Nitasha Kaul, terming Kashmir as “Indian Administered” invited by Karnataka Govt, claims denied entry on Delhi’s orders

On February 25, British academic Nitasha Kaul ignited controversy on social media platform X when denied entry into India at Bengaluru Airport. She decried the incident as an act of Indian authoritarianism. Criticised previously for indirectly denying Hindu ethnic cleansing in Kashmir by Islamic groups, Kaul now alleges academic suppression in India following her deportation.

The incident unfolded following an invitation by the Congress-led Karnataka government to speak at the ‘Constitution and National Unity Convention’.

Kaul recounted her experience of being detained at the airport by immigration officials who cited “orders from Delhi” barring her entry into the country. Despite having all the required documentation for her visit, she found herself in a challenging predicament. Undeterred by the obstacles encountered, she affirmed her commitment to advocating for democracy and civil liberties. Throughout her social media posts, Kaul persistently criticised the “right-wing” and “Hindutva” ideologies.

The incident has sparked a contentious debate on social media, with Kaul’s supporters rallying to her defence while critics point to her past controversial statements. Notably, Kaul has previously made contentious remarks regarding India’s policies in Kashmir, drawing scrutiny over her motivations and the potential implications of her participation at the Karnataka government-funded conference.

In a social media post, Kaul lamented, “The government at the centre in India refused me entry to a conference where the state government invited me. Unless this is fixed, I join the ranks of the Tibetan exiles and Ukrainian exiles and others throughout history who have faced the arbitrary exercise of brute unreasoning power.”

During a US House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on South Asia Human Rights, Kaul alleged a humanitarian crisis in Kashmir, accusing the Indian state of failing to protect minorities and suppressing dissent. Her characterisation of Kashmir as “India-administered Kashmir” and her criticism of Indian electoral processes further fueled controversy.

She said, “Elections in Indian Administered Kashmir are deeply divisive with many people boycotting it since electoral participation is represented as the consent of Kashmiris to being ruled by India and thus making redundant the promise of the referendum that India and Pakistan made through United Nations Resolutions of 1947 and 1948. However, some Kashmiris do participate in elections since they believe in working within the Indian system. Even those pro-India leaders are now under indefinite arrest. This illustrates that the Indian government is fully aware of the erasure of autonomous statehood as being deeply unpopular, and thus, its action lacks democratic consent. To repeat, an imposition of a landmark change in governance while keeping the entire population locked is a sign of authoritarianism and not democracy.”

She also accused India of acting like a “colonial power” and went further to blame the ruling party, BJP, for suppressing the voices in the valley. She ran a propaganda claiming that Muslims were being lynched in India and said, “Muslim and Christian minorities are seen as enemies and obstacles in the agenda. Various rights organisations, scholars and news commentators have highlighted the spike in everyday discrimination, prejudices and violence that religious minorities have to endure. The primary focus is on demonising and marginalising the largest religious minority – Muslims. Several Muslims have been lynched, and instead of calling for the punishing of the culprits, members of the ruling party have justified the acts and sometimes valorised the culprits.”

The Karnataka BJP lambasted the Congress party and Chief Minister for inviting Kaul, accusing them of undermining the Constitution and national unity. In a statement, they accused the Congress of channeling funds to individuals with divisive agendas, jeopardising the state’s stability.

The incident underscores the intersection of academia, politics, and international relations, highlighting the complexities of free speech, dissent, and national security in a globalised world.

In a post on X, BJP Karnataka wrote, “Congress party has disgraced Indian Constitution by inviting a Pakistani sympathiser who wants India’s break up. Don’t you have any shame left, CM Siddaramaiah? Are you trying to challenge the Constitution & threaten the unity & integrity of India? It is now apparent that the Congress party is now using Karnataka as its laboratory to prepare the ground for its divisive agendas, potentially undermining national unity & integrity.”

“At the expense of Karnataka taxpayers, the Congress govt is channelling funds to terrorist sympathisers, Urban Naxals, Anti-Nationals, and riots accused of destabilising India ahead of elections. Thanks to our security agencies, one such anti-India element was caught suspiciously entering India & detained at the airport. There is no money to spend on drought relief or Karnataka’s developmental needs. Still, Siddaramaiah is happy to finance the Break India Brigade to appease Rahul Gandhi and save his CM Chair, all in the name of Dr. Ambedkar’s Constitution. What a disgrace! #AntiNationalCongress,” they added.

Who is Nitasha Kaul? 

Nitasha Kaul is a multifaceted academic, author, and economist whose work delves into the intricate realms of politics, economics, and cultures surrounding the Kashmir region. Renowned for her expansive scholarship, Kaul’s perspectives often traverse contentious terrains, particularly concerning the Indian government.

Highlighted in a viral thread on X, Kaul’s presence extends beyond academic circles, as she holds a teaching position at Jindal Global Law School, where her course materials have stirred controversy for labelling Kashmir as ‘Indian occupied,’ a stance divergent from India’s constitutional position on the region’s status.

Amidst her academic engagements, Kaul has faced scrutiny for alleged affiliations with Pakistani establishments, notably promoting narratives aligned with the Pakistani narrative of ‘occupied Kashmir.’ Collaborating with individuals and organisations such as Stand with Kashmir (SWK), which is purportedly backed by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Kaul’s advocacy has drawn ire for its perceived anti-India sentiments.

The thread also sheds light on Kaul’s personal life, including her marriage to gay rights activist Dibyesh Anand, further intertwining her public persona with contentious socio-political landscapes. Additionally, her activism extends to international platforms, including testimony at the U.S. Congress, where she advocated against India’s decision to abrogate Article 370 in Kashmir.

Critics have accused Kaul of partaking in anti-India events and associations, ranging from alliances with individuals linked to extremist groups to participation in seminars organised by organisations with alleged ties to anti-India sentiments. Despite polarising views, Kaul’s influence extends across various platforms, including media outlets known for their critical stance toward India.