The interviews seem to indicate that second generation South Asians, whether of mixed parentage or not, will define themselves as something consisting of both parts, the South Asian and the German. Few are able and willing to use only one of the cultures as the basis for their self-definition. While Germany seems for almost all the home of present and future, the place they care most about and where they want things to be changed, South Asia remains in their consciousness as a symbol for their family roots and their otherness. Basically all respondents refer to othering experienced by 'normal' Germans on the basis of their skin colour. Given that citizenship plays an important role in German public discourse, it becomes of importance also for the second generation South Asians with basically all wishing for a symbolic dual nationality.
Interviews conducted with a few other respondents who are from mixed parentage but do not phenotypically differ from the majority population seem to confirm that external definition is of major importance in self-definition. While all had emotional links to the country of origin abroad, were happy about their dual nationalities and perceived themselves as different, it was far easier for them to define themselves as part of the majority population as long as they were not detected due to their names or behaviour as 'other'.
Considering the interaction of law and society, the interviews discovered also some other interesting features. Although all argued that the German citizenship was of practical advantage, few really understood what this means. They were conscious in particular of the restriction to travelling which a South Asian passport brings along, most had also a vague idea that their legal status in Germany was more secure with German citizenship, but this was as much as most were aware of. Only few had thought in depth about political rights, security from being deported, protection when travelling abroad etc. Only a few individuals knew that a foreign citizenship could mean trouble when marrying or in related cases, nobody seemed aware that under international private law they were, as citizens of a South Asian country, still subject to parts of its laws. Furthermore, few were well informed about their actual legal status in Germany or the precise rules for naturalisation. This all means that although they were arguing with practical reasons, they did not really know what this meant, and a decision for or against naturalisation in general is informed by emotions and (potentially wrong) hearsay rather than being the consequence of a well-informed rational decision.
On top of this, most of the respondents displayed a high degree of inertia concerning the question of naturalisation. As their everyday life is not visibly shaped by their foreign passport, the need to change it does not appear apparent, especially to those still in school and living with their families. The occasional problem or increased trouble, such as applying for a visa, is annoying but not enough incentive to change anything. The older ones, however, who have experienced many troubles display a reaction of defiance and thus stick to their old passport. It thus needs an outside trigger for actually applying for naturalisation, either the parents deciding it or something special happening. Similarly although basically all would like to have dual nationality, almost none made any effort in that direction. Those who changed citizenship or were born with the German passport did generally not make any inquires to official institutions whether they were still eligible to the South Asian passport, they fully relied on second hand information.
Although there are many commonalities among the respondents, it also has to be emphasised that the individual histories are very diverse and that the individual reactions to specific situation are just as diverse. This can be seen most clearly in the reactions to external categorisation which include internalisation, struggle against it and defiance.