Debbie Abrahams: India denies entry to UK Labour MP critical of government

[MenInG]

New Delhi: A British MP critical of the government's decisions on Kashmir says she has been denied entry into India and is "waiting to be deported" after she was told at the Delhi airport that her e-visa had been rejected. Debbie Abrahams, a Member of the British Parliament and the Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Kashmir, has posted on social media that she was "treated like a criminal" and taken to the deportee cell.

Ms Abrahams said she arrived at the Delhi airport this morning around 8.50 am. She was told that the e-visa that had been issued last October and was valid until October 2020 had been rejected.

"Along with everyone else, I presented myself at the immigration desk with my documents including my e-visa, had my photograph taken and then the official looked at his screen and started shaking his head. Then he told me my visa was rejected took my passport and disappeared for about 10 minutes. When he came back he was very rude and aggressive shouting at me to 'come with me'," said the British MP.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bri...ry-into-india-say-2181336?pfrom=home-bigstory

 

[MenInG]

New Delhi: A day after British MP Debbie Abrahams, a vocal critic of India's policies on Jammu and Kashmir, was deported from Delhi airport, government officials said her e-Business visa was cancelled before she travelled to India on account of "activities which went against India's national interests."

They also said she had been informed about the rejection of her e-business visa the same day, on February 14.

On Monday, Debbie Abrahams arrived in Delhi around 8.50 am on a flight from Dubai, but was told by immigration authorities that her visa was no longer valid.

"In any case, previously issued e-Business visa meant for business meetings can't be used for visiting family and friends, as claimed by her," the sources added on the British lawmaker who has been deeply critical of the government's decisions on Jammu and Kashmir and the end of special status under Article 370.

The rules required a new visa, said officials. The grant, rejection and revocation of visa is the sovereign right of any country, they stated.

Ms Abrahams reacted on Twitter: "Very disappointing that a friend can't respecfully criticise another friend. Isn't this the sign of a healthy democracy?" She also posted a shot of her visa in a bid to prove that it was valid till October this year.

Ms Abrahams was issued an e-business visa on October 7, 2019, which was valid till October 5, 2020, to attend business meetings.

"Ms Abrahams was not in the possession of a valid visa at the time of her travel to India and she was accordingly requested to return," sources said, adding that there is no provision of "visa on arrival" for UK nationals at the airport.

"I presented myself at the immigration desk with my documents including my e-visa, had my photograph taken and then the official looked at his screen and started shaking his head. Then he told me my visa was rejected, took my passport and disappeared for about 10 minutes. When he came back he was very rude and aggressive, shouting at me to 'come with me'," said the British MP in a statement.

"I told him not to speak to me like that and was then taken to a cordoned off area marked as a Deportee Cell. He then ordered me to sit down and I refused. I didn't know what they might do or where else they may take me, so I wanted people to see me."

The politician said she rang a relative she was to stay with, and he called the British High Commission.

"I'm prepared to let the fact that I've been treated like a criminal go, and I hope they will let me visit my family and friends," Ms Abrahams had said.

The MP, who heads a UK parliamentary group on Kashmir, has been very vocal and emphatic in her criticism of the Article 370 move and its aftermath, with unprecedented security and communications restrictions.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bri...national-interes-2181913?pfrom=home-topscroll

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Once again the key questions are why was it revoked & when? <a href="https://t.co/lAhaPHNh0K">https://t.co/lAhaPHNh0K</a></p>— Debbie Abrahams (@Debbie_abrahams) <a href="https://twitter.com/Debbie_abrahams/status/1229683057214599173?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 18, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Itachi]

Visa to any country isn't a right. It's a privilege.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Visa to any country isn't a right. It's a privilege.

Ms Abrahms perhaps thought the Raj is still on.

She wanted Visa on Arrival after her E visa had been rejected earlier. She is playing to her local constituency may be.

 

[Napa]

Visa to any country isn't a right. It's a privilege.

Maybe she believes that India is still a British colony.

These Labour MPs are anyway hypocrites, so it is not surprising that she is making a big deal out of being sent back from India. Her hypocrisy was exposed when it came out that she sent her daughters to expensive private schools while opposing the Tories “divisive plans to open new grammar schools”.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/721747/Anti-grammar-schools-Labour-socialists-shadow-cabinet

She was also suspended from her Shadow Minister position for bullying, hardly the sort of person anyone should pay any attention. Just another attention seeker hoping to remain relevant by criticizing the Indian govt.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-labour-frontbench-role-amid-bullying-claims

 

[IAJ]

Ms Abrahms perhaps thought the Raj is still on.

She wanted Visa on Arrival after her E visa had been rejected earlier. She is playing to her local constituency may be.

You must have enjoyed Arnab Goswamis show on her yesterday? What a loser he is, really.

 

[IAJ]

So far 3 of BJPs chamchey have posted in this thread. Still waiting for a couple of more of them. Ajao tum bi.

 

[HitWicket]

Visa to any country isn't a right. It's a privilege.

Should that right really be revoked because you don't like someones opinion even if they've committed no crimes?

 

[IMMY69]

So far 3 of BJPs chamchey have posted in this thread. Still waiting for a couple of more of them. Ajao tum bi.

You have to give it to them. They're so quick to defend anything India that you have to wonder if they're not part of some BJP Social Media Cell.

 

[Technics 1210]

Her E-VISA was rejected on the grounds she is a known critic of the RSS Government and its handling of Kashmir.

As for VISA being a privilege, sounds like someone has had a raft of rejections. A VISA can be a right too, through birth/hereditary.

 

[kk1992]

India may not be British colony but most Indian as soon as they arrive in white people land start to act like they are still colonized.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Visa to any country isn't a right. It's a privilege.

So is a voice to the outside world for Kashmir citizens it seems. A 'privelege' that has been removed so the Indian army can inflict their abuse of the local population behind closed doors.

 

[Itachi]

So is a voice to the outside world for Kashmir citizens it seems. A 'privelege' that has been removed so the Indian army can inflict their abuse of the local population behind closed doors.

If you believe that, then opt for sanctioning and isolating India. Sooner or later, India will be forced to agree to the terms.

But crying foul over terms which aren't "right" won't solve anything. It just shows the person concern has self centered philosophy and the so called care is nothing but a facade.

 

[Itachi]

Should that right really be revoked because you don't like someones opinion even if they've committed no crimes?

Yes. If it's in interest of the nation, then the privilege shouldnt be given.

 

[Itachi]

As for VISA being a privilege, sounds like someone has had a raft of rejections. A VISA can be a right too, through birth/hereditary.

.... The context was India. You can't claim as a right.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

If you believe that, then opt for sanctioning and isolating India. Sooner or later, India will be forced to agree to the terms.

But crying foul over terms which aren't "right" won't solve anything. It just shows the person concern has self centered philosophy and the so called care is nothing but a facade.

The world doesn't work like that, India is too important a market for the world powerbrokers to sanction or isolate India. Same with Saudi Arabia. That doesn't mean that despicable regimes are magically goodness and light, just because they are boosting our coffers.

 

[HitWicket]

Yes. If it's in interest of the nation, then the privilege shouldnt be given.

So do you believe any foreigner who believes Kashmiri people should have the right to self-determination and that any abuses of human rights should be highlighted shouldn't be permitted entry to India?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Should that right really be revoked because you don't like someones opinion even if they've committed no crimes?

Why allow anyone who is working against the country's interest, into the country?

 

[cricketjoshila]

You have to give it to them. They're so quick to defend anything India that you have to wonder if they're not part of some BJP Social Media Cell.

Defend? Lol.

India just threw out a sitting British MP and you think it needs defending on an online forum.

Lol.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Why allow anyone who is working against the country's interest, into the country?

Are all journalists reporting on Kashmir working against the country's interests? If you allow a good spread of international journalists into the valley, then the truthful accounts would surely be apparent as they would be reported first hand by several sources?

 

[cricketjoshila]

.... The context was India. You can't claim as a right.

There is no birth right to a visa. As you can see the panic in this thread.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...light=trump muslim visa&p=9793234#post9793234

 

[Itachi]

So do you believe any foreigner who believes Kashmiri people should have the right to self-determination and that any abuses of human rights should be highlighted shouldn't be permitted entry to India?

Self right determination is India's own internal matter. Kashmir isn't the only state where freedom movements is going on. But it is an internal matter of India at the end of the day.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Are all journalists reporting on Kashmir working against the country's interests? If you allow a good spread of international journalists into the valley, then the truthful accounts would surely be apparent as they would be reported first hand by several sources?

Journalists are openly reporting. Even an extremely religiously biased rag like Al Jazeera is.

 

[Itachi]

The world doesn't work like that, India is too important a market for the world powerbrokers to sanction or isolate India. Same with Saudi Arabia. That doesn't mean that despicable regimes are magically goodness and light, just because they are boosting our coffers.

If that's the case, then how does the opposing voice has credibility since supporting is outright thrown away? If no one is Saint, then why it matters if any X, Y, Z supports or rejects any event?

 

[cricketjoshila]

So do you believe any foreigner who believes Kashmiri people should have the right to self-determination and that any abuses of human rights should be highlighted shouldn't be permitted entry to India?

No. Anyone who supports secession in India can take a hike.

Debbie Abrams learnt that UK passport and MP status meant zilch.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Journalists are openly reporting. Even an extremely religiously biased rag like Al Jazeera is.

Not according to this:

The government has made journalism impossible in Kashmir

https://www.telegraphindia.com/opin...-journalism-impossible-in-kashmir/cid/1715650

 

[HitWicket]

No. Anyone who supports secession in India can take a hike.

She doesn't, she supports the right of the people in the region to have self determination and have any human rights violations highlighted.

 

[IndianHero]

Well deserved ! When there is no visa on arrival for UK nationals how come she expected to get visa on arrival ? Moreover when she knew her that her visa got cancelled why did she travelled in the first place ?

May be she thought that india is like pakistan where people like raymond davis can kill any one they want in broad day light & get away ! Sorry we are not pakistan !

 

[Itachi]

She doesn't, she supports the right of the people in the region to have self determination and have any human rights violations highlighted.

First, one should learn to respect the laws of the land. Then you can go for self determination.

When you knew beforehand that your visa was canceled, why you travel to that same place? Hoping that your position in your country will give you privileges to claim it as right?

 

[cricketjoshila]

She doesn't, she supports the right of the people in the region to have self determination and have any human rights violations highlighted.

She does. What is the right of self determination?

 

[Bigboii]

She does. What is the right of self determination?

Have you not taken any humanities classes its practically there after every two pages

 

[King-Misbah]

Fascist India at it again

 

[HitWicket]

First, one should learn to respect the laws of the land. Then you can go for self determination.

When you knew beforehand that your visa was canceled, why you travel to that same place? Hoping that your position in your country will give you privileges to claim it as right?

That would assume the fact her visa had been revoked was clearly communicated to her.

It's a silly argument anyway, the reason she wasn't able to legally enter the country was because of the decision that had been made (that would typically be expected from a totalitarian fascist regime).

 

[Itachi]

That would assume the fact her visa had been revoked was clearly communicated to her.

In case of e visa, how can you miss it? If i am applying for it, I would make sure that i was granted before going to the country. She arrived even though she wasn't granted. That's a disrepect to the constitution and laws of india in the first place.

It's not a silly argument. It shows how one could try to take advantage of the system by using the position.

 

[CanadianG00se]

Her E-VISA was rejected on the grounds she is a known critic of the RSS Government and its handling of Kashmir.

As for VISA being a privilege, sounds like someone has had a raft of rejections. A VISA can be a right too, through birth/hereditary.

Visa is never a right. Being a former Indian, I too have to follow Indian regulations in applying Indian visas, and I could even get denied to India. Visas was and always will be a Privilege which a host country can at anytime take it away.

 

[HitWicket]

In case of e visa, how can you miss it? If i am applying for it, I would make sure that i was granted before going to the country. She arrived even though she wasn't granted. That's a disrepect to the constitution and laws of india in the first place.

It's not a silly argument. It shows how one could try to take advantage of the system by using the position.

She was granted and had a visa, her application was never declined. Her visa was recently revoked because of her opinions.

 

[CanadianG00se]

That would assume the fact her visa had been revoked was clearly communicated to her.

It's a silly argument anyway, the reason she wasn't able to legally enter the country was because of the decision that had been made (that would typically be expected from a totalitarian fascist regime).

Visas to any country doesn’t automatically guarantee entry. Immigration officers can at anytime deny entry and/or cancel the visas.

Lastly, her visas were Business visas(assuming it was still active) and she was visiting for tourism/personal visit which clearly violates her visa norms.

 

[Itachi]

She was granted and had a visa, her application was never declined. Her visa was recently revoked because of her opinions.

I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out.

In this case, she could perhaps make a claim for compensation (not sure about our policies regarding that) so won't comment on that part.

 

[CanadianG00se]

I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out.

In this case, she could perhaps make a claim for compensation (not sure about our policies regarding that) so won't comment on that part.

She can’t claim or anything. Any country can deny entry whether morally right or wrong. Ignoring her political views, she was violating her visa rules, clearly she was on personal visit to India on a business visas.

 

[Itachi]

She can’t claim or anything. Any country can deny entry whether morally right or wrong. Ignoring her political views, she was violating her visa rules, clearly she was on personal visit to India on a business visas.

Govt ministry officials may get diplomatic visas i assumed. Didn't know she was on business visa.

You are right. That itself breaks the visa T&C.

 

[Zaz]

Day by day india is turning into a dictatorship where you cant criticise the govt without facing repercussions

What a farcical democratic state it is

 

[Technics 1210]

Visa is never a right. Being a former Indian, I too have to follow Indian regulations in applying Indian visas, and I could even get denied to India. Visas was and always will be a Privilege which a host country can at anytime take it away.

Maybe in India a VISA is a privledge and not a right, but in many other countries, the 'privledge' you refer to is simply known as 'permission'.

VISA is also a right. An example would be a Pakistani married to a UK national, giving birth in Pakistan - the child has a right to the UK under current Home Office rules. The VISA for the child is automatic, and even comes with the option to convert to a full UK passport, applied within Pakistan or the UK.

When I apply for an ESTA, I'm given the right to travel to the USA providing I do not break conditions.

You are right however the laws/requirement can change, but in the UK at least, a law cannot be applied retrospectively.

 

[Itachi]

She can’t claim or anything. Any country can deny entry whether morally right or wrong. Ignoring her political views, she was violating her visa rules, clearly she was on personal visit to India on a business visas.

Saw two images. One granted and other rejected. So one was the existing and the latter should be upon arrival.

It seems like she's crying more about not getting "preferential treatment". Who else here not have faced difficulties in immigration? Why one person should have the "right" to have preferential treatment?

She is same as any other visitor. If the immigration officer asks you to sit, you just sit and let them take care of the papers. I wonder why people want her to have privilege. Is it because she's from UK?

 

[BreadPakoda]

Saw two images. One granted and other rejected. So one was the existing and the latter should be upon arrival.

It seems like she's crying more about not getting "preferential treatment". Who else here not have faced difficulties in immigration? Why one person should have the "right" to have preferential treatment?

She is same as any other visitor. If the immigration officer asks you to sit, you just sit and let them take care of the papers. I wonder why people want her to have privilege. Is it because she's from UK?

She may be looking for preferential treatment. However, ignoring the technicalities, the bigger issue here is "has she been been rejected a visa in the first place due to her opinions?"

 

[Technics 1210]

.... that's why, context is important. What is applicable to UK or USA may not hold true for India.

Then next time provide context and don't go generalising with your India specifc comments.

 

[HitWicket]

Saw two images. One granted and other rejected. So one was the existing and the latter should be upon arrival.

It seems like she's crying more about not getting "preferential treatment". Who else here not have faced difficulties in immigration? Why one person should have the "right" to have preferential treatment?

She is same as any other visitor. If the immigration officer asks you to sit, you just sit and let them take care of the papers. I wonder why people want her to have privilege. Is it because she's from UK?

The rejected one is from the website where you can check the current status of your Indian visa. Someone from immigration/the government must have leaked her passport number allowing the public/media the ability to view the current status of her visa. When her visa was revoked the status on that website would have changed.

Like [MENTION=146594]BreadPakoda[/MENTION] says though, the bigger issue her is the apparent revoking of her visa due to an opinion.

 

[Technics 1210]

The rejected one is from the website where you can check the current status of your Indian visa. Someone from immigration/the government must have leaked her passport number allowing the public/media the ability to view the current status of her visa. When her visa was revoked the status on that website would have changed.

Like [MENTION=146594]BreadPakoda[/MENTION] says though, the bigger issue her is the apparent revoking of her visa due to an opinion.

Yup, and one only revoke something if it was granted in the first place.

 

[CanadianG00se]

Maybe in India a VISA is a privledge and not a right, but in many other countries, the 'privledge' you refer to is simply known as 'permission'.

VISA is also a right. An example would be a Pakistani married to a UK national, giving birth in Pakistan - the child has a right to the UK under current Home Office rules. The VISA for the child is automatic, and even comes with the option to convert to a full UK passport, applied within Pakistan or the UK.

When I apply for an ESTA, I'm given the right to travel to the USA providing I do not break conditions.

You are right however the laws/requirement can change, but in the UK at least, a law cannot be applied retrospectively.

Sponsorship visas are totally different. We are basically arguing over tourist/e visas which I was pointing out it’s not a right.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Can India also throw back the hundreds of millions of £ we Brits have given in aid?

Surely now the British should re-think of giving aid to such a fascist regime. It's like giving money to Hitlers children right now!

India is a bigger economy than UK. Indian govt takes no aid from UK. Uk gives aid to some NGOs

Ask your govt why it is throwing money to NGOs.

Aid. Lol.

 

[Napa]

Can India also throw back the hundreds of millions of £ we Brits have given in aid?

Surely now the British should re-think of giving aid to such a fascist regime. It's like giving money to Hitlers children right now!

India will gladly return the "hundreds of millions of £" Britain has given... as soon as Britain returns even half of the trillions of £ it stole when it ruled India. Pakistan would also be entitled to a share, definitely would improve its precarious forex situation.

 

[Napa]

Sponsorship visas are totally different. We are basically arguing over tourist/e visas which I was pointing out it’s not a right.

There isn't any right, a visa can be cancelled anytime.

My bro-in-law was standing in a immigration line at Delhi airport. The Brit guy in front of him was having a bad day and was cranky. When asked "how long do you intend to stay?" by the immigration officer, he replied "why would I want to stay long in your country?". His visa was cancelled on the spot by the officer and he was deported.

This thing is pretty consistent across countries. You may remember the so called 20th 9/11 hijacker Al-Qahtani was sent back from a US airport though he had a valid US visa because he could not answer questions to the satisfaction of the immigration officer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_al-Qahtani#Denied_entry_by_US_immigration

 

[Arya]

Nicely done.

 

[Technics 1210]

Sponsorship visas are totally different. We are basically arguing over tourist/e visas which I was pointing out it’s not a right.

None of my examples refer to a sponsor visa but nevermind.

 

[Rajdeep]

"Kashmir is Indias internal matter and no third party interferences pls" - surely mrs. Debbie has heard of this before?

 

[SensiblePakFan]

Just like Israel.

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Very disappointing that a friend can't respecfully criticise another friend. Isn't this the sign of a healthy democracy? <a href="https://t.co/s40JRelOgM">https://t.co/s40JRelOgM</a></p>— Debbie Abrahams (@Debbie_abrahams) <a href="https://twitter.com/Debbie_abrahams/status/1229681242502836225?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 18, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[cricketjoshila]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Very disappointing that a friend can't respecfully criticise another friend. Isn't this the sign of a healthy democracy? <a href="https://t.co/s40JRelOgM">https://t.co/s40JRelOgM</a></p>— Debbie Abrahams (@Debbie_abrahams) <a href="https://twitter.com/Debbie_abrahams/status/1229681242502836225?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 18, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Who said she was a friend?

 

[Mahee]

Such an idiotic woman this Debbie is

 

[Hitman]

Who said she was a friend? &#55357;&#56834;

Maan na maan, main tera mehmaan

 

[Local.Dada]

I don’t think she is relevant even in our home country, I think it’s just a stunt to get some mileage for a while before it is back to obscurity.

Well done to Amit Shah though. The man is a total gangsta

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I don’t think she is relevant even in our home country, I think it’s just a stunt to get some mileage for a while before it is back to obscurity.

Well done to Amit Shah though. The man is a total gangsta

She's more relevant to our country than Amit Shah is.

 

[CanadianG00se]

None of my examples refer to a sponsor visa but nevermind.

In Canada we called it Sponsorship visas. Anyhow it’s irrelevant as to what is it called in different countries, but you haven’t even answered in regards to how is it Right for MP from UK to enter India?

This whole thread is based on that.

 

[HitWicket]

In Canada we called it Sponsorship visas. Anyhow it’s irrelevant as to what is it called in different countries, but you haven’t even answered in regards to how is it Right for MP from UK to enter India?

This whole thread is based on that.

It's not though, the primary issue in the thread is the revoking of someones visa because of their opinion.

 

[IMMY69]

India denied her entry due to her opposing views but oh no, not to the Indians here.
"It was a technicality, it was the wrong type of visa, she should have checked online before arriving etc etc etc..."

Heil Modi

 

[Lonewarrior]

Ok thn, next time when Pakistan deny anyone from visa thn i hope these Indian Bjp goons wont cry on PP ....

 

[Technics 1210]

In Canada we called it Sponsorship visas. Anyhow it’s irrelevant as to what is it called in different countries, but you haven’t even answered in regards to how is it Right for MP from UK to enter India?

This whole thread is based on that.

She was granted a visa. Read the thread. The visa was then revoked. Are you saying she shouldn't have applied in the first place?

The question is now on you and supporters of RSS to explain whether it was right for the Indian government to revoke a visa purely on the basis the MP disagrees with an opinion.

 

[Local.Dada]

She's more relevant to our country than Amit Shah is.

Ah I see where you got the misunderstanding that I was a Brit. I meant “her” country not “our” that was a typo.

But anyways how is a small time player in her own party that is not even in power a bigger deal than the home minister of the largest democracy in the world?

 

[CanadianG00se]

She was granted a visa. Read the thread. The visa was then revoked. Are you saying she shouldn't have applied in the first place?

The question is now on you and supporters of RSS to explain whether it was right for the Indian government to revoke a visa purely on the basis the MP disagrees with an opinion.

Are you ignoring the part where SHE HAD BUSINESS VISAS but want to visit India for Personal/Political reasons. That is violations of her visas. She already made her intentions clear even before departing for India that she is planning to visit restricted areas for personal or political purpose. Indian Govt did the right thing by revoking her visas as she was going to violate it. No country allows tourist to violates their visa rules and still welcome them with open arms.
I got my E-visas issued to me this morning and it has clear instructions that visiting to restricted area is prohibited on e-visas, it also requires prior permission from GoI.

Lastly, She thought she could get visa on arrival which is not even an option for UK citizens. Instead of acknowledging error on her behalf and going back and applying appropriate visas, she decided to throw tantrum and make it India bashing.

I hope I have answered that Why Indian Govt revoke her visas cause she was violating it knowingly.

 

[Technics 1210]

Are you ignoring the part where SHE HAD BUSINESS VISAS but want to visit India for Personal/Political reasons. That is violations of her visas. She already made her intentions clear even before departing for India that she is planning to visit restricted areas for personal or political purpose. Indian Govt did the right thing by revoking her visas as she was going to violate it. No country allows tourist to violates their visa rules and still welcome them with open arms.
I got my E-visas issued to me this morning and it has clear instructions that visiting to restricted area is prohibited on e-visas, it also requires prior permission from GoI.

Lastly, She thought she could get visa on arrival which is not even an option for UK citizens. Instead of acknowledging error on her behalf and going back and applying appropriate visas, she decided to throw tantrum and make it India bashing.

I hope I have answered that Why Indian Govt revoke her visas cause she was violating it knowingly.

She is a politican . Shock horror!

You are missing the point where she was granted a Visa and it was REVOKED. This is not the same as refusing her entry because she had a wrong visa.

 

[Mahee]

Kudos to Amit shah for immediately deporting this idiotic woman