Patriotism may or may not be the last refuge of scoundrels. But security-based arguments are often the last refuge of those who want to control for the sake of control. That is the sentiment underlying the new FCRA act as well. But like that act, this restrictive visa regime institutes some bizarre hierarchies. For instance, it is relatively easy for consultants in the private sector to get access to India; and apparently scientists have an easier time with research visas than social scientists. Why single out the non-profit sector for special scrutiny, as opposed to the private sector? And why single out social science research for extra scrutiny? From a security point of view neither distinction makes sense. What is the logic that compels us to believe that a researcher is statistically more likely to be subversive than your average tourist or private sector consultant? There is something wrong when universities have to seek permission from the government on a routine basis to get clearance for researchers.

The point is simply this: our restrictive regimes on academic exchange, our easy tolerance of abridgements of freedom of expression, and the irrationality of so much of what happens in the name of security, are all of a piece. They reveal just how fragile our identities actually are, just how little we are willing to liberalise in sectors that matter most, and just how much attitude to intellectual exchange unites different parties than divides them. Our fear of foreign capital has diminished greatly, but our fear of the greater flow of research, ideas and personnel, it seems, lives on. Large nations, staking a claim to world leadership, cannot afford to reveal their small-mindedness. No wonder authoritarian China gets more foreign scholars and students by an order of magnitude than democratic India.

... contd.