The Indian-American community is one of the most successful immigrant groups in the United States. From Silicon Valley boardrooms to medical research labs, from academia to finance, Indian immigrants have climbed to the very top of the American success ladder. Yet, when it comes to political advocacy—especially around issues that directly affect them and their homeland—there is a puzzling silence.
This contradiction came into sharp focus recently when Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, during a meeting with a US Congressional delegation in New Delhi, questioned why Indian-Americans are so passive about lobbying for Indian interests. He noted that despite the challenges posed by H-1B visa restrictions and new trade tariffs, very few Indian-Americans reach out to their representatives in Washington to press for change.
One US Congresswoman reportedly told Tharoor that she had “not received a single phone call” from any Indian-American voter on these issues. For a community known as a “model minority,” with exceptional achievements and wealth, their lack of political mobilization stands out in sharp contrast to groups like Jewish-Americans or Cuban-Americans, who wield considerable influence in shaping US foreign policy related to their homelands.
So, why does such a successful community hesitate to speak up? To answer that, we must look at the history, psychology, and generational dynamics of Indian migration to the United States.
The Roots of a “Model Minority”
The story of Indian immigration to the US is relatively recent compared to other diasporas. The turning point was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished old quotas that had discriminated against Asian immigrants. Suddenly, the gates opened for skilled professionals—especially doctors, engineers, and academics—from countries like India.
Unlike some immigrant groups who arrived as political refugees or low-wage laborers, this first wave of Indian immigrants came from elite, highly educated backgrounds. They spoke English, held advanced degrees, and fit neatly into the American economy’s demand for knowledge workers.
As a result, Indian-Americans quickly found success in high-income professions. Today, they rank at the very top among all ethnic groups in the US in terms of median household income and educational attainment. In many ways, they embody the American Dream—the idea that hard work and talent can lead to prosperity.
But there was a trade-off. This relentless focus on professional success, education, and assimilation often meant avoiding political controversy. Politics, especially politics tied to “foreign” concerns, was seen as a potential risk to stability and upward mobility. In other words, silence became a survival strategy.
Political Passivity: A Habit of Assimilation
The Indian-American success story was built on the idea of keeping your head down, working hard, and staying out of trouble. For the first generation, grateful for the opportunities America had offered, political activism—particularly on issues tied to India—seemed unnecessary, even risky.
Why draw attention to yourself? Why risk accusations of “divided loyalties”?
This mindset created a cultural norm where personal advancement mattered more than collective advocacy. Families emphasized getting into Ivy League schools, landing prestigious jobs, and buying homes in safe suburbs. Political engagement, whether in US domestic issues or India-related advocacy, was not seen as a priority.
Over time, this attitude solidified. Indian-Americans became known as the “model minority”—a community that excelled without demanding too much from the system. Ironically, this very success may have bred complacency.
The Silence Around H-1B Restrictions
The H-1B visa program, designed for high-skilled foreign workers, has been a lifeline for Indian professionals. In fact, Indians account for the majority of H-1B holders in the US, particularly in technology and engineering.
Yet, despite its importance, when the Trump administration announced a $100,000 fee for new petitions, there was hardly any outcry from Indian-American leaders. Even global icons like Sundar Pichai (Google) and Satya Nadella (Microsoft), who themselves arrived in the US on H-1B visas, remained muted in their responses.
Why? The answer lies partly in corporate caution. Publicly criticizing US policy could place these CEOs in an awkward position, given their responsibility to shareholders and their need to maintain strong ties with Washington. But it also reflects the broader reluctance of the Indian diaspora to engage in direct political advocacy, even when the stakes are personal.
For many, the myth of meritocracy also plays a role. Having succeeded despite obstacles, some Indian-Americans assume others can do the same, without the need for lobbying or activism. This mindset discourages collective action.
Fear of Dual Loyalties
One of the biggest unspoken fears within the Indian-American community is the accusation of “dual loyalty.”
In American politics, diasporic groups often face suspicion when they advocate too strongly for their homeland. For Indian-Americans—especially those in visible positions of power—the concern is that speaking out for India could undermine their credibility as “loyal Americans.”
This fear is not unfounded. In a polarized political climate, being seen as lobbying for foreign interests can backfire. As a result, many prefer to express their pride in Indian heritage through cultural channels—festivals, temples, Bollywood events—rather than political ones.
Generational Gaps in Political Engagement
There is also a generational divide within the diaspora.
- First-generation immigrants often feel immense gratitude to the US for the opportunities it provided. Their focus remains on securing their families’ futures, not on activism. Many also feel less comfortable navigating the complexities of American politics.
- Second-generation Indian-Americans, born and raised in the US, are more politically aware but often feel distant from India. While they might proudly celebrate Diwali or follow cricket, they may not fully relate to issues like H-1B restrictions or trade tariffs.
This generational tension contributes to the lack of unified political advocacy on Indian issues.
The Contrast with Other Diasporas
To understand the Indian-American silence, it helps to compare with other immigrant groups.
- Jewish-Americans have built powerful lobbying organizations like AIPAC that directly influence US policy toward Israel.
- Cuban-Americans in Florida have long mobilized around anti-Castro policies, shaping decades of US foreign policy toward Cuba.
- Muslim-Americans increasingly organize around issues affecting the Middle East.
Indian-Americans, despite their wealth and education, lack a comparable political infrastructure. There are organizations like USINPAC (US India Political Action Committee), but their reach is limited compared to the scale of the community’s potential.
Political Shifts but Limited Advocacy
Historically, Indian-Americans have leaned Democratic, drawn by the party’s pro-immigration stance and diversity policies. However, the 2024 presidential election saw a noticeable shift, with more Indian-Americans voting Republican.
Some were attracted by Trump’s strongman image, economic nationalism, or conservative social values. Others perceived him as being “pro-India” because of his rhetoric about strategic partnerships.
Yet this shift hasn’t translated into real political advocacy. Support for India often remains symbolic—through cultural pride, social media nationalism, or temple visits—rather than lobbying or policy engagement.
Social Media vs. Real Influence
One of the starkest contrasts in diaspora behavior is between online activity and offline political influence.
Indian-Americans are highly active on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and WhatsApp, where they share news about India, post patriotic messages, and debate politics. But when it comes to writing letters to senators, forming PACs, or donating to campaigns that promise India-related policy reforms, their presence is minimal.
It is easier to retweet a nationalist slogan than to confront a policymaker about visa caps.
Why This Silence Matters
The reluctance of Indian-Americans to engage politically has consequences on multiple fronts:
- On US Policy: Without active lobbying, issues like H-1B visa reform or trade disputes remain low on Washington’s priority list.
- On India-US Relations: A politically mobilized diaspora could serve as a bridge between the two nations, much like Jewish-Americans have done for Israel. The absence of such advocacy weakens India’s leverage in US policymaking.
- On the Community Itself: Silence doesn’t guarantee security. Without political capital, Indian-Americans remain vulnerable to sudden policy changes—be it visa restrictions, trade tariffs, or even racial profiling.
Toward a Politically Mature Diaspora
Tharoor’s remarks serve as a wake-up call. If the Indian-American community wants to protect its interests and support India’s global standing, it must move beyond cultural pride toward political action.
This doesn’t mean abandoning assimilation or inviting suspicion. It means recognizing that advocacy is not disloyalty. Building political capital strengthens both their status in America and their ability to shape US-India ties.
Practical steps could include:
- Creating stronger, well-funded political action committees (PACs).
- Encouraging young Indian-Americans to intern on Capitol Hill or join policymaking institutions.
- Organizing letter-writing campaigns and lobbying efforts on issues like H-1B reform.
- Building alliances with other minority groups who share similar concerns.
Final Thoughts
The Indian diaspora in the United States has achieved extraordinary professional and financial success. But political maturity has lagged behind. At a time when H-1B restrictions and new visa fees directly affect them, silence is no longer a sustainable strategy.
If Indian-Americans want to truly honor both their heritage and their adopted homeland, they must embrace political engagement. Speaking up for their rights—and for India’s interests—does not undermine their loyalty to America. On the contrary, it enriches American democracy by ensuring that all voices are heard.
As Tharoor rightly put it, if the diaspora cares about India, it must “fight for it, speak for it, and press political representatives to stand up for it.”
The time for quiet pride has passed. The time for active political voice has arrived.
