Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
A candid message from a UK-based technology professional of Indian origin has reignited the debate on the power of passports, global mobility and the daily frictions faced by Indians working across borders.
In an article on
Kushwaha recounted how what should have been a simple trip to surprise a close friend in Ireland turned into a bureaucratic exercise. Instead of booking a ticket, he said he found himself navigating visa portals. Having already traveled to Berlin a few days earlier, he explained that he could not join friends in Dublin for Christmas, not because of cost or time constraints, but because he did not have enough days left to apply for another visa.
He also described routine experiences at the airport where others quickly went through immigration formalities while he stood in line with folders of documents he had already submitted several times. Schengen visa applications, he said, often feel like a full-time job, involving bank statements, cover letters, reservations and repeated explanations for ordinary travel.
Beyond mobility, Kushwaha linked his frustration to broader structural issues. He said investments in India once looked attractive on paper, but currency depreciation has gradually eroded real returns, making “good returns” much less rewarding. He also highlighted environmental concerns, noting that poor air quality is felt physically, reflected in global rankings, and yet appears resistant to significant change.
On day-to-day governance, he noted that banking and KYC processes in India still seem stuck in another decade, marked by paperwork, delays, repeat visits and resubmissions.
Kushwaha stressed that his message was not motivated by resentment. “I’m not angry. I’m tired,” he wrote, adding that the problem was friction, the cumulative mental and logistical toll of working globally while possessing a passport that limits time and bandwidth. He concluded that, in his view, national pride cannot replace global mobility.
The post struck a chord, sparking a flood of responses that echoed, challenged and expanded on his argument. One user wrote: “I feel the same way. The fact that I can’t travel not because I don’t have money, but because I have a crappy passport that requires a visa for every place is very frustrating. Now I have to establish immigration history before applying for a major visa or else it will be rejected. And we all know what happens when visas are rejected.”
Another speaker took a longer-term historical view, saying that “in 50 years, mobility linked to birthplace (passport) will be seen as a surprising and unusual thing of the past, like smoking in restaurants.” A third response focused on opportunity costs, noting that “visa restrictions like these limit mobility and networking, impacting personal and professional opportunities.”
Not all reactions agreed with the implicit conclusion that exit is the solution. One user responded by writing: “I feel the frustration that many feel. But systems don’t change when people leave, they change when people stay, question and push for reform. Global mobility is important, as is building better institutions at home. Leaving helps individuals, lasting change requires a collective effort.”
