Events

Speaker: Ambassador Talmiz Ahmad

Venue: Room No 005 (Ground Floor)
Speaker: Dr Nikola Mirilovic, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Central Florida
Chair: Ambassador J C Sharma

The term ‘Diaspora’ has gained tremendous currency in this age of globalization and transnational co-operation, as countries around the world devise ways to harness their extended national population living in foreign countries as strategic assets. Dr Nikola Mirilovic, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Central Florida gave a presentation on “Comparative Diaspora Politics: The Cases of China and India”. This talk was chaired by former First Secretary and Member Secretary of the High Level Committee on Indian Diaspora, Amb. J.C. Sharma.

Dr Nikola Mirilovic’s presentation threw light on the policies of different countries with respect to engaging their diaspora across the world. The aim of his presentation was to answer the question; why do some countries institutionalize links with the Diaspora while others ignore or prosecute them? Dr. Nikola began his presentation by focussing on what constitutes a ‘Diaspora’. He defined it as “co-ethics or co-nationals who live outside the country”. To add a more nuanced approach to this definition, he analysed the term diaspora and its implications on the basis of parameters, namely:

1. Persecution and Condemnation- when nationals of a country are compelled to reside in foreign countries owing to hostility and maltreatment in their respective home countries. These hostile home countries do not have friendly policies to connect and collaborate with their own people residing in foreign countries.
2. Indifference- when policies of a country remain relatively inactive or dormant towards their diasporic population as they are left to their own devices.

3. Institutionalized Political and Economic Ties- when countries are actively involved in garnering the intellectual and economic resources of their nationals living in foreign countries through the establishment of provisions like dual citizenship, facilitation of their political support via lobbying and building of other relevant organisations.

Dr. Nikola identified three important reasons which are responsible for making the diasporic community a salient base: 1)Economic: when the diasporic community contributes by way of FDIs and remittances, 2)Political: when it plays a major role in cementing bilateral relationships and has a decisive effect in the resolution of issues related to international cooperation and conflict and 3) Cultural: when it is perceived as agents who help in the process of propagating cultural values and ideas inherent to a particular country.

While investigating the reasons behind the existence of the parameters mentioned, Dr. Nikola used three variables to explain the manifestation of these factors which include; regime type, international economic strategy, and nationalism. Illustrating the determinant of regime-type analyses, he put forward his first hypothesis that democracy reduces the likelihood of the persecution of the diaspora and their relatives at home. The second hypothesis is related to the facilitating effect of democracy which argues that democracy multiplies the effectiveness of diaspora lobbying when the country of origin and the country of residence are both democratic. Dr Nikola opined that democracy as a regime type imparts a positive branding effect. He further illustrated this proposition with a regime time and diaspora dyad. To explain the determinant of international economic strategy, his hypotheses stated that countries that seek international economic openness are more likely to engage their diaspora than countries that seek autarky. Further, nationalists may seek diasporic engagement because they value national unity and seek to preserve their cultural values. However, he cautioned that nationalists may condemn diaspora members as traitors as well.

Dr. Nikola argued that diaspora politics remains understudied in the realm of international political economy and security studies. There are country-level studies; however there is a lack of comparative studies on the subject. The causal logic of democratic peace theory is missing and the concept of “Economic Nationalism” also remains misunderstood. Dr. Nikola argued that his research has looked at these gaps by having been focussed on the variations using cross-national and cross-temporal analyses from the period beginning in the 1940s to the present day.

Dr Nikola highlighted the key turning points in China and India’s Diaspora engagement through the prism of regime-type variation. With reference to India, in the post-independence scenario, Indian officials had de-emphasized diaspora engagement but at the same time there were instances of nationalist organisations building ties with the Diaspora in a sporadic way. The turning point for the Indian Diaspora community came in the 1990s with the ushering in of economic reforms and Diaspora courting by a BJP-led government. From there on, there was further institutionalization of Diaspora engagement with the passage of PIO card (1991), creation of the MOIA (2004) and so on.

With respect to China, there was limited Diaspora out-reach in the early PRC period. The first turning point for the Chinese diasporic community came during the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), when Diaspora outreach activities were suspended leading to the condemnation of the Diaspora community (mostly perceived as capitalists) and the persecution of their relatives at home. The second turning point came in the 1970s with the introduction of economic reforms. This was followed up with the institutionalization of diasporic engagement through the formation of the Office of Overseas Chinese Affairs, Office of the State Council (1978) and the National Congress of the Returned Overseas Chinese and their relatives.

Dr Nikola further asked if democratic dyads allow the Diaspora to play a more important role in their host country. To answer this question, he predicates his research on the diasporic community residing in the U.S, where both the Indian and Chinese Diaspora are relatively more educated and wealthy than average Americans. But because India is a democracy, sharing the same political values as America, Indian Americans are more likely to emerge as a “political powerhouse” than the Chinese Americans. The growing political influence of Indian Americans is reflected in the fact that India constitutes the largest Congressional Caucus because of the positive branding effect of democracy. India has a far greater number of India-US business councils than its Chinese counterparts. In conclusion, the speaker reaffirmed the salience of his key determinants in measuring the variations of different countries towards Diaspora engagement. He ended on the note that Diaspora engagement for international cooperation and conflict is only more likely to grow.

Discussion and Questions and Answers:

• The first question primarily inquired about ways to tackle nuances in the definitional aspects of Diaspora, especially when one has to factor issues like the drawing of colonial boundaries (with particular reference to the community of Kurds), historical processes of migration, its nature and how it affects identity issues. Dr Nikola conceded that any objective outlining of the definition of Diaspora is well-nigh impossible, although certain objective traits can be looked at.
• On the question with regard to Chinese Diaspora in Southeast Asia, Dr. Nikola referred to his democracy dyad. According to him, the Chinese were politically marginalized because of their origin from an essentially authoritarian state which believes in the ideology of Chinese unification. He pointed out that there is a gap between the official discourse and practice of the Chinese government where officially they extol assimilation with the host countries of the Diaspora, but in practice they still adhere to their ideology of reunification. Therefore the Chinese Diaspora usually tends to be successful economically but politically, their relationship with the host countries always remain complicated. However Singapore is an exception in Southeast Asia, where the Chinese Diaspora is more harmoniously active, politically as well as economically.
• There was also felt a need to contextualize the comparison of policies of China and India with respect to their Diaspora engagement.
• Suggestions were made to the author to include the policy of Indian government towards people of Indian origin and Indians settled abroad (NRIs) and how it has differed over the years.
• Recommendations for further research questions included a study of the attitude of the Diaspora community towards knowledge transfers, having taken into account the fact that China has benefited immensely from transfer of knowledge by overseas Chinese.

Prepared by Ms. Sneha Bhura, Intern at IDSA, New Delhi

Event Report

In order to celebrate and build on the twenty years of friendship and cooperation between India and Central Asian Republics, a roundtable on “India’s Engagement with Central Asia: Exploring Future Directions” was organized at IDSA. The event was chaired by the Director General of IDSA. Dr. Arvind Gupta, with the Ambassadors of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in attendance as speakers and participants along with a host of Indian and Eurasian academics, analysts, experts and observers.

Dr. Gupta initiated the discussion by briefly highlighting India’s new Connect Central Asia policy. He elaborated upon the opportunities and challenges that exist in the current partnership with the Central Asian countries. These include relaxation of visa regimes, better air and land connectivity, cooperative security framework for regional stability, greater emphasis on people to people and cultural contacts (track 1.5 and track 2 levels of diplomacy), establishment of a Central Asia University, multilateral engagements through Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and improving the current low levels of economic ties.

Dr. Irina Orolbaeva, Ambassador of Kyrgyzstan to India, highlighted India’s historical and cultural links with the Central Asian Republics (CARs) and welcomed India’s desire to strengthen ties with Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia through the new ‘Connect Central Asia Policy’. She referred to the first India-Central Asia Dialogue, a Track-II initiative organized in June 2012 in Bishkek as a step towards building long-term partnerships with the Eurasian region. Kyrgyzstan and India share a special bond especially with the introduction of parliamentary democracy in the country. She argued that India’s active presence in the Central Asian region will help promote stability in the area especially with the 2014 deadline in Afghanistan fast approaching. Moreover, Dr. Orolbaeva stressed on the need to revive cultural, humanitarian, educational and scientific exchanges (especially amongst the youth of the two countries) and felt that the proposed Indian university in Kyrgyzstan is a step in the right direction. She urged the Indian government to explore the possibility of setting up an India Cultural Center in Bishkek. Economic and financial ties could be strengthened by promoting investment and cooperation in sectors such as education, mining, agriculture, pharma, leather, cotton, textiles and tourism. The Ambassador emphasized on the need to improve air and land connectivity between Central Asia and India and observed that Kyrgyzstan is keen on bringing Indian technology and expertise to the country. She particularly appreciated India’s contribution towards the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline and International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) projects which will have benefits for the entire region.

Mr. Doulat Kuanyshev, Ambassador of Kazakhstan to India, welcomed India’s soft power initiative in the region through the new Connect Central Asia Policy and highlighted the close ties Kazakhstan has enjoyed with India in the last two decades citing the recent high level visits. There is an institutional cooperative mechanism of dialogue on many critical sectors. The Ambassador reiterated Kazakhstan’s support for India’s bid for a permanent seat at the UNSC, full membership within the SCO and in other international and regional fora and lauded India’s contribution in making CICA a success. Mr. Kuanyshev observed that there is an enormous potential for big Indian Corporations (synonymous with economic success) to invest in Kazakhstan and recommended the bridging of information gap amongst the business communities on both sides. Referring to the energy sector, the Ambassador recommended that India should tap into the secondary markets since at present the Kazakhstan government has put on hold the issue of allocation of ‘rights for exploration of new blocks’. Mr. Kuanyshev outlined Kazakhstan’s initiative in the International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC) project, expressed his appreciation for India’s contribution in the project and felt that its completion will help boost economic ties between the two countries.

Mr. Saidov Saidbeg Boykhonovich, Ambassador of Tajikistan to India, highlighted the existence of strong ties between the two countries especially in the field of economy, polity, science and culture. Tajikistan and India have effective cooperative mechanisms in the IT, hydroelectricity, railways, education, health care (military hospital), defence and security sectors. The Ambassador observed that the two countries share common concerns over terrorism since Tajikistan is itself a victim of Taliban and Uzbek Islamic terrorism. There exists a joint working group on counter-terrorism. Tajikistan and India share similar views on many issues of mutual concern and there are no contentious issues in their bilateral relationship. Highlighting the opportunities that can be explored, Mr. Boykhonovich felt that it was an excellent time to improve tourism between the two countries and air connectivity between India and Tajikistan is being developed with the introduction of the Delhi-Sharjah-Dushanbe flight. There is an enormous potential for Indian companies to invest and set up joint ventures in Tajikistan especially in the agriculture sector. The recently concluded agreement on agriculture will form the basis for cooperation in areas like scientific agricultural research and exchange of information. There are frequent cultural and political exchanges and President Rahmon’s visit to India later in the year will add further substance to the partnership. Elaborating upon the need for improving connectivity in the region, the Ambassador appreciated India’s contribution towards the INSTC project. However, he also suggested that India can explore the option of a trade route through the Karakoram highway. Observing that it has been just twenty years since the CARs were established, Mr. Boykhonovich requested for Indian support and hoped that it will provide the same facilities to CARs as it does to SAARC countries. Citing the differences in education systems between Tajikistan and India, the Ambassador called for relaxation in norms for Tajik students wanting to study in India.

Shri Ajay Bisaria, Joint Secretary, Eurasia Division, MEA, elaborated upon the Indian Government’s June 2012 Connect Central Asia policy. The word ‘connect’ refers to the core policy of establishing an e-network to provide medicine and education expertise to Central Asia with India as the hub, thereby increasing the country’s engagement with its extended neighbourhood and giving substance to the existing political relationship. India will continue to maintain high-level political contact with the CARs. Mr. Bisaria observed that India is working on developing significant strategic, security, developmental and defence projects with Central Asia apart from intense discussions on Afghanistan with each CAR. Considering that tourism is followed by business, there is a need to improve India’s connectivity (both land and air) with the region. The civil aviation industry has recently approved 14 flights to Central Asian countries. India is committed to the INSTC project and is also exploring alternative routes. Meanwhile, a comprehensive economic agreement is being worked out with the CARs. TAPI can be a major game changer and if successful, could open the doorway to several more road and rail links. India wants to be a long-term energy partner in the region. Cooperation on energy will definitely boost trade for both Central Asia and India. India hopes to be active in Central Asia with flagship projects involving medicine, health, IT, energy and education (establishment of a Central Asia University) and seeks a long term profitable partnership with the CARs. There is also a need to explore multilateral cooperative mechanisms in the form of SCO, CICA and various economic integration projects.

Ambassador (retd) Rajiv Sikri emphasized on the need for CARs to start working together as a group. However, he felt that deep differences among the countries may prevent them from working as closely as they should. Referring to TAPI, he observed that the project is relevant only to Turkmenistan and not Tajikistan; whereas Tajikistan has interests in hydropower and transmission lines. Similarly, developments in Afghanistan are of more relevance to the bordering countries. These differences will make policy implementation very difficult. Besides, the China factor is more relevant and influential for all Central Asian countries than India. Therefore, there is a need to project India as a serious and big partner in the region. India can explore the option of joint science and technology projects. Moreover, Ambassador Sikri suggested that the CARs can leverage their geographical location for being passenger and cargo hubs on the lines of the Gulf countries and focus should not be limited to trade alone. With developments in Afghanistan reaching a critical phase, he elaborated on the need for CARs to push for India’s full membership in the SCO if they want India to have a greater presence in the region.

Prof. Gulshan Sachdeva observed that in recent years a lot of research has been done on the geopolitics and geo-economics of the region which is in line with the government’s changing policy towards the region. The main trigger to improve linkages between India and Central Asia is the current scenario in Afghanistan and the speculation over its future. The knowledge that developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan will have an impact on the entire region has spurred greater cooperation between CARs and India. Therefore, for the future, building of strategic cooperation, development of economic relationship and establishment of cost effective modes of connectivity will be the main priorities for India and CARs.

Prof. Arun Mohanty observed that it would have been easier for India to engage with CARs if they were in a politically and economically unified space. While comparing both India’s and China’s economic engagement with CARs, he observed that India lags far behind China in practically every sphere of economic cooperation and infrastructure building. Prof. Mohanty argued that India should aim to promote educational exchanges with CARs, provide greater access to cost effective medical facilities and explore the option of anti-terrorism information exchanges with SCO.

Key points that were raised during discussions;

1. India and CARs must discuss ways to tide over the Afghan quagmire.
2. The possibility of using the Karakoram highway as a trade route can be explored.
3. In order to bridge the academic gap, ICSSR can take the initiative to translate historical texts especially in the Persian language. Doordarshan too needs to be pro-active in airing cultural programmes.
4. The possibility of sending Indian archaeologists for joint expeditions and explorations in Central Asia can be explored.
5. The existence of convergence of economic interests of all participating nations of TAPI must be fully channelised.
6. India is building a small Hydel power plant in Central Asia as part of its developmental project initiatives in CARs.

Click Here for Concept Note