The Rights of ‘Return’: Ethnic Identities in the Workplace among Second-Generation Indian-American Professionals in the Parental Homeland

Abstract

This article explores the salience of ethnicity for second-generation Indian-American professionals who ‘return’ from the US to their parental homeland, India. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 48 second-generation Indian-Americans in India, it examines when and how they adopt ethnic identities in the workplace. My findings suggest that, bolstered by their transnational experiences and backgrounds, returnees construct ethnic identities and utilise ethnic options that reflect the cultural and economic environments of their adopted homeland. At the same time, and often contemporaneously, work relationships, experiences and personal interactions with those they encounter in the parental homeland factor into their transnational identity constructions. Also proposed is a preliminary framework within which to explore the conditions that facilitate the construction and assertion of returnees’ ethnic identities in the workplace in India.

Keywords:

• Second-Generation
• India
• Ethnicity
• ‘Return’ Migration
• High-Skilled Professionals

Acknowledgements

A previous draft of this article was presented at the Workshop ‘Links to the Diasporic Homeland: Comparative Experiences of Second-Generation and Ancestral “Return” Migration and Mobility', at the University of Sussex, 14–15 May 2010, which was funded under TIES RTN (Research Training Network of the EU Network on The Integration of the European Second Generation). Many thanks to Nazli Kibria, Dennis Conway, Peggy Levitt, John Stone, Russell King and Jenny Money (especially for her patience and editing skills), and to two anonymous JEMS reviewers for comments on earlier drafts.

Notes

1. ‘Return’ in this context refers to ‘relocation to an acknowledged homeland’ (Christou 2006a: 833). It is beyond the scope of this article to critically analyse this term. For insightful analyses, see King and Christou (2008); Wessendorf (2007). Also, for ease of readability, I will hereinafter refrain from using the term ‘return’ within quotes.

2. Included are the adjoining cities of Gurgaon and Noida, which form part of the National Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi.

3. Over 75 per cent of the sample expected to return to the United States in three to five years. Three respondents planned to live permanently in India. The remaining interviewees stated that they did not know when they would return to the US and, because they were enjoying their time in India, they were in no hurry to decide.

4. Although there are diverse ethnic sub-groups in India, my findings suggest that respondents did not construct sub-ethnic identities, but rather a pan-ethnic Indian identity.

5. Of course, Indian bosses and co-workers may treat second-generation colleagues warmly at face value but still harbour ambivalent feelings towards them. I thank Russell King for pointing this out.

6. Respondents spoke fondly of the US and noted that they kept in regular contact with family and friends and closely followed social, economic and political developments in the country. Their views suggest that their fondness for both the US and India was not mutually exclusive (see also Gowricharn 2009: 1634).