What actor Imran Khan is not, and BJP is, allowed to do

The brief detention of actor Imran Khan on October 10—amidst a protest demanding, among other things, the resignation of Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar—and the subsequent social media posts regarding the incident, became a major topic of discussion. At the protest site in Mumbai, police detained him, took him into brief custody, and drove him around to various locations for some time before finally letting him go. On the charge that Khan, a U.S. citizen though resident in India since he was three years old, had violated immigration laws by participating in a political protest, the police gave him a 'leave India' notice effective on October 28. Khan challenged this order by filing a petition in the Bombay High Court. In response, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait M. Sethna directed that the order should not be enforced until the next hearing, scheduled for December 7. The prosecution argued that Khan—an individual of Indian origin holding an 'Overseas Citizen of India' (OCI) card—does not possess the same rights as Indian citizens, such as the right to participate in political activities, and therefore his involvement in the protest was unlawful. Stopping short of delivering a final verdict on the merits of that argument, the court granted Khan permission to remain in India for the time being, with the understanding that he would not participate in political activities such as protests.

This was not an official action of merely detaining a foreign citizen alleging a violation of law and then releasing him tentatively under the orders of a court. And Khan was not formally arrested either. But there is a BJP expatriate politics subplot to it. What can be gleaned from the videos of the invident and otherwise is that Khan and those with him were forefully detained apparently in a bid to take him away from the event location prevent him from being at the venue. Khan and two female companions who were with him at the time were put on a police van and driven around without any specific destination for about two hours and finally let off at an unspecified point. The detained persons seem to have taken a lighthearted view of this and posted it on social media. But what the court reminded them during the hearing that OCI card holders are entitled to all the rights that are available to a citizen.

There is a large population of citizens of Indian origin in the United States and several other Western nations. The BJP's overseas wings frequently mobilise these individuals across various platforms. During his visits abroad, Prime Minister Modi himself engages with them through large-scale public gatherings. Discussions at these events often touch upon Indian politics—a subject in which the attendees, whether or not they hold OCI cards, show an active interest. In principle, the prime minister, or for that matter other leaders, faces no bar against interacting with foreign citizens—even while outside India—to discuss Indian politics, the only condition being that these interactions should be for and in favour of the BJP. Modi often refers to these individuals as "ambassadors" of India. The justification offered would likely be that these are not protests, but rather conversations with people of Indian origin. However, on November 2, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar—who was in the Atlanta, Georgia in the US for a G20-foreign ministers' meet —noted on 'X' (formerly Twitter) that he was delighted to meet the 'Overseas Friends of the BJP' in the region. And beneath that note, questions were raised as comments in what capacity did he travel—as a representative of India, or of the BJP? Regardless of whether the individuals involved are foreign or domestic, the core relevant issue authorities take into account is whose interests—or against whose interests—this political activity is being conducted. While the BJP readily accepts support and assistance from foreign citizens of Indian origin, it has no qualms about accusing other organizations and movements of receiving foreign aid. Furthermore, if an opposition leader like Rahul Gandhi were to voice criticisms of the government abroad that he makes within India, the BJP would immediately portray it as a smear campaign against the nation.

The BJP is also given to displaying its innate intolerance toward dissenting voices and criticism abroad too—at times that is done also by orchestrating receptions for Hindutva proponents under the guise of representing Indians. Consequently, what matters to them is no longer whether an individual is a foreigner or a local, but rather whether they are pro- or anti-BJP. It is based on this distinction that laws are applied and freedom of expression granted. This approach—which is fundamentally incompatible with democracy— is what was reflected in the actions taken by the BJP administration against actor Imran Khan in Mumbai.