I have written about this before, once rather optimistically (see here) and then, after couple of years of emails and dialogues with people who could or could not return, with more caution (the second article here). Since then, a number of things have changed, including an worsening of the economic climate worldwide and slowing of growth and employment opportunities in India. In fact, the conversations about India has become significantly downbeat, even despondent these days, and the enthusiasm about return among Indian expats, if the microcosm of a community that I live inside is any reflection, has somewhat waned. Hence, it seemed appropriate to return to the conversation one more time.
Admittedly, there is a personal story here. I personally maintain deep links with India and would want to return. My story is somewhat typical: My father lives alone in India, and my brother, who used to live with him allowing me the independence to travel, passed away. I feel worried, guilty and simply unhappy to leave my father on his own, though he may actually be enjoying his unattached life. Besides, I carry around my Indian identity with me - talking about India and spending most of my time with other Indians and travelling to India very frequently in the last few years. So, that I shall return to India, regardless of the challenges involved, is almost decided.
However, in another sense, my story is also slightly different. I came to Britain as a Highly Skilled Migrant, but my intent was to study: I just could not afford to study full time and pay the punitive fees British universities charge overseas students. So, I had to find a way to come to Britain, earn a commensurate income, get the opportunity to study by only paying the 'home' fees and part time, all of which has now happened. There is a bit of unfinished agenda - that of travelling around the world - but my mindset remains more like a student residing in a different country than someone who has come to settle.
In summary, it is easier for me to go back to India in comparison with many other migrants, who has transferred their identities more fully to their adapted countries. I could not: My personal life was so turbulent during the years I lived in Britain that my focus remained firmly on my family in India during these first few, crucial, years of the migrant existence. What I wanted to do, work towards creating a great education institution, remained more valid in the Indian context than Britain's, where the education landscape is far more matured. And, my thinking was almost always shaped by the Indian opportunity: When I worked for an e-learning company exclusively focused on the UK market, I would plead the case for international partnerships and expansion, thinking how we can unlock the opportunities in India with the methods and technologies we employed here.
Despite all this, when I think of reverse migration, I have come to expect little. While I talk about return, I have come to expect this to be as challenging as migrating to another country. I have realised only by taking nothing for granted, I can possibly make this journey a success. I have understood that the opportunity in India is actually its domestic demand, and hence, the returnees like me may have to learn the trade all over again as we adapt to that market. I have also understood that most Indians are almost contemptuous to the returnees (unlike the Chinese): People who never left project it on account of love for their country rather than their particular family circumstances or desires, and treat people who travelled as mere opportunists who wanted to return only after India became interesting. There is indeed double standard in this thinking and I used to get angry with it: However, over time, I have learnt to live with it.
A frequent complaint I hear from those who returned is about the lack of professionalism in the Indian workplace. This is particularly visible to those who worked in North America and Western Europe, and they miss the easy informality and professional respect of the work culture. Indeed, there are companies in India which have made conscious efforts to develop a more meritocratic and equitable culture, but most companies, including educational institutions, remain hierarchical, arbitrary and dominated by one coterie or the other. Also, Indian workplaces are more dominated by personalities whereas in the West, it is far more rule-based. Indian approach to rules, deeply relativist, sometimes makes people who lived and worked in the West for a long time frequently uneasy. Indeed, I have a slightly different take on this from my correspondents: I have lived and worked in India for ten years before migrating and I am acutely conscious of the issues involved. I am also conscious that there is very little point in complaining about these things, which is based on the assumption that the workplaces in the West are 'better' than Indian ones. Personally, I regard this as a flawed assumption, as every country presents a different working culture (contrast that of France and England) and one has to adapt to the hist culture and not the other way around.
My approach to return to India has changed over the years significantly. Once I took it as another journey, and expected less and less of homecoming, it became an easier idea: It was going to another country where I could contribute with lessons learnt, a country which I know and understand, where my skin colour does not stand out and I can be fully comfortable walking the streets (am I?), but increasingly I am also comfortable with the idea that I have to start all over again. My idea of creating a college of new media and enterprise is particularly relevant in India, which is indeed education hungry at this time, and the impact of good education is far greater both on people's lives and on the society as a whole. However, I have learnt to be patient: I want to pursue my idea by building a community of friends first and then working with a few of them who would share a similar vision. I am indeed building those friendships, connections and conversations first: My long engagement leading to eventual return has already begun.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
In our age, the only way to be politically correct is to be democratic. This is a post-70s affair - those days, still, some people had alternative ideologies in mind. Those alternate ideas are dead and gone, long discredited, and it seems that we have only one system which can make people happy, free and live longer. So, we have this huge export industry of democracy, and democracy's warriors, which the American security establishment has lately become. The democracy's businessmen, the bond traders, the media barons and the Hollywood types, are feted everywhere. The consensus is deafening and dumbing. It is indeed awkward to ask now - whether democracy is the right system for every society. It indeed should be. Collective wisdom is better than individual autocracy. In societies where democratic elections have been few and far between, the popular vote has demonstrated the extra-ordinary political savvy of the usually disinterested masses. Democracy has proved to be an excell
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.