A growing Indian population residing outside India has been increasingly active in influencing Indian economics, politics and social situations. In this context, it is important to analyze the impact of dual citizenship of this population - as has been suggested - on the Indian democracy.

India is a democracy in that its citizens vote to elect their representatives who in turn make laws for the communities. It ostensibly aims to be a democracy in that people of this community are able to participate in the decision making process.

By defining this decision making process as "of the people, by the people, for the people" the Constitution of India defines that these laws are made through "governments of the people", by the same people for whom these laws apply and who bear the responsibilities and consequences of these laws. Thus, people who do not bear the consequences or are not bound by these laws should not be part of decision making processes or have influence on the making of these laws that disrupt or distract from the participation of those who are bound by these laws.

Clearly, the citizens of India are bound by the laws of India and non-citizens - whatever be their affection or affectation for India - lie outside the purview of "people" as is relevant to this Constitution.

"Governments of the people and by the people" implies not only that these are governments elected by the people but governments that represent the interests of the people - the people who are within the jurisdiction of the laws that are made (local people, if you will). To the extent that people outside the jurisdiction of the laws influence these laws in ways that they disrupt the voices and concerns of local people, democracy is disrupted.

It is with such an understanding, then, that I cannot but argue that population of Indians with citizenship in other countries, however well meaning this community may be, must not disrupt the democracy of India by demanding citizenship rights.

As it is, today, voices of NRIs (from Europe and North America especially) are given a more sincere hearing than voices of say, farmers, in India. Chandra Babu Naidu, when he was CM, was often more available to NRI groups than to local farmers. More and more, chief ministers of Indian states and central cabinet ministers are touring North America and Europe, seeking out the voices of these populations. An NRI has a greater chance of finding the attention of the finance minister of India or even the PM of India than a common citizen in India.

People of Indian origin who are citizens of N. America or Europe, thus, already participate more in the decision making process - to the extent that the PM, finance minister, or commerce minister define policies of the country and we have access to these people - than the common people of India. To be able to vote would disrupt democracy completely.

An eminent social thinker and NRI living in the US commented that NRIs should be allowed to be citizens if they pay taxes in India. While that may be a good thought, I do not think that is a sufficient condition. It is imperative that only those for whom laws are made be the people who can participate in processes to make the laws - that is the basis of democracy. Why, otherwise, would we be different from well meaning colonialists?

This community of NRIs does not live in India. While it can make claims to its roots in India and thus should have convenience in travel and visits, it does not have to deal with laws that are inconvenient or conditions that are difficult. It is absolutely not fair then that this community influence laws whose impact it does not experience.

For example, numerous NRIs are beginning to invest in India. To make investments work more easily for them, there is increasing pressure to do away with the Environment Impact Assessment laws of industries. EIA demands that among other things, an industrial unit obey all pollution and other laws of the region. Under pressure, the government is considering waiving EIA for the first two years of an industrial unit's operations. While this makes profits easier for the investors, it creates havoc in a country where pollution laws were being difficult to enforce anyways. Communities already experiencing pollution dumping will have less legal recourse. However, people not living there will not be affected.

Similar examples exist in the areas of water usage, land reforms and land pricing, trade barriers, among others.

It makes absolutely no sense for us NRIs to demand voting rights in a land where we do not live and whose consequences we do not bear. Not only is this against the grain of the Constitution of India which will affect democracy in India adversely.

If our claims to affection for India require a return of favor in terms of a citizenship that will adversely affect Indian democracy, then it is no affection at all.

- Sanat Mohanty

Related Links
Bonded Labourers Present Concerns in People's Assembly
The Stateless People of Bangladesh
The Indian Pravasi Community
Women in Kashmir, Citizens at Last