Harjit Kaur’s deportation exposes US hypocrisy

THE painful saga of Harjit Kaur's September 22 deportation from the US represents a disdainful contempt for international humanitarian conscience and the law encoded in several binding international treaties, to which the US is a party. Notwithstanding the right of a sovereign nation to deport undocumented migrants, respect for international human rights demands deporting procedures consistent with the deportee's right to dignity, that has received universal recognition as the foremost human right in the hierarchy of rights.

That she had no legal right under American law to insist on her stay in the US could not be a ground to deny her the minimal human rights that inhere in her by virtue of her humanity.

The mode and manner of deportation of 'Bibiji' — as 73-year-old Harjit Kaur was respectfully known amongst the Indian diaspora at Hercules in the San Francisco Bay area, her home for the last 33 years — interrogate American pretensions to leadership for the global advancement of human rights and democracy.

The memory of the inhuman treatment meted out by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to a vulnerable and elderly woman will remain a crippling burden on the conscience of the Americans. It will endure as a permanent censure of their government's duplicity in the observance of internationally accepted human rights norms.

Arrested, when summoned for routine immigration investigation, Harjit Kaur was handcuffed and her legs chained. She was reportedly denied medicines for migraine, blood pressure and knee pain, and also vegetarian food. She was made to sleep on an 'aluminium foil' in cold weather she could not bear, and was even denied water.

Removed from her family and friends, today she is left homeless and helpless in the absence of her immediate family. She has been made to suffer the worst form of emotional torture and now stares at an unending uncertainty about her future. The soul-scarring indignities inflicted upon an elderly lady will be etched in her consciousness as a bullet inside an open wound, unable to heal.

The case raises larger issues of profound importance concerning the evolution of democratic societies and raises several questions. Can we truly claim to have established binding legal norms that interdict the abuse of state power? Have the humanitarian norms been embedded in the consciousness of nation states charged with the duty to obey their injunctions?

Is it time to admit a retreat of the human rights movement and to rededicate ourselves to its robust revival? Can the majesty of law be advanced through its tortious implementation that frustrates substantive justice anchored in compassion, proportionality and fairness? Can we divorce the fulfilment of the ends of law from the norms of its enforcement? What does this deportation mean for the relevance and legitimacy of several international conventions against inhuman treatment of persons in custody?

Have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976), the United Nations General Assembly's New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants (2016) and several other treaties achieved their objectives or have they become impotent in the face of police power fuelled by politics?

As for India, we must ask ourselves whether a 'Viksit Bharat' aspiring to be the 'Vishwaguru' on the basis of its soft power has asserted itself sufficiently to burnish its credentials as a defender of human dignity and protector of the esteem of its citizens.

We also need to define for ourselves the extent to which 'strategic self-restraint' in relation to other nations must limit our capacity to act in furtherance of our constitutional goals, the advancement of which is the avowed objective of our foreign policy.

The situation merits recall of German philosopher Goethe's wisdom: "And what is man — that boasted demigod? Do not his powers fail when he most requires their use?"

India must not only proclaim its soft power but also unmistakably assert it in the world's diplomatic chanceries, so that it is seen to act upon the principles that define the republic. After all, the willingness of nations to walk the talk defines their distinction.

As we celebrate the 156th birth anniversary of the Father of the Nation, we must repurpose our politics and policies to unequivocally protest oppression and abuse of power anywhere and everywhere in the world. The nation's history and its song of resurgence inspired by opposition to the prostitution of power must remain a perennial inspiration.

The humiliation and diminishing of Harjit Kaur have evoked a sense of outrage and despair captured in the immortal and unforgettable verse of the celebrated poet Majaz Lakhnavi: "Le ke ik Changez ke hathon se khanjar, torh dun taj par us ke damakta hai jo patthar torh dun/ Koi torhe ya na torhe, main hi barh kar tor dun/ Ai gham-e-dil kya karun, ai wahasat-e-dil kya karun!" (Break the sword of the tyrant and the jewel in his crown and thus his arrogance, even if no one else does the same…Oh! my sorrowful heart, what alas should I do…')

The agony of Harjit Kaur, shared by the nation, has rightfully led to a protest by a proud nation. This should remind the hegemon and those drunk on power that oppression in any form carries within itself the oppressor's ultimate condemnation.

In these challenging times the nation's duty to remain true to its civilisational ideals is on test. And the choices we make must be informed by the enduring lesson of history that passivity in the face of injustice perpetuates the wrong and weakens the moral foundation of democratic power.

Kaur's deportation , a brazen abuse of American police power in defiance of all norms of civility, must spur us to abjure the convenience of ambivalence and reject indifference to humanitarianism, lest we retreat from the foundational premise of democracy.

Views are personal

Ashwani Kumar is former Union Minister for Law & Justice.