Amritsar, India – In a recent turn of events that has stirred the political waters in India, the deportation of 104 Indian nationals from the United States has become a flashpoint for political debate. On February 5th, 2025, a US military plane landed in Amritsar, Punjab, carrying back these individuals, marking a significant moment in India-US relations under the renewed Trump administration. While the opposition has been quick to cry foul over the treatment of these deportees, a closer examination reveals a more nuanced picture that supports the stance taken by the Government of India.
The opposition, led prominently by Congress lawmakers, staged dramatic protests outside the Indian Parliament, criticizing the Modi government for what they described as the “inhuman” treatment of the deportees, who were reportedly shackled during their journey back to India. Congress MP Rahul Gandhi, alongside other opposition figures like Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Akhilesh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party, donned handcuffs in a symbolic protest, decrying the use of military aircraft and physical restraints as an affront to human dignity. However, this stance seems more aligned with political posturing than with a genuine concern for the complexities of international immigration law and diplomacy.
Firstly, it’s essential to clarify that the use of restraints in deportation flights is not a new policy by the US. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, addressing Parliament, noted that the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has followed these procedures since 2012, which includes the use of restraints for security reasons during deportations. This practice is not unique to Indian deportees; it has been standard for various nationalities, highlighting a global approach to managing immigration enforcement rather than a targeted disdain towards Indians. Jaishankar’s assertion that “we are engaging with the US to ensure our citizens are not mistreated” reflects a proactive diplomatic effort rather than mere acquiescence, which the opposition seems to overlook.
Moreover, the opposition’s criticism fails to acknowledge the broader context of illegal immigration and its implications. The US, under President Donald Trump’s administration, has intensified its crackdown on illegal immigrants, a policy that was expected given Trump’s campaign promises on immigration reform. The Indian government, by cooperating with these deportations, is not only fulfilling an international obligation but also addressing the issue of illegal migration at its roots. This cooperation is crucial in preventing the exploitation of migrants by fraudulent travel agencies that promise illegal passage to nations like the US, often leading to dangerous journeys and exploitative conditions abroad.
The opposition’s focus on the method of deportation, such as the use of a military aircraft, appears to be driven by political optics rather than substantive policy critique. The choice of aircraft, while unusual, does not inherently imply humiliation or mistreatment. It’s a logistical decision, perhaps influenced by the need for efficient handling of large groups or the availability of resources. The narrative spun by the opposition of being “treated like prisoners” conveniently bypasses the fact that these individuals were in violation of immigration laws, a matter that requires handling with due diligence for national security and public safety.
Furthermore, the opposition’s protests seem to ignore the governmental efforts to liaise with the US for better treatment of Indian nationals. Jaishankar emphasized that women and children were not restrained, and provisions were made for deportees’ needs during transit. This approach shows a government actively working to protect its citizens’ dignity and rights even in complex international scenarios. Critics from the opposition might argue for a stronger rebuke or retaliation, but this could potentially jeopardize the broader strategic partnership between India and the US, which includes critical areas like trade, defense, and technology.
The political uproar has also distracted from the real issue at hand – the plight of illegal immigrants. Instead of using this incident as a platform for political gain, there should be a collective effort from all political factions to address why individuals feel compelled to migrate illegally and how to curb the operations of human smuggling networks. The opposition could have used this moment to push for reforms in domestic policy to provide better opportunities, thus reducing the desperation that leads to illegal migration.
In addition, the opposition’s historical comparisons, such as the 2013 incident involving diplomat Devyani Khobragade, do not hold much water here. The current situation involves illegal immigration, a different legal and ethical landscape than diplomatic protocol breaches. The comparison seems more a tactic to stir nationalistic sentiment rather than contribute constructively to the debate.
The Modi government’s approach reflects a pragmatic understanding of international relations and law. It acknowledges the necessity of cooperation with foreign governments on immigration issues while simultaneously engaging in diplomatic dialogue to ensure humane treatment of its citizens.
In conclusion, while the treatment of the deportees might not have been ideal, the opposition’s response has been disproportionately alarmist and politically motivated. The Government of India is navigating a delicate balance between upholding international law, safeguarding its citizens’ rights, and maintaining crucial diplomatic relations with the US. The opposition’s performance has largely been for the gallery, missing an opportunity to engage in constructive policy-making that could address the root causes of illegal migration. As India continues to grow as a global power, such political maturity will be crucial in facing complex international challenges.
