Sidharth Bhatia 
Last week, a US military plane with over a hundred Indians who had entered the country illegally landed in Amritsar. The deportation took place amid President Donald Trump’s push to crack down on illegal immigration. This week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to meet Trump in the US.
The following is the full text of a conversation with former diplomat Vivek Katju on how this meeting can help a situation which has shown little humanity towards Indians.
It has been slightly edited for style and readability.
Hello, and welcome to The Wire Talks. I’m Sidharth Bhatia.
When 104 Indians returned on a gruelling 40-hour flight aboard a U.S. military plane with their hands and feet in cuffs, the entire nation was outraged. Not just men, but women too were restrained, which was particularly demeaning. Their crime? They were undocumented and had been declared illegal migrants by the American authorities.
After landing, they spoke of their ordeal – how they had to eat and even use the restroom while still in cuffs. Some countries, like Colombia, refused to accept their citizens under such conditions on a military aircraft. The next day, India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar stated that this was standard US policy and that nothing could be done.
Now, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to visit the US on February 12 to meet Donald Trump.
Should he, and will he, take a stronger stand and protest this treatment?
My guest today is retired Indian diplomat Vivek Katju, a regular commentator on world affairs. Vivek Katju, welcome to The Wire Talks.
Thank you very much, Sidharth.
Vivek, how do you think India has handled this entire affair diplomatically? As a diplomat, do you think India’s response was appropriate, or was something lacking?
Sidharth, you’ll have to allow me a few minutes to clarify the process of deportation or repatriation of illegal migrants.
The usual procedure is that when a foreign national is found to be in a country illegally, the local authorities first verify their nationality. If they have valid documents but are there without permission—such as an expired visa—the authorities contact the respective embassy to arrange for their return.
If an individual is undocumented, they are interviewed to determine their nationality. If it is established that the person is Indian, the Indian mission follows set procedures to confirm their identity and facilitate their return.
When large groups of people are deported, steps are taken to ensure they are repatriated appropriately. My concern is with Jaishankar’s response. As a former diplomat, I hold him in high regard—he is well-educated, an excellent diplomat, and we have worked together in the past, including in Washington. Given his credentials, I was disturbed and disappointed by his statement in Parliament regarding the deportation via military aircraft.
The issue isn’t just about US policies – it’s about whether their procedures align with international norms and whether they treat people with dignity. Jaishankar’s statement primarily echoed the American stance without addressing whether it was acceptable from India’s perspective.
While he did mention that India expects its citizens to be treated with dignity and would take the matter up, a stronger statement came from the Foreign Secretary during a media briefing about the Prime Minister’s visit to France and the US.
What was missing from India’s response was an assessment of the legitimacy of the US approach. If a country’s deportation procedures are improper, we should have no hesitation in calling them out. If the US routinely restrains deportees, the key question is: is such restraint necessary? And if so, to what extent? These are issues that require discussion and negotiation.
If necessary, we should ensure our people are repatriated in a way that upholds their dignity. These individuals may have violated immigration laws, but that does not justify inhumane treatment.
So, you’re saying they should be treated humanely?
Exactly. The approach should consider the nature of the individual’s offence. If someone is a hardened criminal or accused of terrorism, law enforcement measures may be necessary during transit. However, immigration violations are not criminal offenses of the same magnitude, and treating all deportees the same way is inappropriate.
Jaishankar’s statement failed to emphasise this distinction, which I found concerning. Some may argue that Parliament is not the place for technical discussions, but as an external affairs minister with a diplomatic background, he could have asked for time to clarify these nuances.
Are you suggesting that military aircraft should not be used for deportations?
Generally, no. Military aircraft are extremely uncomfortable – I have traveled on one myself and found it unbearable. It is rare to use military planes for deportation. Typically, civilian aircraft are used.
Notably, US immigration officials released a video of the deportation, which went viral in India and sparked further outrage. That video was not aimed at India – it was meant to reinforce Trump’s tough stance on illegal immigration for his domestic audience.
Do you think Trump also intended to send a message to countries from where illegal immigrants originate?
That is difficult to assess at this stage. Reports suggest that over 700,000 Indians are living illegally in the US, either by entering without authorisation or overstaying their visas.
It is possible that the US wanted to send a warning to potential Indian immigrants about the consequences of illegal entry. However, it’s too early to determine whether this was a deliberate move.
One point US officials highlighted was that this was the longest deportation flight they had undertaken – 40 hours. Unlike deportations to Central America, which are relatively short, this was an exceptionally long journey.
Forty hours?
Yes. One report – I believe from a Chandigarh-based newspaper – stated that there were seven or eleven crew members and 45 US immigration officials onboard, including law enforcement personnel. This entire episode is deeply troubling, and I hope India asserts that it will not tolerate inhumane treatment of its citizens.
The Prime Minister has often said he will uphold India’s dignity, and now is the time to act on that commitment.
Colombia refused to accept its citizens on a military aircraft. Was that an option for India?
Initially, there were reports that Colombia’s president took a strong stand and sent the military aircraft back. However, later reports suggested that Colombia eventually agreed to accept its citizens – though perhaps under specific conditions. The details remain unclear.
The Indian government has indicated that Modi may bring up this issue with Trump. How do you think this should be addressed?
There are multiple diplomatic ways to handle such matters. Leaders can discuss it directly, delegate it to ministers, or leave it to senior officials. What matters is not whether Modi himself raises it, but that we reach an agreement ensuring that our citizens are treated with dignity.
How that is achieved is up to the government. As an Indian, my concern is the outcome: our people must be treated with respect, and we must differentiate between various categories of illegal immigrants. If necessary, India should arrange transportation for deportees instead of relying on the US to do so under unacceptable conditions.
Could India enact stricter laws against human traffickers? Many deportees reported paying agents huge sums – Rs 40-60 lakh, some even Rs 1 crore.
Absolutely. Jaishankar was right to emphasise legal migration, but he did not explicitly mention human trafficking. India should pass a law targeting traffickers and make them financially liable for repatriation costs.
So far, there hasn’t been a strong statement on cracking down on agents.
That needs to change. If traffickers face severe penalties and financial consequences, it could deter this industry.
Interestingly, I read a report about a growing folklore in Punjab that glorifies illegal migration. Some Punjabi songs even celebrate the ‘heroism’ of those who undertake these journeys.
Illegal migration to the US was relatively rare when I served there in the 1980s. Now, with 700,000 undocumented Indians in the US, it has become an organised industry. It has always existed, particularly in Europe, but its scale has increased dramatically.
Yeah, in large numbers.
Yes. And let me add that no matter how much Mr. Trump or the Europeans may try, illegal migrants remain an essential part of certain sectors of the economy. So, they won’t be able to deport all of them, and their own people would not want all of them to be expelled.
I saw some videos in which Americans said – though I don’t know how valid or accurate they were – that the construction industry in America would shut down if all illegal migrants disappeared, and farming would also collapse.
In farming, a lot of people from Mexico and elsewhere come to do jobs that Americans won’t do. Plus, there are cleaners and other low-wage jobs. So, while these migrants may have broken the law, they are not completely useless as far as the American system and economy are concerned – they contribute to it.
That’s the point I’m making. Trump may say these things, but look at the language he uses. I wrote about this in one of the papers. When he addressed the media after his meeting with Netanyahu, he also made some remarks about illegal migrants and how they were being deported. The terms he used – calling them murderers, people from insane asylums, and so on – were part of his election rhetoric.
If you recall, at one point, he even said that pets were disappearing in certain cities because of illegal migrants.
But this kind of exaggerated rhetoric serves a purpose.
Yes, of course. It was electoral rhetoric. It certainly appealed to a section of the American electorate.
But from our perspective, there are two key aspects. First, people whose nationality we recognize should be brought back in a manner we find acceptable.
Second, we cannot refrain from commenting on the validity of American standard operating procedures. It is not acceptable to say, “This is our standard procedure, and no one has the right to comment.” International law applies to everyone. It is incumbent upon the Americans to ensure that their procedures do not strip people of their dignity.
After all, the accounts from those 104 individuals who were deported are shocking. And secondly – though I may be repeating myself, you’ll forgive me – we must crack down on human trafficking. It is a criminal industry, and it must be addressed with all the seriousness it demands.
Moving on, this issue is connected to other matters. Mr. Modi is also traveling to the US to discuss various topics. Tariffs, of course, are critical, but so are proper visa policies.
Some publication – I can’t recall which – argued that if the visa system were streamlined, illegal migration might decrease because people who currently cannot get visas would have an alternative.
Also, Canada and Mexico immediately retaliated when Mr. Trump imposed tariffs on their goods by imposing their own tariffs. Now, we hear that India has discreetly lowered tariffs on certain products.
Do you think it would be wise for Mr. Modi to take a tough stance in the US or, at the very least, assert that India is not a pushover when it comes to illegal migration or economic ties?
I think we should never be a pushover. That’s a given. But let’s analyze what the Mexicans and Canadians did. Despite their rhetoric, both nations made some accommodations to Trump’s demands.
No, that’s not entirely true. Some of those plans had already been put in place during Biden’s administration. They merely returned to those policies.
No, let me finish. According to reports, Trump was concerned about illegal migration from Mexico, so the Mexican government responded by deploying 10,000 additional troops to monitor the border. That was, in a way, an accommodation.
Similarly, Trump was worried about fentanyl trafficking and the movement of people, so Canada tightened its regulations.
On one hand, the Canadians and Mexicans took a tough stance, warning that they would retaliate on tariffs and that the US economy would also suffer if they did. But at the same time, they found a way to accommodate Trump, which led to a temporary pause in tariff increases for a month.
Yes, 30 days. That’s correct.
Meanwhile, China has responded differently. Instead of engaging in direct confrontation, they increased tariffs on certain US goods from 10% to 15%.
We need to see how US-China negotiations proceed because, in many ways, their economies are interdependent. After all the posturing and chest-thumping, cooler heads usually prevail, and negotiations resume.
Our commercial relationship with the US is not as extensive as America’s relationships with Canada, Mexico, and China. So, our leverage is more limited.
How Mr. Modi chooses to handle this remains to be seen. Yes, there are reports that India has reduced tariffs on certain products, like Harley-Davidson motorcycles, which seemed to be on Trump’s mind.
But difficulties remain, especially with Trump’s decision to increase tariffs on steel and aluminium. A direct confrontation might not be the best approach, as Trump is transactional. We have to find ways to deal with him, given that he disregards diplomatic norms that have governed international relations since World War II.
As for Gaza, his stance seems inconsistent. He makes one statement, his officials say something else, and then he contradicts himself. When a leader says, “I’m in no hurry,” it usually means he’s postponing action.
Mr. Modi is visiting the US at a time when Washington is quite unsettled – both domestically and in foreign policy. Judicial resistance to some of Trump’s executive orders indicates instability. While some aspects of US foreign policy are clear, others remain uncertain.
So, the question is: Will Mr. Modi use this unsettled environment to influence Trump while he is still formulating his policies? Or should he have waited for more clarity? He has chosen the former.
Yes, but our stance on Israel and Gaza has evolved.
Our position on West Asia began shifting under Prime Minister Narasimha Rao. We realized that if the world was doing business with both the Arabs and the Israelis, why shouldn’t we? Over time, our ties with Israel grew stronger.
However, the Palestinian issue re-emerged after the October 7, 2023, attack, which was an undeniable act of terrorism. Initially, we remained quiet about Israel’s response. But as casualties in Gaza rose to 46,000 and the entire region was devastated, our position evolved to acknowledge humanitarian concerns.
Despite the sympathy some Indians feel for Israel, the government’s stance has been more nuanced. So, it will be interesting to see how this is framed in the upcoming discussions.
Does the final statement need to reflect a consensus, or can it acknowledge differing viewpoints?
Negotiators prefer common language, but if that’s impossible, they sometimes choose to remain silent on contentious issues. Alternatively, statements might note that both leaders expressed differing views without appearing confrontational.
Mr. Modi is visiting at an interesting time. He is the third world leader to meet Trump after Netanyahu and Japan’s Prime Minister. The visit may signal India’s importance, but let’s see how it unfolds.
I must say, I was disappointed by the external affairs minister’s statement in Parliament. His job was to express India’s stance, not to explain America’s procedures.
Absolutely. Thank you for this insightful conversation. We’ll be back next week with another edition of The Wire Talks.
Thank you.