In the absence of any proper legal framework, decisions in India on granting or refusing political asylum are based purely on political considerations. While the latter are important, they cannot be unjust, immoral or inhuman
It was late September 2008. Then US President George W Bush’s popularity was perhaps at its lowest ebb both within and outside his country. But that did not deter Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh from showering lavish praise on the lameduck President.
“People of India deeply love you”, Mr Singh told Mr Bush during a warm and cordial meeting at the Oval office on a rainy and cloudy evening, much to the amusement of the accompanying Indian media and embarrassment of millions of television viewers in the country. Normally not given to loquaciousness, Mr Singh was at his expressive best and heaped praise on his host.
Almost five years later, Union Minister for External Affairs Salman Khurshid, on a foreign tour, before even confirming receipt of an asylum request from fugitive US whistleblower Edward Snowden, jumped the gun and pompously declared that India is not an “open house” for asylum seekers.
Going further, he also sought to play down reports of India being the fifth largest target for the US snooping programme which was exposed by Mr Snowden. “This is not scrutiny and access to actual messages. It is only computer analysis of patterns of calls and emails that are being sent. It is not actually snooping specifically on the content of anybody’s message or conversation”, said Mr Khurshid, even as Washington, DC’s closest allies in Europe were taking cognisance of the reports.
Earlier, anti-secrecy activist Julian Assange had said that he was disappointed and saddened that India, known for upholding human rights, never responded to his pleas for asylum despite “several requests”. The Ministry of External Affairs denied even receiving any appeal from the Editor-in-Chief of Wikileaks, who maintained that letters were sent to Mr Singh not only by post but also delivered by hand through the Indian High Commission in london.
Ironically, in a newspaper interview in January, Mr Antonio Guterres, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, had stated that, “India’s refugee policy is an example for the rest of the world to follow”.
“India with its history, culture, traditions, is today an example of generosity in the way it has opened its borders to all people who have come looking for safety and sanctuary. There are Tibetans, Afghans, Myanmarese in India and it has maintained an open door policy for all. India has a generous approach in relationship to all people and a proof of that is the granting of long term visas and work permits to refugees. We consider India a more reliable partner in the world to guarantee that people who need help will find a place. And more importantly at a time when there are so many closed borders in the world, and many people have been refused protection, India has been generous”, said the former Portuguese Prime Minister
From Zoroastrians to Jews in ancient times to Tibetans, Tamilians, Burmese and Bangladeshis in modern times, India has witnessed huge refugee influx throughout its history. According to the 2013 UNHCR Regional Operations Profile, India continues to grant asylum and provide direct assistance to some 2,00,000 refugees from neighbouring states. In fact, over 1,50,000 Tibetan refugees have fled to India during the past 50 years following the footsteps of the Dalai lama. Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Indian Prime Minister, agreed to provide all assistance to the Tibetan refugees to settle in India until their eventual return.
Call it political expediency or diplomatic opportunism, post Jawaharlal Nehru, the world’s largest democracy which has enshrined in its Constitution Freedom of Speech and Expression as one of its fundamental rights and is one of the founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement, has been selective in granting political asylum to prominent dissidents from other countries. Such decisions have always been based either on electoral arithmetic or opportunism rather than any principle or ideology.
While the Government showed immense haste in disposing of Mr Snowden’s application, there are over 3,500 other asylum-seekers awaiting official response on their status.
This more-loyal-than-the-King approach shown in Mr Snowden’s case is also not new to India. In what would be shameful for any democracy, American Vietnam war veteran-turned-Gandhian Jeff Knaebel committed suicide after failing to secure asylum in India some time back. Knaebel had torn his American passport and birth certificate at Rajghat in 2009 and, thereafter, became stateless. In his plea for political asylum, Knaebel said the US policies were based on military machines and destruction “which would one day consume this beautiful planet”. Knaebel, who described himself as a believer and practitioner of Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence, not only made representations to the Prime Minister’s office but also moved the Supreme Court. Reportedly a former US Navy Commander, he labelled the US as a monument of all that stands for materialism and said he wanted to continue with his mission of bringing a smile on every face.
One is also reminded about the case of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin’s youngest daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva, who after the death of her live-in partner, Indian communist activist Brajesh Singh, sought to stay back in the country. India, which was at that time tilting towards the USSR, did not entertain her request forcing her to approach the United States, which was quick to grant her asylum.
Apparently, India did not want to jeoparadise its relationship with the Soviets. Had the Dalai lama sought refuge today, most certainly India’s response would have been negative given the present Government’s proclivity to placate the Chinese even at the cost of losing territory.
In the matter of freedom of expression too, India has time and again shown that it is willing to succumb before religious fanatics rather than uphold democratic principles. Even before any Islamic country could react to Salman Rushdie’s ‘Satanic Verses’, India banned it. Similarly, Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen who exposed the persecution of Hindus in her country had a harrowing time in India. Not only the so-called progressive Communist parties, even the then BJP Governments in Rajasthan and the Centre too succumbed to pressures from the religious bigots and virtually put her under house arrest.
While it is true that relationship with a country, that too a strategic ally like the US, is far more important than an individual, it is the undue hurry shown in disposal of the Snowden request that has questioned India’s credentials as a democratic and truly non-aligned nation. Defending the US snooping programme was only adding insult to injury.
India could have very well waited and given a cautious response or just remained silent. The tearing hurry displayed in the Snowden matter has also raised questions whether India was bending over backwards to please the Americans. While relationship based on equality may be an idealistic situation, it certainly need not be at the cost of our self-respect.
As the proponent of the ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ (the whole world is one family) concept, the love of the people of India cannot be confined to one country or its President. Ours is too inclusive a vision. In the absence of any proper legal framework, decisions on granting or refusing political asylum in India today are based purely on ‘political considerations’. While political considerations too are important, they cannot be unjust, immoral or inhuman. As Knaebel, known for his 2006 publication ‘Experiments in Moral Sovereignty: Notes of An American Exile’, had aptly and succinctly put it, “It is unconscionable and morally repugnant to live as a slave.”
(The author is a Senior Fellow and Editor with the Vivekananda International Foundation)