There is an ironical equation at work.
Indian Americans seem to prefer (statistically proven) the decidedly more liberal, centrist and inclusive Democrat Party in the United States, as opposed to the more conservative Republican Party, but also the more rightwing, conservative, and perhaps majoritarian options ‘back home’ in India.
Despite the brouhaha and optics of events like ‘Howdy Modi’ in 2019 and the reciprocal ‘Namaste Trump’ in 2020, the voting pattern of Indian Americans in the 2020 US Presidential Elections remained solidly in favour of the Democrat Party. It is a trend that is not expected to change in the 2024 Presidential elections either, not least because the Democrat candidate, Kamala Harris, has Indian ancestry.
A stridently anti-immigrant campaign and disruptive rants by the Republican candidate that threaten the existing stability and order in the US are not helping the cause of Donald Trump either, amongst Indian Americans.
Yet many in India don’t see the hypocrisy in the contrasting preferences of political ideologies (in the US versus that in India) by many people of Indian origin, abroad – a completely opposite set of ideological preferences suggests the maxim, ‘what’s good for the gander is not good for the geese’.
What explains this dichotomy?
For one, Indian Americans recognise the absolute necessity of a system, stability and society that is multicultural and equal in opportunities beyond societal ‘divides’, in the US. This is something that the Democrats promise (that they deliver or not, is another question), whereas the Republican alternative of Donald Trump is predicated on nativism, white-majoritarianism and denialism of ‘minorities’. It is fair to say that in the hierarchy of ‘minorities’, it is perhaps those from Islamic countries, Hispanics, and Blacks, that are more discriminated against than Indian Americans, but it is only a relative scale of discrimination.
Perhaps the assertive and domineering optics emanating from governance ‘back home’ in India offer Indian Americans a brief and rare opportunity to flex their own social ‘muscularity’ – offering a reprieve from the otherwise conformist, staid, and artificially ‘checked’ existence in order to fructify their own ‘American Dream’. The narratives of ‘Vishwaguru’ (leadership role in global affairs), ‘Amrit Kaal’ (golden era), ‘Viksit Bharat’ (developed India) et al are just the sort of heroic rhetoric that offers psychological redemption and a sense of empowerment, from their otherwise submissive but financially thriving existence.
In a cauldron where various immigrant communities showcase their own relevance on the global highway – the well-marketed idea of an ‘Arrived India’ finally taking its rightful place on the global stage is seductive to the Desis abroad. That this ‘muscularity’ could come at the cost of some citizenry not fitting into the majoritarian template, is in their eyes, par for the course and even, legitimate. The clear duplicitousness with the sort of governance tenor sought in the US versus India, is conveniently overlooked (or remains unimagined).
In India too, there is an increasing and subliminal sense that beyond the romantic notions of liberality, democracy and morality that are historically affixed to the Democrat Party, it is the Republican dispensations that are more pro-India. In the last couple of decades, there could be good arguments to support that view, especially with the accompanying politics and positions of someone like George W Bush and Donald Trump, that were coincidentally seen as harder on India’s traditional nemesis — Pakistan.
Therefore, the notion that Republicans are better because they are more strident in taking on Pakistan or China, is rooted in the simplistic equation that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’, as the Democrats tend to be more restrained and measured in words (think, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden).
It is the same sort of extremist and aggressive position taken by the likes of an Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu (from the hardline Likud fount), that similarly endears him to many in India. The flattening of the Gaza Strip (or the attempted decimation of Hezbollah in Lebanon) as if that is somehow suggestive of the ideal way of handling dissenting voices (especially of the ‘others’) makes many blind and numb to the bone-chilling death count of nearly 45,000 in the region.
Netanyahu’s railing position against the ‘two-state solution’ (still officially supported by India) is against our declared sovereign stand but there is enough contrarian dog-whistling, goading and cheering of Netanyahu’s bludgeoning that it knowingly makes a mockery of India’s declared position on the issue. It is duplicitousness, in another parallel form.
The same boorish aggressiveness is presumed in the possible Donald Trump's second president that could be construed to be beneficial to India, as he’d be expected to go hard and angrily on Pakistan and China, compared to a Kamala Harris presidency. Again, this view overlooks the inelegance and the open threats that Donald Trump has actually heaped on India in recent times, as opposed to no such rhetoric from the Democrat quarter. But the eyes roll gentler on Trump, for he hates the ‘others’ more, and that is enough.
Speaking on the Paris Climate Accord, the unhinged Donald Trump had said, “Look at India. It’s filthy. The air is filthy”, and more recently speaking on the US-India trade relationship, he had described India as a “very big abuser” of bilateral economic relations. Yet many remain forgiving towards Donald Trump, giving credence to the only possible theory i.e., the power of hate (onto Pakistan, China and the proverbial ‘others’ amongst our own) is so much stronger than the brazen threats by Trump or the assumed moderation of the other option i.e., Democrats.
So, the more hateful and polarising that the Donald Trump campaign becomes, the more endearing and preferred it becomes to many out here. Somewhere, the key point is that it is only the economic value (and relative pacifism) of Indian Americans that has seen them escape the brunt of the anti-immigrant narrative of a Donald Trump so far, and not out of any abiding love or conviction from Trump’s side. Like any ‘non-white’ immigrants, Indian Americans are one incident away from being treated the same as a Muslim immigrant, a Hispanic or a Black person, in Trump’s playbook.
This is not to suggest that the Democrats are any better or worse, but just that ideologically they are inclusive of diversities. Their purported ‘fairness’ in dealing with the hyphenated Indo-Pak realm will always fall short of the language that Indians would ideally like to hear, but that is an issue of semantics only.
The Democrats are inherently given to multilateralism and ‘allies’ (as opposed to Trump’s fickleness that would like to dismantle the UN or NATO) and they will be given to painfully long discussions and deliberations on any topic – but history is instructive that the likes of Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu or any other ‘strongman’ who is seemingly hard on communities and ethnicities that many dislike, can jeopardise the safety and security for all (in their own countries), far worse than the likes of any Democrat (or its ideological equivalent in Israel i.e., the Labour Party) can ever destroy or mismanage.
It is about a relative choice.
(The author is a Former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)