Show summary Hide summary
A new national survey from the Carnegie Endowment offers a fresh look at how people of Indian origin living in the United States see themselves, what forms of bias they encounter and which concerns may be overstated. The findings matter now because they shape how media, campuses and policymakers understand issues ranging from identity labels to claims of caste-based discrimination.
What the survey covers and why it matters
The report, based on the 2020 Indian American Attitudes Survey, samples U.S. residents of Indian origin and maps attitudes on identity, discrimination, religion and politics. Its results challenge several widely circulated assumptions and have practical consequences for how institutions craft anti-discrimination policy and how reporters frame stories about the community.
Puja bookings from abroad: what to verify about sankalp, gotra and priest credentials
Sadhus: inside their growing political and cultural influence
Identity: Indian over “South Asian”
Respondents largely prefer the label Indian or Indian American rather than the broader term “South Asian.” Nearly seven in ten chose an India-centered identity, while roughly one in ten selected “South Asian.” That preference has implications for how organizations and newsrooms address community outreach and reporting.
Reported discrimination: skin color at the top
About half of those surveyed said they had not faced discrimination in the prior year. Among those who did report negative treatment, the most commonly cited reason was skin color (about 30%), followed by gender and religion (each near 18%), and country of origin (about 16%).
Caste-related complaints are uncommon in this sample
Just 5% of respondents described having experienced discrimination specifically tied to caste. The survey authors flag a puzzling element: some people reported caste-based discrimination by non-Indians, which raises questions about how respondents interpreted the term. The report suggests alternative explanations, including the possibility that respondents used “caste” as a proxy for other forms of exclusion or that respondents encountered it from people from other South Asian countries where caste markers are meaningful.
Importantly, the Carnegie analysis also critiques earlier, highly cited research on caste in the U.S. for methodological limitations. That prior study—frequently referenced in news stories and some policy debates—used nonrepresentative sampling and excluded respondents who did not disclose a caste identity, factors that the Carnegie authors say could skew results toward people with strong views on caste.
Who reports a caste identity?
The survey limited caste questions to Hindu respondents. Among Hindus, 47% said they personally identify with a caste group; the remainder said they do not. Within the subgroup that affirmed a caste identity, a majority reported belonging to what they described as “general or upper castes,” while smaller shares reported origins in Other Backward Classes (OBC), Adivasi/Scheduled Tribes and Dalit/Scheduled Caste communities. The report cautions that these numbers should be interpreted carefully because the caste question excluded non-Hindu respondents and sample sizes for some categories were small.
Political spillover from India is limited
Although heated political debates in India sometimes appear to carry over into diaspora communities, the survey finds that only about 28% of respondents felt Indian politics had created divisions within the U.S. Indian-origin community. Among those reporting such division, a larger share pointed to religious politics in India than to caste politics as the main driver.
Measuring Hindu religiosity: a missed opportunity
The authors note—and critics have echoed—that typical survey questions about religious practice (regular prayer or weekly worship attendance) do not capture the diversity of Hindu religious life. For many Hindus, religious commitment can take varied forms: daily rituals at home, devotional listening, philosophical study, or interpreting work as spiritual practice. Simple frequency-based questions risk misrepresenting how people understand and live their faith.
- Identity: ~70% prefer Indian/Indian American; ~10% use “South Asian.”
- Discrimination: Half report none in the past year; among reported incidents, skin color is the most frequent reason.
- Caste discrimination: Reported by ~5%; authors urge caution and note puzzling patterns in who is named as the source.
- Sampling concerns: Earlier, widely cited studies used nonrepresentative methods that may overstate prevalence of caste-based harms.
- Religiosity: Standard survey measures do not reflect the range of Hindu practices and beliefs.
For journalists, university administrators and policymakers, the Carnegie findings underscore two practical points: use representative data when assessing the scale of a problem, and design questions that match cultural realities rather than borrowing metrics suited to other faith traditions. Where policy responses—such as adding protected categories or pursuing legal action—rely on survey evidence, the robustness and framing of that evidence should be examined closely.
In short, the new data complicate simple narratives: Indian-origin Americans show clear preferences about identity labels, report particular kinds of bias more often than others, and present a mixed picture on the prevalence of caste-related harms. That complexity should guide reporting and policy decisions going forward.
