PIO v OCI: subject to civil/criminal law

Merchant

Nick, I think the distinction is that to be an OCI, you first have to be a PIO (assuming I'm reading this link properly).

The OCI scheme just gives PIOs the same visiting, investment, and property rights as NRIs.

The dual citizenship thing isn't operative because OCIs don't surrender their prior citizenships and whiteys like you and I aren't eligible.

The point of these various schemes is not what they describe (since white spouses can get PIO cards) but the benefits they offer, which mostly have to do with investment rights and property acquisition.

The interesting subtext to this is that the government assumes that Indian citizenship is of no value to anyone except a brown person with Indian heritage (or a spouse)--a racialized thinking--unlike the US or Britain, say, which views citizenship as universally desirable. This isn't a judgment or indictment. I just wonder what these schemes will look like in 20-50 years.

crvlvr

Unlike the US or Britain, India does offer a true dual citizenship. the OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) is a misnomer. It's more like permanent PIO card. The only way one can get Indian citizenship is by being born into it, or giving up their citizenship to any other country that they have and meeting the appropriate criteria . Nothing racial about India's policy. Even Sonia Gandhi was granted Indian citizenship much to the dismay of opposing political leaders.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1820/18200340.htm

Merchant

Yeah. Like I said--spouse.

abfab

What makes this complicated is that the PIO card scheme ALSO gives you virtually the same visiting, investment, and property rights as NRIs.

So far, the OCI card doesn't appear to give much extra over a PIO card except that it lasts a lifetime instead of 15 years (and you don't need to register if you stay over 6 months).

The problem with the OCI card is not how the Indian government views it, but how the government of your foreign passport views it.

The worry for many of us elligible for an OCI card is that they could decide to interprete the OCI card as duel nationality and then deny you access to consular services (for what its worth).

They cant do this if you only hold a PIO card.

No one has yet been able to come up with a definate answer as to what the position is for OCI card holders with regard to their own governments.

I would really rather have an OCI card, but until someone somewhere comes up with a definate answer I think many of us are holding back.

the irish indian

I have a PIO Card the reason i dont have OCI is simply because it wasnt available at the time.
OCI is better value as it lasts for life.
Both do not effect your present nationality whatsoever .
All the information is given on the Indian Embassy website.
You dont need to have a PIO Card before applying for OCI as long as you are a person of indian origin (covers 4 generations) but if you have a PIO the fee is only from memory $18.

OCI is NOT dual nationality its really a lifetime visa allowing you NRI privileges and easy access to your country of origin.

__________________
"If you cry because the sun has gone out of you life, your tears will prevent you from seeing the stars" Rabindranath Tagore

akt

They won't. If you are traveling on their passport, you are their citizen. OCI is just a visa.

However, the quality of consular service depends on how important and well-connected you are back home. Unless you get caught up in something so visible and high-profile that your governement would be embarrassed into helping you.

Nick-H

Didn't you intend to type a not in that sentence? I'm sure that's what you meant to say, especially as the rest of your post is in accordance with that.

OCI is for those who really were pio in small letters --- persons of actual Indian origin... people who previously held Indian citizenship or whose ancestors within the stated definition did.

It is not really racial --- it doesn't state anything about brown skin anywhere! A white or chinese ex-citizen would be eligible to apply (according to my understanding) equally with an 'Indian' indian.

In a sense it is National rather than racial, but I can't see anything to complain about in that --- what else is citizenship all about?

__________________
.


Just one member of the IndiaMike Mod Team

Dilliwala

Bill Aitken and Tom Alter are Indian citizens and neither of them had/have Indan spouses. But they got theirs in the 60's and 70's so maybe things were different then.

Certainly at one time, upto 1987, the law was that if u were born in the Republic, that was sufficent for Indian citizenship. Thereafter the requirement for one parent to be Indian was added.
Which brings me to another point - it's not clear whether someone who was born here before 1987 with a foreign nationality, but continued living here long enough to meet residency requirements, wud get Indian nationality by virtue of birth, if they applied for it now.

An interesting case is the writer Ruskin Bond. He was born in 1934 in India, his father was white/English/British, an RAF officer. His mother I think was Anglo-Indian, I don't know what her citizenship/status was. Ruskin spent many years in London after Independence, possibly with a British pp. Yet I've never heard of him having any trouble getting his Indian pp when he came back to India for good. I presume he got one on the basis of birth. Or maybe he always had it, certainly in the old days Indian pp's freely allowed citizens to enter, live and work in Britain.

manojb

They would. Citizenship by birth attached at birth and has not been taken away by subsequent legislation since all of them were prospective and not retrospective in effect. But, according to legislation then in force, voluntary assumption of a foreign citizenship revoked the Indian citizenship. So, if said foreign national, say, took a foreign passport, he would have lost his Indian citizenship.

manojb

Article 5 of the Constitution:

5. Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution.—At the commencement of this Constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and—
(a) who was born in the territory of India; or
(b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or
(c) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement,
shall be a citizen of India.

So, if Ruskin Bond was domiciled in India on 26th January 1950, he would be a citizen of India (since he satisfies condition (a)).

Even if not domiciled in India, Article 8 provided another route:

8. Rights of citizenship of certain persons of Indian origin residing outside India.— Notwithstanding anything in article 5, any person who or either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted), and who is ordinarily residing in any country outside India as so defined shall be deemed to be a citizen of India if he has been registered as a citizen of India by the diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country where he is for the time being residing on an application made by him therefor to such diplomatic or consular representative, whether before or after the commencement of this Constitution, in the form and manner prescribed by the Government of the Dominion of India or the Government of India.

capt_mahajan

manojb, you lost me at or around the 'notwithstanding'

Now, if it had been the party of the first part...

Dilliwala

Thanks for your posts, manojb.
It's quite clear now, "notwithstanding" the legal language . Are u a lawyer, btw?

I wud presume then that Mr. Bond never took on a British pp, although he certainly was eligible thru his father.