![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Although the Chinese in Kolkata have preserved their Chinese identity, they have been acculturated by various cultural elements from India. It is this mixture of Chinese and Indian practices that gives them a unique cultural identity. When members of this Chinese community in Kolkata and its vicinity emigrated to Toronto or were forcibly deported to China in the aftermath of the 1962 conflict, they carried with them, both knowingly and unknowingly, some of these Chinese-Indian cultural traits. By focusing on the Chinese-Indians living in different geographical and cultural settings, this essay examines the formation of a Chinese-Indian identity in Kolkata and its preservation by some of those who are now residing in Sihui in China and in Toronto, Canada. It also explains some of the main similarities and differences among the three groups of Chinese-Indians. It concludes with an analysis of cultural identity as it manifests among the Chinese-Indian communities.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. Chinese scholars in their study of the Chinese overseas also frequently use Stuart Hall’s views on identity. See, for example, Liu Hong (Citation2007).
2. While the term ‘Chinese-Indian’ emphasises the Chinese ethnicity of these people, ‘Indian-Chinese’ highlights their Indian nationality, which they were able to acquire in the 1990s. In this study, I have used ‘Chinese-Indian’ as the term for the ethnic Chinese who have resided in Kolkata for several generations or migrated to India before 1962; some of these people may have acquired Indian citizenship, others have passports that belong to a third country such as Canada. I also prefer to use the term ‘Chinese-Indian’, instead of ‘Indian-Chinese’, because of the importance the preservation of ‘Chinese identity’ seems to play in this community.
3. Cohen (Citation1994, 89).
4. Even if Atchew’s being the very first Chinese settler in Kolkata might be a legend, he is at the very least the first for whom we have clear documentary evidence.
5. Huaqiao zhi bianzuan weiyuanhui 華僑志編纂委員會 (Citation1962, 34–39).
6. On the present situation, Dutta (Citation2003): 169 states: ‘Today, most of the community are Indian citizens’.
7. Unfortunately, I do not have the publication details for this article, which was given to me by a Chinese in Kolkata.
8. Interview on 23 January 2008.
9. See Liang (October-December 2007, 397–410).
10. I have discussed this issue in detail in Zhang (Citation2010).
11. For a detailed study of this issue, see Leng and Cohen (Citation1972, 268–320).
12. Chiu (Citation2003).
13. Oxfeld (Citation1993).
14. Chiu (Citation2003, 34–36).
15. Liang (Citationn.d.)
16. Oxfeld (Citation2005, 17–33).
17. It might be argued, though, that the predominance of choosing spouses from not only the same ethnic background, but even from the same locality of origin, shows similarities to Indian marital preferences and could therefore show Indian influence. However, such practices are not only Indian, but also Chinese, thus allowing no sweeping generalisations as to possible influencing. In fact, such influence would have to be specifically proven. Until and unless this is done, we can do no more than adhere to the conclusion drawn above.
18. This may, however, be debated by drawing attention to the descendants of Black African slaves, particularly in western India. This issue needs to be studied comparatively.