Visa blacklist: What it is, and why Sikhs want it removed

So, what is this blacklist? Since when has it existed, and who is on it?

The blacklist is maintained by the Foreigners Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and is not in public domain. According to Prof Prem Singh Chandumajra, the Shiromani Akali Dal MP from Anandpur Sahib, who has raised the matter in Lok Sabha several times, the existence of the blacklist became known in the early 1990s, after Punjab leaders received complaints from Sikhs abroad that they were being denied entry into India. “Following Operation Bluestar in 1984, many Sikhs who had protested the Army action at the Golden Temple, or were alleged to be involved in ‘anti-national’ activities, sought political asylum abroad. Intelligence agencies of the government handed over a list of all these people to Indian embassies and High Commissions across the world,” Chandumajra said.

How many names does the list contain?

In December last year, Punjab Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal wrote to union Home Minister Rajnath Singh, saying the blacklist names 63 individuals on whom visa restrictions are applicable. Identities of 31 of these individuals cannot be ascertained in the absence of complete particulars. Sukhbir asked that the restrictions on the remaining 32 individuals be lifted if they were not wanted for any crimes in India.

Nearly five years earlier, in February 2010, Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal had raised the issue at a Chief Ministers’ conference on internal security in New Delhi.

In February 2011, the Delhi High Court gave the government eight weeks to decide on a plea by the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (DSGMC) to take 169 names off the blacklist. The petitioner argued that no one could be deprived of the right to renew ties with the motherland, and that the government’s policy was arbitrary, unconstitutional and discriminatory. Subsequently, the UPA 2 government took 142 names off the list, and said the remaining names were of individuals about whom it did not have enough information, or who were suspected of committing serious crimes.

Soon after the High Court order, Sukhbir had demanded that the names, along with full particulars about the individuals, be displayed on the Home Ministry’s web site. Ever since the deletion of the 142 names, the Punjab government has repeatedly sought a revision of the entire list.

What is the argument for doing away with the blacklist?

“When we have adopted a forgive-and-forget policy for dreaded terrorists and accepted them in the mainstream, why can’t we adopt a similar policy for people who had taken asylum abroad?” asks Chandumajra. “After so many years, several people on the blacklist have passed away, many are invalids, but their names continue to be on it.”

According to lawyer-activist H S Phoolka and DSGMC chief Manjit Singh GK, hundreds of individuals who were not involved in any criminal activity were at various times either not granted a visa to visit India, or were sent back after they had landed at Indian airports.

“Many NRIs, whose fathers were in the blacklist, are also denied entry,” said GK. “Sikhs felt unsafe after 1984, and sought political asylum out of fear. It has been 31 years now. They did not commit any crime. Why can’t they be allowed to come back and meet their family members?”

GK added: “Those who left India at the time of the anti-Sikh riots should now be considered economic refugees. It has been over a year and a half since the NDA government came to power. They should act now.”

According to Phoolka, besides the names on the list, there are scores of individuals and families who are harassed by Indian embassies abroad over visas. “I have fought cases for several of them. Many got justice. But there are still many of them who are having a tough time due to non-sanctioning of visas,” he said. “In many cases, visas are refused on the basis of unfounded allegations, some of which may be over 15-20 years old, even if there have been no complaints of objectionable activities against them since. Why should they be running to the courts?”

Phoolka alleged that not only were these individuals denied visas, they were also not given proper explanations. “They should be told the reasons for the refusal and why their names are included in the list. At least they will get a chance to help themselves,” he said.