The >deportation in November 2014 of young Christine Mehta who was researching human rights for Amnesty International (India) in Kashmir, raises some troubling questions about the engagement of the world’s largest democracy with research on human rights. The episode also >raises concerns about how the government treats Persons of Indian Origin and Overseas Citizens of India who seek to test India’s track record on human rights with ground research. Government guidelines for visa-seekers serve as useful indicators in showing how far a government can go to protect its short-term interests. Sadly, the guidelines are not very helpful when it comes to defining what research is. The dictionary defines it as systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions. The catch-all word used in visa guidelines refers to all kinds of research, without spelling out the specifics. What does one make of the rules, then? Do we conclude from some recent actions of the government that while the authorities are comfortable with medical research, they are not so with research on human rights or environmental issues — considering the manner in which some people have been deported of late? The Central government has been sensitive enough in the matter of sending fact-finding missions to the Valley. Its unease with organisations researching the human rights track record is also well-chronicled. Ms. Mehta joins a list that includes film-makers and journalists. Do we therefore conclude that the government wants no news other than what it endorses, especially from States blighted by insurgency and the Maoist movement, and where the presence of the armed forces is an everyday reality? When India is on the information highway, it will be tough to suppress things for too long.
India never tires of the sobriquet of the world’s largest democracy, but the robustness of a democracy is tested by its ability to take criticism. Unfortunately, the government, whether it is the UPA’s or the NDA’s, has displayed a prickly disposition when it comes to issues of human rights, labour or environment. Governmental transgressions have been critiqued at home. Given the deep-rooted tradition of our democracy, external criticism should also not be construed as being inimical to India's interests. It was Amnesty that campaigned for the freedom of some of the stalwarts of the anti-Emergency movement who are now with the BJP. It is the same organisation that continues to look into the human rights track record of governments in Kashmir, Chhattisgarh and Manipur. And even more ironical is that some of those who criticise Ms. Mehta’s deportation now were at the helm when an American broadcaster was deported for allegedly overstepping in Kashmir. India needs to re-set its tolerance levels, now.
