Identity of immigrants is a complex procedure, for it makes one have to look at oneself in a way that makes logic to them,

as well as fit into the identity(s) attributed by others. It has been held that Indians of non-European ancestry are competent to negotiate their personal identity the same way as those who constitute the overriding category. However it is the decree white class which is able to ethnically and ideologically control others through its institutions and social instrument (Abbas, 2005, p.73). Such instruments construct further coating for minorities to conceptualize the identity they want to plan for themselves personally, socially and culturally. Moreover, resists of cultural space and societal perceptions of the other are disregarded in a distinctive society which places merit in the hard work undertaken by the individual (Sullivan, 2006, pg. 157). It is merely through the examination of the societal barriers; in addition to the authority of psychological and cultural barriers can one come to understand the process of identity creation for ethnic minorities surrounded by wider society. Examining identity is a multifaceted process due to the fact that it must be defined based on the diverse descriptions in which it can be observed. For Indians rising up in a dominantly white society, identity is always associated to the definitions employed by dominant society. This creates a difficulty; as those who do not categorize themselves as part of dominant society have to base their identity on the value of individual personality and the things that make one unique. Due to the fact that these concepts represent the cultural paradigm employed by most western countries, which adhere to such social, economic and political worldviews. The difficulty faced is the perceived uniqueness of

Fahad Ahmad Khan 210090058 Identity & The Indian Diaspora

people of color as non Europeans, as they always have to define themselves to their peers, this lack of ability to identify oneself based on ones individual perceptions is the utmost loss to personal liberty (Purkayastha, 2005, p.30). The belief that all individuals in

distinctive societies are able to construct whatever individual identity they would like is a characteristic of the whiteness prevalent in society (Sullivan, 2006, pg. 141).

Examining the idea of identity formation at the origin level is the only way to understand the cause why minority Indians have a difficult time in distinctive their identity. Identity is the perception that others place upon an individual, and it is for this reason that identifying minorities as being from somewhere else creates a separate notion of who really belongs (Sullivan, 2006). The reoccurring question posed to those not seen as being part of the dominant culture further illustrates this point, as one is always asked to define where they are from. The question itself implies that one does not truly belong, and in the most subtle way asks: when are you going back? Imposing the linear perception that the first generation Indians can only be the children of immigrants; belonging neither here nor there (Raj, 2003, p.4). The way in which an individual is categorized by others is an important aspect to understand when trying to examine the way in which one views their identity in relation to others in society. Identity is also created through other type of social instruments that fasten in directly with the ethnic culture of the individual and the society in which one is located. This can be seen in some regards to represent false identities, for it tries to categorize a whole group of people and not just the individual. It is through such social processes that an individual is faced with a double clash of what society tells them they should be; in

addition to ones own family. South Asians have come to exemplify positive role models within society as model minorities as the great accomplishments of reaching the middle class ideal are always touted especially toward South Asians. A large amount of the analysis acts as a way to advise individuals on how to create the right identity within western societies, as Abbas states how throughout Britain as a whole, South Asians have achieved upward economic and social mobility, live in more affluent areas, work in professional occupations or have become relatively successful in enterprise (p.5). This belief in the model minority idea postulates other instruments of positive stereotyping, such as the claim of the relative success of South Asians in sciences, and the affinity to aim for professional careers, such as doctors and Engineers (Abbas, 2005, p.83). This form of ascribing identity acts as a way to tell individuals what they should be and that if they do not fall under the categorizations as others within the cultural group fall, then something is wrong. Such processes which assert what one should be in the new society are justified and backed up by claims of culture and evidence of hard work. As Patel attempts to narrate this idea in relation to the prominent emergence of South Asians into the middle class: The emergence of the Indians as a sophisticated global tribe contradicts many stereotypes developed in the west, yet the roots of this international success lie deep in history (p.154). In addition, Patel also associates in the notion that because of the culture of connectedness of South Asians also accounts for their success, as it is their collective culture which allows them to be successful transnational entrepreneurs (p. 154). The sarcasm of such statements reveals the influence of the methods used to build identities and success from the perspective of the culture which

assumes dominant authority. It is the same justifications and methodologies that middleclass whites use to express their earned success (Sullivan, 2006, pg. 124). Such ideas appear to be perpetuated to make sure that those who do not constitute the dominant group are instructed on the ways in which to function within society. This is done in the simplest respects to make sure authority cannot be challenged, for if one imitates the dominant group they cannot challenge it. Furthermore this acts as a instrument to encourage a class identity on non-dominant group members, insisting they must imitate the social, political and cultural values of the ruling class in order to be successful. This instrument is very subtle, and incorporates itself as a means of creating success within society playing into cultural, social and psychological dimensions. I believe this is a very relevant idea when examining the notion of the so-called affinity of South Asian immigrants to push their children to becoming doctors, lawyers, engineers and other high class professionals. It is in my own observation being raised in this specific context that I feel this is more a reactionary measure to social realities than a cultural norm which is part in package of South Asian culture. The primary reason is not that parents want their children to be doctors, engineers and so forth, but rather the reasons why they would like them to take up these high class positions.

References Abbas, T. (2005) Education of British South Asians: Ethnicity, Capital and Class Structure. Gordonsville, VA, USA: Palgrave Macmillan. Patel, D. (2006). The Maple-Neem Nexus: Transnational Links of South Asian Canadians. In Satzewich. V and Wong. L (Ed.), Transnational Identities and Practices in Canada (pp. 150-162). Vancouver BC: UBC Press Purkayastha, B. Negotiating Ethnicity: Second-Generation South Asian Americans Traverse a Transnational World. New Brunswick, NJ, USA: Rutgers University Press. Raj, D. Where Are You From? : Middle Class Migrants in the Modern World. Ewing, NJ, USA: University of California Press. Sullivan, S. Revealing Whiteness: The Unconscious Habits of Racial Privilege. Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press.