A Bittersweet Milestone, and a dream fulfilled

[DarthSiddius]

If you are within the territory of India then you are affected by AFSPA, if not directly then indirectly through legal precedence. In fact you are affected by each and every vote that you cast, whether it is remove AFSPA, endorse OROP (even if you are not connected to the military) or support GST. Your actions have consequences if you live within the territory.

I would argue that Resident non-citizens have a stronger case for participation and should probably be given limited voting options, such as local municipal elections. Some European countries do allow that, I think.

How is a person living in Chandigarh, affected by AFSPA? Another example would be Triple talak, how's a Hindu affected by a law concerning Muslims?

[antimony]

How is a person living in Chandigarh, affected by AFSPA? Another example would be Triple talak, how's a Hindu affected by a law concerning Muslims?

How is a Hindu affected by Triple Talak? As a citizen, do I want my fellow brothers and sisters to have equality before law or not? Triple talaq is a travesty because it harms the rights of our Muslim sisters and reduces them to objects ripe for abuse. Muslim married women can be divorced without a proper right to alimony because we are a "secular country" with respect for "religious norms" (remember Shah Bano?). Pedophilic animals from the middle east and elsewhere use these norms and Muslim marriage laws to sexually exploit Muslim minor girls, and then throw them away by the roadside. Are you saying that as an Indian (Hindu or not), that should not make my blood boil???

[antimony]

True but sadly that's not how the world works...

I do not intend to lower my standards just because the world acts in a certain way...

[DarthSiddius]

How is a Hindu affected by Triple Talak? As a citizen, do I want my fellow brothers and sisters to have equality before law or not? Triple talaq is a travesty because it harms the rights of our Muslim sisters and reduces them to objects ripe for abuse. Muslim married women can be divorced without a proper right to alimony because we are a "secular country" with respect for "religious norms" (remember Shah Bano?). Pedophilic animals from the middle east and elsewhere use these norms and Muslim marriage laws to sexually exploit Muslim minor girls, and then throw them away by the roadside. Are you saying that as an Indian (Hindu or not), that should not make my blood boil???

All correct but how is geography relevant here? An Indian national should be free to voice their position on these issues irrespective of their location. As far as citizenship is concerned you are paying a disproportionate value to a person's geographical location while neglecting their cultural identity. I have been living abroad for 10 years now, but I'm still an Indian citizen and I am allowed to vote. If I decide to opt for Canadian citizenship in the future, why does my current location suddenly become so important in this debate?

I do not intend to lower my standards just because the world acts in a certain way...

Don't get me wrong as I am saying this with utmost respect - Your standards have no bearing on the matter at hand. An oath can not guarantee loyalty.

[antimony]

All correct but how is geography relevant here? An Indian national should be free voice their position on these issues irrespective of their location. As far as citizenship is concerned you are paying a disproportionate value to a person's geographical location while neglecting their cultural identity. I have been living abroad for 10 years now, but I'm still an Indian citizen and I am allowed to vote. If I decide to opt for Canadian citizenship in the future, why does my current location suddenly become so important in this debate?

Everyone should be able to voice their opinions about anything but if one actually makes a decision one should be affected by it. Let's take Triple talaq. If you vote for a party that is going to push for abolition of that abomination you should also face the social and political turmoil the country will go through. By staying away from the geography you are not paying the price for your actions. By being far removed and yet having a voice you are insulated from that.

There is another reason. India (as represented by the Citizenship Act) correctly determines that by taking on
another country's citizenship your loyalties are divided. Who do you shed yours and your families blood for? Who are you prepared to kill for? Look at the US Citizenship oath. It very specifically lays down the terms that you should value the US flag and constitution above anything else and should be prepared to shed blood for that flag. Whether you intend to keep the oath or not, the US demands that you submit completely, even if you have another passport. India does the same by denying you the ability to hold another passport.

Don't get me wrong as I am saying this with utmost respect

You are fine, we are just debating civilly (unlike our two leading candidates here, I might add).

Your standards have no bearing on the matter at hand. An oath can not guarantee loyalty.

You are right; an oath does not guarantee loyalty, it is up to the persons taking them. Our soldiers (Indian and US) take an oath to shed their blood to protect the country and the constitution and they keep their bargain. No reason for us to hold ourselves to a lower standard.

[DarthSiddius]

Everyone should be able to voice their opinions about anything but if one actually makes a decision one should be affected by it. Let's take Triple talaq. If you vote for a party that is going to push for abolition of that abomination you should also face the social and political turmoil the country will go through. By staying away from the geography you are not paying the price for your actions. By being far removed and yet having a voice you are insulated from that.

This is the contention, isn't it? I, being an Indian from a Hindu family, am not affected by a change in the triple talak law as this law is exclusive to Muslims in India, yet I am allowed to vote (rightfully so at that) for a government that can change this law. Therefore, I am allowed to voice my opinion (through my vote) on a matter that doesn't directly affect me!

Another thing I would like to add- What makes you think that Indian politics, events and laws do not affect me (or other dual nationality seekers) here in Canada. I still have a shit tonne of family back home, I visit every year and I derive a major share of my cultural identity from Indian culture. An immigrant has the fortune and misfortune of being exposed to and belonging to multiple cultures. Come to think of it, after moving to Canada I changed a lot as a person which is contrasted whenever I go back home and visit friends and family, concurrently, I am different from my Canadian brethren as well due to my Indian-ness. Where do I belong then?

There is another reason. India (as represented by the Citizenship Act) correctly determines that by taking on
another country's citizenship your loyalties are divided. Who do you shed yours and your families blood for? Who are you prepared to kill for? Look at the US Citizenship oath. It very specifically lays down the terms that you should value the US flag and constitution above anything else and should be prepared to shed blood for that flag. Whether you intend to keep the oath or not, the US demands that you submit completely, even if you have another passport. India does the same by denying you the ability to hold another passport.

What's the problem with divided loyalties when an Indian (only) citizen can have the same. After-all not every baby born in India is pre-programmed or brainwashed to be loyal to India. Again I don't understand this dick measuring in loyalty... Why should dual nationals be subjected to this "super dooper ultimate megastar" loyalty test?

You are fine, we are just debating civilly (unlike our two leading candidates here, I might add).

Just wanted to make sure, that's all! I haven't butted heads with anyone in this forum for a while and today is a slow Friday at work. Also the fact that I am visiting India next week and thus, my Indian quotient is off the charts currently LOL!

You are right; an oath does not guarantee loyalty, it is up to the persons taking them. Our soldiers (Indian and US) take an oath to shed their blood to protect the country and the constitution and they keep their bargain. No reason for us to hold ourselves to a lower standard.

Yes it is up to the person taking the oath; why then enforce this loyalty card on dual nationals? It is up to each dual national as is it for every other citizen.

[antimony]

This is the contention, isn't it? I, being an Indian from a Hindu family, am not affected by a change in the triple talak law as this law is exclusive to Muslims in India, yet I am allowed to vote (rightfully so at that) for a government that can change this law. Therefore, I am allowed to voice my opinion (through my vote) on a matter that doesn't directly affect me!

The existing state of affairs may not affect you (apart from your conscience) but the process of changes certainly does, as it generates social and political turmoil and can take dark and unknown turns. What if the Constitution's Freedom of Religion clauses and articles need to be amended for this? Imagine the huge social upheaval from that. If you choose to endorse that, should you not be affected by that upheaval (and by that I do not necessarily mean violence).

Another thing I would like to add- What makes you think that Indian politics, events and laws do not affect me (or other dual nationality seekers) here in Canada. I still have a shit tonne of family back home, I visit every year and I derive a major share of my cultural identity from Indian culture. An immigrant has the fortune and misfortune of being exposed to and belonging to multiple cultures.

Regarding your question about Indian laws affecting you; sure they do. But your home country has the right to reject your national identity if you have divided your loyalties. Which is what you have done once you have accepted the nationality of a different country.

Come to think of it, after moving to Canada I changed a lot as a person which is contrasted whenever I go back home and visit friends and family, concurrently, I am different from my Canadian brethren as well due to my Indian-ness. Where do I belong then?

Very good question - this is why, if I have move , I prefer moving to immigrant friendly countries like the US, Canada, or ANZ. One can move to Sweden, but one cannot become part of the Swedish society and culture, regardless of how nice and accepting they might be. On the other hand, you can retain your individual cultural identities and be part of a greater society in countries like India or Canada. My daughters grow up with exposure to both. I expect them to be patriotic Americans and take pride in their 6000 year old Indian heritage. I expect them to make them to enrich the melting pot of American culture with their Indianness. I see absolutely no conflict between the two.

What's the problem with divided loyalties when an Indian (only) citizen can have the same. After-all not every baby born in India is pre-programmed or brainwashed to be loyal to India. Again I don't understand this dick measuring in loyalty... Why should dual nationals be subjected to this "super dooper ultimate megastar" loyalty test?

Democracies, especially liberal democracies do not get to choose the characters and loyalties of whoever is born as citizens, nor do they get to check their behavior. They only time they can do that is when someone is at the door. Acceptance of citizenship is one such door. At that juncture nations get to ask their citizen - who are you loyal to?

Just wanted to make sure, that's all! I haven't butted heads with anyone in this forum for a while and today is a slow Friday at work. Also the fact that I am visiting India next week and thus, my Indian quotient is off the charts currently LOL!

Have fun, have not been home for a long time now (by that I mean 2 years)

Yes it is up to the person taking the oath; why then enforce this loyalty card on dual nationals? It is up to each dual national as is it for every other citizen.

from a personal POV, it is up to the person taking the oath. From the entity administering that oath, it is not.

[cataphract]

I'll return to this thread tomorrow. Meanwhile, a belated Happy Diwali to all ::))

[cataphract]

As a new American citizen I have taken the oath of defending my new country and taking up arms against anyone else.
Yeah, the US and India will never come to blows and if they do then the US has better people then me to fight, but technically, if I am true to the oath, then that forces my ultimate loyalty.

You had also taken the Indian national pledge if you studied in an Indian school, remember?

If it does come to war, I don't believe oaths and pledges taken in peacetime really matter. After all, non-citizens fight in the US army and US citizens actively fight against it (Anwar Al-Awlaki). An individual's loyalty cannot be determined by a piece of paper or oaths taken under duress.

[cataphract]

Quite a few that I know of, from the BJP camp. Look up the Republican Hindu Coalition. Do NOT blame me for what you see

I refuse to believe none of those people maintain property in India. Their children won't, but then again their children won't be interested in Indian politics either.

But that is certainly not accurate. I may want to see a certain party in power but my address would be tied to somewhere in Calcutta, where as your's may be tied to something else. Based on how electoral politics work in India, that one vote in one constituency will probably be lost in the muddle. The only way this can make sense is if they designate certain Parliamentary seats for receiving all NRI/ OCI votes

This is way too much detail for a hypothetical, but one vote in one constituency is all anyone gets in any democracy. It doesn't make the vote worthless. A separate NRI/OCI constituency is a good idea though, it will get the netas to pander to our whims too ::D