Challenges Of Diaspora In The Globalizing World
The Indian Experience

Chandrashekhar Bhat
Centre for the Study of Indian Diaspora
University of Hyderabad

This presentation examines the challenges before any diasporic community in the context of shrinking time and space with unbound global economic and political regimes. Diasporic groups are often ‘outsiders’ to the most in the host societies and are also, by definition, ‘outsiders’ in respect of their motherland or ancestral land. In any case they are vulnerable to discrimination and exploitation in the land of their settlement and not infrequently many of them have also remained outside the concerns of nation-states of their origin till recently. After examining the much-debated concepts of ‘diaspora’ and ‘globalization’, the paper attempts to analyze the interface between the two and the challenges before the diaspora communities across the globe.

Presence of diasporic communities world over is brought to the public domain and debate more than ever during the last decade of the 20th century. By then, some of the prominent diasporic communities, such as the Jewish, Armenians and the Chinese Diasporas, had already carved out a specific space for themselves both in the countries of their naturalization and origin. It is not long ago that the globally dispersed communities were perceived as ‘minority ethnic groups’, occupying the marginalized / peripheral space in the host society. As rightly observed by James Clifford, by the mid-1980s the “…, diasporic language appears to be replacing, or at least supplementing, minority discourse” (quoted in Vertovec (1997: 277 ?). Though these ‘ethnic minority groups’ always had their linkages with the countries, or places, of their origin, the formal recognition of these linkages by the concerned nation-states is relatively new to emerge. Thanks to the phenomenal advancement in the technologies of travel and communication during the past two decades, the globally dispersed communities have come closer to renew their ties forging the diaspora formations.

The Concept of Diaspora

The concept of diaspora has been much debated during the past decade in terms of the essential and additional features that go with it, arguing which groups or communities could be / could not be designated as diaspora. Deterritorialization, nationality and citizenship, forced or voluntary process of emigration, cultural identity, real or imaginary association with the place of origin including its replication symbolically and a desire to return are some of the parameters employed in this debate to define a diaspora. It is also imperative that both the country of origin (the ‘motherland’/ ‘ancestral land’) and the immigrant group in a host country mutually recognize the historical and cultural linkage to be diasporic. Building and strengthening of this linkage is at the heart of shift from minority ethnic discourse to diaspora dialogue.

A significant feature of any diaspora that has received the least attention is its heterogeneity. Not only the emigration from a nation-state leading to diaspora formation occurs at different points of time, spanning even several centuries, but also the diverse destinations of their immigration. Except for the belief that they share a common origin, the diaspora communities residing in different parts of the globe may have, if at all, only a limited knowledge of language or culture of their ancestral land. This heterogeneity is further compounded by the diverse socio-economic conditions of the emigrants and the contexts under which they emigrate.

During the past two or three decades, there is a revival of ties between the diasporic communities and the countries of their origin under the emerging conditions of globalization at the threshold of the new Millennium. While some of the scholars argue that the process of globalization began with the end of World War II, there are others who trace it to the European expansion in the early sixteenth century itself. In a way, diasporas are a product of early ‘globalization’; they have, in fact, emerged following the shifting of population segments - as slaves, victims of persecution or labor - originally from a nation-state to other parts of the globe. The concept of globalization as it developed subsequent to modernity, is essentially centered on free flow of capital across the globe, transcending the boundaries of several nation-states. Today there is melting away of certain strands of the nation-state boundaries, allowing free or restricted movement of capital, commodities, communications, labour, professional and skilled personnel. After the end of the cold war and dismantling of Berlin wall, several of the western states have merged into each other, greater Europe for instance.

Contemporary Globalization

By the end of the 20th Century, the concept of globalization has come to be associated with the liberalization of markets and the growth of multi-national corporations (MNCs) or transnational corporations (TNCs) spread over several nation-states. It has given rise to “…worldwide diffusion of practices, expansion of relations across continents, organization of social life on a global scale and growth of shared global consciousness” (Lechner 2000: 330). There is greater interdependence between nation-states across borders, not merely in trade and commerce but in almost all aspects of life, say ranging from food, clothing, sports, music and entertainment to ideology, politics, military and spiritualism. With the revolutionary advancement in technologies of information, communication and travel during the 1980s and 1990s, there has been steep increase in the global transfer of people, capital, technology, media and ideologies across several nations.

Process of globalization is so complex that no single theory can offer its multifaceted manifestations. Hence scholars have attempted to conceptualize globalization from different perspectives. For instance, Immanuel Wallerstein (1974) saw globalization as a process by which the capitalist world economy is spread across the globe. Ronald Robertson (1992) looked at the process from a cultural perspective, demonstrating how world becomes compressed and consciousness of the world as a whole spreads. He argued that technological and organizational developments lead to the compression of the world and creation of a global field in which individuals and societies become part of a larger system of societies and identify themselves in relation to global standards. It is essentially a supra-territorial, cutting across several nation-states. Globalization, according to Robertson, produced a more integrated yet also differentiated world society. For instance, there is ‘glocalization’ incorporating some of the global or universal features in local cultures and also the incorporation of local specificity at the global level. As Chittiwatanapong (1999: 74) points out, the final impact of globalization is the erosion of local. But at the same time, as Hirano (1999: 103) points out, people move around retaining their ethnicities and tend to hold on to them even while residing or staying in other societies. Another consequence he ascertains is the multilayered structure caused by transnational migration: the multilayered structure of international society and the multiple identities of the individual person are more apparent. Taking the local – culture, media, cuisine - to the global reach is of particular interest to diaspora communities. Rise of global civil society, global citizenship, global governance, ethics, border-crossing and nongovernmental organizations emerge as institutional arrangements of globalization project.

Globalization today transcends nation-state territory and its borders, opening not only to the forces of capital, information, specialized services and, above all, migrants whose contribution has become inevitable to the so called developed and graying world (doctors, nurses, engineers, accountants, etc.). In this era of globalization, “…ability to control migration has shrunk as the desire to do so has increased. Borders are largely beyond control and little can be done to really cut down on immigration” (Bhagawati, quoted in “Introduction”).

One of the major constituents of globalization is the uncontrollable international migration of a large volume necessitated by the very process itself. Robin Cohen is tempted to use the term diasporization as a concept akin to globalization for the two are inseparably enmeshed. Though not the same, they mutually reinforce each other. According to Cohen (1997), “Globalization has enhanced the practical, economic and affective roles of diasporas, showing them to be particularly adaptive forms of social organization. As diasporas become more integrated into the cosmopoli, their power and importance are enhanced” and the diasporas as transnational social formations have an edge over the others to exploit the fruits of globalization to their advantage.

Contemporary globalization is propelled by ‘sociotechnological infrastructure’ (Nonini 2000: 565), - social uses and application of new technologies of communication and transport – accelerating the magnitude of migration of people, movement of commodities, ideas and capital more than ever. It has facilitated emergence of cybercommunities or ‘virtual communities and microelectronic transnationalism (Spivac 1989), facilitating formalized and permanent diasporic institutions that link both homeland and host societies, such as family or ethnic business enterprises, cultural organizations, charities, etc. The Chicago anthropologist, Appadurai (1990) conceptualizes dynamics of diasporic identity to “global flows” (such as ethnoscapes, technoscapes, financescapes, ideoscapes, and mediascapes) of the cultural mode of production, celebrating the local in global scape.

To summarize, Armenia in today is not just a place, space or territory located within Armenia as it were, but the one for nearly a century long experience of being in France, USA & Canada, Russia, Lebanon, Iran and Syria. It is what Armenia came to be, as it were dispersed. Under the present regime of globalization, Armenia stretches to all corners of the globe where Armenians remain Armenians, forming over 11 million strong Global Armenian Family.

The Indian Experience

Recent population estimates suggest that the Indian diaspora has touched the mark of 20 millions, dispersed around the globe in more than 70 countries (MEA, 2002). They number above 10,000 in 48 countries and half a million mark in 11 countries. People of Indian origin represent a significant proportion of the population of some of the countries such as Mauritius, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Surinam, Fiji, South Africa and Malaysia. They are a ‘visible’ minority in countries like United Kingdom, U.S.A., Canada, Hong Kong and Singapore. Almost all countries in West Asia and the Gulf have a substantial work force recruited from India though they return to the places of their origin after the termination of their contracts. Their return is ensured by the host countries as they deny citizenship to immigrant workers.

Indian diaspora today comprises of broadly three streams following the diverse situations under which they had emigrated. The first stream includes 3rd to 5th generation descendants of the early emigrants during the mid-nineteenth century, to the British and European colonies in Africa, Southeast Asia, Fiji and the Caribbean as plantation labour and railway workers under indenture system. As Clarke (1990) points out under this system some 1.5 million persons migrated to the above destinations. Robin Cohen (1997) has classified them as ‘labour diaspora’. Many of them have lost contact with their ‘motherland’ including the mother tongue. They may be called ‘Old Diaspora’ for want of a better term.

The second stream consists of professionally trained and skilled emigrants to the developed countries of the West during the second half of the 20th century. They continue to have a vibrant interaction with places of their origin and pay frequent visits to India. Since they away from India just around five decades, they are referred here as ‘New Diaspora’.

The migrant labour force, semi-skilled and unskilled, to the countries of West Asia and the Gulf following the oil boom form the third stream. Many of them have left behind their families in India and remit savings towards family maintenance and investments. They form the majority among the Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) or expatriate Indians. They are denied any citizenship rights in the countries of their work and cannot permanently deterritorialized.

Despite certain similarities, each stream varies from the other in so far as the socio-economic and educational background under which they emigrated from India and also their location in the host society. They also differ in terms of their linkages with the ‘motherland’ in general and the places of their origin in particular.

Old and New Indian Diaspora

Any analysis of Indian diaspora cannot ignore the distinction between the emigrants during the colonial and the post-colonial periods, who may be termed respectively as the Old Diaspora and the New Diaspora. Not only they vary in the contexts of their emigration and destinations but also in terms of their socio-economic background and the degree of interaction with the motherland. While the New Diaspora has retained vibrant relationship with their family and community in India, majority of the Old Diaspora has lost their contact with the motherland. In the course of their long journeys by ship to distant destinations, the unknown co-passengers became ‘jahaji bhai’ (literally meaning ‘ship brother’, a brotherly affinity owing to travelling together). The Indian diaspora communities formed during the colonial era were totally denied access even to their own folk attached to different plantations under a new system of slavery called ‘indenture labour’ (Tinker 1993) invented by the British colonialists, leave alone any access to the then existing means of transportation and communication to engage with the motherland.

The post-colonial emigrants, the New diaspora, not only enjoyed the advantage of being professionally trained, middle class, Anglophone Indians but also earned adequate income that could facilitate visits and frequent communication with the place of their origin. The recent advancement in technologies of travel, transport, communication, information and Internet has contributed immensely to the growth of transnational networks and virtual communities. There is revival of the ‘local’ at the global context, with the shrinking of space and time.

The underlying feature of all emigrations from India, whether as ‘coolies’, skilled labour or ‘knowledge workers’ (some times mentioned in contempt by a derogatory term ‘data collies’) is their availability on lowest of the wages for employment in growth generating centres around the globe.

India is unique for the magnitude of her diversities in terms of languages and regions, religions and sects, castes and sub-castes, rural and urban, food and style of dress, which are also reflected by her diasporic communities. Hence, it is not surprising to find extensive networks based on language and region, religion and caste among the Indian diaspora. Hindu Diaspora (Vertovec 2000) and Sikh Diaspora (Tatla 1999) are instances of such extensive religious networks, global in coverage. Similarly, there are diasporic communities formed on the basis of linguistic or regional identities such as Punjabis, Gujaratis, Sindhis, Tamilians, Malayalees and Telugus. Global organisations have emerged to preserve and promote these identities and cultures, uniting transnationally India and the global Indian diaspora.

Contemporary trends

Resurgent independent India has made perceptible strides in the field of scientific and technological education to the extent of being recognised today as a country with third largest human resources, highly skilled and professional, in scientific and technological fields in the world (MEA 2002). The later half of he 20th Century witnessed large-scale emigration from India, controlled and subjected to the need based policies of selective immigration by the receiving nations from time to time.

The new immigrants have been successful in carving out a niche for themselves in their new territories where they have emerged to be ‘visible’ or ‘model’ minorities. They have established vibrant relationship with the families and places of their origin. These relationships range form personal ties with friends and relatives, through informal linkages with the institutions of caste, religion, region and language, to official interactions at the state and national levels. The nature of these relationships also covers all spheres of life such as socio-cultural, economic and political.

During the first five decades of independence, the new diaspora had limited linkages with the places of their origin, most of which were familial and religious. In a few cases, remittances were also sent to the parents or other relatives. Diasporic interactions were individually promoted through frequent home visits, marriage alliances, pilgrimage to sacred places, remittances for family maintenance, and overseas family reunions.

The Non-Resident Indians

The Government of India was lukewarm to the issues of overseas Indians until she realised the potential of the New Diaspora, or NRIs who emigrated after independence to the developed world. They came from the middle class elite families are a highly skilled groups of professionals, scientists, doctors and Engineers. Liberalisation and the new industrial policy in 1990s sought involvement of overseas Indians in investing both in terms of capital and technology. The decade saw the new nomenclature of NRIs to refer the Indian immigrants in the developed word. NRIs were encouraged to invest in India through certain attractive schemes as much as they were welcomed to launch industrial enterprises along with transfer of technology. There is hardly any evidence of reaching the majority of the People of Indian Origin, the Old Diaspora, till the announcement of the new scheme of PIO Card during the early 1999.

The PIO Card

The People of Indian Origin Card was launched by the Ministry of Home Affairs in March 1999 to reinforce the emotional bonds of Indians who have made other countries their homes, but who now have a yearning to renew their ties with the land of their origin. Persons of Indian origin up to the fourth generation settled anywhere in the world, except for a few specified countries, are eligible to avail themselves this facility. The foreign spouse of a citizen of India or PIO would also be covered under the scheme. This scheme will entail a host of facilities to PIOs which were generally open to Non-Resident Indians (NRIs).

The PIO Card holders would get facilities for acquisition, holding, transfer and disposal of immovable properties in India, except agricultural/plantation properties, admission of children in educational institutions in India under the general category quota for NRIs, various housing schemes of Life Insurance Corporation of India, state governments and other government agencies.

Under the PIO Card scheme, there is no need for getting a visa to visit India and for registering with the Foreigner’s Registration Officer if the continuous stay does not exceed 180 days. The Card would also enable the journey of people of Indian origin back to their roots much simpler, easier, flexible and hassle-free. According to estimates, the NRI population is about 6.7 millions and that of PIOs is around 15 million. The govt. of India expects about 2.35 lakh applications for PIO Card.

By investing an amount of $300, PIOs could now secure visa permit forth the next 20 years with multiple entries. They are also allowed to acquire property, encouraged to invest on industries and have access to the educational facilities.

High Level Committee on Indian Diaspora (HLC)

A High Level Committee on Indian Diaspora was appointed by the Ministry of External Affairs in September 2000, with the approval of the Prime Minister to recommend a broad and flexible policy framework after reviewing the status, needs and role of People of Indian Origin (PIOs) and Non-Resident Indians (NRIs).

The Committee was formed under the Chairmanship of Dr.L.M.Singhvi, Member of Parliament and former High Commissioner of India to U.K.. Members included Shri R. L. Bhatia, Member of Parliament and former Minister of State for External Affairs, Shri J. R. Hiremath, Indian Foreign Service (Retd.), and Shri Baleshwar Agarwal, Secretary General of the Antar Rashtriya Sahyog Parishad. Shri J.C. Sharma, Secretary (NRI & PV) in the Ministry of External Affairs, was the Member Secretary. The Committee was expected to look at the role of PIOs and NRIs in India, the rights and facilities extended to them, and also to examine the conditions of their existence including their rights discrimination in the countries of their residence.

The terms of reference of the Committee were:

1. To review the status of PIOs and NRIs in the context of the Constitutional Provisions.

2. Laws and rules applicable to them, both in India and the countries of their residence.

3. Study the characteristics, aspirations, attitudes, requirements, strengths and weaknesses of the Indian diaspora and its expectations from India.

4. Study the role PIOs and NRIs may play in the economic, social and technological development of India.

5. Examine the current regime governing the travel and stay of PIOs and investments by PIOs in India.

The Committee submitted its report to the Prime Minister in January 2002 recommending measures to resolve the problems faced by NRIs and the PIOs, and to evolve country-specific plans for forging a mutually beneficial relationship and for facilitating their interaction and participation in India's economic development.

The High Level Committee on the Indian Diaspora (HLC has extensively dealt with the contemporary context of Indian Diaspora in most of the countries where people of Indian origin have their significant presence and has come out with several recommendations for the consideration of the Government and their implementation.

Recommendations of HLC

In its interim report the High Level Committee on Indian Diaspora (HLC) has recommended to the government to respond to some of the significant issues that had figured in their discussions with the members of the diaspora communities. These included i) charging a lower fee towards PIO Card but for a decreased validity of 10 years (rather than 20 years of validity for a fee of $ 1000), ii) observation of Pravasi Bharatiya Divas on January 9th (the day Mahatma Gandhi returned to India from South Africa) of every year, in India and abroad, to recognise and appreciate the role of Indian Diaspora in the promotion of India’s interest, and iii) the institution of Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Awards for eminent PIOs and NRIs.

The HLC has examined the major issues pertaining to Indian diaspora, such as culture, education, media, economic development, health, science & technology, philanthropy, and dual citizenship to recommend concrete steps to bring Indian diaspora closer India for the first time in an institutionalised manner. In order to facilitate closer interaction between India and Indian diaspora and to continuously monitor it, the HLC has suggested setting up of an autonomous and empowered body, similar to Planning Commission and also to constitute a Standing Committee of the Parliament.

Some of the major issues such as culture and media, it is essentially that the people and government of India have to undertake effective steps to promote languages, philosophy, spirituality, performing arts and ethnic Indian media among the Indian diaspora communities, especially those of the Old Diaspora compared to the people of the New Diaspora still continues to maintain strong family and community linkages with the motherland. The HLC has drawn a list of programs and activities through which Indian culture and media can effectively reach the younger generation.

Implementation of the recommendations in the areas of education, economic development, health and science and technology required active participation of people of India and Indian diaspora besides that of the government of India. Recommendations in these areas pertain detailed identification of the mutually beneficial issues, specifying the facilitating role that the Government of India needs to undertake.

The Report (MEA 2002) suggests that the Government of India and also the state governments should try to remove all the obstacles for promoting philanthropic and voluntary or welfare activities of NGOs that the members of Indian diaspora wish to pursue in India.

A very significant but controversial issue that came up for consideration before the HLC was that of dual citizenship. The HLC had encountered this demand particularly during their meetings with the prominent members of Indian community (New Diaspora) in North America and a few other advanced countries. They pleaded that the grant of dual citizenship will promote investments, trade, tourism, and philanthropic contributions in India. According to the Citizenship Act of 1955, an Indian forfeits the Indian citizenship when he/she acquires the citizenship of a foreign country. The HLC recommends issuing of ‘dual citizenship’ after taking appropriate safeguard pertaining India’s security concerns besides carrying out necessary amendments in the Citizenship Act of 1955. In the meanwhile, the Government of India has already commenced issuing passports of “Overseas Citizen of India” to those who have forfeited Indian citizenship in the recent past. However, the HLC denied holders of such citizenship any participation in electoral process or civil services in India.

The First global meeting of the Indian diaspora and the Indians – The Global Indian Family – was organized during January 9-11, 2003 and subsequent conventions are being held every year in January.

The new global order has seen that the protection of the interest of its population beyond its national boundaries is justified even if it means undermining the sovereignty of another country. Indians in Uganda during the seventies and Indians in Fiji in the nineties had sought Indian intervention to save their life and properties. There has been an urgent need to review the policy towards the PIOs and NRIs which is met by the constitution of High Level Committee by the Ministry of External Affairs.

It is a path breaking initiative the Government of India has undertaken to recognise the presence of 20 million strong Indian Diaspora and to formulate new policies for building enduring linkages between India and the Indian Diaspora. The High Level Committee has done a monumental task in arriving at the detailed recommendations for the consideration of the Government of India. In fifty-five years of independence, it is a major step forward to bring the Indian Diaspora closer to India.

There was no separate unit for the overseas Indians existed until the appointment of a secretary and the MEA to exclusively deal with the diaspora till 2000. A new Ministry was created in 2004 “Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs” (MOIA) as a nodal ministry to function as a ‘one-stop-shop’ on all matters pertaining to overseas and non-resident Indians.

Challenges & Opportunities before Diasporas

Diaspora communities are known for their hard work and the contribution they make in enhancing the wealth of their host nations. Immigrants by definition need to show their worth by providing their services at low wages if they are to be accommodated by the hosts, indirectly contributing to the nation-building of their hosts. Globalization at the dawn of 21st century provides opportunities hitherto never anticipated. Challenge before diasporas is to organise themselves to take the socio-economic and political advantages of borderless markets, information highways, global institutions etc., to build global families.

The challenges and opportunities before diaspora communities are also equally the challenges before the ‘motherland’ or ancestor land. While in a few cases, such as the Jewish and the Chinese diaspora, there are institutional and organizational arrangements linking the diaspora and the ‘motherland’ already in place, such arrangements have not yet been formalized in the case of many other diasporas. In the globalizing world, there are great opportunities for social, economic and political advancement if only the diaspora together with the ‘motherland’ can seize them, in the fields of business, commerce and industry, technology, education, medicare, culture, etc.

1. The first challenge is of coming together of Diaspora and the motherland, defining their linkages and expectations, through a constructive dialogue.

2. Diasporas are highly diversified in their composition and hence their needs and expectations too would widely vary.

3. Building synergy through extensive networking - Identification and implementation of collaborative, joint enterprises for promoting mutually economic, scientific, technological and educational advancement. The motherland may initiate programs in these fields seeking participation from the diaspora or the vice-versa.

4. Being outsiders, the diasporic communities are always targets of discrimination and exploitation by the host society. Diasporic local area or regional associations and global organizations need to be strengthened to meet these challenges.

5. Initiating associations of common interest groups, such as professional and financial organizations, across the world connecting the diaspora communities. Chinese business rarely gets out of the Chinese hands for they find the diasporic connectivity to promote their common interest.

6. Diasporic networks could be more effectively established centering the motherland. Formal involvement of the state may facilitate vibrant networking both at the micro and macro level.