Agreed 100%.
Honestly, even lumping all South Asians together and all East Asians together is pretty silly and obscures a lot of cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic, etc. differences that are hugely important when talking about "diversity".
Let's not forget that literally over half the world's population is South Asian or East Asian[0]. It'd be ridiculous not to assume that these are incredibly heterogeneous groups that can't be all bucketed under the same category, but sadly, that's what people generally do.
[0] Before someone points out that "Asians" are a smaller percentage of the US population - yes, but that misses the point. These group definitions are arbitrary (and have changed greatly over the years). If we're going to talk about racial and ethnic origin as a component of diversity, we can't gerrymander the group definitions unless our actual goal is to artificially inflate metrics on diversity.
Well, not terribly much more silly than lumping all caucasoids together at least.
"Caucasoid" is a term that already includes a large chunk (if not a majority) of South Asians, so yes, it is silly.
Indians and Chinese don't have much in common except for being in the same legal census bucket.
We start to head down a dangerous path when we paint with broad strokes like this.
Starting off by talking about Indian culture as if it's a single entity (as opposed to an incredibly heterogenous set of cultures that happen to exist in the same sovereign state) does not lead to an accurate or nuanced perspective for the discussion at hand.