Has anybody noticed that Indian-Americans at universities form WAY too many associations?

The Indians at my university are about 1-2% of the student population, but have THREE different cultural associations. The Chinese are about 10-12% of the student population, but only have two assocations.

By what standards do you judge there to be "Way too many?" Is there an ideal number? Big schools always find a way to make as many organizations as possible in order to make the environment feel smaller.

There are often Muslim and Sikh orgs in addition to the pan-desi one, and sometimes a Pakistani one. Like the rules of parley, the Indian federation sometimes seems like more 'guidelines' than actual rules.

I should clarify my earlier statement. I meant to say that Indians form way too many GENERAL student associations for themselves. Preferrably universities with a small number of Indian students would have one main general association that represents all Indians.

There's nothing wrong with Indians having some smaller organizations that adress different areas of interest for Indian students (language, religion, career), but there shouldn't be THREE different organizations that all compete to be the main organization for them. Korean students have different organizations, but seem to have no difficulty finding one general association to represent them.

The Chinese being racially homogenous, and having been a unified country for ~2,000 years. As opposed to India ...

Besides which, given that India is around 20% of the world's population, why would you expect that people of south asian origin would be subsumed under a common flag?

this is just so wonderful and such a great cause. Hope they start more of this in every university and every state not only here in US but also in india.
It really doesnot matter how many organisations/associations they have or to which country/religion/group u belong, all that matters is that they are doing something worthy and useful to the society.. like this organisation..

Then do you think that Indians should identify with their region instead of their country?

"Besides which, given that India is around 20% of the world's population, why would you expect that people of south asian origin would be subsumed under a common flag?"

Actually all Indians do have a common flag.

I also commend this particular organization for their community service.

I think people should identify as they please.

I think it's unfortunate that many Indian-Americans identify themselves by their region instead of their country. Indian-Americans from all regions share a common culture and country. There's nothing wrong with identifying with your region, but at least first think of yourself as an Indian.

Why? Why shouldn't a Bengali American and a Bangladeshi person have more in common than a Bengali person and somebody from Goa or Bihar ?

If you were born here your culture is about language, food and religion. It's not about the Indian national anthem nearly as much.

And why should somebody who is born here care much about India as a political unit anyway? Many of us have the US as our primary political allegiance. We have cultural ties to South Asia, but not political ones to India.

If you were born here your culture is about language, food and religion. It's not about the Indian national anthem nearly as much. And why should somebody who is born here care much about India as a political unit anyway

Where do I begin...

• For economic strength. The larger the country, in general the wealthier and stronger the economy and the people. Tiny states tend not to flourish.
• For cultural similarity. These cultures have more in common with each other than any with other. There's a distinct desiness about being desi.
• For the fervor of the newly independent. That Indian independence is just 57 years old means that the pan-Indian identity and all the new totems it forged still burn.
• To have a homeland. To have a place that's large and prosperous where everyone looks like you, and you don't have to explain your funny traditions.
• For the purely selfish reason of having a team to root for, in all senses. Especially important as ethnic identities blur in the diaspora, and all that's left is desiness.

And for a deep, sentimental attachment to 'Jana Gana Mana,' the flag, the Independence movement, all of it, the same way I have to those of the U.S. It surpasses all the bureaucratic idiocies of whichever government is in power at any given moment. Think of everything you love unreasoningly: your religion, your family, your home team, your food, whatever. It's that.

Has anybody noticed that Indian-Americans at universities form WAY too many associations?

A big part of this is the way activist prestige points flow. There's FAR more cred from being a "founder" of a marginal organization vs. being the ultra-super-star contributor to a more meaningful organization. Sadly, it's sometimes the case that what the organizations actually output is in some ways secondary to this motive...

Ennis, your conclusion is most certainly not entailed by your definition of Indian-American culture. Quite the contrary--since you acknowledge it includes religion, India necessarily looms larger in the 'religious imagination' of traditional Hindu-Americans. And concern with India as a political unit tends to follow in train.

In any case, being Indian-American is neither necessary nor sufficient in caring about India as a 'political unit'. Being an American is, especially post 9/11.

Kumar

There's FAR more cred from being a "founder" of a marginal organization vs. being the ultra-super-star contributor to a more meaningful organization.

For good reason. It's much harder.

You see artistic splintering all the time when people have different visions or ways of doing things. It's been the genesis of many a startup. It gets unhealthy when orgs claim over-similar missions or get into unproductive, head-to-head competition for people and resources.