Almost every historical claim in this attack on @KamalaHarris's mother, by @dhume is wrong: I'd expect better from the @WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-kamala-harris-isnt-saying-about-her-mothers-background-11597944590 (1/n)

Shyamala Gopalan moved to the US in 1958, which means she did not 'flee identity politics and socialism' because... (2/n)

India in 1958 was not socialist. It's PM, Jawarharlal Nehru was on the left. But - to the frustration of socialist friends - post-imperial India nationalised very little, saw private property rights were sacred, and gave private business leaders a prominent place (3/n)

India's economy grew relatively quickly during the 1950s, only slightly more slowly than (for e.g.) France during it's 'miracle' years. & growth created millions of new middle-class government and service sector jobs for people like Kamala Harris's grandparents (4/n)

What about identity politics? Anti-Brahmin politics grew in Tamil Nadu (then Madras province) from the 1920s, and there were reservations on government jobs. But in 1958 they were only about 40%, not 7 in 10 (5/n)

The same wasn't true in the rest of India. Tamil Brahmins did migrate in response to reservations - but to Delhi and elsewhere, where they had prominent positions in business, academia, government. Just like @KamalaHarris's grandfather, who was a sr civil servant (6/n)

The one thing the piece gets right is the tradition of education for Tamil Brahmins - but that gave them good opportunities _within India_, from the 1940s until the present. TamBrams dominate the IT industry, for e.g.. (7/n)

For anyone interested, i'd recommend Haripriyan Narasimhan and Chris Fuller's book _Tamil Brahmins. the Making of a Middle-Class Caste_ (2014) (8/n)

so why did Shyamala Gopalan move? she wasn't pushed; she didn't flee anything. But India was still poor. Maybe she thought Berkeley was a good university and the US a land of opportunity (9/9)