Om away from om

Citizenship should not be based on a quid pro quo. Citizenship is not a phenomenon to be settled on the basis of a bargain. Why can8217;t NRIs be committed to India without the grant of dual citizenship?

The fact that the Indian community abroad insists on dual citizenship implies that they predicate their involvement with India on India granting them privileges of citizenship despite their having acquired foreign citizenship voluntarily. This does not show much of a commitment to India.

The other reason why I oppose dual citizenship is that it is being granted on a selective basis. It is not being extended to all Indians who are foreign nationals living in all parts of the world. Out of 20 million Indian living in different parts of the world, dual citizenship is likely to be granted to four and a half to five million Indians living in West Europe, USA, Canada and other prosperous countries like Japan and Australia.

Foreign nationals of Indian origin living in other parts of the world will not be eligible for this facility. Further, the grant of dual citizenship is a conferment of privileges without obligations on the part of Indians who get this citizenship. They will not be part of political processes of India.

There will be no obligation on their part to serve the government of India if it becomes necessary. They can detach themselves from obligations towards India by claiming their basic national identity of a foreign country.

Dual citizenship will result in ambiguous loyalty, an ambiguity which leaves the option to decide on which citizenship to claim at given points of time.

The resentment which the large numbers of persons of Indian origin in other parts of the world would feel about this selective granting of dual citizenship can create tensions in Indian communities abroad as well as problems in foreign policy. It is worth mentioning that out of 184 countries which are members of the United Nations only about 40 countries allow dual citizenship.

It must also be mentioned that this decision is rooted in many of the political parties in India, particularly the BJP which depends on funds from foreign nationals of Indian origin living in prosperous countries.

Two other announcements are also unreasonable. The 8216;Pravasi Bharatiya Samman8217; was accorded to a number of persons of Indian origin. No doubt all of them are eminent in their respective spheres of achievements, but an award by the government of India to a person of Indian origin living abroad should primarily be for activities which have served India8217;s cause or served Indian interests.

I certainly do not see the rationale behind giving this award to people like V.S. Naipaul who have lived abroad all their life. I can understand the award going to someone like Pandit Ravi Shankar who has enriched Indian music. But I cannot understand the award going to those whose work has not had any impact on Indian affairs or reflected Indian predicaments.

Then there is the decision to encourage children of persons of Indian origin to gain admission in Indian technical and scientific institutions. There are thousands of young Indians living in India who aspire to such academic facilities but who have to go through a very hard process of competition. How justified is it to extend this facility to children of Indian origin who are in any case well- to- do and who live in countries where such facilities are already available?

The only reason for giving this facility to children of NRIs is because those young people are not sure of making the grade in the countries where they live.

Another question requiring an answer is the extent to which the Indian diaspora has contributed to India8217;s economic development in terms of investment and infrastructure. Barring a few individual cases of NRIs building educational institutions in some parts of India, one has not seen any significantly broad trend of NRIs or PIOs being involved in building up India. Had there been some emerging trend over the last decade, one would have accepted the hype and hoopla generated at this conference.

The last point which one should take note of is that vast sections of people of Indian origin even from North America and West Europe who were the major beneficiaries of this Pravasi Bharatiya exercise, have kept away from this conference and have been critical of its proceedings as a purely partisan exercise by the BJP.

It is a pity the government forgot Jawaharlal Nehru8217;s advice to the Indian communities abroad in the years following our independence where he said that these communities having decided to live abroad should integrate themselves fully with the peoples of the countries of their adoption, and that their first loyalty should be to foreign country of their choice.

They should of course retain their sense of cultural linkages with India but they should not be motivated by opportunistic considerations to revive legal and political links with India rooted in short terms vested interests.