Indian-Origin Professor Denied Entry into India

A Misstep in India’s Democratic Journey

Newsreel Asia Insight #144
Feb. 27, 2024

An Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) and a professor at the University of Westminster in the U.K., Nitasha Kaul, has been denied entry into India to speak at a conference in Bengaluru. The event questions the boundaries of state power and the rights of individuals in a global context and the required balance between national security measures and the freedom of academic expression.

Prof. Kaul, a faculty member in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Westminster, was invited by the Karnataka government to speak at a conference titled “The Constitution and Unity of India” in Bengaluru, as reported by The Hindu.

Despite possessing all necessary and valid documentation, including a U.K. passport and OCI status, she was reportedly refused entry by the Central government. And the refusal came without explicit reasons from immigration officials, who allegedly indicated they were acting under orders from higher authorities in Delhi.

The OCI status provides a foreign national of Indian origin certain rights and privileges, such as the ability to travel to India without a visa, the right to work and live in India, and the ability to own property in India. However, OCI status does not equate to full citizenship and does not provide the right to vote or hold public office.

The Government of India retains the right to deny entry to an OCI cardholder for various reasons, primarily under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the rules formulated under it, including but not limited to security concerns, violation of any law or visa conditions or for any other reason deemed necessary by the government. The OCI guidelines specify conditions under which the OCI status can be cancelled or entry into India can be denied.

The Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of External Affairs are the primary governmental bodies responsible for the administration of OCI services, including the issuance of OCI cards, processing of applications and enforcement of the relevant provisions related to OCI status.

The Karnataka state government, led by the Congress party, aimed to facilitate a discussion on democratic and constitutional values, highlighting the state’s commitment to these ideals. Conversely, the Central government’s actions suggest a different set of priorities, possibly influenced by concerns over national security or the political implications of Prof. Kaul’s criticisms of certain ideologies.

Prof. Kaul’s academic work and public intellectualism, particularly her advocacy for liberal democratic values and criticism of authoritarian tendencies, sit at the heart of her personal mission. The Karnataka government’s interest apparently lies in promoting a pluralistic and inclusive dialogue on the constitution, while the Central government’s actions appear to reflect an interest in controlling the narrative around sensitive topics or individuals perceived as controversial.

Although granting entry into the country is the prerogative of the Government of India, the incident may signal a worrying trend towards the restriction of academic freedom and the silencing of dissenting voices. It raises concerns about the space available for open dialogue and critical discussion within the country. Such actions could potentially deter international academics and intellectuals from engaging with India, impacting the country’s reputation as a vibrant democracy that cherishes freedom of expression.

Moreover, this situation reveals the tension between state sovereignty and global intellectual exchange. From a broader perspective, it highlights the challenges faced by democracies in balancing security concerns with the imperative to promote a free exchange of ideas. The denial of entry to Prof. Kaul, based on her academic and ideological stance, raises questions about the extent to which dissent is tolerated within the democratic framework.

The event serves points to an ongoing struggle between authority and liberty. It illustrates the fine line governments tread between protecting their interests and upholding the principles of democracy and free speech.

Efforts towards ensuring national security are understandable, but not at the expense of stifling academic freedom or curtailing the rights of individuals to express their views, especially when those views are invited for discussion by a state government. The dialogue between different viewpoints is essential for the health of any democracy. It is through such exchanges that societies grow, learn and evolve.