadly limited to giving the right to travel
without visa, indefinite stay, and the right of owning property. In the case of India, this
provision is termed as Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) which provides lifelong visa
with multiple entries and limited rights to a person of Indian origin to buy and sell
property. In case of Pakistan, it has been termed as Pakistani Origin Card (POC) which
can be acquired by a foreign citizen of Pakistani origin. The Pakistani Origin Card
guarantees rights such as the permanent right of entry and property transactions. In
Bangladesh, a similar provision known as dual nationality exists. In all the three cases,
there are minor differences in terms of rights inherent in these provisions but the common
element is the attempt on the part of these states to create special rights for expatriates
who are citizens of other countries. These newly formalized rights for South Asian
immigrants in their countries of origin provide increased possibilities to create and
maintain dual identity, engagement, and rights for the community.
Interviewees of Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi descent spoke overwhelmingly
in favor of varying degrees of dual citizenship rights which are being offered by these
countries. The rationale for support to increased legal rights in countries of origin range
from convenience of traveling, and less restriction on owning and managing property to
ease in maintaining concrete linkages, and continuation of emotional bond with the
country of origin. An Indian community activist from Los Angeles, reacting to the new
initiatives from India to grant special card to its expatriates, said:
169
I think we have almost all the rights in India, really now, as American citizens.
The dual citizenship kind of formalizes that. It doesn’t give anybody the working
rights, if someone is looking for that. I think people are always excited because
they want to have that connection with India. To be able to have a dual
citizenship, I think, it is psychologically very good for us. There are a lot of
people who would like that. Because I think one of the conflicts they went
through when accepting their US citizenship was to give up the Indian part of
themselves, so this kind of helps them to satisfy that need of wanting to be a part
of India.
84

Even while welcoming the new provisions, Indian immigrants pointed out that
these were not radically new provisions and they always existed or there were ways to get
things done even without formal rights. The important difference is that now the
government of India is formalizing and expressing its intent to attract the diasporic
population to connect with India. The new initiative has certainly enthused people who
travel back frequently and also those who have property and business interest back in
India. A successful Indian American Entrepreneur from Los Angeles, praising the move
on the part of the government of India, said:
It is a great thing to have. The only potential problem is when these two countries
get into conflict with each other. That is the only problem… Canada has dual
citizenship, Switzerland, Israel, so many countries allow dual citizenship. And I
have never heard anyone say that is a problem. Not once, zero. I haven’t had
extensive discussions, but there is nothing wrong with it. For someone like me,
owning property, traveling, I mean it is a pain ….. To open a business in India
because I was an American citizen. There were all kinds of bullshit I had to go
through. It would be less of that. Frankly, I would like to see only one citizenship,
citizenship of this globe, one day.
85

If there are realist and pragmatic reasons to welcome the expanded formalized
legal rights in the countries of origin for expatriates, there are others who value the
opportunity to maintain and formalize their connections through these provisions. A

84
Interview, Los Angeles, CA, 20 June 2006.

85
Interview, Los Angeles, CA. 13 July 2006
170
Bangladeshi immigrant based in Queens, New York, expressed the value of dual
citizenship in terms of maintaining his identity. He said:
It is very important, especially for me. I am living in the US, I am happy with my
family, but I cannot totally forget my past. Especially my parents are from there, I
was born over there. So… I will try to keep in touch with my birthplace, my
country where I was born. I never want to forget my country. I am not yet a
citizen (of U.S.), but I am going to get that very soon. But I feel if I get
citizenship, I like to keep my own identity. This is very important to me. I don’t
want to forget my past,… I want to keep my identity. So because of that I want
dual citizenship….
86

There are other voices too in the South Asian community who point out that the dual
citizenship like provisions are important and beneficial only for those who have business
and property interests. Even though they support the notion of dual citizenship, they see
very little usefulness for working class and poor South Asian immigrants. A Pakistani
community activist from Los Angeles explained his observation on this issue, “… I
know, I have seen that interest (in dual citizenship), the conversation is always about
property. .. It is more about property.”
87
Another Pakistani immigrant based in Los
Angels confirmed this view. He said:
The main reason was because a lot of us have property back home, and that was
making it very hard. If you are not a (Pakistani) national, it does cause problems.
That is a main reason why many people didn’t get citizenship (U.S.), because they
had property (in Pakistan). So that was one reason. Otherwise, I think people are
more keen to have an American passport because it is much easier to travel. Now
they have that national identity card (Pakistani Origin Card) which you can get,
that covers the property issues.
88

The section of South Asian immigrants which is most mobile and has property
and business interests in both the United States and their countries of origin is the greatest

86
Interview, New York City, NY, 17 March 2007

87
Interview , Los Angeles, CA ,18 June 2006

88
Interview, Los Angeles, CA, 3 July 2006
171
beneficiary of these provisions. Even as the activists and immigrant rights advocates
welcome the expanded transnational rights of immigrant communities, there are possible
concerns also being raised by some. A taxi drivers’ union organizer, talking in the context
of South Asian Taxi workers in New York City, puts those concerns in the following
words:
. …that will entrench them more back home and make my job even more difficult
to get them involved in what is going on a daily basis to the taxi industry (in
NYC); because now they are more entrenched back home. Some people will be
more happy about it, but personally I don’t like it. I want them to be more
involved here… they can have their home country, they are always free to send
money back home… Oh, definitely, it will help them but again, there is an issue
here also….. So, there are good and bad in that.
89

Despite the caution about expanded transnational lives of South Asian immigrants stated
above and the complexity of transnationalism for the political engagement in the U.S.,
the increased ease of traveling and other legal rights in the country of origin is welcomed
by most sections of the immigrant community. These avenues of increasing formal
attachments through some form of dual citizenship point toward the expanded
transnational lives of South Asian immigrants and concepts such as citizenship do not
remain unaffected by this process. South Asian immigrant community in the United
States has shown the possibilities of creating an expanded notion of citizenship by
maintaining dual attachment and identity, by engaging in political acts, and by exercising
the expanded legal rights in both the countries. Thus, the emerging form of transnational
citizenship brings new challenges for conceptualizing the process of immigrant political
incorporation.

89
Interview, New York City, NY, 6 November 2006.
172
Conclusion
In the chapter, both quantitative and qualitative data suggest that transnational
attachments are a major part of the social and political lives of the South Asian immigrant
community in the U.S. These attachments encompass different arenas which include
familial, social, cultural, religious, and political. Both pluralist model and minority group
model of political incorporation fail to give due importance to transnational attachments
in analyzing the political incorporation of immigrant groups. The pluralist model, as
discussed earlier, looks at transnational attachments and transnational political
engagements as impediments to political participation of immigrants in the U.S. and sees
a zero sum relationship between political participation in the U.S. and political
engagement with the country of origin. The minority group model has also not adequately
theorized the role of transnational attachments in political incorporation of immigrant
communities. More recent works following the broad paradigm of the minority group
model have questioned the assertions of the pluralist/ assimilationist paradigm that there
is a zero sum relationship between political participation in the U.S. and transnational
engagements. However, these works also see transnational attachments and U.S. political
participation as distinctly different realms and fail to investigate and theorize the linkages
and dynamic influence of one on the other. This chapter has argued, based on both
quantitative and qualitative data, that transnational attachments and engagements do not
adversely impact South Asian immigrants’ political participation in the U.S. The
quantitative data, however, do suggest that higher levels of transnational attachment lead
to lower levels of naturalization among South Asian immigrants. This result suggests that
strong transnational attachments are indicative of strong linkages to both places which
173
results in delayed naturalization in many cases. However, as noted in this and other
studies, delayed naturalization is not necessarily indicative of lack of engagement with
the U.S. but rather it is indicative of postponement of naturalization due to a persistent
dual attachment.
The chapter further argues, based on the qualitative data, that South Asian
immigrants recognize the lower level of participation of the group in the U.S. political
process but do not necessarily see this as resulting from extensive transnational
engagement of the community. Furthermore, South Asian immigrants find it easier to
engage with groups constituted by other co-ethnics who generally also take interest in the
politics of the home country. The inability of mainstream U.S. political institutions to
engage with such groups contributes to their lack of engagement in the U.S. political
process. The interviews also suggest that transnational engagements with the issues
concerning the country of origin are not only about country of origin. Such engagements
also provide avenues to engage with U.S. political institutions and they shape the ways in
which immigrant communities engage with the political process in the U.S.- an issue
analyzed at greater length in the next chapter. Increasing phenomenon of transnational
attachment has important implications for the concept of citizenship. Finally, emerging
forms of dual citizenship like rights along with transnational political engagement and a
broader transnational identity point to the possibilities of the emergence of transnational
citizenship.

174
Table 4.1: Attachment to the Country of Origin

High Level of
Contact with
home
Country
Following news
Closely in the Country
of Origin
Participation in
Political Activity of
the Country of Origin
South Asian 76* 57 6
Non South
Asian
59 63 6

p≤.01

Table 4.2: Political Participation in the U.S.

Voting
among
registd.
Particip.
(non
voting)
Interest
in
politics
Familiarity
with
Presidential
election
Belonging
to ethnic
org.
Citiz. Exp. to
become
citiz.
(among
non
citzen.)
South
Asian
90 55* 72* 92* 25* 44 74
Non
South
Asian
82 38 61 73 11 62* 72

p≤.01

175
Table 4.3: Explaining Political Participation in the U.S.
(Political Activities other than Voting)

Model I
Beta Coeff.
(standard error)
Model II
Beta Coeff.
(standard error)
South Asian .819*
(.241)

.496
(.524)
Age .004
(.006)

.004
(.006)
Family
Income
.147*
(.052)
.145*
(.052)
Educational
Attainment
90

.097
(.061)
.097
(.061)
Citizenship .455*
(.187)

.463
(.187)
Political
Interest
.402*
(.088)
.402*
(.088)
Years in the
U.S.
.017
(.011)
.017
(.011)
Participation
in
Transnational
Activities
.334*
(. 117)
.306*
(.123)
Interaction
effect
between
South Asian
and
Transnational
participation
.242
(.350)
N 768 768
Percentage
predicted
Correctly
67.6 67.4

P≤.10

90
Missing values for this variable were replaced by mean educational attainment.
176
Table 4.4: Explaining Citizenship
(with interaction of South Asian and transnational attachments)

Independent Variable Beta
Coefficient
(Standard Error)
South Asian 1.20
(.782)

Age .009
(.007)

Family Income .024
(.068)

Educational attainment

.035
(.079)
Political Interest -.091
(.109)

Years in the US .127*
(.018)

Transnational
Attachment
-.146
(.151)
Interaction of South
Asian and Transnational
-1.074*
(.510)

N

Percentage predicted
Correctly

577

76.3

P≤.10

177
Table 4.5: Explaining Political Participation in the U.S.
(Political Activities other than Voting)

Independent Variable Beta Coefficient
(Standard error)
South Asian .381
(.410)

Age
.010
(.007)

Family income .199*
(.061)

Educational
attainment
.154*
(.070)
Citizenship .451*
(.217)

Political interest .528*
(.098)

Years in the U.S. .005
(.013)

Having Faced
Discrimination
.085
(.201)
Interaction of South
Asian and
discrimination

1.35*
(.683)
N

Percentage Predicted
Correctly

587

57.1

P≤.10

178

Table 4.6: Explaining Citizenship
(With Interaction of South Asian and Discrimination)

Independent Variable Beta Coefficient
(Standard error)
South Asian -.614
(.426)

Age .006
(.007)

Family Income .005
(.067)

Educational attainment

.030
(.705)
Political interest -.122
(.105)

Years in the US .133*
(.018)

Effect of having faced
Discrimination
-.248
(.226)
Interaction of South Asian and
Discrimination

N

Percentage Predicted Correctly

.886
(.649)

587

75.0

P≤.10

179
Chapter V

The Possibilities and Limits of Transnational Political Engagement

“This (the U.S. - India Civil Nuclear Deal) is a defining moment for the 2 million
Americans of Indian descent. We have been a model community in the U.S., yet we are
still not accepted or respected in rural or middle America. With one stroke of the pen we
can change all that.”
Ramesh V. Kapur
Chairman, Indo-American Leadership Council

“Officials in Washington and New Delhi have called the agreement (the U.S.-India Civil
Nuclear Deal) historic, a centerpiece of American-Indian relations. But to many Indian-
Americans, the plan is something more personal: a confirmation of India’s emergence as
a global power. And they see the increasingly contentious battle in Congress as a unique
opportunity to demonstrate their budding political influence in their adopted homeland.”
New York Times, June 5, 2006

South Asian immigrants in the United States maintain strong attachment with
their countries of origin. As discussed in the previous chapter, the transnational
attachments of South Asian immigrants range from familial, cultural and religious to
economic and political. The quickening pace of communication and ease of traveling
have contributed immensely to increased transnational connections of South Asian
immigrants living in the United States. As such, transnationalism has become a very
important part of immigrant social and political life. Conventional wisdom, drawing upon
the assimilationist and pluralist approach to immigrant incorporation, contends that
immigrants’ deeper attachment to their country of origin acts as a barrier to political and
civic incorporation in the U.S. and that engagement with the political issues of the
country of origin is a reflection of disinterest and apathy towards U. S. politics
(Huntington 2004; Schlesinger 1992; Glazer 1983).
180
This chapter is focused on political transnationalism and builds upon the
argument that there is no zero sum relationship between social and political engagement
with home country and political participation in U.S. The chapter specifically analyzes
the ways in which engagement with the issues of home country often becomes a part of
engagement with the political process in the U.S. In other words, engagements with
issues of home country are not confined only to home country but they also become a
vehicle for the group to engage with the U.S. political institutions. This chapter analyzes
the involvement of Indian immigrant groups with the U.S.-India civil nuclear deal to
illustrate the above arguments. Similar examples of lobbying to support the cause of
home country can be found among Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants as well, but the
case of Indian immigrants is being used here to illustrate the broader point.
Analyzing the lobbying efforts of the Indian American groups in favor of the
recent U.S. - India Civil Nuclear Deal (2006), this chapter questions the assimilationist
and pluralist framework and argues that what appears be exclusively a country of origin
concern - where representing the interest of India lies at the heart of the Indian American
lobbying campaign- is actually mediated by the need for recognition and acceptance of
the community in U.S. society and polity. Such transnational involvement with the issues
concerning India is constantly shaped by the group’s desire to secure a place in domestic
U.S. politics. However, the process of creating a space in American politics through
lobbying on a foreign policy issue is also laced with nationalism originating from the
Indian state’s attempts to woo the diasporic community. This nationalist platform adopted
by Indian American groups is instrumental in shaping a very limited agenda to be
pursued by the Indian American community in the United States. The chapter concludes
181
by looking at the limits of transnational political engagement in terms of who gets
involved and which issues dominate the agenda of the Indian American community. The
chapter argues that participation by a limited number of elites is promoted by actors on
both sides of the transnational political arena – the policies promoted by the Indian state
as well as the Indian American groups active in the United States. It is important to note
here that such engagements through lobbying on the issues of home country has only
limited interface with the U.S. political institutions and they have a limited influence on
the political incorporation of the community. Since only a small section of the
community is engaged in the process of lobbying and the process does not involve
mobilization of the rank and file members, the larger section of the community is mostly
left out of this process of political incorporation.
This new framework on transnational political engagement builds upon recent
scholarship on immigrant social and political behavior that adopts a transnational
approach to understand the engagement of immigrants with the home country and the
host country in an integrated manner (Baubock 2003). This scholarship challenges the
assimilationist/pluralist approach which looks at attachments to the home and host
countries as zero sum, where engagement with one comes at the cost of engagement with
the other. Within political science, a number of scholars have argued that attachment or
involvement with the country of origin does not necessarily indicate a lack of
engagement with the political process in the United States (Jones-Correa 1998; DeSipio
2003; Guarnizo, Portes, and Haller 2003; Lien et al 2004; Ramakrishnan 2005; Wong
2006). This dissertation goes beyond this assertion and argues that immigrant political
182
engagement with the country of origin also shapes the ways in which the group
participates in U.S. politics.
Political transnationalism is a part of the broader transnational practices which
immigrant communities engage with while living outside their country of origin. Since
transnationalism is a broad conceptual category incorporating different kinds of cross-
border activities, immigration scholars and theorists have been trying to develop the
concept of political transnationalism in ways which can make the concept analytically
useful and, to a certain extent, distinct from other forms of transnational practices
(Vertovec 1999; Portes et al. 1999; Smith 2003; Baubock 2003).
Considering the ambiguity in different uses of the concept of transnationalism,
Eva Ostergaard-Nielsen distinguishes among narrow and broad transnational political
practices and core and expanded transnationalism. From this perspective, ‘broad’ and
‘narrow’ transnational practices are the opposite end of the continuum of different
practices. A more institutionalized transnational political practice with involvement of
migrants will be closer to the narrower side of the continuum (Ostergaad-Nielsen 2003).
Hence, ‘narrow’ stands for actual membership in parties, organizations, or hometown
associations while ‘broad’ refers to the occasional participation in meetings or events.
Similarly, the concept of ‘core’ transnationalism defines activities that are regular,
patterned, and an integral part of individual’s life, whereas ‘expanded’ transnationalism
represents more occasional practices (Levitt 2001). This work uses a broader notion of
transnational political engagement which corresponds to a broad and expanded
conception of transnational engagement.
183
Political transnationalism is generally seen as engagement of immigrant groups
with the politics of their country of origin. Several studies have investigated the ways in
which the political learning of immigrants in western democratic countries- their adopted
countries- helped them with their engagement with the politics of the country of origin.
91

This line of inquiry has been based on the assumption that exposure to the democratic
political process in the U.S. motivates immigrants to work towards greater
democratization of their home societies (Goldring 1996; Smith and Guarnizo 1998;
Basch et.al 1994; Smith 1994; Graham 1997). Rainer Baubock critiques this narrow
understanding and argues that political transnationalism affects both the country of origin
as well the receiving country. He argues that political transnationalism is not only about
involvement with the country of origin from outside the borders but also about the impact
of immigrants’ across the border ties on the institution and political practices of the host
country (Baubock 2003). The scholarship on political transnationalism has not given
enough analytical attention to the ways in which transnational ties of immigrant groups
impact the political practices of the host country. Building upon this critique of the
literature on transnational political engagement, this chapter is focused on the ways in
which engagement with home country influences the patterns of immigrant political
participation in U.S.
Scholarship on transnationalism has rightly critiqued the earlier trend of work
which looked at transnational connections and engagements as impediments to
incorporation of immigrants in U.S. social and political process. Transnationalism has

91
This understanding is based on a benevolent presumption of the supposed one way traffic of influence
where political learning in western countries contribute to the political transformation of the
underdeveloped countries.
184
been celebrated by these scholars as an alternative framework to understand social and
political lives of immigrant groups where transnational political attachments are not seen
in opposition to political participation locally (Smith and Guarnizo 1998; Schiller, Nina,
et.al 1992; Smith 1994; Graham 2001). However, a critical analysis of transnational
practices also needs to look at the ways in which transnational political engagements
reinforce selective and elite political mobilization within immigrant communities.
Further, in some cases transnational political practices tend to replicate the nationalist
political paradigm emanating from countries of origin.
One of the most important debates over the nature of transnational political
engagement can be found in the field of international relations. The relevant literature in
that field examines the influence of ethnic lobbies on the foreign policy making process.
This scholarship can be broadly divided into two contrasting opinions on the issue. Some
scholars argue that globalization and multiculturalism have legitimized the role of ethnic
lobbies in the foreign policy-making process, leading to increased balkanization of the
policy making process. Scholars in this tradition argue that ethnic lobbies focus on a
narrow policy agenda that tends to promote the interest of people and entities outside the
United States. Notwithstanding the differences among this group of scholars, they all
point towards the problems of excessive involvement of ethnic lobbies in the foreign
policy making process (Huntington 1997; Schlesinger 1992; Smith 2000). This approach
is highly critical of immigrant groups’ attempt to espouse the concerns related to their
home country in the U.S. political process. The other set of scholars argue that ethnic
lobbying groups will further democratize the decision making process and bring new
groups to the process and spread American values to the other part of the world (Clough
185
1994; Shain 1999). This approach draws upon scholarly works using the transnational
perspective which considers political activism on the issues of home country as a
legitimate form of political engagement and highlights the radical and transformative
character of transnational engagement (Basch et. al. 1994; Levitt 2001). The latter
approach rightly highlights the transformative characteristics of transnational politics in
bringing new groups into the process, but, as I illustrate in the context of the U.S.- India
nuclear deal, it fails to recognize the limits of transnational engagement in terms of both
ideology and mass participation.
This chapter is based on the analysis of government documents, media reports,
and organizational documents both from India and the United States. The chapter also
draws upon participant observation of a yearly conference on the Indian diaspora
organized by the government of India and the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) at
New Delhi in January 2007 and of a conference of similar nature in New York City in
September 2007. These sources are supplemented with an analysis of interviews
conducted with the South Asian community members and activists in Los Angeles and
the New York Metropolitan Area.
92

It is important to underline the changing educational and economic profile as well
as diversity within the Indian immigrant community to understand fully the nature of
political mobilization and agendas pursued by Indian American groups. Even though a
significant number of economically successful professionals and entrepreneurs have
generally defined the community’s socioeconomic profile, Indian immigrants remain

92
These interviews include immigrant community members and activists from Indian, Pakistani, and
Bangladeshi origin. The analysis of this chapter, however, is based only on interviews of immigrants of
Indian origin.
186
highly diverse in terms of socioeconomic status. There are a significant number of poor
and struggling people who generally do not become a part of the discussion about the
community. About 9.7 percent of the Indian American population is below the poverty
line (the U.S. national average is 13.1) and among the elderly- 65 years and above- 11.4
percent are below the poverty line (the U.S. national average is 9.4). Another less
discussed fact about the Indian immigrant community is the presence of a significant
number of undocumented immigrants. The estimates of undocumented immigrants from
India vary from 270,000 (Department of Homeland Security 2007) to 400,000 (Passel
2005). According to the Department of Homeland Security, Indian immigrants rank sixth
among undocumented immigrants from different countries of origin.

Starting with 1980s,
a steady number of Indian immigrants have also been joining the ranks of taxi drivers,
restaurant and construction workers, and other sections of the working class population.
Thus, the diversity within the Indian immigrant population could not be more
dramatic with successful professionals and entrepreneurs alongside undocumented
immigrants and those facing economic hardship. The issue of internal diversity within the
community becomes highly important for this analysis to understand the limited agenda
and mobilization as far as the broader Indian American community is concerned. It
becomes even more important because the mainstream social and political analyses of the
Indian American community - both in the U.S. and India- tends to center only on the
prosperous professional and entrepreneurial section of the community.
Long Distance Nationalism and Elite Mobilization
In this era of transnationalism and globalization, home country nationalism
among the immigrant communities has been an issue of intense debate. Benedict
187
Anderson, for example, termed diasporic nationalism as ‘long distance nationalism’ and
argued that the diaspora’s engagement with the country of origin is not anchored in their
location in the nation. Hence, it is a ‘responsibility-less’ engagement. Anderson further
argued that this long distance engagement is accompanied by nonengagement with the
polity and society of places where these immigrants are situated (Anderson 1992).
However, scholars using a transnational perspective to analyze immigrant social and
political lives take a more positive view of long distance engagement and they do not
necessarily see a complete lack of engagement on the part of immigrant communities in
their place of residence. This chapter argues that long distance engagement with the
issues of country of origin is not completely devoid of engagement with the political
process in the host country. Hence, the real issue of analysis is not exclusive long
distance engagement at the cost of engagement in the host country but the kind of
political involvement that take place on both sides of transnational process, the kind of
issues that are taken up, and the sections of the immigrant community which are
mobilized in the process.
In the post independence period, the Indian government’s policy toward the
diaspora was characterized by many scholars as that of indifference and disengagement
(Lall 2001; Gupta 1992; Kerkhoff 2003). The migration of highly educated Indians to the
United States and the other developed western nations was seen for a long time as ‘brain-
drain’ after the exodus of highly educated professional started in 1960s and 70s. The
discourse of ‘brain- drain’- educated and professionally capable citizens leaving India for
greener pastures in developed industrial countries in the west - acquired immense
importance in that period.
188
However, from the 1980s onwards, the large scale transformation of the Indian
economy based on neoliberal principals of liberalization and opening up of the economy
for foreign investment accelerated the process of active engagement with the Indian
diaspora. Among other things, this phase of economic restructuring in India is
characterized by an increasing emphasis on foreign capital investment in India. The
Indian diaspora is seen as important for both remittances and capital investment in the
Indian economy (Kapur 2003). The economic profile of Indian immigrants settled in
different advanced industrial countries- the United States in particular- makes them the
likely future investors in the Indian economy. For both these reasons-remittances and
investment-the diasporic community has come to acquire a greater importance for the
Indian State. Besides the economic motivation behind the changing approach towards the
diaspora, the increasing importance of diasporic population is also linked to its role in
representing India’s interest in U.S. and other important international forums.
The change in approach towards the diaspora was reflected in the appointment of
a High Level Committee (HLC) in 2000 to recommend a comprehensive policy towards
the diaspora. This was the first time that the government of India seriously undertook the
task of formulating a policy framework about its diasporic population. The focus of the
report was on entrepreneurs and professionals of Indian origin living in the advanced
industrial western countries, particularly the United States (Chaturvedi 2005). Discussing
the Indian American community, the report argued:
A section of financially powerful and politically well connected Indo-Americans
have emerged during the last decade. They have effectively mobilized on issues
ranging from the nuclear tests in 1998 to Kargil, playing a crucial role in
generating a favorable climate of opinion in (U.S.) Congress and defeating anti-
India legislation there, and lobbied effectively on other issues of concern to the
189
Indian community. … For the first time India has a constituency in the United
States with real influence and status. The Indian community in United States
constitutes an invaluable asset in strengthening India’s relationship with the
world’s only superpower. Their receptiveness to India concerns will depend
greatly on the quality of their interaction with the country of origin and their
sensitivity to their concerns displayed in India (The Indian Diaspora 2002, XX-
XX).

The focus on a financially successful and politically connected section of Indian
immigrants is unmistakable. The report was very emphatic about the importance of this
section and projected them as the ideal Indian immigrants who were to be courted to
support India in its economic and political endeavors. The Indian government has
envisaged multiple roles for the expatriate community in the U. S. and it is important to
note here that the need for political intervention to represent India’s cause is a key aspect
of this role. The report called upon Indian immigrants in the U. S. to work as India’s
ambassadors and to promote India’s interests by using their economic and political clout.
The HLC report recommended many plans and policies to the Government of
India to facilitate greater connection with the diasporic community. An independent
Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs at the central government level was created to deal
with the issues related to diaspora. A yearly conference for the members of the Indian
diaspora was initiated by the Government of India and 9
th
January was marked as Pravasi
Bharatiya Divas (Overseas Indian Day) as a symbolic gesture to celebrate the
contributions of overseas Indians to India.
93
The change of policy regarding dual

93
Starting from 2003, the government of India in collaboration with the Confederation of Indian Industries
(CII) has been organizing yearly conference on this day in India for which thousands of people of Indian
diaspora from all over the world travel to India. Over the last few years, this conference has acquired a
great prominence in the discussions on Indian diaspora and it has become an important platform where the
diasporic population interacts with the representatives of the government and business leaders. Reflecting
the overarching theme, these conferences have become more and more a platform where investments in
different sectors of growing Indian economy is the most discussed issue and different states within India
also compete with each other to attract NRIs and PIOs to invest.
190
citizenship also followed these initiatives and the Citizenship Act of 1955- which
stipulated that an Indian forfeits Indian citizenship when he or she acquires the
citizenship of a foreign country- was changed and the government of India created a new
category called Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI).
94
Various policy initiatives to attract
diaspora members to investment in India were also announced.
The political parties in India have also shown greater enthusiasm in recent years
in courting the diasporic population. Most Indian political parties have used the rhetoric
of nationalism while engaging with the diaspora, but there are significant differences in
their approach too. The Congress- the major party which is leading the coalition currently
in power- has generally emphasized the economic aspects of the diaspora’s relationship
to India using strong nationalist rhetoric to mobilize economic investment and to support
nation building. The party has also occasionally egged on Indian American groups to
deploy anti-Pakistan rhetoric in the context of representing the strategic interest of India
in the U.S. and in international forums. In contrast, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) - the
right wing Hindu nationalist party which is currently the main opposition party- has made
serious attempts to mobilize Hindus among the expatriate community in support of their
ideology of a Hindu Nation.
Hindu nationalism- an ideology committed to establishing India as a Hindu
nation and known for its virulent anti-Muslim stance - has been systematically
propagated among overseas Indians and there have been organized attempts in the U. S.
to mobilize funds and other resources for this cause. The proponents of Hindu
Nationalism in the U. S. have tried to tap into the need of Hindu Indian immigrants for a

94
Compendium on Policies, Incentives and Investment Opportunities for Overseas Indians .2007.Published
by Overseas Indian Affairs.
191
cultural-religious identity in a society defined primarily by racial identity (Rajagopal
2000). Thus, the Hindu nationalist movement has asserted itself as representative of
Hindus in the space provided by U.S. multiculturalism (Kurien 2007a). South Asian
scholars have termed this form of U.S. based political Hinduism as ‘Yankee Hindutva’
(Mathew and Prashad 2000). Although the theme of nationalism is a common one across
all the parties for attracting diasporic communities to the country of origin, it is a
particular kind of narrow religion-based, anti-Muslim nationalism that has been a part of
the BJP’s diasporic discourse and the party has been very aggressive about mobilizing the
diasporic community in support of its larger political project.
95
The political impetus emerging from India for the diaspora carries strong
nationalist ideology and tends to focus primarily on a narrow section of entrepreneurs and
financially successful immigrants. The Pravasi Bhartiya conference (The Indian Diaspora
Conference), 2007 held in New Delhi was reflective of this approach where most of the
deliberations were on investment opportunities in India. In fact, the emphasis on
investment and financially successful section of the diaspora has been there in all the
yearly diaspora conferences organized by the government of India and Confederation of
Indian Industries (CII) since 2003. The importance of Indian diaspora in promoting
India’s economic and strategic interest was reflected in spotlight on Indian Americans in
2007 conference for successfully lobbying with the U.S. Congress in favor of the U.S.-
India nuclear deal.

95
Hindu right wing groups have been very active among Indian diasporic community and they have been
particularly successful in establishing a network of organizations in U.S. They have also been mobilizing
funds from the Indian immigrant community in the United States to support their organizational work in
India. The reports published by a watchdog group called The Campaign to Stop Funding Hate( CFSH) has
chronicled the efforts of Hindutva groups to mobilize funds in the U.S. in the name of funding charity and
developmental projects in India and how these funds are used to promote sectarian anti-Muslim and anti-
Christian politics in India. Report available online at www.stopfundinghate.org/
192
The two fold aim of the Indian government to attract economic investment and
have a diaspora which can represent India’s interest has led to a framework where
economically successful immigrants become what I term as the ‘model immigrants’ and
they come to occupy the center of diasporic policy. This selective elite mobilization
approach is reflected in the various policy initiatives regarding opportunities for
economic investments undertaken by the Indian government on diaspora. This
mobilization strategy is also reflected in the political lobbying by Indian immigrants in
the United States on the recent U.S.-India civil nuclear deal.
Transnationalism and Engagement with U.S. Politics: The U.S.-India Civil Nuclear
Deal
The U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Deal, signed as an agreement between the United
States and India on March 2, 2006, is aimed at carving out an exception for India from
the U.S. laws limiting nuclear technology trade with countries that have refused to sign
the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The changing foreign policy
imperatives of U.S. after Cold War and its geopolitical consideration in Asia have
brought India and U.S. closer. The U.S. - India Civil Nuclear Deal was, thus, an indicator
of the Bush administration’s willingness to go beyond the established U.S. policy to
achieve its foreign policy objectives (Michael and Ferguson 2006).
96

96
There has been a vocal opposition to the U S- India civil nuclear deal in India. The opposition in India
can be broadly divided into two kinds. The first kind is from the main opposition party BJP who argues that
India is compromising its nuclear program by accepting the U S terms and conditions. The second kind of
opposition is from the left perspective which has different strands. Notwithstanding the differences, there is
a strong consensus within the left that by aligning with the Untied States, India is abandoning its
independent foreign policy and starting to toe the U S hegemonic policies. There is also a strong anti
nuclear lobby within the left which does not want India to pursue nuclear ambitions-both civil and military-
with or without U S support. The present coalition government led by Congress –which is being supported
by the left parties from outside- is currently facing a major battle on the question of nuclear deal as left
parties have vowed to withdraw their support to the government if the deal moves forward( Bidwai 2007).

193
The India-U.S. civil nuclear deal is in essence a formal approval of India’s status
as a nuclear power. After its explosion of the first atomic bomb in1974, India was
considered to be following its nuclear ambitions outside the framework developed by the
western nuclear powers led by the United States. India never signed the nuclear
nonproliferation treaty and continued its nuclear program without the U.S. approval and it
remained a source of contention between the two countries. The Bush administration,
breaking away from the established U.S. foreign policy paradigm guiding nuclear policy
towards India, announced a negotiated framework for nuclear cooperation with India on
July 18, 2005 followed by an agreement on March 2, 2006. On the U.S. side, the deal
promised to help India become a partner with the United States in the realm of nuclear
energy. This cooperation involved an agreement with India which shall establish a legal
framework for nuclear commerce.
The role of Indian American groups arose in the context of the U.S.

Congressional
approval of the deal which was required to change the existing U.S. laws that banned
civil nuclear trade with India. The approval of the Congress became very critical for
moving this deal forward as there was a high possibility that the deal would be buried in
the Congressional debate given the strength of the non-proliferation lobby in the
Congress. A sizable number of Democrats in the Congress along with a section of
Republicans were very suspicious of this move by the Bush administration and they saw
the deal as equivalent to rewarding a state which had defied the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty all along. It was the resistance and uncertainty at the level of
Congress which made lobbying with its members a critical prerequisite for the success of
the deal. The Indian American organizations, enthusiastic supporters of the nuclear deal
194
and of the new turn around in the Indo-U.S. relationship, took upon themselves to
mobilize the community and its political resources to lobby with the Congress for the
passage of the bill approving the nuclear deal.
The involvement of immigrant communities in U.S. foreign policy making is not
new and it can often become controversial (Watanbe 1999). The Cuban, Greek, and
Jewish immigrant groups have also been involved with a similar process because of their
deep linkages to the country of origin and the possible impact of foreign policy on the
immigrant community. The involvement with foreign policy issues has always been seen
through the prism of national loyalty and has often been termed as a sign of immigrant
groups’ loyalty to their country of origin. The treatment of Japanese Americans during
internment was based on such an assumption and that experience discouraged many
groups from getting involved in the foreign policy arena. Paul Y. Watanbe argues that
Asian Americans have sometimes been perceived as tools-knowingly or unknowingly- of
foreign entities and there is a strong view that suggests that Asian immigrant groups
should stay away from foreign policy activism. However, for groups like Cubans and
Jews, where foreign policy activism is considered natural and often supported by the U.S.
government for different historical and political reasons, questions of loyalty seldom arise
(Watanbe 1999). The differences in reactions to transnational engagement of different
immigrant groups suggest that it is shaped by the differences in racial and ethnic origin of
the group as well as the broader geopolitical considerations of the United States.
The transnational politics involving foreign policy activism on the part of an
immigrant group has also been seen as a sign of disinterest in domestic politics. However,
a closer look at some of the foreign policy campaigns by immigrant groups suggests that
195
they are also about acquiring a place and recognition in the domestic politics. The issue
of foreign policy relating to home country becomes a convenient rallying point for
immigrant groups to get involved with the U.S. political process and institutions. Anna
Karpathakis’ (1999) work on Greek immigrants in New York City argued on similar lines
that concern with home country’s issue led to engagements with the U.S. political
process.
Indian immigrants are inclined to maintaining engagement with both the United
States and India and questions of loyalty do not easily arise in terms of one over the
other. Interviews conducted with South Asian community members and activists in New
York Metropolitan area and broader Los Angeles area suggest that the community does
not see the political engagement with the home country and the host country as a zero
sum game. Both engagements can exist simultaneously and it is only natural for an
immigrant community to have multiple engagements which concerns both the home
country and the host country.
An Indian American community member in Los Angeles, talking about dual
attachment, said:
…When you come to this country and become a citizen of this country, yes, you
do have to belong to this country and you have to participate and give yourself
also to this country. But at the same time, you can not forget where you came
from. Every thing is global…… It is a question of being able to accept the fact
that yes, you belong to both countries and have responsibilities to both…. I
personally I feel that if you can make a difference in both the countries, you
should do it because it is not a question of one country against the other country.
97

An overwhelming majority of the interviewees reacted negatively to the idea of
making a choice between the two countries. Even though they live in the United States,

97
Interview, Los Angeles, CA ,14 July 2006.
196
they maintain a strong connection with the country of origin and a section of the
community is engaged with the political process of India. For the community at large,
this connection and interest does not translate into active engagement but a significant
number of interviewees said that they know of groups and people who do get involved in
issues related to India. Since first generation immigrants have strong connections to home
country, they are inclined towards keeping abreast of the news and engaged with the
politics in home country but there is also evidence of getting engaged with the political
process here. An Indian community activist in Los Angeles, when asked about the
problems of maintaining dual connections, said:
… I do agree that when you make a new country your home, you should play an
active role in it. But that does not mean that you check out your background or
identity or heritage. I believe you can do both. There is no conflict in being
actively involved in your adoptive country, as well as playing a role in your
homeland…. I think what you will find in our community, in the first generation,
traditionally, people cared more about the politics of homeland country and not
their adopted country. But I think that is definitely changing as people become
more established here and have more time to settle in. But on the whole, I do not
see a conflict in caring about two countries at the same time.
98

The Indian American organizations reflect this duality of engagement in their
political practices and activism even while appearing to keep the home country concern
at the center of their political engagement. The organizations of Indian immigrants with
links and influence in Washington, D.C. have periodically tried to intervene in the past on
foreign policy issues with moderate to low level of influence on the policy outcomes.
One of the most significant campaigns by the Indian American groups in this context was
the intervention on the issue of proposed sale of Airborne Early Warning Surveillance
Systems (AWACKS) planes in 1987. The success of Indian American groups’ campaign

98
Interview, Los Angeles, CA, 10 June 2006.
197
can be measured by the fact that they were called before the Senate Foreign Relations
Subcommittee to testify on the issue.
Jagat Motwani, an Indian American community activist, testified to the Senate
subcommittee on behalf of NFIA in 1987 to argue against sale of AWACKS planes,
I should add that a bomb in Pakistani hands is a source of concern, not only to
India, but to other friendly countries around the world, including Israel, since it
has been developed as an Islamic bomb. The events of the past 39 years attest to
the fact that Pakistan has used U.S. supplied military equipment against no other
country except India, although the aid was given for use as defense against
communist invasion. Once Pakistan has these sophisticated military weapons, it
may not hesitate to use them against India (Motwani 2003, 282-83).

The nationalist rhetoric employed by Indian Americans was not only about
parochial Indian nationalism, it was simultaneously accompanied by a growing desire and
anxiety about creating a space within the U.S. political system for the Indian American
community. Thomas Abraham, President of NFIA, remarked about the 1987 Indian
American testimony at the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee hearing, “it is a
historic moment for the Indian American community since we have been invited for the
first time by the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee to present our views. It is
recognition of our growing community in U.S.”(Motwani 2003, 284). Even though this
campaign was limited to a specific foreign policy issue in Washington, D.C., the
recognition by the Congress of Indian Americans as a legitimate voice on this issue was
seen as a sign of the growing strength of the community in U.S. politics.
The Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal came approximately twenty years after the 1987
AWACKS planes campaign conducted by the Indian American organizations. The Indian
immigrant community has grown much bigger since and its desire to get a place in the
political realm is even more pronounced. The high level of sophisticated lobbying by the
198
Indian American organizations with the U. S. Congress and foreign policy making
establishment on the U.S.-India civil nuclear deal reflects the dual interests which Indian
American community has maintained - the interest in issues related to India as well as the
urge to create a political space for the Indian American community in U.S. politics- and
over the years they have been able to build linkages between these two interests.
There were several Indian American groups that played an active role in lobbying
for the passage of the bill endorsing the U.S. - India nuclear deal. The issue galvanized
the Indian American organizations as never before and it brought groups with both the
Democratic as well as Republican leanings on the same platform. The U.S.-India
Political Action Committee (USINPAC), the Indian American Security leadership
council (IASLC), U.S. India Friendship Council, U.S. India Business Council, and
various other smaller groups and individuals of Indian American origin worked together
on this issue. At the end of April 2006, just before the Congress was reconvened to start
considering the Henry Hyde Act dealing with the nuclear deal, around 200 Indo-
American community leaders from across the U. S. came to Washington D.C. to lobby
their Senate and House members for approval of the deal (Jones 2006).
99
The Indian
American leaders also had a strategy meeting with White House senior staffers led by
Karl Rove, the Deputy Chief of Staff to President George W. Bush. The Indian American
groups active on this issue were turning out to be important allies for the Bush
administration which was struggling to get the bill passed.

99
Henry J. Hyde U S –India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act (2006) details the provisions of the
U S - India Civil Nuclear Deal.
199
The importance of this issue for unifying disparate Indian American groups is
reflected in the comment made by an Indian American entrepreneur and activist to The
Washington Times:
Our diaspora was always much more divided, but now we have the nuclear deal to
unite us…… I have been contacting my congressmen here in California, and I
know many of my friends and colleagues are doing the same. This whole fight has
brought out of the woodwork Indian-Americans who were never involved in
politics at all (Sands 2006).

The issue became a rallying point for different Indian American groups and it provided
an opportunity for these groups to engage with U.S. political institutions on a specific
issue.
The issue of the nuclear deal also galvanized the well established membership
based Indian American organizations such as American Association of Physicians of
Indian Origin (AAPI) and the Asian American Hotel Owners Association (AAHOA).
AAPI, representing around 41,000 doctors and 10,000 medical students of Indian origin
and AAHOA, representing about 8,300 members owning more than 20,000 small hotels
and motels, contributed to the campaign and lobbied with the members of Congress from
different areas. To express their support for the nuclear deal, these two organizations
jointly held a luncheon in Washington, D.C., which was addressed by the Secretary of
State, Condoleezza Rice.
100

The lobbying campaign on the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal was important for the
Indian American groups not only because they wanted to support India’s interest on this
issue but also because it was seen by Indian American groups as a test of their strength

100
Indian American Physicians and Hoteliers Lobby for n-deal’, Online at
http://www.indiaenews.com/america/20060710/14274.htm (last accessed August 4, 2007).

200
and maturity as far as their political influence in U.S. was concerned. The Washington
Times, in a write-up on this issue, reflected this sentiment among Indian American
groups. The write-up argued:
The political clout of one of the county’s wealthiest and best-educated minorities
is being put to the test as the Bush administration faces a tough fight in the
Congress to pass a major civil nuclear power agreement with India, one the
administration officials say could cement ties with an emerging world power and
redraw the strategic map of Asia (Sands 2006).

The Indian American groups active on the issue saw this as an opportunity to
demonstrate their political influence and acumen through lobbying with the Congress and
other policy makers in Washington. “This is the chance to show that the community has
matured and can translate that into political effectiveness,” said Sanjay Puri, chairman,
USINPAC (McIntire 2006).
Even though the activism and lobbying on the issue of the nuclear deal was
framed in terms of representing the interest of India, the organizations who were involved
in this campaign saw this as an issue through which they could reach out to members of
the Congress and the administration. If viewed through the lens of the traditional notions
of political participation, this kind of political engagement on foreign policy issues could
be dismissed as something not concerning the U. S. political process but rather a
reflection of disinterest in U.S. politics. However, as indicated earlier, a closer analysis of
political engagement of Indian American organizations through lobbying for the India-U.
S. nuclear deal suggested that the campaign dealt with the U.S. domestic political
institutions and it was not just instrumental in achieving a limited end concerning the
home country, but a part of the broader ongoing attempt to gain acceptance and
recognition in the U. S. political process. The traditional models of political
201
incorporation- both pluralist and minority group model- do not acknowledge this path of
political engagement as a possible way of participating in American politics. The case of
Indian immigrants and their lobbying on the nuclear deal suggests that even though
lobbying and mobilization around the issues of home country is not the most important
mode of immigrant political participation in U.S., it does play an important role in
initiating and shaping the political engagement of the group.
Transnational Politics and Elite Mobilization
Even though the lobbying by Indian American groups on issues concerning home
country is a significant step towards involvement with the domestic U.S. political
process, the political engagement through lobbying has serious limitations in terms of
orienting and mobilizing the broader Indian American community for domestic and
transnational political participation. Despite the apparent diversity of the groups involved
in the lobbying process, the effort of the Indian American community was spearheaded
mostly by organizations which represented the professional and entrepreneurial sections
of the community. The emphasis on fundraising capacity of the community to muster
support from the members of Congress was indicative of the participation being limited
to the rich and professionally successful sections of the community. A case in point is the
USINPAC, an Indian American organization which has been organizing fundraisers for
both Democratic and Republican politicians to mobilize bipartisan support for issues
important to Indian American community. By emphasizing the fund raising ability of the
Indian American community, the USINPAC has been developing a particular way of
creating political influence which puts reliance on a narrow section of the community
which can make financial contributions to political parties and candidates. USINPAC
202
utilized the strengths and influence emerging out of this strategy to effectively mobilize
support for the nuclear deal among lawmakers in Washington, D.C. This strategy of
creating political influence for the Indian American community is largely bereft of any
attempt at wider mobilization of the Indian American community to become a part of the
process of political empowerment of the community.
There was no effort or need felt by these groups to reach out to the wider
community on this issue and the mobilization was limited to a very small section of the
immigrant community which could play a role in the lobbying campaign. It is this small
elite section of the community that has engaged with the political institutions of the U.S..
This mode of political participation through lobbying on foreign policy issues has a very
limited impact on the larger Indian immigrant community in terms of bringing them into
the domestic political process. Lobbying by Indian American groups also did not reflect
the debates which took place in India over the desirability of the nuclear deal. There is an
ongoing intense debate in India over this issue in which there are powerful voices which
are arguing that the nuclear deal is equal to surrendering the sovereignty and independent
foreign policy of India to the U. S. There are others who consider India’s entry into the
group of legitimate nuclear power state as a negative development for regional peace and
security. However, the Indian American groups followed the position adopted by the
Indian government and only mobilized around the more nationalist and militaristic
position put forward by the Government of India.
To better understand the limited and elite nature of political mobilization through
lobbying, this moment of political activism on the issue of U.S.-India nuclear deal could
be compared with another important moment which affected the Indian immigrant
203
community significantly- the racial hate crimes and discrimination against South Asian
immigrants in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center.
Most of the organizations active on the issue of the nuclear deal were largely absent or
muted in their response to the aftermath of September 11
th
on South Asian immigrants.
However, a different set of South Asian organizations were very active on the issue of
hate crimes and racial discrimination following 9/11. For instance, the South Asian
Network (SAN) in the Los Angeles area worked with a few Muslim and Sikh
organizations and together played an important role in responding to post-9/11 hate
crimes and the general atmosphere of fear among South Asian immigrants in the area.
Similarly, South Asian organizations such as Desis Rising and Moving (DRUM), Coney
Island Avenue Project, Council of People’s Organization (COPO), South Asian Youth
Association (SAYA), and many small advocacy and service organizations in New York
City were active on this issue. These organizations intervened both in individual cases as
well as at the community level for mobilizing South Asians against hate crime to stop law
enforcement agencies from targeting particular communities. Organizations such as
South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow (SAALT) actively intervened on this issue
in Washington, D.C. and coordinated with other civil rights and ethnic organizations at
the national level to highlight the cases of racial targeting both by public as well as the
law enforcement agencies.
101

101
These observations are based on interviews conducted in New York Metropolitan Area and Los Angeles
with South Asian community members and activists between April 2006 and February 2007. The
participant observation in community programs and activities in both Los Angeles and New York City also
provided information about South Asian organizations and their role in post-9/11 period.

204
Looking at the nature of organizations involved in these two campaigns- against
post-9/11 racial targeting and the U.S.-India nuclear deal- it is very clear that
organizations active on the nuclear deal did not step forward on the question of racial
discrimination and hate crime. The elite nature of these organizations is reflected in their
decision to avoid issues of racial discrimination and hate crime which arguably affects a
wider swath of the Indian Americans and the South Asian American community. There
seemed to be a clear disjuncture between the organizations which were active on the issue
of the nuclear deal and those which got involved with issues of racial discrimination and
hate crime. The fact that the organizations active on the issue of the nuclear deal were not
active on an issue which affected different sections of the community reinforces the
argument that these organizations were limited in their agenda and forms of political
engagement they pursued. The nationalist ideology emanating from India has a powerful
influence on these organizations. In contrast, the organizations which were active on the
issue of racial discrimination and targeting of the community did not get involved with
the nuclear deal campaign because most of these organizations work on a panethnic
platform which includes immigrants from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and other South
Asian countries. The nuclear deal was an issue which clearly represented the national
interest of India as framed by the government of India. The South Asian organizations
could not support a deal which enhanced India’s military status vis-a-vis other South
Asian countries in a subcontinent which has a history of hostility and conflict among
different nations.

205
Conclusion
An analysis of the lobbying campaign by Indian American groups on the issue of
U. S.-India civil nuclear deal provides important insights into the possibilities and limits
of transnational politics. This analysis has demonstrated that engagement with the issues
concerning home country such as the U.S.-India nuclear deal encourages involvement
with the political processes and institutions of the United States. The lobbying campaign
in favor of the deal worked as a rallying issue for the Indian American community to
enhance its political effectiveness and influence as a minority group in the U. S.
Undoubtedly, the support for the nuclear deal is rooted in a strong home country
nationalist ideology and may appear to be exclusively focused on the home country
concerns. However, through the campaign on the nuclear deal the Indian American
organizations are not only representing the interest of India but also coming to terms with
the issue of their recognition and acceptance in the U. S. political process. The entire
campaign is also framed in terms of the contribution of the Indo-American community to
American society and how this deal may enhance their status in American society. The
lobbying campaign can possibly be critiqued as a reflection of the community’s distance
from the issues concerning local or domestic politics. This critique, however, will be a
very narrow reading of the lobbying campaign based on an understanding of immigrant
political participation and incorporation which gives primacy to traditional forms of
political participation and ignores the forms of political engagement related to the issues
of the country of origin. The traditional models of immigrant political incorporation
completely disregard this mode of political engagement pursued by immigrant
communities. The traditional models also fail to take into account the ideological and
206
political influences emanating from cross border ties which influence the agenda and kind
of mobilization pursued by immigrant groups in the U.S. This chapter emphasizes the
importance of transnational ties and their influences in shaping the political participation
of immigrant communities in the U.S.
This chapter has also used a critical lens to underline the possible limits of
transnational political engagement and the ways in which it might limit or lead to a
narrow political incorporation of immigrant communities. The analysis of the nuclear
lobbying campaign has shown that there are limitations and problems with this kind of
transnational political engagement, namely the elite nature of mobilization where only
certain forms of participation such as lobbying takes primacy over other kinds of possible
political engagement which may involve reaching out to the wider Indian American
community. Furthermore, lobbying by Indian American groups involved only a limited
section of the immigrant community – the well educated professional and entrepreneur
class which is financially successful. This was reflected in the political strategy used by
Indian American groups to mobilize the members of Congress on the issue of the nuclear
deal by projecting the group’s fundraising capability as the primary strength of the
community. Transnational political engagement of this nature does not reach to the
common Indian immigrants in the U. S. and, hence, does not contribute to the political
incorporation of the broader community. The disjuncture between the response to post-
9/11 cases of racial discrimination and hate crimes and lobbying on the nuclear deal is
illustrative of this point. The elite mobilization pursued by Indian American groups is in
conjunction with the elite oriented diasporic politics emanating from India. The elite
nature of diasporic politics emanating from India is reflected in the Indian state’s narrow
207
view of the Indian immigrant population in which only successful entrepreneurs and
professionals are accorded importance and this section of the immigrant community is
considered critical for promoting India’s interest in the United States. The ideological
congruity between the Indian state and these Indian American organizations is also
unmistakable in the ways in which Indian American groups involved in lobbying adopted
the Indian state’s ideological positions and policy priorities and shut out other critical and
oppositional perspectives and policy alternatives present in India.
The two dominant models of political incorporation fail to include this important
aspect of immigrant political engagement. The unmistakable influence of transnational
connections on the ways of immigrant engagement with U.S. politics and the nature of
mobilization suggests that transnationalism is a part of political incorporation trajectory
of immigrant groups. The analysis also suggests that our study of transnational
engagement and immigrant political participation should not stop at answering the
question whether there is a zero sum relationship between the transnational political and
social engagement and political participation in U.S. The more important question, as the
analysis suggests, is to understand the ways in which transnational connections influence
the ideology, agenda, and political mobilization patterns among immigrant groups.

208
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
Political incorporation of new immigrant groups has been studied extensively by scholars
studying immigrant and minority politics. The existing paradigms of immigrant political
incorporation have been shaped by prominent political incorporation experiences in the
history of American society, notable among them are the incorporation of European
immigrants in the early to the mid 20
th
century and African Americans in the mid to late
20
th
century. The extensive study of these groups has led to the development of two
contrasting models of political incorporation which influenced the subsequent studies of
immigrant and minority political incorporation. These two models have also shaped the
study of post-1965 phase of immigration that witnessed the formation of new immigrant
groups- which were either smaller in numbers or nonexistent before this period- such as
Asian Americans, Latinos, Caribbean, and Arab Americans.
Immigrant groups such as Asian Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi are largely a
product of this new phase of immigration. These groups have varied socioeconomic
profiles and different immigration histories and their participation into the U.S. political
process seem to follow trajectories different from those proposed by the dominant models
of political incorporation. This dissertation argues that the political incorporation patterns
of South Asian immigrants – Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi- suggest that their
experiences need to be theorized differently from the existing models of political
incorporation. In fact, their experiences suggest that key elements are missing from the
existing models of political incorporation. However, it is important to note that this
dissertation does not suggest going beyond the existing models of political incorporation
209
to only account for the special case of South Asians. In other words, the need to move
beyond the existing models is not to propose South Asian exceptionalism but to move
towards a model of political incorporation which gives centrality to internal distinctions
within ethnic and racial groups. Thus, this move toward a new model of political
incorporation is required to understand not only South Asians but other Asian American
groups and many others such as Caribbean, Arab and Cuban immigrants that display
wide socioeconomic diversity. The foregrounding of internal group distinctions while
studying political incorporation also draws upon the intersectionality approach in
Political Theory and Feminist Theory which emphasize the interaction of different social
identities to produce a particular experience.
The two dominant models of political incorporation- the pluralist model and
minority group model- proposed either ethnic mobilization and/ or race based
mobilization on the basis of linked fate as possible paths of political incorporation for
new immigrant groups. The two models have contrasting predictions even though they
seemingly suggest a group based mobilization based on ethnic and/or racial identity. The
pluralist model suggests that ethnic mobilization is a transitory phase because the ethnic
groups become a part of the mainstream political process with the advancement in their
educational and economic status. In contrast, the minority group model suggests that
ethnic and racial status of the group is an enduring barrier to their political incorporation
and continued grassroots mobilizing based on racial and ethnic identity is a possible path
to overcome that barrier.
This dissertation questions both models of political incorporation and argues that
the centrality accorded to ethnic and/or racial mobilization by these two models fail to
210
explain the political incorporation trajectory of South Asian immigrants. Neither the
ethnic mobilization of the kind experienced by European immigrants nor the grassroots
mobilization undertaken by African Americans explain the political incorporation
experiences of South Asian immigrants. This dissertation argues that internal distinctions
based on class, religion, and country of origin play significant roles in shaping the
political participation and mobilization patterns among South Asian immigrants. This
requires moving beyond the framework of political incorporation models that emphasize
ethnic and /or racial mobilization exclusively at the cost of including internal distinctions
into the analysis. This dissertation argues that political incorporation of South Asians
relies largely on a selective elite mobilization which is largely bereft of any kind of mass
mobilization based on racial and ethnic identity. This mode of selective elite mobilization
is different from both pluralist as well as minority group models which suggest wider
grass roots mobilization of the community based on a common racial and ethnic identity.
The dissertation further argues that class distinctions within the South Asian community
strongly shape the selective elite mobilization which starts defining the political
incorporation trajectory of the group. The study locates the existence of selective elite
mobilization also in the arena of transnational political engagement. In addition, the
dissertation moves beyond existing models of political incorporation by linking domestic
political incorporation of the group to the transnational social and political processes. It
gives centrality to the transnational attachments in analyzing the political incorporation
patterns of South Asian immigrants and points to the possible transnational dimensions of
citizenship among immigrant communities.
211
The analysis of political participation and mobilization patterns suggests that there
is a limited mobilization of South Asians on the basis of a common ethnic identity. The
limited ethnic mobilization is particularly reflected in the muted response of the
community in the post-911 period as well as in their attempts at electoral representation
which do not rely heavily on ethnic mobilization. The data show that socioeconomic
differences within the South Asian community are most pronounced with a significant
section of the group having high educational and income profile. South Asians tend not to
concentrate primarily in ethnic neighborhoods and settle in different kinds of urban and
suburban neighborhoods. The religious and country of origin based distinctions are also
important in terms of complicating the possibilities of group mobilization based on a
broad panethnic identity. The study thus argues that the socioeconomic, religious,
linguistic, and country of origin based distinctions along with a lack of population
concentration due to the group demographic characteristics are some of the important
factors which explain why South Asian immigrants have not followed the traditional path
of ethnic and /or racial mobilization.
This study has used post- 9/11 incidents of racial targeting and hate crimes to
analyze the continued racialization of South Asian immigrants and to explore whether
that led to a significant level of ethnic/racial mobilization. The dissertation argues that
there is a continued racialization of South Asian as a group despite their widely varied
educational and economic status. The pluralist model would have us believe that racial
prejudice and discrimination are temporary phenomena which gradually disappear with
economic and educational advancements and that they have minimal impact on the
political incorporation process. The case of South Asian immigrants, however, refutes
212
this argument. The continued racialization of South Asians as outsiders has significant
implications for their political incorporation. The dissertation argues that the discourse
of an outsider has assumed even more importance in the post-9/11 period and has
become linked to the discourse on “war on terror.” The analysis of interviews with
South Asian immigrants suggests that being seen as outsider or foreigner is one of the
primary ways in which the group is racialized and the process has intensified after
September 11, 2001. The analysis also suggests that continuing discrimination and
exclusion based on racialization as outsider is deeply connected to their phenotype-skin
color and appearance. The dissertation further argues that racialization and exclusion
of South Asian immigrants are mediated by religious difference and Hindu, Sikh, and
Muslim South Asian immigrants have been impacted differently by this process.
Similarly, the class distinctions within the South Asian community are also evident in
the ways in which post-9/11 targeting affected certain classes of immigrants more than
others.
According to the minority group model of political incorporation, the continuing
racialization of South Asian immigrants should lead to grassroots mobilization based
on common ethnic or racial identity. However, the analysis of the post-9/11 period
suggests that South Asian immigrants did not engage in grassroots mobilizing, based on
a common group identity and linked fate, to oppose racial profiling and discrimination.
The distinctions within the South Asian immigrant community based on religion, nation
of origin, and class are important factors which shaped the political response of the
community and point to the possibility that the group may not enter the political
process based on a group mobilization rooted in linked fate or common group identity.
213
The analysis of political incorporation of South Asian immigrants suggests that
political incorporation of the group is taking place in an institutional context
characterized by decline of political parties resulting in very little attempt by political
parties and other institutions to bring contemporary nonwhite immigrants into the
political process. South Asians as a group are marginalized in the political process as a
result of a lack of institutional attempts at incorporation combined with what many
interviewees described as lack of significant South Asian population concentration.
However, this lack of mobilization and inclusion of the broader South Asian
community in the political process simultaneously co-exists with selective mobilization
of smaller segments within the community which results in a particular trajectory of
incorporation relying on elite mobilization. This trajectory of selective mobilization
among South Asian immigrants is evident in both local as well as transnational political
processes. The selective and narrow mobilization of the elite sections of the community
suggests that the political incorporation trajectory of South Asians is very different
from traditional models which emphasize racial and/or ethnic mobilization as a part of
the political incorporation of minority and immigrant groups.
The analysis of interviews and other data suggest that there are three major trends
of political engagement based on selective mobilization of South Asian immigrants- the
focus on lobbying, prominence of campaign fundraising as strategy for gaining political
power, and descriptive representation from white majority districts. The preeminence of
these forms of political engagement suggests that the political mobilization among
South Asian immigrants is only limited to certain forms of engagement which do not
require the mobilization and engagement of the broader community. All three trends
214
identified in this analysis end up reinforcing selective mobilization within the South
Asian community which preclude large section of the community from getting involved
into the political processes. The political incorporation trajectory of the group, the
analysis suggests, does not follow the pluralist model where immigrants are mobilized
on the basis of their ethnic identity with help from political parties to bring them into
the political process. Neither does it follow the minority group model where grassroots
mobilization on the basis of shared racial and /or ethnic identity against discrimination
and racial barrier is the possible path to political incorporation. Selective mobilization
leading to limited participation of a small segment of the group defines the political
incorporation trajectory of South Asian immigrants. The descriptive representation
attempts on the part of South Asian immigrants also reflect a limited ethnic and/or
racial mobilization strategy where South Asian candidates primarily follow a strategy
of electoral success which does not rely on ethnic mobilization.
The dissertation also challenges the existing models by arguing that political
incorporation of the group can not be explained without taking transnationalism into
account. Even though there has been an acceptance of the importance of
transnationalism for studying immigrant populations, there have been very limited
efforts to include transnationalism into political incorporation studies. The dissertation
argues that transnational attachments are an important part of the social and political
lives of South Asian immigrants in the United States. The dissertation argues, based on
both quantitative and qualitative data, that transnational attachments and engagements
do not adversely impact South Asian immigrants’ political participation in the U.S. The
quantitative data, however, do suggest that higher levels of transnational attachment
215
lead to lower levels of naturalization among South Asian immigrants. This result
suggests that strong transnational attachment is indicative of strong linkages to both the
places which results in delayed naturalization in many cases.
The dissertation further argues that transnational engagements with the issues
concerning country of origin are not only about country of origin. Such involvements also
provide avenues to engage with U.S. political institutions and they shape the ways in
which immigrant communities engage with the political process in U.S. The dissertation
argues that increasing transnational attachment also has important implications for the
meaning and practice of citizenship among immigrant communities. The emerging forms
of dual citizenship like rights, continued transnational political engagement, and a
broader transnational identity among South Asian immigrants point to the possibilities of
immigrant citizenship which is more transnational in its conception and practice. The
implications of transnational dimensions of immigrant citizenship for political
incorporation of the group are expressed in the influences of both the country of origin
and the country of settlement in shaping the political participation patterns of immigrant
groups. The existing models of political incorporation do not consider the transnational
influences, particularly the influence emanating from country of origin, in shaping the
political orientation and participation practices of the group. This dissertation argues that
political incorporation of immigrant groups can not be studied without including
transnational dimension of immigrant political engagement.
Through the analysis of lobbying by Indian American groups in favor of the U.S.
– India Civil Nuclear Deal, the dissertation argues that engagement with the issues
concerning home country such as the nuclear deal encourages involvement with the
216
political processes and institutions of the United States. The lobbying campaign in favor
of the deal worked as a unifying and rallying issue for the Indian American community to
enhance its political effectiveness and influence as a minority group in the U. S. The
traditional models of immigrant political incorporation completely disregard this mode of
political engagement pursued by immigrant communities. The traditional models also fail
to take into account the ideological and political influences emanating from cross border
ties which shape the agenda and kind of mobilization pursued by immigrant groups in the
U.S. The analysis of lobbying campaign suggests that this form of transnational
engagement in the case of Indian immigrants became a part of the existing selective
mobilization trajectory. The dissertation argues that transnational political engagement
could lead to selective elite mobilization, as happened in the case of the nuclear deal,
where only certain forms of participation such as lobbying takes primacy over other kinds
of possible political engagement which may involve reaching out to the wider Indian
American community.
Furthermore, lobbying by Indian American groups involved only a limited section
of the immigrant community – the well educated professional and entrepreneur class
which is financially successful. The selective and elite mobilization pursued by Indian
American groups is in conjunction with the elite oriented diasporic politics emanating
from India. The ideological congruity between the Indian state and Indian American
organizations is also unmistakable in the ways in which Indian American groups adopted
the Indian state’s ideological positions and policy priorities and shut out other critical and
oppositional perspectives and policy alternatives present in India. The trajectory of
selective elite mobilization is clearly evident in the case of lobbying over the nuclear
217
deal. The analysis suggests how transnational political engagement contributes to a
particular trajectory of political incorporation among immigrant groups.
This dissertation makes a significant contribution to the existing literature on
immigrant political incorporation and transnationalism. The existing literature has looked
at political incorporation of minority and immigrant groups primarily through the lens of
ethnic and racial mobilization or lack of it. Both the pluralist model and the minority
group model emphasize the importance of ethnic and racial mobilization for political
incorporation of minority and immigrant groups. This study proposes a model of
immigrant political incorporation which takes the internal group distinctions into
consideration and which gives centrality to transnational political engagement in
understanding the political incorporation process. This model argues that immigrant
groups such as South Asians with high socioeconomic, religious, linguistic, and country
of origin based diversity do not follow the simple trajectory of ethnic and/or racial
mobilization. The existing models of political incorporation may be able to explain the
political incorporation experience of certain groups but they fail to account for the
specificities of immigrant groups such as South Asians. In addition, the experiences of
these groups may force us to reconsider the applicability of the models in the
contemporary period. The model proposed by this dissertation highlights the importance
of distinctions such as class, religion, and country of origin and the ways in which these
distinctions tend to shape the political incorporation process of the group. The patterns of
selective mobilization and involvement of a relatively narrow section of the South Asian
community in the political process suggests that the future of political incorporation of
groups such as South Asians is not going to be based on a large scale ethnic or racial
218
mobilization. This model, however, does not argue that ethnic and/or racial identities
such as Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi American or panethnic category of South
Asian do not have relevance for political participation and mobilization but argues that
cleavages like class, religion, and country of origin are important determinants of the
political incorporation trajectories of these groups. The proposed model makes an
important contribution by foregrounding the internal distinctions within the group as
important factors for studying the process of political incorporation.
The proposed model also makes an important break from existing models of
political incorporation by arguing that transnational political engagement should not be
seen as a process separate from the political incorporation of the group in the United
States. The study clearly points to the transnational dimension of political incorporation
and argues that engagements with the home country are not necessarily at the cost of
engagements with the political process in the United States. Moreover, the analysis of
Indian immigrants suggests that transnational political engagement also contributes to the
selective and limited mobilization pattern among South Asian immigrants. The cleavages
of class, religion, and nationalism are further reinforced through transnational
engagements with their nation of origin. The proposed model of political incorporation
thus considers the continued transnational engagement as an important element of the
emerging transnational citizenship practices among immigrant communities.
The findings of this dissertation speak directly to the concept of citizenship,
particularly to the ways in which new immigrant communities expand the meanings and
practices of citizenship. The possibilities of constant attachment and engagement with
society and politics of more than one nation state questions the traditional conception of
219
citizenship rooted in a single nation state and politics. The transnational attachment and
engagement of immigrant groups such as South Asians suggest a broader conception of
citizenship which is inclusive of transnational engagements. The dissertation also
suggests that domestic political incorporation of immigrant groups has to be inclusive of
transnational dimension of citizenship.
The dissertation also speaks to the critical issue of race and ethnicity and their
centrality in the political incorporation of immigrant groups. The dissertation argues that
race remains an important part of the social and political lives of South Asians in the
United States. The continuing perception of South Asians as “outsiders” and “foreigners”
remains an integral part of the racialization of South Asian immigrants. However, the
political mobilization of South Asians do not follow the traditional models where racial
and/or ethnic identity plays a central role in the mobilization of minority group who
negotiate with the political process on the basis of the strength of their racial and ethnic
mobilization. The experience of South Asian immigrants suggest that racial and ethnic
identity is strongly mediated by class, religion, and other internal distinctions and
political incorporation of the group is shaped by the complex interactions of these
identities. The political incorporation trajectory of South Asians based on a selective elite
mobilization demonstrates how class distinctions within the community produces a
particular kind of ethnic mobilization which is very different from those subscribed by
either pluralist or minority group model. This dissertation makes an important
contribution in terms of providing a new framework- a framework which emphasizes the
interplay of internal distinctions such as class, and religion with racial and ethnic
220
identity- for analyzing the centrality of racial and ethnic mobilization among immigrant
groups.
Future research should further explore the issue of internal distinction within
racial and ethnic groups and the ways in which these distinctions shape their political
incorporation trajectory. The existing literature on minority and immigrant political
incorporation has not explored this line of enquiry fully. The internal distinctions within
minority groups have been explored in works such as Cathy Cohen’s Boundaries of
Blackness(1999) in the context of group identity and marginalization within the
community but her framework has not been used in political incorporation studies.
Immigrant and minority groups like Asian Americans, Caribbean, and Latinos are well
suited for further analysis of internal distinctions based on socioeconomic status, religion,
culture, gender, and sexual orientation.

221
Bibliography

Aizenmann, Nurith and Edward Walsh. 2003. “Immigrants Fear Deportation After
Registration.” The Washington Post. July 28.

Alba, Richard and Victor Nee. 1997. “ Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of
Immigration.” International Migration Review 31: 826-75.

Andersen, Kristi. 1979. The Creation of a Democratic Majority, 1928-1936. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Anderson, Benedict.1992. “The New World Disorders.” New Left Review I (193): 4-11.

Bakalian, Anny and Mehdi Bozorgmehr.2009. Backlash 9/11: Middle Eastern and
Muslim Americans Respond. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Barker, Lucius J. 1988.Our time has come: A delegates diary of Jesee Jackson’s 1984
presidential campaign. Urbana: University of Illinois Press

Basch, L., Schiller, N and Blanc, S. 1994. Nations Unbound. Transnational projects,
Postcolonial Predicaments and Deterritorialized Nation-States. Amsterdam: Gordon and
Beach Publishers.

Baubock, R. 2003. “Towards a Political Theory of Migrant Transnationalism.”
International Migration Review 37(3): 700-723.

Bidwai, Praful. 2007. “Political Fallout of India-U.S. Nuclear Deal Turns Severe.”
Available Online at http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38926 (Last accessed September
14, 2007)

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2004. “ From Bi-Racial to Triracial: Towards a New System of
Racial Stratification in the USA.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 27( 6): 931-950

Bosniak, Linda. 2001. “Denationalizing Citizenship.” In T. Alexander Aleinikoff and
Douglas Klusmeyer, eds. Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices,
Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

-----------2000. “Citizenship Denationalized.” Indiana Journal of Global Studies, 7(2):
447- 510

Browning, Rufus P., Dale Rogers Marshall, and David H. Tabb, eds. 2003. Racial
Politics in American Cities, 3
rd
edition. New York: Longman

----------------eds.1997. Racial Politics in American Cities, 2
nd
edition. New York:
Longman.
222

Chang, Edward.1988.”Korean Community Politics in Los Angeles: The Impact off
Keagju Uprising.” Amerasia 14 (1): 51-67.

Chaturvedi, S. 2005. “Diaspora in India’s Geopolitical Vision: Linkages, Categories, and
Contestations.” Asian Affairs: An American Review 32(3): 141-168.

Chavez, Linda.1991. Out of the Barrio. Toward a New Politics of Hispanic Assimilation.
New York. Basic Books.

Chisti, M. 2007. “The Phenomenal Rise in Remittances to India: A Closer Look.
Migration Policy Institute.” Available online at
www.migration policy.org/pubs/MigDevPB 052907.Pdf.( Last accessed 20 Septtember
2008)

Cho, Wendy K. Tam. 1999. “ Naturalization, Socialization, Participation: Immigrants and
(Non-) Voting.” Journal of Politics 61(4): 1140-55

Cho, Wendy K. Tm, and Suneet P. Lad.2004. “Subcontinental Divide: Asian Indians and
Asian American Politics.” American Politics Research, 32(6): 239- 263

Cigler, Allan, and Brudett Loomis,eds. 1986. Interest Group Politics ,2
nd
edition.
Washington, D.C. : CQ Press.

Clough, M. 1994. “Grass-roots Policy Making: Say Good Bye to the ‘Wise Men.”
Foreign Affairs 73(1): 2-7.

Cohen, Kathy.1999. The Boundaries of Blackness: Aids and the Breakdown of Black
Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Conway, M. Margaret.2001. “Political Participation in American Elections; Who Decides
What.” In America’s Choice, Edited by William J. Crotty. New York: Westview.

Cornell, Stephen, and Douglass Hartmann. 1998. Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities
in a Changing World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge P.

Cornwell, Elmer E. 1960. “Party Absorption of Ethnic Groups: the Case of Providence,
Rhode Island.” Social Forces 38: 205-10

Dahl, Robert A. 1982. Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy . New Haven : Yale University
Press.

----------- 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in American City. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
223
Dave, Shilpa, Pawan Dhingra, ,Sunaina Maira, et al. 2000. “Indian Americans, South
Asian Americans, and the Politics of Asian American Studies.” Journal of Asian
American Studies 3(1): 67-100.

Dawson, Michael. 1994. Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African American Politics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

DeSipio, Louis. 2006. “Do Home-Country Political Ties Limit Latino Immigrant Pursuit
of U.S. Civic Engagement and Citizenship?” In Transforming Politics, Transforming
America: The Political and Civic Incorporation of Immigrants in the United States,
edited by Taeku Lee, Kathick Ramakrishnan, and Ricardo Ramírez. Charlottesville, VA:
University of Virginia Press.

-----------. 2003. Immigrant politics at home and abroad: how Latino immigrants engage
the politics of their home. Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.

D’Souza, Dinesh. 1995. The End of Racism: The Principles for a Multiracial Society.
New York: Free Press Paperbacks

Elliott, Andrea. 2003. “In Brooklyn, 9/11 Damage Continues.” New York Times, June 7.

Erie, Steven P. 1988. Rainbow’s End. Berkeley: University of California Press

Espiritu, Yen Le. 1992. Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and
Identities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Faist, Thomas.2000. “Transnationalization in International Migration: Implications for
the Study of Citizenship and Culture.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 23(2):189-222

Fisher, Maxine. 1980. The Indians of New York City: An Historical Overview. New
Delhi: Heritage Publishing.

Foner, Nancy.2000. From Ellis Island to JFK: New York’s Two Great Waves of
Immigration. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Gilroy, Paul. 2002. Against Race: Imagining Political Culture Beyond Race Line.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Glazer, N. (1983) Ethnic Dilemmas: 1964-1982. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Glazer, Nathan, and Daniel P. Moynihan. 1970. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes,
Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City, 2nd Edition. Cambridge: The
MIT Press.

224
Goldring, Luin. 1996. “Gendered Memory: Constructions of Rurality among Mexican
Transnational Migrants.” In Creating the Countryside: The Politics of Rural and
Environmental Discourse, edited by E.M. DuPuis and Peter Vendergeest. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.

Gordon, Milton, M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, religion, and
National origins, New York: Oxford University Press.

Graham, Pamela M. 2001. “Political incorporation and Re- incorporation: Simultaneity in
the Dominican Migrant experience.” In Migration, Transnationalization, and Race in a
Changing New York, edited by Hector Cordeero-Guzman, Robert C. Smith and Ramon
Grossfuguel. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

--------------- 1997. “Reimagining the Nation and Defining the District: Dominican
Migration and transnational Politics.” In Caribbean Circuits: New Directions in the Study
of Caribbean Migration, edited by Patricia Pessar. New York: Center for Migration
Studies.

Guarnizo, Luis Eduardo. 1997. "The Emergence of a Transnational Social Formation and
the Mirage of Return Migration among Dominican Transmigrants." Identities 4 (2): 281-
322.

Guarnizo, Luis Eduardo, Alejandro Portes. 1991. “Tropical Capitalists: U.S. - bound
Immigration and Small Enterprise Development in the Dominican Republic.” in
Migration, Remittances and Small Business Development edited by Sergio Diaz-Briquets
and Sidney Weintruab. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.

Guarnizo, Luis Eduardo, Alejandro Portes, and William Haller. 2003. “Assimilation and
Transnationalism: Determinants of Transnational Political Action among Contemporary
Migrants. American Journal of Sociology 108 (6):1211-1248.

Guarnizo, Luis Eduardo, and Michael Peter Smith. 1998. “ The Location of
Transnationalism.” In Transnationalsim from Below, edited by Michael Peter Smith and
Luis Eduardo Guarnizo. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Gupta, A. 1992. “The Song of the Non-Aligned World: Transnational
Identities and the Reinscription of Space in Late Capitalism.” Cultural
Anthropology 7(1): 63-77.

Handlin, Oscar. 1951. The Uprooted: The Epic Story of Great Migration that Made the
American People. Boston: Little, Brown.

Hero, Rodney. 1992. Latinos and the U.S. Political System: Two-tiered Pluralism.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

225
Huntington, S. 2004. Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity. New
York: Simon and Schuster

---------- 1997. “The Erosion of American National Interests.” Foreign Affairs 76(5): 28-
49.

Jacobson, Mathew Frye. 1995. Special Sorrows: The Diasporic Imagination of Irish,
Polish, and Jewish Immigrants in the United States. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.

Jensen, Joan M.1988. Passage from India: Asian Immigrants in North America. New
Heaven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Jones-Correa, Michael. 1998. Between Two Nations: The Political Predicament of
Latinos in New York City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Jones, J. 2006. “Indo-American Lobby for Nuclear Deal.” Inside Bay Area, July 10.

Junn, Jane.1999. “ Participation in a liberal Democracy: The Political Assimilation of
Immigrants and Ethnic Minorities in the United States.” American Behavioral Scientist
42: 1417-38

Kapur, D. 2003. “Indian Diaspora as Strategic Asset.” Economic and Political Weekly
38(5): 445-448.

Karpathakis, Anna. 1999. “Home Society Politics and Immigrant Political Incorporation:
The Case of Greek Immigrants in New York City.” International Migration Review
33(1): 55-79.

Kerkhoff, S. and Bal, E. 2003 “‘Eternal Call of the Ganga’: Reconnecting with People of
Indian Origin in Surinam.” Economic and Political Weekly 38(38): 4008-4021

Kibria, Nazli. 1998. “The Racial Gap: South Asian American Racial identity and the
Asian American Movement.” in A part, Yet Apart, edited by Lavina Dhingra-Shankar et
al. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Kim, Claire J. 1999. “The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans.” Politics and Society
27(1):105-138.

Kim, Claire J., and Taeku Lee.2001. “Interracial Politics: Asian Americans and other
Communities of Color.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34(3): 631-637

Koshy, Susan.1998. “ Category Crisis : South Asian Americans and Questions of race
and Ethnicity.” Diaspora : A journal of Transnational Studies 7(3): 285-320

226
Kurien, Prema 2003 “ To Be or Not To Be South Asian: Contemporary Indian American
Politics.” Journal of Asian American Studies. 6(3): 261-288

---------- 2007a A Place at the Multicultural Table: The Development of an American
Hinduism. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

------------ 2007b. “Who Speaks for Indian Americans? Religion, Ethnicity, and Political
Formatiom.” American Quarterly 59(3): 759- 783

Kymlicka, Will, and Wayne Norman. 1994. “Return of the Citizen: A Survey of Recent
Work on Citizenship Theory.” Ethics 104 (2).

Lai , James, Wendy K. Tom Cho, Thomas P. Kim, Okiyashi Takeda. 2001. “Asian
Pacific American Campaigns, Elections, and Elected Officials.” PS: Political Science
and Politics, 34(3): 611-617.

Lall, M. (2001) India’s Missed Opportunity: India’s Relationship with Non Resident
Indians. Aldershot: Ashgate

Landolt, Patricia. 2001. “Salvadoran Economic Transnationalism: Embedded Strategies
for Household Maintenance and Immigrant Incorporation.” Global Networks 1 (July).

Leonard, Karen.2005. “American Muslims and Authority: Competing Discourses in a
Non-Muslim State.” Journal of American Ethnic History, 25(1): 5-30.

Levi, Michael, and Charles Fergueson.2006. “U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation: A
Strategy for Moving Forward.” Council of Foreign Relations, June.

Levitt, Peggy. 2001. The Transnational Villagers. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

Lien, Pei-te. 2001.The Making of Asian Americans through Political Participation.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Lien, Pei-te, M. Margaret Conway, and Janelle Wong. 2004. The Politics of Asian
Americans: Diversity and Community. New York:Routledge.

Lindblom, Charles. 1980. The Policy-Making Process, 2
nd
ed.. Englewood Cliff, NJ:
Prentice-Hal Inc.

Lopez, Ian-Haney. 1996. White By Law: The Legal Construction of Race. New York:
New York University Press.

Marriott, Michel.1987. “In Jersey City, Indians Protest Violence.” The New York Times,
October 12.
227
Mastuda Mary. 1993. “ We Will Not be Used.” UCLA Asian American Pacific Islands
Law Journal 1 : 79-84

Mathew, B. and Prashad, V. 2000 “The Protean Form of Yankee Hindutva.” Ethnic and
Racial Studies 3(3): 516-534

Mazumdar, Sucheta.2003. “The Politics of Religion and National Origin: Rediscovering
Hindu Indian Identity in the United States.” In Antinomies of Modernity: Essays on
Race,Orient, and Nation, edited by Vasant Kaiwar and Sucheta Mazumdar. Durham, NC.
Duke University Press

---------- 1989. “Race and Racism: South Asians in the United States.” In Frontiers of
Asian American Studies, edited by Gail Nomura et al. Washington: Washington State
University Press.

McIntire, M. 2006. “Indian- Americans Test Their Clout on Atom Pact” New York
Times, June 5.

Mearsheimer, John, and Stephen M. Walt. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign
Policy. New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux.

Mehra, Achal. 2008. “The Indian American Bundlers.” Little India, January.

Mollenkopf, John; David Olson, and Tim Ross. 2001. “Immigrant Political Participation
in New York and Los Angeles.” In Governing Cities, edited by Michael Jones-Correa.
NewYork: The Russell Sage Foundation.

Moor, Joan and Hary P.Pachon. 1985. Hispanics in the United States. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Motwani, Jagat. 2003. America and India: In A ‘Give and Take’ Relationship: Social-
Psychology of Asian Indian Immigrants. New York: Center for Asian, African and
Caribbean Studies.

Nakanishi, Don T. 1991. “ The Next Swing Vote? Asian Pacific Americans and
California Politics.” In Racial and Ethnic Politics in California, edited by Bryan O.
Jackson and Michael Preston. Berkeley : Institute of Governmental Studies Press,
University of California

Okihiro, Gary.1994. Margins and Mainstreams: Asians in American History and Culture.
Seattle. University of Washington Press.

Omi Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States : From
the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge.

228
Ong, Aihwa. 1999. Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality.
Durham: Duke University Press.

Ostergaad-Nielsen, Eva. 2003. “The Politics of Migrants’ Transnational Political
Practices.” International Migration Review 37 (3): 760-86

Park, Robert E. and Ernest W. Burgess. 1969. Introduction to the Science of Sociology.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Passel, J. 2005 “Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics.” Pew Hispanic
Center. Available online at http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/46.pdf (Last accessed
August 15)

Pinderhughes, Diane.1987.Race and Ethnicity in Chicago Politics: A Reexamination of
Pluralist Theory. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Portes, Alejandro, and Alex Stepick. 1993. City on the Edge: The Transformation of
Miami . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Portes, Alejandro., Luis G. and Patricia L. 1999 “The Study of Transnationalism: Pitfalls
and Promise of an Emergent Field.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22(2): 217-237.

Portes, Alejandro, and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 1996. Immigrant America: A Portrait, 2
nd
ed.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Prashad, Vijay.2005. “ How Hindus Became Jews: American Racism after 9/11.” The
South Asian Quarterly 104(3): 583-606

----------- 2000. Karma of Brown Folk. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Rajagopal, A. 2000. “Hindu Nationalism in the U.S.: Changing Configuration of Political
Practice.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 23(3):467-96.

Ramakrishnan, S. Karthick. 2005. Democracy in Immigrant America: Changing
Demographics and Political Participation. Stanford, California: Stanford University
Press.

Rodriguez, Gregory. 1998. “Minority Leader.” The New Republic, October 19.

Rogers, Reuel. 2006. Afro-Caribbean Immigrants and the Politics of Incorporation:
Ethnicity, Exception, or Exit. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sands, D. 2006. “Nuclear Pact Unifies Indian American; Well-to-do Minority
‘Galvanized’ by Opportunity for Improved Ties.” The Washington Times, 9 April.

229
Saxenian, A. 2002 Local and Global Networks of Immigrants Professionals in Silicon
Valley. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

Schiller, N., Basch, L. and Blanc-Szanton, C. 1992 Towards a Transnational Perspective
on Migration: Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Nationalism Reconsidered. New York: New
York Academy of Sciences.

Schlesinger, A. 1992. The Disuniting of America. The Reflections on a Multicultural
Society. New York: W.W. Norton.

Shain, Y. 1999. Marketing the American Creed Abroad: Diasporas in the U.S. and their
Homelands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shukla, Sandhya .2003. India Abroad: Diasporic Cultures of Postwar America and
England. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Singh, Amardeep (for Human Rights Watch).2002. “We Are Not The Enemy: Hate
Crimes Against Arabs, Muslims, and those Perceived to be Arab or Muslim after
September 11.” New York: Human Rights Watch Publications.

Skerry, Peter.1993. Mexican Americans: An Ambivalent Minority. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Skocpol, Theda. 1999. “How Americans Became Civic.” In Civic Engagement in
American Democracy, edited by Theda Skocpol and Morris P. Fiorina. Washington D.C.
New York: Brookings Institution Press, Russell Sage Foundation.

Smith, Michael P. 1994. “Can you Imagine? Transnational Migration and the
Globalization of Grassroots Politics.” Social Text 39(Summer): 15-33

Smith, Robert. 2003 “Migrant Membership as an Instituted Process: Transnationalism,
the State and the Extraterritorial Conduct of Mexican Politics.” International Migration
Review 37(2) 297-343.

Smith, Robert, and Eduardo L. Guarnizo. 1998. Transnationalism from
Below:Communities Identities Unbound . New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.

Smith, Tony. 2000. Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of
American Foreign Policy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Sonenshein, Raphael J. 1993. Politics in Black and White: Race and Power in Los
Angeles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoglu. 1994. Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational
Membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
230

Takaki, Ronald.1989. Strangers from a Different Shore. A History of Asian Americans.
Boston: Little, Brown.

Tate. Katherine. 1994. From Protest to Politics: The New Black Voters in American
Elections. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Uhlaner, Carole J., Bruce Cain, and D. Roderick Kiewiet.1989. “Political Participation of
Ethnic Minorities in the 1980s.” Political Behavior 11(3): 195-231

Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality:
Civic Voluntarsim in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Vertovec, S. 1999. “Conceiving and Researching Transnationalism.” Ethnic and Racial
Studies 22(2): 447-462.

Visweswaran, Kamala.1997. “Diaspora by Design: Flexible Citizenship and South Asians
in U.S. Racial Formation.” Diaspora 6(1): 5-29

Vitello, Paul. 2007. “Mayor Symbolizes Indian-American’s Rise.” New York Times,
August 1.

Walters, Ronald W. 1988.Black Presidential Politics in America: A Strategic Approach.
Albany : State University of New York Press.

Watanbe, P. 1999. “Asian American Activism and U.S. Foreign Policy.” In Across the
Pacific: Asian Americans and Globalization, edited by Evelyn Hu-Dehart. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.

Waters, Mary. 1999. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American
Realities.Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Wattenberg, Martin P. 1994. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952- 1992,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wattenberg, Martin P. 2001. The Rise of Candidate-Centered Politics. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
.
Wong, Janelle. 2006. Democracy's Promise: Immigrants and American Civic Institutions.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.

231

Zhou, Min. 2004. “The Role of the Enclave Economy in Immigrant Adaptation and
Community Building: The Case of New York’s Chinatown.” in John Sibley Butler and
George Kozmetsky (eds.) Immigrant and Minority Entrepreneurship: Building American
Communities. Westport, CT: Praeger:

Reports:
“American Community Survey, 2006”
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/acs(Last Accessed August 6, 2007)

“American Community Survey, 2007”
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/acs-05.pdf (Last Accessed August 6, 2007).

America’s Disappeared .2004. American Civil Liberties Union. New York, NY
American Backlash: Terrorists Bring War Home in More Ways Than One.2001. South
Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow. Washington, DC.

Americans on Hold: Profiling, Citizenship, and the “War on Terror.” 2007. Center for Human
Rights and Global Justice, NYU School of law.
http://www.chrgj.org/docs/AOH/AmericansonHoldReport.pdf (Last accessed 6
August,2007)

Compendium on Policies, Incentives and Investment Opportunities for Overseas Indians
.2007. Overseas Indian Affairs, New Delhi

“Discrimination Against Muslims, Arabs, and South Asians in New York City Since
9/11.” 2003. New York City Commission on Human Rights, New York, NY.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/pdf/sur_report.pdf (Last Accessed August 18, 2008)

“Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States:
January 2006.” Department of Homeland Security .
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ill_pe_2006.pdf. (Last
Accessed September 15, 2008)

“Indian American Physicians and Hoteliers Lobby for n-deal.” 2006. India eNews
http://www.indiaenews.com/america/20060710/14274.htm (Last Accessed August 4,
2007).

“International Student Enrollment In U.S. Rebounds.” 2007. Institute of International
Education. http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=113743 ( Last Accessed August 15,
2008)

232
“Meet the National Coalition.” South Asian Americans Leading Together.
http://www.saalt.org/pages/Meet-the-National-Coalition.html ( Last Accessed November
18, 2008)

“National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2008.”
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html( Last Accessed July 5, 2008)

“Obama camp attacks Hillary's Indian links.” 2007. India Abroad
www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/15clinton.htm(Last Accessed July 5,2008)

“Obama Sorry for Hillary Memo.” 2007. Newser.
www.newser.com/story/3248/obama-sorry-for-hillary-memo.html( Last Accssed August
18 2008)

“Post-9/11 Survey.” 2002. USC Annenberg Institute of Justice and Journalism
http://www.ncmonline.com/media/pdf/911survey.pdf ( Last Accessed October 5, 2008)

“Report of High Level Committee on Indian Diaspora.”2002.
http://www.indiandiaspora.nic.in/contents.htm (Last Accessed August 10, 2007).

“Stop Funding Hate.”
http://stopfundinghate.org/ (Last Accessed July 18, 2007)

“The September 11
th
Detainees: A Review of the Treatment of Aliens Held on
immigration Charges in Connection with September 11
th
Attacks.” Office of Inspector
General Report, 2003.

World’s Apart: How Deporting Immigrants After 9/11 Tore Families Apart and Shattered
Communities. 2004. American Civil Liberties Union. New York, NY.

233
Appendix

Questionnaire for Community Leaders/Activists

Introductory questions

How long have been in the U.S.? How did you get involved with this organization?

One more follow up question if needed

Questions Pertaining the Country of Origin

Do you think South Asian immigrants maintain strong connection with their country of
origin?

Follow up

If yes, tell me some of the ways in which they maintain contact with the country of
origin?

Follow up

Do you think they maintain political contacts also. Do they get involved in politics of the
home country

If yes, what are the ways in which people get involved with the politics of home country?
Can you talk about some examples.

Why do think it is important for immigrants to maintain regular contact with the country
of origin?

Follow up

Some people argue that once immigrants settle in the U.S., they should not be involved
with the politics of their country of origin and try to be more involved with U.S. politics.
Do you think it is alright to be politically involved in the country of origin while living
here?

If yes, why? If not, why not?

Some people think that immigrants should gradually start reducing contact with their
country of origin as the time passes and they should gradually assimilate into the
American society and political process. Do you think it is important to reduce the
contact/interaction with the country of origin to become a part of this society?
234
Identity

Do you feel a sense of belonging to this country? What kind of attachments come to your
mind when you think of belonging to the U.S.?

Do you feel a sense of belonging to your (or your Parents’) country of origin. What kind
of attachments come to your mind when you think of India/Pak/Bangla.

Follow up

How do you deal with these two different attachments?

Do you feel close to other South Asian immigrants (the question to Indian immigrants:
Do you feel close to other South Asian immigrants like Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc).

Do you think there is an acceptability of South Asian identity among immigrants from
India, Pakistan Bangladesh or they still identify only as Indian, Pakistanis , and
Bangladeshis?

How much is religion an issue in shaping the relations among immigrants from India,
Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Do you think other people of South Asian origin face discrimination?

Follow Up

What kind of discrimination do they face? Can you talk about an example?

Have you experienced discrimination based on race, skin color, or language? Do you
think South Asian immigrants face racial discrimination in their every day life.

Do South Asian immigrants feel a sense of closeness or solidarity with other minority
ethnic/racial groups like Latinos, Asian Americans, African Americans. Hoe do they
view other racial groups.

Political and Civic Engagement in the U.S.

Do you think South Asian immigrants feel to be a part of the political process here in the
U.S. and do they participate adequately in the political process?

Follow up

What about nonelectoral political participation like becoming a member of a civic
organization, neighborhood organization, and faith based organization, ethnic
235
organizations, PTA, etc. Do you think South Asian immigrants participate in these
activities?

Do political parties or candidates running for public office try to mobilize South Asian
immigrants to vote, to donate money, or to become a part of the political process?

Follow up

If Yes, in what ways? Can you talk about some examples?
If not, why do you think it is so?

What are some of the barriers to political involvement of South Asian Immigrants in this
country?

Do you think South Asian immigrants participate in the political process through their
ethnic organizations?

Follow Up
If yes, what kind of activities do they get involved in through these immigrant
organizations.

What are the most important issues affecting South Asian immigrants in Los Angeles or
the U.S. in general?

How important do you think it is for South Asian immigrants to naturalize (to acquire
American Citizenship) in order to become part of the U.S. society?

Follow up

Does naturalization by South Asian immigrants lead to more political participation on the
part of immigrants?

Do you think that involvement with the politics of country of origin influences the ability
and inclination to engage with and participate in the U.S. politics?

Follow up
Tell me about some examples the ways in which this relationship works.
What role, if any, do immigrant organizations play in encouraging or facilitating political
participation?

Are you involved in or aware of any formal efforts to encourage political participation
among South Asian immigrants? Which organizations are involved in this effort in the
U.S.?

Follow up
236

Do you think South Asian immigrants are more oriented towards activities related to the
country of origin?

What kinds of activities does this organization get involved with?

Follow up

What kind of issues/activities related to India/Pakistan/Bangladesh do immigrant
organizations like yours get involved with?

Follow up

This question is about dual citizenship. India/Pakistan/Bangladesh has come up with
dual citizenship rights for people of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin settled abroad.
Do you think this is beneficial for immigrants, or you think immigrants should choose
citizenship of one country only?

About the Organization

What kind of resources or help do you get from other organizations in the U.S. that you
most frequently interact with as part of organizational activity?

Follow up

What kind of resources or help do you get from other organizations outside the U.S. that
you most frequently interact with as part of organizational activity

237

Questionnaire for Community Members

Introductory Question

How long have you been in the U.S.

How long have you lived in this City

Questions pertaining the Country of Origin

Do you maintain contact with India/Pakistan Bangladesh?

Some people think that immigrants start loosing contacts with their country of origin as
the time passes and that is how they gradually assimilate into the American society and
political process. Do you think it is important to maintain contact with the country of
origin? Why or why not?

Do you keep yourself equally aware of politics in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh and in the
U.S.?

Follow up
Do you think your attention to political events in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh keep you
away from paying full attention to the political events in the U.S.?

Do you get involved with politics back home?

If yes, Follow up.

Do you think that involvement with the politics of country of origin influences the ability
and inclination to engage with and participate in the U.S. politics?

If yes, in what ways? If not, why not?

Some people feel that immigrants can play an important role in economic advancement
and political change in their country of origin. Others feel that it is very difficult for
immigrants to make an impact on their country of origin and it keeps them away from
getting involved in the U.S. politics. Do you think that you can influence the social,
economic, or political life of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh and it is desirable to do so?

Follow up
238
Can you talk about the ways through which the social, economic, or political life in India
/Pakistan/ Bangladesh can be influenced by immigrants living in the U.S.?

Follow up
Tell me about some examples the ways in which this relationship works.

Identity
Do you feel a sense of belonging to this country? What kind of attachments come to your
mind when you think of belonging to the U.S.?

Do you feel a sense of belonging to your (or your Parents’) country of origin. What kind
of attachments come to your mind when you think of India/Pak/Bangla.

Follow up

When you think of yourself as an American, does it contradict with your identity as being
Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi? How do you reconcile the two?

Follow up
Do you think you can belong to both?

Do you feel close to other South Asian immigrants (the question to Indian immigrants:

Do you feel close to other South Asian immigrants like Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc).

Do you think there is an acceptability of South Asian identity among immigrants from
India, Pakistan Bangladesh or they still identify only as Indian, Pakistanis, and
Bangladeshis?

How much is religion an issue in shaping the relations among immigrants from India,
Pakistan and Bangladesh in the U.S.

Do you think people of South Asian origin face discrimination in everyday life.?

Follow Up

What kind of discrimination do they face? Can you talk about an example?

Have you or any of your friend of South Asian origin experienced discrimination based
on race, skin color, or language?

Do South Asian immigrants feel a sense of closeness or solidarity with other minority
ethnic/racial groups like Latinos and African Americans.

Do you think they feel a sense of closeness to other Asian Americans?
239

Political and Civic Engagement in the U.S.

Do you feel to be a part of the political process here in the U.S. and do you think you
participate adequately in the political process?

Follow up

Why or why not?

What about nonelectoral political participation like becoming a member of a civic
organization, neighborhood organization, and faith based organization, ethnic
organizations, PTA, etc. Do you participate in these activities?

Do political parties, other organizations or candidates running for public office try to
mobilize South Asian immigrants to vote, to donate money, or to become a part of the
political process?

Follow up

If Yes, in what ways? Can you talk about some examples?
If not, why do you think it is so?

Do you feel to be a part of the U.S. political system or you feel marginal to it?

Through what acts and activities do you feel to be a part of the U.S. political system? Is it
through voting, participation civic activities, being active in PTAs, Participating in
neighborhood organizations, or through participation in an ethnic organization?

What are some of the barriers to political involvement of South Asian immigrants(or
Indian/Pakistani/ Bangladeshi) in this country?

Do you think the ethnic organizations (Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi immigrant
organization) encourage political participation in the U.S. ?

Follow Up
If yes, what kind of activities do they get involved in through these immigrant
organizations.

What are the most important issues affecting South Asian immigrants in Los Angeles or
the U.S. in general?

How important do you think it is for a South Asian immigrant to naturalize (to acquire
American Citizenship) in order to become part of the U.S. society?

240
Follow up

Does naturalization by South Asian immigrants lead to more political participation on the
part of immigrants?

Follow up

This question is about dual citizenship. India/Pakistan/Bangladesh has come up with
dual citizenship rights for people of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin settled abroad.
Do you think this is beneficial for immigrants, or you think immigrants should choose
citizenship of one country only?

What are the most important issues affecting South Asian immigrants in Los Angeles and
the U.S.?

Do you think immigrants have a voice/representation in local politics?

Follow up

What about South Asian immigrants? Do you think they have a voice or representation
in local or national politics adequately?

Follow up

Does your exposure of the political process and political institutions in the country of
origin helps or hinders the ways in which you relate to the political system in the U.S.?

There are many people who keep themselves involved in the politics of
India/Pakistan/Bangladesh even after moving to the U.S.? Do you think it is alright to be
politically involved in the country of origin while living here?

Follow up

Some people argue that too much involvement with the country of origin stops an
immigrant from getting involved in the political process of the U.S. Do you think that
involvement with the politics of country of origin negatively influences the ability and
inclination to engage with and participate in the U.S. politics?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Egalitarianism begins at home and in cohorts: egalitarianism in United States public opinion, 1952-2000

PDF

The Supreme Court and the governing regime in political time

PDF

Health care for all? Anti-Latino and anti-immigrant attitudes, health care policy, and the Latino community

PDF

State variations in linguistic competency policies and the effects on immigrant access to health services

PDF

The role of skin tone on candidate evaluation: an analysis of racial socialization among Latino immigrants

PDF

Outsourcing for school outcomes: a multi-case study examination of outsourced and in-house literacy coaching models

PDF

The fabled fourth estate: media freedom, democracy and human rights

PDF

Argentina's economic crisis in 2001 and the International Monetary Fund

PDF

Fictions of representation: narrative and the politics of self-making in the interwar American novel

PDF

Immigrants and Los Angeles labor unions: negotiating empowerment, politics, and citizenship

PDF

Inter-generational tranfsers and bargaining power within the family in South Korea

PDF

Political connections and access to bond capital: Reputation or collusion?

PDF

Property and democracy: authority in four American property-rights regimes

PDF

Transnational (after)life: migrant transnationalism and engagement in U.S. and Mexican politics

PDF

Connected: information and state power between the United States and South Africa

PDF

Multiracial politics or the politics of being multiracial?: Racial theory, civic engagement, and socio-political participation in a contemporary society

PDF

Suburban Political Behavior In Los Angeles County, California

PDF

The life of a text: Bertolt Brecht's Three Penny Opera. Studies in literary and cultural transfer

PDF

Private school choice at the state level: diversity and success

PDF

Art and politics in the Russian satirical press, 1905-1908

Asset Metadata

Creator Mishra, Sangay K. (author)

Core Title Political incorporation and transnationalism: a study of South Asian immigrants in the United States

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Political Science

Publication Date 08/10/2009

Defense Date 05/12/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Asian American,discrimination post-9/11,Indian immigrants,OAI-PMH Harvest,political incorporation,South Asian,transnationalism

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Crigler, Ann (committee chair), Musso, Juliet (committee member), Wong, Janelle S. (committee member)

Creator Email skm@usc.edu,smishra@drew.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2526

Unique identifier UC1433204

Identifier etd-Mishra-3173 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-187467 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2526 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Mishra-3173.pdf

Dmrecord 187467

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mishra, Sangay K.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu