Rushdie & Atwood on Aatish Taseer

Why do writers think they are above the law? How is it that they feel that any mistake of their own which leads to a legal penalty is not their fault but that of some malign tyrant angered by their writing? Is it because they can't distinguish fiction from reality? Or are they relentless self-publicists simply?

Consider this letter signed by people like Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood.

Taseer, a U.K. citizen with a U.S. Green Card, has had documentation registering his overseas Indian status since 2000, which allows foreign citizens of Indian heritage to live and work in India indefinitely.

He had them fraudulently, thus escaping Visa fees. He writes in TIME magazine 'I was born in Britain and have British citizenship, but since the age of two I had lived and grown up in India, with my Indian mother, who is a well-known journalist. She had raised me on her own in Delhi and was always my sole legal guardian, and the only parent I knew for most of my life. It was why I had always been viewed as Indian in India and why I had been granted an OCI.'
Taseer had the choice, when he turned 18, to take Indian nationality. But this would have meant relinquishing the British citizenship he acquired by birth. He chose to be British, not Indian. How he was viewed was irrelevant. I am viewed as Indian in India. But I have to pay for a Visa to visit the country just the same as Joe Bloggs whose complexion is very different from mine.

The reason Taseer was granted an OCI card was because he lied on the form. He said his father's nationality was British. Actually it was British and Pakistani. Those with a Pakistani father or grandfather are specifically barred from eligibility. However the Govt. can, at its discretion, waive this restriction. What Aatish should have done was write a letter explaining why, though one parent was Pakistani, he should be treated as wholly Indian. Had he done so, his request may have been granted. If it wasn't, he'd have had to pay for a Visa to visit India same as thousands of other people who have a Pakistani grandfather or grandmother.

Taseer evinces no shame at his defrauding the Government and misrepresenting his status. Instead, he seeks to milk our sympathy by claiming to be a persecuted writer.

I had expected a reprisal, but not a severing. While the government did not initially reveal their motivations behind this action, they have now stated their reasons for removing my OCI: “concealed the fact that his late father was of Pakistani origin.” But it is hard not to feel, given the timing, that I was being punished for what I had written.'

It is perfectly possible that the storm of indignation kicked up by a foolish article of his caused someone to say 'who granted this fellow a journalist's visa'? When it turned out he had fraudulently obtained an OCI card, it was immediately cancelled. But Aatish felt no shame for being caught out as a liar. He seeks to burnish his reputation as a persecuted journalist.

I read the letter, which in bland bureaucratic language informed me that the country I was raised in and lived in for most of my adult life was no longer mine:
Aatish chose at 18 not to take Indian citizenship. He says he lived in India for 'most of his adult life'- i.e. more than 10 years- but did not pay Visa fees as he was obliged to do. Thus he appropriated something which was not his by indulging in a cheap type of fraud. The fellow was not indigent or uneducated. He just preferred to get something for nothing. I suppose it could be argued that the little boy was just doing what his Mummy told him to do. It wasn't really his fault. But that is not he defense he is offering here. What he says is 'I don't have to pay Visa fees because India belongs to me though, by my own choice, I don't belong to India. I'm British.'

 “after consideration of facts and circumstances in the matter, “ it read, “the Central government is of the provisional opinion that the registration as an OCI cardholder granted to Aatish Ali Taseer, may be cancelled under Section 7D(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, for obtaining OCI card by means of false representation and the concealment of material facts.”

This is perfectly proper. Aatish Ali did not say his dad was Pakistani. He should have done so. This was 'false representation and the concealment of material facts.'

The government had limited means by which they could legally take away my overseas citizenship. Yet they have now acted on those means.
The Government had adequate means which it has used properly.
 For 39 years, I had not so much as needed a visa for India 
This is false. Ever since he turned 18, he needed a visa for India. He didn't get visas to India because he chose to save money and perpetrate a fraud by pretending his Dad wasn't Pakistani.

and now the government was accusing me of misrepresenting myself, accusing me of defrauding them. 
But this is exactly what happened. Aatish Ali saved money by lying about his Dad's nationality. The money he saved was lost to the Exchequer.
Suppose I tamper with my electricity meter and thus enjoy 'free electricity' for twenty years. I then write about it in a newspaper. The electricity company cuts off my supply after reading my article. Am I entitled to say that I am being persecuted because as a journalist I published a newsworthy article? Should I be entitled to free electricity for life simply because my fraud went undetected for twenty years?
Now, I may not even be able to obtain a standard tourist visa for India, the Consul General in New York informed me by telephone in September, as I have been accused of defrauding the government. “…[T]he registration of such a person,” reads the Home Ministry’s website, “will not only be cancelled forthwith but he/she will also be blacklisted preventing his/her future entry into India.” With my grandmother turning ninety next year – and my mother seventy — the government has cut me off from my country and family.
That is a premature claim. In general, one can arrange an expedited visa on compassionate grounds.

India is my country. The relationship is so instinctive that, like an unwritten constitution, I had never before felt it necessary to articulate it. 
Then why not take Indian citizenship?
I could say I was Indian because I had grown up there, because I knew its festivals and languages, and because all five of my books were steeped in its concerns and anxieties. 
English is one of India's languages. Why could Aatish Ali not understand that he was not eligible for OCI or POI when the form clearly says so?
Though I am a British citizen by birth,
and didn't want to stop being one after turning 18
 the OCI, as a substitute for dual citizenship, had made this bond even more real, as it had for so many people of Indian origin worldwide. Even though marriage had taken me to the US, I have returned to India frequently to write about it and to visit with the only family I have ever known. But to say as much was already to express a degree of removal that felt false. It was like making a case for why one’s name was one’s name. I was Indian because I just was. It was fundamental and a priori. It came before one’s reasons for why it was so. Now that it has been questioned in this letter from the Home Ministry, I felt an odd sense of pity—not for myself, but for my family in India. I thought of my grandmother who had raised me. I thought of how she had met the unconventionality of my mother’s situation—an unmarried woman with a love child—with unquestioned love. That love had given me my sense of belonging. I thought of how outraged she would be to learn that those bonds of affection by which she had bound me to my place were being questioned.
Why did Aatish not spare her any such pain by taking Indian citizenship? Would granny have stopped loving him if he was not a British national?

I was due to fly to India from Greece a few days later to finish filming a documentary, but a lawyer advised me that I could be exposing myself to detention if I were to do so.
Why? The documentary must already have been authorized otherwise it could not be half complete. Aatish would need a Journalist Visa to enter India and finish it. All Journalists need such a visa even if they are entering India just to visit family. This is not covered by the E-Visa.
 As a journalist I have been in many fearful places in my life – from interrogations in Iran to questioning by the mukhabarat in Assad’s Syria – but this was the first time I had thought of India in that way. Instead, I left Greece and headed back to the U.S.
Aatish is afraid of being detained in India. Why? Because he committed a fraud and was found out. Previously he was not afraid of India. Now he is because he thinks the law of the land will be upheld.

It is easy to see my situation as individual or unique.
That is how Aatish sees it. He does not understand that there are thousands of people with a Pakistani grandparent who can't get an OCI card or even a 5 year Visa. They have to get an E-Visa each time just like me.
 But it is symptomatic of a much larger movement. The government that stripped me of my overseas citizenship had just stripped the state of Jammu and Kashmir of statehood, autonomy and basic human freedoms. 
When did J&K have 'autonomy'? Never. The people of Jammu and Ladakh are rejoicing. The freedom of many terrorists has been greatly reduced. Only the Union of India can say what is or is not a State. In the past, many new States and Union Territories were created. This is in accordance with Indian law. Taseer did not comply with Indian law and now fears returning to that country. Perhaps he and his husband should go to Pakistan. They are sure to get a warm welcome.

In the northeastern state of Assam, it was acting to strip 1.9 million people – the great majority Muslim, – of citizenship, rendering them stateless. 
As was promised by previous Governments going back to around the time Aatish was born.
Earlier this month, some of the country’s most esteemed intellectuals—such as the historian Ram Guha and filmmakers Adoor Gopalkrishnan and Mani Ratnam—were charged with sedition for writing an open letter to Modi imploring him to do more to combat the public spectacle of mob lynchings that have become a frequent occurrence under his premiership (the charges were subsequently dropped).
They were charged with sedition by a publicity hungry advocate who has brought hundreds of cases of a frivolous sort against celebrities. The Court dismissed the charges.

Out of a habit of mind, I clung to the idea of India as a liberal democracy, the world’s largest. But entering the United States in September, I was aware for the first time that I was no longer merely an immigrant, no longer someone moving between his home country and an adoptive one. I was an exile.
So, this British citizen feels an exile in America because a third country he defrauded of Visa revenue may 'detain' him if he shows his face there.

Furthermore, he thinks what is happening to him is as undeserved and monstrous as the suffering of a Kashmir Valley plagued by terrorism or an Assam where ethnic cleansing might once again break out.

Is the man play-acting or is his narcissism really out of control?

To answer this, let us look at the letter written by prominent writers which springs to his defense.

His case is unusual; he grew up in India with his single mother, the prominent Indian journalist Tavleen Singh, as his sole guardian, and has spent the majority of his life there, both as a child and adult.

His case was not unusual at all. There is plenty of cross-border marriage. This isn't a problem for Indian citizenship but becomes so for Overseas Citizensip.  Consider the plight of families with one Pakistani grandfather. While they remained in India, they were Indian citizens. Their first passport was Indian. Then, after migration to Europe or America, they acquired the nationality of their new country and relinquished their Indian passport. Many sought to avail themselves of the OCI scheme, more particularly so as to retire to India, but found they were ineligible. However, no very great hardship was created. The important thing is to be honest with the authorities and seek for an exemption on compassionate grounds.

He was estranged from his father Salman Taseer—who is of mixed British and Pakistani heritage and who lived in the U.K. at the time of his brief relationship with Taseer’s mother, whom he never married. They did not meet until he was an adult. Although the OCI regulations stipulate that the status is not granted to an individual whose parent or grandparent is of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin, Taseer grew up in India with his Indian mother and Indian grandparents, and his parents were estranged when Taseer moved as a child to India with his mother.

Taseer could have taken Indian nationality but chose not to. He can get a visa to India like any other British passport holder. He can't have an OCI card because he has a Pakistani father and grandfather. That is what the law says. On the other hand, he can always renounce British citizenship and take Indian citizenship on the basis of his maternal tie.

In his application for the OCI status, Taseer listed his father’s name and never tried to hide his identity; in fact, a number of his books and articles have extensively covered his heritage and past.

The application form states that the son or grandson of a Pakistani citizen is not eligible. It is up to the applicant to check eligibility. Taseer must have filled out 'British' as his father's nationality. This was disingenuous. He should have written British and Pakistani. But this would have automatically disqualified his application.

The fact that he subsequently wrote books or articles disclosing the fact is not relevant. At the time of application, he failed to disclose that he was ineligible. How is some clerk supposed to know the biography of a writer few Indians have ever heard of?

Did Taseer hide his identity as the son and grandson of a Pakistani or not? It may be that he wrote 'British and Pakistani' as his father's nationality on the form as he was required to do. But then his application would have been rejected. Even if it was accepted by reason of clerical oversight, it would now have to be cancelled. It is not the case that any great material harm would be done thereby. He is living happily in America with his husband. If he doesn't like it there he can go to England. If England too is not to his taste, he can get a Visa to India or apply for Indian nationality.

In May 2019, amid a contentious Indian election season, Taseer wrote a cover story for TIME magazine headlined “India’s Divider in Chief,” which drew an official complaint from the Indian government and sustained online harassment.

It seems TIME agreed with the Indian Government. A few days later they ran an article titled 'Uniter in Chief'.

Did Taseer's article harm Modi? No. It helped him among wealthy NRIs. However it enraged many Indians. Perhaps one such outraged Indian came to know that Taseer has an OCI card and demanded that it be withdrawn. The law must be upheld even if it makes the Government look bad. However, in this case, no one in India cares about Taseer. On the other hand, Indians in the UK and US are increasingly influential. The British Labor Party has been compelled to change its policy on Kashmir because of the money and voting power of British Hindus. In the US, Indians are pushing for Indian origin candidates for public office. They use their check books to influence policy.

On September 3, 2019, Taseer received a letter from the Indian Home Ministry (dated August 13, 2019) notifying him of the government’s intention to revoke his OCI card and giving him three weeks to respond. He responded the following day, and this reply was acknowledged by the Consulate General of India in New York, but he received no further word until November 7, when the Home Ministry announced in a series of tweets that Taseer had hidden information about his late father’s nationality and had failed to challenge their notice; Taseer disputes both claims.

Unfortunately, a legal challenge is likely to fail. Previous cases- e.g  Satish Nambiar vs UoI 2007- indicate that the Government has wide latitude in these matters. Justiciability is on a very narrow basis. In this case, the OCI card had been improperly granted. In a different case, a Doctor accused of being a Missionary but who was no such thing did have his plea entertained. However, like Nambiar, the man was an ex-citizen whose grandparents were all Indians. Nambiar failed because there was a Security angle. Taseer can't win because the fundamental problem is that he was never a citizen of India and obtained OCI fraudulently. It is impossible to believe that he and his Mum were unaware of the nature of the problem. Why did they not approach a sympathetic politician to get the thing done when he was still young and hadn't yet shat the bed? The Home Minister can use his discretion to grant OCI cards- e.g. to Salma Agha.

A few hours after the home ministry’s tweets, Taseer received an email from the consulate informing him that the Government of India had cancelled his OCI status, effective immediately. If an individual’s OCI status is revoked, they may be placed on a blacklist preventing their future entry into India.

This is quite true. It is likely that he can get an expedited Tourist visa on compassionate grounds to visit a sick relative. However, he may be asked to apply for a Journalist's visa.

We are extremely concerned that Taseer appears to have been targeted for an extremely personal form of retaliation due to his writing and reporting that has been critical of the Indian government.

Taseer broke the law. He knew he was ineligible for OCI status but went ahead and lied on the form. Nobody seems to have noticed or greatly cared till he spoke of India's very popular C.M as a 'divider'. Many people retaliated against Taseer by tweeting their hatred and contempt for him. Depriving him of his OCI card is a popular move. This letter, signed by the infamous Salman Rushdie, has the added bonus of exciting the ire of the Muslims. Thus, quite inadvertently, Taseer has united Hindus and Muslims.

We urge that the spirit of the OCI regulations, which are designed to provide status and connection to their roots and family to citizens of other countries with Indian heritage, are upheld, and do not discriminate against single mothers.

They don't discriminate against single mothers. They discriminate against people with Pakistani parents or grandparents who, for whatever reason, did not want to take Indian nationality.

Salman Rushdie's dad, very cleverly, migrated to Pakistan via the UK so that his son could claim his Indian property from the Custodian of Evacuee property. The 'spirit of the OCI regulations' was not to permit the elite to get away with bending the rules.

Denying access to the country to writers of both foreign and Indian origin

is not happening. What is stopping Taseer from applying for a Journalist's Visa like anyone else? Why tell such obvious lies? Does it have something to do with 'magical realism'?

casts a chill on public discourse;

Where? Indians don't give a toss for stupid foreigners when it comes to their own public discourse.

it flies in the face of India’s traditions of free and open debate and respect for a diversity of views, and weakens its credentials as a strong and thriving democracy.

Only credentialized cretins care about credentials.

We write to respectfully request that the Indian government review this decision, to ensure that Aatish Taseer has access to his childhood home and family, and that other writers are not similarly targeted.

Aatish baba is being denied access to his childhood cot and teddy bear. Modi must take action. Otherwise PEN will use its own arsehole as an inkpot- as it has always done.