In 2003, my Hindustan Times editor asked me to write about the growing importance of the Indian Diaspora when the first Pravasi Bharatiya Divas (Overseas Indian Day) was held. My finding at that time was the concept of the Indian diaspora was not really established as strongly as we have evidence and research on say the Irish diaspora, the Jewish diaspora, the Armenian diaspora, etc.
As it so happens, wikipedia does not even have an entry for Indian diaspora. This is more because of the fact that the country is relatively new and other identify characteristics such as Hinduism, Buddhism never made such a big link with the home nation versus the diaspora. Diaspora Indians are called as Non Resident Indians.
For a long period of time, these NRI's were considered to be almost as traitors, who abandoned the mother country while they took off to pastures anew for filthy lucre. A very simplistic view because Indians have been emigrating for donkey's years and there have been diaspora populations in countries ranging from Guyana to Fiji, Russia to Australia.
Be that as it may, given the changes in economic direction, when profit and earnings are no longer swear words, and better communications, the link between the Indian diaspora and the mother country is very strong. The Pravasi Bhartiya Divas is an attempt to turn the tide and recognise the benefits of the Indian diaspora to India.
One of the aspects that was kicked off at the first occasion was to announce and then allow dual citizenships. Previously, India did not allow dual citizenships but now given this political change, it has meant that the political factors in India are now impacting the diaspora and vice versa. There are strong political links between the large populations in the Caribbean, USA, UK, etc. and India. And given the stonkingly great growth in India, everybody wants to pile on top of this bludgeoning relationship.
A recent research paper in Political Geography addresses some facets of this fascinating area. I quote some bits from the conclusion:
The empirical case-study presented a content analysis of the discourses surrounding recent changes to India's package of dual citizenship provisions. Set against the international trend (at least, pre-9/11) toward a proliferation in dual citizenship arrangements between countries, India's 2003 Dual Citizenship (Amendment) Bill signalled a change in conditions of membership, if not rights of membership. Reading India's changing dual citizenship legislation alongside background briefing reports, political speeches, and the discourse surrounding a new annual festival, we examined the basis on which parts of the overseas population are constructed as insiders, and other parts as outsiders, and traced the structure of diaspora membership to India's engagement with colonial and post-independence times and spaces. Membership revolved around professional success through participation in global networks that connect to India, the adoption of an ecumenical Hinduism, and an embrace of multicultural incorporation. Underpinning these constructs is independence and partition as key historical moments. Pre-independence emigrants are seen as temporally distant, belonging to the ‘old’ India of British subjugation. In contrast, post-independence emigrants are seen as part of the ‘new’ India, defined by their emigration for independent economic aspirations and their ability to negotiate cultural practises in de-territorialized networks.
The more general conclusion is that the current criteria defining the ‘ideal’ NRI can be seen as a reflection of how India wants to be perceived in the world: the past is re-imagined to affirm a desired future. Overall, the discourses of diasporic membership amplify the contradictions of, and tensions between cultural nationalism and religious nationalism that pervade ongoing debates about Indianness. While our focus has been on how the Indian state constructs membership in a diaspora, we have not considered how these meanings are received, resisted, and modified by communities and power structures utilising tropes of gender, religion and ethnicity (see for example, Das Gupta, 1997), nor have we examined in depth the role of private (business) actors in circulating discourses of diaspora (for example, FICCI). Here, the growth of transnational private spheres will have significant impacts upon what forms of diaspora are possible for states and overseas populations, and the social fields they seek to re-imagine. For Corbridge and Harriss (2000), the convergence of interests of the state and private sector in any “consensual” version of nation is undermined both by political decentralisation and neoliberalism. Further work might examine the intersections between these actors, noting the role of generational transmission of values and (extended) family contexts, for example. While adding the example of South Africa to the literature on state led diasporas, we recognise the value in exploring how the contingencies of other cases – including Eastern Africa, Fiji, and Malaysia – will shed further light on how experiences of migration, return migration, and colonialism have intersected in different ways.
Jen Dickinson and Adrian J. Bailey, (Re)membering diaspora: Uneven geographies of Indian dual citizenship, Political Geography, Volume 26, Issue 7, September 2007, Pages 757-774.
Abstract: Although the concept of diaspora is sometimes regarded as oppositional to the interests of existing political regimes, we argue that it can become a site where the negotiation of new terms of membership embraces the transnational and de-territorialized networks of overseas populations. Drawing on work on transnational governance, we explore the uneven geographies that accompany India's recent discussions of its dual citizenship provisions. Constructions of diaspora membership are revealed by mapping the discourses contained within the Dual Citizenship legislation of 2003, the 2003 Pravasi Bharatiya Divas (Overseas India Day) campaign, and the 2001 report of the Diaspora Committee onto the case of South Africa. The results suggest that the construction of diaspora membership focuses on professional success, ecumenical Hinduism, and multicultural incorporation. We also trace how diaspora membership betrays a continuing anxiety over the terms of Indianness. The results remind us that diasporic times and spaces mediate transnational governance.
Keywords: Diaspora; Transnationalism; Citizenship; State; South Africa; India; Governmentality; Membership
No comments:
Post a Comment