Indians : the kind of Asian

In the USA, when someone says "Asian" it typically refers to people from East Asia or Southeast Asia, in other words people with Mongoloidal features. Mongoloidal features are your typical single-eyelid, wider faces and fat deposited around the cheeks. When one fills out any census form, Asian is clarified to include not only East Asians or Southeast Asians, but also people from the subcontinent (eg. - Indians and Pakistanis). In many ways, this highlights the problems with using the Asian term as synonymous with race, when it really should mean "person who derives heritage from the continent of Asia". Regardless, under the current classification of Asian in the US, it doesn't make a lot of sense to group people from the subcontinent in with Koreans, Japanese, Filipinos, etc. Although there are some commonalities, I think South Asians are too culturally, linguistically, and racially distant to be lumped in with "yellow Asians".

Now, there are some historical links between India and the countries East. Perhaps notably in the religious sphere. Indian religions have spread East, most notably Buddhism which is a predominant religion in the Far East. In addition, Hindu myths like the Ramayana are known and re-enacted in places like Thailand and Cambodia. Much of SE Asia, in particular, had a strong Hindu tradition and later Buddhist one. For example consider the history of Angkor Wat in Cambodia, a former Hindu temple. Islam's springing board to countries like Indonesia and Malaysia was from India after the Mughals took over. Religion can be a vehicle for culture so you can expect to see commonalities springing forth from this, especially in SE Asia.

However, I think these similarities are outweighed by some significant considerations, and make Indians only nominally "Asian" (referring to the US connotation). First of all, perhaps the most striking argument you can have is race itself. People from the subcontinent, by and large, belong to a different racial classification, particularly those from northern India. Genetic studies have been conducted which have shown people from India to be more related to people from Europe (especially Italy and Greece) than people from Thailand or China, despite the proximity of East Asia to India. This can be attributed to the history of India being invaded from the West throughout its history. India has the tallest mountain range in the world on its northeastern borders and water on the southeastern and southwestern ends. Historically, invaders swept through the northwestern deserts and were able to quickly take over across the relatively flat plains. It started with the Aryans (from the Caucasus), continued with the Macedonians, continued with the Mughals from Central Asia/Persia and then the imperialist Brits. All of these people are Caucasoidal and, hence, have spread their genes to people from the subcontinent, particularly in the North.

Genetic testing supports the notion that Indo-Aryans (which constitute the racial majority of India) are essentially dark-skinned Caucasians. Facial structure and build confirm this. Our faces are longer, hair is wavier, and eyes are rounder compared to people from the Far East. There are Mongoloidal Indians, but they are mostly concentrated in the Northeast with the Chinese border and are not part of mainstream India. They're not even five percent of India's population, in fact. In the 1920s, an Indian Sikh man tried to sue to be included in the Caucasian category, but obviously people can't let go of skin color and look at more relevant markers like facial skeletal structure or genetics. The term Caucasian isn't synonymous with white; it merely means someone from the Caucasus. Going by genetics, Caucasoidal racial classification refers to a broad swath of people from Europe to the Middle East to Central Asia and, yes, including the subcontinent (especially North India and Pakistan).

Linguistics also show a marked difference between Indians and people from the Far East. Most people in the subcontinent speak Indo-European languages, where the vernacular is remarkably similar to languages spoken in Europe. For example, mujhey is me, tum is you (tu in Spanish), mata is mom and I can go on and on. Plus, Hindi uses a conjugation system (endings of verbs and pronouns change depending on who's doing the action) virtually identical to that of Spanish or Italian. In addition, as a result of invasions from peoples of Central Asia and Persia, you will find many words borrowed into Sanskrit script based Hindi. I can't tell you how many words were similar to Urdu-derived words when I visited Turkey, it was quite astounding. As a result, languages like Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi belong to the Indo-Iranian subfamily of Indo-European languages. Although the devanagari script has obviously been used in Thai or Cambodian languages, the actual vernacular is not related at all and vernacular is more important in grouping languages. That's why people learn to talk before they write and most nomadic people were able to survive without a written language for centuries.

Perhaps another difference lies in culture itself. India is really a remarkable country so full of influences derived from all its ethnic groups. However, most of North India has a culture that has been influenced by the Mughal occupation. For better or for worse, relics of this period are evident everywhere you go in the North. Perhaps the most important is in the food we eat. Unlike "Asian" food, Indian food particularly in the North is heavily dairy-based. Yogurt, cheese, and milk are all important components of Indian cuisine, and partially why cows are considered sacred. Can you imagine Indian food without paneer or raita? I can't. Rice (basmati variety) is a staple but is mostly used as a supplement for wheat-based flatbreads (unless you're in the South where it's rice and more rice). Naan, puri, and roti are important for the Indian meal. In addition, many of the foods we eat have their origins from Persia and Central Asia. Paneer, Naan, Kofta, biryani and pulao are all Persian or Turkic in origin. Rice can't be used as a Pan-Asian unifier because rice is eaten everywhere in the world, whether it's Cajun Louisiana or Africa. Walking around India, the edifices, the bazaars, the ladies draped in salwars, it all reeks of a Mughal flavor and doesn't feel "Asian", but rather distinctly Indian with heavy Persian influences.

If it were up to me, the entire racial/ethnic category system would be revamped. There should be more detail employed in collecting this data. Caucasian should be expanded to include Indians and Pakistanis (25% of 2nd generation Indo-Paks do so already). Or if we want to continue labeling subcontinentals as "Asian" then include the entire continent as well, including the Middle East and Turkey. The third option is to simply set the subcontinent aside as its own category. There are just not enough Pan-Asian unifiers on a genetic, racial, linguistic, or cultural level to warrant the status quo.