In Modi’s India, only ‘good’ OCIs are welcome

An Overseas Citizen of India, or OCI, is a formal status available to people of Indian origin living outside India. It recognises a continuing connection with India, but it does not make the holder an Indian citizen. This distinction matters because an OCI holder remains a citizen of another country and is treated as a non-citizen in India.

The article gives Imran Khan as a clear example. He is a US citizen and an OCI. India granted him an overseas status, but its authorities later ordered him to leave after he joined a peaceful protest in Mumbai. The article also says India has revoked visa privileges from OCIs who criticised the Bharatiya Janata Party.

This creates a gap between emotional belonging and legal position. OCIs may feel connected to India through family, language, culture, and politics, yet their permission to remain can depend on government decisions. The article presents this tension as central to the diaspora's experience.

Imran Khan, a US citizen and Overseas Citizen of India, was ordered to leave India on October 15. The article says the order followed his participation in a peaceful protest in Mumbai. His case shows how an OCI's permission to stay can become vulnerable when that person publicly challenges the government.

The key mechanism was administrative action. Khan joined other OCIs who had faced the Foreigners Registration Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The article says India has revoked visa privileges for some OCIs accused of speaking out against the Bharatiya Janata Party. Human Rights Watch reported that more than 100 permits were cancelled over the previous decade.

Khan's case sharpens the article's wider argument about belonging. OCIs may be welcomed for their money, skills, or connection to India, but criticism can place that welcome at risk. The author says belonging cannot depend only on political agreement or loyalty to the current government.

The Indian-American community is roughly five million people, according to the article. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has targeted this large diaspora for political support, expertise, money, and stronger links with India. Its size gives the community potential influence in the United States and makes it valuable to India.

The article also cites a Human Rights Watch report from 2024. It says that, over the preceding decade, the Indian government cancelled more than 100 OCI permits and deported some OCIs for allegedly showing “disaffection towards the Constitution.” These actions reportedly followed criticism or other speech seen as hostile to the government.

The two figures reveal a sharp contrast. India has actively courted a huge overseas community, yet some members face official consequences for dissent. The article suggests that this approach can divide the diaspora rather than unify it. It may also leave Indian immigrants questioning whether their belonging is genuine or conditional.

The article names journalist Aatish Taseer and academics Ashok Swain and Nitasha Kaul as other Overseas Citizens of India who faced the wrath of Indian authorities. They are mentioned alongside actor Imran Khan, who was ordered to leave India after taking part in a peaceful Mumbai protest.

The relevant mechanism involves the Foreigners Registration Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The article says Indian authorities revoked visa privileges for some OCIs who spoke against the Bharatiya Janata Party. Human Rights Watch reported that more than 100 permits had been cancelled over the previous decade, with some OCIs deported for alleged “disaffection towards the Constitution.”

These cases matter because they connect legal status with political behaviour. The article argues that the government expects a “good OCI” to remain loyal and compliant. That expectation conflicts with the idea that belonging should allow disagreement, criticism, and the ability to speak truth to power.

Since taking office in 2014, Narendra Modi has worked to win the support of Indian Americans. The article says he urged them to contribute money and expertise to programmes in India. He also wanted their political backing in the United States and hoped to increase monetary remittances flowing to India.

His strategy relied on identity as well as practical benefits. The Indian diaspora includes many religious, caste, linguistic, and class groups, so it is not naturally unified. Modi appealed to shared love for India, nostalgia for home, and pride in the country they had left. He used that common feeling as a foundation for unity.

The approach initially appeared effective. India streamlined processes and removed administrative barriers for people seeking overseas citizenship status. But the relationship later became more conditional. Critics who exercised free speech faced revoked privileges, raising doubts about whether the government wanted the diaspora's full identities or mainly its money, skills, and loyalty.

When access to a country depends on political loyalty, peaceful criticism can carry serious personal consequences. A person may be welcomed for money, expertise, or influence, yet treated as unwelcome after questioning authority. This turns belonging from a relationship into a condition imposed by the government.

The article gives Imran Khan as a direct example. The US citizen and OCI was ordered to leave India after participating in a peaceful protest in Mumbai. It also cites Human Rights Watch, which reported that India cancelled more than 100 OCI permits over the previous decade and deported some OCIs for alleged constitutional disaffection.

The wider consequence is damage to trust. Diaspora members may feel that their connection to India is accepted only when they support the ruling government. The article says many feel betrayed and argues that belonging must leave room for difference. Otherwise, efforts to unite the diaspora may deepen division instead.

Citizenship, belonging, and legal authority are different ideas. Citizenship is formal membership in a country. Belonging is the emotional, cultural, and political connection a person may retain after moving abroad. Legal authority concerns what a state can do within its territory, especially toward non-citizens. The article stresses that these questions cannot be reduced to law alone.

The OCI system illustrates the difference. Imran Khan is a US citizen and also an OCI, showing that overseas status can recognise Indian connection without replacing foreign citizenship. India can therefore invoke family, culture, and national identity while administering visas and permits through state institutions. The article says authorities ordered Khan to leave after a peaceful protest.

This creates a central tension. A state may claim diaspora members as part of the national family, while expecting them to remain loyal and compliant. The author argues that belonging cannot depend on agreement alone. If criticism leads to exclusion, legal control overwhelms the emotional promise of inclusion.