Unlike Ireland, Israel, China and many other countries, governments in independent India for long took only a limited and furtive interest in overseas Indians. Several factors were responsible. The early migrants, now called Persons of Indian Origin (PIO), had only a limited interest in India. They were neither economically well off nor politically influential, and had little to offer. Most of their countries of settlement were either fighting for independence or had only recently acquired it and had no international clout. Their project of nation-building demanded total loyalty from Indians. The Indian government was anxious to cultivate their support and was also apprehensive that its concern might expose the PIOs to charges of disloyalty.

The depth of this attitude was brought home to Jawaharlal Nehru when Indians in Burma and Sri Lanka were threatened with expulsion. The Sri Lankan prime minister wrote to Nehru in 1948: "I admire the affection they (Indians) still have for their mother country, but note with regret the absence of even the beginning of a similar affection for the country of adoption." Successive Indian governments thought it wise to adopt a policy of studied indifference to PIOs, doing no more than raising a murmur of concern when they were shabbily treated.

Thanks to the second phase migration that began in the early 1960s, the relation between India and overseas Indians has changed dramatically. Indians are now settled in the advanced countries, which are mature, self-confident democracies not particularly worried about dual loyalty. They are used to immigrant communities retaining ties with their countries of origin and acting as pressure groups. This is particularly true of the US and Canada, and is becoming a common practice even in non-immigrant societies like Britain and other European nations. Citizens do worry about the number and impact of immigrants, but seldom about their loyalty. It is striking that no government in the West has raised an eyebrow the various NRI-oriented business schemes floated by the Indian government, or at their political representations on Indian issues.

Overseas Indians too have been cautious not to provoke charges of disloyalty. Though much of their philanthropy is directed to India, they have pledged commitment to their countries of settlement. They may cheer the visiting Indian cricket team in the UK, but generally support England in all other cases. As sport becomes the site and emblem of nationalist sentiments, these things do matter.

This is not to deny that there have been occasional tensions between overseas Indians and their host societies. Some demand total assimilation and accuse immigrants of retaining native customs of cultural and even political disloyalty. Such voices, however, are generally condemned. On their part, overseas Indians are keen to adapt and keep a low profile. This is as true of Indian Muslims and Sikhs as of Hindus, often described as the most invisible minority because they tend not to make strident demands.

In the West today, the concern is about the communal tensions in India spreading to their shores. Indian immigrants are showing disturbing signs of communal polarisation. It even extends to the second and third generations. After last year's events in Gujarat, Indian Muslims increasingly see themselves more as Muslims than as Indians, and turn to the Islamic ummah for support. Hindus do the same. Both do talk of India but have different attitudes-Hindus claim exclusive ownership and Muslims bemoan their loss of it. I recently wrote what I thought was a balanced article on Gujarat in which I criticised both the Muslim and Hindu leaderships. It provoked a fierce attack from some Hindus-they even called me Maulana Parekh. Such communalisation enables western governments to play off one Indian community against another, and exposes them to charges of supporting militant groups in India and being unable to live in a democratic society.

The Indian government needs to appreciate that as the diaspora becomes a significant factor in Indian political life, Indian politics reflects on diasporic politics. Visiting Indian politicians should scrupulously avoid communal partisanship. The Indian diplomatic missions should act as a bridge between India and its diaspora, and might find it helpful to set up advisory councils that act as discussion fora. India can't cultivate its diaspora without making changes in its attitudes, sensibilities and institutions.

Bhikhu Parekh is a member of UK's House of Lords and Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics