I don't know; don't think there is a ethnic post-vote poll out. It's also not clear how accurate the pre-poll figures were.

What follows is a long-winded take on why I think Trump would've enjoyed support, and generally about Indo-US relations.

(TLDR; Trump is actually an anti-"White" vote for Indians, in many ways.)

India is going through a phase of sticking it to the "liberal elite" too; this might just be a pullback of that sentiment (note: those who are US citizens don't care much about immigration).

Spend sometime at Indology depts. in American universities, and you'll understand the derision the American elite have towards Indian-Americans. This is the place that gives rise to people that inform Americans about India, and is generally full of people who hate our kind (for various time-varying excuses); this even while they help digest cultural things like Yoga and claim it to be their own creation. Indeed, if you read about India in WaPo, NyT and their ideological retainers in India - sites like Scroll.in, Indian Express & The Hindu (yes, what an oxymoron) - it's not hard to infer that Hindus in India are equivalent to "White trash" of the US.

Media in native languages are, thankfully, are more grounded, and don't sell-off so pathetically; thus, given the source of their Indian experience, even the likes of Noam Chomsky come off as colonial missionaries (well he does speak like one). Chomsky's Indian friends are all members of the Anglical elite, most of whom believe either that the British state/Mughal empire was the high-point of the Indic civilization. Neither Chomsky, nor the liberal elite of the West, would ever dream of doing that with the native Americans. This of course is assuming Chomsky himself isn't intrisically biased (like the liberal hero, John S. Mill), which is would appear unlikely if you've heard him talk about Indic linguistic traditions.

Ironically, support for Trump amongst Indians likely stemmed from the fact that Hillary was seen as being too keen on pushing the evangelical agenda in India. This in India, is aligned well with that of the cultural Marxists, who are more akin to the Conquistadors of South America and the Whites in apartheid S.Africa, than to Liberals in the US (it's a bit more complicated, since there is no "race" per se). USAID and assorted Western NGOs generally run by this crowd [1], are seen with a lot of suspicion, since most of them are extremely powerful in what is essentially a vestige of the British colony. Much as in Russia & China, they are seen essentially (and correctly IMO) as instruments of the US State dept. [2].

The way forward ? No one knows. It's really quite difficult. One's own country is essentially a Labour factory for the Anglo-sphere; yet, one wants to stick to the vestiges of a dying culture, but not so much that it might make it necessary to return to that dirt poor nation, and face the realities of bringing change. (I sympathize with this bunch.) Not surprisingly, no one that matters, no matter their political inclination, wants India to become anything more than a periphery of the Anglosphere; if Trump adopts the old British understanding of keeping away Bible-bashers (because the Indian state lacks the will) everything will be good and dandy for this crowd. India may even become an honorary member of NATO, now that Phillipines and Malaysia are breaking up with the US. This is essentially what has been in the making (and continues to be) for more than two decades.

There are other sides to it too. There are attempts to ally with the Jewry, partly because one's past appears to be the others' future, partly due to the shared bad experience with Islam. It's not clear what the end goals of all these state/non-state actors (unlike say Israel) are, to be honest. India is very strange, and in ways that are very alien to other nations in Asia.

[1] India has more NGOs per-capita than schools.

[2] http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/obama-quietly-reverses-h...