constructed/shared identity, but these developments alone do not explain these different forms of engagement.28
The election of certain Indian officials in Germany, such as Raju Sha-rma, Sebastian Edathy, and Gujjula Ravindra Reddy, have been cited as the ending of Indian oppression in Germany; however, this un-precedented level of representation and policy outcomes does not guarantee sociopolitical equality. Moreover, when compared to the relatively unrepresented Turkish population in German politics, it seems that there is some degree of social mobility and community capital that can be politically leveraged by the Indian-German community that is not generally present in Turkish-German populations.29 Attempts to describe this inequality usually begin with a discussion of the importance of networking that is championed by the Indian-German community, in addition to the nature of skilled-based Indian immigration.
Additionally, not-for-profit engagement at grassroots levels, such as the Indo-German Society or the DIG, helps communities organise and provide an outlet for cultural arrangements. While these types of cultural institutions are not new or confined to the Indian diaspora,30 they demonstrate how a relatively dispersed and isolated population can come together in modern society. Furthermore, while much technological advancement has helped catalyse organisation, it does not deny the sense of shared identity that has developed among Indian-Germans.
This identity traverses cultural, economic, or even social barriers in a manner that is politically successful. Many of these NPOs have in fact advocated on the behalf of Indo-German social issues as well as endorsed political candidates.31 Political advocacy and civic engagement are often cited as necessary conditions of a healthy community and in this case a sense of transnational citizenship may have played a powerful role in these political organisations.
28. Baumann 1997
29. Klusmeyer 2001
30. Punnamparambil 1981
14