Politics of exclusion-inclusion: A confused policy on NRIs
Our leaders prattle on about vasudhaiva kutumbakam (the world is our family). But the government says it will grant citizenship only to 4.5 million of our 20-odd million PIOs, in the US, Canada, Australia, Singapore and the European Union. At work here are incompatible notions of inclusion and exclusion. Can we extend citizenship to foreign nationals, but deny rights to those who, we vehemently claim, are our citizens -- Kashmiris from the Valley, Muslims from Gujarat? What, apart from "dollar apartheid", explains the exclusion of countries with the strongest, richest, continuity with India, like Mauritius, Fiji, Surinam, Guyana?
INDIA'S public is witnessing three bizarre contradictions. The government organises a gigantic Pravasi festival to felicitate Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) living in 130 countries. This celebration, with lavish banquets, ends at Rashtrapati Bhavan.
But the same government impounds the passports of Kashmiris --Hurriyat Conference leaders.
Our ministers speak in high tones of India's inclusiveness. But the Home Minister threatens a witchhunt of people merely suspected to be "foreigners". Mr Advani's target, unsupported by evidence, is 15 million Bangladeshis living "illegally", besides 11,500 Pakistanis, who will be summarily deported.
Third, our leaders prattle on about vasudhaiva kutumbakam (the world is our family). But the government says it will grant citizenship only to 4.5 million of our 20-odd million PIOs, in the US, Canada, Australia, Singapore and the European Union.
At work here are incompatible notions of inclusion and exclusion. Can we extend citizenship to foreign nationals, but deny rights to those who, we vehemently claim, are our citizens -- Kashmiris from the Valley, Muslims from Gujarat?
What, apart from "dollar apartheid", explains the exclusion of countries with the strongest, richest, continuity with India, like Mauritius, Fiji, Surinam, Guyana?
There are other problems--in the PIOs' description as India's "diaspora"; in Mr Vajpayee's celebration of PIOs as "catalysts of change", and in the notion that they will eagerly "bring in investment".
Ms Fatima Meer, the great African National Congress stalwart, questions the term "diaspora". She says it has "Zionist connotations", including the "homeland" idea. Indians living overseas claim no "homeland".
"We are not an Indian diaspora... We have struggled long and hard to be called South African," says Ms Meer. "The last racist South African government even offered PIOs free passage to India". They flatly refused.
PIOs comprise four distinct groups. Oldest are 19th century "indentured" labour. Second are the one million-plus Indians who went to Britain in the last century, some via East Africa--mostly shopkeepers, blue-collar workers and postal clerks.
The third group comprises post-1973 Gulf migrants--without full residency rights. The fourth consists of affluent professionals and businessmen who migrated to the US, Canada and Western Europe from the mid-1960s onwards.
The jarring note in the recent celebrations was the obsession with the last group, and discrimination against the others.
Mr Vajpayee called PIOs "catalysts of change". Change where? Not in India. Silicon Valley PIOs have doubtless contributed to information technology, and Amartya Sen and VS Naipaul have distinguished themselves. But their contributions aren't residence-specific.
Third, PIOs possess enormous wealth. Their collective annual income is $160 billion, or almost half of India's GDP. But they account for a mere nine percent of total investment flows into India, and four percent of foreign direct investment.
By contrast, humble Gulf-based workers remitted four times more money. Without this, India's economy couldn't have survived the 1970s' oil-shocks.
Affluent NRIs, like Swaraj Paul, Lakshmi Mittal, and Hinduja, invest in India out of the profit motive, not patriotism. Mr Mittal, the world's richest (non)Indian, says: "[The] government should not look at $50 billion from NRIs... it should look at $500 billion from MNCs. I don't think any NRI would invest ... because of emotional attachment ... they want returns... I love my country ...
But I must get returns as well".
In 1990-91, NRI/PIOs suddenly withdrew $1.5 billion from Indian banks, plunging this economy into a crisis. It is unrealistic to expect PIOs to turn India into a "knowledge superpower" -- any more than Mr Bill Gates.
What of dual citizenship? Citizenship isn't about passports, residence, even emotional bonds. It is about participating in the life of the nation, as members of its polis, or political community. Citizenship isn't a bargain over investment. It's about universal rights for all citizens.
The "PIO Card" is pragmatic insofar as it permits a non-citizen certain conveniences for 10 years -- in return for $500. But citizenship is different.
Dual citizenship may not even be practical. Many nations don't accept the concept. Most democracies define rights in non-ethnic terms.
Why does the government so pamper affluent NRIs/PIOs from the OECD? The answer is the BJP's national-chauvinist politics. The BJP always prefers short-term, Right-wing, money-driven solutions. In the present case, it has a special interest in promoting North American and Briltish PIOs. They are its principal source of funds.
This is meticulously documented by the Campaign to Stop Funding Hate. It traces donations collected by a BJP-RSS front, India Development and Relief Fund, from US companies, for the VHP in Gujarat. Britain's Channel 4 and Charity Commission too have found such links.
These shadowy links are part of the sangh parivar's international network. Yet, the parivar drums up xenophobia, e.g. against Ms Sonia Gandhi.
A rift was noticeable at the Pravasi "jamboree". On one side were OECD-based businessmen who admiringly heard the likes of Mr Advani defining Indianness solely via Hindutva. His offensive statement about every Indian having Ram and Sita engraved in his/her heart brought a sharp reaction from Nadira, V.S. Naipaul's wife, who is sympathetic to Hindutva. Panchajanya editor Tarun Vijay loutishly attacked Nadira as a "Non-Resident Pakistani".
On the other side were liberal-Left scholars like Amartya Sen and Meghnad Desai, who stressed Indian culture's inclusiveness. Sen brilliantly argued against the kupamanduk (frog-in-the-well) attitude. He said some of Ancient India's greatest accomplishments were the result of interaction with China, Arabia, Greece and Rome.
Nadira rebuffed Vijay: she was born in Kenya, carried a British passport, and was married to a Trinidad Brahmin. She said the exchange reminded her of Pakistan: "When I questioned Islamabad's human rights record ..., they attacked me ...[and] ridiculed me for not knowing Urdu, and they said I was sympathetic to Hindus ..."
Is this the kind of intolerance that we should emulate? Should we counter mad mullahs through imbecile sadhus? Should we, like Mr Narendra Modi, study how Pakistan's madrassas work--to create "Hindu" schools of violence? Isn't it time to reject insane politics?
Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments