Nationality of voting members

@vidyut it is not about stupid or smart choice, but about taking responsibility of our choices. It is easy to suggest something for someone else to follow, but hard to make those changes ourselves.

Its about self determination. It is unlikely a sanghi or khap panchayat type will find our basic principles and constitution interesting. It is not an association of random people, but those who have some ideas in common and want to build a society together on those values.

I didn't get the part about responsibility of choices. How does nationality make anyone responsible or irresponsible?

I would like to point out, @praveenarimbrathod that there isn't anything in our constitution that a Khap or Sanghi would find unacceptable. Just like there is nothing that forbids membership to non-Indians.

So far.

Self determination works among members of anything. Members of Indian Pirates can self determine what Indian Pirates does regardless of nationality. And if we are to fixate on the "Indian" of it as a question of membership itself, the group is called Indian pirates and there are already non-Indians here. So clearly the "Indian" is with regard to agenda. Non-Indians are participating, contributing. So why deny them rights to self-determination here?

As someone who often contributes ideas to various initiatives I find worthy, I know that I don't have to be a member of an identity to care about them, or have wise choices. Would I contribute to some place where I could give ideas but not be allowed in seeing them through? Short term, on specific issue, yes. Long term, I wouldn't feel a sense of belonging. I'd be a second class citizen. I'd find somewhere more satisfying to be.

If a non-Indian can't comment on Indian causes, because they don't understand the realities of being here, will only women vote for issues on women's rights, or caste based voting for issues related to caste, or religion, etc?

Surely you don't understand what it is like to be a woman in India. I don't understand what it is like to be a tribal in India. Should people be allowed to vote only on things they know first hand?

I may sound argumentative, but I think I am bringing up something important on inclusion and diversity.

I think every unnecessary exclusion limits the scope of an organization. If you are legally required to have only Indians - as a political party is, then it makes sense to exclude, and transparently. Otherwise it is just some unconscious hierarchy that states some members are more legitimate than others.

@michaeljohnsinclai maybe I am nitpicking here, but unless you have a better reason than "let them decide whether I have rights", I suggest you reconsider your "abstain" vote. Your current rights give you a vote, or you wouldn't be able to abstain either. Would you set aside your rights over opinion of others currently your equals or is it that you genuinely don't know whether you should have a say?

If you believe you shouldn't have a voice in this, for some well thought out reason, I apologize.

@vidyut discussions and giving ideas is not an end in itself. How can non indians contribute to seeing their ideas to action? They cannot participate as full citizens because of the existing reality. Wishing away borders don't exist does not take away the borders.

Men commenting on women's issues can play a role in bringing those ideas a reality, same for caste, religion. The issue is nit whether they can think like Indians, they cannot contribute like Indians on the ground. They will always be holding a remote control. If we decide to go out on the streets to campaign, they can't join in. I don't think you are under the illusion that good ideas will automatically turn in to reality like magic without action on the ground.

@praveenarimbrathod I don't think this community can do much beyond getting a coherent vision and a few minor protests, most of which are online anyway.

When we actually start to do meaningful action, we will still need to form a political party. The process of forming it and being registered with the EC etc itself gives you a credibility (not to mention allows funding to afford proper responsible role bearers at least and ideally funds actions, protests, etc) that an online group does not have. Even if we never contest elections, our area of interest is squarely political and we will have to form some kind of entity. If not political party, then at the very least an association.

Till then, without funding or any largescale membership or significant reach among citizens of India, what we are, in fact, is an incubation chamber. The nourishment for that is far more important than the stage for a far away performance. What we need is ideas, not locations of members. We rarely have enough members in any single place for action on the ground anyway, and most members cannot participate. What difference does it make if they cannot participate from London or Mumbai?

How many times, Praveen, have you participated and signed petitions created by citizens of the US and what nots to senators in the US with regard to some law to be passed in the US that impacts free speech?

Why the assumption that you can understand what is appropriate law for the US, but someone else can't understand India?

@praveenarimbrathod Sorry I missed the vote deadline, but just to add my 2 pence worth, I sort of agree with @vidyut - I am not sure we should try to limit membership to Indians. I, for example, do not live in India - but am of Indian descent. Some would class me as a foreigner - and so I and people like me would likely be excluded.