Moral and realistic

Inadequate response to asylum request from Mr Snowden

The documents leaked by Edward Snowden about the United States National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) extensive surveillance activities have unquestionably furthered the debate, not just in the United States but in other liberal democracies, over whether checks on the state’s power to intercept and observe communication are adequate. From that point of view, Mr Snowden’s choice to blow the whistle on the NSA – he had access to the information as a security-cleared worker for civilian subcontractor Booz Allen Hamilton – is brave. However, few states would take that lying down, and the US has unsurprisingly revoked Mr Snowden’s passport. But no liberal democracy has stepped forward to unambiguously offer Mr Snowden refuge. Indeed, several European countries even went as far as to force the grounding of the plane of Bolivian President Evo Morales, by denying it overflight rights, on the apprehension that Mr Morales was ferrying Mr Snowden to safety in Bolivia.

India’s citizens have now been told that Mr Snowden’s application for asylum in this country was also rejected. The laconic statement – “we see no reason to accede to the request” – required some elaboration. At the very least, the contours of this case deserve a fuller explanation from the ministry of external affairs. Would taking Mr Snowden in cause a security threat? Would he work against India’s interests? Would it cause the US to invade, as China did after India took in the Dalai Lama? None of these possibilities is even slightly credible. If not, then the only purpose is fear of offending the current administration in the US. Without any clear and transparent reason, Mr Snowden’s application for asylum should have been given a far more sympathetic hearing. After all, the point of asylum is to protect an individual from a vengeful political system — and, given the harsh treatment handed out to previous whistle-blower Bradley Manning, the US’ national security establishment, like most others, can certainly be vengeful.

It is important to note that whatever else Mr Snowden has done, he appears to have acted on the dictates of his conscience and in the service of a more open society; his actions have not harmed the Indian national interest. The realist case is strong, too. After the departure of Hillary Clinton, the John Kerry-led US State Department has not always taken full care of India’s interests, particularly in Afghanistan. India will, of course, continue to welcome the US’ “pivot” to Asia, for its own strategic reasons. But it is perhaps wise to reiterate that India is a liberal democracy on its own terms, and that a strategic relationship involves both give and take. If India overlooks its principles on the matter of Mr Snowden, is there a direct realpolitik reward? If there is none, then, realistically speaking, India should instead have reviewed its stance on Mr Snowden’s asylum application, and indicated its dissatisfaction with the turn in Indo-US ties under the new dispensation. A single bare statement from the ministry of external affairs is not enough to answer these questions.