Noopur Tiwari
Should Indian expats have the right to vote in elections back home? Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently said they should. But many Indians living in India are not convinced. “You don’t pay taxes, you don’t get to vote.” I suspect this reaction stems from a sense of bitterness. Somehow Indians living abroad are deserters who should remain excluded.
Or could it really be a more rational opinion based on the idea that the nation is primarily an economic entity? But then those who don’t add to the kitty would be lesser citizens? And would someone who pays higher taxes get to be a greater citizen, more equal than most? Since only 4% of Indians pay any income tax at all, should they be the only ones casting votes?
What about the cash Indians send home to family? Let’s not forget that India is the largest recipient of remittances from diaspora in the world. According to World Bank figures, in the year 2009-2010, Indians overseas sent $53.9 billion home. Many Indians living abroad also become cultural ambassadors in their own right, facilitating exchange between their country of birth and their country of residence. They could be translating scores of Indian books into local languages, teaching yoga or simply working for Indian companies overseas. This ought to qualify as enough “stake” an NRI needs to have in India, to qualify him or her as a legitimate voter.
Not every Indian living in India has solely patriotic and altruistic goals in life and not every NRI leaves India to reject their country. It’s pretty insensitive and naïve to make these assumptions. It takes courage and hard work to step out of one’s comfort zone. Not all Indians living abroad are ‘having it easy’ either and even if they were, why should they be despised? Those who put a question mark on the Indian-ness of all Indians living abroad, are in fact, no better than far right immigrant haters. They share the same animosity towards people quitting their country of birth, who they think, must concede their rights.
Why should an expat’s worth be measured only in terms of the contributions he/she make towards nation building anyway? “Migrants, in spite of their many positive contributions to the development of countries of origin and destination, should be seen not solely as agents of development but human beings with rights which States…have an obligation to protect.” says a UNFPA report. (International Migration and Human Rights. 2010).
If the right to vote depends on taxes alone, then why aren’t all immigrants allowed automatically to vote in their country of residence? Almost everywhere, public opinion is against this idea.
Stripping people of their right to vote anywhere, because they live away from their country of birth, amounts to treating them as criminals. As an Indian living in France, neither my host country nor my home country has allowed me to vote so far. How can any of this make sense in a world where the total number of migrants may have reached more than 190 million and is going up constantly?
And nearly 10% of these are Indians.
It’s true that an NRI’s daily life does not depend on the local politics of his/her constituency. But most Indians, specially those who were born and brought up in India and left as adults, will always feel they belong to India. Some would argue this doesn’t count as a rational argument to justify an NRI’s right to vote.
However, the idea of belonging with a group of people, no matter how abstract, is pretty central to the ideas of citizenship and integration. Immigrants are expected to speak the local language and show a certain degree of loyalty to the countries they have adopted as homes. This sense of affiliation helps people engage more with communities they perceive as “theirs” and that includes their home countries. Without this strong sense of belonging, who would care for the concept of the “nation” anyway?
The idea of a nation goes beyond the physical borders of a state. A nation is a “group of people of the same race who share the same language, traditions and history, but who might not all live in one area.” (Cambridge dictionary). But the basis for citizenship varies from country to country. Some follow the “Right of Blood” policy (Jus Saguinis) whereby citizenship can be granted on the basis of lineage. Children of German, Austrian or Danish parents can become citizens even if they are born in a foreign country and will have the right to vote. Other countries like France follow the “Right of Soil” policy (Jus Soli) where children born on the territory become natural born citizens. Some others such as the US have a mix of both. Indian citizenship can be acquired by birth, descent, registration and naturalization.
Citizenship must guarantee people a right to vote. How can social responsibility come without rights? So far India has allowed only it’s diplomats living abroad to cast postal ballots. British citizens have to relinquish their right to vote if they’ve been living outside the country for more than 15 years.But countries like Italy and now France are changing that. They allow their citizens living abroad to choose their own MP’s. The Guardian quotes Emmanuelle Savarit, the north European candidate for Sarkozy’s ruling UMP party, “The aim is not just to give a voice to French people abroad, but to bring Paris some inspiration from how things are done in other countries.” Iraq, Turkey, Mexico, have given their expats the right to vote. There 115 democracies in the world that allow their citizens abroad to participate in elections.
Surely, India too can benefit from reaching out to it’s 20 million strong diaspora scattered in every corner of the world? Common sociocultural values all Indians share, can only be a huge strength.
Indians living back home swell with pride when Laxmi Mittal tops UK’s rich list. India went through the huge exercise of evacuating Indians living in Libya during the uprising. Recently, the MEA swung into action when Indian traders were being harassed in China. And the killing of Anuj Bidve in Manchester evoked a strong emotional response in India. Why can’t this sense of one-ness translate into a more inclusive attitude towards Indians living abroad?
A vote technically allows a person to determine how his/her country will be run and who it’s lawmakers will be. But it also encourages it’s citizens living abroad to engage more with their homeland. That can only be a good thing. But should the right to vote be extended to non passport holders as well? That’s another debate. If someone wants to remain connected to India and reaches out to ask for, let’s say, an “Overseas Citizen of India” status, why refuse them the right to vote? If India were to allow dual citizenship, a lot would get resolved for those who had to give up their Indian passports reluctantly.
As the holder of an Indian passport, I have the right to return to my country whenever I want to. Why can’t I have a say in what it’s future will be? I do believe I have the right to vote in the country which is mine and in which all my loved ones still live. Please stop branding me as a lesser Indian and give that right to vote to me now.
The author is the the Europe Correspondent for New Delhi Television. This previously published article can be read at her blog (http://whirlingwhirling.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/a-citizen-without-a-vote/).
Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends
Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.
To get started, firstLogin with Facebook
A citizen without a vote.
Yahoo! India News – Thu 12 Jan, 2012We apologize. An error has occurred. Please try again.
Explore Related Content
- NRI home loans made easy
- Indians visiting UK to be screened for TB
- Indian votes split between Sarkozy and Hollan …
- Army ruler says Egypt election will be model …
- Attorney General presents Universal Periodic Review …
- Taxing avoiding Facebook co-founder Saverin may …
- France votes in crucial presidential run-off
Suleikha Snyder
Poorna Jagannathan
Nathalia Kaur
69 comments