India’s Diaspora Crisis Response: From Passive Policy to Proactive Engagement (Africa Case Study)

Background and Context:

After independence, as is well known, the policy adopted by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, considered the overseas Indians as an ‘external’ entity outside the purview of Indian domestic and foreign policy formulations. PM Nehru categorically advised his overseas brethren to integrate themselves within their host countries. This policy of impassiveness towards the expatriate Indians continued till the 1980s (Gangopadhyay, 2005).  A slow but steady shift was observed after the constitution of the L.M. Singhvi Committee on Indian Diaspora during Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s tenure. Although, the committee report which was submitted in 2002 included considerable changes to make the diaspora feel seen, unfortunately, none of the recommendations highlighted the various crisis or distress that was faced by the diaspora in their host nations.

• Historical antecedents of the Indian Diaspora (The African context):

The Indian diaspora is one of the largest diasporas in the world, with its presence in all continents. In many of the countries the people of Indian origin form one of the largest ethnic groups, like in Fiji, Mauritius, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and Nepal. The immigration of these people to overseas was in two distinct phases:

a) Overseas emigration in the nineteenth and the early part of twentieth century or emigration during the colonial period;

b) Twentieth century migration to the industrially developed countries or emigration in post-colonial period.

The first phase of this emigration in the nineteenth and the twentieth century witnessed the unprecedented emigration of indentured and other labourers, traders and professionals and employees to the British, French and the Dutch colonies in Asia, Africa and Latin America (Gangopadhyay, 2005).  The emigration of indentured and other labourers was managed and taken care of by the colonial masters. Although, the colonial management was apparently responsible for the ‘welfare’ of these emigrant labourers, some voices in the Indian freedom movement recognised the demands of the Indians living in British East Africa. The demands were for equality within the races, political representation, rural landownership and urban residence. Many Indian leaders cited the unscrupulous ways of labour recruitment – by fraud and by force – and the treatment meted to them, both during the long journeys and in plantations, and called it as “a system of slavery in disguise“. Despite the voices raised by freedom fighters in India against the indenture system, the practice was carried out unabated till 1 January, 1920 (Gangopadhyay, 2005). Heeding to these voices of opposition, a few legislative directives and number of commissions were appointed for the safety and welfare of these indentured labourers, but the appalling conditions and unreleased committee reports persisted. The 38th Indian National Congress Annual Session in December 1923 declared that unless India became independent, the grievances of the Indian diaspora could not be properly remedied. As a result, with the independence of most of these former colonies, a legacy of hatred between the descendants of emancipated African slaves and the Indian indentured labour emerged.

• An Era of Alienation and Non-Alignment:

According to Marie Lall, the Nehruvian policy of ‘making expatriate Indians alien in legal sense’ had several drawbacks. India did not get involved when part of the Indian diaspora was going through political, economic and social discrimination or even a severe crisis. India feared spoiling its relations with the newly decolonised world and did not even take up the issue of violation of human rights there. The past protestations of the plight of the indentured labourers and their terms of employment were soon forgotten. After independence, successive Indian governments adopted an attitude of studied indifference to the overseas Indians lest they should appear to be interfering in the internal affairs of another country. In 1948, several Trinidadian Indians threatened to commit mass suicide unless their government agreed to facilitate their return to India.

According to Anirudh Gupta, “The Nehru policy was based on the unrealistic hope that within the broad pattern of African- Asian nationalism the separate identity of Indian immigrants would be forgotten”. One of the fundamental reasons for this kind of policy of indifference was the fear of causing diplomatic problems between two sovereign states if India championed the cause of its emigrants too vociferously. This Nehruvian policy of keeping Indian emigrants at a bay continued for almost four decades.

Nature of diaspora crises in Africa:

• Expulsion of Asians from Uganda under Idi Amin (1972):

Idi Amin’s en masse expulsion of people of Indian origin in 1972 was a stark example of how the Indian position had been undermined by a lack of any kind of sanction on the part of the Government of India (Desai, 2006). Following a miliary coup in 1971, General Idi Amin became leader of Uganda. However, it was his decision to expel Asians that was to stun many across the world when he announced on 4 August 1972 that all Asian passport holders needed to leave Uganda. Later in the month, Amin announced that he wanted all Asians expelled, regardless of whether they were British nationals or not. He argued that since they had all been British subjects at some point, he was right to include even those who had taken out Ugandan citizenship. The net result was to create a category of person who was neither British nor Ugandan, but stateless.

Many Ugandan Asians were descended from merchants and workers brought over during the period of British rule and had become very successful businesspeople who were contributing to the economy. Ugandan Asians were also the target of resentment because of their success or because of their treatment of other ethnic Ugandans. Amin had already voiced his view that Ugandan Asians had benefited from colonial rule while at the same time being disloyal to Uganda.

1. Comparing the responses to the Idi Amin crises between the Indian and the British government towards their respective diaspora–
2. The British response: The British government wanted wider international support by making the expulsion a humanitarian and refugee issue. They encouraged other countries to host Asians who were expelled from Uganda, and this paid off to some degree as various offers from different countries came in. The government also tried to capitalise on the effort it had made to welcome the Ugandan Asians, highlighting its humanitarian values. The government set up a Ugandan Resettlement Board to organise the reception of new arrivals and their dispersal to specially kitted out centres. At the time of his announcement, the Conservatives were in power in Britain, led by Edward Heath. The Heath government were quick to respond and take up the responsibility to accept Ugandan Asians with British nationality despite the strong anti-immigrant views of the public at the time.
3. The Indian response: The eviction of Asians caused resentment and criticism in India but it was generally realised that the government was helpless to do anything effective to have the measures reversed or modified. Gradually, the ugly episode slipped away from public attention in India. At the non-aligned summit in Algiers in 1973, which Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister naturally joined, Amin was also present as one of the Heads of State. The Indian Prime Minister mildly reproved the Ugandan President on the harshness of the summary expulsions of Asians. Idi Amin, in response, whether meant seriously or not, promised that in due course he would pay ‘full compensation’. No one took this commitment at its face value because the economic situation of Uganda had patently deteriorated further. However, in October 1975, unexpectedly, a letter from President Idi Amin was received by Indira Gandhi requesting her to send the Foreign or Finance Minister of India to Kampala bringing a full delegation, including supporting officials, journalists and broadcasters where they would all be his guests. The details of the compensation for the assets of ‘Indians’ expelled would be amicably negotiated and based on mutual agreement, full compensation would be promptly paid. Neither the foreign minister nor the finance minister took a positive attitude to the invitation to negotiate compensation with Amin. The suggestion informally went down the ladder of the governmental hierarchy (Mehta, 2001).

The analysis of Indian response from the above documentation could be categorized as showing initial diplomatic caution with a lack of significant leverage to prevent the expulsion. This led many affected Indians to resettle in Britain, Canada, or India. The Indian government is also known to pressurise the British government to accept its responsibility to provide entry to those holding British passports rather than forcing them to return to India. With limited negotiations to stop the seizure of the property of the expelled Indians, India severed diplomatic relations with the Idi Amin regime. Later initiatives by Ugandan President Museveni supported the rehabilitation of returning Indians allowing them to reclaim their properties. This ‘racist policy’ forced at least 80,000 Indians to flee from Uganda with limited possessions.

Before deep-diving into the inactive to proactive transition of the outreach efforts of the Indian government, an assessment of diaspora distress elsewhere in the African continent becomes essential. This will be of great assistance to analyse the changing responses and resoluteness exerted by the Indian government to uphold the rights and protect its diaspora in any part of the world in case of any future predicaments.

• In South Africa: The Indian diaspora in South Africa has experienced both opportunities as well as hardships during the post-apartheid era. On the one hand, the country’s new democratic government has made an effort to include Indians in its development and has recognised their contributions to South African society. For instance, Indians in South Africa have taken part in a variety of initiatives to help social and economic development and been appointed to prominent government positions. Nonetheless, South Africa has seen significant unemployment, poverty, and inequality during the post-apartheid era, which has also been a period of economic and social turmoil. These difficulties have had an impact on many Indians, and some have experienced prejudice and xenophobia from South Africans. The formation of the Indian diaspora in South Africa’s identity has been shaped by a complex interplay of historical, social, and political factors.

Unemployment is a significant problem for the Indian population in South Africa. Despite making up a sizable component of the middle class, there are still many unemployed Indians in South Africa, especially among young people and women. In addition, a slow economy and growing competition from other groups have caused many Indian-owned businesses in the nation to struggle in recent years (Rohit & Chauhan, 2023).

Cultural marginalisation and political exclusion are other major challenges faced by the Indian diaspora in South Africa. Although they have faced challenges head-on, South Africa’s Indian population has demonstrated resilience and tenacity, and their contributions to the nation’s economy and society should be recognised and honoured and that is where the Indian Government can assist to mitigate some challenges and stresses that the diaspora faces.

• In East Africa (primarily Tanzania and Kenya): The Indian diaspora in East Africa, despite its long-standing presence and contributions to local economies, faces significant challenges that affect its social integration, economic security, and sense of belonging. These challenges are primarily characterized by economic disparity, social exclusion, and discrimination, which vary in intensity across different East African countries but remain common concerns for many members of the diaspora. Economic disparity, often rooted in historical inequalities and differences in access to resources, has created a complex environment where Indian businesses thrive yet face unique vulnerabilities. Social exclusion, coupled with discrimination, further complicates their status, impacting their opportunities for social mobility and participation in local governance. The visible economic success of Indian-owned businesses can result in a perception that the diaspora monopolizes certain sectors, such as retail and manufacturing, leading to resentment and accusations of unequal wealth distribution. In some cases, this has escalated to targeted restrictions on businesses owned by Indians or even public calls for limiting their economic influence. For instance, in Kenya and Tanzania, local governments have occasionally introduced policies that restrict foreign ownership or prioritize local investment, partly as a response to concerns over economic disparity. This disparity not only affects the diaspora’s financial security but also places Indian entrepreneurs in a delicate position, where they must navigate the risks of perceived economic dominance and the challenges of maintaining their businesses in politically sensitive environments. (Asmatwali, 2024)

The Transition in Diaspora policies and increased government outreach:

• The changing face of India’s diaspora policies from inactive to proactive engagements:

From non-interference to a forward-thinking approach, India has manoeuvred its diaspora policies towards not only treating its 35 million-strong diaspora population as a strategic asset but also someone which requires robust protection from its homeland in case of any catastrophic situations in their host countries. Since, the last two decades we are seeing an active association of the government machinery with its people outside the country through in-person meet-ups by the highest echelons and also through some serious legislative policies. The Indian Government has started viewing them as cultural ambassadors and essential partners who require active intervention from their home country to ensure their welfare in the host nations. A Standing Committee on Welfare of Indian Diaspora Report Summary (2022) by the PRS Legislative Research suggested some sound recommendations for the well-being of the Indian Diaspora (Vipra, 2022). The recommendations are as follows:

1. The Committee recommended that the Ministry of External Affairs draft a clear policy document on the diaspora which would serve as a guiding principle for engagement with the community.
2. They recommended that Indian Embassies encourage the diaspora to register themselves, which would allow the Ministry to effectively implement welfare schemes.
3. They observed that the Emigration Management Bill, 2022 has been under consultation and vetting for a long time. It seeks to establish an emigration framework, liberalise clearances, and strengthen welfare for overseas migrants. The Committee recommended that the Ministry introduce the Bill at the earliest.
4. Several portals such as e-Migrate, and the Centralised Public Grievance Redressal and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) are in place to resolve the grievances of Indian nationals abroad. The Committee noted that multiple portals may delay grievance resolution and recommended that the Ministry ensure it does not lead to duplication of work. Resolution of grievances in most cases may require a connect at the local level. The Committee noted that the CPGRAMS portal is the quickest way to interact with state governments or the district police, but it is not popular overseas. It recommended that the Ministry publicise the portal so it can be used to resolve grievances effectively.
5. The Committee noted that a rehabilitation scheme to ensure livelihood security for workers who lost their jobs or were unable to return to their place of employment is required. It recommended that the Ministry draft a comprehensive rehabilitation scheme in coordination with the concerned Ministries, Departments, state governments, and stakeholders.
6. The Committee observed that the Ministry had decided to establish overseas centres to help distressed NRI women. It recommended that the ‘One Stop Centre’ scheme be launched without delay.

While these recommendations seem to be robust and convincing, the on-ground implementation still needs to be polished and critical gaps need to be plugged in to ensure a foolproof welfare of our diaspora.

Policy lessons and future directions:

The Indian government has shown great capabilities in proactive evacuation of its diaspora population through various calamities (both natural and human-induced) in last two decades. Highlighting a few examples here like,

1. Operation Rahat in Yemen (2015).
2. Operation Ganga in Ukraine.
3. Operations in Sudan and Iraq.
4. The government has institutionalised support by establishing the Indian Community Welfare Fund to assist in emergency situations by providing food, shelter, and legal aid to distressed workers.
5. There is an increased focus in vulnerable regions like the West Asia where we have a major chunk of our diaspora population. It often sees swift intervention to secure workers in the case of unforeseen circumstances.

While we succeed in protecting our diaspora through various proactive measures and actively following the 4C framework i.e., Care, Connect, Celebrate, and Contribute we still need to work towards plugging some critical gaps. Some essential recommendations would be as follows:

1. A ‘citizen-evacuation policy’ with standard operating procedures, including emergency doctrines should be in place and institutionalised. A permanent coordinating mechanism that facilitates communications and joint operations across national, regional, and international levels must be established in tandem with military and bureaucratic levels in order to avoid as hoc strategies. New communication technologies to develop consular platforms should be explored to identify, monitor and contact citizens abroad, offering them real-time updates on evacuation procedures (Xavier, 2016).
2. In volatile ‘Emigration Check Required (ECR)’ countries, to improve data accuracy strengthening e-Migrate system and making registration mandatory becomes a quintessential.
3. India should lead and direct a regional and international collaborative approach with neighbours like Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to share resources and logistics when evacuating South Asian emigrants in West Asia or anywhere else in the world.
4. Formalising comprehensive rehabilitation scheme assisting returning migrants with counselling, financial support, and re-employment should be looked into on an urgent basis.
5. Pre-departure training under the Pravasi Kaushal Vikas Yojana should be bolstered to educate workers on safety, insurance options, and legal rights in host countries.
6. While we consider our diaspora our soft power, we need to ensure that the host nations we build our diplomatic relations with value our diaspora population and acknowledge their contributions by providing them with safety and security.

Our External Affairs Minister, Dr. S Jaishankar has very aptly said time and again that, ‘The well-being and security of Indian community abroad is our overriding priority’. True to these words, we have definitely moved on from having a passive outreach outlook to engaging actively both diplomatically as well as in asserting various protection strategies for our diaspora with the help of stronger and better embassies and bureaucracy. While we have come far in our ways of responding to diaspora crisis let us always remember that we are still on the learning curve and there is a good scope of improvement to make our diaspora feel safer and have a trustworthy connection back with its country of origin.

References:

1. Gangopadhyay, A. (2005). India’s Policy towards its Diaspora: Continuity and Change. India Quarterly, 61(4), 93–122. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45073362

2. Desai, N. (2006). India and its Diaspora. Indian Foreign Affairs Journal, 1(4), 94–108. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45340596

3. The National Archives. Ugandan Asians, what was the impact of the expulsion from Uganda on the lives of British Asians? https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/education/ugandan-asians.pdf

4. Mehta, J. S. (2001). Negotiating Compensation for Indians with Idi Amin’s Government. India International Centre Quarterly, 28(3), 25–46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23005558

5. Asmatwali (2024). Indian Diaspora in Africa, International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, Vol (5), Issue (11), Page – 4424-4434. https://ijrpr.com/uploads/V5ISSUE11/IJRPR35234.pdf

6. Rohit and Chauhan, S. (2023). Indian diaspora in South Africa: A Cultural and Historical Perspective. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 5, 27-40. https://garph.co.uk/IJARMSS/May2023/3.pdf

7. Vipra, T. (2022). Standing Committee Report Summary Welfare of Indian Diaspora: Policies and Schemes. PRS Legislative Research. https://prsindia.org/files/policy/policy_committee_reports/SCR_External%20Affairs.pdf

8. Xavier, C. (2016). India’s Expatriate Evacuation Operations: Bringing the diaspora home. Carnegie India. https://assets.carnegieendowment.org/static/files/CP_299_Brief_Xavier_India_Diaspora.pdf