Our mania for Indian origin people in the list of richest and powerful

- Forbes' richest Americans list has 4 Indian-origin men
- Three Indian-origin people among Singapore's richest list
- Bobby Jindal set to recreate history
- Indian-origin executives head a dozen Fortune 500 firms
- Sonia Gandhi and Indya Nooyi among world 100 most powerful women

These are some of the news headlines that keep coming in media. Most of the news have same purpose, to boost our India pride, but have different Individual in focus or a different year. For example, every year as soon Forbes will publish the list of richest people in the world or America or Britain or any other part of the world, we will search for someone with any relation to India. Relation can be as remote as 4th generation Indian-origin from Kenya or Uganda or Fiji or Mauritius or any country on the earth (we have not yet started considering species from Moon or Mars or Venus).

It is difficult to understand the purpose of these news with hyphenated 'Indian-origin'. No doubt most of these individuals have achieved something extra-ordinary in their life and that is commendable indeed. Bobby Jindal has become governor in a very orthodox and not-so-pro-minority state. Vikarm Pandit became CEO of world's largest financial institution. Amar bose has created best quality sound systems.

For their achievements they do not need to be told that they have Indian origin. In fact many of them will not recognise that they have any Indian origin. If we start including everyone in 'Indian origin' category by their name and/or skin colour or body structure or spiritual believes then probably 40% percentage of the world population will fit into our broad definition of 'Indian origin'. If we use the definition of PIO (People of Indian Origin) from Ministry of Overseas Indian affairs, I think many of the British people can also be included as 'Indian origin' because it says

"he/she or either of his/her parents or grand parents or great grand parents was born in and permanently resident in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 and other territories that became part of India thereafter provided neither was at any time a citizen of Pakistan and Bangladesh".

Risk with mania for looking Indians is that we include Mother Teresa and Sonia Gandhi and possibly Rudyard kipling in our list as well. We consider Mother Teresa Indian because she not only spend her life in India but she she worked for the humanity and particularly Indian poor and disadvantage people. She got completely integrated in India. Sonia Gandhi is apparantly trying to integrate with India as well though there are controversies of her owning her only house in Italy. None of them are celebrated to in their home or country of origin. In fact most of the Italians do not know much, if they know anything, about Sonia Gandhi. It was same about Mother Teresa in Albania.

Sociologists broadly divide people living in different countries from their country of origin between assimilationists and atavists. Assimilationists are those who try to adopt the culture, language, accent and every possible thing of the country they are living in. Sonia Gandhi and Mother Teresa lies in that category. By the same definition Bobby Jindal and Amar Bose lies in the same category. Bobby Jindal has not only adopted the culture of the country but also name and religion.

Atavists are those who do not want to integrate with the country of their residence. Generally they are first generation immigrants. But we should definitely leave the second generation from our maniac love for 'Indian' achievments worldwide. India is a great country in its own rights and we can found and celebrate it that way only.