Impact of US Policy Shifts on Indian-Americans
India (Commonwealth Union)_ Shashi Tharoor begins by highlighting an uncomfortable contradiction. Indian-Americans are often held up as a model immigrant community in the United States with high incomes, leadership roles in business and government, and an overall reputation for success. Yet, when Washington began unwinding policies that are favorable to India, this affluent, influential community largely remained quiet. Tharoor cites a string of recent US decisions: a 50 percent tariff on Indian goods; a staggering $100,000 visa fee imposed on H‑1B visa applicants; sanctions that affect India’s Chabahar port project; fresh visa restrictions; and even public statements that offend India’s dignity.
Despite all this, Tharoor says, the Indian diaspora, especially in the US, did not raise its voice in protest. He describes this muted response as “strategic silence,” but argues it cannot be mistaken for neutrality. To Tharoor, silence in this context becomes complicity and failing to speak up erodes moral authority, allows unfair portrayals of India to go unchallenged, and weakens the diaspora’s political leverage.
How Shashi Tharoor Expressed His Disappointment?
Tharoor’s tone in addressing the diaspora is not merely critical; it is one of real surprise and disappointment. During a meeting of India’s parliamentary panel (the Standing Committee on External Affairs), which welcomed a US congressional delegation, he seized the opportunity to ask a pointed question: Why has the Indian-American community remained so silent? He also shared that one US congresswoman told them she had not received a single call from any Indian-American constituent asking her to defend India’s position. To him, that absence of advocacy from individuals who might be expected to care deeply about India’s interests is astonishing.
Also read: Meet the Indian-origin techies behind Australia’s first AI smart satellite!
Tharoor did not mince words: he urged Indian-Americans to treat their political engagement as more than a matter of comfort or image. “If you care about your relationship with your motherland,” he said, “you also have to fight for it, speak for it, and make more of an effort to press your political representatives to stand up for India.” He also acknowledged the backlash: the pushback from those who say his criticism misreads how diaspora communities conduct their work. But rather than retreat, Tharoor welcomed it. He offered that if his comments provoke reflection and renewed engagement, he will consider the effort worthwhile.
The Community’s Response and Pushback
The most visible reaction came from the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), led by Suhag A. Shukla, who challenged Tharoor’s claims as overly broad and based on incomplete observation. Shukla argued that Indian-Americans do make a difference, often discreetly, operating behind the scenes, and always within American legal limits. She maintained that the community’s credibility in the US relies on its careful, law‑abiding conduct. To suggest otherwise, she said, is unfair and dangerous. She also defended the dual identity that many diaspora members balance. She noted that loyalty to America does not always erase emotional or cultural bonds to India. The community’s active civic participation in the US, she argued, does not mean they don’t care about India’s well‑being.
Tharoor said he welcomed this debate. He stated publicly that he was pleased if his remarks had stirred introspection among Indian-Americans. In his view, even strong criticism is better than silence. A few American politicians of Indian origin, such as Ro Khanna and Nikki Haley, have occasionally spoken out on related issues. But generally, Tharoor notes, there is a conspicuous lack of sustained advocacy for India among Indian-American public figures, especially during times of diplomatic friction. He points out that neither Kamala Harris nor Vivek Ramaswamy has made this a core priority.
Tharoor’s Shock Over the Diaspora’s Silence
What underlies much of Tharoor’s tone is his sense of shock: How can a community as accomplished and empowered as the Indian diaspora stay silent when India is under diplomatic pressure? He suggests several reasons for this quietness. Some Indian-Americans may fear being labeled “not American enough” if they fight openly for India. Others may prefer to avoid confrontation or disruption, especially when they have worked hard to assimilate and establish stability in the US. And in a climate of rising anti-immigrant sentiment, many choose restraint over activism. Yet Tharoor insists this silence has costs. When diaspora members refrain from speaking out, they give up their role as moral advocates. Negative views about India may go unanswered. Over time, the diaspora’s influence can diminish; people may no longer treat diaspora voices as credible or serious when they speak about India.
Tharoor frames a choice: Indian-Americans can follow the model of Jewish Americans advocating for Israel, maintaining full loyalty to the US while also engaging actively on behalf of another country. Or they can take refuge in a posture of pure American identity, refusing to act on behalf of India on principle. Both may be defensible positions, he allows, but they cannot pick and choose: you cannot cheer for India when it’s convenient and disappear when it’s not. He warns that inconsistency will erode how you are perceived back in India. If you comment on Indian politics during good times but vanish in harder times, Indians are less likely to take your views seriously. The strength of the diaspora, in his view, lies not merely in its success abroad, but in its readiness to defend India when it matters most.
Why Tharoor’s Call Matters?
Tharoor’s remarks come at a fraught moment in US–India relations. The meeting with the US delegation, held on short notice, touched on critical topics: the 50 percent tariff on Indian exports, sweeping increases in H‑1B visa costs, and the US decision to withdraw certain sanctions waivers tied to India’s work on the Chabahar port. US lawmakers acknowledged concerns about these moves and affirmed a commitment to reinforcing the US–India strategic partnership. They called India “valued” and expressed optimism that the two governments would find paths to repair the relationship.
But Tharoor’s question to the diaspora adds a new dimension. He is asking Indian-Americans not merely to be observers or beneficiaries of India–US relations, but to be active participants in shaping them. He is arguing that political capital and civic leverage should go beyond personal success to public advocacy. Whether his message resonates widely remains uncertain. The pushback from HAF shows that the community’s approach to engagement is not monolithic. Many Indian-Americans do much work behind the scenes. But Tharoor’s shock, his belief that silence is not defensible, has reignited a conversation that many felt should have happened earlier.
