Why is it called wrong by those who call it so? Their point of view is - You utilized all the resources of this land to come up, so you should only work for the upliftment of this country and enhancement of its resources and not someone else's. They say, it's not ethical to say, "I will take everything from this place and when it comes to giving back I will give it to someone else!". If you look at it from that perspective, it is correct. If you look at it from a different perspective, it gives a different answer.
Gone are the days of seeing our population as a pain in the wrong place. It is becoming a gain in the right place now. It is becoming our strength now. Even today there are lots of talented youth that are running from pillar to post for good jobs here. Only in a few fields they get good recognition and rewards they deserve. There are still lots of poor boys and girls who don't have the required money power or political power to get what they want. They have been cursing this nation and for being part of it. If they can get good recognition and rewards somewhere else, what is wrong with it? Isn't it good for us all? A country doesn't just mean its land area, right? Isn't it good if its citizens do well irrespective of whichever part of the world it is in?
On the other hand, countries like the US have plenty of money and running short of human resources. They have lots of jobs but there are no people to do them. Those who are there are not able to do a good job. It's not that they are useless. They have their own expertise. They are experts in them. But, there are also other areas where our guys can do better job than them. By sending our people there, we can reduce the gap between the demand and supply in the global arena. It would help achieve balance at the overall level. So, when people go from here, it helps to distribute both money and manpower across the world. Isn't it good?
As a country, it might look like a loss for us in the near future, but it looks to be good for the humanity in the long run. If the parents can't feed their kids, what is wrong if someone else is able to do it? That too, when the someone else is able to pamper your kids! Instead, we can allow them to go ahead and look at sharing the wealth they generate by going abroad with the less fortunate ones back home. We may revise our laws accordingly.
You may say, whatever is the case, a loss is a loss - losing our valuable human resources means nothing else! I understand... but I would like to bring in a different perspective here. A sensitive one that makes us emotional though! The ones who oppose reservations say - "I don't get what I deserve here. If I go abroad, I can compensate for that. Then you give my seats to someone else who is in need of more opportunities here!". Doesn't it sound sensible?! These foreign opportunities might give them some relief, right?
All those who support it say - "It's not that only those who come in merit have talent. Even we have a lot of talent. It's just that we need more opportunities and exposure!". So, when a lot of people go abroad for jobs, it gives more opportunities for the less fortunate. When someone who scored better than me could not get what I got in this land, isn't it good if they make their fortunes somewhere else? Why should we say they shouldn't do that as well? Why don't we realize that we can do the same good job with the plenty of talent that we have got?
But, the only problem it would create is - more inequality. Those who go abroad would surely lead a better life than those who got stuck here, which means more inequality. But, that doesn't mean that we should oppose some of us going somewhere else for a better living. Gradually, when we all get exposed to the western cultures, we may lose interest in creating inequality among people. It's anyway going off these days. It's not as bad as it was in the last generation. I think, it is because of our urbanization and westernization. It's a problem of this land. The western world is little ahead of us on this. So, even this could be an additional boon.
Hence, let's not look at it as an unethical act until everyone else in India is settled with some good job here and until we start feeling that there is shortage of people because of people going abroad. Instead of all of us struggling together, isn't it good if some of us could go somewhere else and do better... live happier? If the remaining lot can also get better opportunities with their leaving, then what is wrong with it? Isn't it actually great... a blessing in disguise?!
Besides all these, it will reduce the population density. Isn't it unfair to accommodate 17% of the world's population in 2% of its land area? Isn't it unfair to accommodate one sixth of the world's population in one fiftieth of its land area? Isn't unfair to give only 2.5 kilo meter of land to an Indian when the world's per capita land area is 22 kilo meter? The world's population density is 45 per square kilo meter whereas it's 360 per square kilo meter in India. In Australia, it's 3. In Canada, it's 4. In Russia, it's 8. One of the reasons for this is our weather. We have got the best weather for living and reproduction. When there are people who are ready to even compromise on that for more money and other comforts, why should we stop them? That too, when there are much more additional benefits...
* From the 1998 diary... So, if something is not relevant to today's context, please bear with it. :)