Skip to main content

Step against journalist Aatish Taseer part of Indian, global trend to 'harass' writers

 
A New York-based free expression advocacy non-profit, PEN America, has taken strong exception to what it calls “India’s government is retaliating against journalist Aatish Taseer’s reporting critical of the country’s Prime Minister". Taseer has been told by an email from the Consulate General of India in New York that the Government of India had cancelled his Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI card) with “effective immediately.”
Calling it “retaliation for a ‘Time’ magazine article critical of the Indian government”, journalist and writer Taseer was earlier threatened with revocation of the key citizenship document that would limit his ability to work and live in India. In a statement, PEN America said it was a “worrying move by the government to punish a reporter for coverage critical of Narendra Modi.”
In May, amidst a contentious Indian election season, Taseer had penned a cover story profiling Modi for "Time" headlined “India’s Divider in Chief.” The story “drew online harassment and an official complaint from India’s consul general to ‘Time’ magazine”, PEN said, adding, “In September, he received notice that the Indian government intended to revoke his OCI) documentation.”
That status allows foreign citizens of Indian heritage to live and work in India indefinitely – Taseer was born to an Indian mother, well-known journalist Tavleen Singh and Pakistani politician and businessman Salmaan Taseer, assassinated at the Kohsar Market in Islamabad because he disagreed with Taseer's opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy law. Aatish Taseer, 38, was born in Britain and has divided his time between New York and New Delhi.
PEN said, “Once granted, the OCI card can only be cancelled under limited circumstances whose narrow criteria have not been met in this case. If an individual’s card is canceled, they can also be placed on a blacklist preventing their future entry into India. Taseer responded to the notice but never received an official reply from the Home Ministry.”
“However, PEN said, “On November 7, the Ministry announced in a series of tweets that Taseer had hidden information about his late father’s nationality and had failed to challenge their notice; Taseer disputes both claims.” Karin Deutsch Karlekar, director of Free Expression at Risk Programmes at PEN America commented, “Harassing critical writers and journalists not just in India but globally is a disturbing new low for Modi’s government that’s already put Indian democracy on its heels.” 
Karlekar added, “Revoking Aatish Taseer’s citizenship document – which would in effect also ban him from visiting his childhood home and seeing his mother and grandmother – is a cruelly personal and vindictive way to punish a journalist for their critical coverage. We call on the Indian government to cease their judicial harassment of Taseer immediately and allow him to keep his OCI card.” 
PEN continued, “Threats to free expression and political dissent in India have been building steadily in recent years. As noted in PEN International’s 2016 report ‘Fearful Silence: The Chill on India’s Public Sphere’, the environment for free expression has deteriorated under the present government, with authorities regularly using legal cases and other regulatory mechanisms to curb dissenting views.’
The top NGO underlined, “Those who advocate for human rights or express unorthodox viewpoints are sometimes subject to arrest, prosecution, and other forms of legal intimidation, and recent cases of murders of leading journalists, thinkers, and writers, such as Govind Pansare, Narendra Dabholkar, MM Kalburgi, and Gauri Lankesh, have yet to be fully investigated or prosecuted.”

Comments

TRENDING

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual.  I don't know who owns this site, for there is nothing on it in the About Us link. It merely says, the Nashik Corporation  site   "is an educational and news website of the municipal corporation. Today, education and payment of tax are completely online." It goes on to add, "So we provide some of the latest information about Property Tax, Water Tax, Marriage Certificate, Caste Certificate, etc. So all taxpayer can get all information of their municipal in a single place.some facts about legal and financial issues that different city corporations face, but I was least interested in them."  Surely, this didn't interest...

Beyond the 'plum' posting: Why the caste lens still defines bureaucratic success

Following my recent blog on former IAS bureaucrat Atanu Chakraborty’s sudden exit as non-executive chairman of HDFC Bank, a few colleagues from the Gujarat cadre — mostly those I interacted with during my Gandhinagar stint (1997–2012) as the Times of India representative — reacted rather sharply. Most of them sent their responses directly on WhatsApp, touching upon on the merits and demerits of Chakraborty’s controversial move. One former IAS officer, a Dalit, however, went further, raising a broader question: why do some officials like Chakraborty secure plum post-retirement assignments, while others are overlooked?

Blaming RTE, not underfunding: Education groups hit back at NITI Aayog working paper

A preliminary working paper by Arvind Virmani, economist and member of the Government of India think tank NITI Aayog, has concluded that the Right to Education (RTE) Act — enacted to guarantee free and compulsory schooling for children between six and fourteen — has actually worsened learning outcomes rather than improved them. The paper, published in March 2026 and reported by The Print on 16 April, has drawn sharp pushback from education rights advocates, who argue it builds a politically motivated narrative against constitutionally guaranteed entitlements.