Clipped wings: Editorial on Kashmiri Pulitzer winner being stopped from flying out to Paris

Sanna Irshad Mattoo, who was not allowed to travel to USA on an earlier occasion, is entitled to an explanation from the government for its spitefulness

Sanna Irshad Mattoo: File picture

The Editorial Board   |   25.10.22 : Indian citizens winning international recognition should, under ordinary circumstances, be a matter of national pride. But it appears that these are rather exceptional times. Sanna Irshad Mattoo, the first Kashmiri woman to win the Pulitzer prize, was prevented by India’s immigration authorities from flying out of the country to receive the award in spite of the fact that she possessed the requisite travel documents. Ms Mattoo, who was not allowed to travel to the United States of America on an earlier occasion, is entitled to an explanation from the government for its spitefulness. This is not the first time that critics — be they journalists or writers — of the Narendra Modi regime have been subjected to unprecedented harassment. Apart from a number of Kashmiri scribes, Rana Ayyub and Aakar Patel have had their travel plans disrupted on the grounds of pending cases against them. Both received relief from courts. It is possible that Ms Mattoo has not endeared herself to this government on account of her work that has received global attention. She received this prestigious award because of her stellar work of covering the devastating second wave of Covid in India. The discrimination against her could be attributed to Ms Mattoo’s work challenging the curated official narrative of India’s ‘exemplary management’ of the public health crisis. This explanation would fit neatly with the motive behind harassing the other critics: they have not stopped raising their voices against the government’s policies. It is perhaps natural that a regime that fears exposure — the dismantling of the spin it gives to conceal policy failures — would indulge in pettiness. The crackdown on dissenters around the world by authoritarian governments bears testament to this fact.

But there is also the question of individual rights. Article 21 treats the right to travel as an inalienable element of personal liberty. Such a constitutional provision can be withdrawn only under specific circumstances. For instance, cognisable offences can be a deterrent but the State, so far, has failed to cite such a transgression on Ms Mattoo’s part. There is also a case to examine whether imbalances within statutes can be taken advantage of. For instance, personal liberties can be restricted according to procedure established by law: lookout notices are permissible even when an individual has not committed an offence, simply because the State deems that the citizen concerned could be detrimental in a number of ways. Such grey areas in law are vulnerable to mischief.