How not to engage the diaspora

by JC SHARMA



The GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO TAKE A HOLISTIC VIEW OF THE DIASPORA POLICY AS IT HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR FOREIGN POLICY, NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEVELOPMENT. MOREOVER, IT IMPACTS OUR RELATIONS WITH A NUMBER OF COUNTRIES AS WELL

The UPA Government has failed to implement the recommendations of the High Level Committee constituted by the NDA. This has reduced the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas into just another jamboree with diminishing returns In keeping with the emphasis on leveraging the knowledge power of the Indian diaspora, a session on science and technology was included in initial two Pravasi Bharatiya Divas. A Task Force was created for promoting cooperation in science and technology between Indian and the diaspora scientists with the secretary in charge of the diaspora as the convener and Mr Sharad Marathe from the US as co-convener. The Task Force had meetings in India and the US and certain areas useful for internal security were identified. The committee's recommendation of promoting interaction among professionals and simplifying procedures to enable them to practice in India was accepted.
The proactive policies of the NDA Government and the enthusiastic response of the diaspora made the process irreversible. In order to enlist the cooperation of the State Governments, it was also decided to hold the third PBD in Mumbai, the financial capital and the centre of the film industry.

The UPA Government, which came to power in 2004, announced the establishment of the Ministry of NRI Affairs. The very nomenclature of the Ministry indicated that it was not a very well-thought-out decision.
The name of the Ministry was changed to the Ministry of Overseas Indians Affairs after it was realised that `NRI' would only cover Indian citizens living abroad. The decision obviously caused resentment in the Ministry of External Affairs.

Mr Jagdish Tytler was given independent charge of the Ministry.
Though, a dynamic Minister, he faced an image problem because of his alleged involvement in 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom. There were plans to organise protests against the Minister by the members of the Sikh community in his very first proposed foreign visit to attend the convention of the American Association of Physicians from India. Sikhs constitute a very important segment of the Indian diaspora. Support of the sections of Sikh communities abroad had been a crucial factor in sustaining the Khalistan separatists' movement in Punjab.
Considerable effort had been made to reach out to the Sikh community and assuage their sentiments. Careful thinking had obviously not gone into his appointment.

The UPA Government continued with the policy of holding the PBD on a large-scale and the third PBD was held in Mumbai from January 9 to 11, 2005. Priority was given to the building of business networks. Some measures to liberalise dual citizenship were enhanced in the Prime Minister's address. The event lost some of its charm because the cultural programme was dropped due to the tsunami a few weeks earlier. In his valedictory address, President APJ Abdul Kalam asked for establishment of a foundation for research in science and technology. Several diaspora members promised contributions, however, the proposal was never followed up. In marked departure from the previous practice, there was no participation of anyone from the Opposition in the event.

The fourth PBD was organised in Hyderabad from January 7 to 9, 2006. In a major departure from the practice, the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs decided to take complete charge of the organisation.

This led to major confusion and the chaotic arrangements and mismanagement caused a lot of dissatisfaction among the participants.

Mr Vayalar Ravi was appointed the Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs in January 2006. He revived the practice of organising the PBD in partnership with a trade organisation and chose Confederation of Indian Industry as the partner for organising the fifth PBD in New Delhi from January 7 to 9, 2007. Based on recommendations of the HLC, the UPA Government has announced several measures for strengthening the engagement with the diaspora. Some of the salient steps are: ! Liberalisation of dual citizenship ! Establishment of a diaspora knowledge network ! Improved remittance facilities ! Establishment of a PIO university ! Establishment of Indian Overseas Facilitation Centre in partnership with Confederation of Indian Industry ! Establishment of council for promotion of overseas employment ! Facilitating diaspora philanthropy including establishment of an India development fund ! Facilitating practice by diaspora professionals in various fields in India ! Establishment of an overseas workers resource centre ! Establishment of a global advisory council of people of Indian origin ! Establishment of Indian community welfare fund in 18 countries The Prime Minister has appreciated the contribution of the diaspora in his addresses at the PBDs. In his speech at the seventh PBD, he recognised the role of the Indian community in facilitating cooperation in the field of civil nuclear technology -"I wish to record our special gratitude to the Indian community in the United States of America for the efforts made by them in mobilising support of the political leadership in that country for India-US cooperation in civilian nuclear energy."
The Government has been very well represented at all the PBDs. The Government has also organised Mini PBDs in New York, Singapore, Brussels and Durban.

In spite of all the lofty announcements, there is growing perception in the diaspora that the UPA does not have similar enthusiasm for engaging the overseas Indian communities as the NDA Government. There are several reasons for prevalence of this view. A large section of overseas Indian communities feel that since the taking over of the Ministry by Mr Ravi, the focus of the Ministry has been Kerala and Gulf centric. Other sections of Indian diaspora have felt neglected. For some years, the Secretary of the Ministry was also from Kerala. The Minister of State for External Affairs dealing with consular matters and Gulf in UPA1 and UPA2 were also from Kerala till the resignation of Mr Shashi Tharoor.

Cultivating the diaspora in the Gulf was a part of nurturing the constituency, a common feature among most politicians.

A number of announcements

and some of the key recommendations of the HLC have not been translated into reality. The most glaring example is lack of progress in establishment of Pravasi Bharatiya Kendra for which the land was allotted during the NDA regime. The centre was conceptualised as focal point of all major activities and research pertaining to Indian diaspora.
The HLC’s recommendation for establishing a good data bank has also not been implemented. Pravasi Bharatiya Samman has from time to time generated some controversy.

During the sixth Pravasi Divas at New Delhi, some delegates openly interacted with the media voicing their anger at the manner of selections. Award of Padma Bhushan to Mr Sant Singh Chatwal has also caused unhappiness not only in India but also among overseas Indians. The awards have come to be seen as an exercise in patronage.

The UPA has not projected the national consensus in engaging the diaspora in the conduct of the PBDs.

There has been virtually no representation of the Opposition or of critics of the Government at the PBDs since 2005. In fact, in a deliberate snub, the organisers did not extend an invitation to LM Singhvi, Chairman of the HLC to any of the PBDs. There is a feeling of neglect among sections of Gujaratis because they think that the UPA views most of the Gujaratis as supporters of the BJP. The proposal of a PIO university is yet to take off.

The progress of establishing knowl

edge network has been slow and no concrete results have emerged so far.
Adequate efforts have not been made to tap the scientific talent of the diaspora. In fact, the session on science and technology has been dropped from the PBDs. The India Foundation has also yet to take off. Overseas Indians Facilitation Centre has also not so far shown any visible and concrete results which have culminated in establishment of ventures by the overseas Indians.

Involvement of MEA in organisation of the PBD is marginal. There has been no joint secretary from MEA in the MOIA for a long time.

In the first two PBDs a large number of former Indian Ambassadors were associated to leverage their old association. This practice has now been given up, the PBDs have become a routine exercise and have lost the sheen. There has been decline in number of participants and the quality of cultural programmes. It has become a forum of some announcements by the Government and expression of grievances by the delegates. New regulations tightening issue of visas and travel restrictions have further alienated overseas Indians from developed countries.

Creation of the Ministry of Overseas Indians affairs has not been a sound decision. It has led to a fractured process of decision making on diaspora matters. All political issues remain with the Ministry of External Affairs. The MOIA functions more like a Ministry of Overseas

Indian Workers. The officials of MOIA have no direct experience of interaction with overseas Indians and their environment. They have no network of informal friends in the diaspora which they can leverage.
Primary responsibility of engaging with the diaspora would always be of Indian Missions. There would always be a qualitative difference between MOIA and MEA’s interaction with the missions. There is considerable overlap between the working of consular division of the MEA and MOIA. It is important to take a holistic view of the diaspora policy as it has implications for our foreign policy, national security and development. It impacts our relations with a number of countries. The ideal solution would be to have a department of Overseas Indians and Consular Affairs in the Ministry of External Affairs with an MOS in charge.

Officers from other Ministries may be taken on deputation to deal with issues like science and technology and knowledge network, social sector, education, investment promotion and labour etc. The stature of the Minister for External Affairs would facilitate greater coordination as well as a comprehensive view of the diaspora policy. There is need to reassess the organisation of the PBD and to ensure complete fairness in awards to PIOs. The PBDs must reflect national consensus in our approach to the diaspora. It is important to urgently address the issue of restrictions on travel and speedy issue of visa, PIO cards and OCI cards. Special attention is needed to ensure that bonds remain strong with the youth of the diaspora. The current programmes are totally inadequate for the purpose.

We must emulate the example of Israel’s Masa programme under which a $100 million fund has been created with equal contribution of the diaspora and Israeli Government.

The objective is to facilitate six months study or stay in Israel of every Jewish youth. Flexible India study programmes for a semester or three to four weeks are needed in major universities in the States with large diaspora. Some innovative online programmes of India studies are also needed for this purpose Thanks to the communication revolution and global reach of media overseas Indians are extremely important tool of India’s soft power.

With 55 billion remittances, they are an important source of foreign exchange. They can make invaluable contribution in making India a knowledge power and a developed nation A developed India with strong voice in international arena enhances the stature and strength of the diaspora. It is in our mutual interest to nurture each other for a better future for both India and overseas Indian communities.

(The writer is a former Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs. He played a key role in launching the PBD initiative. Concluded.)


source;dailypioneer