Doubtful Decisions And Dual Loyalties

This piece was originallywritten in 2003

The much-publicised Pravasi Bharatiya Divas, or Indian Diaspora Day, wascelebrated this month with the government playing host to hundreds ofoverseas Indians.

The objective of the conference was to affirm that the Indian peopleand government now acknowledge that the Indian diaspora has becomea significant factor in the country's external relations as well asdomestic politics.

The diaspora is being perceived as a possible source of influenceand inputs, both abroad and in India, serving Indian interests.

A number of policy decisions were announced, indicating thegovernment's appreciation of the incremental role being played byIndians abroad. One of the most important decisions was granting ofdual citizenship to certain categories of Indians living abroad whohave acquired foreign citizenship.

The government had earlier decided to issue persons of Indian origin(PIO) cards to overseas Indians. During the last four years, thegovernment had also extended privileges and facilities with regardto grant of visas and education in technical and professionalinstitutions for children of non-resident Indians (NRIs) and so on.

The decision to grant dual citizenship has been opposed on variousgrounds, which are rooted in some fundamental questions.

The first question is how granting Indian citizenship to PIOs whohave acquired foreign nationality would serve India's substantiveinterests. What are the motivations of Indians abroad for demandingdual citizenship and of the Indian government for granting it?

The presumption or anticipation is that giving dual citizenship toIndians will give them a greater sense of identity with India.Secondly, privileges such as travel, acquisition of property andextension of educational facilities would result in their becomingmore obligated and involved in the developmental and economicprogress of India. Thirdly, grant of such citizenship will increasetheir commitment to India in the countries where they reside.

This raises the question why such decisions should be on a quid proquo basis. Is citizenship an issue to be settled on the basis of abargain?

The objectives behind the decision can be met without the grant ofdual citizenship if the government is sufficiently flexible inproviding facilities to PIOs and the latter are sufficientlyemotionally committed to their linkages with India and India'scauses.

The fact that the Indian community abroad insists on dualcitizenship implies that they predicate their involvement withIndia on New Delhi granting them privileges of citizenship despitetheir having acquired foreign citizenship voluntarily. This doesnot show much of a commitment or involvement with India.

The other reason why this is an avoidable gesture is because it isbeing granted on a selective basis. It is not being extended to allIndians who are foreign nationals living in all parts of the world.Out of 20 million Indians living in different parts of the world,dual citizenship is likely to be granted to 4.5 to 5 millionIndians living in Western Europe, the U.S., Canada and otherprosperous countries like Japan and Australia.

PIOs in other parts of the world will not be eligible for thisfacility. Then, again, the grant of dual citizenship is aconferment of facilities and privileges without obligations on thepart of Indian beneficiaries abroad.

They will not be part of political processes of India. There will beno obligation on their part to serve the Indian government if itbecomes necessary. They can detach themselves from obligationstowards India by claiming their basic national identity with aforeign country.

Leaving aside some marginal economic and social benefits, the grantof dual citizenship results in the phenomenon of ambiguous loyaltyamongst those who get it.

The resentment and angst the large numbers of PIOs in other parts ofthe world would feel about this selective grant of dual citizenshipcan create tensions in Indian communities abroad as well asproblems for India's foreign policy. This is apart from the factthat a fair segment of Indian public opinion does not see anyjustification for the grant of dual citizenship.

Out of 184 countries that are members of the U.N., only about 40countries allow dual citizenship to their communities livingabroad. Apart from aberrations resulting from dual loyalties,travel and property facilities resulting from the grant of dualcitizenship can create problems of security and socio-economictensions within India.

This is particularly so in a poor country like India where theproposal would give benefits to well-to-do Indians living abroadwhose only merit is their having gone abroad and become rich.

This decision is rooted in many of the political parties in India,particularly the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), depending on fundsfrom foreign nationals of Indian origin living in the moreprosperous countries of the world. India could have avoided thisdecision, which is based essentially on narrow short-termmotivations.

A majority of the Indian community in the Gulf is unhappy with thedecision regarding selective grant of dual citizenship.

Two other decisions announced also smack of ad-hocism and lack ofreason. The "Pravasi Bharatiya Samman" was awarded to a numberofpersons of Indian origin. No doubt all the awardees are eminent intheir respective spheres of achievement, but an award by the Indiangovernment to a PIO should primarily be for activities by theindividuals concerned that have served India's cause or Indianinterests.

PIOs, who might have established educational institutions in Indiaor contributed to the social and developmental projects benefitingthe people, should have been chosen for the honour. There is norationale for conferring this award on persons like Nobel laureateV.S. Naipaul who have lived all their lives abroad and whose onlyclaim to the award was their international stature.

Then there is the decision to give facilities to children of PIOs toget admission in Indian technical and scientific institutions. Thiswill be at the cost of Indian students who have to face toughcompetition to get admission to these institutions.

How justified is it to extend this facility to children of PIOs whoare in any case well to do and live in countries where suchfacilities are available? The obvious reason behind the decision isto help children of PIOs who are not sure of making it to foreigninstitutions through competition.

Another question requiring an answer is the quantity and extent towhich the Indian diaspora has contributed to India's economicdevelopment in terms of investment, building of infrastructure oraugmenting India's economic growth.

Barring a few individual cases of NRIs building educationalinstitutions in some places near their alma maters in India, onehas not seen any significantly broad trend of NRIs and PIOs beinginvolved in the building of India. Had there been some emergingtrend over the last decade, the hoopla at the disapora conferencehere would have been justified.

Vast sections of PIOs even from North America and Western Europe --the major beneficiaries of the Pravasi Bharatiya exercise -- hadkept away from the conference and were critical of its proceedingsas being a purely partisan exercise by the BJP.

It is a pity the government forgot Jawaharlal Nehru's advice to theIndian communities abroad in the years following the country'sindependence to integrate themselves fully with the people of thecountries of their adoption, as their first loyalty should be tothe country of their choice.

Pravasi Bharatiya Divas was in direct contradiction to those wordsof wisdom of Nehru.

J.N. Dixit was a former foreign secretary. This piece was originallywritten in 2003