IMMIGRATION – THRESHOLD LIMITS FOR DEMOGRAPHIC BALANCE AND SOCIAL EQUILIBRIUM – FLOCK THEORY OF MIGRATION

IMMIGRATION
THRESHOLD LIMITS FOR DEMOGRAPHIC BALANCE AND SOCIAL EQUILIBRIUM
Musings on THE FLOCK THEORY OF MIGRATION
By
VIKRAM KARVE

From my Blog Archives:

Immigration is a contentious issue.

Immigration can be legal and illegal.

Yes, for a variety of reasons, people migrate to other countries, both legally and illegally.

Is Migration good? 

Or is it bad? 

What are the consequences of immigration for the host country? 

Excessive immigration can cause demographic imbalance which may disturb social equilibrium.
When the number of immigrants becomes large, then in a democracy, the immigrants can influence the outcome of elections by becoming a “vote bank”. 

Immigration can be legal and illegal.


I have observed that for many bright youngsters in India, their cardinal objective in life is to migrate to America, get a Green Card, followed by US Citizenship, and permanently live in the USA all their lives and realize their American Dream. 

All over the world, people from less developed countries migrate to better developed countries, legally and illegally.

A few years ago I had written an article on The Flock Theory of Migration

Since the topic of “immigration” is back in the news, I thought it would be apt to post this article below, once again, for you to read. 

FLOCK THEORY OF MIGRATION – Food for Thought by Vikram Karve

BIRD-WATCHING – FLOCK OF MIGRATORY BIRDS

Long back, me and my friend, a Bird-Watcher, a self-styled ornithologist, were observing birds 

(I am referring to the “winged” variety of birds)

We saw a huge a flock of migratory birds flying in the sky.

It was a fascinating sight to see the flock of birds flying in perfect formation.

I mentioned this to my friend who then told me about the “flock theory” of migration.

He told me that sometimes different kinds of birds that do not belong to the original flock also join the flock and fly along.

The birds in the flock allow these “outsider” birds to fly along with the flock as long as they do not disturb the pattern, movement, flight speed and direction (course) of the flock.

When the number of “immigrant” birds is small, these “outsider” birds quietly assimilate themselves into the flock, obey the rules of the flock and do not disturb the harmony of the flock.

Sometimes the number of these “immigrant” birds increases to a sizeable proportion and they may disturb the harmony of the flock, if these “outsider” birds try to assert themselves.

These “foreigner” birds may even try to control the flock by trying to dominate and alter the flight pattern.

This disturbance in harmony and attempt at domination is not tolerated by the main flock of birds, and violent clashes break out as the main flock of birds tries to remove the “immigrant” birds from the flock – yes, the original birds in the flock try to throw out the “foreigner” birds out of the flock.

HUMAN MIGRATION

I think a similar hypothesis applies to human migration too.

When you migrate to another country (or when you relocate within your country to another state or city) you must remember this flock theory of migration.

Try to assimilate yourself into your new “host” country or city and acclimatize yourself to the way of life of your new place of residence.

You must mix around and interact with the local inhabitants and imbibe the indigenous culture of your new abode.

You must not “ghettoize” yourself by forming tightly-knit inward-looking groups of your own community but you must embrace the culture of your new land (after all, it is you who have chosen to migrate there).

Always remember that you are the foreigner in their land – you are the “guest” and they are your “hosts” – and a guest must never attempt to dominate the host and try to make the host a guest in his own country.

Yes, if you are an immigrant in another country, it is best to conduct yourself as a “guest” and adopt to the culture of your “hosts” rather than try to dominate and impose your culture on your “hosts”.

A large number of my relatives, classmates and friends have migrated to America and have lived there for many years.

However, I find that they mostly mingle among the Indian community (even language and state wise), as is evident from the photos they show us.

When I ask them why they do not have any American friends, they have no credible answer except saying that they do have such friendships, but at the workplace only.

However their children, born and brought up in the USA, have friendships, relationships and even marriages with resident Americans – in fact, Americans now comprise so many types and varieties of ethnicity 

Since over the years, so many persons from all parts of the world have migrated to the USA for a better life and now America has become the melting pot of diverse cultures.

The flock theory applies to all types of migration.

TYPES OF MIGRATION

Immigrants migrate due to a variety of reasons.

Some immigrants “choose” to migrate and willingly accept the majority culture of their host nation and are seamlessly assimilated and integrated into the existing society of their “hosts”.

Some immigrants are forced to migrate, due to a variety of reasons, including political and socio-economic imperatives, for education, or for reasons of safety and security arising from instability or warlike conditions in their homeland. 

These forced migrants are like “refugees”.

These “forced migrants” are less amenable to assimilating themselves with the majority population.

It is these “forced immigrants” who ghettoize themselves into communities and try to maintain their own distinct identity by refusing the absorb the culture of their new land.

Sometimes the numbers of such “refugee” forced immigrants may increase to a point where the immigrants may alter the demographic balance and try to impose their will on their hosts.

It is then that the “flock theory” will apply and a conflict will start and there will be a struggle for dominance.

When migration takes place, both the “hosts” (natives) and the “guests” (migrants) must remember the Flock Theory and ensure that cultural harmony is maintained and the demographic balance is not upset.

THRESHOLD LIMITS FOR MIGRATION – TO MAINTAIN DEMOGRAPHIC EQUILIBRIUM

My “bird-watcher” friend gave a ballpark figure of 30% when I asked him what was the flock theory threshold beyond which the harmony of the flock is disturbed.

Applying the same threshold to human migration, this tells us that the “hosts” must ensure that “guests” (immigrants) do not exceed 30% of the population, otherwise the “demographic equilibrium” gets disturbed.

Yes, in order to avoid social turbulence, migrants must not be allowed to exceed 30% of the population.

If this is allowed to happen and the 30% barrier is broken, and the number of immigrants keeps on increasing in an unabated manner two things may happen:

1. The migrants will become a sizeable proportion of the population and alter the demographic balance (and become a “votebank”). In a democracy, this may give the migrants undue power in governance and this loss of power to “outsiders” will be resented by the original inhabitants.

2. The “cultural visibility” of the migrants will become starkly evident and the original local residents will feel threatened and become insecure in their own land. Owing to their dominance, the migrants may try to impose their own ethnic, religious and social customs and try to change the original culture of the land and this cultural invasion will be resented by the original inhabitants.

The “flock theory” phenomenon is akin to the manner in which the harmony of the “flock” is disturbed and the original birds feel jeopardized because they fear that their “flock” will be being taken over by “outsider” birds.

The flock theory of migration teaches us the lesson that if migration is not controlled within acceptable limits, due to clash of cultures and a sense of insecurity, a stage will come when the migrants will not be welcome anymore and this will create dissonance and discord in society. 

This is because no one likes to be dominated by “outsiders” who try to impose their culture on the local inhabitants.

Remember: No “host” likes to be turned into a “guest” in his own home

Dear Reader:

Do you agree with the “flock theory of migration”?

Do you feel there should be threshold limits to immigration to avoid demographic equilibrium being disturbed?

Please comment and let us know your views.

VIKRAM KARVE

Copyright © Vikram Karve 
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Disclaimer:

All stories in this blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the story are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Copyright Notice:

No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.

Copyright © Vikram Karve (all rights reserved)

Revised Version of Article First Posted by me Vikram Karve in my blog at 10/12/2012 01:48:00 PM at url: http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2012/10/flock-theory-of-migration.html

FOREIGN INDIAN versus RESIDENT INDIAN

FOREIGN INDIAN versus RESIDENT INDIAN

We still haven’t got over the colonial hangover of “Foreign Returned”.

And this fascination is now showered on “Foreign Indians” too.

That is why there is no point in being a “Resident Indian”.

It is better to be “Foreign Indian” like an NRI (Non Resident Indian) or a PIO (Person of Indian Origin) than a “Resident Indian”.

You will get more respect and privileges from everyone here, including the government, if you are a PIO or NRI than if you are a Resident Indian.

For example, have a look at the Republic Day Civilian Honours List for the past few years.

You will notice that there are a large number of PIO and NRI names who have been awarded by the Government.

Of these, there are many who work for Multi National Companies (MNC) and firms, financial institutions and investment banks, some are innovative entrepreneurs or distinguished academicians and some run successful businesses abroad.

But they all live and work abroad and many have foreign passports and have taken citizenships of that country.

Yet, they are mollycoddled and favoured by the Indian government, even though they are no longer Indian Citizens.

Yes, they may have been successful in their careers and they may have earned a lot of money for themselves and their organizations.

Whatever they have achieved they have achieved abroad for the benefit of the country they live in (or for the organization they work for) and, of course, they may have personally benefited too.

But one wonders what is their contribution to India.

They may have done something for the country they live in. 

But what have they done for India?

They surely may deserve an award from the country they live in or from organization they work for.

But why is India awarding them for doing something which is of no benefit to India.

It is Strange but True.

Whereas, on the one hand, we pamper “Foreign Indians” who have abandoned India to seek greener pastures abroad and realize the foreign dream; while on the other hand we neglect patriotic Indian Citizens who have chosen to stay back and contribute their bit for the benefit of the nation. 

Why do we display favouritism towards “Foreigner Indians” while treating “Indian Indians” with indifference?

Even in a family, a NRI or PIO “Foreign Indian” is admired while the “Indian Indian” is taken for granted.

You see so many parents talking in glowing terms of their children who are abroad whereas they don’t have even a word of praise for their kids who have stayed back in India.

I have seen a farcical situation where the mother’s favourite blue eyed boy was the younger son who had settled in America and she took for granted her elder son who had stayed back in India and who was looking after her in her old age.

If you want respect, status and good treatment in India, it is better to be a Non Resident Indian (NRI) or PIO rather than be a Resident Indian.

Maybe because in Indian Culture we say: Atithi Devo Bhavah (Sanskrit: अतिथि देवो भवः) which means “Guest is God”.

Now, like all foreigners, NRIs and PIOs are our “guests” in India and so as “guests” they must be treated better than the “host” Resident Indians.

Or maybe this Hindi saying is more relevant: Ghar Ki Murgi Daal Barabar ( घर की मुर्गी दाल बराबर )

Whatever the reason, the fact is that we do have a fascination for the “foreign” tag.  No wonder there is such a craze among the younger generation to go abroad.