Desicritics Category: Politics: Immigration

Politics of Identity - A Discussion on the UID Project

Ruchi — Mon, 1 Mar 2010 07:55:52 EST

By February 2011, India will become the first country in the world to issue its residents biometric-based numbers (UID) to establish identity. For this purpose, the Central Government has constituted the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) under the Planning Commission. The UID number is marketed as a fundamental enabler for efficient delivery of government services and inclusive development. As per the Authority, benefits of the UID number include elimination of leakages in welfare programs like PDS and NREGA, and facilitation of targeted education and health interventions for underprivileged children.

A less publicized purpose of the UID number is to improve national security. The impetus for UID came after the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. In January 2009, the Center issued notice to maritime states and two UTs to issue identity cards to all coastal residents. In an interview in the aftermath of the terror attacks, Chidambaram announced Government's decision to set up the UID authority. The UIDAI was established in February 2009, within three months of the attacks. By the Authority's own admission, “The UIDAI is only in the identity business. The responsibility of tracking beneficiaries and the governance of service delivery will continue to remain with the respective agencies”. Presumably “security” is not just a peripheral but the primary purpose of the project.

The UID project underscores the need for transparency of objectives of government programs and the importance of civil participation to ensure democratic end-use. Covert objectives are tantamount to subversion of democracy. Public opinion and approval of this undertaking are contingent on its stated altruistic goals; the Indian populace is unlikely to sanction a project for its own increased policing. Furthermore, since UID is a tool and not an outcome, it is susceptible to misuse by vested interests. Therefore, it is necessary to preemptively block dangerous outgrowths with legislative measures. While continuous engagement with the civil society is necessary to develop a comprehensive list, some obvious safeguards are outlined below.

First, non-enrollment should not be treated as criminal. There's a history of States using anti-terrorism/anti-insurgency pretexts to flout or curtail civil liberties; often political issues are treated like law and order situations. Enrollment is currently discretionary, likely 'cause of the impossibility of universal enrollment of a billion plus. However, there could conceivably be a push for universal enrollment in border, coastal and/or “red” states leading to potential harassment of undocumented individuals, esp. poor migrants.

Second, governments should not use UID numbers to trump individual choice. States should not be allowed to specifically target individuals from insurgent areas, inconvenient political groups etc. Moreover, state agencies should be barred from using UID numbers to withdraw essential services in any area to coerce relocation or discourage migration.

Third, social security services should not be withheld due to non-enrollment. The UID number is envisioned as a tool to monitor implementation of government schemes and programs. Therefore, it is likely that these schemes will mandate UID enrollment before providing services. In the case of social security services, the onus of enrollment should be on the organization, not the beneficiary. Also, the enrollment cost (estimated @ Rs. 20-25 per number) should not be taken from social security scheme outlays.

Fourth, private organizations should be debarred from pooling data to form comprehensive individual profiles to prevent invasion of privacy. The Authority aims to make the UID number the preferred mode of identification for both users and public/private organizations to drive revenue through its identity authentication service. Given an incontrovertible unique number for one individual across all of his/her life transactions creates the tremendous risk of this data being pooled to recreate the individual's life history

Fifth, expenditure incurred should be rationalized and transparent. The UID project comes with no expenditure caps; estimated enrollment costs alone are over Rs. 3000 crore. Unsurprisingly, there is deep interest from multinational technology and private finance organizations. Engagement with civil society will be vital to control ballooning costs and hijack of the project for private profit.

Coming back to the project's stated purpose of forming the basis for efficient delivery of government programs. It is worthwhile to debate both the relevance and effectiveness of the UID number for delivery of welfare schemes. The problem in targeted welfare schemes is of eligibility and not identity. The varying number of BPL families in the country is due to changing eligibility criteria such as income, calories, and other wellness indicators. Moreover, the largest leakages in welfare schemes are due to organized intermediary defalcation not fake beneficiaries. At best, the UID number will address the latter less significant problem.

Additionally, the design of the UID number reduces its effectiveness. The number will only store name, DoB, gender, parent's name, address (permanent and current), photograph and biometric info (ten fingerprints and iris scan) and will only verify identity of individual; defining and tracking beneficiaries, governance of service delivery will all need to be managed at the individual state government, program or scheme level and entail additional expenditure. This approach leaves a huge lacuna in execution and renders already nascent benefits more uncertain.

For instance, UID will alleviate only a small subset of leakages in NREGA and PDS, two of the biggest social security programs. Moreover, this increased efficacy will be contingent on beneficiary identification through biometric readers, which are susceptible to damage and sabotage. Even in the case of mobility, the benefit of UID will rest on administrative and systemic change by delivery organizations to allow transfer of benefits on proof of identity instead of requiring proof of eligibility again. E.g., ration cards for migrating family.

Last, there are considerable dangers to successful implementation. The UID project will require enormous technical capability and reliance on thousands of disparate intermediaries (“registrars”) for accurate and honest enrollment of each resident. In India, all large databases are riddled with errors; some voter lists alone are incomplete and erroneous by as much as 40 percent. Furthermore, the benefits of UID implementation are contingent on near universal enrollment, which is jeopardized by two risks. First, enrollment of individuals without documentary proof of identity rests on the “introducer” system, similar to opening an account at a bank. This strategy is both irrelevant and inadequate for migrant workers (especially those in the unorganized sector) and legions will remain unenrolled.

Second, in the absence of universal coverage (target enrollment at 600 million people or ~50% of population four years from launch), there will need to be alternatives to the UID to obtain service, verify identity etc. Since, enrollment in UID will not be mandatory, but “demand driven” to “access the benefits and services associated with it”, the benefit (one number to prove identity for life) will need UID to be accepted as preferred proof of identity by all significant private and public organizations. Given that UID verification will be chargeable (up to Rs. 10 per verification), private organizations may prefer alternative proof of identity thus further reducing incentive for voluntary enrollment.

The UID project is one of the most ambitious programs in India, without precedence or parallel anywhere in the world. Given its scale, centralization of power and potentially invasive use, there is need for transparency of its purpose with the civil society and a collaborative design process to ensure that democratic ideals of the country are upheld and derived benefits outweigh its costs.

Note: A few people are organizing for a concerted effort to mainstream discussion on UID – if you would like to join, please email me gupta (dot) ruchi (at) gmail (dot) com

Movie Review: My Name is Khan

Kishore — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:50:53 EST

Autism reminds me of Mark Haddon's masterpiece fiction The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, where the protagonist - a 15 year old autistic child - embarks on an adventure to find the killer of his neighbor's dog. An autistic life with an impaired social interaction and restrictive communicative abilities is often subject to being misconstrued as mental retardation.

My Name is Khan is an extraordinary story of an autistic individual trying to harness his limited capabilities, his child-like intellect that makes him travel across America to meet the President and win back the love of his wife. All of this happens while tensions are running high post 9/11 and individual muslims are victimized to being associated with terrorism. Rizvan Khan (SRK) is one among them, who is detained at the San Francisco Airport on the pretext of his Islamic surname - Khan.

In the real world, Shah Rukh Khan himself and Kamal Hassan have been afflicted by the anything-Islamic-is-everything-terror syndrome. SRK in Newark and Kamal Hassan in Toronto have been detained in the past because their surname sounded "suspicious" and so were "potential terrorists", let alone a possible number of unknown individuals who had to go through this.

The movie is very unkaranjoharly, and the most striking aspect is the simplicity of the story and its fluid narrative. It is often the lack of knowledge that hinders the natural existence of a person with autism. We are so used to the natural rhythms of our sensory impulses, that an understanding of this rare other side is sure to make you feel empathic towards those suffering from it. Niranjan Iyengar has certainly done his homework in understanding the autistic ways of communication - devoid of emotions, extremely factual botched with repetitive behavior. Not to mention, SRK's rendering of Niranjan's dialogs are delivered to perfection.

Kajol plays Mandira, the mother of the child that becomes a victim of campus racial abuse during the post 9/11 chaos, also Rizvan's wife, and is at her vintage best. Years of break of cinema has not dithered her charm and expressions any bit, and she puts together another memorable performance.

In a world that associates Karan Johar with sentimental family soaps and tearful climaxes, My Name is Khan only goes to show that K Jo is capable of dealing with complicated topics like Autism, 9/11 and terrorism and can still manage to present the story as a simple no-frills movie that is both entertaining and moving.

The Hypocrisy in Pravasi Bharatiya Divas

sufferingsocrates — Sat, 9 Jan 2010 23:45:47 EST

Since Australia claimed that incidents like the stabbing of an Indian in Australia was common in big cities, there has been huge uproar amongst Indians in India and expectedly in Australia too. It has been quite easy for India and Indians to brand the spate of attacks on Indians, especially Indian students as racially motivated. What Australia has probably been right about is the hysteria around the incidents being highlighted and channeled by the innumerable television channels in India. Today has been no different with another Indian in Australia being set on fire.

What has been striking about the coverage about these incidents is the emotional upheaval the media has been able to generate. Every single attack on an Indian in Australia is being questioned and accused as racist by the Indian media. The media seems to have taken it upon itself to represent an entire nation to question the atrocities against Indians in Australia. The statement issued by the deputy prime minister of Australia couple of days back, belittling crimes and murders as being common in big cities was frankly insensitive. It has only flared tempers.

So what is so different about crimes against Indian nationals in Australia to be captured as headlines? Is it the easily available and accessible news fodder from a smaller Indian immigrant community in Australia? Is it the thirst to accuse another nation of being racist when crimes against foreign nationals in India happen quite frequently? Patriotism is most welcome from news channels. But if the media needs to broadcast respectful news stories, it needs to shed its hypocrisy.

Why should a nation, with 1 billion people be bothered about few thousands of students or workers of their own origin suffer in foreign land? Aren't there enough crimes against our own people, committed within our own country to be covered? Why should such Indians seeking education in foreign land or the so called NRIs be treated in a special way? Manmohan Singh has tried to lure the NRIs to return back to India to reverse the brain drain, and make it a brain gain for India. At the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas he even went on to add that special provisions would be made to give voting rights to NRIs. Clearly, there is something amiss amongst all Indians here.

When a police officer is killed in cold blood and ministers watch him bleed to death, how can we ask the Australians to take care of our nationals in their land? This is truly heights of hypocrisy. Besides, when such students or Indians seek out opportunities outside of India, they clearly do not see much promise in India in any case. Why then should the government or the media give special consideration to such nationals? What is the guarantee that these NRIs or students will even bother coming back to India? It is a different matter that the lackadaisical government machinery in India will discourage anyone from remaining in India for long.

The media will always have its way. It will first sensationalize these crimes as racist, instigate debates and concerns from the Indian establishment, and then finally accuse the same Indian establishment of being incompetent to deal with such crimes. When clearly the onus of security lies with the Australian government and there is little that the Indian government can do. What the media and the Indian government should do is to identify and solve India's own problems first. Not to bother about those who have decided to forego Indian shores for their own selfish gains.

New Indian Visa Regulations Impact Tourists

smallsquirrel — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:32:56 EST

Within the past few months, the Government of India has implemented new regulations which severely restrict the movements of people wishing to complete multiple entries into India on a Tourist visa.

According to a Warden Message from the US Government:

Initial information from the Government of India indicated that revised visa regulations would primarily affect travelers with tourist visas who had been in India for more than 90 days before travel abroad or more than 180 days in the past year. However, the U.S. Mission has received confirmation that foreign passports are now stamped on exit to indicate that the bearer cannot re-enter India within two months of exit unless special permission is obtained from an Indian Embassy, Consulate, or High Commission abroad, regardless of the validity of visa or length of stay in India. Travelers have reported being denied re-entry after exiting India for business or family emergencies, or for tourist travel to nearby countries, even if their initial visit to India was for only a few days. Prior guidance and procedures that allowed re-entry to India after stays of up to 180 days are no longer in effect.

Apparently now these regulations are being inconsistently applied, and people with various kinds of visas, including business visas, are having serious issues. The same Warden's message relates the story of a woman who tried to depart India on her tourist visa after a one week stay. She was told to go to the Foreigner's Registration Office and register, even though her passport had been clearly stamped on entry: “Registration not required if stay is less than 14 days.” There are other stories of other families and individuals being refused re-entry on shaky grounds.

I can see where the Indian government might want to close a loophole which would allow tourists who posses long term, multiple entry tourist visas from essentially living in India by simply leaving the country every 180 days. But this kind of haphazard and ham-handed approach to implementing new regulations does not help anyone.

I would encourage anyone planning to visit India on any kind of visa to plan your trip carefully, and not make any side trips outside the country during the duration of your stay. People currently inside India, whether on Business, X, or Tourist visas should contact their nearest High Commission or Consulate overseas or their local FRO before exiting India to try to ensure that you will be let back in.

Mumbaikar Lose As MNS Wins

Abhinandan Mishra — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:51:44 EDT

Maharashtra poll results along with the poll results in the other two states of Arunachal Pradesh and Haryana has come as a bad news for the BJP. And the saffron colour continues to lose its shine.

It must have been a happy day at work for people at 10 Janpath as the hard work finally paid off in Maharashtra. With the party gaining an absolute majority, one hopes that the party will be able to live up to the expectations of the common Indian living in Maharashtra.

But the disheartening news was about a goon party gaining more strength.
Maharashtra Navnirman Sena won in 13 seats in the state including 7 seats in Mumbai.

And there can be two ways of looking at the performance.

The first one has more to do with not reading too much into the party's win. As the seat where it won was not on the basis of the party tag but because of a careful thinking that went into while selecting the candidates. The candidates who won were not imported from outside. Most of them were active in their constituency for years and were earlier a part of Shiv Sena.

So to say that the brand MNS worked would be wrong.

The second way of looking at this is that whether Mumbai has accepted and
given its nod to the hooliganism way of politics that was carried out by MNS? And this question needs to carefully understood in the backdrop of the violence that MNS cadre carried out recently.

Infact none of the media post election talk show focussed on this aspect of MNS. Not much time back, this was the same party who held the whole state to ransom and ransacked the city and attacked anyone whom they thought was from north India.

Mumbai sure has a short memory.

Perhaps Mumbaikars forgot that when 26/11 happened none of the MNS goons or Mr Thackrey came forward to help. And those who died while tackling the situation where from all parts of the country, it was not a 'Me Mumbaikar' campaign at that time. And it was not just Mumbai who was glued into to the TV for news but the whole India

And it was not just Mumbai who felt frustrated for being so helpless and it was not just Mumbai who cried whenever a still body of an innocent "Indian" came out.

Try to remember; it was hardly 11 months back.

Anyone who saw Raj speaking before the media will agree that he has reached a new realm. The same old arrogance and lust for power was back in his eyes and in his voice as he dared people to perform Chaath Puja.

I thought that the MNS will be routed from the state but now realize that I was wrong. Might has again proved right.

Why do we point fingers at the illiterate class when they elect criminals to power? Don't we say that the poor class doesn't have the "intellectual" capability to decide between right and wrong?

What happened to the not so intellectually backward class of Mumbai? Those who voted MNS to power how are they going to justify it?

Is violence the answer to the problem of people coming to a state in India in search for work? MNS had posed this question and many of you nodded in
assent.

There were people who were lambasting Karan Johar for succumbing to MNS decree. Now we see why he didn't resist.

We are moving backward in time. Democracy graduates from a violent natured system to a system that runs on a careful exercising of the power to vote.

This time it was MNS. Who knows by the next election time we might have NINS ( North Indian Navnirman sena). All justifying their violence on one reason or the other.

We pose some questions that can be answered only by ourselves.

Shah Rukh Khan Detained At Newark Airport, USA

Aaman Lamba — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:54:14 EDT

Shah Rukh Khan could scarcely have expected that he would himself experience part of the plot of his upcoming film My Name is Khan. While traveling to the United States to attend an Independence Day function, he was detained at Newark Airport for over two hours, allowed to make only one phone call. He was apparently released only when Indian embassy officials intervened.

The rational explanation is of course that the immigration authorities were only doing their job, and the rules are the same for everyone. All the same, given that celebrities like Shah Rukh Khan travel in and out of the United States frequently, one would expect a simpler handling of entry verification at the point of entry. There is a natural query on whether this may have any relationship to travelling while brown, or while Muslim, for that matter.

Apart from the Continental Airlines security check for former Indian President APJ Abdul Kalam, earlier this year, Irrfan Khan was detained twice in Los Angeles, and Neil Nitin Mukesh was detained because he didn't "look Indian". Were Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt to be detained in this manner, instead of getting the usual grand welcome, the brouhaha would likely be quite deafening. While post-9/11 precautions and security are likely the cause of this confusion, database verification should have been easy.

Racist - Them or Us or All of Us?

Maryann Taylor — Sun, 7 Jun 2009 06:55:28 EDT

Racism has always been a delicate subject, yet a grave matter that one cannot afford to overlook; especially in light of what we’ve seen happen very recently in Australia with fellow citizens. And what was their fault? What did they do to be assaulted so brutally and inhumanely? What is the excuse for such barbaric behaviour?

I was talking to a friend recently who thought that the British were a rather racist lot, after having had a rather unpleasant experience in London. And strangely I’ve come across quite a few people who accuse the British of being racist, especially after the very public Shilpa Shetty and Jade Goody flare up on Big Brother. I’ve had the good fortune of traveling to a number of countries around the world, England extensively in particular, and have personally never been a target of racism.

But just because it’s never happened to me doesn’t mean racism doesn’t exist, it does, and very much so. I’ve just finished reading an article titled “Everybody’s a Bit Racist”, and it got me thinking. Racism stems from lack of respect and tolerance for another human being; be it on the basis of skin colour, language or ethnicity. It’s plain baseless prejudice.

As Indians we’re exposed to such a wide variety of languages and such rich culture, and should technically be the most tolerant, but this doesn’t seem so. I’m not sure if this classifies as racism, but a few Indians definitely lack acceptance when it comes to another community or culture. More than once I’ve come across people who’ll very casually say “Oh South Indians are a stuck up lot” or “All Punjabi’s are money minded” or “All Baniya’s are stingy and miserly”. This is as good as or even worse than one American telling another “Oh Indians, their houses smell of curry”. They may do it to others, but we do it to our own people. And how can we not mention the rigid Indian caste system, that still has a tendency to makes it presence felt every now and again; and also not forgetting how untouchables were treated worse than animals in most cases. All this makes me wonder if we really are as accommodating and liberal as we pretend to be?

A few months ago I met a young Australian guy and his girlfriend on a train to Goa. We got talking and he told me how he was assaulted in Rishikesh by a bunch of rowdy Indian guys for no fault of his own. He told me how they beat him and spat in his face. His girlfriend was petrified and didn’t say much. I was horrified and commended them on continuing with their journey, instead of returning back. Isn’t it ironic that it’s us Indians who treat visitors to our country with such blatant disrespect, don’t bat an eyelid before out rightly accusing “white people” of being racist? If an American airhostess doesn’t smile at us enough on a flight then “Oh, she’s doing it because we’re Indian”, without for once realizing that she just might’ve been having a bad day. We’re quick to judge, but slow to reason.

At the end of the day it’s not about “us” or “them”, it’s about being comfortable in our own skin and accepting without prejudice, just as we would like to be accepted. But neither is it about taking it all lying down or stepping on your dignity, but also knowing where to draw the line.

One Foul Job Ad

heartcrossings — Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:05:56 EDT

I have been following a thread on Immigration Voice for the last couple of days. It concerns a company posting an ad on Dice saying that the client is open to H1-B applicants as long as they are not Indians. No sugar coating there - those were the exact words used on the posting. Needless to say, there was a huge outcry over it and before the end of the day, the poor cog in the wheel sod who had posted the ad at the behest of the end client had been fired by his employer. Dice had pulled the ad off their site even before that had happened. At the time of this writing, the "end client" who had actually asked for non-Indian applicants only had not been touched by any of this.

The fact that stands out most prominently, at least in my mind, is that the company that posted the job ad on Dice is Indian owned and the recruiter in question is desi as as well. This is both a telling sign of the times as well as an example of abysmal depths companies like Abstar will sink to make a few quick bucks. It is no secret that shops like Abstar are owned and staffed by people who bring absolutely no skills to the table except having the legal status to set up shop in America - i.e the owner is typically a permanent resident or a naturalized citizen. Beyond that they operate like they were in an Indian sabzi-mandi selling vegetables (IT contractors) to customers ("end clients" and "preferred vendors to end client") at the best price they can get. Their business practices have about the same level of sophistication and require no better qualifications than what it takes a sabzi-wallah to set up shop at a mandi.

You don't expect the illiterate guy hawking potatoes in an Indian bazaar to have the discernment to judge what is appropriate to post on a public job board. So it does not surprise me at all that the recruiter had no qualms posting such a blatantly racist ad, I am very pleasantly surprised to see the desi brethren rise up in arms against it. We tend to far too accommodating, willing to look the other way and pretend what is happening does not touch us directly or generally be fatalistic about the hand dealt to us by Fate. It is reassuring to see that the we are still capable of collective outrage when outrage is the only acceptable response.

Home is Home, Warts and All

Deepti Lamba — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:23:16 EDT

There is a saying in Punjabi – apna ghar hag hag bhar, duje da ghar thukan da be daar (you can fill your house with shit but in another’s house you can’t even spit).

Indians who cross borders and live in foreign lands for whatever reasons inevitably find themselves the targets of racial abuse one way or the other at some point of their lives. The truth cannot be denied and there is no reason why we should accept it with the hota hai attitude.

Call it cultural clash or economic frustration of the unemployed no one has the right to physically assault another but time and again the hooligans get away and rarely does the Indian community living abroad take a consistent stand against the hate crimes committed against them nor does the Indian government lodge travel advisories against those countries where hate crimes against its citizens are on the rise.

Those of us who have travelled via Hong Kong have found ourselves sitting in shanty little custom rooms where we are interrogated before being given the visas or while travelling to Europe made to stand in separate lines where as those with ‘white countries passports’ are allowed to breeze past.

Some say we bought it upon ourselves with our devious unlawful actions but I ask why should we all pay the heavy price of humiliation due to the actions of a few?

While we can demand our government take concrete actions and offer support to citizens abroad we at the grass root level have to boost our own self image. The bully is not rampaging in our backyard so why go looking for trouble where it’s bound to give you a black eye, stab you or leave you traumatized?

If you can make the same amount of money in your own country then why live abroad? The fact is we have reached a point thanks to the globalization that we can make little San Diegos in our own backyards, and enjoy the same designer tags that only the few rich industrialists of the socialist era had accessibility and they mocked our middle class ignorance and even hated the Third World tag that was pinned on our chests.

Times have changed. Few of us suffer from the supposed ‘Culture Shock’ when we visit Europe or America. All is the same except the lands of the predominately Judeo-Christian countries are cleaner and more methodical.

So why suffer the violence or the fear of it when you can avail the same opportunities in your own country, where you can literally shit in front of your own house and no one would think of calling the ‘services’ against you?

Home is home for better or for worse. It is the only place where you can really be yourself - Indian warts and all.

Should the Nepalese Government honour Joanna Lumley?

Vinod Joseph — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:49:11 EDT

Actress Joanna Lumley was the main and most visible force behind the Gurkha Justice Campaign which successfully fought for all ex-Gurkhas who served in the British army to have the right to settle in the UK. Until very recently, only Gurkhas who had served in the army after 1997 (when the Gurkhas began to be stationed in the UK rather than in Hong Kong) could apply for settlement in the UK.

Those Gurkhas who retired prior to this date could not settle in the UK, since they were deemed to have no ‘ties to the UK. I have explained this in greater detail in my earlier post here.

After British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced in the House of commons that all ex-Gurkhas who have served more than 4 years in the British Army will have the right to settle in the UK, Rajan Zed, president of Universal Society of Hinduism, made a statement to the effect that the Nepalese government ought to honour Joanna Lumley with the highest civilian award for winning the ex-Gurkhas their residency rights. You can find full details of Zed’s demand in this report.

Zed’s statement has me flummoxed. Let’s take another look at the Gurkha Justice Campaign and Lumley’s achievement. The Gurkhas are Nepalese nationals who opt to serve (and even die for) the armed forces of a foreign country. Notwithstanding the historic ties between Gurkhas and UK, it must be admitted that the Gurkhas choose to join the British army mainly because of the lack of opportunities in Nepal. On retirement, many of them would like to settle in the country they have served, for reasons which can only be described as a mix of sentiment and convenience.

It cannot be denied that the UK offers ex-Gurkhas a better standard of living and social welfare benefits than Nepal. Lumley has performed yeoman service for the Gurkhas cause by embarrassing the British government into changing its original stance and giving settlement rights to all ex-Gurkhas. However, it must be admitted that the ex-Gurkhas are not doing Nepal any service by settling in the UK after their retirement from the British armed forces.

If the ex-Gurkhas were to spend their retirement in Nepal, they will draw their British army pensions in Nepal and contribute to the Nepalese economy. Why then should the Nepalese government honour Lumley? If it were to do so, it would in effect be admitting that it is unable to provide adequate opportunities to its citizens, and that due to the lack of infrastructure and social welfare benefits in Nepal, Nepalese citizens prefer to settle in the UK. All of which are true, but no sovereign government can be or should be asked to admit the same.

Zed’s demand brings to my mind the Indian government’s behaviour when trying to obtain compensation for the victims of the Union Carbide gas leak in Bhopal.

Instead of moving the courts in India for compensation, the Indian government filed a claim in the courts of New York. In order to justify the filing of the claim in New York, the Indian government got an affidavit from renowned academic Marc Gallanter to the effect that Indian courts are inefficient and slow and that only the courts of New York could provide an adequate and fair remedy to the gas leak victims.

Union Carbide in turn got affidavits from two eminent Supreme Court lawyers who said that though Indian courts are normally slow and inefficient, they are capable of speedy action in special cases. The New York court decided in favour of Union Carbide and (rightly in my opinion) threw out the Indian government’s claim saying that the claims ought to be decided by Indian courts.