An Indian software consultant in Sweden has sparked a discussion on why many Indians who leave the country are reluctant to return, citing a wide array of advantages and disadvantages between living in India versus the West.
Ankur, a software development consultant based in Sweden, recently ignited a lively debate on social media regarding the longstanding question of why Indians often choose to remain abroad rather than return home. His commentary, shared via X, came in response to a post by Dr. Rajeshwari Iyer, an Indo-American who compared Indian and Chinese immigrants in the West. Dr. Iyer observed that while Chinese immigrants often return to their home country, Indians seem to prefer staying abroad.
Ankur’s extensive 20-point analysis of the situation includes both attractions of the West and deterrents within India that influence this decision. Opening his argument, Ankur highlighted the disparities in pay and living standards between the regions. He pointed out that Western countries provide “reliable basics” like consistent electricity, clean water, and fast internet, which are significant factors when Indians consider where to reside long-term.
Among the attractions listed, Ankur mentioned the higher quality of life, including better health and safety standards, as well as a significant economic advantage in terms of “dollar savings and stock options,” which help in wealth accumulation. He argued that such benefits draw Indians toward Western countries, which he described as more meritocratic with stronger passports compared to India’s offerings.
Ankur contends that India actively pushes people away through systemic inefficiencies. His list starts with the country’s notorious red tape, which can delay processes by weeks or even months. This bureaucratic inefficiency is often compounded by corruption and inconsistent changes in policy, tax, and import rules, which further frustrate residents.
The consultant also addressed the lack of civic sense among the general population, noting that issues like littering and public spitting are prevalent. Additionally, infrastructural weaknesses such as broken pavements, frequent power outages, inadequate public transportation, and water shortages are critical considerations for Indians abroad contemplating a return.
An absence of meritocracy in India was another critical point in Ankur’s critique. He cited social issues like hooliganism and moral policing as factors that deter potential returnees, further enhancing the appeal of residing in Western environments.
In summing up his argument, Ankur drew a stark comparison between women’s safety in the West and in India. He asserted that women’s safety “after dark” is far better in Western countries and claimed that due to safety concerns, “99% of Indian women never want to come back permanently.”
Ankur encapsulated his points by acknowledging the emotional complexities the diaspora faces in making such decisions. He concluded that the attractions of living abroad often seem more compelling than the emotional ties to India, influencing many Indians to choose not to return home permanently.
According to New India Abroad, Ankur’s insights have prompted widespread reflection among Indians both domestically and overseas, fueling discussion about the factors that continue to drive migration from India toward Western nations.