The Carnegie Endowment’s “How Indian Americans Live: Results From the 2024 Indian American Attitudes Survey,” released in July 2025, offers a valuable snapshot of the Indian American community. Its findings illuminate emerging identities, perceptions of discrimination, and patterns of religious practice across a diverse diaspora. Yet several patterns invite closer scrutiny, especially when survey insights are used to speak for Hindu Americans and, more broadly, for interconnected dharmic traditionsHinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism.
One headline result warrants care in interpretation: only 55 percent of Indian American respondents identify as Hindu, compared to roughly 80 percent in India. This simple statistic underscores a crucial point: “Indian American” is not interchangeable with “Hindu American.” The diaspora encompasses multiple faiths, including Christians and Muslims, as well as dharmic communities such as Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and Hindus. Conflating these categories risks obscuring differences in lived experience and policy needs.
Representation in public discourse often follows that conflation. When institutions, media, or policymakers treat “Indian American” as a proxy for “Hindu American,” viewpoints specific to dharmic communities can be diluted or mischaracterized. Community members report that issues such as temple vandalism, stereotyping of Indic traditions in schools, or misreadings of ritual practice do not always receive the focused attention they deserve. A more precise vocabularyand leadership that reflects the diversity of Indian American religious lifecan prevent these gaps.
The survey’s exploration of identityparticularly the rising salience of an Indian rather than a broad South Asian labelreflects an ongoing re-centering among diaspora communities. For many, Indian identity coexists with a dharmic sensibility that values pluralism, nonviolence, and spiritual autonomy. Recognizing how these lenses overlap can promote unity among Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Sikh communities while respecting each tradition’s distinct practices.
On discrimination, the survey reports that seven percent of Indian Americans experienced caste-based discrimination in the past year, while higher shares reported discrimination based on skin color (31 percent), country of origin (20 percent), or religion (19 percent). These figures suggest that, within the U.S. context, caste-related incidents are reported less frequently than other forms of bias. At the same time, any instance of discrimination remains unacceptable and is already actionable under existing anti-discrimination laws.
Question framing matters in interpreting public support for policy. Although reported experiences of caste discrimination are comparatively low, 77 percent of respondents support laws banning caste discrimination. Such results are not surprising; respondents typically favor measures framed as preventing harm. However, because “caste” is routinely portrayed as uniquely Hindu, policy instruments that isolate caste as a standalone legal category risk stigmatizing Hindu communities and, by extension, other dharmic groupseven as general anti-discrimination frameworks already prohibit differential treatment.
Related research adds context. Findings associated with the Rutgers Social Perception Lab indicate that certain modes of “caste training” and discourse can inadvertently heighten suspicion toward Hindu communities. This pattern aligns with broader concerns about how Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) trainings sometimes conflate complex, regional social histories with a single religious identity. Effective community education should therefore reduce harm, avoid stereotyping, and remain precise in definitions and scope.
Religious observance metrics also deserve recalibration. The survey assesses observance partly through frequency of attending religious services, excluding weddings and funerals. While useful for congregational traditions with weekly services, this measure undercounts many dharmic practices. For Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists, daily sadhana, home puja, meditation, vrata, parva-based observances, and festival participation often anchor spiritual life. Sikhs may regularly attend gurdwara, but their practice also includes sehaj and seva that extend beyond weekly congregational rhythms. A methodology sensitive to dharmic modalities would integrate home-based practice, seasonal festivals, seva, satsang, and life-cycle rites to capture a fuller picture.
The distinction between “Indian American” and “Hindu American” becomes especially salient when survey outputs are referenced in policy debates, curricula, or institutional trainings. Measures derived from frameworks normed on Abrahamic congregational models can misread dharmic religiosity. A more nuanced approach would combine quantitative indicators with qualitative insights into home-centered practice, priestly and lay leadership patterns, language transmission, and intergenerational learning.
These refinements are not merely technical; they carry real-world implications. When policy narratives generalize from broad Indian American samples to specific dharmic communities, well-intended interventions can inadvertently marginalize those they aim to support. Better research designpaired with dialogue among Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Sikh stakeholderscan improve accuracy, strengthen trust, and foster unity across dharmic traditions.
The identity debateIndian vs. South Asianalso intersects with dharmic visibility. Many diaspora families embrace an Indian identity that includes reverence for Indic languages, temples and gurdwaras as community hubs, and a cultural ecosystem of yoga, kirtan, path, meditation, and seva. Recognizing these forms of belonging ensures that survey narratives reflect lived realities rather than importing external assumptions.
Ultimately, the Carnegie survey provides a valuable baseline on Indian American attitudes, identity, and perceived discrimination. Its numbers should be read alongside two cautions: avoid treating “Indian American” and “Hindu American” as synonyms, and ensure that measures of religiosity and discrimination reflect dharmic practices and histories with precision. When these cautions are heeded, the data can inform policies that address bias effectively without stigmatizing communities.
Strengthening unity among Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Sikh communities in North America depends on research that recognizes shared civilizational valuespluralism, autonomy in spiritual pursuit, and compassionwhile honoring distinct traditions. With careful survey design, transparent question framing, and inclusive stakeholder engagement, institutions can produce insights that enhance understanding, guide equitable policy, and affirm the dignity of all dharmic communities.
Inspired by this post on CoHNA.
