Life Behind the Lobby

Indian American Motel Owners and the American Dream

Pawan Dhingra

• Publisher: Stanford University Press
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9780804782029
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Emigration & Immigration
• Index: Social Sciences

Indian Americans own about half of all the motels in the United States. Even more remarkable, most of these motel owners come from the same region in India and—although they are not all related—seventy percent of them share the surname of Patel. Most of these motel owners arrived in the United States with few resources and, broadly speaking, they are self-employed, self-sufficient immigrants who have become successful—they live the American dream. However, framing this group as embodying the American dream has profound implications. It perpetuates the idea of American exceptionalism—that this nation creates opportunities for newcomers unattainable elsewhere—and also downplays the inequalities of race, gender, culture, and globalization immigrants continue to face. Despite their dominance in the motel industry, Indian American moteliers are concentrated in lower- and mid-budget markets. Life Behind the Lobby explains Indian Americans' simultaneous accomplishments and marginalization and takes a close look at their own role in sustaining that duality.

1

Building the Diaspora

Studies in Asian American history have documented the discriminatory treatment of Asian immigrants to the United States in the early and middle 1900s. The U.S. government has denied Asian Americans citizenship, the right to own land, the right to unionize, the right to marry whom they choose, the right to sponsor relatives, and more (Glenn 2002). In daily life they encountered anti-Asian riots, workplace discrimination, low wages, residential segregation, surveillance, and cultural degradation. Indian immigrants did not have as large a presence in the United States as did Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino immigrants. Still, they faced the same racism. The “dirty Hindoos” were driven out of working-class jobs in the Pacific Northwest where many first settled in the United States (Takaki 1989). They were presumed unable to assimilate. In 1917 India was included in the Asiatic barred zone, thereby prohibiting the migration of Indian laborers. In 1923 those already in the country were categorized by the Supreme Court, in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, as nonwhites despite their designated “Caucasian” status. This barred them from attaining citizenship. More restrictions followed. In California any land they owned was taken away, along with their right to own land. The 1924 Immigration Act cut off immigration for Indians and others barred from citizenship.

With this in mind, why would Indian immigrants from Gujarat establish themselves in the United States in the mid-twentieth century rather than stay in India or go elsewhere in the diaspora? The answer requires a diasporic, postcolonial approach to Indian immigrants as racial minorities within the United States. Chapter 1 documents the migration of Gujaratis to the United States primarily from the 1940s to the 1970s—a time frame almost entirely overlooked in Indian American history—and examines their experiences in the United States that pushed them toward self-employment.

Origins of Emigration

Preindependence

The majority of Indian American motel owners are Patels. They mainly descended from the urban and rural areas of the central and southern districts of Gujarat, most notably Surat, Navsari, Baroda, Kheda, and Ahmedabad. Gujaratis are composed of numerous castes and subcastes. Of these, Leva Kanbis, also referred to as Leva Patels, are particularly represented in the U.S. motel industry. Charotar, Kadva, and Matia Patels also own motels in large numbers. Other Gujarati groups in the U.S. motel industry include Bhaktas, Desais, Nayaks, and Shahs.

Around a.d. 1100, Patels were leaders within their village communities in Gujarat, collecting land revenue for the king (pat means “parcel of land”). They were known as “Patlikh,” which later became Patal and finally Patel.¹ They are a subcaste of the Vaishna caste, the leading caste of Gujarat (Ramji 2006). Patels are a diverse group but share a number of similarities, particularly those who became motel owners. Many of the Patels who own motels are of Kanbi and Patidar origin. To varying degrees both groups have historically been landowners and tax collectors. The cultivating caste of Kanbis, the largest agricultural caste in Gujarat, originated in the Leva and Karad districts of Punjab (Bal 2006). These Kanbis migrated to Gujarat in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, becoming known as Leva Kanbis and Karadva Kanbis (and later shortened to Kadva Kanbis). Patidars descended originally from the most “elite” of the Leva Kanbis, the dominant caste within the Charotar region of Gujarat (where a number of motel owners originate from) (Bates 1981). According to Pocock (1972), Patidars were “an upwardly mobile, middle-ranking peasant caste.” Patel became the most common surname among Kanbis and Patidars. Although Patels continued to be well represented in central Gujarat, many migrated to other regions of the state. Those primarily involved in agriculture moved south to the Surat area of Gujarat in the 1820s in search of new farmland (Rutten 1995).

Together Kanbi and Patidar Patels had considerably more power and prestige than other castes within Gujarat, owing in part to British influence. As Britain gained control over Gujarat in the early 1800s, Kanbis and Patidars became favored as the main cultivators of the land (Bal 2006; Chaturvedi 2007). Along with British control came irrigation systems and easier transportation of crops on railways, and Patel farmers saw their incomes grow (Bal 2006). The British government charged them with assessing and collecting land income, and so they had a prestigious and somewhat protected role within village life.² By the late nineteenth century, Patel control over Kheda’s rural economy and society was practically complete—they controlled the means of production by owning land and labor, and they served as moneylenders, whose transactions often resulted in the acquisition of property (Gidwani 2000).

Although of higher status in general, Kanbis and Patidars had various divisions. Kanbis were on the bottom of that hierarchy, with lesser Patidars slightly ahead, and then “authentic” Patidars on top (Gidwani 2000). Kanbis often owned small pieces of land or worked as tenant farmers on others’ land. Lesser Patidars owned mid-sized farms, and the highest class Patidars had large estates. Regardless of status, few were laborers. In the mid-1800s, lesser Patidars and Kanbis remained subordinate to higher Patidars under British rule (Bates 1981). As Streefkerk (1997) writes of Gujarat in the 1800s, “British rule meant prosperity for a small section of the peasantry. However, the condition of the majority of the peasants and tribals deteriorated. They suffered from excessive revenue demands, market fluctuations, and became uprooted” (p. M4). Patidars and Kanbis often had peasants among them (Chaturvedi 2007).

Economic upheavals took their toll on Patels in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The famine, the monsoon failure, and the plague of 1899–1902 severely weakened them. Well over a million people died in Gujarat as a result of these catastrophes (Rutten and Patel 2003). The economic basis of farmers worsened, especially in the Charotar region, where many Patidars resided (Pocock 1972). Lesser Patidars, and to a greater extent the ordinary Kanbis who farmed their own land, fared somewhat better. Many grew nonfood crops, such as cotton and tobacco, and the income from such crops rose. Also, Kanbis and lesser Patidars were receiving remittances from relatives in East Africa, and they invested these monies, often in real estate (Vishwanath 1990).

It was the higher Patidars who suffered the most as their tenant farmers left and their cattle died. It is hard to exaggerate the effects of these events. As Bates (1981) wrote:

But in the event between 1899 and December 1900, 1,300,000 people died in British Gujarat, mostly from disease, as the price of kadbi (a principal food grain) rose from Rs 13 to Rs 36 per 1000 lbs. The Kheda district was initially among the hardest hit: the population, which had climbed from 8 lakhs in 1881 to 8 and 3/4 lakhs in 1891, and possibly to nearly 10 lakhs by 1899, declined to a mere 7 lakhs by 1901.

Adding to Patels’ general financial troubles, their plots of land grew smaller and smaller over successive generations. Cultural rules of inheritance called for dividing one’s land equally for each son in a family. As their plots diminished in size, parents could not support their families. The ever-increasing dowries required for the marriage of daughters became more and more difficult to provide. In addition, Patels’ income and status declined due to their position as village tax collectors.

These economic challenges led to shifts in how Patels planned for future economic and social gains. In particular, they looked toward education (of the men), farming different crops, moving into trade, and emigration. As Kanbi Patels began to experience more economic success, they focused less on their regional and caste distinctions—Leva, Bhakta, Matia, Kadva, and so on—and more on their unity as Patidars (Breman 2007). Mixing between the groups took place through marriage, with Kanbis and lesser Patidars paying large dowries to marry into higher Patidar families, even as higher Patidars may have wanted to avoid such unions. Some Kanbis also changed their affiliation to Patidars in order to raise their status. The groups became more mixed than ever before, so much so that in 1931 “Patidar” became the official name of the caste. Patels still maintain regional and caste distinctions but to a much lesser extent.³

In addition to economic challenges, Patels faced political challenges. Despite benefiting at times from British rule, Patels in Gujarat were aware of their precarious status under colonialism and of the colonizers’ exploitation of them. Following the famine, the British continued to insist upon high tax collections, even increasing their demands. This, coupled with the social and economic progress of Kanbi and Patidar peasants in the Kheda district, resulted in their becoming more militant against the British (Bates 1981), and in 1918 and 1919, Gandhi carried out his first satyagraha against tax collection in the Kheda district. A sense of unification through marriage among lesser Patidars, along with their increasing sense of entitlement and communalism following recent prosperity, also motivated the movement. In two-thirds of the villages of the district, revenue officials resigned. In one-third of the villages, revenue was not paid (Mayer 1984). Government representatives came in and confiscated property and assets, which were returned after increasing media pressure. In other words, exploitation under colonial rule created political and economic solidarity.

Postindependence Economy

Under British rule, Patels experienced economic and political ups and downs, which encouraged the emigration that ultimately led them to the United States. The natural disasters contributed to the lack of control over their financial and personal lives, which colonial rule exacerbated. Nor could Patels count on a stable economy after the 1947 independence, despite their relatively privileged economic status. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Gujarat economy, including agriculture (the ancestral profession of most motel owners in the United States), had not seen steady growth. Income and quality of life depended heavily on natural occurrences beyond one’s control, such as the timing and intensity of monsoons. Rather than stable increases and decreases from year to year, the economy fluctuated strongly (Dholakia 2008; Lakdawala 1982). By the 1950s, there was already a strong history of emigration, and few incentives arose to stem the outflow.

The growth of Gujarat’s economy from 1960 to 1979 was lower than the average for India as a whole (Lakdawala 1982). Furthermore, agricultural policies in the late 1950s and middle 1960s weakened Patels’ economic status by assisting nonlandowners who had been disenfranchised by the British (Pocock 1972). Patels increasingly lost their agricultural standing as lower-status groups benefited from these government programs. Patels were already economically vulnerable, some even economically unstable. According to the 1961 Census of India, there were thirty (out of ninety-eight) Patidar households in Ambav village, in the Kaira district. These thirty “comprised 42% of the landholders, holding 71% of the land. They provide 70% of the village income” (Bal 2006, p. 187; see also Tambs Lyche 1982).

Gujarat remains a predominantly agricultural state. From the 1960s to at least 1980, the main crops were groundnuts (peanuts), cotton, wheat, jowar, bajri, and rice (Lakdawala 1982). But agriculture provides an unstable income. And there are few alternatives available to locals wanting to leave farming. For example, although the industrial sector has been growing at a quick pace in the Surat district (from which many motel owners originate) since the 1960s (Parekh 2008), most of those employed in this sector are from outside Gujarat. In the fastest-growing industries—cutting and polishing diamonds (mostly imported from South America and Africa) and artificial silk production—“local labor is a minority and has had to accept living and working in the shadows of aliens” (Breman 1996, p. 57). The diamond industry was especially strong in Surat postindependence, but its labor force was primarily composed of Kanbi Patels from outside Surat (only some of whom have immigrated to the United States and become owners of motels). And the growth of industry notwithstanding, the economy in Surat remained agriculturally based. Agriculture dominated the entire state, often not providing a dependable livelihood. According to Lakdawala (1982), by 1980 only about 35 percent of Gujarati farmers were rich, more than 50 percent were poor, and 14 percent were landless.

Even with these challenges, the financial prospects within Gujarat were not dismal. Nevertheless, Gujarat has had poor economic conditions compared with First World countries and inconsistent returns compared with other states in India. As Mehta (1983) wrote:

Gujarat is a unique economy. On the one side, it has one of the highest per capita incomes, and high literacy, urbanisation and industrialisation rates [in India]. On the other side, it also has one of the highest infant, general mortality and crude birth rates, inadequate social services infrastructure, slow growth in per capita incomes, low agricultural yields, low growth in agriculture, low and highly variable rainfall, underutilisation of irrigation potential and low ultimate irrigation potential. (p. 19)

Nor did Gujarat provide occupational security and satisfaction for professionals, including engineers and doctors who would immigrate to the United States post-1965 (explained below). The government under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had invested significant money in science education following independence (Poros 2010). This led to well trained graduates who had few job opportunities. Indian physicians, for instance, had few employment opportunities outside of rural India. As early as 1967, India had sent 1,541 scientists and engineers to the United States, second in number only to Britain (2,293), which, unlike India, had not been subject to restricted immigration prior to 1965 (Fortney 1970). Professionals emigrate for higher salaries, more challenging work, and an advanced infrastructure (Madhavan 1985). Sahay (2007) quotes Usha Nayar as saying, “The Indian economy cannot absorb even the small number of graduates from Indian universities” (p. 944). The reason to emigrate is succinctly captured in the following quote from Fortney (1970):

There is also the problem [in Asia] of underemployment, when professionals are taking jobs that are “beneath” them. The Indian Census of 1961 showed that 10.4% of persons classed in scientific and technical occupations were unemployed, this was 16.3% for science graduates, 3.7% for engineering graduates, and 8.6% for physicians. Senator Mondale of Minnesota in a Saturday Review article . . . quotes a university dean as saying, “It is difficult to advise an Indian engineer to return home if there is a high risk that he will be a clerk-typist for the next ten years.” . . . By far the largest part of the migration of professionals involves recruitment by American industry, universities, hospitals and research organizations (many of these last three are wholly or partly financed by the Federal Government). (pp. 230–31)

Through its immigration laws and domestic policies, the U.S. government has indirectly sponsored the migration of Indian and other foreign professionals rather than trained natives for open positions. The Indian government has put more resources in its universities to fund professionals. But these incubator labs have not resulted in sufficient private industry growth (Sahay 2007). In addition, the troubles within agriculture often impacted these professionals through family members in the industry. So a chance to earn greater income abroad and experience more secure occupational support were major incentives to emigrate, even if one was lucky enough to find steady employment at home.

Colonial Constraints in the British Commonwealth

Before immigrating in the 1940s to the United States, in the early and middle 1900s Patels had immigrated in large numbers to East Africa and to Britain, where a number of Indian American moteliers originate from. Concentrating on their experiences here is not to take away from the role of other destination countries, such as New Zealand, Fiji, South Africa, and the Caribbean (Brennan 1998; Leckie 1998). Nor is this an exhaustive account of Gujaratis’ immigration to the United States (see Poros 2010). But to understand the motivations of motel owners per se, it is useful to narrow the focus.

Indians have long favored emigration as a way to address economic insecurity. In the late 1800s, elite Patidars began leaving Gujarat to trade tobacco elsewhere in India. Emigration became even more popular in the early 1900s. As mentioned earlier, British rule, natural disasters, famines, dwindling landholdings, and the increasing size of dowries created a precarious situation for many Patels. Along with their income, their social status became threatened. As a result, Gujaratis left for Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and elsewhere, joining Indians who had already emigrated and connecting to a trading history with East African settlements that had been active for centuries (Pocock 1972; Rutten and Patel 2003; Tambs Lyche 1982). Although the decision to emigrate is often motivated by economic interests, the choice of destination often depends on network relations, whether through colonialism, profession, organizations, family, and so on (Poros 2010).

The immigrants to East Africa were recruited by Britain starting in the late 1800s to advance its colonial interests, in particular to fill administrative and labor jobs connected to the recently completed railway system. Punjabis had already been brought in as indentured servants to lay the tracks. The Patels who came were for the most part relatively well educated and spoke enough English to fill administrative positions. The predominance of Gujaratis who migrated to East Africa led to the nickname “Patel Railways.” The British considered the Patidars to be loyal, hardworking, docile, and subservient and so wanted them to advance their colonial interests elsewhere (Tambs Lyche 1982).

Once in bureaucratic positions in East Africa, Patels helped relatives emigrate through work permits or through marriage (Rutten and Patel 2003). By the early 1900s, tens of thousands of Indians worked in the region. Migration continued to grow in the 1920s and 1930s. Men had come alone at first, but gradually wives and families joined them. After their contracts expired, 80 percent of the Patel laborers left, but most of those in white-collar positions stayed (Nair 2001).

Patels continued to do well in East Africa even after leaving their original posts. Families opened small shops and entered trade, banking, and other white-collar occupations (Tambs Lyche 1982).⁴ They often became middleman minorities, serving as an intermediary between white suppliers and native black customers. They had little prior experience in business, but they strongly preferred autonomy, which business ownership allowed. Women and men worked together in the shops, at times living in them as they later would in motels in the United States (Nair 2001). As Bal (2006) wrote, “The Patidars were involved in every facet of commercial life of East Africa until they were pushed out by the regime. They had developed a diverse retail and wholesale trade and besides building a large number of factories they dominated the ginning industry” (p. 181).

The Indian immigrants’ political and social status, however, was uncertain. As they gained stature and expanded into their own businesses, they saw themselves as equals to the British, in that they both were nonnatives of elevated status in Africa (Nair 2001). They framed thems...