Too much hypocrisy shrouds the question of Indian migration to Britain for the two governments to be able to honestly discuss the so-called pilot scheme for a £3,000 (nearly Rs 3 lakh) bond for "high-risk" visa applicants that is supposed to come into force in November. If posturing (like Britain's claim of "unfinalised" plans for a "trial run") were discarded, there would be little left of the platitudinous multiculturalism that provides a wobbly base for fictional Commonwealth unity and enables David Cameron to wax eloquent over Britain and India being "one of the great partnerships of the 21st Century."
My elderly English accountant - I'll call her Mrs E - when I ran a newspaper office in London in the late sixties was more honest. The Race Relations Act had made "discrimination" illegal when Mrs E and her husband decided to sell their suburban villa. Advertising it wouldn't let them pick and choose the buyer who might be white, black, brown or yellow. "I couldn't do that to the neighbours", Mrs E told me. "They are good friends we've known for over 20 years!" So they sold privately below the market price. Even Clement Attlee may have shared some of her ethnic reservations, for he refused Jawaharlal Nehru's suggestion of common Commonwealth citizenship. But that's what Indians who object vehemently to the visa bond still secretly yearn for.
Of course, there are many positions between the two extremes. There are also many rationalisations, some quite plausible. It is repeated ad nauseam - not untruthfully - that Indian doctors saved Britain's National Health Service while Caribbean drivers and conductors sustained public transport. A columnist in London's Evening Standard wrote the other day under the heading "Migrants are the lifeblood of London" that "it is immigration that keeps London functioning and, given the capital's disproportionate tax contribution, London that keeps the country functioning." Presumably, he doesn't have only European immigrants in mind? But however useful their presence turned out to be, doctors, transport workers and others didn't migrate to serve British society. They migrated to serve themselves. They were - are - economic refugees.
I once heard Hugo Swire, Britain's Etonian junior foreign office minister, placatingly trot out names such as Farrokh Bulsara, Krishna Pandit Bhanji and Nasser Hussain as ethnic Indians of whom Britain is proud. He was treading on dangerous ground. His argument implied that Britain welcomes successes from the subcontinent but doesn't want failures, a charge that I am sure Swire would reject. Alternatively, he was making the best of a bad job by counting what might be called migration's few blessings.
It's quicksand all the way. Some Indians complain that really high-risk applicants don't have money to post bonds. Quite so. But that, surely, is an argument for and not against the scheme. Others fear that potential illegal immigrants would be prepared to write-off £3,000 as payment for future prosperity. No scheme can ever be foolproof. Nor is the demand for reciprocal restrictions realistic. It might deter a few backpackers who can be equated, socially and economically, with what Britain would call high-risk visitors. But it's hardly in India's interest to make visas difficult for businessmen or bankers.
No one can complain of having to return home if they haven't got a £20,000 per annum job after studying is over unless the secret plan all along was to stay on in Britain. It is relevant to point out here that India deports young Britons who violate their tourist status by teaching in schools or working for missionary charities. One such, working for Mother Teresa, was the son of Britain's army deputy chief.
The real reason for stringent control may well be the Conservative Party's anxiety not to yield ground to the UK Independence Party which is seemingly gaining votes. Its appeal probably also explains Ed Miliband's ambiguity on immigration. Labour can't afford to ignore present reality but feels squeamish about betraying its colour-blind legacy.
What sticks in my craw is someone being branded a potential illegal immigrant and having to carry that badge of shame until it's time to go back. I wouldn't dream of ever applying for a visa that entails a bond. But, then, much as I like England and enjoy my annual and bi-annual visits, I have never in these 59 years since I first landed at Tilbury aged 16 considered either staying here for good or applying for a British passport. I have only contempt for Indian diplomats who exploit their position so that they or their offspring can do either.
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
