|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | INDIA CENTRAL | |||
|
September 5, 1998
ELECTIONS '98
|
How Readers reacted to Ashwin Mahesh's last column
Date sent: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 07:44:52 PDT
To your battle cry 'Abolish the NRI', I would like to say: in your dreams, dude! Do you know what the hell you are talking about? First, the so-called NRIs saved your @#$ in the early 90s when the Indian government was on the verge of bankruptcy. Even now, the majority of the foreign reserve the Indian government has come from the NRIs. You speak of 'greed' and 'selfishness' as if these are somehow the exclusive characteristics of the NRIs, conveniently forgetting that these traits are inherent in all humans including you. As for 'patriotism', at least a majority of the NRIs are more patriotic than you ever will be, and have done more for the country than you and your lot will ever do. If you think just living in India and contributing nothing to oneself or the country is being patriotic, you have another think coming. If you are so hung up on abolishing the NRI provision from the legislation, may I suggest you and your kind start cleaning up the mess that you have created? We will talk after that. And lastly: Get a real job and do something productive for crying out loud instead of bashing the NRIs. Mohan Marette/USA Ashwin Mahesh is an NRI, though he wouldn't prefer to be titled so. Like Mr Marette, he lives in the US. And, oh, he has a job too. May we suggest that you check out his page?
Date sent: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 14:41:12 +0900
Dear Ashwin Mahesh, I had got disillusioned with Rediff of late -- with stereotype articles from Saisuresh Sivaswamy and utterly ill-informed pieces at times from Dilip D'Souza, especially on the N-bomb -- that I stopped reading any articles but cricket news. I have browsed through the articles written by you earlier, but this one beats them all. This is FANTASTIC! Yes, we tend to look to the NRIs only because they have money. Most of these people care a damn for the country which allowed them to actually become what they are -- NRIs. As you rightly said, we should stop showing this discrimination. The only CARD should be what is issued by the Government of India -- the Indian passport. Yes, it is possible to give them concessions in investing, but it should not be forgotten that by investing they are simply showing their business sense (in most of the cases) and not patriotism. Hope to see more articles from you. UDAY
Date sent: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 02:08:08 EDT
Gibberish.
Date sent: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 08:46:38 +0800
Sour grapes.
Date sent: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 19:24:30 -0500
This is in response to 'Yes, Abolish the NRI.' First, the concept of NRI came in because there was a meeting of needs of two entities: 1. The Indian government. 2. The overseas Indian diaspora. The Indian government thought it would be a good idea if it gets some money from overseas Indians to fund its own activities, and the NRI community kind of wanted to renew its ties with its homeland (It doesn't matter whether this person left India now or his grandpa left India some 50 years back). So the government opened a small avenue in the form of Non Resident Indian rules and regulations. It did attract some NRIs but not all. Remember, you can tell people all stories about how great the country is and all. But as we say, the proof is in the pudding. It boils down to cost-benefit analysis for both parties, both trying to leverage its advantage over the other. The government said, hey, we will give the ability to move around a bit in India relatively freely and all, but you will get the same crap as what other Indians get. If you think this is a good idea give me your dollars for which you will get rupees after jumping through loops and hurdles. You see, the NRI has seen the world and wanted to be treated as s/he is treated in other markets. The arrogance of the Indian government and bureaucrats could not fathom the fact that somebody who wants to come in to the country can demand things from them. Everything is hunky-dory until you can manage the country as long as you can with your crappy policies and until you run out of money. Now the government understands that the NRIs' view point is that you would want to give a fair market return if you want to borrow money in the open market. I am not denying that the FDI by MNCs are much greater than NRI contribution; but you don't want to simply close an avenue that gets $ 2 billion a year because some other avenue gives $ 20 billion. So the argument that NRIa doesn't contribute enough does not hold. It is much more easier to convince an NRI with American citizenship living in US for the past 50 years to just deposit some dollars in SBI accounts in NY than a Texan of Scottish ancestry. That's why the thrust towards NRIs while campaigning for FDI is going on simultaneously. A $ 1,,000 extra deposit per year on 200,000 accounts is $ 200 million in new funds a year. I don't have any problem with that. But the main argument is not money but a global outlook. Nowadays, a lot of people who renounced their Indian citizenship for monetary reasons or descendants of Indians settled abroad want to have Indian citizenship. The reasons range from having a second option, business flexibility etc etc. You cannot be jealous and/or feel irritated by people who want the best of both worlds. You have to look in terms of what is in India's interest? To give them citizenship or not to give them Indian citizenship is the question. When you have a whole bunch of people of Indian origin living in different corners of the world and whose population can surpass the population of some smaller countries, you have to look into the benefit of giving these people Indian citizenship. Not even 3% of the above mentioned people are going to come back to India if they get their Indian citizenships -- but the gesture of recognising them as Indians wherever you can (i e in countries where dual citizenship is possible) creates huge PR opportunity. It is like this, a lot of Jews in US are entitled to Israeli citizenship and they do have Israeli citizenship. The prime minister of Israel is a US citizen as well if I remember correctly. They effectively lobby for Israel in the US whenever Israel faces some problem. You can have the same kind of leverage by allowing dual citizenship because the dynamics of Indian policy and trade have changed drastically in the last 10 years and we are slowly moving towards global economy where the key is to get ahead by highlighting the similarities and improving relations than simply trying to be vengeful and punish people because they thought that they can make a good life outside India. At the end of the day, the small trader of Indian origin in Mississippi can feel that if there is nowhere to go there is always India. That sense of security you give people of Indian origin in alien lands will go a great distance in convincing these people to lobby for Indian interests in the lands they toil in. Remember we are not even talking about Indian citizenship but a PIO card that gives benefits like visa free travel etc. Sure there will be misuse in some cases but the benefits will greatly outweigh the risks if this scheme is implemented with proper exceptions. The author gives the example of a Jewish American wife of a person of Indian origin. We don't know how the laws are going to be framed. But I am sure that there are provisions to block such things from happening. We have so many examples of countries in the West that allow multiple citizenships and have laws that tell you how to deal with the exceptions. We can simply adapt those laws and customise it for our requirements. The argument of religion and wealth is something silly. Any sane government will make sure people in Bangladesh or Pakistan cannot get such facility. It is not because they are Muslims or they are poor. It is because a single country was split into three because of irreconcilable differences in the near past and we haven't made peace with each other yet. In such a scenario the prudent decision will be to avoid giving PIO status to these people for the time being. Maybe fifty years down the road there will be no border guards and people will go freely in and out of these countries and have no animosity towards others. Don't put the all or nothing arguments -- it doesn't even make you a bleeding heart liberal, but just a dumb fellow who can't think practically. India is at a juncture where it is trying to come out of being an inward looking country to a confident country that can co-exist successfully with other prosperous countries in the world. At this point we need ambassadors for our country in every place that counts. What is better than having people in distant places who can argue for their motherland and sway the opinion of those nations favorably towards their beloved India? Which they instinctively know will always be there and provide them with a place to live? It may not provide them with lots of money or luxury but they sure know when Idi Amins of the world come hacking at them there is a place where you can be alive. Most of the NRIs that end up holding foreign citizenships may never come back to settle down in India. They may come for a few visits to India but may very well, live, play, work, grow old and die in an alien land with the majority of the population looking and feeling different from him/her. The very thought that there is a place where the majority looks like him/her and has some links to his/her cultural background and where you can vicariously belong gives them a sense of comfort. We have to treat these people as valuable resources and not as dirt. They are not begging for money they simply want an association that is mutually beneficial. India mainly fills their yearning to belong and gets the better part of the deal in terms of lobbying and monetary benefit. 'Human Resource' is not a phrase that has two unrelated words anymore. Now I am going to make a most controversial statement: In my opinion, anybody of Indian origin who wants to associate with India and requests a PIO status should be given PIO, if not citizenship, barring a few exceptions. There is nothing better than a fifth generation American with an Indian great great grandpa who is not only the president of the United States but, more important, the holder of PIO status. People all over the world search for their roots. If not for the Irish lobby in the United States the Irish in Northern Ireland would have got a raw deal from the British. The Dutch American or a Scottish American of second and third generation is still welcome in Holland and Scotland respectively. When the branches come back in search of their roots, it is prudent for the root to make it easy for the branches. Or else the branches graft themselves to other roots and it is the original root that spawned the branch that loses nourishment. Nagaraj
Date sent: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 22:46:50 PDT
Well, well, well. Here Ashwin goes on again about getting rid of the NRI. In many cases he is right. But in most cases he is not. As for Pakistanis and Bangladeshi deserving Indian citizenship or privileges of such nature -- yes, in the case of Pakistani and Bangladeshi Hindus (Buddhists, Sikhs included) it should be so. Most Hindus outside India, if they are practising, should be considered NRIs as they love India as their holyland. May be a fee for the privilege for being an NRI is a good suggestion. On the other hand, all this NRI bashing should be taken in context with what Nehru said many years ago that irreversibly harmed the Indianess of many foreign-based Indians. On a visit to the West Indies, Nehru told the descendants and originals not to consider themselves Indian and to adopt their new countries culture. This to the same West Indies Indians (mostly labourers on sugar plantations) that contributed at least 250,000 pounds in 1942 for the famine in Bengal. Most Paks, Bangladeshis and even Indian Muslims are still anti-India. As for religion, yes, that is a bind to India. The VHP and other Hindu organisations get money from NRIs like us, to build hospitals, schools, temples and other important stuff. Also it ain't foreigners that send back money to family in time of need -- it is us NRIs and it is us who visit India more than the foreign tourists. I say we should abolish secularism, not the NRI status, and just make India a Hindu rashtra.
Bhima Patel
Date sent: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 14:49:25 -0700
The only appropriate word to describe this column is: drivel -- it is pure drivel. Mahesh has a quick pen, and can indeed develop into a serious columnist if that pen is guided by more logic and less emotion.
Date sent: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 08:41:06 +1100
I agree with many points made by Ashwin Mahesh. I agree completely that issuing Indian Origin Card to so called Indian origin persons and abolishing visa is a totally wrong and bad idea. Why not instead allow dual citizenship? That is a much better alternative. That way, you will have more control over the person. Issuing a card is like giving all the rights without any responsibility, whereas issuing passport gives rights along with responsibility. Most of the time people abroad give up Indian citizenship for their selfish reasons. There are three kinds of NRIs: * People who will give up citizenship at the first opportunity. They will do so even if dual citizenship is allowed. * Another group (which may be as small to be non-existent) are the ones who will not give up Indian citizenship at all. * The majority of the NRIs fall in this category. They will not generally give up Indian citizenship but will do so reluctantly if forced to. Most of these will take up dual citizenship readily. The majority are non-Indian citizens now, but would have been Indian in addition to British/American/South African/Canadian /Australian if dual citizenship is allowed. I do not agree with Ashwin regarding his statement that only Hindus are considered NRIs. It is not correct. It may be just because you cannot identify Indianness by the name in case of non-Hindus. The main problem in this regard is that Hindu names can be identified as Indian but other names cannot. Thus, if you are told that Neville Roche is MD of Fujitsu Australia, how do you know that he is an Indian? But if Satish Sanan is mentioned as chairman of Information Management Resources, then you will easily know he is an Indian. This could be so even if Neville Roche has spent much more time in India than Satish Sanan. The fault (?) may lie with people of other religions in India. Why are they not having Indian names instead of Muslim or Christian ones? At least one name should be Indian. Thus if you hear a name Rajeev Khan or Dilip D'Souza, you will know they are Indian rather than just Muslim or Christian. Indonesia is Islamic but still have more or less Hindu names as tradition. Thus, Sukarnoputri (which is a Sanskrit word meaning daughter of Sukarno) can be a name of Muslim there -- but, alas, such a name cannot be found among Indian Muslims or the majority (although not all) of Indian Christians.
Date sent: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 16:40:23 -0400
Ashwin Mahesh displays such a profound ignorance of the rudiments of economics that it is astounding that Rediff should have him on their staff! His frequent and sensational outbursts against NRIs are now "old hat" and symptomatic of some deeper personal inadequacy of his (may be he missed the boat somehow). A clear case of "sour grapes." Mr Mahesh appears to turn a blind eye to the millions of dollars that NRIs send back to their near and dear ones in India, which help pump up the Indian economy, create jobs, and replenish forex reserves. His expectation that Indian NRIs should have put money in the hands of Indian politicians and bureaucrats after the nuclear tests (in the face of an ailing industry and nosediving rupee) shows his limited understanding of basic economic principles. Why should NRIs put their hard-earned cash into a proposition that has no promise of good return? Do NRIs own "money-trees" abroad that they can throw away money even if the proposition is risky? For this, he accuses us as being "greedy"! I would ask Mr Mahesh (and others of his ilk) to be more industrious in whatever he professes he does, so that Indian economy grows at a healthy rate. Only then will NRI (and foreign) money flow into Indian coffers.
Dr I Sinha
Date sent: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:57:35 -0700
My greetings and felicitations to Ashwin Mahesh. Most people have often wondered what really separates an Indian, Bangladeshi, and other wonderful neighbours from us. The answer is clearly politicians. If any one of us ever had a chance to sit down and have a cup of tea with each other, we will clearly find that we are real brothers and sisters fighting for false ego. For nothing, really. People living in these regions are true blood relatives. They have the same type of challenges and have very similar aspirations. Clean air, food, water, education and a chance to work so that they can afford a basic livelihood. It is ironic that people who are separated from their family over 50 years ago and live next door are being constantly rejected by each other. But people who have left us later and live really far, face none of the challenges. Sounds to me like "Ghar ki murgi... Daal barabar." The Indians living in India and Pakistanis living in Pakistan can create enough financial and moral strength to shake up the East India Company again. We just need one leader with a value system truly reflecting patriotism. Anil Garg |
| Tell us what you think of this column | |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT
INFOTECH | TRAVEL | LIFE/STYLE | FREEDOM | FEEDBACK |
|