Persisting diaspora concerns in Myanmar : Opinion

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.

Tragic status

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.

'Hands-off policy'

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.)