[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: indians & citizenship

Administrative Note:

Week's Agenda: Political & administrative reforms

> IMO, people do not choose where they live, or the passport they hold
> based on some abstract notions of patriotism or nationalism but
> primarily on the basis of what gives them a better life. Changing
> nationality does not preclude wanting to make a difference, for the
> better, for our family, friends, and country of our birth.

I don't think anyone will disagree with that. But it is besides the 
point. I care about America, it does not make me an American citizen, it 
does not give me the right to vote in this state, it does not afford me 
the protection the might of this nation affords to its citizens abroad. 
If Osama Bin Laden bombed Indians, the US will most likely look away!

There is no tour guide to caring. Of course non-citizens care about 
India. Who denied that? But that does not make them citizens, that's all 
I'm saying. There must be certain rights and responsibilities derived 
from citizenship, without that we wont have a basis for oneness. That 
does not mean we should treat non-citizens badly. On the contrary, we 
should treat them as well as we can without equating them with citizens. 
It is quite simple.

As it stands, the lines are deliberately blurred. And with prejudice. 
Read these posts and see how many people use the term NRI loosely. 
Someone wrote to say NRIs should be allowed to get Indian passports even 
if they have other ones. Actually, the law defines an NRI to be an 
Indian citizen, he/she must have an Indian passport by that definition, 
and should not need to be ALLOWED to. But we loosely imagine that any 
brown skinned Hindu should be considered Indian, and call everyone an 
NRI. And the religious bias is obvious - that's why if you are a muslim 
and your grandfather lives in Dhaka, he cannot claim NRI status, whereas 
if you a male citizen (sure, gender bias too, in case you didn't know) 
of India, your wife (whether or not she is ethnic Indian) is considered 
a person of Indian origin. I've said this before - If the Guyanese 
President's white-skinned Jewish wife can be of Indian origin, there is 
something wrong with the definition, especially if at the same time (a) 
if the sexes were reversed, he would not be considered Indian (b) the 
same wife, if she held a Pakistani passport, will not be considered 

This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/