A thicker skin suits a growing power

Power, of the hard as well as soft variety, is about knowing when to use a fly swatter and when to use a sledgehammer. Reacting to every critique, difference of opinion, point of opposition and irritant voice with a 'silencer' does not behove a robust democracy, let alone a democracy globally on the rise. As countries like the US, Britain and Israel have figured out over the decades, making a show of not allowing critical voices against government policy, especially from the academic and intellectual domain, makes for worse advertisement than if these voices are allowed to say their two-paise bit in a two-day conference. No administration has wobbled, no democracy has been shaken to its roots when in any institutional gathering, critical views against that administration or country have been aired. India should develop a thicker skin for its own self-imaging as a 'tough guy' rather than come across as a 'snowflake'.

British academic Nitasha Kaul is no terrorist. She holds a view antithetical to GoI policy and view held by (most) Indians. Her view, in our view, is biased, one-sided, wrong. And, yet, to deny the professor entry to participate in a convention on the invitation of the Karnataka government smacks of feeding the very criticism that India rightfully denies.

No one outside the convention hall in Bengaluru would have heard of Kaul were it not for the hyperbolic action taken against her. A few protesters would have done the needful to critique the critic. But by deporting her, despite her papers being in order, a rising power - which will face far more serious pushbacks over time as it becomes a bigger player on the world stage - has unnecessarily shown exaggerated concern, when all it had to show was displeasure.