by Dr Qudsia Gani
Foreign exposure alone does not confer superiority; integrity, capability, and self-awareness matter far more than borrowed sophistication.
People go abroad to gain exposure to new opportunities and better prospects in higher education, employment, or business partnerships. Quite a few individuals with strong determination settle there successfully and gradually become so well-acquainted with their surroundings that they appear almost native to the place. However, the majority return not with the success they had envisioned, but with the burden of unrealised ambitions weighing heavily upon them.
Generally speaking, foreign countries welcome international students for the financial benefits they bring through tuition fees and related expenditures. Yet, when it comes to offering equal access to employment opportunities, these societies often remain far more reserved. Regardless of one’s credentials, a foreigner is seldom considered as deserving as the natives unless their abilities are extraordinarily exceptional. In short, the capital inflow that students bring with them when seeking education is not always matched by equal employment opportunities.
However, I intend to highlight something even more tragic and pitiable: those who leave home full of hope, yet are denied both academic achievement and stable employment by circumstance, poor choices, or sheer misfortune. Instead of confronting this disappointment honestly, some attempt to conceal their failure beneath exaggerated stories and affected superiority, hoping to impress or deceive those who never left home. They adopt borrowed accents, flaunt trivial foreign habits, and construct narratives designed to dazzle the natives.
One cannot help but pity them, not merely for their failure, but for their compulsion to hide it behind pretence, thereby losing the opportunity to reclaim dignity through sincerity. Their inflated sense of superiority blinds them to reality. It is sheer arrogance to assume that people back home can be easily deceived simply because they never moved abroad, whether by choice or circumstance.
What is even more troubling is their tendency to underestimate accomplished and perceptive individuals within their own societies, people who are often far more aware, resilient, and discerning than they imagine. Their notion of “superiority,” based merely on geography or ethnicity, does not withstand scrutiny.
What appears to be an advantage enjoyed by Western countries is often the result of historical, economic, and institutional factors such as early industrialisation, strong research funding, stable governance, and access to global networks that attract talent from across the world. The phenomenon of “brain drain” explains part of their progress. Human ability itself is widely distributed, though opportunities and institutional support are not.
At the same time, many Asian countries are rapidly advancing in technology, education, and innovation, producing world-class institutions and talent. Strong and self-assured individuals are not easily influenced because their confidence stems from a deep awareness of their own worth and an unwillingness to be misled. They recognise that failure disguised as sophistication remains failure, and they refuse to validate it through imitation or submission.
Calling oneself “US-returned,” “German-returned,” or “foreign-returned” should not function as a fashionable label, but rather as a reminder that one returned rather than being retained. Foreign attire, accents, or hairstyles are unlikely to impress thoughtful people unless accompanied by genuine intellectual or professional excellence, whether in quantum physics, abstract mathematics, or any other meaningful contribution.
The iconic song Jab Zero Diya Mere Bharat Ne, Tab Duniya Ko Ginti Aayee revolves around a similar theme of civilisational confidence. Likewise, the movie Purab Aur Paschim presents a narrative in which the protagonist travels abroad and encounters Indians who have distanced themselves from their roots by adopting superficial versions of Western lifestyles. The film powerfully argues that reconnecting with one’s roots is not regression, but a reaffirmation of values that can coexist with global exposure.
One may also examine other examples to test this argument. Europe, for instance, often presents itself as a global standard-bearer for women’s rights, citing progressive policies regarding parental leave, workplace equality, and political representation. Yet this self-image deserves scrutiny, especially when contrasted with the United States. The fact that the US has not yet elected a woman president is undeniably significant and reveals the paradox that symbolic milestones do not always align with systemic realities.
The Epstein scandal exposed disturbing realities regarding the treatment and perception of women and girls within elite circles. In contrast, it was the Iranian mathematician Maryam Mirzakhani who became the first woman to win the Fields Medal in 2014. She was later followed by the Ukrainian mathematician Maryna Viazovska in 2022, not by an American or German recipient during those milestones. Similarly, scientists and scholars from non-Western societies continue to make substantial contributions in advanced fields such as quantum physics and mathematics.
Several European countries still struggle with entrenched racial, cultural, and gender biases. The United Kingdom, for instance, has yet to elect a Prime Minister from a Black African or Caribbean background. Many such examples demonstrate that no society possesses a flawless moral record.
Therefore, sermons on women’s liberation and human equality should not come from platforms overshadowed by visible hypocrisy or from societies that themselves continue to grapple with deep structural inequalities.
(The author teaches physics at Government Degree College, Pattan. Ideas are personal.)
