(Re)membering diaspora: Uneven geographies of Indian dual citizenship |
| |
| Institution: | School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom;Department of Anthropology, Yale University, 10 Sachem Street, Room 126, New Haven, CT 06511, USA;Infectious Diseases Unit, Department of General Medicine, The Royal Children''s Hospital, Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia;Infectious Diseases Unit, Department of General Medicine, The Royal Children''s Hospital, Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia;Murdoch Children''s Research Institute, Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia;Department of Pediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia;Infectious Diseases Unit, Department of General Medicine, The Royal Children''s Hospital, Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia;University of Kentucky, Geography Department, 817 Patterson Office Tower, Lexington, KY 40506, United States;School of Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education, Cochrane Medical Education Centre, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, CF14 4XW, Cardiff, UK;Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK;University College London Medical School, London, UK;School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom;Institut für Optimierung und Operations Research, Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | Although the concept of diaspora is sometimes regarded as oppositional to the interests of existing political regimes, we argue that it can become a site where the negotiation of new terms of membership embraces the transnational and de-territorialized networks of overseas populations. Drawing on work on transnational governance, we explore the uneven geographies that accompany India's recent discussions of its dual citizenship provisions. Constructions of diaspora membership are revealed by mapping the discourses contained within the Dual Citizenship legislation of 2003, the 2003 Pravasi Bharatiya Divas (Overseas India Day) campaign, and the 2001 report of the Diaspora Committee onto the case of South Africa. The results suggest that the construction of diaspora membership focuses on professional success, ecumenical Hinduism, and multicultural incorporation. We also trace how diaspora membership betrays a continuing anxiety over the terms of Indianness. The results remind us that diasporic times and spaces mediate transnational governance. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
