Indian Americans or just Americans NAAD Feb 2021

Indian Americans or just Americans NAAD Feb 2021

Indian Americans or just Americans NAAD Feb 2021

          Since the swearing in of the Biden administration in the US, there has been a spate of discussion in Indian media on the number of Americans, with Indian descent or connections with India, who form part of the team. Apart from Kamala Devi Harris, who is the Vice President, reports state that 20 members of the team have an Indian connect. In addition, reports have stated that a few members were not accepted because of their links to the RSS/BJP. The fact is that these individuals have been selected on account of their hard work and qualifications obtained in the US, rather than on their links with India. It is also unlikely that they have been nominated to maintain a balance between communities within the US.

          While we as Indians need to be proud of the numbers which are part of the current US administration, it would not be fair to expect them to be either favourable to India or to term them as Indian Americans. They are first and foremost American citizens, who have sworn allegiance to the American constitution, seek to further American interests and are concerned about the well-being of Americans and not Indians. Many would-be second-generation Americans or would have entered the country when young. For them, India is like any other nation, whose policies they would have to consider in comparison to US interests and policies. Most do not desire to be even termed as Indian Americans, but simply Americans as their roots with India are limited.

          Indian origin members have formed part of many governments around the globe, whether it be US, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland or the UK. Countries have nominated Indian origin citizens as their High Commissioners or Ambassadors to India, seeking to display an Indian connect. Indian origin senators or members of parliament have even been elected from constituencies which may not have a large Indian diaspora, displaying their local connect. Many Indian origin representatives have claimed Indian roots, but their loyalty has always remained of the nation whose citizenship they have taken and who interests they have sworn to protect. 

They may possess a better understanding of Indian culture, its politics and security concerns, but these would be exploited to further interests of the government they currently serve. In many instances, they have been the strongest critics of India. In addition, they are themselves concerned on how their own public views them as they handle issues which concern India. Further, if as members of parliament, they represent regions with a Muslim majority vote bank, they are Indian critics solely to secure their own seat of power. In other cases, they are expected to raise issues which flow from internal situations in India, only because at some stage they had an India connect. Thus, in most cases Indian origin policy makers remain more critical of India, solely to prove that they have discarded Indian roots.

For the government to expect any special understanding of India from them would be just fantasy. They have always felt that since having attained positions of influence in another country they have the power to criticize Indian decisions, not from the aspect of logic but from the fact that they understand Indian culture and political decision making better. Criticism against abrogation of Article 370 commenced from Indian origin lawmakers while supporting the farmer agitation was led by Sikh lawmakers in Canada and UK. In Canada, many Sikh lawmakers are even known to have Khalistan links.

The surprising part is that once it is proved that the Indian decision, which they once criticized, was correct, none have come forward and withdrawn their criticism. This was evident with the restoration of normalcy in Kashmir post abrogation of article 370 and the successful conduct of DDC elections. None of the critics of abrogation of article 370, commented on restoration of democracy in the region. Evidently, criticism provides more media coverage and praise none. 

On occasions, the Indian government has honoured Indian origin prominent global personalities with visits to their hometowns as a display of bonhomie, however these remain just photo-ops. They have rarely displayed any change in outlook despite such honours. It has promised the same to Kamala Harris on her first visit to India.

Such anti-roots display is not the case with India alone, but a global phenomenon. India has largely ignored such criticism or occasionally stated that it remains India’s internal matters. The foreign minister, Dr S Jaishankar cancelled his interaction with the US Foreign Affairs committee on account of the presence of an Indian origin member, Pramila Jayapal, who had been criticizing India on abrogation of article 370. India, on the other hand, has never discussed or commented on matters pertaining to other nations in public. This has led to nations pushing above their weight when it comes to criticizing India.

India should thus consider the following. Firstly, stop using the term Indian Americans or similar words with Indian origin members anywhere globally. They are just citizens of the country of their residence and should be considered so. Secondly, never expect any global politician or member of government with Indian roots to display any difference in approach towards India. Thirdly, India must stop honouring global politicians with Indian roots with visits to their hometowns. If they desire such visits, it should be considered private visits. Finally, Indian foreign policy must commence commenting on internal decisions in countries whose representatives comment on Indian matters.