When she arrived at Kempegowda airport in Bengaluru on February 23, Nitasha Kaul was denied permission to enter the country even though she is an Overseas Citizen of India and has the right to come to India as often as she wants. She was given no explanation by the authorities other than that they were acting on the orders of the government in Delhi.
Instead she was held in detention, in a small room, for almost 24 hours before being sent back to the UK.
In a 35-minute interview to Karan Thapar for The Wire, Kaul, who is a professor of politics, international relations and critical interdisciplinary studies at the University of Westminster in the UK, said, “I was treated like a criminal,” adding her detention and deportation was “unjust and unfair” and “a harrowing experience” for her.
Kaul said: “I consider myself Indian, I care very much for India”. She comprehensively responded to everything reported by the Times of India and NDTV as explanations given by the government for her deportation.
The full text of the interview is provided below. It has been edited lightly for style.
§
Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to a special interview for The Wire. My guest today is an overseas citizen of India (OCI), which means she can come to this country whenever she wants; and yet a week ago on February 23, when she arrived in Bangalore to attend a conference at the invitation of the Karnataka government, she was refused entry and deported back to the United Kingdom.
Joining me now to talk about what happened, and to respond to the accusations and allegations made about her and her work, is professor of politics, international relations and critical interdisciplinary studies at the University of Westminster, Nitasha Kaul.
Professor Kaul, let me start by asking you to introduce yourself to the audience. What is your connection to India, how long have you lived in the United Kingdom and what field of politics do you specialise in?
Nitasha Kaul: Thank you very much Karan for this conversation. So, I was born in India, as I’ve said online, I was born in Gorakpur. I’m originally from downtown Srinagar. I grew up in Delhi … of course, I grew up outside of Kashmir, but Kashmir was very much a presence in my life.
I was always very strongly influenced by India’s civilizational values, you know, I’ve lived in India, grown up in India, went to school in India, went to college in India.
I did my economics honours from the Shri Ram College of Commerce (SRCC). I was awarded a scholarship to do my MSc in economics with a specialisation in public policy in 1997, after which I did a joint PhD in economics and philosophy.
My first career was as an economist. Over the last decade and a half, I have worked in politics and international relations.
There are various topics on which I have worked on, but there are a few consistent themes such as … I’m very interested in issues of, for instance, in gender injustice, misogyny, democratic erosion. I care for these values very deeply, I think that these values are important to protect.
I have also as an international relations academic worked on aspects of geopolitics, you know, critical political economy. So my work is all in the public domain.
You know, my upbringing in India was in a usual, normal Indian Kashmiri Pandit household. I carry with me those values of discipline, stoicism, rigour.
My family has served in, you know, all of … different relatives have served in the Indian state, the Indian government. My mother, who’s now of course elderly and ailing, and in India, was an awardee for her national service from the president of India when she was a student.
So I have very strong connections – emotional connections, affective connections – with India and I would never … I’m not foreign to India by any means.
Also read: Six Tables that Tell the Story of Academic Unfreedom in India
KT: Let me ask you, do you have close family living in India? You referred to your mother – is she alive? Is she in India? And how often have you visited in the recent past?
NK: Yes, I have close family in India as I mentioned, I have visited India [on] numerous occasions. I’ve never had a problem like this before. I’ve travelled for my work to various countries around the world, in fact to maybe about 80 countries, [and] never had an experience like this.
Yeah, my family’s in India and the last time I left was at the start of February, the only difference of course this time is that it was an official invitation.
KT: So you were in India as recently as the beginning of February?
NK: I left at the beginning of February, yes.
KT: And is your mother in India?
NK: Yes, she is.
KT: So you have very close family and very close attachments to this country.
NK: Absolutely! I mean, even before this interview, I called her and I asked her for her ashirvad [blessing].
Like I … I mean, she’s obviously, I’m very close to my family and she’s the only … after my father’s death, I grew up in a single parent, woman-headed household. So she’s obviously the only parent, the most important attachment in my life, so obviously, I have close [inaudible] to India.
KT: Tell me, although you probably have another passport at the moment, do you consider yourself Indian? Culturally, philosophically, in family terms?
NK: Yes there’s going to be Herath, which is Shivratri for Kashmir Pandits, in a few days; I will be keeping my vatuk. I am definitely … I could beat anyone at an antakshari. I’m … for the last few years I’ve been a vegetarian …
I spent 12 hours in a flight from London to Bangalore, several hours at immig where they shuttled me here & there, provided no info on process, then 24 hours in a holding cell (no BA flight back until next day) under direct cctv w restricted movement, a narrow area to lie down pic.twitter.com/2WwytP9RZk
— Professor Nitasha Kaul, PhD (@NitashaKaul) February 25, 2024
I can’t even, I mean, I can’t even think of words that I would use to indicate … I don’t see belongings as competitive, it’s not that, you know, if you are outside of a certain geographical boundary, somehow that kind of erases your memories, your history. That’s absolutely not the case. I care very much for India, which is why this whole thing is so befuddling.
KT: Tell me, can you briefly describe what happened when you arrived at Bangalore airport on, I believe, February 23?
NK: So, I arrived … so this was a very busy time for me work-wise; I had to think very carefully about accepting the invitation.
But it was, since it was over the weekend and only for two days, I agreed. I was supposed to arrive on Friday [and] leave on Monday morning to a hectic week back here.
When I arrived at the airport, I had no idea this was going to unfold. I was queuing up … it always makes me happy, by the way, to see female immigration officials. So, I was queuing up in a different line, which was for the OCIs.
But somebody came up to me and said, ‘Can you come over and join this other line?’ I assumed that that was because the line was shorter or something, so I went to that other line.
When I reached the counter, again, you know, they didn’t say anything initially. The person looked at it, and … he seemed to kind of react a certain way. A colleague of [his] said ‘clear kar do’ [Hindi for ‘clear it’] and … but then, they called the superior and some official.
Of course, you know how immigration is, right, they never, like, give you any answers. And then this, the senior official, came and after that, I was given no explanation, no reason; I was just shuttled around, ‘Okay come to this’ … you know, their own separate kind of office, and there, they just kept saying ‘Sit down, don’t ask questions’.
And I said, ‘Well, I’ve been sitting on the whole flight, I don’t want to be sitting down, please tell me what’s happening’.
This went on for quite a long time and I was given no reason, no explanation. I showed them, you know, the official letter. I said, ‘I’m here for two days. This is the invitation’. They said … ‘This is not [a] Karnataka government thing, we are under the central government, we have orders from Delhi, we can’t allow you in. If you have a problem, take it up with Delhi’.
I said ‘Can you give me the name of a person? Can you give me a telephone number? Can you give me someone to contact?’. This was middle of the night back in the UK, and … dawn in India.
And then they just gave a letter to the airline, addressed to the airline, and said to take me back without giving any reason. I tried to tell them … then they sent me to detention. They said, ‘You have to go to detention’, where you are under armed guard in a confined space with a very narrow kind of … bench sort of thing, constant lights and an air vent overhead.
Nitasha Kaul, in an image she uploaded on X, allegedly showing her at the holding cell where she was detained by Indian immigration officials, prior to deportation. Photo: X/@NitashaKaul
I tried to tell them, ‘Look, I have a metal plate in this arm, I can’t … you know … this is not, I can’t spend 24 hours here’. Access to food and water was really difficult, you’re not … the security guards there, the CISF [Central Industrial Security Force], don’t have phones, they’re not allowed to have phones, so you can’t have any contact outside. I didn’t have my bags with me.
So just, I tried to tell them, ‘Look, I had a cholecystectomy, I have … post 2020, I have, … [had] liver problems. Please can you make things a little easier, because I have been given no reason. I’m here as an official invitee’, but none of that seemed to matter.
Even something as simple as getting a cushion or a pillow or a blanket was, you know, they just treated me as if I was a criminal, as if I didn’t have valid documents; whereas my passport and my OCI, like everything, I had valid and current and everything.
And that was the … and since then, I mean, since coming back, I’ve endured a whole lot of very horrible threats and trolling online.
KT: Can I stop you? Before we jump to what happened after you returned, what explanation did they give you for not allowing you to enter the country and for deporting you back? You must have asked them, ‘Why are you doing this?’ What was their answer?
NK: Absolutely, several times. They gave me no explanation, they gave me no reason, the only reason was, ‘This is an order from Delhi’. That’s it. I was not given any reason, any explanation. I kept asking them; nothing.
But once I was in detention, I had no way of, obviously, contacting them; because I don’t have their numbers, they don’t give out their numbers, so I can’t contact them. So it was like, just being in that space and not…
KT: How long were you held in detention?
NK: Twenty-four hours.
KT: So for 24 hours, you were in a room with guards surrounding you, unable to leave.
NK: Yes. They had two, they have like these cubicles, only two … of them. The walls don’t go up all the way, so there’s space at the top, there’s lights that you can’t turn off, there’s a door, and there’s outside, there are guards sitting there.
KT: Did you have access to a bathroom during those 24 hours?
NK: I did have access to … you know, you have to walk and then there’s a toilet, bathroom. But that, you know, even the sink, like if you wanted to … it wasn’t the easiest thing, and at one point I really asked the guards, ‘Can you please get the bathroom clean’, because it was really dirty. And so it … yeah, it was quite difficult.
Kaul said she was asked during immigration procedures if she had criticised Ram Madhav (pictured here). Photo: X/India Foundation.
KT: And were you given food during that detention period?
NK: So, food, I was given food, but as I mentioned, [the] food was not easy to get. So for example, of course I had to pay for it, but you know, just the process of getting it … Because you tell the guards, and the guards say ‘Wait till someone passes’, you know, ‘whom we can call’. Then they, and when that person comes, then they say to somebody …
So basically from the point at which you are hungry to the point at which you get food is several hours.
And at one point, when they got the food, it was outside the glass gates, and the guard said, ‘No you have to get a letter from somebody at the airport’ – I don’t know, immigration or airport – to say that the food is safe to be brought in, even though that was food from one of the places, I guess, you know, inside the airport, which I was of course paying for. So, yeah.
KT: As I hear what you’re saying, the audience will get the impression that for the 24 hours that you were kept in detention with guards surrounding you in a solitary small room, you were being treated like, effectively, a criminal. Is that the correct impression?
NK: I was. I was treated like somebody who’d violated some rules or who had done something wrong, which, you know, which is absolutely not the case.
KT: So you were, in effect, only permitted to be in India for 24 hours, most of which you spent in detention, where you were, as you said, treated effectively like a criminal.
NK: Yes, getting access to anything was really difficult, yes.
KT: Let’s then come to what the newspapers and television channels in India have been told by the government are reasons for deporting you.
They gave you no explanation whatsoever at Kempegowda Airport in Bangalore, but clearly, unnamed government sources have spoken to both newspapers and television channels. I’ll take you through what those newspapers and channels have reported one by one.
I’ll start with the Times of India; according to this paper, you repeatedly refer to Jammu and Kashmir in your work as ‘India-administered Kashmir’, and when India abrogated Article 370 in 2019, it said you submitted written testimony to the United States House of Representatives criticising India. Is any of that true?
In fact, Kaul said that in her testimony at the US House of Representatives, she argued against using stereotypes that South Asian countries including India cannot have a democratic system of government. Photo: Daniel Mennerich/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
NK: Absolutely not, the only … I wasn’t given any reasons as I told you, but the only thing I was asked at immigration is that ‘Have you debated and criticised Ram Madhav and the RSS?’
And I said, ‘Yes, of course I have’. You know, I have been on that TV debate, it’s public and that was in 2015, and I did say, ‘That was nine years ago, what has that got to do with anything now?’ They did not mention the testimony then, but they did mention Ram Madhav and the RSS.
Although it was informal, it was not … when I asked them for a reason, they didn’t say that, but they did ask me that. And it was the only thing.
Now, firstly, it’s quite bizarre that they would give reasons to newspapers and TV channels and not, you know, which are also very specious and it’s a patchwork of … a quilt of unsubstantiated allegations.
So regarding the use of terminology, well, if I’m talking about India’s domestic context, obviously historically, one would speak of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, and now the Union territories.
But if you’re talking in the context of international relations, that is the standard, normal, legal terminology of using administration. It’s a very neutral term, it does not reflect in any way on any claims.
In fact, it is simply drawing attention to the fact that there isn’t, because on the other side of the Line of Control, India does not have administrative control; if and when it does, then obviously then there would be no need to use that terminology.
It is also the terminology widely used by scholars, by media, by the BBC, by everything; it’s online, so that makes no sense. And the…
KT: What about the allegation that you gave testimony in 2019 to the US House of Representatives criticising India’s action abrogating Article 370. Is that true?
NK: I did give testimony, and it’s public, and I’ve visited India several times since. The testimony at the US Congress, which if anyone cares to listen in full, in no way reflects … in fact, it says that … we should not have any stereotypes that countries in Asia or, you know, South Asia, India cannot have a democratic system. It was in defence of democratic pluralist values.
This is well before the Supreme Court judgement. At that point, if you remember, many Indians, all kinds of Indians, were also asking the same question of why this kind of change has been brought about, without any consent, and without any consultation?
Because it’s problematic, that’s not how democracies ought to function, and of course the telecommunications ban which went on for a long time and also caused significant hardship.
There were numerous people who criticised that, and you know, for very evident reasons, that this did not make sense. Putting, you know, politicians, including … politicians that … the ruling party has been in power-sharing arrangements with, in prison.
So it just made no sense, and that is not a criticism of a state; it’s criticism of an action, which of course was also taken up in court. And this…
KT: If I understand, if I understand correctly, you’re saying, you have used the term Indian-administered Kashmir, but it is a term that is internationally used, the BBC in particular uses it.
And you also agree that you gave testimony, but it was analytical and you were being critical not of the state, but of an action taken by the government, which it is your right to be critical of as an intellectual. But you accept you did give testimony which was critical. Have I got that right?
NK: I did give testimony at the US Congress and it was, and by the way, I should also point out that in that written testimony, which is on the record for everyone to see, I did also criticise … the point is that I criticised the conflict and I criticised also the way in which, including in Pakistan, minorities are not taken care of, that … conflicts must be addressed.
And I have never … had some kind of selective thing that it’s only critical. In fact, in the … the written testimony, I also said that Kashmiri Pandits have been through a lot, and that they should be … you know, their killings, the massacres of all kinds…
KT: Absolutely. The important point you made is that you have visited India many times since you gave that testimony in 2019, the most recent visit of which was at the very beginning of this month, February.
Now, secondly, the Times of India says that you’ve allegedly justified terrorism in Kashmir as an armed struggle for freedom and apparently, this is something that Pakistan’s ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] has both picked up and amplified upon.
Have you justified terrorism as an armed struggle for freedom?
Kashmir’s Pandit community began an exodus from the valley in 1989 after a rise on attacks on them by Muslim militants. Photo: UnpetitproleX/Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 4.0.
NK: Absolutely never. Never. And, you know, I am … this is something very important to note, that in all sorts of cases, I have always spoken against violence. If you look at the political science scholarship on violence, there is a view of Hannah Arendt type people and Frantz Fanon type people, and I’ve always been with Hannah [Arendt’s] sort of views, that, you know, violence never solves anything.
As a woman, it’s very important for me also to draw attention to how the use of violence, for whatever reason, only increases competing militarised masculinities … including of people who claim to be acting in the name of liberation. I have never supported and never will I support any kind of such action.
You know, even when a whole lot of people have been supporting the actions of Hamas right now, I have not supported any such thing.
There is, the best way [inaudible] … nonviolence, civil resistance, civil disobedience of the kind of that … Gandhian principles, that you build a consensus, you create dialogue … you achieve reconciliations – that is the way forward in any kind of injustice or conflict, not…
KT: So it’s perfectly clear that when the Times of India has been told by the government that you have justified terrorism as ‘armed struggle for freedom’; that is wrong, it is untrue, it is a misrepresentation of your position taken for many, many years. Thirdly…
NK: Completely wrong.
KT: Thirdly, the Times of India also has been told that you have denied that there has been a genocide of Kashmiri Pandits.
I’ll point out to the audience that as a call, you are yourself a Kashmiri Pandit.
The Times of India, on the 27th, was reporting that they had been told that you have denied there’s ever been a genocide of Kashmiri Pandits, and secondly and separately, NDTV, the television channel, was told that you have said ‘Kashmiri Pandits are a pawn in the hands of Hindutva forces’.
Is any of that true?
NK: So firstly, on Kashmiri Pandits’ suffering, my position has been consistent over the years. I have always recognised the immense suffering, the killings, the loss of home, which is a very big thing, that Kashmiri Pandits have gone through.
Secondly, I have always said that we should not get into a discourse of competing victimhoods, where you see suffering in line with religion. This is something that affects Kashmiris, and we should build dialogues, create accountability for the killings that have happened and move towards … a situation where people can live harmoniously in coexistence.
Also read: Kashmiri Pandits Are a Pawn in the Games of Hindutva Forces
So I have never denied that, in fact I’m on record in various places, including my publications, as saying that they were targeted by pro-Pakistan Islamist actors, and they were a minority and the exodus of that minority has, is something that needs reckoning and justice.
What I have refused to do is to say that that other kinds of religions, Kashmiris of other kinds of religions; Sikhs, Muslims, also haven’t gone through a conflict.
That … is important for me, because they are, every human being…
KT: So if I understand correctly, you’ve always accepted, admitted and recognised that Kashmiri Pandits have suffered and suffered grievously, but you refuse to accept that other communities, like Kashmiri Muslims have not suffered. They’ve all suffered, that’s your position.
NK: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. So that is very important to emphasise. Regarding the use of the word ‘genocide’, you would understand there’s a whole scholarly literature around that; what, you know, when is that used …
Words like ‘genocide’, words like ‘Holocaust’ are specific terms with specific meanings. As a scholar, it is difficult to use those specific terms; however, ‘exodus’, ‘killings’, ‘targeting by violent Islamist actors’, ‘terrorists’, all of that, you know, ‘killing Kashmiri Pandits’, all of that I have always stood by.
And I think you asked me one other question, which is that they are … if you [would] just very quickly remind me, you also said that they’ve alleged something else.
KT: Yes, NDTV has been told that you believe Kashmiri Pandits are pawns in the hands of Hindutva forces.
NK: Yes, I think they might be referring to an article of mine that in fact I wrote for The Wire back in 2016, referring to how Kashmiri Pandits’ suffering is used by certain kinds of actors for very vitiated and problematic motives, in order to gain political profit without actually addressing the underlying causes of Kashmiri Pandit suffering…
KT: In other words … it’s not Kashmiri Pandits who are pawns in the hands of Hindutva forces, but it’s their suffering that has been used by Hindutva forces for their own purposes. The two are very different, is that what you’re saying?
NK: Yes, exactly, and that … increased polarisation [and] communalisation makes everyone insecure, and that doesn’t help it and … it proceeds in a vacuum of everything else that addressing this needs to be.
And by the way, just to respond to something you said earlier, because … there’s something that I need to emphasise; the fact that I have no idea, I don’t read what the ISI puts out, I have no whatso– … nothing, no love lost for Pakistan.
But this thing that ISI has picked up on it … I mean, we live in a world of hybrid warfare, I’m sure there’s some … inimical, anti-India forces sitting somewhere clinking glasses and being very happy at how this Kashmiri Pandit woman, who’s actually acting in defence of Indian democratic values, is being pillaried in this way for no cause.
I can’t … I have no control over how people selectively quote me.
KT: Now, Professor Kaul, NDTV has also been told that you believe India is an occupying power in Kashmir and treats Kashmiris like the Chinese treat the Uyghurs. Is that your opinion?
NK: No, I have not said that. What I have said is that we must look at the ways in which there are similarities and differences in different kinds of conflict.
Now in this case, the similarity between the two regions is that they are Muslim-majority regions that are affected by Hindu majoritarianism … the rise of Hindu majoritarianism in India, and the Han majoritarianism … Han chauvinism and majoritarianism in China.
… And then there are similarities in the way in which technologies of crowd control, for example, are deployed in these regions. And I have, I’m on record as saying similarities and differences; and the differences are that India is a democracy [and] China is an authoritarian one-party state.
China’s Uyghurs, a Turkic people, suffer persecution at the hands of the country’s government. Photo: Sarbast.T.Hameed/Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 4.0.
And because of that, when people use … when there is a rhetoric in India that India must start using China-style methods, that is what I’m warning against. That … when people in India say ‘Oh well, China puts people, the Uyghurs, in camps, we should also talk about … camps for Kashmiris’.
That’s the sort of thing that’s very troubling, because democracies must not learn [from] and … succumb to the appeal of authoritarian states. That’s what I’ve said, that there are similarities and that there are differences.
KT: NDTV has also been told that you are a critic of India’s relationship with countries like Israel, Bhutan and China, and in addition they’ve been told that you’ve been very critical of India’s top leadership, by which I imagine they mean the Modi government, probably the prime minister and the home minister specifically.
NK: Okay, so on Israel. I have … everything I’ve said is in public. On Israel, what I have said is, and this is in order to challenge anti-Semitism, I have said that people who favour strong links between India and Israel – and why should there not be, there’s a lot, you know, … important in that relationship – often say that, ‘Oh we are learning from Israel’, or ‘If Israel has done it, we can do it’, or ‘If Israel is doing this, we should also do this’; that is their rhetoric.
On the other hand there are people, and including by the way some critical scholars, who say that, you know, India and Israel are basically just interested in persecuting Muslims because they are non-Muslims. And I’m saying that this is … that these things should not be made about religion.
So I have said that both of these geopolitical imaginaries of cooperation or of oppression actually rely upon specific anti-Semitic tropes, that Israel is somehow unique in being evil and everyone else can learn from it.
So that’s the pushback against that and I’m on record as having said that.
The second thing in relation to Bhutan; I mean, India has a long-standing, incredibly strong friendship and a durable relationship with this small state. It’s an example of a good relationship, I’ve said that.
In 2010 I gave a talk at – this is before this government came to power – at what was known as the IDSA in Delhi … I was invited to talk there, and I said, ‘Look this is such a good relationship … what is important is not to be paternalistic but to appreciate the good values of that relationship’ and I was actually really happy when the first visit of the current Prime Minister Modi was to Bhutan … when he came to power the first time.
Also read: Would Rather Stay Here But There Are No Jobs, Say Those at Israel Recruitment Drive in Haryana
And so what I have challenged is that … we should appreciate the legacy – and by the way, that legacy is from … the first PM, Nehru’s visit back in 1950s to Bhutan – that we should appreciate the legacy and the good things about this relationship that has weathered a lot of ups and downs, and that is an example of a good relationship in the arena, and that we should work together to appreciate the good values of this relationship and create greater security.
So that’s what I’ve said on Israel and Bhutan. And the third thing on…
KT: China, China.
NK: Oh, China. I mean I have, honestly, I have … just two weeks ago I hosted an event on Tibet. I have spoken for the rights of Tibetans, I have, you know comprehensively, I have spoken on how the ambiguities and the hypocrisies around … Taiwan hurt the Taiwanese.
I have supported … I have spoken in support of people’s … struggle for justice and rule of law in the context of Hong Kong. I have spoken … against the repression of Kurds [sic], I have spoken against the repression of environmental and other defenders…
KT: I understand. What about … Narendra Modi and perhaps Amit Shah? NDTV was told that you’ve been extremely critical of what they described as the ‘top leadership of the country’. I assume by that term they mean Narendra Modi, possibly Amit Shah. Have you been critical of these two important politicians?
NK: Not as individual persons, but yes, of some of their policies, certainly. As individual persons, when the home minister Amit Shah was undergoing COVID, I’m on record on Twitter pushing back against trolls wishing ill of him, and saying that it is never personal.
You know, whether we like someone or not, everyone was once a child and everyone wants something good for their own. The point is to expand the understanding of their own, so that it’s not very narrowly limited by religion.
On certain things like, you know, a lot of people criticise everything. You know, I’ve posted on record how my experience of Vande Bharat was amazing.
But where hate and division, and, you know, this kind of, what we see currently in this kind of mass … the intolerance, the violence, the disregard for rule of law, those sorts of … or any policies that do not push back against that, are problematic.
And as a scholar it’s my duty, and [as] someone who loves liberal democracy, who thinks India is an amazing experiment in that, in a world where so many things go completely wrong. It’s important to point attention to that. But it’s not personal.
Kaul said she has been critical of Modi and Shah’s policies but not of them as individuals. Photo: Screenshot from X/@BJP4India.
KT: NDTV has also reported that the government has no problem with your dissenting views, but they cannot accept … what the government told NDTV, they see as your animus towards India.
Do you have an animus towards India, as NDTV was apparently told by the government?
NK: So it’s … first of all, I mean, it bears thinking why … a patchwork of unsubstantiated allegations have been fed to a channel owned by a corporate supporter of the ruling party. It makes no sense. Like, why would NDTV be given all these ridiculous things?
I only saw one fragment, but they’ve actually said things that I’ve never said. There are quotes that are not mine, you know, [like] ‘Kashmir is a problem Pakistan must finally resolve’. I’ve never said that. I don’t know who they are quoting for but those are not my words. I have not ever spared any, you know, any part of the world where I’ve seen anything wrong.
KT: Do you have, forgive me interrupting, but do you have an animus towards India, as the government apparently told NDTV?
NK: Absolutely not. Why would I have an animus to … first of all to India, the country of my birth, and the country I’m very close to, and secondly why … It’s not even, it’s not …
I mean, animus, it’s a strange word to use. Why would I have a hatred? I’m simply, as somebody who speaks truth to power, it is important for me to point things out as I see them.
And you know, Prime Minister Modi on Twitter said this, dissent is important for democracy. Well, we can’t have everyone agreeing with everything all the time, that’s the whole point of a democracy; is that there is a public sphere, there is dialogue, and that people are allowed to express their opinions and especially when it is in defence of things like … liberal democratic values, principles …
I want this Government to be criticised. Criticism makes democracy strong: PM @narendramodi
— PMO India (@PMOIndia) April 18, 2018
And for this kind of a thing to have happened, it’s a state government’s official invitation to a known academic, and the state government has you know … so does the federal government elected by people does not have the right to invite…
KT: Let me ask you this, both the Times of India and NDTV were clearly briefed by someone in government and given what were reported as the government’s explanations and reasons for deporting you.
Did either the Times of India or NDTV contact you for your side of the story?
NK: No, that was the other bizarre thing, that I saw this and I thought, ‘Well how is this?’. This is like … this is a weird kind of trial where somebody is putting forward one kind of view. It wasn’t that hard for Times of India to reach out to me and say, ‘Well, what do you have to say about it?’
You know … it bears no sense. And also as I said, there’s…
KT: So I’m just clarifying this, it’s very important; neither NDTV nor the Times of India contacted you. They carried the government’s alleged version, but they made no attempt to balance it by carrying yours?
NK: Times of India never contacted me. I got an email, I’d have to check which specific person it was from, but there was an email from somebody saying to me that, again forgive me – but I think Rajdeep Sardesai works for NDTV?
KT: No, he works for India Today.
NK: Okay. Well anyway, I got an email from them saying that we would like a ten-minute interview, but shortly after that I got another email saying, ‘Sorry, we recall our email, we don’t want the interview’.
KT: This is very important. You got an email from India Today, and you named Rajdeep Sardesai, saying they want a ten-minute interview, and then shortly after that you got a second email saying they withdraw their request. Is that right?
NK: The email was not from him, the email was from somebody, I guess, who works in his office saying that ‘We want this interview’, and then shortly afterwards I got another email saying that, ‘Sorry, we don’t need it’.
But I’m glad you clarified because he used to, at one point, be with NDTV. So no, no attempt to contact from NDTV or from Times of India, whatsoever.
KT: Let me at this point, Professor Kaul, ask you as someone who was born in India, someone educated in India, you were a student at [SRCC], your mother still lives in India. You said to me that you actually consider yourself spiritually and culturally Indian even if your passport may not be Indian any longer.
How then, with that background, do you view the way you’ve been treated? Not only are you of Indian origin, but you are an OCI card holder, which gives you the right to enter India whenever you want, and that right was denied to you six days ago. How do you view that?
NK: I feel that this is really unjust and unfair. It’s been, I mean, a harrowing experience, both then, before … during and after since. It is … I don’t know if I’m the only person that this has happened to, but I can speak from my experience, although there are reports that say that … this kind of thing also happens to others.
But in this case I know that … I had no intention of doing anything contrary to any … law or anything. I was invited by a state government, I was going to be [for] two days at a conference which was on unity and pluralism and … [the] rule of law, [the] constitution; all good things.
So, as somebody who is an overseas citizen of India, who has no animus to India, and who has been critical of regimes around … you know, governments, leaders. I don’t believe in the cult of leadership; I’ve criticised Trump, I’ve criticised Duterte, I’ve criticised Bolsonaro, I’ve criticised Xi Jinping, I’ve criticised … Putin…
The point is that if … that this kind of thing, this feels like a personal vendetta, and, you know, why would I be asked ‘Well have you criticised … have you challenged Ram Madhav?’ at the airport? And that’s, by the way, something that nobody said to NDTV or Times of India, but that’s the only thing that I heard at the airport…
KT: Tell me, Professor Kaul, will you take this matter to court? I believe and I’m told that you have the right to do so. Will you exercise that right?
NK: You know, I’d have to think about it. I hope that this is … I’m not a lawyer, I know that I have good cause, but I’m hoping that it can be resolved. I don’t know how … I’d have to think about the details of it. But I know that what I have undergone is unfair, unjust and it seeks to sever me from India, from my family … for no reason whatsoever.
And the constant, you know, strain of the … also since then, online. And including BJP Karnataka people saying, apparently, that I’ve been, that I’m pro-Pakistan and a Pakistan sympathiser.
I don’t even understand. Why is it that, if as an Indian, if you want to speak in defence of certain things that are Indian, that you are labelled pro-Pakistan? I mean, it’s…
KT: Unfortunately, that happens very frequently in the country at the moment. But let me ask you this, you’re hoping the matter can be resolved. Have you taken any steps, other than going to court, that might resolve this issue?
NK: You know, I’m literally, right now, going from hour to hour. I’ve … it has been, the last two days, it doesn’t even feel like, it’s just been less than a week.
… I’ve had little sleep, I’m constantly dealing with, you know, with the hate that I’m getting, not just online, but also on email. With the messages of solidarity from people … who empathise, and with my usual work, by the way, which is, you know, my colleagues and, you know, people are really helpful, but there are responsibilities, and I don’t want to renege on any of my prior commitments.
So right now, I’m just literally getting through it moment by moment…
KT: I can understand.
Finally, Professor Kaul, finally, whilst the Modi government is in power, and it’s widely believed that it will win the forthcoming elections and get another five-year term, how do you see your relationship with India? And will you be able to return to meet your mother who lives here?
NK: The second question first, I hope so. You know, I know there’ve been all sorts of threats online, including that I’ll be killed etc, but you know … but I truly hope so, because the alternative is really hard to kind of imagine.
The question about, well you know, who wins the elections, that’s…
KT: Not who wins the elections, not who wins the elections. How do you see your relationship with India, in the light of the fact that Modi and his government could win another five-year term in a couple of weeks time? It’s your relationship with India I’m talking about.
NK: So my relationship with India should not be affected by what party comes to power in a democracy, because that’s, you know, that’s that. One has nothing to do with the other. I did not seek this kind of situation, I was just doing my work.
I haven’t even been to Kashmir in numerous years, I’ve … I was just doing my own thing. I was not expecting anything like this to happen so, you know, I would prefer just to be left alone, to live my life, to do my work as a scholar and public intellectual.
And I have, as I said, nothing personal against any leaders, but also no animus whatsoever. There is absolutely no hypocrisy, you know, the easy thing to do is to take sides and only talk about one kind of injustice, in one kind of place…
KT: Absolutely, but this trauma that has been inflicted upon you, could actually become a personal tragedy, because your mother, whose elderly, lives in India, and if you are not allowed to go to that country, you will either have to bring your mother to England to meet you, or you will not be able to meet her.
NK: She’s not very well, I don’t know if she can undertake that journey. I don’t know what to say, I mean, I honestly, I don’t know what to say. I just think that it would be very petty and very insecure to subject anyone … to a situation like this.
KT: Professor Kaul, I…
NK: I don’t even know what to say to that.
KT: I hope, Professor Kaul, this situation is resolved and is resolved quickly and satisfactorily.
Thank you very much for talking to me and for so openly and honestly addressing all the allegations that have been hurled at you and your work, and giving us your side of the story, which it is very important that the Indian people should hear.
NK: Thank you so much. Deeply grateful. Thank you.
Transcribed by Mouli Joshi.
