ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Yes, abolish the NRI!

Some months ago, I first expressed the opinion that the designation of various people as NRIs or persons of Indian origin is arbitrary and reflects inconsistencies in our democratic society. Specifically, I said that fudging the difference between Indian citizens living abroad (NRIs) and those who are merely of Indian origin is deeply flawed. The depth of emotion among those who disagreed with that opinion was surprisingly strong. Still, I stand by what I said then, and recent events have only added to my conviction.

First, a quick glance at the ground we've already covered. The government of India, in various economic policies, equates Indian citizens living abroad with those who might be of Indian origin in several ways, even if their only claim to being Indian is that they are married to one. At the same time, this claim is denied to everyone who is a citizen of Bangladesh or Pakistan, or even to citizens of those countries who are married to Indian citizens. We are inappropriately using money and religion to measure Indianness, and this is not in the national interest. We should instead make distinctions only on the basis of our citizenship.

Back to the present. It was well known at the time of the Budget that the US-imposed sanctions, especially those relating to the American veto of funding from international lending agencies, would have some impact on the Indian economy and prospects for continued growth. And practically every single economic strategist was of the opinion that the government should try to overcome the drying-up of this source of funds by appealing to the expatriate community and by making the investment climate more attractive to expatriates and persons of Indian origin, together loosely called non-resident Indians.

Whether this Budget actually even came close to that is another matter. For our own debate, what is more important is the social opinions that followed the Budget. The most astounding of these were opinions labelling the NRIs an unreliable community which essentially looked after its own financial interests more than acting in the Indian national interest. There were even opinion-makers who expounded on NRIs without asking themselves why NRIs should care more than resident Indians.

On Rediff, for example, Saisuresh Sivaswamy had this to say "Will the NRIs now put their money where their mouth is?". And this -- "the gauntlet of patriotism has been thrown before the NRI. What the government has not overtly stated is that this is the time for all good NRIs to come to the aid of the country". Sivaswamy is not alone in this either, I've seen columns in Indian Express, India Today, and other publications offering much the same view. Worse still, most pieces ended with one of two conclusions. One, that it is up to the NRIs to rise to this challenge, and two, that NRIs are greedy and cannot be counted on to provide funds for future growth!

A more complete indictment and conviction without trial is hard to imagine. First, the onus is cast on the expatriate Indian or his brown-skinned look-alike, and then he is labelled an ingrate and cast in the mould of the greedy merchants of Amar Chitra Katha lore. A few months down the road, some politician will surely point out that if India has lagged behind China, it is because the overseas Indian has less affection for the nation of his origins than the overseas Chinese. Indeed, we have heard these noises often enough in the past.

For those of you who labelled me an NRI-basher the last time around, this should be well deserved. When successive governments turned to brown-skinned British businessmen and American entrepreneurs and held them up as shining examples of Indian achievement, they were simply playing the game. Currying favour with the rich and capable under the guise of race and religion-based brotherhood, they exalted the NRI and her dubious cousin, the person of Indian origin, equally. In the process, we lost the distinction between citizenship, on which basis we may demand certain favorable behaviour, and business-sense, on which basis we may demand nothing but greed.

Unfortunately for our plans this is not lost on those who would like to invest in India, but have no particular affection for her. We merely deluded ourselves into thinking that all persons of Indian origin cared deeply about India, because it suited our political and economic motives to project that duplicitous face. Equally, it suited the potential investor to let us think that his real motives included an affinity for India. We can hardly cry foul now and accuse NRIs of being selfish. We should instead accept that millions of those who live abroad do care about India, but not all of them are necessarily Indians first. In fact, as we saw the last time around, many of them are not Indians at all.

As long as we accept the duplicity that holds us up as Indians of some standing regardless of our loyalties, and as long we extend this association to all and sundry regardless of their own origins or affinity, we will continue to end up the same way. Whether we choose to accept this or not is up to each one of us. But make no mistake -- when the next cabinet minister comes around attending some expatriate gathering and lauding the achievements of brown-skinned Hindus, he won't be talking about India, or about patriotism. The bottom line has remained the bottom line not only for the givers, but for the takers too.

The NRI is a designation that defines neither patriotism nor origin. As I said before, if a white-skinned Jewish American woman in Guyana can be a no-card-needed Indian, but a brown-skinned man in Dhaka whose brother lives in Calcutta cannot even be a card-carrying one, the definition is inherently flawed. We cannot demand patriotism and energy from others by undermining our own reasons to be patriots and entrepreneurs. If we love the land of our birth and the land of our future, and if we find that feeling to be special, we do not gain in any way by claiming an association with those who were neither born in India nor, as indicated by their citizenship, intend to make their future there.

It is in this light that the latest twist -- the government's intention to designate those of Indian origin with a special card and a waiver of visa formalities -- is inexcusable. But given the track record, this is not surprising, it is merely an extension of the notion that NRIs are primarily identified by wealth and religion, not by citizenship or actual origin. The move is pathetic, and entirely without self-respect, I hope this is not what the economists of the ruling party mean when they say that India shall be built by Indians.

Card-carrying Indians are the true blemish on our patriotism and national integrity. If we must contend that it is up to Indians to meet the challenges of our times, then we should say that to our citizens, not to well-heeled brown-skinned foreign residents. And if we must have a card to carry to demonstrate our Indianness, let it be our passport, in which it is proudly proclaimed that we are citizens of the republic of India. Citizens, who regardless of our residence, have all the rights and responsibilities of every other citizen. And more importantly, those who by the possession of such rights, are different from those who are not citizens. Abolish the NRI.

How Readers reacted to Ashwin Mahesh's recent columns

Ashwin Mahesh