CHINKS IN THE NRI ARMOUR THE PBD 2012 FORGOT

1900 delegates from 60 countries attended the 10th Pravasi Bhartiya Divas (PBD) from 7 to 9 January 2012 at Jaipur with the usual fanfare of the ritual NRI jamboree. The themes of the session events looked at health, youth, investment in R&D, trade and industry besides parallel State sessions to attract Euros, Dollars, Pound Sterling and other currencies with foreign wings. Sadly, a session on NRI problems missed the bus. Lurking issues of 30 million overseas citizens on the horizon relating to voting rights, nationality issues, immigration problems, property paradoxes and new age dilemmas of family law conflicts found no platform for discussion at this NRI gathering in Jaipur. The disenchantment in discussing solutions or remedies ailing the foreign Indians drives the wedge deeper. Even window dressing of key issues without legislative changes would not bring respite to beleaguered overseas Indians disappointed with their homeland.

The 2010 PBD had a full day seminar on property related issues of NRIs/PIOs which was a thumping success. Sadly, none was repeated thereafter in the realm of any other tenor or tone of ailing NRI issues. Regardless, the desire to fully tap the investment potential of NRIs and use their entrepreneurial skills to promote inclusive growth was exhorted at the 2012 PBD citing the example of FDI in China from the overseas Chinese. Only the NRI investment was discussed without looking at what could be given back in return to the NRI. This chink in the NRI armour only soils the Indian cavalry.

The key issue which ought to have been discussed at the 2012 PBD striking the NRI chord today is the right to cast the ballot in the upcoming assembly elections in five States. The amendment to The Representation of People Act, 1950 to the phrase “ordinarily resident” allowing a person absenting himself from his place of ordinary residence owing to his employment, education or otherwise, outside India, whether temporarily or not, allowing an NRI to vote on account of his non resident status gives no solace. The reason, he has to be physically present for voting at an election at the constituency in India and has to register afresh as a voter to cast his franchise in the elections at his original address in the Indian passport. There is no provision or relaxation for casting his vote overseas at an Indian Embassy/High Commission where the NRI is temporarily resident, nor is there any provision for postal/electronic ballot. The law was not statutorily amended to make legislative changes in this regard and Punjab therefore finds only 47 new overseas electors who may or may not come to actually vote. The exercise is therefore in futility.

The principal issue remains. Both the Constitution of India and the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955, prohibit dual nationality. Thus, the right to vote is restricted to only Indian citizens resident abroad. Hence, only 11 million NRIs with Indian passports qualify for voting rights. The remaining 19 million NRIs may choose to become Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) but under Section 7B of the Citizenship Act, 1955, an OCI shall not be entitled to registration as a voter under the Representation of People Act, 1950, not being a citizen of India. Disappointment galore, the PBD exercises announcing registration of NRI voters ends with a whimper even before it begins. To top it, it is not even discussed in the PBD. It is time that dual nationality was discussed as an option. Surely, India would gain more Indians and more investment if we thought so and did so.

The next fanfare announcement at the 2012 PBD for Indians living abroad was 3 fold:

·         New pension and life insurance fund for overseas Indian workers with life insurance cover against natural death.

·         E-migrate project providing end to end computerized solutions for all processes in the emigration system to link all key stakeholders on a common platform.

·         Action plan to implement recommendations relating to repatriation, relief and rehabilitation of 5 million Indians affected by developments in West Asia.

Immigration law in India needs a statutory framework in Parliament. Piecemeal schemes, projects and plans without legislative sanctions will serve no purpose. Recent bone chilling occurrences of Indian workers in Dubai brought to the fore pitfalls of punitive foreign laws suffered by gullible youths besides Punjabi youth facing death in Iraq on account of illegal immigration and human smuggling not defined as an offence under any Indian law. The Emigration Act, 1983 needs a serious legislative overhaul for statutory remedies. Besides, India has an outdated Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners Order, 1948 which does not serve the test of time. India has no work permit regime by which it can gain substantial revenue from business and work visas. Clearly, the PBD 2012 could have been an occasion to deliberate, discuss and ponder over problems of overseas Indians and inbound immigration for possible suggestions in making a stable, wholesome new immigration law to curb human trafficking and provide statutory provisions for protection of immigrant workers. Clearly, the PBD fell short of its role in not providing this exercise. We cannot gain if we do not consolidate what we have. If we do not even deliberate over it, we will be miles away from its potentials.

The third possible agenda before the PBD could have been a spotlight session on new age family law problems. Inter-country divorce decrees, abandoned spouses, removed children, surrogacy practices, pre-nuptial agreements, adoption hurdles, forced marriages and other private international law issues have mushroomed but find no solutions in the family laws made 55 years ago. NRIs export foreign court family law orders which defy legislative solutions in India leaving it to Courts to cull out relief judicially on equitable grounds. This imported NRI legal baggage of marital problems only disillusions the foreign Indian who wants to reconnect but finds no fulcrum. Parliament has no time to amend or make new family laws to keep pace with these requirements of a 30 million NRI community who find solace in foreign family laws. If the PBD also chooses to look the other way, we will only distance the foreign Indians.

If the PBD has to be a connecting thread to the roots of the migrated NRI, it has to become an occasion when his homeland can talk about him and not his assets. Till this is consciously done, the annual mega PBD event is an exercise in futility. It is therefore time that the Government plans the agenda of its next PBD with the eye on the heart of the NRI and not on his pocket.