Deelip MhaskeAnalyzing the results of the recent election, a prominent question arises: why did Donald Trump, against considerable opposition, secure significant support, including from grassroots communities within the Indian American diaspora? As someone who has engaged with both campaigns and observed leaders like Vice President Kamala Harris and President Trump firsthand, I’ve noted key differences in their approaches to community engagement and mobilization, which may have influenced the final outcome.
A striking example emerged in California, where Governor Gavin Newsom recently vetoed a caste discrimination bill that would have addressed systemic bias among South Asian communities. Many grassroots activists expected Vice President Harris’s team to publicly support the bill, which could have strengthened relationships with marginalized South Asians. However, media reports indicated that some prominent Democratic fundraisers employed a “pay-to-play” model, which allowed wealthier supporters such as Ajay Bhutoria, a recurring figure in the Harris campaign, to dominate the conversation. This lack of visible support for the caste discrimination bill disappointed many grassroots activists who felt that the campaign failed to champion the voices of marginalized South Asians.
In contrast, the Trump campaign, managed by Susie Wiles, demonstrated a more inclusive approach to community outreach. When concerns surfaced about Indian American community members exploiting President Trump’s name, Wiles promptly addressed the issue by distancing such elements from the campaign. Unlike the Harris campaign, which relied on long-established Indian American leaders, the Trump team prioritized grassroots engagement, hosting weekly calls with Indian American representatives from all backgrounds. This outreach provided a forum for community leaders to voice concerns directly to the campaign, irrespective of their political allegiance. This strategy was highly effective in bridging political divides and even winning over previously skeptical segments of the Indian American community, particularly in swing states.
The Democratic Party’s approach underscores a common issue within traditional political frameworks, where grassroots voices, particularly from underrepresented communities, often feel excluded. By limiting access to established community figures, the Democrats risk sidelining younger, emerging leaders who, despite lacking financial influence, hold significant community trust. Data supports this need for a shift: according to a Pew Research Center study, 71% of Indian Americans identify as Democrats, but younger generations are increasingly dissatisfied with what they see as a lack of representation of their concerns. This trend suggests that if the Democrats continue this top-down approach, they risk alienating critical segments of their traditional base.
In a notable contrast, President Trump’s victory celebration at Mar-a-Lago underscored the campaign’s strategic pivot towards new-generation Indian American leaders. Many attendees at this event represented historically marginalized communities within the diaspora. During this event, I discussed with campaign officials the need for legislation to protect Communities Discriminated on Work and Descent (CDWD), a global issue that affects over 250 million people. CDWD groups, which include Dalits in South Asia, Roma in Europe, and Quilombolas in Brazil, face entrenched discrimination based on ancestry and occupation, often leading to severe socio-economic marginalization.
The challenges CDWD communities face are immense. The International Dalit Solidarity Network reports that approximately 200 million Dalits in South Asia experience barriers to basic services such as education, healthcare, and employment. Discrimination also leads to the exclusion of CDWD communities from voting rights, access to land, and essential resources like water and sanitation. The Trump campaign’s recognition of these issues signifies a willingness to advocate for policies that address deep-rooted inequality affecting global communities.
Advocating for CDWD communities is just one part of a larger agenda aimed at elevating marginalized voices within economic and political spheres. In discussions with potential Trump administration officials, I also emphasized the need for broader representation of grassroots South Asian leaders in key economic platforms, such as the US-India Business Council. Such forums, often dominated by upper-caste individuals, could benefit from including diverse voices that better represent the economic aspirations and concerns of the broader diaspora. Research by the Asian American Federation reveals that Indian Americans have a poverty rate of around 6%, and many of these individuals belong to historically marginalized communities who often lack access to the same resources as more privileged groups. By involving representatives from such backgrounds, the administration can foster a more equitable approach to economic policy.
Beyond domestic issues, these discussions hold implications for U.S. foreign policy, especially in the context of South Asia. India, as a key partner in the Indo-Pacific strategy, plays an integral role in countering China’s influence in the region. However, to build sustainable partnerships, the U.S. must approach South Asian relations with sensitivity to internal diversity, recognizing that caste and class divisions significantly impact community dynamics. A more inclusive foreign policy approach that values marginalized voices could strengthen U.S.-India relations by aligning with the democratic values of inclusivity and equal representation.
Caste discrimination, a deeply ingrained issue in South Asian societies, also holds global significance. The International Labour Organization reports that caste-based discrimination affects over 300 million people worldwide, contributing to intergenerational poverty and social exclusion. Addressing these issues not only promotes social justice but also strengthens global alliances. The Trump administration’s outreach to underrepresented communities within the South Asian diaspora suggests a willingness to approach foreign policy from a perspective of inclusion and grassroots advocacy.
In summary, as we reflect on the election results, the lessons from both campaigns offer valuable insights. President Trump’s campaign succeeded in creating a sense of belonging and representation for many Indian Americans who felt overlooked in traditional political structures. By actively engaging with grassroots leaders and advocating for marginalized communities, the campaign demonstrated that political success can be built on a foundation of inclusivity. If the Democratic Party fails to adapt and engage with emerging grassroots leaders, they risk alienating key segments of the South Asian diaspora who are essential to the party’s future success.
The Trump campaign’s approach serves as a reminder that listening to marginalized voices and incorporating diverse perspectives can reshape political landscapes. As we look to the future, addressing the needs of historically excluded communities—both within the U.S. and globally—will be critical to building a more inclusive, equitable society.
