Suchergebnisse

CARIM-India is co-financed by the European University Institute and the European Union. ; This paper presents the past and present state of affairs regarding migration from India to the Netherlands. The Netherlands have never been a very popular destination for migrants from India. If we, however, include the Hindustanis in the so-called Indian diaspora, the Netherlands are home to the second largest Indian diaspora in Europe. The Hindustanis are the descendants of British-Indian indentured laborers who migrated to the Dutch colony of Surinam between 1873 and 1916, and who moved on to the Netherlands in particular during the 1970s and 1980s. At present, the "Indian diaspora" in the Netherlands includes approximately 160,000 Hindustanis and 21,729 Indians (first and second generation immigrants). This paper deals with all those with apparent (ancestral) connections to India. Two phenomena stand out and make the Dutch case particularly interesting for a study of Indian migration to Europe. Besides the presence of the relatively large group of Hindustanis, we are currently witnessing a remarkable increase in the immigration of Indian knowledge workers in the country. In practice, the two distinct categories of people of Indian descent have very little in common. This paper investigates these different categories of ("old" and "new") migrants and analyzes the implications of contemporary Indian and Dutch policies on Indian migration to the Netherlands and on processes of identity formation amongst these migrants of Indian origin. ; CARIM-India: Developing a knowledge base for policymaking on India-EU migration

This paper explores the relationship between migration and integration policies in the Netherlands, diaspora policies in India, and the transnational practices of Indian highly skilled migrants to the Netherlands. We employ anthropological transnational migration theories (e.g., Ong 1999; Levitt and Jaworsky 2007) to frame the dynamic interaction between a sending and a receiving country on the lives of migrants. This paper makes a unique contribution to migration literature by exploring the policies of both sending and receiving country in relation to ethnographic data on migrants. The international battle for brains has motivated states like the Netherlands and India to design flexible migration and citizenship policies for socially and economically desirable migrants. Flexible citizenship policies in the Netherlands are primarily concerned with individual and corporate rights and privileges, whereas Indian diaspora policies have been established around the premise of national identity.

Abstract
This paper explores the relationship between migration and integration policies in the Netherlands, diaspora policies in India, and the transnational practices of Indian highly skilled migrants to the Netherlands. We employ anthropological transnational migration theories (e.g., Ong 1999; Levitt and Jaworsky 2007) to frame the dynamic interaction between a sending and a receiving country on the lives of migrants. This paper makes a unique contribution to migration literature by exploring the policies of both sending and receiving country in relation to ethnographic data on migrants. The international battle for brains has motivated states like the Netherlands and India to design flexible migration and citizenship policies for socially and economically desirable migrants. Flexible citizenship policies in the Netherlands are primarily concerned with individual and corporate rights and privileges, whereas Indian diaspora policies have been established around the premise of national identity.

Democracy has generally been understood the best remedy to prevent societal violence, as it gives different groups a channel to voice their interests and grievances. However, in this article, that focuses on the Chittagong Hills, which for many decades has formed one of the most violent spaces in Bangladesh, we argue that, in reality, democracy and violence can be two sides of the same coin. This is not to say that in Bangladesh, where full liberal democracy is not in place, ordinary citizens have no values and idea(l)s of democracy and citizenship. On the contrary, in order to make sense of the intricate connection between democratic idea(l)s, and violent imaginations and practices, we focus in particular on the process of what we call the vernacularisation of democratic politics. We connect this process to the appropriation of citizenship and nationalism, by ordinary but radically differently-positioned people, in their daily realities. We demonstrate that widely shared imaginations of Bangladeshi-ness, as Bengali-ness or Muslim-ness, and of Bengalis/Muslims as the true nation and citizens of Bangladesh, are intimately connected with popular understandings and practices of democracy, which are based on the exclusion of the not-genuine-Bengalis, with the legitimisation and continuation of violence, and the exclusion of ethnic minorities in the Chittagong Hills.