Two-month check

After the Headley-Rana revelations,there would undoubtedly be checks instituted to scrutinise visa applications to India,and a resultant tightening of the visa mechanism. However,the judiciousness of citing Headley to impose a moratorium for a couple of months after every visit for US and UK passport holders,with long-term tourist visas,is questionable.

There are ways to ensure the effectiveness of the sieve without inconveniencing,in unabashedly non-discriminating terms,the harmless majority who need to,or desire to,travel to this country. First of all,revoking or qualifying privileges,such as long-term,multiple-entry visas extended to select states on a reciprocal basis,may have diplomatic repercussions as the protests from the US and the UK bear out. Second,not only do these two countries have large numbers of citizens of Indian origin,many of whom frequently visit India for personal and professional reasons,but tourists with US and UK passports also add significantly to the coffers of the Indian tourism industry. If some,or many,of them are now dissuaded from coming altogether,how does it ensure greater security for us? At the least,the two-month prohibition is likely to adversely affect business interests and tourism.

The government claims that only genuine cases will henceforth approach the Indian missions for exceptions to the two-month prohibition. But how does it assume,as it no doubt does,that such cases will be few and that not-so-genuine cases,especially if these are the suspect ones,will not undergo every kind of inconvenience to beat the system? Thus the security focus should be somewhere other than preventing US and UK passport holders from entering the country twice in two months. What benefit will come from keeping at bay,say,a professional on business or an academic attending seminars or a tourist using India as a base for a South Asia trip who needs to touchdown more than once in that period?