14 Indian Diaspora and India’s Foreign Policy

1. CONTEXT SETTING

The world is currently subject to significant demographic, social, political, cultural and economic transformations, taking us closer to cosmopolitan global principles and structures. This trend, the authors feel, is a shift from ‘Realist’ approach to International Relations (which primarily believes on perpetual existence of conflict among nations) to a more advanced communications and technology based ‘Idealist’ approach to International Relations (which presents the picture of a future international society based on people- to-people interaction across sovereign borders). Many of these changes are indeed reflected in migration patterns, global governance and international relations. Over a period of time, the thought process pertaining to the role of migrants in the socio -economic development of the respective host countries went through a paradigm shift. Until the 20thcentury, migration had rather negative nuances. An analysis of immigration policy regimes of labour- receiving developed countries shows that there is a gradual shift in demand for labour from unskilled workers to more skilled and highly skilled professionals. This trend is directly correlated to demographic equations and technological changes. It is widely agreed that technological changes resulted in sharp decline in the transaction costs of global goods and services trade. However the welfare implications of globalization are often debated.

While many migrants are able to move, live and work in safety and dignity, others are compelled to move as a result of poverty, lack of decent work, environmental degradation or political. It is in such contexts that there has been greater awareness about Human Rights issues, which heavily came in support of protection of migrant rights. The advent of Universal Declaration on Human Rights is an important instrument under ‘Idealist’ approach taking us closer to cosmopolitan structures.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations 1948) recognizes the right to freedom of movement across boundaries: a right to emigrate – that is, to leave a country – but not a right to immigrate – a right to enter the country (Article 13). Article 14 anchors the right to enjoy asylum under certain circumstances, while Article 1 of the Declaration proclaims that everyone has “the right to a nationality”. The second half of Article 15 stipulates that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality” (www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang.eng.htm). Benhabib (2004: 11- 12 ) points out that the Universal Declaration is silent on states’ obligations to grant entry to immigrants, to uphold the right of asylum, and to permit citizenship to alien residents and denizens. Various specialized universal instruments adopted under the auspices of the United Nations specify the provisions of the Covenant in different contexts.

The 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, endorses the right to leave and return within their own fields of application. The International Refugee Law also places certain constraints on state action. Article 33 (1) of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees provides, for instance, that no person can be returned, for any reason whatsoever, to the frontiers of territories where her life or freedom is in danger. In addition to these instruments, WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) also has provisions on managing labour migrations, primarily temporary migrations, through Mode 4 of the GATS (Movement of Natural Persons). GATS is probably the only collective effort at liberalizing skill flows at the multilateral level. These international instruments on managing international migrations have foreign policy implications, especially when it involved movement of its people across borders.

The ‘flow’ of international migrations, over a period of time, resulted in creating a very strong and vibrant ‘stock’ known as Diaspora. It has evolved as a phenomenon and sociologists often describe it as ‘Diaspora Consciousness’ (Vertovec & Cohen 1999: XVIII-XIX).Some of the major diasporic communities are Chinese, Indians, Mexicans, Philippines, Armenians, Africans, Jewish, besides many others; and each of them plays a distinct role as a community and contribute to International relations. Aided by rapid and massive leaps forward in communications technology which have compressed time and space, Diasporas now have the capacity to exert far greater influence or leverage on their homelands than ever before. They have emerged as the most prominent actors that link international and domestic spheres of politics (Lall 2001).

The 21stcentury Indian Diaspora plays a significant role in influencing international relations and geopolitics. They are more transnational in approach and have shown a keen interest to positively engage with their country of origin. – India, in spite of post-independence disengagement policy adopted by the then Government.

The Indian diaspora grew out of many causes and several crossings. From Buddhist bhikkus in ancient India to slaves and indentured labour in the pre- colonial and colonial periods to movement towards West European countries, the USA and Australasia; the twice banished diaspora made up of people from former colonies of Indian settlement (Trinidad, Guyana, Surinam, Fiji, Mauritius and East Africa) who now live in the Western countries; the skilled and highly skilled emigrations. The general perception about professionals leaving India underwent dramatic change – from Brain Drain in the 1960s and 1970s to ‘brain bank’ in the 1980s and 1990s, and subsequently to ‘brain gain’ in the 21st century. The highly skilled migrations from India have come not only through the ‘employment gate’ but also through the ‘academic gate’ as students. The host countries gain political mileage as the foreign students become their long term ambassadors in the international political arena (Khadria, cit. Brij Lal et al, 2007: 72).

This period also saw Indian migrations to the Gulf, South East and East Asian countries, mainly as contract labourers. Their temporary nature of migrations facilitated substantial ‘remittances’ to the country. The proportion of remittances to the Gross National Product has grown from a negligible 0.14 per cent in 1970 to about 2 per cent in 2000 and close to 5 per cent by around 2010. This has substantially added to India ’s foreign exchange reserves. These remittances provides a potential source of additional savings, investment and capital formation and have a direct bearing on the balance of payment position of the country (Rajan cit. Brij Lal et al, 2007: 75-78 ).

With the above description of the global instruments and structures towards cosmopolitan ideals facilitating movement of people and the general trends and phases of Indian migrations across the world, we will now look into Indian Government’s inconsistencies in its Diaspora Policies. It is observed that unlike Ireland, Israel, China and many other countries, governments in independent India, until the signs of liberalization, took only a limited and cautious interest in overseas Indians.

2.   INDIA AND ITS DIASPORA: ENGAGEMENT, DISENGAGEMENT AND RE-ENGAGEMENT

In the pre-independence period India’s political leaders engaged positively with its Diaspora and involved them in the process of independence struggle. The racial discrimination and restrictive immigration policies in the colonies aided the forging of an emotional bond between Indians overseas and the emerging nationalist leadership. Both groups considered themselves engaged in opposing colonial regimes (Brij Lal et al., 2007: 82). The first decade of the 20th century marked the beginning of a vital ideological link between Indian political leadership and Indians overseas. In fact, in 1929, the Indian National Congress (INC), set up an International department to highlight colonialism’s underlying racist dimension and Jawaharlal Nehru was made to head the department for his special interests in international affairs (ibid: 83).

Subhas Chandra Bose’s call to Overseas Indians

In the 1940s, World War II and its adverse effects on Indian communities in Southeast Asia elicited widespread sympathy. Subhas Chandra Bose’s formation of the Indian National Army (INA) and his call to Indians overseas to take up arms to liberate the motherland boosted the patriotic sentiments that Indians at home felt with regard to the overseas communities. Gandhi led a structured fight against discrimination of Indians living in different parts of the world. His role in South Africa before he came to India is well documented. Natarajan (2009: 43)     says ‘The diasporic Gandhi is an important precursor to the nationalist Gandhi’. After Gandhi was assassinated in 1948, his ideas of connecting diasporic Indians faded gradually.

With independence, it is recorded that the close ties that the nationalist leadership had nurtured with overseas Indians became strained as the Indian leaders distanced themselves from the diaspora. The then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru announced that the ethnic Indians who chose to remain abroad would not be able to take up Indian citizenship and adopt the nationality of their host country. Lall (2001) opines that disengagement was a political requirement as a strong line on the fate of Indian minorities in other countries would have been counterproductive for Indian relations, especially with the ‘Great Powers’. India, for decades, neglected the strategic possibilities of its diaspora also because of its preoccupations with China and Pakistan (Kapur 2010: 188). Consequently, India’s diplomatic vision focused little on countries where the diaspora was settled – Africa, Caribbean, and Southeast Asia. There was hardly any Government to Government contact between India and those countries. This indicated that post-independence, India adopted a civic, territorial nationalism and a secular, inclusive state, which had no role for the overseas Indians. “It is the consistent policy of the Government that persons of Indian Origin who have taken foreign nationality should identify themselves with and integrate in the mainstream of social and political life of the country of their domicile” , Nehru said (Lall 2001: 43). India’s response to the 1972 Ugandan crisis was not appreciated in which almost 70,000 people of Indian origin were expelled from the country following a successful coup by Idi Amin. Also when Jomo Kenyatta started a policy of Africanization in Kenya, many Indians were at the receiving end. By and large, the Nehruvian era was characterised by total neglect of the diaspora.

Parekh (1993) justified this neglect as ‘studied indifference’ to overseas Indians. The Nehruvian disconnect happened because most of the destination countries were either fighting for independence or had only recently acquired it and had no international clout. The project of nation-building by these destination countries demanded total loyalty from permanent immigrants. The Indian government was anxious to cultivate their support and was also apprehensive that its concern might expose the overseas Indians to charges of disloyalty. The Sri Lankan prime minister wrote to Nehru in 1948: “I admire the affection they (Indians) still have for their mother country, but note with regret the absence of even the beginning of a similar affection for the country of adoption” (Parekh India Today, January 13, 2003); Perhaps similar observations from various other global leaders might have added to the decision of disconnect during the Nehruvian era. Responding to a question by Seth Govind Das in Lok Sabha, he said “Our interest in them becomes cultural and humanitarian and not political” (DasDeccan Herald, 1 January 2008).

In fact, India’s distinct policy of non-interference is one of the reasons India was at the forefront of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which is often considered as Nehru’s brainchild. The NAM is an international organisation of states which chose to align neither with the United States nor with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Officially founded in 1961after fifteen years of increasing cooperation, the organisation’s declared objective was to ensure “the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries” in their “struggle against all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony” (Havana Declaration of 1979). One of the principles of NAM was prohibition of interstate interference of any sort. A concomitant of such an approach was that India recommended to her diasporic communities, not to look for help in their ancestral country, to be model citizens in their respective countries of adoption and to promote the development of those countries (Bhat 2003: 15; cit. Naujoks, 2010).

In fact, independence was so dear to the maiden leaders of independent India that they, as a principle, followed a policy respecting the independence and sovereignty of other states more than treating overseas Indians as subjects of India. Also there was no clear description of gestures of encouragement for the overseas Indians to return home, though Nehru kept the possibility open for them to return to India if they wished to. Dual citizenship was far away from his ideology.

From a different perspective, Kapur (2010: 190) points out that the then prevailing wisdom in India paid little attention to international trade. As a result, the importance of leveraging its diaspora for overseas trade networks was simply ignored early on. India’s fear of the outside world was reflected not only in its policies towards international trade and foreign direct investment (FDI) but also in its apathy towards its more successful diaspora (especially in the West). We can see that the thought process of NAM dominated various aspects of international relations; trade is one such important aspect.

Indians expelled from East Africa

Rajiv Gandhi’s re-engagement with the Indian Diaspora

Indira Gandhi’s Prime Ministership, more or less, continued with the policy of disengagement; like her predecessor, she too strongly believed in state-led growth and was reluctant to involve the diaspora and the private sector in the development process. However, in the early 80s the idea of involving the diaspora to raise development finance was considered by her Government when she introduced NRI Portfolio Investment. In a Business Standard Interview (February 29, 2008) with Pranab Mukherjee (the Finance Minister in Indira Gandhi’s Cabinet in 1982) mentioned about this gradual shift in its policy.

[…] one more decision I took gives me immense pleasure [….] to tap the investment potential of the Non-Resident Indians (NRI). My calculations were that the NRIs had almost 15-20 billion dollars to invest in India. If this money reached India, no other assistance would be required. At that time, the R N Malhotra committee report was submitted. In addition to various other concessions for attracting NRIs, the committee recommended permitting companies set up abroad by NRIs to make portfolio investment in Indian companies to a limited extent. I accepted the recommendations and allowed portfolio investment by NRI-owned companies up to 5 per cent. Investment by NRI individuals was restricted to 2 per cent. As expected, many companies showed interest and made investments in large Indian companies. However, it created a huge uproar both in Parliament and the media. Today, NRI investments are much sought after. But I received brickbats for this initiative. Perhaps, at that time, people were not ready for such a change. (Pranab Mukherjee, Business Standard, 29 February 2008)

The signs of reengagement with the diaspora were more visible under Rajiv Gandhi’s leadership when it reacted aggressively to the 1986 Fiji crisis, where Indo-Fijians were ousted from government in the aftermath of a military coup, leading to an exodus of Indo-Fijians from the country. Rajiv Gandhi’s regime (1984-1990) attempted to connect with the workers in the Gulf as well as the skilled professionals in North America and other western Countries. During his tenure, the India Investment Centre was set up as a nodal agency for promoting investments in India by NRIs and PIOs. Later on a special cell in the Ministry of Finance was created to deal with diaspora investments. Since the policy changes of the 1990s towards economic liberalization, there has been a transformation of the ideological climate in the country. Its growing economic confidence, and the success of the diaspora, especially in the US, has instilled much greater self-confidence vis-à -vis both the international community and the diaspora (Kapur, 2010). The real reengagement took off only after 1991, when the Indian economy faced an unprecedented crisis arising from the bankruptcy of its foreign exchange reserves. India had to aggressively pull in foreign direct investments and it is in this context that India re-engaged with its diaspora in the 1990s. When foreign investors withdrew due to the balance of payment crisis in the 1990-1991, the Government floated India Development Bonds (IDB)to tap NRI funds (the concept is popularly known as ‘Diaspora Bonds’ which was used by many countries, more successfully, Israel). India used the instrument of ‘Diaspora Bonds’ for balance-of-payments support, to raise financing during times when they had difficulty in accessing international capital market. In the 1991 crisis, the Government could raise as much as USD1.6 billion through India Development Bonds. The Diaspora Bonds also supplemented well to support the economy during the 1998 Nuclear Tests conducted by the then Indian Government, due to which the country faced sanctions from the international community. It was called as India Resurgent Bonds, which raised USD4.2 billion. The Government of India again issued the Diaspora Bonds with the name ‘India Millennium Bonds’ in the Millennium year 2000, which raised USD5.5 billion (Ratra & Kethkar 2010: 132 ).

In 1998, the then BJP Government, announced the introduction of PIO Card for Indians settled in specified countries, promising visa free travel and privileges in matters of investment and education. In 2000 the Government set up a High Level Committee on Indian Diaspora under Late Mr. L M Singhvi. Irrespective to the Government in power, most of Singhvi’s recommendations were taken forward and implemented – celebrate Pravasi Bharatiya Divas, institute the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman, Overseas Citizenship of India, PIO University, besides many others.

3. INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY AND THE INDIAN DIASPORA

With the economic reforms of the 1990s and policy shift towards liberalization and with multiple levels of communication between the Indians in India and Indians overseas, the Indian Government’s engagement with its diaspora deepened at a structural and institutional level.

Naujoks (2010: 270), argues that the change in India’s diaspora policies was connected to a sea change in the reasons for interaction, the context, the content, and the vibrations. After India’s economic development took off, a new topic for interaction between returning Indians, Indians living in India, and the Indian political system was now to discuss business opportunities and ways in which the Indian corporate sector and diasporic actors could collaborate.

The re-engagement with Indian diaspora, primarily for Indian citizens living abroad, started with an institutional set up of Non-Resident Indian (NRI) cell in the Ministry of External Affairs way back in 1977, which worked closely with the consular sections. In the Year 2000, the NRI/PIO Division was created, which in turn created the High Level Committee on Indian Diaspora. In 2004, a new Ministry of Non Resident Indians Affairs was formed and four months later it was renamed as Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs (MOIA), which started dealing with all matters related to Overseas Indians comprising of both the Non-Resident Indians (NRI – Having Indian Citizenship) and Persons of Indian Origin (PIO – Ethnic Indians with Host Country citizenship). It had two primary tasks, firstly to engage the larger Indian diaspora with India and secondly, to deal with various issues faced by overseas Indians, which covered both developmental and security aspects of the Indian diaspora.

The Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs (MOIA) established a series of platforms and communication channels to foster stronger links between India and the diaspora. Some of the important initiatives are:

·      Pravasi Bharatiya Divas (PBD): Since 2003, every January around the day Mahatma Gandhi returned to India from South Africa on 9th January 1915, this conference takes place in different cities in India. After organizing 13 editions on various themes, the PBD has evolved as one of the most prestigious and high profile annual events in India. It is during this period that many diasporic members visit the country and network with local Indians. PBD’s economies of scale led to a subsequent series of events involving diasporic communities at various parts of the country. Since 2007, there have also been Regional PBDs held outside India in places like New York, Singapore, The Hague, Durban, Toronto, Mauritius, Sydney, and London. It is often remarked that PBDs are a way for the Indian Government to advertise its needs, showcase its accomplishments, and cater to a small part of the wealthy diaspora.

·      Pravasi Bharatiya Sammam Award, which is given every year during PBD to eminent diaspora personalities for their contribution towards India’s causes abroad, the welfare of the diaspora, philanthropic activities, or scientific achievements.

·      Scholarship programme for diasporic children – Under the scheme, 100 PIO/NRI students are awarded scholarships of up to US$ 4,000 per annum for undergraduate courses in Engineering, Technology, Humanities, Liberal Arts, Commerce, Management, Journalism, Hotel Management, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and some other courses. The scheme is open to NRIs/PIOs from over 40 countries having substantial Indian diaspora population.

·      Other programmes are Know India Programme, which is modelled on the Birthright Israel Programme, Tracing the Roots Programme, Study India Programme, besides others.

·      The Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR), under the auspices of the Ministry of External Relations, is India’s primary agency to formulate and implement policies and programmes relating to India’s external cultural relations.

In 2007, MOIA set up the Overseas Indian Facilitation Centre (OIFC) in a public-private partnership model, in association with Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). OIFC’s main mandate is to promote and facilitate investment in India by catalysing business to business partnerships and enabling exchange of knowledge. OIFC has a panel of knowledge experts, each specialized in different domains, to help Indians staying abroad make their investment with safety and profitability. Irrespective to the size of investment, OIFC is mandated to offer customized professional support. In past two decades, the investment laws underwent lot of changes. They were amended in order to ease foreign and diaspora investments and the RBI has granted special procedural facilitations for NRI’s and PIOs who want to invest in Indian companies, such as investment under automatic route with or without repatriation benefits. The economic engagement of the Indian diaspora is not only towards its developmental activities in the home country but it also plays an important role in attracting investments from India to their host countries through their contacts and networks. Though research on Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI) by Indians is limited, available trend shows that the leading recipients of Indian OFDI were mainly those countries having a large Indian Diaspora (Anwar & Mughal, 2011: 945).

The most important initiative of the Government of India to attract its diaspora is its amendments in citizenship policies and facilitating the concept of dual citizenship. Naujoks (2013: 57-65) analyses in detail India’s membership policies, especially with respect to PIO Card and Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI), which the current BJP Government has plans to merge! In 1999, the Indian Government launched the PIO Card, and in late 2004, legislation on the OCI was adopted as another membership category. However, under the initial OCI scheme, which was limited to ethnic Indians who were citizens of 16 specified countries, not a single person obtained OCI status. In 2005, the provision regarding OCI in the Citizenship Act, 1955, were amended, inter alia extending the scope of OCI to citizens of all countries except Pakistan and Bangladesh, after which the scheme was formally launched in January 2006. It must be noted that both PIO and OCI cards entitle members to facilities relating to visas and education and investment in India, while neither provides political rights. Both OCI and PIO card holders are, thus, excluded from voting and holding public office in India. While PIO cards issued after September 2002 have 15 year validity, OCI is a lifelong status. One of the most important reasons for existence of both the schemes is with regard to the eligibility criteria. The non-Indian origin foreign citizen can have PIO card but to have an OCI, the applicant has to be a foreign citizen with Indian origin.

3.1. India’s Cultural Diplomacy in a Globalised World

Cultural Diplomacy is recognized as an important instrument of foreign policy in promoting international links among peoples and countries. At the same time, the use of Indian artifacts in the Indian Foreign Policy was linked with trade and commerce. In some cases, culture preceded commerce; while in other cases, it was the other way round. Ministries of External Affairs and Culture share the responsibility for promoting cultural diplomacy. India has signed 126 bilateral cultural agreements and implemented Cultural Exchange Programmes with other countries. Bilateral Agreements, however, are not prerequisite for the conduct of cultural diplomacy.

To achieve this objective, India set up a nodal body, called the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) in 1950. Since its creation, ICCR has used a number of instrumentalities, like Cultural Centres, Festivals of India, Chairs of Indian Studies, etc. in promoting not only cultural but broader linkages with countries across the world. There is an expansion of Cultural Centres and Chairs of Indian Studies. The Centres are now treated as ‘cultural hubs’.

The heart of cultural diplomacy is to promote understanding among people, who come from different backgrounds and hold different values, through the medium of culture. Dr. Karan Singh, President, ICCR states, ‘Culture has no boundaries and using it as a way to interact with the masses has been the most effective way to win hearts in the era of globalization’. Culture in the context of cultural diplomacy looks at a broader spectrum and is not limited to performing arts only.

Cultural diplomacy cannot be equated with ‘soft diplomacy’, as coined by Joseph Nye. It has to be remembered that the primary focus of soft ‘diplomacy’ is to influence through means other than military. In the case of cultural diplomacy, it is about ‘dialogue’ and through dialogue to promote understanding. Paramjit Sahai, former diplomat points out that Cultural Diplomacy also cannot be equated with Public Diplomacy, even though in practice it is used interchangeably with ‘public diplomacy’. Public Diplomacy is definitely about influence; it is about conversion of others to our view point. Its focus, therefore, is on opinion makers, be it the academia, think tanks, pressure groups, businessmen and other influential elite, who have a say in the formulation of foreign policy and conduct of international relations. ‘Public Diplomacy is a direct onslaught on the brain (intellect), while cultural diplomacy softly plays on the heart’, he says (3 November, 2013, Diplomat Magazine.

4. DIASPORA AND FOREIGN POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Diasporas have emerged as an important component of globalisation. The role played by the Jewish Diaspora in influencing the US policy towards West Asia and the Chinese Diaspora in transformation of China into a modern industrial society has brought the importance of overseas communities in sharp focus. The foreign policy of any country depends heavily on the geopolitical equations. India is no exception to this. The Indian diaspora has also emerged as an important factor in India’s foreign policy, economic development and knowledge transfer.

The complaints about the cruelty and exploitation of Indian indentured labour forced Government of India, under British rule, to take direct interest in the subject. Inspired by Lord Macaulay, Act V of 1837 was enacted for the welfare of overseas Indian workers. The Office of the Protectorate-General of Emigrants was created to protect the interests of the immigrant workers. The Indian National Congress took keen interest in the issue and discussed it in several Congress sessions. Mahatma Gandhi was deeply concerned about welfare of indentured workers. He had sent C.F. Andrews to Fiji and Manilal Doctor to Mauritius to investigate the condition of workers. Because of growing public opinion, the colonial government was forced to bring indenture to an end in 1917.

The foreign policy priorities in the Nehruvian period (1947-1962) were firmly rooted in India’s civilization tradition, freedom struggle and quest for peace and development. Nehru defined his foreign policy interests as ‘enlightened self-interest’, as he rejected fundamentalism and initiated the Non Alignment Movement (NAM) during the cold war period. Its implications on Indian Diaspora was negative, as Nehru thought that the ‘Diasporic interests’ and the Diaspora Consciousness would negatively impact India’s foreign policy objectives of ‘Third World’ development process vis-à -vis the two power blocks, led respectively by USA and USSR. Moreover, the Indian leaders were aware of the fact that the Indian Diaspora is spread across the world, both in the ‘First World’ (USA led) and the ‘Second World’ (USSR led), and taking sides would not be in the larger interest of Global Indian Diaspora. This position had political and economic implications. One of them was that India could not get involved when part of its diaspora was going through political, economic or social discrimination or even a severe crisis. i.e., Burma, Sri Lanka and South Africa. The policy of Burmanisation followed by General Ne Win led to an exodus of Indians from the country. Nehru ’s response disappointed the Indians who had to leave Burma. He could, however, hardly find fault with Ne Win since India itself was following a policy of socialism and nationalization. The other drawback was that despite continuing informal ties of the diaspora with their families back home, they were encouraged not to part take in the economic development of independent India (Mahalingam 2013).

India’s Foreign Policy during Indira Gandhi’s regime (1966 – 1984) and Rajiv Gandhi’s regime (1984-1990) continued to follow NAM but at the same time, considering America’s closeness with Pakistan and China, it signed an agreement with Soviet Union – Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation in 1971. In 1972, India also signed the Indo-Bangladesh Treaty of Peace and Cooperation. It is during this period that India initiated its ‘Look East Policy’ and expressed solidarity with Africa. PM Lal Bahadur Shastri entered into an agreement with Srimavo Bandaranaike to resolve the question of Indian Tamils in Sri Lanka. Indira Gandhi also faced a difficult situation caused by exodus of Indians from East Africa particularly Uganda. She provided temporary shelter to those Indians who were willing to come to India. After several negotiations, Uganda gave a meagre compensation. However, the expelled Indians felt that India did not do enough for them in their hour of need.

During the period from 1965 – 1990, India’s relations with the USA were at the baseline, though it was in this period that India’s ‘Brain Drain’ towards the USA was predominant. The 1965 US immigration policy allowed skilled migrations from the Asian countries and a lot of highly educated graduates from premier institutes like IITs, IIMs and AIIMS migrated to the US and made it their new home. The oil boom of the 1970s also enabled a large number of Indian low skilled workers to enter the Gulf region. They remained as Indian citizens as there was no provision of naturalization in most of the Gulf countries. As a result they repatriated their earnings which strengthened India’s foreign exchange. Khadria notes that the perception of the destination countries, in which the Indian professional migrants have settled to form a diaspora, has thus undergone a significant reversal. This has led to a major paradigm shift in India too away from ‘brain drain’ being looked at as an outright loss, and therefore painful for the country, to ‘diaspora’ as a potential option for turning the phenomenon of migration into an opportunity, and therefore gainful (Khadria 2009).

The Indira-Rajiv Gandhi period was, more or less, marked with neutrality towards the Indian diaspora, though they gradually became more conscious about the possible developmental impact of its diaspora and did initiate some measures to make the best use of their presence. The emergence of Indian communities in the Gulf and the shortage of foreign exchange led to a remittance centric policy. Rajiv Gandhi felt that Indians in the developed world could be an asset in realizing his vision of India of 21st century. He created better banking for repatriation of foreign exchange and raised interest rates on foreign exchange deposits. He brought back some technocrats. Sam Pitroda became the telecom czar and introduced revolutionary changes in telecom sector. The Apollo and Escort hospitals established by NRI doctors brought a major change in the tertiary health sector. After taking over as the Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, in his first official visit to Soviet Union, took an industry delegation with him, which was contrary to the then policy. He said to the Ambassador Ronen Sen (who was critical about it) “I want you to meet these people who will make a huge difference to India’s future” (Das 2015: 256). The thought process of privatization also led to involving its diaspora in its development process. The then Government, which was subsequently followed up by its successors, also took up the issue of welfare of its migrants in West Asian countries and introduced compulsory registration of recruitment agents of labourers to avoid the exploitation and deportation of these workers.

The period from 1990 – 2004, was a period of institutional change and a policy shift from state led industrialization to growth through globalization. One of the major strengths of India’s entry to the 21st century was its vast and wide spread Indian Diaspora. We have seen that in the wake of globalization and radical structural changes in the Indian economy, the Indian diaspora was considered a viable and potential source to bail out the threatening foreign currency crisis of 1990s. The resumption of engagement with the Indian diaspora resulted in major implications on internal as well as external political and economic processes for India. The period also saw establishment of stronger ties with the USA, though it continued its cooperation with Russia.

India’s foreign policy, in the context of Indian diaspora, underwent a dramatic change. India is now able to respond to various types of issues pertaining to ethnic Indians. There is far greater regularization on the movements towards the Gulf, as they still do not have naturalization process. The Government of India conducts pre-departure classes, briefing the prospective emigrants on the issues and challenges that they could face as Gulf Immigrants. The Indian Ambassadors across the world now have two objectives: firstly, to maintain and strengthen economic and diplomatic relations with the respective countries; and secondly, to address issues pertaining to ethnic Indians!

India’s response during political crises in various countries was well appreciated. The Iraq and Kuwait wars, the Libyan crisis of North Africa, the current crisis in Yemen etc. are some examples. We come across many such incidences and events around the globe where the Indian Government and the Indian diaspora are giving strong responses to protect their Indian identities, interests and consciousness. This has become an integral part of India’s foreign policy currently.

The recently elected BJP Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is aggressively campaigning for global integration of ethnic Indians (NRI’s and PIO’s). Since he took over as the Prime Minister in May 2014, he has visited most of the countries with large presence of ethnic Indians – USA, Australia, Canada, Fiji, Mauritius, Seychelles, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, France, Germany, Japan, besides others. In many of the places he has announced provisions which would bring the Indian diaspora closer to the home country. One of the strategies adopted by Modi Government is to identify the Indian priorities like Swachh Bharat, Clean Ganaga, Smart Villages etc., and invite the larger Indian diaspora to actively take part in addressing these issues. Another important initiative is the provision to merge PIO card and OCI. The only issue, (but technically & legally a very important issue) , is that it will attract foreign citizens (non- ethnic Indians) who got married to ethnic Indians, eligible for OCI and also probably a gateway to Indian citizenship! Hence it may not be easy to implement.

5. CONCLUSION

Foreign Policy is necessarily a flow concept and cannot be ‘concluded’. It has to evolve as per the global situations. Rather, the conclusion of this module is that there is no conclusion!

However, there has been a paradigm shift in the foreign policy priorities of various countries in the globalization era. Information, Communication Technology (ICT) has enabled a greater people -to-people connect, which is changing the political processes across the globe and giving way to new cosmopolitanism. India, as a developing country, benefited a lot, and is benefiting, from its linkages with the Indian Diaspora.

REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

• Aleinikoff, T. Alexander & Vincent Chetail. Eds. Migration and International Legal Norms.The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2003.
• Anwar, Amar and Mazhar Mughal. The role of diaspora in attracting Indian outward FDI, International Journal of Social Economics, 40, 11 (2013): 944 – 955
• Benhabib, Seyla. The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
• Bhat, Chandrashekhar. “India and the Indian Diaspora: Inter-linkages and Expectations”. In Indian Diaspora: Global Identity edited by Ajay Dubey. New Delhi: GOPIO International, Kalinga Publications, 2003, p: 11-22.
• Chetail, Vincent. “Freedom of Movement and Transnational migrations: A Human Rights Perspective”, In Migration and International Legal Norms, edited by Alexander T Aleinikoff an Vincent Chetail, The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2003: 47-60
• Chimni, B.S. “Development and Migration”, in Migration and International Legal Norms, edited by Alexander T Aleinikoff an Vincent Chetail, The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2003: 255-270.
• Das, Rup Narayan. ‘A proactive policy towards the Diaspora’, Deccan Herald, 1 January 2008, online edition, www.archive.deccanherald.com/content/jan/2008/panorama.asp
• Das, Tarun. “Crossing Frontiers: The Journey of Building CII”, 2015, ISBN 978-93-5212- 346-9.
• Gamlen, Alan. “Diaspora Engagement Policies: What Are They, and What Kinds of States Use Them?” Working Paper No. 32, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, Oxford: University of Oxford, 2006.
• Global Migration Group. Integrating Migration in the post 2015 UN Development Agenda.Position Paper.
  http://www.globalmigrationgroup.org/sites/default/files/uploads/news/GMG-positionpaper Migration-and-post-2015-Development-Agenda.pdf
• Hofmann, Rainer. “The Right to Leave and to Return to One’s Own Country – The Strasbourg Declaration on the Right o Leave and to Return: Results of the Meeting of Experts Held on Strasbourg in November 1986.” Human Rights Law Journal, 8 (1987): 478- 484.
• IOM 2010, World Migration Report. The future of migration: Building capacities for change. www.iom.int/cms/wmr.
• Jayaram. N, ed. The Indian Diaspora: Dynamics of Migration. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2004.
• Kapur, Devesh. Diaspora, Development, and Democracy: The Domestic Impact of International Migration from India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010.
• Khadria, Binod. The Migration of Knowledge Workers: Second Generation Effects of India’s Brain Drain. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1999.
• Khadria, Binod. “Indian Diaspora in International Relations: ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’, or A ‘Great Off-White Hope’ of the New Century?” International Migration and Diaspora Studies (IMDS), Working Papers No. 10-12, July 2009.
• Lal, V. Brij, ed. The Encyclopedia of Indian Diaspora. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2007: 82-89.
• Lall, Marie-Carine. India’s Missed Opportunity: India’s relationship with the Non-Resident Indians. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001.
• Leary, Virginia. “Labour Migration”. In: Migration and International Legal Norms, edited by Alexander T Aleinikoff and Vincent Chetail, The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2003. pp.  227-240.
• Mahalingam, M. “India’s Diaspora Policy and Foreign Policy: An Overview”, Global Research Forum on Diaspora and Transnationalism, 2013 http://www.grfdt.com/PublicationDetails.aspx?Type=Articles&TabId=30
• Mukherjee Pranab “How we repaid the IMF Loan”, Newspaper Interview, 29 February, 2008, Business Standard. http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/pranabmukherjee-how-we-repaid-the-imf-loan-108022901035_1.html
• Natarajan, N. ‘Atlantic Gandhi, Caribbean Gandhi’, Economic & Political Weekly, 44 (18), p: 43-52
• Naujoks, Daniel. “India and its Diaspora. Changing Research and Policy Paradigms”, in: Dietrich Thränhardt and Michael Bommes (eds.), National Paradigms of Migration Research. Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2010. pp. 269-300.
• Naujoks, Daniel. Migration, Citizenship, and Development: Diasporic Membership Policies and Overseas Indians in the United States. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2013.
• Nayyar, Deepak. ed. Governing Globalization: Issues and Institutions. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002.
• Parekh, Bhikhu, Offshore Divide: Indian Politics is Invading Diasporic Politics” India Today, January 13, 2003. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indian-politics-is-invadingdiasporic-politics/1/207208.html
• Rajan, S. Irudaya. “Remittances”. In The Encyclopedia of the Indian Diaspora, edited by Brij V Lal, 2007: pp. 75-77.
• Ratra, Dilip & Suhas L Ketkar, “Diaspora Bonds: Tapping the Diaspora during Difficult Times”, Journal of International Commerce, Economics and Policy (JICEP), October 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1913988
• Sahai, S Paramjit, “India’s Cultural Diplomacy in a Globalized World”, Diplomat Magazine, 3rd November, 2013. http://www.diplomatmagazine.nl/2013/11/03/indias-culturaldiplomacy-globalised-world/
• Stalker, Peter. The Work of Strangers: A survey of International Labour Migration. Geneva: ILO publication, 1994.
• Tinker, Huge. A New System of Slavery: The Export of Indian Labour Overseas, 1830-1920. London: Oxford University Press, 1974.
• UN DESA Population Division. Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2013 Revision, http://esa.un.org/unmigration/wallchart2013.htm.
• United Nations. 1948. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
  www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang.eng.htm.
• Vertovec, Steven and Robin Cohen. Migration, Diaspora and Transnationalism. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1999.
• World Bank. 2013. Migration and Development Brief 20: April 19, 2013,
  http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-
  1110315015165/MigrationandDevelopmentBrief20.pdf