Implications of India’s consent to take back ‘illegal Indians’ living in Britain

India was unsurprisingly 'red listed' by Britain last month after covid positive cases and deaths reached fearful levels. This means no Indian national other than those resident in the United Kingdom can enter the country. Even such arrivals need to compulsorily quarantine in a designated hotel room for 10 days paying £1,750 (Rs1.75 lakhs) per head.

A press statement from the British high commission in Delhi was categorical : "International visitors from India, or those who have transited through India in the previous 10 days, will be refused entry into England."

Rumours are rife that the well-heeled in India, desperate to flee the country to escape the epidemic, managed to do so before the red listing kicked in. Certainly, the salvation man, chief executive of India's leading vaccine maker Serum Institute of India, Adar Poonawalla, took advantage of the small window to beat the deadline.

Indian external affairs minister S Jaishankar did not have to bother. He and diplomats in his ministry were granted special dispensation by the British government to attend the G7 foreign ministers' meeting in London on 4-5 May. India, along with Australia, South Korea and South Africa, are only "guest" countries at such events, which means they don't participate in core confabulations, but figure in fringe discussions and as observers.

The visit, though, rather embarrassingly exploded on India's face as two members of Jaishankar's team tested positive, compelling the minister to abandon an in-person presence at the conference and only take part virtually from his hotel room. He tweeted on 5 May: “Was made aware yesterday evening of exposure to possible Covid positive cases. As a measure of abundant caution and also out of consideration for others, I decided to conduct my engagements in the virtual mode.” Showing himself watching proceedings on a computer screen, he further bemoaned: "So far, yet so near."

He then posted a picture of him speaking to British prime minister Boris Johnson online. "Assured him," he posted, "that Foreign Secretary @dominicRaab and I will take forward the (India-UK) 2030 roadmap (agreed between Johnson and Narendra Modi the previous day)." His bilateral meetings scheduled for the following day could not be face-to-face either.

However, before the fiasco, Jaishankar managed to squeeze in a memorandum of understanding signing ceremony with the British home secretary Priti Patel. This on migration binds India to accelerating the process of deportation back home illegal Indian immigrants in the UK. For years Theresa May as home secretary had insisted on this. When she ascended to the premiership, Narendra Modi accepted her proposal, before reneging on it at the last minute during his 2018 trip to London. Failing to recognise the British executive's lack of influence on the nation's judiciary and the UK's non-negotiable obligations to human rights, Modi, reportedly, wanted to link the surrender to Vijay Mallya's extradition. Now he has buckled.

Of course, where diplomacy is transactional rather than an outpourng of unconditional cooperation, it generally becomes a give-and-take. Such is indeed the state of current Indo-British relations. Ties between a coloniser and colonised are rarely comfortable. Jawaharlal Nehru was uncompromising on India becoming a republic and the British crown having no role to play in Indian affairs, but with his finesse made bilateral ties easy to the extent possible. Indira Gandhi was looked upon warily in Whitehall for her leadership of the developing world. Rajiv Gandhi was mistakenly assessed as "one of us" for his pro-technology outlook. Margaret Thatcher found to her cost he was resolute, especially on apartheid in South Africa and on the unfettered Sikh extremism in the UK. Manmohan Singh was held in high esteem to the extent of Gordon Brown inviting him to be the first speaker at the inaugural G20 summit immediately after the 2008-09 global economic meltdown. World leaders listened in awe.

If the British economy has been buffetted by the ill-winds of covid, the Indian economy has been battered much worse, thanks to the pre-covid decline stewarded by Modi from the Himalayan heights of 10.2% GDP growth under Prime Minister Singh. On 4 May Johnson and Modi held a virtual meeting to announce an Enhanced Trade Partnership – which rather failed to live up to expectations after months of hype by the UK’s secretary of state for international trade Liz Truss.

On the same day Jaishankar initialled what is being officially labelled a Migration and Mobility Partnership Agreement with Patel. According to British estimates there could be up to 100,000 Indian nationals in the UK who have no legal right to stay in this country. Television coverage have depicted such people living and sleeping rough around the British capital’s western suburb of Southall, which is known for its heavy concentration of non-resident Indians or persons of Indian origin, mainly Sikhs from Punjab.

It's been an issue for over a decade. The Indian government has never refuted the existence of elements who have over the years been smuggled into the UK in high risk manner and clandestinely and unlawfully reside here. At the same time, the High Commission of India in London made it abundantly clear to British authorities that every individual identified as an illegal immigrant or saying so needs to be investigated about the veracity of their claims.

This means interviewing them, ascertaining which precise part of India they originate from and then cross-checking with their family and friends about their bona fides. India is wary of hand-picked Punjabi-speaking Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agents infiltrating into India in the garb of a prodigal son.

Patel said: “This agreement will also ensure that the British government can remove those with no right to be in UK more easily and crackdown on those abusing our system.” Although an immigrant from East Africa herself, she, a Conservative from party's heartland county of Essex, has over the years acquired the reputation of being rigidly hostile towards foreign nationals settling in Britain. She is in fact a hardline Brexiteer.

In lieu of India finally and publicly recognising the problem, Britain conceded some ground on a long-standing Indian corporate sector demand. Henceforth young Indian professionals will be permitted to live and work in the UK for up to two years. The arrangement will be reciprocal.

Patel spun this softening of stance by commenting the leniency “will attract the best and the brightest talent to UK through our new points-based immigration system”. The bespoke scheme will especially benefit 18-30-year-olds from India.

( Ashis Ray is a senior journalist and commentator based in London)