Asian American Study Short Paper

http://abs.sagepub.com/ American Behavioral Scientist

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/50/1/118 The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0002764206289657

2006 50: 118American Behavioral Scientist Vibha Bhalla

The New Indians : Reconstructing Indian Identity in the United States

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:American Behavioral ScientistAdditional services and information for

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/50/1/118.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Aug 28, 2006Version of Record >>

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

118

Author’s Note: I would like to acknowledge Simboonath Singh, Rob Buffington, and Caroline Brettell for their help with this article.

American Behavioral Scientist Volume 50 Number 1

September 2006 118-136 © 2006 Sage Publications

10.1177/0002764206289657 http://abs.sagepub.com

hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

The New Indians Reconstructing Indian Identity in the United States Vibha Bhalla Bowling Green State University

This article looks at the processes of identity formation among Indian immigrants in the United States in the decade of the 1970s. Using letters to the editor of the expatri- ate Indian newspaper India Abroad, the article draws attention to two themes of iden- tity formation. The first theme focuses on Indian immigrants’ attempts at forming a pan-Indian identity in the United States that was markedly different from India; this identity excluded ethnic, religious, or caste affiliations. Although this attempt failed, Indian immigrants were successful in formulating a religious pan-Indian identity. The second theme draws attention to discourse among the Indian community regarding becoming a racial/ethnic minority in the United States.

Keywords: Asian Indian; ethnic identity; race/racialization; minority status

In December 1978, a reader’s letter titled “Where Have All the Indians Gone?”appeared in India Abroad, the first newspaper of the expatriate Indian immigrant community in the United States (Biswas, 1978, p. 2). Written by an Indian immi- grant to the United States, the letter paints an abysmal picture of India in the decade of the 1970s. India’s ethnic and religious identities, Biswas (1978) noted, were undermining its political unity; Biswas wrote of “a strange divisive atmosphere all over the country—something sharply corrosive, destroying national unity, if there is any. In different parts of India, a strange conflict of identity seems to exist” (p. 2).1

Given the tensions between ethnic and national identities in independent India, Biswas raised two questions: “What actually makes us ‘Indians’ and do we really have a definite national and cultural identity which can be called Indian?” (p. 2). These questions, Biswas surmised, were of immense magnitude for not only Indians in India but also the Indian immigrant community in the United States, because she noticed the continuation of regional and ethnic affinities among Indian immigrants in the United States. As evidence, her letter points to the proliferation of ethnic asso- ciations among Indian immigrants. Biswas further highlighted the importance of these questions in relation to the dissemination of Indian identity among the second

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bhalla / The New Indians 119

generation of Indians growing up in the United States: “The Indian children in America will soon face issues such as: Who are they? What ‘kind’ of Indian are they?” (p. 2). Indian immigrants in the United States needed to delineate their iden- tity to reproduce it to their children.

Biswas’s (1978) introspective commentary resulted in a series of letters from the readers of India Abroad who were unanimous in their condemnation of India’s eth- nic divisions and who revealed a desire to construct an Indian identity in the United States distinct from that of Indians in their homeland. This new identity was to be national in scope and bereft of divisive ethnic and religious tensions that had plagued India since its independence. Immigrants’ attempts at reconfiguring Indian identity suggest an understanding, first, that identity is fluid and, hence, can be constructed anew and second, that migration allows Indians to reinvent themselves in the United States. Furthermore, these letters are indicators that Indian immigrants considered themselves as agents of change and as such, were engaging the Indian immigrant community on the issue through the pages of the Indian immigrant press.2 The let- ters’ authors particularly believed that the socioeconomic characteristics of the Indian immigrant community, especially its highly educated nature, allowed them a deeper understanding of India’s problems. As enlightened Indians, they wished to create an Indian community outside India without any of its fissiparous tendencies.

The attempts by Indian immigrants to carve out a new identity are not unique; identity, as we know, is socially constructed. Joane Nagel (1994) has argued that ethnic/group identity formation is a dialectical process and reflects the collective actions of a group’s members and its organizations. Identity and culture, Nagel argued, are the “building blocks of ethnicity” because they provide the boundaries of an ethnic group, as well as assign them a meaning. Consequently, language, reli- gion, culture, ancestry, and regionalism all influence the emergence of identity. Furthermore, Nagel argued that ethnic identity is “politically constructed”; formal ethnic labels or official ethnic categories in the host society play a pivotal role in shaping ethnic boundaries. Consequently, at any given time, a member of an ethnic group can have multiple identities in a process Nagel termed “layering.”

This article examines the processes of identity formation within the immigrant Indian community in the United States during the early phase of settlement (i.e., from 1972 to 1982).3 Using a sampling of letters to the editor of an immigrant news- paper, India Abroad, I draw attention to the active participation of Indian immigrants in the invention of a new Indian identity in the United States. These letters to the edi- tor are central to understanding how a new immigrant group produced its identity. They permit us to explore the salient factors that motivated the construction of iden- tity and the way these factors worked. Understanding the meanings that early immi- grants assigned to their identity is important because these meanings eventually shape the transformation of Indians from immigrants to a self-identified ethnic group in the United States. Furthermore, I argue that this early period, especially the decade of the 1970s—approximately 10 to 15 years after the commencement of

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Indian migration—represents the formative phase in the settlement of the Indian community as Indian immigrants demonstrated signs of moving from sojourners to settlers. Although the letters to the editor during this period depict numerous themes related to issues of identity, this article emphasizes two themes.4 The first theme focuses on immigrants’ attempts to establish a pan-Indian identity in the United States. The second emphasizes Indian immigrants’ attempts to situate themselves within the prevalent racial/ethnic categories in the United States and portrays their struggle in grappling with the question concerning whether they were Caucasians, “Others,” or Asian Americans. The pan-Indian identity had two components. It began with immigrants’ attempts to assign their identity a political meaning and con- struct an Indian community without regional, religious, and caste identities. Letters showcase, however, that by the end of the 1970s, this attempt had failed because many immigrants argued for a need for the continuation of ethnic identities in view of the fact that they provided cultural meaning to their identities. Nevertheless, by the end of this decade, another form of pan-Indian identity took shape that was reli- gious in nature. The parameters of this new Indian identity emerged from a need to disseminate Indian culture to the second generation, as well as a desire to create dis- tinct cultural boundaries from the mainstream American culture. The new Indian cul- tural identity increasingly took religious overtones and became intertwined with Hindu identity. Hinduism, the religion of the majority of the immigrants, permitted immigrants a shared identity. Moreover, I argue that Indian immigrants’ attempts at situating themselves within the prevalent racial/ethnic categories demonstrate their racialization in the United States and emphasize their transformation from predom- inantly educated and high caste/class Indians to a minority in the United States. Collectively, these themes identify the emergence of layering among Indian immi- grants; at any given time, Indians were simultaneously becoming members of an ethnic group, a national group, a religious group, and a racial/ethnic group.

Large-scale Indian migration to the United States began with the passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 (Reimers, 1985).5 The act primarily aimed to unify immigrant families. In the absence of a substantial Indian population in the pre-1965 era, Indians used the labor certification clause of this act to migrate to the United States. The consequent migration selectivity resulted in the settlement of a highly educated and professional Indian community (Khadria, 1999). Many of the early immigrants were students who were already in the United States for the purpose of obtaining a higher education.6 Despite their recent migration, their edu- cational and professional characteristics catapulted Indian immigrants into an immi- grant group with high median and mean incomes (Helweg & Helweg, 1990; Khandelwal, 2002; Leonard, 1997; Portes & Rumbaut, 1996; Rangaswamy, 2000). Indian immigrants became highly conscious of this positioning and constantly referred to it in their letters as they attempted to bring about changes within the Indian community in the United States. As highly educated professionals, they were seeking to form a new ideal, modern India in the United States.

120 American Behavioral Scientist

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bhalla / The New Indians 121

India Abroad was the first newspaper of the Indian immigrant community in the United States. It commenced publication from New York City in 1970, 5 years after the passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. It began as a monthly newspaper, became a fortnightly in 1972, and then became a weekly in 1973. The primary purpose of the newspaper was to provide the growing Indian immigrant community in the United States with news of India. However, as the Indian settle- ment became permanent, the paper’s contents began to change to incorporate issues pertinent to the Indian community in the United States. Readers began voicing their problems of settlement through letters to the editor or in the readers’ “commentary” column, which allowed Indians to write on any issue relevant to Indian immigrants. It is in these pages that issues of Indian identity emerged in the decade of the 1970s as readers suggested ways to create Indian identity. At certain times, readers’ letters transform India Abroad’s letters to the editor page into a forum where readers voiced their thoughts and debated pertinent issues; and it was in these pages that Indians periodically debated the meaning of Indianness.7

Forging an Indian Identity

Biswas’s (1978) commentary on India’s ethnic diversity and its divisive tenden- cies in India and the United States does not represent the first time a reader of India Abroad raised this issue. As early as 1973, a reader wrote about the emergence of ethnic groupings among the small Indian population in the United States and the resulting lack of interactions among them. This lack of communication, Chandrashekhar (1973) stated, affected the workings of Indian organizations: “North Indians are of the opinion that the South Indians do not take active interest in the activities. South Indians think that the Associations are dominated by the North Indians” (p. 2). In addressing this letter to the Indian community, Chandrashekhar attempted to find solutions to this problem in order to establish a strong national organization of Indian immigrants.

In a similar vein, a letter by Ramdass (1975) bemoans Indian immigrants’ inabil- ity to overcome their ethnic affiliations in the United States: “Someone recently told me that India is not a nation of many states, but a state of many nations. . . . It is agonizing to note that even after twenty-seven years of independence and self-rule we are still not thinking of ourselves as a whole” (p. 3). The author’s criticism once again stemmed from a desire to form a strong pan-Indian organization in the United States, an effort he felt was being undermined by ethnic Indian organizations. Chiding his immigrant counterparts, Ramdass implored the community to rethink their actions:

If we the so-called educated people, who have migrated to an advanced and civilized nation, continue to harbor the wish to identify ourselves in such narrow and discrimi- nate levels, I see little hope for us and those we left behind. (p. 3)

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

122 American Behavioral Scientist

Ramdass’s letter represents the first linking of the creation of a panethnic identity to the educated nature of Indian immigrants and hypothesizes the feasibility of edu- cated Indians overcoming their ethnic affiliations in the United States. The letter also situates Ramdass as a first-generation Indian who grew up in independent India; as such, he was demonstrating his affiliation with the new Indian national identity over “caste, religious, and ethno-linguistic identities.” Another reader demonstrated similar sentiments:

It would be ideal if we form one association of all Indians abroad instead of forming a hundred different associations counting the states. By doing so we cannot achieve much, but if all Indians gathered under one banner there could be more power, under- standing, unity and prosperity. (Fernandes, 1975, p. 3)

Other such letters continued to be published in India Abroad throughout the decade of the 1970s. This discussion among Indian immigrants regarding their iden- tity formation primarily focuses on the first generation of immigrants and responds to conditions of their homeland. The discourse is primarily political in nature and lim- ited to the creation of a pan-Indian organization of immigrants with the aim of estab- lishing an ideal Indian community in the United States, a community without caste, religious, and ethnic tendencies. It demonstrates a belief that India’s ethnic groups were inherently divisive and consequently, that the existence of ethnic organizations undermined any effort to create a unified Indian identity. This discourse, however, is rooted in India and reflects Indian immigrants’ attempts at resolving problems ger- mane to India. The exclusively political nature of this discourse fails to reconcile the cultural aspects of ethnic identities with a national identity. Ethnic and religious iden- tities shaped Indians’ daily lives and their belief system, including their language, food, and even their preferences in music and dance. Consequently, by the late 1970s, readers’ letters began justifying their membership in ethnic organizations. Readers suggested the need for a multitier organizational structure, which would allow Indians to be members of their ethnic association as well as a national Indian association. Ethnic associations, one reader argued, were not undermining the national organiza- tion but instead, merely fulfilling the cultural and religious needs of the Indian immi- grants: “I wish to say that very often people join such organizations, not with any chauvinistic or separatist intentions, but only to share with others of a similar incli- nations or background, events of interest only to them” (Shankar, 1977, p. 10).

Biswas (1978) moved this debate forward and situated it within the context of its dissemination among the second-generation Indians. If Indians were going to con- struct a pan-Indian identity, it was essential to define such an identity’s characteris- tics and the ways to encompass India’s diverse ethnic traditions. Along with Biswas, other Indian immigrants were pondering on the definition of Indian cultural identity.

The discourse began with parents’ complaints that their children were growing up ignorant of Indian culture and about their inability to impart Indian culture to their children in a sustained way. Pointing to this need, Bhalla (1977) wrote,

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bhalla / The New Indians 123

Most children here are growing up speaking only English, with the same ill-informed attitude about India as most Americans have. Unless we want our next generation to commit cultural hara-kiri by not having any pride in our heritage and love for India and the right Indian values, we had better start a school. (p. 16)

To counter this problem, Bhalla suggested opening an Indian boarding school for the children of Indian immigrants, either in the United States or in India. Although this letter focuses on the need to impart the language and the value system of India, a majority of the readers rarely discussed the language issue and instead, strongly sup- ported the desire to pass on Indian heritage and values to their children and demon- strated their preference for the Sunday school format. Readers expressed a general desire to impart “instruction in Indian culture, language, history and so on” (Kumar, 1977), as well as the knowledge of “Indian philosophy” (Shukla, 1977).

The need to propagate Indian culture to the second generation was prompted largely by a desire to establish cultural boundaries of Indianness that separate it from the dom- inant American culture. Readers’ strong dislike of U.S. sociocultural trends, and their desire to prevent their children from becoming American, strongly shaped the contours of Indian values and culture. Pointing to this, Bhalla (1977) wrote, “The melting pot concept has come to be generally discredited these days. And I, for one, would rather not have my children ‘melt’ completely” (p. 16). Not only were Indian values defined in sharp contrast to American values but also letters reveal Indian immigrants’ reasons for not melting: American society was described as a depraved society “going astray,” whereas Indian values were depicted as the right “moral values” (Sachdev, 1977).

Negative stereotypes of the dominant cultural trends, and parents’ fears of the teen culture, especially the practice of dating, resulted in a new focus on the conduct of the youngsters. American youngsters especially were portrayed as sex- and drug-crazed individuals who did not care for their families. Commenting on this, one reader wrote,

Would it be possible for any Indian, even those who themselves fully Americanized, to let their sons and daughters engage in pre-marital sex at the age of 15 years under the guise of dating? This is bound to happen unless our children are tutored in the moral obligations of the Indian culture which prohibits pre-marital dating. (Sachdev, 1977, p. 14)

Moreover, in their ethnocentric worldview, Indians viewed American families as devoid of family values considered sacrosanct by Indians. Children, in the hierar- chical Indian family structure, particularly the sons, carry special responsibilities of taking care of their parents in old age. The fear of old age without children furthered a desire to stay away from American family traditions where children were seen as absent from their parents’ lives. Expressing this fear, a reader wrote,

Would it be possible for us to live without the love and care of our children when we grow old, when we will be like millions of other aged Americans, neither alive nor dead but just marking days, hours and minutes? The very thought of this is frightening. (Sachdev, 1977, p. 14)

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

124 American Behavioral Scientist

Although the majority of the letters support the creation of an Indian school or a Sunday school run by Indian temples to impart Indian culture and values, there were voices of dissent. A few readers objected to the creation of a separate and distinct Indian identity in the United States and argued that education based solely on Indian values and culture amounted to creating separate islands in the United States, stating that it also implied a strong desire not to assimilate into the mainstream American society. Commenting on this, Vasudev (1977) wrote,

Considering that many of us are here for good, is American education all that bad? What is so sacrosanct about Indian values and subjects? Is the author suggesting that Indians should bring up their children in watertight compartment, away from the main- stream of American life? (p. 10)

Objecting to the creation of a rigid definition of Indian culture, Vasudev’s letter points to the dynamism of Indian culture and draws attention to the historical con- struction of Indian culture; Indian culture, she emphasized, had constant interactions with different cultures, especially during the Middle Ages, with regular invasions and interactions from Central and West Asia. Vasudev wrote, “Indians represent unity in diversity. Many rivers have merged in the ocean that is India, but Indians still retain their basic characteristics. Are the heirs to such a magnificent richness now haunted by a melting pot called America?” (p. 10). Moreover, Vasudev questioned other readers regarding the nature of Indian values: “What are the ‘Indian’ subjects and ‘values’ Bhalla wants our children to learn?” (p. 10). However, a large majority of readers heavily criticized Vasudev’s viewpoints.

The language of the letters increasingly indicate that the process of reinvention of Indian culture points to the propagation of a traditional Hindu Vedic culture that was static and had not changed with time. Indian culture as it was being constructed was increasingly becoming religious in nature. Indian identity was being juxtaposed in many ways with Hindu identity and began adopting behavioral traits as part of Indian culture.

Although the letters never openly specify it, the behavioral aspects of Indian cul- tural values carried gendered meaning, especially for women. Monisha Das Gupta (1997) and Prema Kurien (1999) have argued that the first generation of Indian immigrants selectively reproduced Indian culture and recreated new gendered hier- archies. Das Gupta and Kurien both argued that the new identity reproduction, based on glorifying Vedic Hindu culture, had a profound effect on the lives of Indian women. It assigned new roles of cultural reproduction to the first generation of Indian women and constrained the lives of Indian women, especially in relation to their mobility and their sexuality.

Moreover, these letters reveal the beginning of institutionalization of the instruc- tion of cultural practices from individual families to the larger community and its institutions. This shift was based primarily in the inability of families to counter the all-pervasive effects of the dominant American culture on their children through

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

schools and the popular media. Community institutions, especially temples, readers believed, could counter the pulls of the dominant culture. In addition, letters reveal the emergence of a new trend of dual-income Indian families in the United States, which further limited families’ ability to pass on Indian cultural values. Noticing this, Bhalla’s (1977) letter states that “there is certainly a responsibility on parents to inculcate such values and teach their kids their mother tongue, but all too many of us first-generation immigrants have both parents working to make a fair living” (p. 16). The presence of a large number of highly educated, professional women in the Indian immigrant population partly accounted for this new phenomenon; in addi- tion, the new economic realities forced women to seek employment. Consequently, Indian ethnic and religious associations emerged as the new centers imparting Indian culture. The construction of temples across the United States in the decade of the 1970s reflected this new need. They were seen as not only fulfilling the religious needs of the community but also becoming the cultural centers, a fact noticed in other debates in India Abroad on the construction of Indian temples. Pointing to this, Grover (1978) wrote, “A temple is not merely a place of worship but also a social and cultural center, a symbol of our rich heritage” (p. 14). The literature on Indian immigrants in the United States concurs with this viewpoint (Brettell, 2005; Helweg & Helweg, 1990; Khandelwal, 2002; Kurien, 1999; Lessinger, 1995; Rangaswamy, 2000; Rayaprol, 1997).

These two discourses in the decade of the 1970s chart the construction of Indian identity and reflect an enormous difference in the meaning and understanding of the word Indian. The decade began with the creation of a pan-Indian national identity that represented the new, the modern, and the cosmopolitan Indians who were will- ing to overlook their ethnic identities and form a new unifying national identity. The decade ended with a pan-Indian identity that looked to recreating traditional India and emphasized the Hindu identity to establish boundaries from the mainstream American culture. The first was rooted in India, whereas the second was rooted in the current needs of Indian families in the United States. The first discourse con- stantly emphasized the educated and the progressive character of the Indian immi- grant population in the United States, whereas the second rarely used it. By the end of the decade, the letters to the editor reveal the existence of a process of layering; Indians were beginning to express their ethnic, religious, and national identities.

Forging a Racial/Ethnic Identity

In the decade of the 1970s, along with constructing the meaning and boundaries of what it meant to be Indian, Indian immigrants were trying to situate themselves in relation to American racial/ethnic groups. Nagel (1994) has argued that external forces in the host society, especially the policies of the state, play a vital role in the creation of group identities. In the United States, since the passage of the Civil

Bhalla / The New Indians 125

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. population has been classified in racial/ethnic groups. The Federal Interagency Commission, an ad hoc committee on racial and ethnic def- initions, classified Americans under five categories: (a) Black, not of Hispanic ori- gin; (b) Hispanic; (c) Asian or Pacific Islander; (d) American Indian or Alaskan Native; and (e) Caucasian/White. As new immigrants, Indians needed to be placed in one of the above categories. In 1974, the commission classified Indian immigrants as Caucasians. Along with the people of the Indian subcontinent, the category included people who traced their ancestry to Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East (Sahgal, 1976a). This classification, however, was not crystal clear because the Bureau of the Census classified Indian immigrants as Others. Moreover, according to the 1923 Supreme Court case Thind v. United States, Indians are not White (for abridged versions of the decision, see Gjerde, 1998, pp. 288-290; Nakanishi & Lai, 2003, pp. 41-45). In this landmark case, the Supreme Court denied an Indian immi- grant, Bhagat Singh Thind, the right to become a U.S. citizen because he was not “White.” In denying the motion, the Court categorically stated that despite anthro- pologically being classified as Caucasian, popular perception did not consider Indians as White. This case, as Ian Haney-Lopez (1998) has argued, moved the dis- course on race away from the then prevalent principle of using science as a founda- tion for construction of racial categories and reverted to using popular perceptions in declaring racial categories. Racial classifications in the early part of the 20th century were highly significant because benefits of citizenship depended on race, and the Thind verdict denied Indians the right to naturalize.

The nuances of race and ethnicity in the decade of the 1970s, however, were markedly different because race did not matter in immigrants’ acquisition of citi- zenship or any rights whatsoever. However, since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, membership in a minority group brought benefits and resource allocation through the state. As Caucasians/Whites, Indian immigrants could not take advan- tage of the affirmative action programs directed to minorities.

The process of becoming an ethnic minority began in 1974 soon after the classi- fication of Indian immigrants as Caucasians. An Indian organization, the Association of Indians in America (AIA), began organizing Indian immigrants against this move and by 1976, formally petitioned the Federal Interagency Commission for reclassi- fication of Indian immigrants from the Caucasian category to the Asian/Pacific Islander category. The AIA also sought a separate enumeration in the 1980 census of Indian immigrants as “Asian Indians” (Sahgal, 1976b).

To support the reclassification of Indians from a majority to a minority group, the AIA put forth multiple arguments. Dr. Dutta (1976), AIA’s president, argued that although Indians were classified as Caucasians, not all Indians appeared to be White; hence, they faced or could face discrimination at work. Consequently, minority status was needed to attain Indian immigrants’ struggle for “equal opportunity.” Moreover, the AIA contended that geographically, India was located in Asia; therefore, it was natural for Indian immigrants to become Asian Americans, especially because

126 American Behavioral Scientist

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bhalla / The New Indians 127

immigrants from other Asian nations were categorized as Asian Americans. Furthermore, being classified as Caucasians had resulted in their exclusion from many government-sponsored events for Asians; the immediate evidence of this was the exclusion of Indian physicians from a conference on the health needs of Asian Americans.

In September 1976, people from the Indian subcontinent were reclassified from the majority White/Caucasian category to the minority Asian/Pacific Islander cate- gory. Indian immigrants were now eligible for preferential treatment in employment and housing and also became eligible to file suit for discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Sahgal, 1976b). Subsequently, in 1982, another Indian organiza- tion, the National Association of Americans of Asian Indian Descent, successfully petitioned the Small Business Association to declare Indian immigrants a minority for the purposes of awarding government contracts. As a result of being classified a minority, Indian immigrants could accrue the benefits of becoming a minority. It is interesting to note that Dutta (1976) did not refer to the economic benefits of becom- ing a minority. Yet in 1982, Dr. Jan Pillai, president of the National Association of Americans of Asian Indian Descent, highlighted this economic aspect; being classi- fied as a minority by the Small Business Act would allow Indian companies and businesspeople to garner US$200 million dollars in contracts through loans and management and technical assistance (Hudson & Lewis, 1982).

The AIA’s attempts at seeking a minority status for Indian immigrants sharply divided the Indian community and probably resulted in the maximum number of let- ters on any single theme in the India Abroad. Readers were extremely passionate in voicing their opinions and tried to influence others to accept their viewpoints. The debate not only pitted Indian immigrants against each other but also created a schism between two of the largest Indian organizations, the AIA and the India League of America, against each other because the India League of America opposed this change in racial classification. The AIA and the India League of America had a sig- nificant membership base on the East Coast (New York, New Jersey region) and in the Midwest (Chicago), respectively. Deliberations on this issue appeared twice—in 1976 to 1977, when the petition for minority status was submitted and accepted, and then again in 1982, when the Small Businesses Association classified Indians as a minority for the purpose of availing government contracts.

The debate on becoming Asian Americans specifically highlighted the issue of workplace discrimination and brought to relief the issue of race. Those who sup- ported this move emphasized that despite their educational and professional charac- teristics, Indians faced constant discrimination in the workplace; discrimination, they argued, was based on their being different. “I feel that most Indians in this coun- try do not get a fair share, and have to pay a price for being different,” stated Bhalla (1982, p. 16), without specifying the nature of this difference. Other readers, how- ever, attributed a racial twist to this difference and complained that Indians were being discriminated against because of being “dark-complexioned immigrants” (Chatterjee, 1982, p. 16; Sharma, 1976, p. 16) Race-based discrimination, readers

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

128 American Behavioral Scientist

noted, also affected their upward mobility: “The so-called ‘corporate ladder’ recog- nizes genius in a certain group without college degrees, and yet somehow its vision is colored when it comes to rewarding highly qualified individuals who are supposedly Caucasian” (Agrawal, 1976, p. 10) Readers suggested that despite being categorized as White, their treatment at work was a result of being perceived as non-White.

Others who supported the minority classification argued that discrimination was subtle and hard to prove; in addition, the high economic costs of hiring lawyers and the intricacies of the court processes further dissuaded many from seeking justice. Furthermore, readers argued that as new immigrants, Indians suffered from an “immigrant disadvantage” and an “immigrant state of mind” and did not know ways to address these problems and, thus, endured in silence (Ramanathan, 1976, p. 10). An isolated letter views minority status as a tool to preserve Indian identity and values (Ramanathan, 1976, p. 10).

Responding to those who opposed this change in classification, readers argued that minority status was not a derogatory term and Indians should not be ashamed of it. Becoming a minority simply recognized the existence of discrimination, and even White women, noted a reader, were considered a minority. Others compared Indian immigrant experiences to those of the Japanese, the Koreans, and the Chinese immi- grants. These immigrant groups, one reader stated, had socioeconomic characteris- tics similar to that of the Indian immigrants, but they were considered a minority and did not oppose their racial classification (Chaudhari, 1982, p. 16). In a similar man- ner, another reader argued,

Being denied employment or promotion or being laid off work on discriminatory grounds raises the issue of survival and self-respect for a large majority of Indian immi- grants. The question of striving for higher goals will not arise for those who become victims of discrimination. (Dalal, 1977, p. 10)

In another letter, Chatterjee (1982) stated, “Many of us believe that we deserve a lot more and have to struggle to make ourselves a well known business community” (p. 16), without qualifying the nature of this struggle.

It is interesting that letters identify the existence of a belief among many Indians that there was a relationship between becoming a minority and securing their future in tough economic times. In times of economic downturn, readers believed that minority status provided an insurance against firing. The economic recession of the 1970s resulted in loss of jobs for many Indian immigrants, especially in New York City and the New Jersey area (Madan, 1977, p. 12; Saran, 1977, p. 12). In this regard, one reader wrote, “In many instances Indian engineers are the first to be laid off in a recession” (Agrawal, 1976, p. 10). Although the AIA did not categorically state this, a supporter of the AIA observed that this increase in unemployment among Indian immigrants was a factor in the organization’s intent to seek minority petition; in doing so, the AIA was looking after the interests of these subaltern Indians (Prabhu, 1976, p. 10; Saran, 1977, p. 12). Furthermore, readers pointed to the

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

benefits of gaining minority status in the United States, especially in relation to jobs, housing, securing loans, and federal assistance. Others supported minority status because it accorded Indian immigrants protection under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Agrawal, 1976, p. 10). As a minority, they could not only depend on the American Civil Liberties Union to protect their minority rights but also obtain ben- efits related to government contracts, small business enterprises, and education for their children and themselves (Gavini, 1982, p. 16; Hyder, 1977, p. 12).

Those against attaining minority status emphasized that becoming a minority was against the principle of meritocracy. Indian immigrants, given their education and professional qualifications, they argued, were highly meritorious and as such, wrote one reader, should “make a point to be judged on merit alone, wherever they are” (Sahgal, 1976a). Further highlighting the educational and professional nature of Indian immigrants, Dr. Chandrakant Jha (1977), president of the ILA, cited a survey finding that the majority of Indians in the United States had two or more educational degrees and that their annual income was above the average income of Americans. Survey respondents believed that by becoming a minority, Indians would lose their self-respect and their will to strive for higher goals and their achievement would become tainted. “It would break our hearts if someone painted all our hard earned achievements with a hue of tokenism” (Bhargava, 1976b, p. 10). Bhargava (1976a) also observed, “With the crutches of temporary ‘benefits’ obtained through minority status, we might lose our will to strive for higher goals” (p. 10). Others emphasized that attaining minority status would not bring promotion: “It is utterly foolish for anyone to imagine that one will get promoted for belonging to a minority” (Mohan, 1977, p. 10). Many professed to be embarrassed and humiliated by this classification because they not only considered Indian immigrants to be well placed but also believed that Indian immigrants were the privileged people of India who had enjoyed the benefits of their high caste and class but now wanted minority benefits (Annamalai, 1982, p. 16). Another angry reader wrote, “I do not want to humiliate myself from becoming a minority. I have written to my Senator and Congressman asking them not to consider me for minority citizen status” (Tyagi, 1982, p. 16).

Letters suggest that minority status was acceptable for Native Americans and African Americans because of the consequences of the colonial conquest and slavery. Referring to this, a reader wrote, “Minority status is okay for people whose ances- tors were here before the settlers came, or whose ancestors were abducted from other continents. We came here of our own free will and let us remember that” (Koppikar, 1977, p. 10). In a similar vein, Tyagi (1982) stated, “My people did not make America great. So why should I ask for privileges given to the minority citizens?” (p. 16). Becoming a minority also implied taking much-needed resources away from groups who needed them the most. Mohan (1977) wrote,

And we must consider, too, the feelings of the Blacks and the Hispanic-Americans who have been oppresssed for decades and who must feel aggrieved if our benefits are at their

Bhalla / The New Indians 129

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

expense. Even if it is not actually so, their perception that it is so is a factor to reckon with. (p. 12)

Mohan provided the example of the Chinese and the Japanese, whom he argued were ghettoized for decades. Consequently, these groups’ needs to be a minority were genuine; nonghettoized Indians could not claim the same discriminatory treatment (Mohan, 1977, p. 10).

Moreover, readers disputed the notion that Indian immigrants were discriminated against: “Can turning down for employment be a sign of discrimination?” asked Bhargava (1976b, p. 10). To support their argument, they mentioned the names of Indian notables who had succeeded in the United States, particularly the Nobel lau- reate Dr. Hargobind Khurana, conductor Zubin Mehta, and Congressman Saund from California, who was part of the early wave of immigrants from India (in the early part of the 20th century) and became the first congressmember of Indian ori- gin. In fact, being an Indian, argued one reader, brought preferential treatment from some companies that preferred to hire only South Asians. Although agreeing that discriminatory practices existed, some readers argued that these were negligible and could be overcome by Indians “native strengths,” although these native strengths were not described (Bhargava, 1976b, p. 10). Another reader suggested Indians change jobs if they thought they were being discriminated against: “If you don’t get what you think you deserve, you can try to get the best possible deal at another place” (Koppikar, 1977, p. 10). They also argued that the U.S. Constitution con- tained provisions to deal with discrimination; therefore, Indians need not become a minority to address their problems. Indians, both residents and citizens, wrote another person, were legally protected from discrimination in employment under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, Title VII, as was any other American citizen or resident noncitizen (Newcomb, 1976, p. 10). Another reader recommended the Indian com- munity form an Indian Legal Aid Society to contest class action suits to resolve their problems, rather than resolve the issue by attaining minority status (Mohan, 1977). Essentially, affirmative action was viewed as a sign of weakness for groups that could not take care of themselves.

This group of readers attributed such problems to “the struggles of immigration, which could be overcome over time” (Bhargava, 1976b, p. 10). They also argued that the struggles of Indian immigrants were not unique; historically, other immigrant groups also had undergone similar experiences and succeeded in the United States, some despite overt discrimination. The experiences of the Jewish immigrant com- munity were particularly highlighted. As a group, the Jewish people were the most persecuted worldwide, but their hard work and perseverance had prevailed, resulting in their success in the United States, wrote Bhargava (1976b, p. 10).

Blaming the AIA leadership for its shortsightedness, readers pointed to the unin- tended consequences of becoming a minority. Primary among these was the fear that minority status would antagonize Americans and result in a loss of social

130 American Behavioral Scientist

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

relationships and friendships. Jaipaul (1977) wrote, “It is astonishingly short-sighted to trade a few jobs and promotions—should they materialize at all—for the relatively smooth integration of Indians into an adoptive culture”(p. 10). It is interesting that the word American denoted Anglo Americans and excluded any references to other racial/ethnic groups. Rather than form separate groups, these Indians wanted to assimilate into the American culture. “I came here to join the majority,” wrote Tyagi (1982, p. 16). Another expressed his deep disappointment in the fact that Indians were melting not into the mainstream American culture but into the Asian melting pot.

In addition, readers feared that becoming a minority would invite a backlash from the majority. Elaborating this point, one reader wrote,

As yet Indians were dispersed and not settled in one area, and consequently there was no negative stereotype attached to them. Minority status and the accompanying affir- mative action benefits would call attention to the Indians and would cause resentment, especially in the depressed economic climate of the 1970s. (Mohan, 1977, p. 10)

Aside from public resentment, the move to become a minority could have additional repercussions in the form of immigration restriction and even affect Indo-U.S. rela- tions, wrote Shah (1977, p. 10). As an example, he blamed then-new restrictions on the entry of foreign physicians on the existence of a public backlash.

Showing an awareness of the treatment of Indians in the diaspora, readers argued that minority status and the creation of a separate identity would isolate Indian immi- grants from mainstream American society and in the foreseeable future, could also lead to their expulsion from the United States, as had happened historically to Indian immigrants in Burma, Malaysia, Eastern Africa, and Central Africa. Reminding Indian immigrants of this possibility, Sandhu (1979) wrote, “Indians need to adjust otherwise we will be ordered out too. . . . [We] need to identify with the majority community and secure for ourselves and our children a safe, secure life of dignity and self respect” (p. 18).

Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1994) have pointed to the processes of racial formation among immigrants. These letters emphasize the racialization of Indian immigrants and document their struggle to retain a White/Caucasian identity or become a minority. Although the term White/Caucasian was never overtly used, the language of the letters reveals a clear race consciousness among Indian immigrants. By stating that they were being discriminated against for not being White, Indian immigrants were essentially arguing that Whiteness mattered. Dutta (1976), AIA’s president, resorted to arguments that were similar to the 1923 Thind verdict (i.e., Indians may be categorized as Caucasians, but the common American did not per- ceive them as White). Readers argued that in addition to not benefiting from Whiteness, they were facing problems at work and losing jobs. Moreover, by claim- ing that they were not moving up the employment hierarchy, they essentially were pointing to the existence of a “glass ceiling” without ever mentioning the term. Even

Bhalla / The New Indians 131

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

those who opposed the move for classification as a minority also focused on Whiteness. Their fears of an American backlash, losing the respect and the friendship of the Americans, pointed to an understanding of power and hierarchy wielded by Anglo Americans; terms such as American and dominant group were construed as signifying White Americans. Their discourse on assimilation into the American mainstream, and their efforts at retaining the White status, were endeavors to align themselves with the White population.

Conclusion

This article draws attention to the processes of identity formation among the Indian immigrants in the United States. Using a sampling of the letters written by ordinary Indian immigrants to the expatriate Indian newspaper India Abroad, the article draws attention to Indian immigrants’ active participation in reinventing themselves. The letters reveal that immigrants ardently debated with each other about the meaning of what it meant to be an Indian in the United States, as well as the ways to situate themselves in relation to the American racial ethnic hierarchy. In the process, these letters disclose not only the processes of a new immigrant group’s identity formation but also its multiple dimensions and contested nature.

The discourse of identity formation reveals new immigrants’ struggles with the issue of identity in the early phase of their settlement. Letters disclose immigrants’ contextualization of this issue at multiple levels: in relation to their homeland and its religious and ethnic diversity, in relation to the dominant society, and in relation to the political categories/labels prevalent in the host nation. The decade of the 1970s began with Indian immigrants’ desire to form a pan-Indian identity that spanned its national and political borders. Rooted in awareness among the immigrants of the divisive tendencies of India’s ethnic plurality, immigrants emerged as idealists who wished to establish what may be termed a utopian, pan-Indian community out- side the borders of India. However, their conceptualization solely in relation to the political/organizational realm, and their inability to reconcile the cultural character- istics of the ethnic aspects of identity to political meaning, resulted in their lack of success, as did the fact that this issue was contextualized in relation to India. By the end of the decade, the literature concerning Indian immigrants shows that ethnic organi- zations were proliferating and the process of layering—having multiple identities— was beginning. Although these works provide ample details on various Indian organizations, they rarely point to the competing nature of identity formation and the tensions inherent in it (Brettell, 2005; Fisher, 1980; Helweg & Helweg, 1990; Khandelwal, 2002; Lessinger, 1995; Rangaswamy, 2000; Rayaprol, 1997).

Although the efforts to establish a pan-Indian identity bereft of ethnic identities did not succeed, letters reveal success in relation to ascribing cultural meaning to the boundaries of Indianness. The dominant Indian religion, Hinduism, emerged as a

132 American Behavioral Scientist

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bhalla / The New Indians 133

common denominator for the majority of the Indian immigrant population and allowed the creation of a new pan-Indian identity. On one hand, it bridged the eth- nic divide for the majority of the immigrants; on the other hand, it excluded Indian religious minorities. The emergence and proliferation of Indian temples across the United States in the decade of the 1970s was a reflection of the religious needs of the Indian population, as well as of the need to form cultural centers to counter the influence of the dominant cultural traditions. This creation of boundaries was rooted as much in a need to impart Indian cultural heritage to the second generation as in the Indian immigrants’ desire to distinguish themselves from the dominant culture perceived as depraved and decadent. Although these new parameters of Indian iden- tity were excluding Indian religious minorities, evidence from letters to India Abroad and the literature on Indian immigrants points to a parallel development of religious institutions among other religious groups and the emergence of mosques, gurdwaras, and Christian churches among the Indian community (Brettell, 2005; Khandelwal, 2002; Rangaswamy, 2000). The process of layering allowed other minorities to continue their religious affiliations while remaining Indian.

It is through the discussions among the Indian immigrants on becoming a racial minority that the letters add most to our knowledge of Indian immigrant experiences, particularly because the literature on Indian immigrants addresses this issue only briefly and does not delve into the contested nature of this debate (Khandelwal 2002; Rangaswamy, 2000). These deliberations point to not only the racialization of Indian immigrants but also the existence of a discourse among the Indian immigrant com- munity on the larger issue of assimilation versus maintaining separate group iden- tity. In addition, these letters identify the emergence of economic inequities among the immigrants and of an Indian underclass, especially in cities such as New York. The letters also reveal differential effects of economic recession on urban economies and consequently, on the Indian immigrants settled across different regions of the United States; Indian immigrants in Chicago, it seems, were not as badly affected by this recession as were the immigrants living in New York City. By drawing attention to these themes, rarely addressed in the literature on Indian immigrants, these letters point to the need for more research in these areas.

Notes

1. According to Madhulika Khandelwal’s (2002) book Becoming American, Being Indian, Hindus form the majority of the population of India. Of India’s population, 82% is Hindu, 11% is Muslim, and Christians and Sikhs form about 2% each. India has 18 official languages, and this linguistic diversity is also the basis of its ethnic diversity. This ethnic diversity defines independent India’s political divisions because a large majority of the Indian states follow the historical origins of ethnic groups. For example, Punjabis originate from the state of Punjab, Gujarati from Gujarat, Bengalis from Bengal, and so on. There is no reliable data on the ethnic/religious affiliations of the Indian immigrant population in the United States.

2. The immigrant press has emerged as an important source among historians in documenting the lives of immigrants. Two monographs that immediately come to mind are Dirk Hoerder and Christine Harzig’s

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

134 American Behavioral Scientist

(1987) compendium on immigrant labor press titled The Immigrant Labor Press in North America, 1840s-1970s and Isaac Metzger’s (1971) A Bintel Brief, the latter of which in particular emphasizes the importance of immigrant letters as a rich source in documenting immigrant social history.

3. The period 1972 to 1982 was selected for two reasons. First, in the early years of India Abroad’s publication, few people wrote letters to the editor and in fact, there were some editions without even a single letter to the editor. In 1972, the newspaper encouraged its readers to write letters and offered to pay US$5 for a published letter and US$10 for a detailed commentary on any issue pertaining to the Indian immigrant population. In the late part of 1972, the letter to the editor page became a regular feature of the newspaper. The ending date of 1982 was chosen for two reasons. First, it allows analysis for a decade, a substantial period of time. Moreover, 1982 was the year the Small Business Association granted Indian- owned businesses minority status, resulting in a spate of letters to the editor. After 1982, the issue of minority status was rarely brought up in the letter to the editor pages of India Abroad.

4. During the decade of the 1970s, numerous themes regarding identity were debated in the letter to the editor pages. Some of these concerned whether women should transform their dressing habits and start wearing American styles of clothing, whether Indian immigrants should Americanize their names, and whether an “American lifestyle” should be adopted.

5. The first wave of Indian immigrants to the United States came in the early parts of the 20th cen- tury; these immigrants settled primarily on the West Coast. This wave of immigration ended with the Immigration Act of 1917, which forbade the migration of people from Asia (Hing, 1993).

6. Respective issues of the Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Services (U.S. Department of Justice, 1966, 1970, 1975) indicate that in 1966, 67% of those who adjusted their status to a permanent resident from India were students and their dependents. In 1970, this figure reached an astounding 77% but declined in 1975 when only 55% of the students and their dependents adjusted their status to that of permanent resident. According to Binod Khadria (1999), between 1975 and 1979, 64% of students adjusted their status to become permanent residents.

7. Aside from India Abroad, which is published in New York City, two other Indian newspapers began publishing in the decade of the 1970s. These were India Tribune and India West, published in Chicago and Los Angeles, respectively.

References

Agrawal, J. (1976, November 12). Minority status. India Abroad, p. 10. Annamalai, V. (1982, June 25). Indians well-placed. India Abroad, p. 16. Bhalla, S. K. (1977, April 17). Indian school. India Abroad, p. 10. Bhalla, S. K. (1982, June 25). Monetary benefits. India Abroad, p. 16. Bhargava, V. (1976a, November 12). Minority status. India Abroad, p. 10. Bhargava, V. (1976b, November 26). Minority status. India Abroad, p. 10. Biswas, R. (1978, December 29). Where have all the Indians gone? India Abroad, pp. 2, 12. Brettell, C. (2005). Voluntary organizations, social capital, and the social incorporation of Asian Indian

immigrants in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex. Anthropological Quarterly, 78, 853-882. Capoor, M. (1977, February 4). Minority status. India Abroad, p. 12. Chandrashekhar, H. V. (1973, August 31). Communication. India Abroad, p. 2. Chatterjee, S. (1982, July 16). No humiliation. India Abroad, p. 16. Chaudhari, B. (1982, July 2). For minority status. India Abroad, p. 16. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241. Dalal, F. J. (1977, January 7). Minority status. India Abroad, p. 10. Das Gupta, M. (1997). “What is Indian about you?” A gendered, transnational approach to ethnicity.

Gender and Society, 11(5), 572-596.

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Dutta, M. (1976, December 24). Indians are not White, Black, or “Other.” India Abroad, pp. 2, 9. Fernandes, I. N. (1975, March 28). One association of all Indians. India Abroad, p. 3. Fisher, M. (1980). The Indians of New York City: A study of immigrants from India. Columbia, MO: South

Asia Books. Gavini, M. (1982, June 18). Better conditions. India Abroad, p. 16. Gjerde, J. (Ed.). (1998). Thind v. United States: The United States Supreme Court clarifies the meaning

of “White,” 1923. In Major problems in American immigration and ethnic history (pp. 288-290). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Grover, S. (1978, October 8). Temples. India Abroad, p. 14. Haney-Lopez, I. F. (1998). The evolution of legal construction of race and “Whiteness.” In J. Gjerde (Ed.),

Major problems in American immigration and ethnic history (pp. 299-304). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Helweg, A., & Helweg, U. (1990). An immigrant success story: East Indians in America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hing, B. O. (1993). Making and remaking Asian America through immigration policy, 1850-1990. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hoerder, D., & Harzig, C. (1987). The immigrant labor press in North America, 1840s-1970s: An anno- tated bibliography. New York: Greenwood.

Hudson, L., & Louis, A. B. (1982, May 21). Minority status asked in petition to SBA. India Abroad, pp. 1, 18.

Jaipaul, Dr. (1977, January 14). Minority status: Real fear of backlash. India Abroad, pp. 10, 12. Jha, C. (1977, January 7). Minority status. India Abroad, p. 10. Khadria, B. (1999). The migration of knowledge workers: Second-generation effects of India’s brain

drain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Khandelwal, M. (2002). Becoming American, being Indian: An immigrant community in New York City.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kurien, P. (1999). Gendered ethnicity: Creating a Hindu Indian identity in the United States. American

Behavioral Scientist, 42, 648-670. Koppikar, D. B. (1977, January 7). Minority status. India Abroad, p. 10. Kumar, L. A. (1977, May 6). Indian school. India Abroad, p. 10. Lakhani, H. (1977, February 4). Minority status. India Abroad, p. 12. Leonard, K. I. (1997). The South Asian Americans. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Lessinger, J. (1995). From the Ganges to the Hudson: Indian immigrants in New York City. Boston: Allyn

& Bacon. Metzger, I. (Ed.). (1971). A Bintel brief: Sixty years of letters from the Lower East Side to the Jewish Daily

Forward. New York: Schocken. Mohan, A. (1977, January 7). Everybody’s problem or individual one-upmanship. India Abroad, pp. 10, 12. Nagel, J. (1994). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. Social

Problems, 41, 152-176. Nakanishi, D. T., & Lai, J. S. (Eds.). (2003). Asian American politics: Law, participation, and policy.

New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Newcombe, B. (1976, December 24). Minority status. India Abroad, p. 10. Omi, M., & Winant, H. (Eds.). (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the

1990s. New York: Routledge. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (1996). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press. Prabhu, B. W. (1976, December 24). Minority status. India Abroad, p. 10. Ramanathan, P. (1976, November 26). Minority status. India Abroad, p. 10. Ramdass, K. L. (1975, March 21). One association of all Indians. India Abroad, p. 3. Rangaswamy, P. (2000). Namaste America: Indian immigrants in an American metropolis. University

Park: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bhalla / The New Indians 135

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rayaprol, A. (1997). Negotiating identities: Women in the Indian diaspora. New York: Oxford University Press.

Reimers, D. M. (1985). Still the golden door: The Third World comes to America. New York: Columbia University Press.

Sachdev, J. S. (1997, May 27). Indian school. India Abroad, p. 14. Sahgal, P. (1976a, February 26). Indian organizations in U.S. seek to reclassify immigrants. India Abroad,

p. 6. Sahgal, P. (1976b, October 15). U.S. panel grants minority status to Indian immigrants. India Abroad,

pp. 1, 8. Sandhu, G. S. (1979, August 17). The only course. India Abroad, p. 18. Saran, P. (1977, February 4). Minority status. India Abroad, p. 12. Shah, S. (1977, January 28). Minority status. India Abroad, p. 10. Shankar, R. (1977, February 25). Regional groups. India Abroad, p. 10. Sharma, G. C. (1982, July 16). Minority status. India Abroad, p. 16. Shukla, Y. (1977, May 27). Indian school. India Abroad, p. 14. Tyagi, M. (1982, July 2). No minority label. India Abroad, p. 16. U.S. Department of Justice. (1966). Annual report of Immigration and Naturalization Services.

Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Justice. (1970). Annual report of Immigration and Naturalization Services.

Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Justice. (1975). Annual report of Immigration and Naturalization Services.

Washington, DC: Author. Vasudev, R. (1977, May 6). Indian school. India Abroad, p. 10.

Vibha Bhalla is an assistant professor in the Department of Ethnic Studies at Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio. Her research focuses on the migration and settlement of Indian immi- grants in metropolitan Detroit.

136 American Behavioral Scientist

at SEIR on January 15, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from