Modi Government Extending Its Repression of Activists to Diaspora Critics: Human Rights Watch

Prime Minister Narendra Modi often attends mass gatherings of diaspora party supporters abroad to celebrate Indian democracy, while his government has targeted people it claims are “tarnishing the image” of the country.

New York: Indian authorities are revoking visa privileges to overseas critics of Indian origin who have spoken out against the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government’s policies, Human Rights Watch said today.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi often attends mass gatherings of diaspora party supporters in the United StatesEuropeAustralia and elsewhere to celebrate Indian democracy, while his government has targeted people it claims are “tarnishing the image” of the country.

The Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) status is available to foreign citizens of Indian origin or foreigners married to Indian nationals to obtain broad residency rights and bypass visa requirements, but does not amount to citizenship.

Many of those whose OCI visa status was revoked are Indian-origin academicsactivists and journalists who have been vocal critics of the BJP’s Hindu majoritarian ideology.

Some have challenged their exclusion in Indian courts on constitutional grounds seeking protection of their rights to speech and livelihood.

“Indian government reprisals against members of the diaspora who criticise the BJP’s abusive and discriminatory policies show the authorities’ growing hostility to criticism and dialogue,” said Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

“The authorities seem intent on expanding politically motivated repression against Indian activists and academics at home to foreign citizens of Indian origin beyond India’s borders.”

The BJP-led government has in recent years become more cautious about the visa status for overseas Indians. In 2021, the government downgraded the privileges of the 4.5 million OCI cardholders by re-categorising them as “foreign nationals”, and requiring them to seek special permission to carry out research and journalism, or visit any area in India listed as “protected”.

Over the past decade, the government has cancelled over 100 permits and deported some status holders for allegedly showing “disaffection towards the Constitution”.

This has heightened concerns for OCI cardholders whether living in India or abroad, many of whom have older parents and other strong personal ties to India.

In 2022, after the authorities revoked his status, Ashok Swain, an Indian-origin Swedish academic, appealed to the Delhi high court, which quashed the order, stating that the government had not provided any reasons for its action.

In July 2023, the Indian consulate in Sweden sent Swain a fresh order cancelling his OCI status because of his social media posts “hurting religious sentiments” and “attempting to destabilise the social fabric of India”, without providing specific evidence to substantiate those allegations.

When Swain challenged the order in September 2023, the authorities claimed they had received “secret” inputs from security agencies. In February 2024, Swain’s X (formerly Twitter) account was blocked in India and subsequently hacked.

“My case has been used as an example to scare or to force other academics outside India to not be critical of the regime,” Swain told Human Rights Watch. “They want to create fear because people want the opportunity to go back to the country.”

Indian authorities have also prevented academics who are OCI cardholders from entering the country. On February 23, the authorities barred Nitasha Kaul, a British professor at the University of Westminster in London from entering India.

Kaul said immigration authorities did not provide any reasons but a Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson later said in response to questions about her case that “the entry of foreign nationals into our country is a sovereign decision”.

Unidentified government officials also told the media that Kaul had “shown animus” toward India.

Kaul has been a vocal critic of the BJP and its affiliated groups, and in 2019 she testified before the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs about human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir.

Kaul told Human Rights Watch that she has received numerous rape and death threats online from pro-BJP trolls in India and overseas.

“In addition to this, they have called me jihadi and a terrorist,” she said. “There has been a vast amount of deliberate disinformation suggesting that because my work is critical of the ruling party in India, that makes me pro-Pakistani.”

In some cases, the authorities have openly cited criticism of BJP government policies as evidence to revoke the visa status. In response to a petition by a British activist, Amrit Wilson, challenging her cancellation, the government cited her social media posts about Kashmir and her article condemning the police’s excessive use of force against protesting farmers in 2020 and 2021.

Indian authorities are increasingly using what appear to be politically motivated tactics against the around 25 foreign reporters with OCI status working in India as of January 2024, embroiling them in opaque bureaucracy or simply denying them permission to continue reporting.

Vanessa Dougnac, a French journalist who had lived in India for 22 years, said she left the country after the Ministry of Home Affairs sent her a “show cause” notice in January, saying it intended to cancel her OCI card because she did not have a permit to work as a journalist and her news reports created a “biased negative perception of India”.

Dougnac was denied permission to work as a journalist in 2022, and said the ministry had not responded to her “repeated requests” for an explanation or review of its decision.

In 2023, the authorities revoked the OCI status of an American journalist shortly after the journalist published a report about criminal actions by an Indian company. The journalist, who did not wish to be identified, told Human Rights Watch: “No specific allegation was made against me, and no evidence has been produced despite several requests.”

In 2022, the authorities deported the American-Sikh journalist Angad Singh. After Singh brought a lawsuit challenging the decision, the government told the Delhi high court that he “presented a very negative view of India’s secular credentials” in a 2020 documentary about the 2019-20 protests against the country’s amended citizenship law.

Also read: The MEA’s Hyper-Sensitive Rebuttals to Foreign Criticism Hurt Its Own Credibility

Foreign writers, journalists, academics and activists have been increasingly denied access to India for seemingly political reasons, Human Rights Watch said.

In March 2022, British anthropologist Filippo Osella, who had visited India regularly for over 30 years, was turned away by immigration authorities despite holding a valid research visa.

Others denied entry include an Australian writer, Kathryn Hummel; a Pakistani academic, Annie Zaman; a former Swiss diplomat and activist, Kurt VogeleMukunda Raj Kattel, director of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development; and Aaron Gray-Block and Ben Hargreaves, both Greenpeace activists.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a party, addresses in article 13 the rights of aliens lawfully in a country, and non-discrimination against “all persons”, including non-nationals, in article 26.

The Covenant does not recognise non-nationals having a right to enter or reside in a country, a decision left to the state.

However, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the international expert body that monitors compliance with the ICCPR, has stated in its General Comment No. 15 on the status of aliens, that, “in certain circumstances an alien may enjoy the protection of the Covenant even in relation to entry or residence, for example, when considerations of non-discrimination … arise.”

The General Comment further provides that if the legality of an alien’s “stay is in dispute, any decision on this point leading to his expulsion or deportation ought to be taken in accordance with article 13. It is for the competent authorities … in good faith and in the exercise of their powers, to apply and interpret the domestic law, observing, however, such requirements under the Covenant as equality before the law” in accordance with article 26.

Distinctions are permissible only when based on reasonable and objective criteria.

“Foreign governments eager to partner with India on trade and security should take note that the Indian government is increasing repression to hide a deteriorating human rights situation,” Pearson said.

“These governments should press the Modi administration to interact with its critics to bring about reform instead of intimidating them into silence.”

This article was republished from Human Rights Watch on a Creative Commons license. It was lightly edited for style and spelling.

MHA Issues Notice For Cancelling French Journalist’s OCI Card; She Denies All Charges

Government sources have claimed that the case against Vanessa Dougnac for violating visa rules is strong.

New Delhi: Citing a “violation” of visa rules in connection with her reporting, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has issued a two-week notice to a French journalist regarding the revocation of her Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card.

This action comes in the run up to French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to India. Macron is set to be the chief guest at the Republic Day celebrations in New Delhi.

The issuance of the notice to the French journalist was first reported by ThePrint.

Although the publication did not disclose the journalist’s name, Vanessa Dougnac has since released a statement refuting all the accusations made in the MHA’s notice.

“Having been thrust into the spotlight unwillingly by this reporting of a deeply private matter, I am compelled to issue this brief statement at this point of time,” Dougnac stated.

She continued: “I can confirm that I have received a notice from the concerned department of the Government of India, and that I deny all the allegations and imputations made therein against me and my conduct.”

Dougnac, who is married to an Indian and has been living here for 22 years, asserted that India “is my home, a country which I deeply love and respect, and I have never engaged in any acts that are in any manner prejudicial to Indian interests as is being alleged”.

The notice was issued to her a week before President Macron will land in India for a two-day visit for the Republic Day celebrations, when the French media is bound to raise questions about this case.

Having been given two weeks’ time to respond to the notice, Dougnac will have to do so by February 2.

Dougnac added that she would “cooperate” with the “legal process to deal with such matters”.

“As the legal process is ongoing and the issues are pending consideration before the concerned authorities, I would request that the process is allowed to run its course and my privacy is respected during this time,” Dougnac stated.

According to new rules introduced in 2021, OCI card holders must apply for a special permit if they want to do journalism, research or missionary work in India.

If their application is accepted, permission is given for one year, which must be then renewed.

Dougnac, who was writing for the conservative French weekly Le Point and the Catholic newspaper La Croix, had applied for a special permit in 2022. Her application was denied.

The notice cites multiple reasons for the cancellation of her OCI card, ranging from “malicious” reporting that created a “negative perception” of India, inciting disorder, not taking permission for travelling to restricted areas and doing reporting on neighbouring countries.

The Ministry of External Affairs refused to comment, noting that the visa policy is made by the home ministry.

Government sources are, however, claiming that the case against Dougnac for violating the rules is strong.

They asserted that her reports for La Croix, especially on human rights violations of tribals, were factually incorrect.

The French embassy has not responded to queries regarding the MHA’s notice against the journalist.

Delhi HC Seeks Replies from Centre on Plea Seeking Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages

The petition urged the court to declare that a spouse of foreign origin of an Indian citizen or an OCI cardholder is entitled to apply for registration as an OCI.

New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union government on a plea seeking recognition of same-sex marriages under the Citizenship Act, 1955, Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

According to LiveLaw, the bench has sought replies from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of External Affairs and the Consulate General of India, New York, and listed the matter for hearing on August 27 along with a batch of similar pleas.

The petition, which is filed by Joydeep Sengupta, a Canadian citizen and an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder, and his partner Russell Blaine Stephens, urged the court to declare that a spouse of foreign origin of an Indian citizen or an OCI cardholder is entitled to apply for registration as an OCI under the Citizenship Act regardless of the gender, sex or sexual orientation of the applicant spouse.

The plea said that since section 7A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, does not distinguish between heterosexual, same-sex or queer spouses, a person married to an OCI, whose marriage is registered and subsisting for two years, should be declared eligible to apply as a spouse for an OCI card.

11.30am Queer Petition Final by The Wire

According to the report, the petitioners said they were expecting their first child in July 2021. And Stephens said he wished to apply for the OCI status under the Citizenship Act as a spouse of an OCI cardholder. This would enable him to visit India, even during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and spend time with Sengupta’s family.

According to The Hindu, the plea sought a direction restraining the Consulate General of India, New York, from declaring a spouse of an OCI applying for an OCI card to be ineligible for the same, merely on the ground that they were in a same-sex marriage or queer (non-heterosexual) marriage.

“The right to marry a person of one’s choice as an essential component of the right to autonomy, privacy within Article 21 has been recognised by a catena of judgments in India,” the plea added.

The plea also asked to declare that the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 violate Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India as they exclude same-sex marriages or queer marriages. It said that the Acts should recognise marriages between consenting adults irrespective of the gender, sex and sexual orientation of the parties.

Also read: Why the International Law Angle Is Missing From Cases on Same-Sex Marriages

Centre’s opposition to same-sex marriages

The Supreme Court on September 6, 2018 decriminalised homosexuality under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. However, despite that, nearly three years after the landmark judgment was delivered by the apex court, the Union government is still to go the extra mile.

The Union government on February 26 sought dismissal of petitions seeking legislation of same-sex marriage, and told the Delhi high court that marriage in India necessarily depends upon “age-old customs, rituals, practices, cultural ethos and societal values”. The court was hearing a plea that sought marriage rights for the gay community under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The government further said that same-sex individuals living together in a relationship is “not comparable” with the “Indian family unit concept” of a husband, wife and children, arguing that the institution of marriage has a “sanctity”.

“In our country, despite statutory recognition of the relationship of marriage between a biological man and a biological woman, marriage necessarily depends upon age-old customs… societal values,” it said.

It further asserted that the question as to whether same sex marriage can be given legal recognition should be left to the legislature.

The CAA’s Provision for Cancelling OCI Is Aimed at Punishing Dissenters

If OCI card-holders voice opposition to any government policy, they risk being accused of violating of any odd law, and losing their registration.

Snuggled into the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is an insidious provision. It states that Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) registration can be cancelled if the OCI cardholder violates any of the provisions of the Citizenship Act, or any other existing law that the central government notifies for this purpose.

No doubt, it adds that the OCI card-holder will have the right to be heard before his registration is cancelled. But this is misleading, and there are dangerous precedents set by this provision.

There is, in fact, a double whammy here. One: In subtle ways, concepts of second- or third-class citizenship become entrenched by making a violation of the law grounds for cancellation of OCI registration. Two, the language of the provision suggests that that violation will not be established by due process – through a court of law empowered to establish the violation of that particular law – but instead, summarily heard by the central government through mechanisms under the Citizenship Act.

The concept of an Overseas Citizen of India was introduced in the Citizenship Act, by the BJP-led NDA government itself, as it saw the OCIs as potential investors and funders for elections. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2003, spelt out that the central government was making provisions for the grant of dual citizenship (following a recommendation by its high-level committee on the Indian diaspora) for persons of Indian origin belonging to certain countries, mainly Australian, American and European ones. There was subtle discrimination here, as countries with largely Muslim populations, and those to which few Hindus migrated, were not included.

Also read: The C in OCI May Stand for ‘Citizen’ but Overseas Indians Should Read the Fine Print

In 2005, following an assurance on the occasion of Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas, the Congress-led UPA government expanded the scope of persons of Indian origin to all other countries, as long as their countries allowed dual citizenship, but retained Pakistan and Bangladesh as exceptions.

Once again, the BJP led NDA Government amended the Citizenship Act in 2015, to fill “lacunae that were noticed” during its implementation and its review, and changed the nomenclature from “overseas citizen of India” to “Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder”. It also sought to deny OCI eligibility to not just persons from Bangladesh and Pakistan, but also their children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren.

Like the provisions in the National Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, this particular facet of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2003 and the Citizenship Amendment Act 2015 went unnoticed.

Pakistan has a significant population of Goans, popularly called Karachi Goans. The grapevine has it that the other key provision in CAA 2019, of selectively enabling citizenship possibilities for illegal immigrants up to December 31, 2014, can be used by Goan catholics in Karachi to return ‘home’. But these Catholic Karachi Goans are not ‘illegal migrants’. With the amendment of 2015, not just Karachi Goans, but even their children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren, cannot tap into the avenue of OCI registration otherwise available for persons of Indian origin, which provides dual citizenship with restrictions.

Goa has a disproportionate number of OCI cardholders in relation to its population, because, for social and economic mobility, many Goans obtained Portuguese passports. Obtaining, or rather reaffirming, Portuguese citizenship  was a right of Goans who were citizens of Portugal at the time of India’s annexation of territories of Goa, Daman and Diu.

Upon obtaining a Portuguese passport, these persons must surrender their Indian passports. Given how the law is structured and implemented, the only way Goans with Portuguese passports were permitted to maintain a physical connect with Goa was through registration as an OCI.

Also read: Not Just CAA, Indian Banks and Visa Penalty Rules Discriminate Against Foreign Muslims

Broadly, as it stands today, under the Citizenship Act 1955, a person is eligible to be registered as an overseas citizen if she is a former citizen of India, or eligible to become a citizen of India at the time of the commencement of the constitution, or belonged to a territory that became a part of India after August 15, 1947 (as in the case of Goa) and is now a citizen of another country, or is married to a citizen of India or overseas citizen of India.

OCI cardholders are not entitled to full citizenship rights. But they have some privileges as compared to foreigners, such as having an Indian visa for a lifetime, being able to hold all but agricultural or tenanted properties, and not having to report to the Foreigner Regional Registration Office (FRRO) no matter how long they stay in the country.

Since many present OCI cardholders are those who reaffirmed Portuguese citizenship – primarily to get a job in the European Union and escape their low social and economic status – for many, their migration is temporary.

Many have houses in Goa which they renovate with their foreign income, and to which they hope to return to in their sunset years, apart from visiting during festivals and family functions. Among these are especially many from the coastal stretch, including those from fishing communities who have suffered on account of depleting fish stocks.

Until now, these OCI cardholders could afford to be vocal on concerns besieging their native localities and Goa in general. This may soon be a thing of the past, if the provisions of CAA 2019 remain on the statute book. If they voice their opposition to ‘development’ projects, including those along the coast, they risk being slapped with notices of violation of some odd law and attracting the cancellation of OCI registration.

Also read: India Needs a Proper Refugee Law, Not a CAA Suffused With Discriminatory Intent

In a charged and polarised environment where actual perpetrators of violence are not even booked, and political dissenters are brazenly profiled and slapped with false cases, there remains little doubt that the CAA 2019 will be leveraged against politically dissenting OCI cardholders – including those who question destructive development models and projects such as marinas and coal corridors built at the cost of coastal communities and ecosystems.

India already has a history of canceling OCI registration, on the grounds of concealment of material fact – the merits of the cancellation notwithstanding. The cancellation of the OCI of Aatish Taseer is a case in point. Such incidents will only increase with the introduction of provisions that derogate from the already existing due processes of law to determine a violation of the law.

Apart from the other problematic aspects of the CAA 2019, just the provision on OCI can prove to be very damaging to the interests of many natives of Goa and other parts of India.

Albertina Almeida is a Goa-based lawyer and human rights activist.

The C in OCI May Stand for ‘Citizen’ but Overseas Indians Should Read the Fine Print

The government should give serious thought to changing the misleading nomenclature of the Overseas Citizenship of India card holders.

The government should give serious thought to changing the misleading nomenclature of the Overseas Citizenship of India card holders

The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi shaking hands with people at the Civic Reception, at City Hall, in Brisbane, Australia on November 16, 2014.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi shaking hands with overseas Indians in Brisbane, Australia on November 16, 2014. Credit: PTI

News of the deportation of Christine Mehta—an ‘Overseas Citizen of India’ and at the time a researcher with Amnesty International—has once again raised questions about the rights of this category of the Indian diaspora. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had declined to entertain a PIL filed by a journalist seeking voting rights for OCIs. Reports have also surfaced from time to time of foreign citizens who acquired OCI status seeking the right to represent India at international sporting events. As far as Mehta’s case is concerned, former Home Minister P. Chidambaram has described her expulsion from India for conducting research without government approval as “ham-handed and illegal”.

The title ‘Overseas Citizen of India’ is itself rather curious. On the one hand, India clearly does not recognise dual citizenship. On the other, many foreign citizens of Indian origin possess cards that declare them to be Overseas Citizens of India. Without delving into the tomes written on the concept of citizenship and what being a citizen actually entails, suffice it to say that citizenship, broadly speaking, connotes a legal identity centred around political rights—a relationship of rights and duties with the state in addition to a sense of belonging with the land.

Given this understanding, it is interesting to see what Indian law really means when it allows persons to become OCIs. Does it go so far as to confer citizen-like rights to persons of Indian origin settled abroad, or does it merely provide a life-long visa to certain persons of Indian origin under the misleading title of ‘citizenship’?

The concept of overseas citizenship was introduced in 2003 after the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee told  the inaugural Pravasi Bharatiya Divas that the government intended to permit ‘dual citizenship’ for PIOs from certain countries. To further this intent, the Citizenship Act, 1955 was amended to include provisions regarding overseas citizenship, and an OCI scheme was operationalised subsequently. Under the Act, certain persons, such as citizens of other countries who have at some point been citizens of India, their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren are eligible for registration as OCIs (amongst others).

Less than citizens, more than tourists 

Although OCI status was commonly referred to as dual citizenship, the Citizenship Act has refrained from referring to it as such (although the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the amendment that introduced OCI provisions refers to dual citizenship). Leaving aside the Statement and the improper usage of the term ‘citizen’ for OCI cardholders, the Citizenship Act has been fairly clear, right from the start, that being registered as an OCI is very different from being a citizen of India. Under the Act, an OCI cardholder is entitled only to such rights ‘as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf’.

The Act additionally lists out certain rights that are not, and cannot be made, available to an OCI. These include the right to equality of opportunity in public employment, the right to be registered as a voter, for appointment to public services, and for election/appointment to certain Constitutional posts. Some of these rights—the right to vote in particular—are arguably what define a citizen.

Over the years, certain rights have been given to OCI cardholders through government notifications, for instance, the grant of a multiple entry life-long visa for visiting India for any purpose, and exemption from registration with the Indian authorities for any length of stay (other foreigners are subject to such registration requirements).

OCIs are thus free to enter India and stay for as long as they like. However, whether they can do as they like is a different question altogether. OCIs have been granted parity with NRIs in respect of practising specified professions in India (medicine, law, architecture, chartered accountancy, etc.) in pursuance of the provisions contained in the relevant Acts. Other than any specific restrictions that they may be subject to under the relevant Acts governing the specified professions, there are other general limitations on the activities that OCIs can pursue in India.

Symbolic, not substantive

Indeed, Mehta’s deportation has brought to the fore the restricted rights that OCIs and PIOs enjoy compared to citizens. Mehta was a PIO working with Amnesty International India as a researcher on a project in Jammu and Kashmir. Earlier, registration for PIOs was separate from OCIs and the former were allowed for 15-year long visas. Now the rules for OCIs and PIOs have been merged and PIOs have been reclassified as OCIs. Mehta was asked to leave the country in November last year. By her own admission, OCIs and PIOs are specifically prohibited from undertaking research without the prior permission of the Government of India and she had not sought specific permissions for her project.

OCIs are also not permitted to undertake any missionary work or mountaineering without permission, and are, like foreigners, prohibited from visiting ‘protected areas’ without permits.

A slightly murky issue concerning OCI rights has been their eligibility to participate in international sporting events under the Indian flag. OCIs have been allowed parity with NRIs in respect of all facilities available to them in economic, financial and educational fields but there is no specific reference to sporting activities. While holding that an OCI could not claim a right to represent India at a sporting event, the Delhi High Court in 2010 stressed upon the limited nature of rights available to OCIs, observing that only those rights that are specifically granted by a government notification are available to them, and that the government might, depending on the circumstances, change its policy and decide to withdraw a right granted to an OCI through a notification.

Given the limited nature of their rights, it is unsurprising to note that an OCI’s registration can be cancelled at any point by the government on certain grounds, including if it is necessary in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of India, friendly relations with foreign countries, or in the interests of the general public. As the Bombay High Court ruled in 2008, there is also no requirement for a pre-decisional hearing to be allowed to an OCI at the time of cancellation of registration.

Registration as an OCI certainly helps a person of Indian origin forge or re-establish a connection with India despite not being a citizen. The general permit to enter and stay in India allows an OCI to make multiple visits throughout her life without the hassle of applying for separate visas. That said, OCIs are hardly citizens and the Government of India ought to have conferred Overseas Indians with a more creative title than one perpetrating the misnomer of citizenship.

Sreenidhi Srinivasan is with the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Arghya Sengupta provided inputs for this article.