On 25th September, a high-level meeting was hosted at the White House where United States President Donald Trump met with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Pakistan’s Field Marshal Asim Munir.

Also present in the room was Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel, a man of Indian origin and Hindu by heritage. During this meeting, Patel was photographed extending a handshake to Munir. That single moment, captured by official cameras and later circulated by the White House, quickly went viral across social media.

The photograph stirred deep emotions among Indians and the wider diaspora. For some, seeing Patel greet Munir felt like betrayal. Others called it hypocrisy, while a few even interpreted it as complicity. The image became more than a handshake; it turned into a symbol of the uncomfortable realities surrounding identity, heritage, and public responsibility.

Patel, who had often been seen as a figure of pride among Hindus abroad, suddenly found himself at the centre of criticism. When the image of Patel, son of Indian origin, Hindu by heritage, was seen greeting Munir in the White House, it sent ripples through the Indian diaspora and people in India alike. Some saw it as a sign of betrayal, others saw hypocrisy. Yet others saw complicity. The episode became a reminder that diaspora icons often carry burdens larger than their offices allow them to bear.

But perhaps the time has come for a more balanced view. Instead of quickly judging Patel, Indians may need to look inward and reflect. As the article notes, “Instead of indicting Patel, perhaps it is time Indians should carry out a quiet reckoning. It is time to understand that our hopes for diaspora Hindus may be less about them, and more about us.”

Why the optics of a handshake carry weight

The incident was not dismissed as trivial. Major news outlets highlighted the handshake and the questions it raised. Patel’s handshake with Munir did not go unnoticed, especially because Munir has in recent times made statements underlining the religious divide between Hindus and Muslims, while endorsing the Two-Nation Theory. Against this background, Patel’s gesture appeared politically charged.

Online, Patel’s identity was brought up repeatedly. Users reminded others of his earlier public invocation of “Jai Shree Krishna”, contrasting that expression of faith with his official act of greeting Munir. For many, it created a sharp dissonance: how could a Hindu rooted in Indian tradition act so comfortably with a man who had openly spoken against Hindu interests?

Yet, this interpretation overlooks context. The photograph released by the White House was just one image — a snapshot of political theatre. Diplomacy and governance run on such staged rituals. As FBI Director, Patel was bound not by personal choice but by institutional duty. He had to perform what the office demanded. The real question, then, is not whether Patel betrayed his faith but whether Indians are expecting something unrealistic: that a civil servant of another country should prioritise ancestral loyalty over his official obligations.

The heavy expectations placed on diaspora leaders

One recurring issue is the unrealistic burden placed on diaspora figures. Whenever someone of Indian origin reaches a position of power, many in India begin to assume they will automatically act as defenders of Indian interests. The logic goes: since they share our heritage, they must also share our political goals.

This is why people expect Sundar Pichai to shape Google’s policies around Indian developers, or Satya Nadella to direct Microsoft in favour of India. Similarly, it is assumed that Patel must reject any official engagement with Pakistan, no matter the demands of his office. But such expectations confuse cultural pride with professional responsibility.

The case of Tulsi Gabbard is instructive. Though she invoked Hindu imagery and chants in her political career, she always acted as an American politician serving her constituents and the U.S. Congress. Expecting her to serve as an envoy for India was never realistic. In the same way, Patel cannot act as India’s agent while serving as the head of the FBI.

“Rishi Sunak, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, will further the interests of his country despite having ancestral roots in India. In the same way, Patel, in his capacity as FBI Director, will further US interests and not India’s. Sundar or Nadella will steer their companies toward profit, regulatory compliance, and global markets, not national mythology.”

None of these leaders are betraying India. They are simply fulfilling their roles. The real problem lies in how Indians mythologise diaspora success and project impossible duties upon them.

The case of Asha Jadeja Motwani, an Indian-American venture capitalist and GOP megadonor, highlights this well. She has at times advised India to engage with Donald Trump carefully, even suggesting that “India should thank Trump for mediating ceasefire between India and Pakistan.” Her words were problematic, but in reality, she was speaking from her role as an American citizen with an American perspective. She had no authority over Indian foreign policy. Expecting her to act otherwise is a mistake rooted in sentiment, not reason.

The Shrimad Bhagavad Gita explains the idea of svadharma — performing one’s duty without attachment to outcomes. Patel, who swore his oath of office on the Gita itself, is bound to the U.S. Constitution, not to India. He cannot undermine American institutions by refusing basic diplomatic courtesies such as a handshake. Had he refused Munir, he would have caused a diplomatic rupture, something his office could never allow.

Why Jewish comparisons don’t hold

Many argue that the Jewish diaspora always supports Israel, and thus Hindus abroad should do the same for India. But this comparison fails. Israel was founded as a homeland for Jews after centuries of persecution and exile. For many Jews across the world, Israel is more than a nation; it is an existential anchor.

The Hindu experience is different. Hindus have lived in India continuously for thousands of years. Migration from India has largely been for economic or social reasons, not exile. Diaspora Hindus may feel strong cultural ties, but they are not necessarily bound to India politically in the way Jews feel about Israel.

To insist otherwise is to flatten history. Diaspora Hindus are people with professional duties and civic obligations in the countries they live, not mythic representatives of India.

Realism must replace naïve expectations

It is natural to feel proud when people of Indian heritage achieve global prominence — whether it is Patel at the FBI, Sundar Pichai at Google, Rishi Sunak as British Prime Minister, or Satya Nadella at Microsoft. These are extraordinary successes and deserve to be celebrated. But they should not be burdened with ancestral obligations.

Criticism is fair when actions harm Indian interests — for instance, if policies of Nadella or Pichai disadvantage Indian stakeholders. But such criticism should be based on governance and impact, not genealogy. India cannot outsource its diplomatic and strategic needs to the diaspora. Real power and credibility come from building strength at home, not from hoping others will serve as protectors abroad.

The diaspora’s role is best seen as soft power — building cultural bridges, influencing perception, and enriching global Hindu identity. But their primary duty lies in the jurisdictions where they live and serve.

Time to treat this as a wake-up call

The Patel–Munir handshake should not be seen as betrayal. Instead, it should serve as a wake-up call for Indians to adjust their expectations. Diaspora icons must be viewed as humans with jobs, not as mythical emissaries of India.

“Expecting Patel to be India’s champion is a burden any public servant would resist. Expecting Sundar or Nadella to always toe a nationalist line is a mismatch with how global institutions function.”

India’s future does not depend on diaspora champions. It depends on India’s own resilience, strength, diplomacy, economy, and moral character. When India grows strong from within, diaspora pride will follow naturally, without being demanded.

The message is simple: stop expecting the impossible. Let Patel serve America, let Pichai and Nadella serve their companies, let Sunak serve Britain — and let India serve itself.