Musings of an Immigrant on Culture and Identity

A vexing, and rather wicked, question that every immigrant grapples with is the following: how does one strike a balance between the homeland left behind and the newly-adopted homeland? Even more fundamentally, one may ask whether there is a balance from the cultural perspective. I do indeed believe that there is a balance – the answer lies in cultural assimilation and integration. In the rest of this essay, I shall offer cogent arguments in support of my thesis. Much of what will be discussed in this essay will essentially be in the backdrop of the Indian(1) diaspora in the US. Now and then, I shall make comparisons between the Indian community in the US, and immigrant communities from other parts of the world.

The history of immigration from the Indian sub-continent to the US is not nearly as old as immigration from Europe. The first numerically and demographically significant group of Indian immigrants started to arrive in the 1960s. The numbers have steadily gone up through the years, and as the numbers have gone up, so has the “cultural crisis” deepened in the Indian community. What is this “cultural crisis” that I am referring to? It isn’t a mere figment of my imagination, but a not-so-silent epidemic that affects the Indian diaspora in the US. It doesn’t take an overly perceptive individual to observe or diagnose this crisis. In over twelve years of living in this country, I have often observed the lives of immigrants from the Indian sub-continent. What has struck me almost without fail during repeated observations is the extent to which the Indian diaspora in the US resists cultural assimilation. I categorically distinguish between cultural assimilation and cultural subjugation. What do I mean by these two terms?

I will begin with cultural assimilation, which is not a difficult concept to define, but seems mysteriously beyond the grasp of many immigrants from the Indian sub-continent. A nation built on the premise of immigration requires a certain degree of cultural assimilation – the ability of immigrant communities to merge into the mainstream culture of the nation. The immigrant must learn the language of the host society and must also make an effort to understand the system of government, religious faiths, social practices and customs of the host society. Learning the language (if not already well-versed in it) is a primary responsibility of the immigrant. Let’s face it – English is the language of this society, and while immigrants should certainly hold on to their own language, they must make an attempt to have a reasonable command of English. I fervently believe that the ultimate form of cultural assimilation cannot be achieved in the long term without intermarriage between Indian immigrants and people of other races in the US – namely Native Indian, Asian, Caucasian, Hispanic/Latino and African American. Many Indian parents, whose children have been born in the US, or have grown up in the US and lived through the formative years here, actively discourage intermarriage between their children and non-Indians. This is the greatest disservice that they can do to their children, and indeed the larger community in the diaspora. Many Indians of my age in the US are second-generation residents of the US. It never ceases to amaze me that, with rather few exceptions that are far in between, they wish to marry not only Indians, but also Indians from the same part of India that they have left behind! It’s as if the immigrant community has lost no memory of the antiquated and outmoded social practices from the former homeland! This memory must fade with time, or otherwise Indians will build themselves a microcosm of India in the US that will still continue these practices! The Hindu Indian diaspora in the US suffers from the inability of the society back home to reform itself and rid itself of social practices that do not belong in the dawn of the 21st century: the greatest of these ills is the never-ending allegiance to the meaningless caste system. The second generation in the Indian-American community has started marrying, yet, caste and language based preferences which dictate matters of marriage in the sub-continent seem to be as strong in this generation as in the first generation of immigrants, if not stronger!

I can hardly imagine a cohesive immigrant society where people marry exclusively within their communities: Italians marry Italians, Polish marry Polish, Irish marry the Irish etc.! The history of immigrant communities in this great nation amply and convincingly documents that intermarriage between different communities has helped weave a truly diverse social fabric. In sharp contrast, since the Indian diaspora actively resists intermarriage, it almost stands out like an insular structure, an island in a sea of diversity. I believe that this is a very dangerous sociological trend – the risks it poses for the next generations are unbearably high. The second generation of Indians in the US has enough trouble grappling with issues of identity and culture. In my opinion, their sense of belonging, sometimes inherited from their parents, is 50 – 50, with a dominant side and a recessive side. At home, the Indian side dominates, while outside the home, in college, at the workplace or in social situations, the American side dominates. This seemingly dual identity arises precisely because the community actively resists, and indeed comes up with ingenious ways to stall or completely thwart assimilation. The Indian community in the US needs to realize that it simply can’t have the best of both worlds! It is impossible to have it golden both ways. The immigrant must make a sincere effort to meet his/her adopted homeland at least halfway. The aspirations of those who seek the social structure and protection afforded by the homeland left behind, with the economic prowess and professional growth opportunities afforded by this great nation, though noble, have all the makings of a social experiment gone entirely awry.

The results of this social experiment present themselves in second generation Americans of Indian origin. A cursory glance at popular matrimonial sites (and they abound in the infinite expanse of the World Wide Web) patronized by this generation has all the makings of a story that, if based in the context of Gujarat or Punjab (two states in India which have contributed to large numbers of Indian immigrants in the US), make a whole lot of sense. Let us consider an example: Dr. (Ms.) Patel (2), 27 years old, raised in Edison, NJ, fresh out of Med School, pursuing her residency somewhere on the East Coast or in the Mid-West, is looking for a suitable boy for herself. Ms. Patel’s parents hail from Gujarat in Western India, and have drilled it into her head since the days that she wore diapers that her husband must be Gujarati (a native of Gujarat)! The imposed constraints may not end here – the parents may even have indoctrinated their “American” daughter that she should also marry a member of the same caste! The examples don’t end here; indeed, they transcend faiths and can be cited ad infinitum: Punjabi Sunni Muslim boy (whose parents hail from Lahore) wants a nubile Punjabi Sunni Muslim girl. Tamil Christian (Catholic) girl wants a kindred Tamil Catholic boy. The sooner Dr. (Ms.) Patel finds herself a husband of another race whose family has lived in the US for generations, the sooner she will give her own progeny(3) the right footing to live life in this immigrant society. If she marries a Gujarati boy, and gives birth to the third generation immigrant, sheer statistics and rigid immigrant social mores argue that that child will seek a Gujarati bride/groom for itself, in the year 2034, 70 years after his/her grandparents arrived!

What do I mean when I talk about cultural subjugation? This idea is also easy to comprehend. The immigrant from the Indian sib-continent must come to the US with a reasonable sense of pride in his/her heritage, his/her achievements and expect this country to meet it half way. I do not think any less of my former homeland, India, merely because of the fact that it is a developing country. It faces major challenges related to basic development issues related to education, healthcare, water, food and sanitation, and newer challenges posed by the disaster that lies in waiting due to the unchecked spread of AIDS. Nevertheless, India has many achievements to show in other spheres, not the least of which is its ability to offer its billion plus citizens, who speak over fifteen officially recognized languages and practice several different faiths, a reliable form of democratic self-government with a truly independent judiciary. The overwhelming majority of immigrants from India to the US are extremely well educated professionals whose expertise spans a variety of fields – science, arts and humanities, medicine, engineering, management and commerce. Why should the immigrant feel any sense of remorse or shame in being a migrant from India? What lies at the heart of this desire to resist assimilation? Is there a deep-seated fear in the mind of the immigrant that the host society will not be forthcoming in granting it social acceptance and respectability? One thing is for sure – if we build walls around ourselves, we will never have the ability to become truly immersed in this society. The intelligentsia in France is still unable to come to terms with the fact that, by virtue of its identity and unique culture, France may after all not be a country of immigration. Its experiment with immigration is about as haywire as it could get – France is at the forefront of active cultural subjugation. Why would a nation, which prides itself on the ideal of liberté, forbid its citizens from wearing a hijab, or a yarmulka, or a turban, or a cross? One wonders if one will soon hear a French politician deliver a speech reminiscent of Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech. The days of colonialism are long past, but curiously that mindset persists in France without showing any signs of withering. This is a classic example of active cultural subjugation practiced by the host society. A more subtle passive form also exists, which the immigrant subjects himself to, and was alluded to earlier in this paragraph.

I do not use the Tebbitt test as a metric for measuring the loyalty and degree of cultural assimilation of an immigrant into the host society. Named after the Tory British MP, Norman Tebbitt, it argues that an immigrant to the United Kingdom is truly English if he/she roots for the English cricket team over the cricket team of the homeland left behind. This test is easily discredited when subjected to sound and rational inquiry. One of the many reasons why this is so, is because in overly class-conscious England, cricket is still considered rather elitist (say, compared to football). That having been said, it was a welcome sight to see Englishmen and women from the Indian sub-continent root for the English football team at the European championship this summer, chant the familiar British football chant and wave the flag bearing the Cross of St. George. Now, that’s progress. Clearly, this generation of English citizens of Indian origin has made the effort to understand the most popular sport in England and appreciate it. The sports popular in the host nation are merely one consideration. Culture, in its near infinite entirety, offers much to explore and meet at least half way. Multiculturalism, in its forced and politically correct form, is a myth whose provenance lies in the overly politically correct world that surrounds us. Any nation, which is open to the arrival of immigrants from distant shores, has already expressly announced its desire to be multicultural. The host society needs to do little more to be multicultural. The burden of assimilation and integration lies on the newly arrived immigrant, and perhaps also on part of the immigrant who is not so newly arrived.



Footnotes:
(1) Without the least aspirations of any territorial expansion, I shall loosely use the term “Indian” to describe the Indian sub-continent. Much of what I say here applies to Pakistanis and Bangladeshis as well. They are different nationalities, doubtlessly, but have a common heritage with Indians. In another essay, I will argue for the reunification of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh into a single confederate state. For that, dear reader, you must wait patiently.

(2) All names are fictitious. Any resemblance to any character, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

(3) The implicit assumption here, of course, is that Dr. Patel and her spouse desire to procreate. In the context of a fledgling immigrant community, this is usually not a concern. Indeed, it is Western European societies such as Germany and Italy, sharply monolithic, which are faced with the real prospect of dwindling populations.