Her Majestys Subjects

Hearing Hong Kong Indians express their gratitude for British citizenship did not make me particularly proud. It was a reminder that, from the billionaire Harilelas down, Hong Kong Indians have little time for India.

There was even greater reason for chagrin in the view expressed by Niranian Deva, ethnic Indian Conservative MP that, These families are major wealth creators in Hong Kong. As British passport holders, they would enable Britain not only to become the enterprise centre for Europe, but also the world.

I cannot but wonder if that definition of the whole world includes the land from which these migrants came or is Britains and the worlds gain Indias loss?

I do wonder if it is really true that they would have been left as stateless if John Major had not relented at the last moment under pressure from New Delhi perhaps? And granted them full-fledged subjecthood rights, including the right of residence in Britain. Surely, they could also have applied for Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan citizenship?

That this was not even considered as an option is, for me, the greatest tragedy, not for sentimental reasons, but because there could be no more severe reflection on India. Once again, it underlines a cardinal truth the answer to all dilemmas affecting Indians, whether at home or abroad, lies only in Indias strong economic growth.

The Hong Kong problem and its solution also raises questions about India and the diaspora, about the legacy and responsibilities of the receding tide of colonialism, and about the nature of China, with which the colony will be reunited on July 1, with a 50 year guarantee for its present institutions and identity.

Probably, most simple Hong Kongers are blissfully unaware of all that they symbolise. For we are not talking here of the six Harilela brothers, with their 35 Filipino maids, three chefs for Indian, Western and Chinese cuisine, and a hotel manager to run the joint household. Hari N Harilela, the septuagenarian head of the clan, is already an honorary adviser to China. The Harilelas need not fear the future. They can even afford to say that they will stay on in Hong Kong.

But what of the hotel doorman and the small shopkeeper ?

Each time I visit Hong Kong, I am struck by the unique characteristics of this ethnic Indian community. Unlike Indian Singaporeans, they do not seem to be caught in a time warp. They are Indian colonials who ride the British bandwagon. Yet, they are flexible, fluent in Cantonese and part of the wider community.

Like Harilela, these humbler Indians also say they will stay on after July. Kavita Daswani, head of the Indian Resources Group which has been fighting locally for British passports, argues that being legally recognised as British is actually going to anchor them to Hong Kong, which is really what the intended purpose has been. It wasnt to provide any sort of entree into UK or anywhere else, but just to allow them to feel safe enough to stay here for as long as their businesses and their lives allow them to.

So they will feel more secure in a special administrative region of China which will be Hong Kongs official status after the merger if they are armed with Her Majestys blue and gold passport.

Two points are implicit on that statement.

First, it says something about Chinese nationalism that few seem prepared to acknowledge. It is that, like xenophobic Japan, China does not absorb people of another ethnic origin.

The second message is that India is not an option for these expatriates.

This where the most humble Hong Konger takes his cue from the not so humble Harilelas. Hari Harilela tells a story of the fifties, when he went to Delhi with a letter of credit worth millions of dollars in his pocket.

They wanted $8 million to invest in the Oberoi Hotel. It was just a structure and nobody would touch it. Raj Bahadur was the tourism minister. I said, Raj Bahadur, what do you want? He said, We want your assurance. I said, here is the $8 million. Here is the file. You go through the ministry, get me the signature, and I will take over the hotel.

He said, we cant do that in India. You have to do it yourself. Otherwise, they will think I am corrupt.

I said, How long would it take? He said, 60 days. But I had already spent 90 days going in and out of India.

I have tremendous affection for India, but every time somebody would step in who could move faster than I could run. They knew how to get around. I didnt. I was too straightforward.

Was that the real reason?

For Harilela also admits that its easier to make money in China. It is not a planned economy as India is. You can find a nice site and set up your hotel, and you dont have to go through a minister or through a long process of planning. One only needs to see a vice-mayor of a city, and the investment will go through smoothly.

Low-level quanxi (bonding) does it. Hong Kong Indians who comprise one per cent of the population but account for 10 per cent of the colonys exports will not be an easy touch.

Matching China is not the point. Until India can promise safe investment and good yields, there can be no hope of realising Joel Krotkins claim in Tribes: They are the supreme cosmopolitans. What group is better poised than the overseas Indians for the emergence of the Third World in the 21st century?