I was having recently at a management dinner with an Indian colleague (interestingly I think he's a Christian, not a Hindu) who said "I don't want to live in place with lots of Muslims, they mess things up". It's interesting how brazenly open he was, and this was in a western country. I put forward a strong candidate for his team, who happened to have grown up in Saudi Arabia, and he was inexplicably rejected, although in retrospect it made sense.
The article also brushes up against caste, but doesn't explore the role of caste networks in tech.
If that's the "bridge to the west" that India is pushing, I hope some of those tendencies are stamped out, hard.
I'd hope so too, buy my grad school experience says otherwise.
Both Chinese CCP and Indian BJP recruit international students studying in the US for spreading propaganda. Maybe more- information gathering, spying... I don't know. I found average Chinese grads very tight lipped about their internal politics. While I didn't encounter any supposed Chinese recruit face to face, I saw Indians who, very amiable and friendly when met in person, would be sharing and posting misinformation and hate speech on social media on a regular basis.
> "I don't want to live in place with lots of Muslims, they mess things up".
Devil's advocate: this actually may have more to do with culture generally than religion specifically. Muslim countries may still have more clan-based / tribal social structures:
> Henrich’s ambition is tricky: to account for Western distinctiveness while undercutting Western arrogance. He rests his grand theory of cultural difference on an inescapable fact of the human condition: kinship, one of our species’ “oldest and most fundamental institutions.” Though based on primal instincts— pair-bonding, kin altruism—kinship is a social construct, shaped by rules that dictate whom people can marry, how many spouses they can have, whether they define relatedness narrowly or broadly. Throughout most of human history, certain conditions prevailed: Marriage was generally family-adjacent—Henrich’s term is “cousin marriage”—which thickened the bonds among kin. Unilateral lineage (usually through the father) also solidified clans, facilitating the accumulation and intergenerational transfer of property. Higher-order institutions—governments and armies as well as religions—evolved from kin-based institutions. As families scaled up into tribes, chiefdoms, and kingdoms, they didn’t break from the past; they layered new, more complex societies on top of older forms of relatedness, marriage, and lineage. Long story short, in Henrich’s view, the distinctive flavor of each culture can be traced back to its earlier kinship institutions.
[…]
> Why, if Italy has been Catholic for so long, did northern Italy become a prosperous banking center, while southern Italy stayed poor and was plagued by mafiosi? The answer, Henrich declares, is that southern Italy was never conquered by the Church-backed Carolingian empire. Sicily remained under Muslim rule and much of the rest of the south was controlled by the Orthodox Church until the papal hierarchy finally assimilated them both in the 11th century. This is why, according to Henrich, cousin marriage in the boot of Italy and Sicily is 10 times higher than in the north, and in most provinces in Sicily, hardly anyone donates blood (a measure of willingness to help strangers), while some northern provinces receive 105 donations of 16-ounce bags per 1,000 people per year.
Devils advocate: you're trying to justify some destructive (and presumably illegal since it's influencing his hiring decisions based on a protected category) workplace bigotry with a pseudo-sociological treatise.
If I were to share an anecdote about another group being subject to workplace discrimination and open bigotry; and then get a canned sociological treatise trying to justify it, that response would be, rightly seen as beyond the pale.
So no, I’m not going to engage with it.
EDIT: it looks like you’re from India, so you may not be aware of this. In most western countries engaging in workplace discrimination based on religion would get you into serious trouble, and quite likely fired. Not only is it illegal, it’s bad for business (losing a potentially valuable senior staff member because they’re the “wrong religion” has seriously hurt our project). Your reaction is quite telling though.
IMHO this is a glaring hole in constitution that got there due to the historical oppression from people affiliated with religions. Unlike other protected classes like race and gender religion is not bolted to a person at birth, and as a matter of choice should not be protected constitutionally or otherwise.
You’re assuming I’m an American. Regardless, this sort of pseudo-anthropological BS has been used to justify discrimination for centuries (and I hope we can agree it’s entirely irrelevant to hiring decisions: I accept that people will be as bigoted as they want in private, once it starts influencing hiring, it becomes a problem). What’s more interesting is that it’s still up, and still got people defending it.
I don't see a problem with having personal/company preferences. In fact you have to justify any kind of limits on preferences.
And no, I was not assuming you are American. But in the context of this website the constitution refers to the US constitution. What I said also applies to many other constitutions.
I don’t see a problem with having personal/company preferences
Fortunately you don’t make the law. But, regardless, he not only violated company policy and also broke the law, his “personal preferences” put a large program of work at risk.
You leave your prejudices at the door and hire the best people for the job: one of the fundamental rules for (non-f*d) businesses.
It sounds like you ignored the point completely and just switched to personal attack.
Do you agree or not that any law limiting hiring practices should be justified or not?
If so, how do you justify religion over other criteria that are personal choices of the candidate like style, cleanliness, politeness etc?
How do you even propose to discover criteria if you start with a clean list?
I generally agree about the business point, but you seem to belive religion has no impact on fulfilling one's duties regardless of the nature of business, which is dubious even in common important professions like doctors.
I’m not sure how you’d be able to figure out how a doctor would treat patients based on their religion. You seem to assume that people who belong to a particular religion adhere to every precept of their religion, which is not the case.
In any case, most people are born into a religion and have no real choice in the matter. They acquire various markers of their religion (a name for example) from their parents. You seem to think it’s a personal choice, but for the vast majority of people that’s not the case.
In the context of the person whose resume was rejected, he was not considered for the job based on his name and his educational history, which marked him as a Muslim. Even if we accept your argument that religious practice is a choice that can be discriminated against, there is no indication that he actually was a practicing Muslim (I don’t know if he was) he was rejected, sight unseen, because of those markers.
You demonstrate how important it is to stomp out the rightwing ultranationalism festering in India. It is not solely India's problem any more.
There is irreparable damage being done to the Indian psyche, and it is not going to be contained (unlike, for example, if it was China). Especially considering the impending climate disaster is going to disproportionately affect India and neighbors, resulting in social disaster, mass migration of a scale not seen before.
The world's problems are the world's problems. We Indians migrating into other societies see issues that the societies don't see themselves: (asian-hate, white supremacy, sunni-shia violence, anti-semitism).
But I am glad once again the world (ahem, the West) deigned to "fix" India before fixing themselves.
You make it sound like it's two separate buckets. The world and India can, strike that, have to work together. As an Indian myself, I will accept any help I get to fight rightwing bigotry. And I will help fight rightwing bigotry elsewhere.
People need to stop thinking as if borders are natural phenomenon.
In an alternative history, a non ccp China would be close to the US just like India and their dispora would be competitive with India's. But due to the ccp baggage, the Chinese influence is much weaker.
To be frank the Economist is pushing the alternative history here. The Chinese diaspora has been shaping real world history, particularly in East and Southeast Asia, for a thousand years or more. To this day the power elite of business and government in most of SE Asia are heavily dominated by ethnic Chinese and you better believe it shapes the politics.
If you limit your view to the Western world of the last 20-30 years everything the author says about the Indian diaspora and the comparison is correct. But then the "in history" needs to be removed from the headline.
Similarly the Economist's comparison of 18M Indian migrants vs 10M Chinese in the world today doesn't really tell the whole story - by most accounts there are 40M+ overseas Chinese scattered across the globe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese
How does this alternative history benefit PRC? All the elite Indian diasphora couldn't stop US from siding with Pakistan for most of recent history, or prevent global supply chains from shifting to PRC for decades, or secure critical tech transfers to help India develop. Reality is diasphora tend to have very little control over foreign policy unless it already aligns with state interests (Jewish/Cuban lobby).
Ultimately PRC would take increased Chinese (as in the country) global influence, by simply being 5x the size of India because "CCP baggage" allowed her to transfer, retain and coordinate more domestic talent, over increased Chinese diasphora influence in the US anyday. Functionally, CCP baggage didn't prevent plurality of foreign students being from PRC (again because 5x richer), which translates to knowledge flow back to PRC. Recent NBER study on Indian brain drain to US had some crazy figures like 90% of top 10, 60% of top 1000, 36% of top 100 Indian IIT rankers gets brain drained to US. That may be good for Indian influence in the US, but not for India. Meanwhile ethnically Chinese talent is flowing back to PRC because >4% of US being Chinese = not enough political power to prevent another red scare regardless.
What's more benefitial for PRC, diasphora that also makes PRC stronger or diasphora that exclusively makes US stronger. It's the former. PRC extracts more benefits from diasphora with a few decades of successfully lobbying the much more influential US business interests.
Their industrial might certainly is though. Africa doesn't really care about interhegemonic competition and its associated grandstanding, they care about who builds their airports, roads, dams and railways.
I think the parent comment was strictly limited to the USA which China views as an adversary and not a partner. Anyone who has travelled a bit in Africa, South East Asia or the Balkans in the past decade could tell that the influence of China is far larger than that of India and does rival the US in more and more places.
The Chinese diplomacy is very very good and hard working. Their diplomats are constantly travelling and that includes both major and small countries.
While that's a very good point, I also wonder about other countries. Indian origin residents have had major impacts in countries throughout Europe, Africa and the Middle East as well, to an extent I believe greater than that of the Chinese. I don't think it's just the CCP baggage, there's got to be something more (maybe cultural).
Again a valid point, but there's an incredible variety of languages Indians speak. But you may be right - Hindi, Tamil and Telugu seem to be extraordinarily popular languages.
Actually, now that I think about it, with the raw number of people speaking every language, you may be exactly right! I've been thinking in terms of percentages (x% of the population speaks y language, so it's probably not language that's the binding factor), but with India's sheer size, just the raw population (that x% might be 300 million people), it doesn't matter!
I meant that people emigrating from India are on average better English speakers than people from China. Hence it's easier for them to interface with the West and make an impact in English speaking countries.
This highlights the need to distinguish "CCP baggage" into protectionist trade policy that is (today, not in the past with disasters like the Great Leap Forward) similar to what Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan used to grow their economies, and political repression, which is much worse in China.
How can you compare anything with Singapore. Singapore is a tiny city state which is thriving in large portion due to geographic rent. Remove geographic rent from the equation, and it would quickly wither.
Very large countries are always much more difficult to govern. The best thing for your median Chinese would be to split to 5 to 50 different countries or at least more independent states
China growth rivals Japan before stagflation and this despite not benefiting from major help from foreign countries. I am not too fond of their regime but I don’t understand the comment I read here.
If you compare China to its direct neighbour with a similar population, India, you clearly see that they were far more adept at developing their economy. There is a reason the article focus on the diaspora. That’s because the situation inside the country is not that rosy.
I think American have a very biased view of China due to the strong anti-Chinese propaganda going on in your media.
Chinese influence has nothing to do with the quality of domestic life.
Whatever the CCP's effect on Chinese domestic life, their authoritarianism and Uyghur genocode have made China incredibly unpopular among the voters in the world's strongest economies, especially the US.
In fact, they're driving Western companies from China to India, which will hugely decrease their global influence.
> Uyghur genocode have made China incredibly unpopular
"Uyghur genocide" is a kind of scarecrow that US invents every time when it prepares to destroy an opponent. If a country possesses large deposits of oil (Iraq, Libya) there would be one kind of scarecrow to justify bombing. If the country becomes too influential and threatens US hegemony, there would be another kind of scarecrow.
The only thing that is these libels tell: USA is preparing to attack the country and they need a justification for further bombing.
E.g. I'm 90% sure USA is preparing to start a proxy war with China using Taiwan as pretext and cannon fodder. Just like the war in Ukraine which is actually war between USA and Russia.
I'm not sure if u get the point. I am referring to the individuals from China, where the ccp baggage makes them less likely to thrive in the US society.
They are either less willing to integrate into the US due to the their ccp upgringing, or more prone to be targeted to be purged(see the recent trump purge of the Chinese scientists), or more prone to actual go back and work with the ccp again.
In contrast, the Indians are much closer to the US society, many Indians actually thinks that the US is just a better and richer version of India(source my Indian friends).
I never said most. I only said they are less likely than the Indians to thrive as a comment to the article. Not sure why you intentionally misread my words
It’s very possible for an immigrant to believe themselves dissidents in their country of origin, but still carry over attitudes from there, and even later revert to outright loyalty to the regime there. Just look at many late Soviet emigres, who at the time were pleased to escape the USSR and live in the freedom of the West, but later often looked back nostalgically on the USSR or supported Putin’s attempts to restore it. I wouldn’t be surprised if that happens with many PRC emigres.
PRC did some things right. I won’t fault them for having an authoritarian phase. Taiwan and South Korea did too. So far they’ve done better than India. Although, perhaps, in ways that doomed them in the long run (one child policy)
But if you compare PRC with for instance Taiwan/ROC, it’s clear that China could have been much more powerful and influential than they are today if they hadn’t been so distracted by disastrous communist ideology/fantasy. They had a chance at becoming the number one superpower, but they blew it.
Europe has a long history with the Indian diaspora. Particularly in East Europe, where to Romany, a people of Indian origin, have lived for hundreds of years. The two regions have long historical ties that I think should continue to be strengthened. Shame that Europe fails to acknowledge the history of slavery it made them endure and lacks the will to correct it.
First of all, Europe (which is in many respects not a single entity) has extensively acknowledged injustices done to Roma.
Second, no, there are not relevant historical ties there anymore. Otherwise you could argue that Italy has ties to Egypt due to the Romans or Greece has ties to India due to Alexander.
Perhaps India should acknowledge it‘s own history before lecturing Europe, which is a history of surpressing the scheduled castes - in many ways comparable to the Roma.
I'm Indian and I dont think "Europe" enslaved India. Britain did. But Britain is not Europe. France and portugal had some small colonies but none of the other european powers were too successful.
India has had a long history of trading with rome, greece and the rest of europe for at least 3500years.
Do you actually live in Eastern Europe? It certainly doesn't seem so. Roma population are one of the saddest sights I've ever seen, there is minimal integration with rest of societies, ans absolutely 0 integration with India, most of population doesn't even understand their history. Also, not sure if you are linking Roma and slavery, at least in East that was absolutely never the case, in contrary there were medieval laws banning them from entering cities etc.
Communism tried to integrate them into society by force (if you didn't work the work state assigned you, you went straight to jail, or gave them whole apartment blocks which they destroyed beyond repair, see [1]), it worked till the iron hand fell with iron curtain and Roma unemployment reached 98-99% levels. Most, at least in Slovakia, continue to live in extremely basic illegal slums, see [2]. Its still quite normal to see naked kids run around in dirt all year long, including heavy snow.
There are massive health and social issues within community, addictions, parasites and other easily treatable sickness, massive amount of incests, by 15 most Roma girls are already mothers (seen it myself in school), standard amount of kids parents have is 10-12 to get most out of social support. States and society basically gave up, there is no quick solution, and solution that may work would take at least 5-10 election periods, so nobody bothers.
> Also, not sure if you are linking Roma and slavery, at least in East that was absolutely never the case, in contrary there were medieval laws banning them from entering cities etc.
It absolutely was the case. Roma slavery in Romania is a well known part of history.[0] It doesn’t matter that they might have been banned from cities, because slavery put them to work on e.g. boyars’ and monastic estates.
> gave them whole apartment blocks which they destroyed beyond repair
Some Roma communities have a code of ritual purity similar to kosher laws in Judaism. Dwellings fall into disrepair once a generation has died in them. It is a failure of public housing policy that this factor was not taken into account when serving the needs of this particular community.
I did live in east europe, and whenever I go there and witness this ongoing genocide my stomach turns inside out as much as it does when i witness their status in west europe. Roma people being discriminated heavily in both east and west europe is telling of what europeans have done in their past to other peoples.
“Integration” is an euphemism for erasure. Their unique culture shouldn’t be mistaken for what some elements of their society do thanks to centuries of marginalisation, genocide and slavery.
An assertive India may be beneficial to them. Mody has acknowledged their origin. And although they are a European folk I am resorting to India as that may be their only hope of support for emergence.
As I told another commenter I am glad for your reply. I want people to learn about how the Roma live, and how they are treated and I want them to hear it from those that don’t like them.
While your point is quite interesting (I didn't know Romanis originated from India!), they did emigrate around 1000 CE, or 1000 years ago. I'm not sure whether you can even call them of Indian origin anymore?
This link claims that they were captured by the mongols and brought to europe where they were then enslaved, for instance, by romanians and by others.
Other sources indeed claim that they fled india as they were a lower caste and while initially allowed to live freely they were eventually enslaved.
I know for a fact that in Romania they were enslaved - there are articles in the Romanian media showing ads from the interwar period where roma slaves were sold on the open market. In some regions they were still slaves until the early 90s (they were called “sluga”).
The fact that we know little about their history and there are virtually no museums or places to learn about it is quite telling. Western europe for instance completely erases their history and uniqueness by conflating them with romanians.
All I can gather are sparse sources, but they all point to india, slavery, and loads and loads of historical abuse towards them.
Contemporary scholarship has posited that the ancestors of the Roma left India as e.g. camp followers of armies pursuing their livelihoods, not necessarily as outcasts intentionally turning their backs on India.
Ironic that if they left India on their own, they were and are treated worse in Europe. Meanwhile in India today, of just the ruling party's 303 representative seats, 190 are held by the 'lower caste' (officially under either the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe lists, or Other Backward Caste list).
Really puts paid to the affirmative action fueled india-bad-caste-bad-hindu-bad notion that gets so much traction in Europe.
Some sources indicate they were captured from india by the mongols and then brought to europe only to be enslaved again. These people are seriously unfortunate.
The documentation is less incoherent than you assume. My own background is in linguistics, so I am familiar with the literature on the history of the Roma that take evidence of historical language contact into account. The relevant chapter in Matras’ Romani: A Linguistic Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 2004) has a pretty accessible overview of prior scholarship and the modern state of the art. As Matras points out, interaction between the Romani and the Byzantine Greeks was ongoing from the eleventh century at the latest, so they had left India well before the Mongol invasion (which happened in the mid-twelfth century).
what more could be done to correct it? gypsie communities already receive great support without contributing anything.
gypsie communities are incredibly narrow minded, conservative and sexist, I find it perplexing that typical left wing people tend to support them. I guess they don't really know what's up because they've never met any.
gypsies actively shun their own that go to school. Not university or college. School.
they buy their wives from their parents.
they expect everything from the state/host society, and give nothing back.
I want the world to learn about what’s happening in europe. Both east and west are guilty of an ongoing genocide and no one wants to talk about it and rectify this atrocious mistake.
I hope Indians will not take this kindly, because even though Romany are European there are some in their community that are proud of their origin and seek closer ties. And to be fair I would support any political movement that wants to help these people get back on their feet and one way is even more vocal support from India (Mody already acknowledged their origin). Roma people are valuable to Europe. They are a folk that need to emerge and assert their rightful place in Europe’s history.
And your comments make it clear that you have never interacted with gypsies or their communities, and only view them through a romanticised version of the internet.
> I would support any political movement that wants to help these people get back on their feet
It is them who do not want something different. Imposing your view on their world does not work, they do not want change.
What exactly are their contributions that make them valuable to Europe?
But see, it’s difficult to get them to open up. Many hide their identity as well as they can due to fear of abuse.
Confusing the criminal minority in their community with their culture is wrong. And i am suspecting you are making this confusion. Roma people are not what you think they are.
I grew up in the Balkans. There were two large gypsy camps near my city.
I went to prison, which coincidentally is packed with gypsies (and not because they are being discriminated against). I've met countless gypsies, their families, etc.
An ex girlfriend used to voluntarily go to the gypsy camp with a mobile school to teach them basic, primary school stuff. They did not want to learn and only made sexist comments (the kids.).
Gypsies unfortunately have no place in a post industrial western society. Sure, their seemingly anarchistic lifestyle is romantic and attractive, but it is far from the reality.
Yeah me too. I was even robbed by "them". I "suffered" due to the "image" they created. And then i realised that's all bullshite and there's more to this story.
I spoke with Romany PHd students, bachelor students, authors, entrepreneurs, people that like you and eye slave away for a day off or for good daily rate.
They almost all do their best to hide their identity and ethnicity. In countries such as Austria, Germany, Sweden, Finland, even the slightest suspicion that you are Gypsy can result in verbal and physical, abuse. Policies of entire countries are made around it.
Some people may say that you went to prison because you didn't want better. Both you and I know there is nuance to it.
If you, your mother, your father, your family, your friends have all been raised in povery, marginalisation, and lived in constant fear of reprisal you would have done what the Roma do. You would have isolated yourself where you found confort. I know I would have.
The Roma didn't have the opportunity I did, they were almost always pushed aside. I know because I spoke to a bunch of Roma students that where afraid to reveal they were Roma to the point they shivered. We had to speak about it in private almost as if they were being hunted.
I also know because I knew a Swiss professors who shared racist jokes about them without shame. German, French, Romania, Dutch, and so on.
I don't deny there is a criminal element in their society and culture. Equally I don't deny there's good, and we need to dig for that good as we do in our "own".
I agree with most of what you say, but also you cannot paint an entire (and very problematic) society in a positive light based on what very few outliers have achieved. What is the percentage of educated gypsies? 0.01%? 0.1% at best?
I spent a year traveling around India early in the new millennium and of course being shocked by the overpopulation. But when I mentioned that overpopulation in conversations with locals as a bad thing, I was surprised to occasionally hear claims that no, that overpopulation would allow India to export more people and thus have a bigger impact on the world stage. Moreover, advocacy for population control was said to actually be a Pakistani and/or Chinese plot.
A lot of the response in India regarding overpopulation came about during the 1970s, when the Prime Minister's son, worried about overpopulation, started a Compulsory Sterilisation Program, the horrors off which I have heard a lot about.
Look up India’s population density and fertility rate. Not as dire as you think. Indians consume much less resources per capita than Wester countries too.
There were predictions even then of rate tampering down. If someone was so concerned about India's population, they should have looked at projections before speaking down to the locals.
It honestly feels a statistical inevitability. I highly recommend the book "The Discovery of India" by Jawaharlal Nehru [0] - I think it is a must read, for non-Indians and Indians (especially) alike. India, if anything, has been under-contributing to the world in last couple of centuries.
As an Indian, I feel both fear and cheer about the "Indian influence".
India has been a deeply hierarchical society for a millenniums, and people of Indian subcontinent (I like the term "Thaalis") still have this inertial, hierarchical mental holdover, conscious or otherwise. My hope is that instead of it manifesting[1][2], it is challenged and defeated in the long run. And 'the good parts' are utilised for the betterment of the world.
(Of course, it is never a one-way street, influence is dialectic. In many ways Thaali itself has been deeply influenced by the world. Not saying that's a good or a bad thing necessarily)
Feels like the other way round in India's case. Compared to the degrees of change India's own culture has gone through because of foreign influences, Indian immigrants' cultural impact on the West is nearly non-existent.
I don't know, Indian religious traditions made their way to the West in the 60s, and today things like yoga are pretty much mainstream. There is also the effect that Indian culture had on British culture in the 19th century: shampoo was brought to the West by an Indian immigrant, not to mention curry, tea, and pyjamas - among others. The effect that Indian culture has had on the West is greater, in my opinion, than the effect Chinese culture has had - though not as strong as that of the African diaspora cultures.
I'd say it's more just numbers, it's about the culture's status in the recipient country. While stuff like Indian food or Chinese food is super-normalized, you don't really see either culture dominating the US. Education does help, because it makes them seem "closer" to us, but a lot of the time a big culture will just end up absorbing all others that connect to it.
It's interesting how the Chinese diaspora was able to drive a large amount of China's economic growth, but the same is not true for the Indian diaspora.
I'd argue that theres a lot of factors at play. Personally, my parents belong to said diaspora and I spent a long time in China. Ive asked myself the same question. First of all India started out a lot poorer than China post independence. The work needed to bring india up to speed is a lot more. The second issue is one of ethnic identity. China has been working on a predomonantly han based identity for 2 millenia. Indians dont quite have that. Each Indian ethnicity has their own set of values. Also a lot of educated Indians are more familiar with English than there own mother tongues making themselves feel more at home overseas than back home. Then there is the problem of India's financial policy - transacting money is a pain in the bottom for people with money overseas. In recent years things are changing. Younger indians do have a stronger sense of national identity and thanks to technology payments are somewhat easier. The indian government however still does not recognize or know how to exploit this diaspora.
I don't think a common national identity is a big factor. From what I've read about economic development during China's reform-and-opening-up period, private investment from overseas usually piggy-backed on existing trust networks between family and friends. E.g. a Taiwanese investor would support his second cousin's business in Xiamen right across the strait, not some random stranger whose trustworthiness is completely unknown.
So the Indian diaspora split into dozens of smaller groups could provide the same level of support as a hypothetical unified diaspora, each group contributing to their ancestral region's development, just like the Chinese diaspora.
Yes, taiwan, hong kong and singapore have played a major role in China's development. And yes, trust networks are important. One thing to note is that despjte the divergence of the diaspora culturally linguistically mandarin is commonly spoken among educated classes.
Ive observed similar behaviour among tamilians overseas where an enterprising cousin builds their start up around their home village in tamil nadu. However, I think this is where the issue of class comes in. Annecdoteally, a lot of the indian diaspora come from already wealthy backgrounds which do not see the need to help each other.
Because India is composed of many completely different races, languages, and thus cultures - you can't say India is "culturally influential" because there's no such thing as "Indian culture".
They do share a common religion though - I think that might be the source for what we call "Indian culture"? Like Islamic culture is a thing, even though Muslims are all over the world and vary widely. In much the same way, I think "Indian culture" (Hindu culture) is recognisable, even if people speak different languages and belong to different races.
Swnio’n union fel y DU — es i i Brifysgol Cymru yn Aberystwyth.
Not much of that (nor Scots Gaelic, nor Irish) in the Empire.
And if local culture like Morris dancing, Caber tossing, and cheese rolling made it off the island, I never heard about it; conversely, the things which rich people in the UK did enjoy (Cricket, Shakespeare, Christianity) they did export.
The article also brushes up against caste, but doesn't explore the role of caste networks in tech.
If that's the "bridge to the west" that India is pushing, I hope some of those tendencies are stamped out, hard.