A Comedian Said Indians Shouldn’t Call Themselves ‘Asian’. Racist or Right?

Ever since Rishi Sunak was appointed the Prime Minister of Britain on October 25, 2022, various groups have scrambled to claim him as their poster boy. By their logic, Sunak is at once the first Indian-origin Prime Minister of Britain, the first Hindu Prime Minister of Britain and, also, the first Asian Prime Minister of Britain.

Which “first” is it, though?

This frustration at the simultaneous chorus – or cacophony – of voices, each trying to claim Sunak as their own, was captured in a clip on The Daily Show, an American satirical news TV programme. On the show, Malaysian comedian Ronny Chieng had a strong opinion: “Indians are not Asians”. He added, “I love how Indians try to have it both ways, like being Indian and Asian. Like, pick a lane, okay.”

Truthfully, however, the “lane” in question is more like a river with several tributaries. And Sunak lies at the mouth of them all. Born in Southampton, a city on Britain’s south coast, Sunak lived in England until he left to study business at Stanford, in North America, where he almost obtained a green card. He has never lived in India or Asia, but he is decidedly openly Hindu. To top it off, his “Indian” origins actually come from a grandparent being born in Gujranwala, which is in modern-day Pakistan. Hence, according to the news agency PTI, Sunak is both Indian and Pakistani.

The question of how Sunak should be identified begged a deeper one. How do we Indians identify ourselves, and in what contexts? 

I’ve lived in India all my life, and travelled across 15 European countries and Singapore, but I can’t recall having ever used the term “Asian” to introduce myself anywhere. In my mind, “Asian” only evokes the kind of cuisine – Chinese, Japanese, or Thai – I might order when I have too much going on a Saturday night (or not). So, is Chieng’s premise rooted in some reality? Or do Indians think of themselves as Asians, and, if so, when and where?

Ronak Gupta, an Indian scientist who has studied and lived in North America for nearly five years, found that Indians around him almost never identify as Asians. “When people here [in North America] say ‘Asian,’ they are referring to someone from Japan, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the other Southeast Asian countries," he said. "I always introduce myself as Indian, it’s the most straightforward and easily recognised for me.”

For Soumya Chauhan, who has lived in London and worked in investment banking for five years, how these terms are used depends not only on who is using them and where and their understanding of other cultures but also on the specific context of a situation. “I was part of a team that had one Vietnamese member, two Indians, two Brits, and one American,” she recalled. “Then, I would hear the phrase ‘three Asians’ being used.”

In most situations, though, Chauhan, too, introduces herself and is recognised as Indian, given the sizeable diaspora community in London. She is amused when others who immigrated don’t follow suit. “One of my friends has been [living] outside India for only two years more than I have,” she recalled, “but at a music festival, he introduced himself saying, ‘Hi, I’m from Cali.’ Even two individuals with seemingly similar life trajectories will introduce themselves differently.”

The interchangeability of these self-identifiers in colloquial use is in stark contrast to their technical definitions. At the most basic level, “Asians” are simply people who belong to the Asian continent. But according to the AAPI/U.S. Census Bureau, it is “a racial category (not an ethnic category).” Race refers to the concept of dividing people on the basis of physical characteristics, which, over time, develop associations in people’s minds. But ethnicity describes the culture of people in a given geographic region, including their language, heritage, religion, and customs. According to Merriam-Webster, ethnicity contrasts with race in that it is concerned with group cultural identity or expression, whereas race focuses on physical and biogenetic traits.

As per the U.S. Census Bureau, India and the entire Indian subcontinent including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal belong to the Asian racial category. Still, Gupta never found that “Indians” were recognised as “Asians” in the U.S., based on any shared physical features.

Meanwhile, in the UK, based on Chauhan’s example, “Asians” were grouped together despite the lack of obvious common physical features. Linguist Lynne Murphy in her well-received book The Prodigal Tongue: The Love-Hate Relationship Between American and British English, writes about a British journalist whose use of ”Asian” automatically means “from the Indian subcontinent.” When he wants to talk about people from China, Korea, or Japan, he [says] “east Asians.” In America, though, it’s quite the opposite.

Who is seen as “Asian” also varies by regions within Asia itself. Navya Shankar, an Indian who has lived in Jakarta for the last three years, said that no one in Indonesia calls anyone else “Asian.” Not only would it be a redundant detail to offer in conversations or introductions, given Indonesia is in Asia, but since people there are also more aware of differentiating cultural and social factors, such as ethnicity, cuisine, or language, they might refer to someone by their specific culture, such as Japanese or Korean, for instance.

The media also plays a role in our perceptions of other cultures and how people look. In recent years, East Asian actors have become the poster faces for “Asian representation.” Hollywood and Google are mainly at fault. If you look up “Asian characters” on Google, you’d only find East Asian characters in the search results with, perhaps, the exception of Maitreyi Ramakrishnan and Mindy Kaling. Meanwhile, if you check your Netflix suggestions, even in India, the titles listed under the Asian category would include Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or Thai shows. 

But according to Mona Bhan, a professor of anthropology and South Asian studies, the more interesting question is not which label is correct to use, but why these labels come into question at all. “The debate has become a smokescreen for the questions we should be asking instead,” she said. “We should question why [Sunak’s] Indianness or his Asianness are being claimed and celebrated as a watershed moment in Britain’s racial history, when instead who he is and what his politics represent should be in the spotlight, in India, and in the rest of the world.”

Bhan is referring to Sunak’s positioning, at this point in global history, as a devout Hindu. Sunak swore his oath as an MP on the Bhagavad Gita, a revered Hindu text. He worshipped a cow during a recent ritual and lit Diwali lamps at his Downing Street residence. India's biggest English daily, The Times of India, announced his prime-ministership as a "proud Hindu" entering the office by mentioning the phrase five times. 

“To openly assert yourself as a devout Hindu at a time when the Hindu Right has such a strong foothold in India and, now, in the UK, we should ask: What does Rishi Sunak’s prime ministership mean for that?” said Bhan. “What does it mean for Muslims in India, and what does it mean for Muslims in the UK? What does it mean for how he has actually positioned himself against immigrants? Those are the important questions to be asking.” 

It always seemed to me a moot exercise to try and pin down “who” Sunak is, given we all come from multiple places over a lifetime, and answer differently depending on who’s asking, when, and where.

“He could be Asian, he could be African, he could be Indian, he could be British, he was about to become American if he got the green card. Those are fluid positions because people identify themselves based on where they are, who they are, and who they engage with,” she said. “What does his Asianness even account for? He could be whiter than a white guy.” 

At this point, it’s also vital to point out that though Chieng has a standard idea of what an Indian might look like, there actually is no one way to look Indian. I don’t blame Chieng entirely for this stereotype though. Some Indians have to contend with racism and discrimination from their own countrypeople based on how they look.

Bhan herself tries to keep her introduction as specific as possible. “I’m from Kashmir, and I would introduce myself as South Asian with some trepidation because I could also say I’m Central Asian.” 

She prefers just “Kashmiri” unless asked for more information, because it is at the crossroads of all these intercontinental ties. “Identities are political categories, coming to us from a very particular historical moment. They are not inherent. There’s nothing inherent about being Asian, being South Asian, or being Indian. So, I would push you to consider the effects of claiming a particular identity, rather than actually being one. Because who you are will change, depending on the day, depending on the moment.”

Follow Sanjana Ramachandran on Twitter and Instagram.