In recent months, two contradictory perceptions of the global, non-resident Indian are beginning to take shape in the West. The first—and undeniably positive—image is that of the well-educated, tech-savvy and hardworking Indian. This class of high-earning professionals is seen as an asset to society and is actively courted by countries in search of skill upgradation. The second, and parallel perception is that of the fat-cat Indian adept at manipulating western governments for narrow, personal advantage. If last year saw a fierce controversy over the manner in which the London-based Hinduja brothers secured British passports, the past fortnight has witnessed a singular British preoccupation with the world’s richest Indian—the London-based L.N. Mittal. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been accused by his detractors of being swayed by a pre-election Mittal donation to the Labour Party and promoting the Indian entrepreneur’s successful bid for a steel plant in Romania.

Whether Downing Street was guilty of encouraging cronyism or was engaging in the perfectly legitimate activity of promoting the interests of a British resident will be the subject of political sparring in Westminster. What concerns India is the manner in which successful Indians are being subjected to a lynch-mob hysteria. Despite the absence of any illegality in Mittal’s conduct, there is an underlying suggestion that Indian businessmen are naturally prone to subverting the niceties of public life in the West and promoting sleaze. Behind the slur is also an unmistakable sense of racist envy—Mittal has been targeted in equal measure for his adroit networking and his grand lifestyle. British social attitudes, quite familiar with the feudal opulence of Indian maharajas, haven’t adjusted to the new wealth of Indian capitalists.

There is an added myopia behind Britain’s sanctimonious self-image. If Mittal was guilty of furious political networking, why did he need to do it? The answer is obvious: Britain, like India, is a very status conscious society where success depends as much on ability as connections. Why this should be so in an avowedly egalitarian opportunity society is for Britons to ponder over. In the ultimate analysis, the Mittal controversy tells us more about Britain than it reveals of Indians.