(Fwd) Banning Foreign Scholars in India.

[Gail Coelho]

Thank you for forwarding that message to the list. I think Academicians in
India should do something about these restrictions on work by foreign
scholars in India, especially because the restrictions harm the quality of
Indian academics itself. But the question is what can we do about it? Any
ideas?

Gail Coelho

At 12:53 AM 9/12/99 +0530, you wrote:
>This is forwarded from the RISA-L.
>
>------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>Date sent:              Thu, 9 Sep 1999 05:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
>Send reply to:          risa-l at lists.acusd.edu
>Subject:                Banning Foreign Scholars in India.
>
>Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XXXIV, No 30 (July 24, 1999): 2048-2049
>
>Civil Liberties
>Banning Foreign Scholars by A G Noorani
>
>By a recent government order a foreign national intending to attend workshop
>seminars has to seek clearance from the home ministry. This order is an
>assault on the autonomy of Indian universities, already under stress.
>
>It bagan in the 1970s when T N Kaul was ambassador to the US. There was a
>sharp decline in the grant of visas to American scholars to visit India.
>Coinciding as it did with the US resumption of links with China, it led to a
>significant diminution of interest in India. Be it said to the credit of
>American academia that it was sharply critical of the Nixon-Kissinger policy
>on Bangladesh.
>
>If a restrictive visa policy marked Phase I, in the next phase, a decade
>later, new curbs were put on the appointment of foreign nationals in Indian
>universities. Devsagar Singh's report in Indian Express of June 7, 1985
>provided the details: "The government of India has put new restrictions on
>the appointment of foreign nationals in Indian universities, their research
>programme and movement into sensitive areas. All the universities have been
>asked to keep a strict vigil on their activities and implement the
>guidelines of the government strictly". He amplified: "Appointments of
>foreign nationals could be made only in very exceptional circumstances after
>obtaining prior clearance of the government... Even for inviting a foreign
>scholar as visiting professor, universities will now be required to obtain
>prior permission of the government."
>
>Nor is this all. "In case a university proposes to organise an international
>seminar or symposium, it will have to furnish to the government a detailed
>note on the theme of the conference, level of participation, name of the
>countries and their scholars as also the source of funding. The government
>will have the right to refuse permission." Subjects like defence, "themes
>which are politically sensitive" and the like are barred as subjects for
>research. If foreigners come on a tourist visa they must not conduct
>research. Lastly,"foreign scholars have also been debarred from delivering
>any lecture or talk on topics of controversial nature".
>
>I had then remarked in this column: "Presumably a judge of the US Supreme
>Court visiting India will not be allowed to deliver a talk explaining the
>Bakke case, on positive discrimination in favour of the Blacks and its
>aftermath because it might have a bearing on the 'politically sensitive'
>issue of reservations. Nor may he speak on federal-state relations - also a
>'politically sensitive' issue.
>
>So much for the casual solitary lecture - what to speak of a series of
>lectures sponsored by an endowment or a university. Rise further in this
>ladder of state control of knowledge and you find curbs on seminars, or
>invitation to or appointment of foreign scholars"... that has now come to
>pass as a report in The Hindu of June 24, 1999 shows. It bears quotation in
>extenso: In a surprise move, the government has made it 'mandatory' for all
>foreign nationals intending to participate in workshops and seminars
>organised by voluntary organisations in the country to take clearance from
>the Union home ministry.
>
>Though there is no written rule or guideline, the government has started
>following this system recently setting up a new precedent. This pertains to
>seminars and workshops organised by voluntary organisations. Also, the
>voluntary organisations would have to take permission from the ministry of
>external afairs to organise such a conference where there are foreign
>participants.
>
>Recently, three of the international participants to the 11th Annual Johns
>Hopkins International Philanthropy Fellows Conference on Building Civil
>Society being organised by the Development Support Initiative, Bangalore,
>from July 3-9 got a fax that they will not be given visas. The three
>participants were told by the Indian High Commission in London that they
>should first get clearance from the home ministry. The High Commission
>informed them that "all conferences to do with the voluntary sector and
>which appear to be government/politically sensitive has to get clearance for
>participants from abroad".
>
>Several government officials, members from the corporate sector and the
>media are expected to participate in the conference to be held in Bangalore.
>This matter was brought to the notice of the Voluntary Action Network India
>(VANI) which expressed shock and surprise at the home ministry setting up
>the new precedent of foreign participants having to take clearance from it
>for attending workshops and seminars organised by NGOs in the country.  VANI
>expressed surprise that while thousands of foreign tourists are coming to
>India without much problems and NRIs are getting permanent visas after
>paying certain amount of money, the government has started a new precedent
>to get special clearance from the home ministry for participants at
>conferences organised by the voluntary sector... The officials of the home
>ministry failed to give any explanation behind this move.
>Indian academia is not only a house divided but one of whose major sections
>is possessed of chauvinism while another pays court to the Congress (I) by
>sheer force of habit, presumably. What to speak of curbs on foreigners, the
>academia has overlooked Sonia Gandhi's untenable claims to copyright in the
>Nehru-Indira Gandhi papers which properly belong to the Union of India as
>trustees for the nation (Vide the writer's article 'State Property: The
>Status of Official Documents', Frontline, August 8, 1997).
>
>The latest order is not only a curb on foreign academies but, above all, an
>assault on the autonomy of Indian universities, NGOs and think-tanks -
>already under stress and on the rights of the Indian citizen. As has been
>pointed out in this column earlier the fundamental right to freedom of
>speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution) necessarily
>implies that the citizen is entitled to receive information -
>electronically, in print and orally ('Right to Receive Foreign Telecasts',
>EPW April 13, 1991). The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right
>to know flows from the right to speak; is "derived from the concept of
>freedom of speech" (vide Raj Narain's case AIR 1975 SC 865), Maneka Gandhi's
>case AIR 1978 597 and S P Gupta's case AIR 1981 SC 149).
>
>India has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
>Article 19(2) of the Covenant says explicitly that the right to freedom of
>expression "shall include freedom to seek, receive and import information
>and ideas of all kind, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or
>in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".
>India is obligated under the Covenant to submit periodic reports for
>examination by the Human Rights Committee on its observance of the rights.
>Successive attorneys-general of India have been grilled by experts on the
>committee.
>
>It is true that the courts allow the government considerable latitude in
>matters of national security and in the admission and expulsion of
>foreigners. But the onus is on the state to establish that the acts are so
>related. The courts will not scrutinise the adequacy of the evidence.
>However, if the order is shown to be mala fide or an abuse of power it will
>be struck down. Refusal of visa to a foreign national invited to participate
>in a conference or seminar in India is very much open to challenge in the
>courts if it is demonstrated to be an attempt to stifle dissent, not the
>foreigners dissent so much as their Indian hosts' right to hear a viewpoint
>the government of India finds distasteful. The Indian citizen's rights do
>not depend on the tastes of the ministers or bureaucrats.
>
>In Kleindienst vs Mandel (1972) 408 US 753, the US Supreme Court upheld the
>attorney general, Richard Kleindienst's refusal of a visa for Ernest Mandel,
>a Belgian journalist and Marxist theoretician to participate in an academic
>conference sponsored by Americans. The court split 6-3. The attorney-general
>refused to grant a waiver under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952 -
>as is required for advocates of communist doctrine - to make Ernest Mandel
>eligible for a visa to the US. A Belgian citizen, Mandel, is a scholar, a
>professional journalist and an avowed Marxist revolutionary. The government
>claimed that he had abused opportunities afforded to him during an earlier
>visit. Mandel and several American academics sued the attorney-general
>alleging violation of their right to hear him and engage him in a free and
>open academic exchange. It turned, however, on the special facts of the case
>- the attorney-general's charge of past abuse. The majority held this was
>bona fide exercise of discretion and did not consider the other issues.
>Imagine its reaction to a blanket ban. Even so Justices Douglas, Marshall
>and Brennan dissented. More, even the majority rejected the government's
>plea that Mandel's books were available, after all. "This argument overlooks
>what may be particular qualities inherent in sustained face-to-face debate,
>discussion and questioning", the majority opined. It is unlikely that our
>Supreme Court would uphold such a ban and a crying shame if it ever did.
>______________________________________________________________________
>END OF TEXT