sanjayc wrote:Someone needs to file an application under RTI for this information -- what is the kind of visa he has that allows him to hang around in India for 35 years and do any work he likes, dabble in political discourse, run Jaipur LIterature Festival (where he acts as the gatekeeper), run campaigns against Indian authors and prevents their books from getting published ....
Yes correct. Those on visas are typically discouraged from political activity, if not outright forbidden from doing so. There's no latitude to push back against the state in court, because visas do not accord any rights at all, only privileges that may be revoked. We've seen how those who overstayed or otherwise broken US or UK law are held in detention without recourse to basic laws of the land.
That is by design - immigration law is statutory and separate from the regular law of the land. You have no 'right' to petition your visa being revoked, or to 'stay' your deportation. Unlike common law that begins with the presumption of innocence, immigration law begins by presuming that you are guilty, and it's your job to prove your innocence adequately. Failure to do so gets you denied, and that is the default approach - "we will deny you, it's your problem to convince us why we should not"
As it stands, Dalrymple's status is:
* UK national, but resident in India for 35 years.
* no known OCI status (which might make all of his behavior acceptable - OCIs can do all that he is doing, including own property)
* employer(s) unknown
* does freelance actitivity
* engages in political activity
One might argue that Mallya is fighting deportation so Dalrymple could too. But that's not correct. Mallya is not fighting the law of the land - he is fighting India's attempts to
extradite him. He's not being deported by UK. Dalrymple - if he holds some kind of visa - cannot fight deportation in Indian court, nor can the UK fight for him since they have no power over Indian law.
If Dalrymple has been a habitual immigration law breaker - which he would be if he's not an OCI - then he would be fighting Indian immigration law in India, and he's going to lose. Aatish Taseer already lost his fight, and his example makes it clear that the government has no problem going back to look at the file of someone who's broken the law. In Taseer's case, he lied on his OCI application, or his mother did. The details are irrelevant - he has a Pakistani father and by law he was never ever eligible for OCI, from the moment he was born.
I'm trying to understand what sort of visas India accords, and what their restrictions are. I'd appreciate anyone asking about this person's status on Twitter.