This was done for political expediency (Indian numbers are dismal) but is a harmless gesture. Besides that it's historically justifiable from the vitriol and apartheid Indians have faced from Idi Amin, Kenneth Matiba, etc. I find it to be the equivalent of African Americans with the Indian relative economic might being balanced by their extreme minority. Recall Indians principally got here as rail-building slaves and were devoured by fatigue, whips, hunger, lions & hyenas, malaria, etc. Just like negros! Let them be, it doesn't hurt us.
Yes, it is a silly but harmless event. But I would not compare their situation with that of African-Americans, who (a) were denied all sorts of rights and opportunities, (b) were for long denied pretty much any real opportunity to integrate with the rest (majority) of society, and (c) were not brought into place by the locally dominant population and then subsequently abused for ages. "Fatigue, whips, hunger, lions & hyenas, malaria" ... the "natives" too were getting those from the same sources at the very same time.
Amin etc. were passing aberrations to the norm. Indians may have had a rough time of it at the start, but, for the most part, they have always generally done quite well, which explains the "relative economic might" that you refer to. On the whole, Indians in Kenya today are a very privileged lot and have been for quite some time.
And to the extent that they have not "fully integrated", it has largely been a deliberate choice on their part. That choice, by the way, goes a long way in explaining the "tensions" that still bedevil their relationships with the "natives". To my mind, they would be better off addressing the roots of those "tensions", rather that assuming that being declared a "tribe" or writing cheques will make them go away.