I can’t speak for Kaling, of course, but I think the author mostly misses important questions about process which might underlie Kaling’s choices. Simply, it’s extremely difficult to be original and funny on a professional basis. The vast majority who attempt this sort of career fail, and not for reasons of discrimination, insufficient support, or inadequate resources. They just aren’t that funny. The small minority who succeed, speaking generally, are driven individualists who chafe at authority and strive to confound.
Comparing Kaling to Haley, Jindal, etc., works superficially, because all three are, yep, South Asian, but if we’re talking about occupational types, what each require of individuals personally, and what it takes to sustain a career, you couldn’t pick two categories which are more different.
Kaling, foremost, is a comedic writer for whom career survival depends upon her ability to be funny today. Not say something insightful, represent her particular demographic category, or anything along these lines. The latter isn’t what got her to where she is now, and if she screws up the funny all of the kind words, tributes to her pioneering work, etc,. won’t save her.
So this, I suspect, is her calculus. For me race and ethnicity is the vortex which will suck in everything. There is no finite number of questions I can answer which will cause people to say “enough”. Analysis is the death of comedy, anyway. So I’ll work on the funny, duck the questions, and let the chips fall where they may. My work will be my contribution. I’ll show, not tell.