The Democratic party's mantra for choosing candidates seems to be diversity, pluralism and multi culturalism, proudly contrasting themselves to the Republican party which they profile as one whose membership consists of rich, white Christian men.

But on Tuesday many of the Republican election winners were women. Yes, most of them were white, most of them were Christian and the two female victors in California, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, are very rich. But then there is Nikki Haley from South Carolina. She is a woman, she is an Indian-American (and no, Fox resident liberal, Juan Williams, not a Native American Indian but one whose parents emigrated from India) which makes her what? dark white? light brown? a person of some color?

But all this is not important according to Tunku Varadarajan who throws the whole racial, ethnic, gender identity issue back at Democrats, asking

Why has no Indian-American liberal risen as high in the Democratic ranks as Jindal (Indian- American Louisiana Republican governor) and Haley have done in the GOP?

Could it be that because Democrats put more of an emphasis on identity politics, an Indian-American Democrat would have to contend with other ethnic constituencies that might think that it's 'their turn' first? And once you go down the 'identity' route, your success as a politician tends to rest more on the weight of numbers--the size of your ethnic constituency, or your racial voting bloc--than on the weight of your ideas. The most striking thing about Jindal and Haley's success is not that they are Indian-American politicians who have triumphed in conservative Southern states, but that they are conservative Southern politicians who just happen to be Indian-American.