Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

Persisting diaspora concerns in Myanmar

On March 18, 1946, addressing a predominantly Indian gathering in Singapore, Jawaharlal Nehru said: “India cannot forget her sons and daughters overseas. Although India cannot defend her children overseas today, the time is soon coming when her arm will be long enough to protect them.”

This declaration held forth the promise of an enlightened policy approach towards Indians overseas once India became independent. The words of cheer and hope were a natural culmination of the Indian national movement under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, who had started his political career defending the rights of indentured Indian labourers in South Africa. The cause of Indians overseas was also dear to other great leaders, such as Gopal Krishna Gokhale, V.S. Srinivasa Shastri, C.F. Andrews, Jawaharlal Nehru, H.N. Kunzru, Acharya Kripalani and Ram Manohar Lohia. They repeatedly stressed the need to safeguard the interests of the unfortunate people, who had to leave the shores of India to cater to the economic interests of imperialist Britain.

But the hope that independent India would pursue an enlightened policy towards Indians overseas was not fulfilled. The Government of India’s perception and policy towards them underwent many twists and turns. The deep concern for migrant workers that was felt during the nationalist phase gave way to a disavowal of any responsibility for those who were viewed as the subjects of a separate country. Later, the migration of skilled personnel from India was characterised as part of a “brain drain.” Once the economic liberalisation process began, New Delhi’s policy turned full circle. Indians overseas were characterised as unofficial ambassadors of India who could contribute to the country’s economic transformation and act as a bridge between India and the outside world.

Following the recommendations of the Singhvi Committee Report on the Indian Diaspora (December 2001), January 9 came to be celebrated as Pravasi Bharatiya Divas (Overseas Indians Day).

The date has a symbolic significance. For it was on January 9, 1915, that Gandhiji, often called the first Pravasi Bharatiya, returned to India after two decades in South Africa where he led a struggle for Indian freedom. On January 9, representatives of Indians overseas, both people of Indian origin and non-resident Indians, assemble, the Government of India confers decorations on the high profile ones among them and policy pronouncements are made.

The estimated number of the Indian diaspora population is more than 20 million. They are scattered in different parts of the world, and therefore it can be said that the sun never sets on the diaspora. It will be simplistic and naïve to assume that the problems that they face and what the future holds for them are identical in all cases. Their problems are intertwined with the nature of their migration, their social and economic status, the size of a given community, educational attainments, and the majority-minority syndrome in the countries where they have settled.

In countries such as South Africa, they were until recently subjected to varying forms of discrimination. In Mauritius, Guyana, Malaysia, Singapore and Trinidad, they share political power. In Fiji, though they constitute the majority community, they have been effectively deprived of political power. In the United States, they are one of the most affluent minority groups and an object of envy and admiration. Nearer home in Sri Lanka, people of Indian origin were converted into merchandise to be divided between the two countries in the name of “good neighbourly relations.” The media in India devote considerable attention to happenings among Indians overseas. Academics have started researching on their problems. Politicians are keeping abreast with developments relating to them and the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs regularly comes out with policy decisions.

However, not much attention is being devoted to the tragic status of the Indian community in the neighbouring state of Mynamar. According to the Singhvi Committee Report, the total Indian population in Myanmar is estimated to be 2.9 million. Of this, 2,500,00 are people of Indian origin, 2,000 are Indian citizens and 400,000 are stateless. All of them were born in Myanmar and belong to the third or fourth generation in the country. But since they “do not have any documents to prove their citizenship under the Burmese citizenship law of 1982,” they are deemed to be stateless. The only document they had was the foreigner’s registration certificate, which they had to renew every year on payment.

T.P. Sreenivasan, a former Indian Ambassador to Burma, has pointed out: “They had no rights either in their land of origin or in their land of adoption, and neither of the governments seemed concerned.” In fact, Myanmar has the largest number of stateless people among those of the Indian diaspora.

The Singhvi Committee Report was an eye-opener. It said Indians are “fairly impoverished in Myanmar.” The more prosperous among them have left following waves of nationalisation and other measures which hurt their means of livelihood. The educational scene is pathetic. At one time the faculty and alumni of the University of Rangoon comprised mainly Indians. Today “there are hardly any Indian students in the universities.” This has resulted in a virtual extinction of a professional class. The main reason was that “between 1964 and 1988, Indians were denied admission to the universities and professional courses.”

The marginalisation of the Indian community is directly related to the policies pursued by successive Burmese governments. The introduction of radical land reforms in the days following independence hit the members of the Chettiar community, who complained about not receiving compensation. Even in cases where compensation was paid, it was inadequate.

When the Burmese government introduced the Socialist Programme in the 1960s and nationalised even the retail trade, that sounded the death knell of the poorer sections of the Indian population. Many of them lost their savings, returned to India and had to start their lives afresh. The Burmese repatriates complained that they lost their savings, their properties were confiscated. Their women were not even permitted to bring their mangalya sutra. Even after the lapse of 43 years, the issue of compensation to the affected Indians has not been settled.

C.N. Annadurai, who became Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in 1967, was concerned about the developments in Burma and was keen to resolve the compensation issue. In a conversation, Thomas Abraham, who was then Minister Counselor in the Indian Embassy in Rangoon, recalled a meeting he had with Annadurai in the Chief Minister’s residence, arranged through some common friends.

After discussing the pros and cons of the matter, Annadurai wrote to the Central government suggesting that India enter into a long-term agreement with Burma for the import of rice. He suggested that the compensation due to be paid to Burmese repatriates be adjusted as part of the proposed deal. In 1967 India was facing an acute shortage of foodgrains. On his return to Rangoon, Mr. Abraham made a similar proposal to the Ministry of External Affairs. Unfortunately, these concrete proposals did not elicit a favourable response from New Delhi.

In his recently published memoirs, Words, Words, Words: Adventures in Indian Diplomacy, Mr. T.P. Sreenivasan has described the consequences of New Delhi’s “hands-off policy” with regard to the Indian community in Myanmar. Though the Ne Win government expelled the Indian petty traders, the authorities wanted the Indian farmers to stay back to provide continuity in rice cultivation. When Mr. Sreenivasan visited them, he found that the “farmers had become totally impoverished.” Their quality of life “was extremely poor.” Ironically, they “did not have even rice to eat” as the procurement authorities “lifted their produce wholly.” They had to consume low-quality rice, which the state did not want to purchase for export.

This year also Pravasi Bharatiya Divas is being celebrated. The Ministers of the Central government, the government officials concerned and delegates from developed countries will harp on the necessity to speed up the administrative procedures relating to dual citizenship.

But will they find time to discuss the abject living conditions of the Indian community in Myanmar? Unlikely, because today New Delhi is more keen to provide legitimacy to the authoritarian government in Myanmar. Naturally, it will not like to focus on embarrassing issues that impinge on bilateral relations — like the plight of the unfortunate children of Mother India.

(Dr. V. Suryanarayan is a retired Senior Professor of the Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Madras.)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Oh, for quality education
Awash with foreign funds
Persisting diaspora concerns in Myanmar
Wrongs and rights in India-Australia cricket
Rule of law, at and after Sydney
Speculation over oil prices
Corrections and Clarifications
Unpleasant cricket
An overdose
Gujarat elections
The death penalty

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu