Theoretical Framework

This study draws on two frameworks: Postcolonial Theory and DesiCrit. Postcolonial Theory is a critical framework interrogating colonialism’s enduring legacy in cultural, political, and epistemological domains. Foundational contributions by Aimé Césaire and Frantz Fanon laid the groundwork for postcolonial critique, theorizing the psychological, cultural, and revolutionary dimensions of de/colonization (Césaire Reference Césaire2000; Fanon Reference Fanon2008). Emerging in the 1970s through scholars like Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak, Ashis Nandy, and Homi Bhabha, it challenges Eurocentric narratives by foregrounding formerly colonized peoples’ voices and experiences. Spivak’s subaltern concept (Reference Spivak, Nelson and Grossberg1988) highlights marginalized subjects’ silencing within dominant knowledge systems, while Bhabha’s mimicry (Reference Bhabha, Cooper and Stoler1984) explores how colonized subjects navigate identity through ambivalence and hybridity. Postcolonial Theory draws from Marxism, poststructuralism, and psychoanalysis to examine how power operates through language, representation, and institutions, providing tools for examining how migration and colonial legacies shape identity through assimilation, erasure, and cultural performance (Bhabha Reference Bhabha1994; Bhatia and Ram Reference Bhatia and Ram2001; Spivak Reference Spivak1999).

The second theoretical framework, DesiCrit, was introduced by Indian American legal scholar Vinay Harpalani (Reference Harpalani2013), who studied under Critical Race Theory (CRT) founder Dr. Derrick Bell at New York University School of Law and was significantly influenced by Bell’s work on race (Harpalani Reference Harpalani2009). DesiCrit has roots in CRT, sociological theories of racialization, and subsequently connects to AsianCrit (Iftikar and Museus Reference Iftikar and Museus2018), allowing researchers to focus on South Asian American racialization. Harpalani (Reference Harpalani2021) argues that “Asian” is a problematic label for Asian Americans, as it conceals heterogeneity, reinforces the perpetual foreigner stereotype, and contributes to exoticization and fetishization. Referring to individuals simply as “Asian” oversimplifies complex identity negotiations and perpetuates the perception that Asian Americans are not fully recognized as American. DesiCrit calls for a more sophisticated and contextually grounded understanding of Asian American identities while critiquing broader frameworks that sustain these marginalizing narratives.

CRT is an interdisciplinary framework that examines how racism is embedded within legal systems, institutions, and cultural narratives, not merely as individual bias but as structural and systemic phenomena. Originating in U.S. legal scholarship in the 1970s, CRT was pioneered by scholars like Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, who challenged liberal civil rights approaches and colorblind neutrality in law (Bell Reference Bell1980, Reference Bell1992; Crenshaw et al. Reference Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller and Thomas1995). Central tenets include permanence of racism, interest convergence (Bell Reference Bell1980), and counter-storytelling to elevate marginalized voices (Delgado and Stefancic Reference Delgado and Stefancic2017). CRT emphasizes intersectionality (Crenshaw Reference Crenshaw1991) to analyze how overlapping identities shape oppression experiences. As noted by Ladson-Billings and Tate (Reference Ladson-Billings and Tate1995), CRT has expanded into education, sociology, politics, and public health, critiquing how dominant ideologies sustain racial hierarchies under the guise of neutrality and meritocracy.

Although “Asian American” may appear as a stable category, it represents a contested and multilayered identity shaped by racialization, ethnonational affiliation, and socio-political context. All Asian Americans carry multiple identity layers often connected to their country of origin, political history, immigration, and settlement difficulties (Yeung Reference Yeung2024). AsianCrit, or Asian Critical Race Theory, is a CRT branch centering the unique racialization and lived experiences of Asian American communities within systems of white supremacy, settler colonialism, and imperialism (Chang Reference Chang1993; Gotanda Reference Gotanda1991).

Many South Asians, however, resist identification with the broader Asian American category, citing racialized distinctions and the marginalization of their specific concerns when subsumed under pan-Asian classifications (Day Reference Day2008; Poojary Reference Poojary2024). As Shankar and Srikanth (Reference Shankar and Srikanth1998) observe, although “Asian American” can be defined through subjective experiences of identity and consciousness, its dominant usage tends to center East and Southeast Asian groups (3). This exclusionary framing contributes to South Asians’ ambivalence toward the Asian American label and their perceived disconnect from its associated discourses (Kibria Reference Kibria, Dhingra and Srikanth1998).

Desi Critical Race Theory or DesiCrit theorizes the racial ambiguity and identity negotiations of South Asian Americans within U.S. racial hierarchies. “South Asia” usually refers to Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Nepal, and Pakistan (The World Bank n.d.), and Desi (pronounced day-see) refers to people of South Asian descent, derived from the Sanskrit word desh, meaning country (Harpalani Reference Harpalani2013). DesiCrit builds on CRT foundations but analyzes how white supremacy interacts with South Asians in the U.S., examines how South Asians are racialized through shifting classifications from honorary whites to perpetual foreigners or ambiguously nonwhite depending on context (Harpalani Reference Harpalani2013; Reference Harpalani2021). It interrogates how South Asian identities are shaped by colonial legacies, caste, religion, and transnational migration, while critiquing their complicity in anti-Blackness and settler colonialism (Chandrashekar Reference Chandrashekar2018).

Harpalani’s (Reference Harpalani2013) DesiCrit model comprises three central components: (a) formal and informal processes of racialization; (b) negotiation of racial identity through claims and ascriptions; and (c) influence of racial microclimates (Harpalani Reference Harpalani2013). Formal racialization refers to official categories and institutional mechanisms used by governments and authorities for racial classification, such as state-sanctioned categories that historically conferred privileges to those labeled white, especially in the pre-Civil Rights era. In contrast, informal racialization captures racialized symbols and embodied and performative expressions of race, including culturally coded markers like religion, educational attainment, skin color, language, attire, and hairstyles (Rich Reference Rich2004). Desis often navigate this terrain by asserting racial identity in ways that resist assimilation, challenging dominant racial paradigms through the attribution of Otherness and strategic invocation of identity signifiers like religion (Joshi Reference Joshi2006).

The second tenet, negotiation of racial identity through claims and ascriptions, proposes that racialization operates formally and informally through claims to racial identities and ascriptions of racial identities by others. The manner in which claims and ascriptions function depends on a society’s prevailing racial structure and ideology. Consequently, despite their diminished role in the legal construction of race, racial hierarchies continue to provide essential insight into racialization processes and racial ambiguity. For example, Bonilla-Silva (Reference Bonilla-Silva2004) describes three categories of racial hierarchy in the U.S. as whites, honorary whites, and collective Black, and Harris (Reference Harris1993) discusses whiteness in terms of property, legal status, identity, and privileges.

According to Harpalani’s theory, the crucial distinction between claims and ascriptions, both racial projects for Othering, lies in agency: claims involve the racialized individual’s choice, while ascriptions do not. Consequently, people can assert claims to racial status, typically whiteness, as done by Haley and Bobby Jindal, though claims to non-white statuses also occur. Such claims often operate without explicit racial markers as American immigrant groups frequently assimilate by accumulating economic and social capital and implicitly adopting the white majority’s social and cultural practices, without overtly invoking race. Claims and ascriptions represent competition for status in a racialized society (Omi and Winant Reference Omi and Winant1994; Bonilla-Silva Reference Bonilla-Silva2004), and racially ambiguous individuals are better positioned to make claims on whiteness because they can more easily “blend in” (Harpalani Reference Harpalani2013).

The third tenet of racial microclimates, defined as localized sociopolitical and historical contexts that shape racial meaning (Harpalani Reference Harpalani2013), is particularly relevant for racially ambiguous groups whose identities fluctuate in relation to surrounding power structures. Racial microclimes examine racialization not merely as a broad societal phenomenon but as it manifests in specific local contexts, such as the Republican Party herein. Racial structures and ideologies manifest differently across local contexts, which is especially significant for how ambiguous actors, such as Desis, experience racialization. For example, Desi hip hop artists tend to identify as Black within their microclimes influenced by Black musicians and peers (Sharma Reference Sharma2020), while Desi conservatives claim whiteness through religion, values, or ideologies. Attention to local racial microclimes is crucial for understanding how discrimination operates and what interventions would disrupt or remedy this discrimination (Chang Reference Chang2011).

Similar to CRT and AsianCrit, the concept of strategic (anti)essentialism, where identity is selectively activated to accrue legitimacy or avoid racial liability, is central to DesiCrit. By foregrounding counter-narratives and intersectional histories, DesiCrit expands racial discourse to include South Asian experiences often subsumed or erased in broader critical race frameworks (Harpalani Reference Harpalani2013). DesiCrit is especially suited for analyzing Desi conservatives, unpacking how they perform or suppress identity to align with right-wing values and proximity to whiteness by highlighting the politics of selective self-representation as mechanisms for gaining racial capital. White supremacy functions as a complex and continuously evolving system, particularly in how it constructs and positions racialized groups to accommodate changing political and economic circumstances (Omi and Winant Reference Omi and Winant1994). Within this framework, Asian Americans occupy a paradoxical position, simultaneously celebrated as high-achieving model minorities and perceived as potential threats to white dominance.

This article calls for a nuanced examination of Desi identity, focusing specifically on Desi Republicans. Both frameworks, Postcolonial Theory and DesiCrit, critique Eurocentrism and dominant narratives that marginalize Other voices. While Postcolonial Theory maps imperial legacies and diasporic negotiation, DesiCrit anchors those dynamics within contemporary U.S. race relations. Together, they reveal how Desi conservatives strategically navigate immigrant origins and racial ambiguity while performing identity through assimilation, erasure, pride, or religious signaling, all shaped by power, history, and institutional discourse, even as racism has morphed from overt discrimination to a more subtle and indirect ideology that makes it harder to detect (Bonilla-Silva Reference Bonilla-Silva2021).

Literature Review

There is limited empirical research on Desi conservatives, especially outside elite political figures such as Jindal and Haley. Recently, the political engagement of Desis with conservative Republican ideologies has garnered increasing scholarly attention as a location of racial, religious, and ideological negotiation. The broader Asian American electorate leans Democratic, and there are several prominent national Desi leaders such as Ro Khanna, Pramila Jayapal, and Ami Bera. Moreover, Kamala Harris, of Desi and Jamaican descent, was the Democratic presidential candidate in 2024. However, Desi conservatives, although small in numbers, complicate this narrative of left-leaning and liberal immigrants through their strategic alignments with fiscal conservatism, cultural nationalism, and post-9/11 racial discourses (Saito Reference Saito2020; Truschke Reference Truschke2022). Scholars like Mishra (Reference Mishra2016) argue that Desi conservatives construct a uniquely Asian conservatism that both aligns with and resists dominant white conservative discourses.

Earlier scholarship emphasized the liberal orientations of Indian Americans, grounded in support for civil rights, immigration reform, and educational equity (Bass Reference Bass2012). Yet more recent analyses identify a subset of economically successful, upper-middle-class Desis gravitating toward Republican platforms, particularly those emphasizing low taxation, deregulation, and entrepreneurial meritocracy (Dhingra and Rodriguez Reference Dhingra and Rodriguez2014). This change reflects a broader shift where assimilation is brokered through class mobility and neoliberal success narratives (Mishra Reference Mishra2016). Greater wealth makes it easier to move into majority-white suburban communities, moving away from the ethnic enclaves that have been a landing and launching point for many immigrant populations. The rise to prominence of four Desi Republicans solidifies findings from other studies on Asian Americans political participation for immigrant groups that it is a process that can take several years or decades as it requires several factors to be present from citizenship, language skills, context-specific knowledge acquisition, and access to networks and social connections that can support candidates as they work towards leadership (Kistner and Raychaudhari, Reference Kistner and Raychaudhuri2025). Religious ideology has become an increasingly salient factor in this political realignment. Scholars such as Lee (Reference Lee2019) and Mathew (Reference Mathew2000) document the rising influence of Hindu nationalism in India, facilitated by diaspora organizations promoting a politics of cultural exceptionalism that resonates with American conservatism’s valorization of Judeo-Christian values, law and order, and meritocracy.

Despite the visibility of a few elite figures, empirical research on the broader South Asian conservative base remains limited. Desi conservatism seems to have emerged recently at the intersection of economic aspiration and religious transnationalism. As this ideological orientation gains visibility, particularly through high-profile Republicans, it invites deeper inquiry into the mechanisms by which political legitimacy is negotiated across racialized boundaries. More interdisciplinary work is needed to explore how caste, religion, particularly Hindu nationalism, and transnational networks shape conservative ideologies.

Case Studies

Based on the results of constant comparison and classical content analysis coding, a third technique, versus coding (Saldaña Reference Saldaña2013), was applied to each case. Saldaña (Reference Saldaña2013) noted that versus coding was useful in instances where individuals were in conflict within groups or systems, as it helped to identify the elements that were in direct conflict with each other, and is especially appropriate for research that used a critical perspective, as in this study. After every single case was analyzed individually, the data were readied for cross-case analysis. Each individual case will be presented first to create a deeper understanding of the participant, followed by cross-case comparison.

The individual case studies respond to the first research question: How do four Desi Republican leaders engage with their diasporic identities within a political institution structured in assimilation, whiteness, and nationalism? Each case study describes the ethnic and immigrant roots of the candidates, how they rose to prominence, and their strengths and weaknesses.

Cross Case Analysis

Cross-case analysis enables comparison of commonalities and differences in events, activities, and processes across cases (Khan and VanWynsberghe Reference Khan and VanWynsberghe2008), which enhances generalizability while deepening understanding of each case (Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña Reference Miles, Huberman and Saldaña2014). Beginning with thick description to ensure contextual depth, researchers identify emergent patterns in individual cases, then systematically compare presence, absence, or alternatives across other cases. This iterative process revealed common themes and divergences across cases in this study. The cross-case analysis answers the second research question: What strategies do the participants use to maximize their belonging to conservative ideologies?

Cross-case analysis revealed relationships between individual cases, helped refine and develop concepts, and offered insights that enriched scholarly understanding. The first comparison of the four cases in Table 1, was about family background, parents’ education, and immigration history. Immigration of all four families was facilitated by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the national origins quota that previously favored immigrants from Europe (Chin and Villazor Reference Chin and Villazor2015). This Act is a result of DEI advocacy and lawsuits, and entry of all the families was enabled only after the previous racist policies were abolished. Notably, all parents held at least bachelor’s degrees, and many had professional degrees in medicine and engineering. Six of the eight parents held white-collar jobs that enabled middle-class or higher status and facilitated academic and social capital through private schools and universities for their children (Yosso Reference Yosso2005).

Table 1.

Comparison of parents’ education

Note. Demographic information about: Nikki Haley is from Lakritz Reference Lakritz2024; Vivek Ramaswamy from Stratton and Palin Reference Stratton and Palin2024; Kash Patel from Britannica.com 2025; Harmeet Dhillon from Timesofindia.com, 2024.

The four candidates have benefited from multiple privileges stemming from their parents’ immigration to the U.S. Haley, Patel, and Ramaswamy possess birthright citizenship as natural-born U.S. citizens, while Dhillon acquired citizenship through naturalization. All four accessed elite Ivy League institutions and/or top-ranked universities, facilitating entry into influential political and social networks. All maintain silence about these privileges and accumulated community cultural capital (Yosso Reference Yosso2005), while representing their success through narratives of meritocracy and individual achievement.

Table 2 below presents a comparative overview of the campaign and publicity advertisements of the four participants, highlighting their thematic strategies and rhetorical positioning. Each candidate foregrounds distinctive platforms: Haley employs generational framing, casting opponents as outdated; Patel relies on nationalist and populist conspiracy theories; Ramaswamy challenges American mediocrity; and Dhillon uses legal systems to decimate civil rights and affirmative action. Despite their divergences, unifying themes emerge across all four: valorization of meritocracy, self-reliance, individual success predicated on hard work, and internal colonization. These themes align with conservative ideological frameworks and function to defend the social and psychological mechanisms of oppression by adopting the colonizer’s path to success (Césaire Reference Césaire2000; Fanon Reference Fanon2008).

Table 2.

Comparison of campaign messaging and advertisements

Note. Haley’s campaign advertisements from January and February 2024 (Haley Reference Haley2024; NBC, 2024); Ramaswamy’s reference is from his book 2021; Patel’s reference is from his book, 2023; Dhillon’s reference is from Magno News America Fest (December 2024).

Ramaswamy’s campaign opposed the very systems that enabled his rise, including work visas for foreigners, affirmative action, and woke DEI policies that, according to him, foster mediocrity and bind marginalized populations to divisive ideologies. Patel distinguishes himself with a warrior-like stance, using combative and militaristic language to frame his political identity and mission. At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), he proclaimed: “We are blessed by God to have Donald Trump be our juggernaut of justice, to be our leader, to be our continued warrior in the arena” (Patel Reference Patel2024). Patel extends his warrior framing to supporters, praising CPAC attendees as Trump’s “army to take this country back” (Patel Reference Patel2024). He depicts politics as a battlefield, claiming opponents have “put their army on the ground” in government agencies, weaponizing justice and politicizing intelligence (Patel Reference Patel2024).

Table 3 compares participants’ identity strategies across the four themes: assimilation, cultural pride, strategic erasure, and religious performativity. Each navigates the sociopolitical terrain of race, ethnicity, and beliefs through distinct representations marked by visibility, suppression, or instrumentalization of identity, revealing complex negotiations of belonging and authenticity.

Table 3.

Comparison of cases across four codes

Haley and Patel exemplify high levels of assimilation and strategic erasure, foregrounding ideological loyalty and resilience while minimizing ethnic or religious identification. Haley surpasses Patel by shedding her birth name and religion to align with a party that privileges whiteness and Christianity. She emphasizes her adopted Christianity over her ancestral heritage, thereby establishing a degree of separation from her origins. Haley and Patel avoid racial or ethnic references, opting instead for rhetoric rooted in nationalism, loyalty, and ideological alignment. By mimicking dominant conservative peers, they have gained access to opportunities that might otherwise be unavailable.

Dhillon and Patel avoid explicit discourse on Sikhism or Hinduism, instead asserting identity through the performance of prayer or greetings. Dhillon highlights religious performativity and informal racialization through ceremonial display, strategically engaging cultural markers to bolster political legitimacy and contest prevailing racial hierarchies. This reinforces the conservative narrative of self-reliance, framing success as individual effort rather than systemic inequality, as the nation appears to reward industriousness and assimilation. Ramaswamy challenges racial norms through meritocracy, affirming cultural pride and informal religiosity. His interfaith comparisons, at times absurd, highlight convergences between two disparate religions while minimizing theological differences, thereby appealing to conservative audiences through an emphasis on shared values and collective belonging.

The four conservative figures employ distinct strategies to minimize religious differences from the dominant Christian majority and selectively foreground aspects of their faith in response to contextual demands. Their rhetoric affirms that success is achieved through individual effort and merit alone, not government aid or systemic support. These divergences are indicative of individual agency and calculated strategies oriented toward racial and ideological accommodation, where full assimilation enables political ascent. The tension between silence and celebration reveals how racial ambiguity and visibility are leveraged or muted to secure legitimacy within racially coded landscapes.

Table 4 below presents six rhetorical strategies used by the four conservative leaders to navigate minoritized identities in right-wing political microclimes. These approaches reflect distinct yet overlapping racial positioning that reframes ethnic identity to affirm ideological and national legitimacy. Dhillon and Ramaswamy embody honorary whiteness by rejecting race-conscious policies to effectively assert assimilation. Furthermore, they advance a colorblind ethos dismissing identity categories as divisive or irrelevant to governance. Haley, Ramaswamy, and Patel embrace the myths of model minority and meritocracy to reinforce neoliberal narratives that personal success disproves systemic inequity. Their speeches elevate post-racial citizenship as politically virtuous and frame resilience and allegiance to American ideals as requiring cultural erasure. Immigration stories are reframed as cultural patriotism to stress loyalty and assimilation. While Haley sidesteps her Desi heritage, Dhillon weaponizes it to oppose minority protections, presenting her Brown identity as evidence of bootstrapping and meritocratic success. These strategies illuminate how racial identity is not merely suppressed but tactically mobilized to align with conservative commitments. They reflect both the elasticity of racial meaning and the calculated performances required to claim political legitimacy in spaces structured by whiteness.

Table 4.

Typology of desi conservative identity strategies

Significance of the Study

This study deepens our understanding of a rising wave of minority conservatism by examining how elite Desi leaders negotiate race, power, and ideology through selective identity performance. It advances debates on representation and identity politics while illuminating how privileged actors distance themselves from and willfully forget the legacies of racial exclusion. The findings of this study have broad implications for future political trends as Asian American candidates are better able to achieve crossover support and perform better in districts that are broadly diverse (Lublin and Wright Reference Lublin and Wright2024).

In the light of emerging electoral shifts, particularly among U.S.-born Desi men responding to different political cues from their immigrant predecessors, this study highlights the stakes of assimilation, symbolic use of heritage, and tensions between authenticity and conformity. Though projecting racial diversity, these leaders rarely disrupt dominant power structures, exposing the paradox of representation in conservative politics. This inquiry raises a critical question: what does assimilation signify when skin color and religion remain immutable markers of Otherness? These questions invite a deeper interrogation of the thresholds of acceptability and the racialized economies of belonging that shape contemporary political legitimacy. It is befitting to conclude with a prescient quote from Ann Coulter during her interview with Vivek Ramaswamy: