It was an early summer morning towards the end of May 1994, but the day was already turning out to be a scorcher. Wincing at the prospect of having to stand in line for perhaps several hours outside the US embassy in Chanakyapuri (this was in the days before appointments!), I grabbed my folder with documents arranged the night before and started to revise what I would tell the visa officer when my turn finally came. The question that I dreaded most was “Prove to me that you will come back to India”. Apparently, a few people I knew had not been able to answer it satisfactorily and found their applications rejected within a few minutes. The fact that my sister was already in the US was not going to help, but I wasn’t about to volunteer that information. I fiddled nervously with my watch, trying to look calm, while at the same time trying to gauge from the faces of people exiting the interview rooms whether they were successful or not.
The ruckus over the recent proposed changes to Indian visas brings back memories not only of that interview day fifteen years ago, but also the challenges that so many Indians and people of other nationalities have faced, especially since 9/11, when traveling to the West. And that’s because immigration authorities, especially those in the US and UK, have very willingly exercised their right to control entry of people from all over the world into their respective countries. The thought that someone getting off a plane could be a possible terrorist is enough to initiate all manner of questioning and investigation, which continues to this day (as Shahrukh Khan can no doubt attest!). I count myself among the lucky ones who only had to undergo the occasional “special” search at an airport – there are likely hundreds of others who were outright denied visas to visit family or take in the sights at Disneyworld or Buckingham palace.
While the Americans and Brits may cry foul about the new Indian regulations, and warn of impending loss of tourist revenues, the bottomline is that the decision to admit anyone into a country is solely the prerogative of that country’s immigration authorities, and should not be subject to any form of coercion. Just like a driver’s licence, a visa is not a right but a privilege, and anyone getting that visa has the responsibility to adhere to the requirements of that visa. As opposed to the current knee jerk reaction, however, the Indian authorities should take a comprehensive look at the entire system for visa issuance and tracking of people within the country.
The first step is to ensure that people are applying for the correct visa. Examples are given of Indians abroad using tourist visas to visit home, instead of getting a PIO or OCI which “takes time”. I got my OCI card in 3 weeks and it was an extremely painless process – there should be no excuse for not getting one, especially since the cost of the tourist visa is not much less. There are instances of foreign nationals using tourist visas for long term stays in India, to avoid going through the “hassles” required for residency. This is clearly a double standard - neither the US nor the UK would accept a resident staying on a tourist visa, so there’s no reason why India should either.
Secondly, visitor tracking should be made fool proof. In most cases, visitors are required to provide a travel itinerary with flights and hotel stays and phone number of a local contact. A random audit of these in real time will not only reveal cases of overstaying, but also make visitors realize that the authorities are serious. Even if someone is thinking of staying for a few extra days past their visa expiry, the knowledge that they might be caught should be a deterrent.
Every country has its share of illegal immigrants, who enter either under false pretexts, or simply stay on and “disappear” into the crowd. The US has perhaps 10 million, most of whom are from Mexico and are there looking for work. But there might be a few hundred who are potentially dangerous and are biding their time to create havoc. Should that happen, the US will certainly introduce clamps on visa issuance and border entry similar to what India is attempting. And they won’t care if those changes possibly impact tourism, as long as they believe that it will keep their citizens safer. And that is the central question to pose to the MEA – will a two month delay between trips really prevent another David Headley from entering the country? Or is vigilance required at a very different level from that offered b the immigration system?
No comments:
Post a Comment