Shreyas Royal’s case augurs well for India-UK ties 

A nine-year-old Indian schoolchild has become an unlikely poster boy for Britain’s Home Office as it seeks to “humanise” its immigration policy in the wake of a series of recent scandals. Chess prodigy Shreyas Royal is the best thing to happen to India-UK relations in a long time.

In a rare gesture, the British government has allowed him and his family to stay on in Britain after the expiry of their visas to help him pursue his ambition to become England’s first world chess champion. His father, Jitendra Singh, an IT worker who came here on an intra-company transfer, has been granted a new work visa due to the “exceptional circumstances” of his son’s talent, days before the family was set to be deported back to India.

The last-minute reprieve at the personal intervention of new Home Secretary Sajid Javid comes at a time of growing tensions between the two countries on issues ranging from immigration and trade liberalisation, to the activities of Sikh militants and extradition of Indian fugitives living in Britain. Immigration “lies at the root of tensions”, as the BBC pointed out. The Shreyas case is rare.

The Home Office is notoriously hostile to immigrants, and it’s not usual for the Home Secretary to intervene personally and overrule his bureaucrats. When Javid took over in May, he claimed that as the son of an immigrant himself, he understood the pain of other immigrants. And his decision chimes with that claim. He has already dumped his predecessor Theresa May’s infamous “hostile environment” policy that saw Home Office vans with “Go Home” banners go round Asian neighbourhoods in London looking for illegal immigrants from the subcontinent.

But it’s too early to be sure how serious he is; he has been in office barely for four months and with popular opinion firmly against immigration, he has limited elbow room. Yet, the Shreyas case is a good sign. India, of course, has genuine concerns that the current visa regime is arbitrary and discriminatory. But, rather than addressing them (personally conveyed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Theresa May during their two recent meetings), Britain instead chose to add insult to injury, excluding India from a list of 25 “low-risk” countries, including China, Serbia, the Maldives and Bahrain, to which less stringent student visa rules apply.

Lord Karan Bilimoria, president of the UK Council for International Student Affairs who himself came to Britain on a student visa, described the decision as “another kick in the teeth for India” and an example of Britain’s “economically illiterate and hostile attitude to immigration”. The move has also been attacked by British businesses and universities which are concerned over the sharp decline in the number of Indian students — a source of much needed cash — because of tougher new visa rules. It’s seen as a “vindictive” act, a retaliation against Delhi’s refusal to sign an MoU that would oblige India to unconditionally take back all suspected illegal Indian immigrants in Britain. During her visit to India in 2016, May suggested a quid pro quo: Britain was willing to consider an improved visa deal for India , “if, at the same time, we can step up the speed and volume of returns of Indians with no right to remain in the UK.”

India agreed in principle and Modi was expected to sign a deal formally during his visit to London in April for the Commonwealth Summit. But he backed out after the Union External Affairs Ministry expressed reservations that India was being given only 15 days to confirm the citizenship of those who didn’t have proper identity documents. Delhi also questions the British figure of “1,00,000 illegal Indian migrants”.

Besides, there’s some confusion over Indian interpretation of May’s statement in Delhi. It seems India thought that the promised improved visa deal would precede the formal signing of the MOU, and when that didn’t happen, it pulled out pending further discussions. But Britain says it was linked to the actual implementation of the agreement. Both sides appear to be using the issue to gain leverage during post-Brexit negotiations over a free trade deal. India is a crucial element of Britain’s post-Brexit economic strategy and reckons that given Britain’s desperate need to cultivate new trade relationships after losing access to the 500-million strong European single market, it’s in a position to derive a good bargain over immigration in return.

But immigration is not the only irritant in India-UK relations. Among other things, India is miffed that Sikh separatist groups are allowed to operate freely on British soil and carry on an openly secessionist campaign despite Indian protests. MEA warned that Britain must “take into account the larger perspective of the relationship when they take a decision on such matters”.

India has also protested over plans to include Sikhs as a separate and distinct ethnic group in the next Census which has been a longstanding demand of pro-Khalistani groups. Then, of course, there’s that little matter of extradition of Messrs Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi and Lalit Modi. India-UK relations have not been in such a poor state at any point in the past decade or more.

It’s against the backdrop of this doom and gloom that the Shreyas story is such a welcome break. When things are not going too well, as is the case with India-UK relations, there’s a temptation to latch on and overplay even the smallest good news. But good news is good news and shouldn’t be spoilt by too much cynicism either. And who knows? Shreyas might prove to be the catalyst for better things to come.