Drawing on his lived experience as a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), his academic research on the transnational Indian diaspora, and his exposure to global diaspora engagement practices through EUDiF, Diaspora Youth Intern Farseen Ali Puthanveettil examines different ways in which countries formally recognise and stay connected with their people abroad.
Before my flight to Germany for studies, one of my key tasks was to visit the bank and get my account type changed from an ordinary resident savings account to a Non-Resident account. My friends had advised me to complete this important step to avoid incurring a significant penalty for failing to do so. When I ticked the “Non-Resident Indian (NRI)” box on the form for the first time, it felt like a simple bureaucratic requirement, but it marked a silent shift in my life.
The transition to officially becoming a part of the diaspora was more than a legal re-classification, it exposed me to the wide range of privileges and vulnerabilities that came with my change of status. That single checkbox came to shape not only my financial transactions but my entire experience of being in the diaspora and practical complexities and responsibilities that come of living between two countries.
These responsibilities often manifested as the challenge of navigating transnational life: managing the paperwork, banking, and administrative demands in both my country of heritage and my country of residence. On the one hand, I was trying to integrate into the country of residence, and on the other, I had to manage the legal, social, cultural, financial, and bureaucratic aspects of staying connected with my country of heritage. Both sides felt equally challenging and, at times, quite daunting.
Navigating two systems at once was a new experience that taught me to become more resourceful and self-reliant.
In the different countries I have lived, integration efforts by countries of residence are widely discussed and debated, yet the instruments and initiatives of countries of heritage are often overlooked. This realisation inspired me to focus on how the Indian diaspora (both NRIs and Overseas Citizens of India – OCIs) negotiates the experience of balancing multiple worlds.
My lived reality thus became the foundation for my master’s thesis.
In my thesis project, which I wrote at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), titled “Indian Diaspora in Norway: Transnational Activities and Capabilities,” I examined the range of transnational activities Indian diaspora members engage in and the motivations, opportunities, and challenges that enable or restrict these practices.
Although NRI/OCI status was not a variable in my core analysis, these topics surfaced repeatedly during the interviews with research participants who were primarily first-generation, highly skilled professionals whose years in the diaspora varied from a minimum of six years to over four decades. I observed how careful people were about choosing between these two statuses to plan their futures, and the significant influence it has on various aspects of their transnational lives, from property ownership and banking access to voting rights, life insurance policies, and family ties and care obligations.
A few research participants intentionally chose not to switch from NRI to OCI, even though they were eligible. Interestingly, their reasons to do this were not tied to the legal limitations of the OCI status; rather, these responses highlighted gaps in understanding or misconceptions about what the OCI status actually offers. I realised how a lack of awareness about such statuses can limit diasporans’ ability to engage with their countries of heritage, which from the perspective of those countries also results in losing access to skilled members of the diaspora whose talents could have been leveraged.
If this was true for India, which is heavily invested in diaspora engagement, I wondered about the rest of the world. Luckily, I had the chance to explore this during my internship, which led to the new publication:
Citizens of the world: Legal and policy tools beyond passports
In response to the interest of partner countries to better understand models such as India’s NRI and OCI, I sought other examples to compare. Like India, neither Nepal nor Indonesia allow dual citizenship. All have developed specific instruments to formally recognise their diasporas, yet each with variations.
This report presents the legal instruments used by these three countries to engage with their diasporas:
- India: Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) and Non-Resident Indian (NRI);
- Indonesia: Kartu Masyarakat Indonesia di Luar Negeri (KMILN);
- Nepal: Non-Resident Nepali (NRN) Citizenship.
The comparison includes the legal and practical dimensions of each instrument, comparing eligibility, entry and residency, political rights, property rights, business and investment rights, educational rights, and special restrictions.
Whether you are a member of the diaspora or a migration governance practitioner, I hope you will find the comparison enlightening as to how countries with different migration histories, demographics and policy frameworks have innovated ways to formally recognise their diaspora. What the models have in common is that they each facilitate access and connection between the diaspora and their country of heritage for the benefit of both.
Do you know of other legal and policy tools to compare? Email us: eu-diaspora@icmpd.org
The cover image was taken during the author’s fieldwork in Oslo as part of his master’s thesis research on the Indian diaspora in Norway.