 |
|
Ranjani Srinivasan, a 37-year-old PhD scholar at Columbia University, found herself in an unenviable position after her visa was revoked and she was labeled a “terrorist sympathiser” by US authorities. Srinivasan, who had been pursuing her doctorate in urban planning since 2016, had her visa revoked on March 5th by the US Consulate in Chennai. Following this, she was tracked by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, leading her to leave the United States for Canada. The situation escalated when the US Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, publicly referred to Srinivasan as a “terrorist sympathiser” who had “self-deported.” This characterization and the subsequent events raise serious questions about academic freedom, due process, and the weaponization of labels in sensitive political climates. Srinivasan's case highlights the complexities and potential pitfalls faced by international students, particularly those who express views on contentious global issues. The revocation of her visa and the public shaming she endured underscore the increasing pressures and scrutiny faced by academics and students engaged in political activism, particularly concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Her story is not an isolated incident; it reflects a broader trend of heightened surveillance and restrictions on academic freedom within the United States, raising concerns about the chilling effect on intellectual discourse and the exchange of ideas. The implications of this case extend beyond the individual, prompting a critical examination of the balance between national security concerns and the protection of fundamental rights within the academic sphere. The circumstances surrounding her departure, the allegations against her, and the responses from both Columbia University and the US government warrant careful consideration, especially in light of the potential impact on international students and the broader academic community.
In an interview with The Indian Express, Srinivasan vehemently defended her support for the pro-Palestinian student protests that had recently taken place at Columbia University. She maintained that Palestinians have the fundamental “right to self-determination,” a position she believes has been unfairly weaponized against her. Srinivasan argues that the term “Hamas-sympathiser” has been co-opted to target individuals like herself who advocate for democratic values and human rights. She emphasized that these values have been integral to her upbringing, instilled in her from a young age. Addressing her involvement in the protests, Srinivasan clarified that while she sympathized with the pro-Palestinian movement, she was not physically present on campus during the most intense periods of the demonstrations. She explained that she had been conducting field work in India until April 22, 2024, and only returned to the US shortly before the events unfolded. On April 30th, she attended a department picnic at Riverside Park, which borders Columbia University's campus. While returning from the picnic, she and her colleagues encountered barricades and a large contingent of NYPD officers. Attempting to return to her residential building, which is adjacent to the university, she was apprehended by police in the midst of the chaos, despite not actively participating in the protests. The events leading to her arrest and subsequent visa revocation remain a point of contention, with Srinivasan asserting that the charges against her were “trumped up” and ultimately dismissed. She argues that the authorities never directly informed her that her visa was being cancelled due to the arrest and summons. She questions the escalation of her case, particularly given her previous unblemished immigration record. The university's decision to disenroll her, coupled with the revocation of her visa, effectively forced her departure from the United States.
The characterization of Srinivasan as a “terrorist sympathiser” by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem is a particularly contentious aspect of this case. Srinivasan rejects this label, asserting that her support for Palestinian self-determination does not equate to supporting terrorism. She explained that her involvement primarily consisted of liking tweets and signing petitions that challenged academic repression and called for an end to violence in the Middle East. She argues that such actions are not indicative of terrorist sympathies but rather a commitment to human rights. Regarding her stance on Hamas, Srinivasan emphasized the need for peaceful negotiations and the recognition of democratic rights and self-determination for all people. She criticized the rhetoric that labels individuals like herself as Hamas sympathisers or terrorist sympathisers as overly simplistic and reductive. She contends that this type of discourse is used to stifle dissent and suppress critical discussion on complex political issues. The US authorities also publicized Srinivasan's departure as a “self-deportation,” a characterization she disputes. She clarifies that she left the country because her student visa was illegally terminated, and Columbia University disenrolled her, effectively rendering her unable to remain in the United States. She claims she complied with the rule allowing individuals to leave the country within 15 days of visa revocation. However, ICE reportedly arrived with a warrant to detain her after she had already left the country, indicating a potential lack of communication or coordination between different government agencies.
Srinivasan also addressed the allegation that she failed to disclose her arrest and summons during her visa interview. She maintains that the charges against her were baseless and ultimately dismissed, never requiring her to attend a hearing. She also argues that she was not directly informed that the visa cancellation was related to the arrest. Srinivasan states that, generally, authorities would request further information if there was an error in her application, but that did not happen in her case. She had always upheld a spotless immigration record. She opted to study in the US because of the country's perceived culture of academic freedom and professional opportunities. She emphasizes that she never intended to relinquish her Indian citizenship and was not pursuing the “American Dream.” She expressed feelings of disappointment with Columbia University's handling of the situation, citing a lack of academic freedom and a climate of fear on campus. Despite the heavy clampdown, Srinivasan remains steadfast in her belief in the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. She attributes this conviction to the democratic values she was taught from a young age, inspired by her father, a doctor who has worked in war zones and done humanitarian work. Currently in Canada on a visitor's visa, Srinivasan hopes that Columbia University will reconsider its decision and re-enroll her, allowing her to complete her PhD remotely. This case serves as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by international students navigating complex political landscapes and the importance of safeguarding academic freedom and due process in the pursuit of knowledge and intellectual inquiry.