Don't travel to India: US issues advisory

[Narada]

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/dont-travel-to-india-us-issues-advisory/94133-2.html

“The United States Mission in India wishes to urgently remind all U.S. citizens resident in or traveling to India that there is a high threat from terrorism throughout India. As terror attacks are a serious and growing threat, U.S. citizens are urged to always practice good security, including maintaining a heightened situational awareness and a low profile. Americans in India should be vigilant at all times and monitor local news reports and vary their routes and times in carrying out daily activities. Americans should consider the level of security present when visiting public places, including religious sites, or choosing hotels, restaurants, entertainment and recreation venues. ,” says the US state department website.

For the latest security information, Americans traveling abroad should regularly monitor the Department's Internet web site at http://travel.state.gov where the current Worldwide Caution, Travel Warnings, and Travel Alerts can be found.


My Comment: The Indian left congress party has not done anything to protect India and its guests from Islamic terrorism emanating from Pakistan that's why you have this WARNING!

[krissh]

Crap! I hope they don't put it into the off-limits list.

What do you think that the Congress Party should do to reduce the threat as well as the actual incidences? Even Israel, which is probably the most security-conscience in the world, is still unable to prevent suicide bombers from getting in. It is Pakistan that needs to police itself, as it is finally attempting to do. Pakistan should request assistance from India not just the US, and improve their  political relations. At the end of the day, though, it is the terrorist leadership who send out their uneducated, brain-washed minions to do the dirty work.

Anyways, I wish the state dept would stop making it illegal to enter specific countries.

[wannabe]

This is a warning, or rather, a security alert, not a decree to make it illegal to go to India. There are very few countries which the U.S. government prohibits its citizens from traveling to.  (The only I can think of offhand is Cuba, and even then it is not exactly illegal, just very difficult.)

At any rate, I don't see anything wrong with this advisory. It is just a recognition of the reality.  What boggled my mind the most in the recently held Indian elections is the universally held view that there were no "universal issues" to define the campaign.

As for what the Congress party can do about the terrorist problem, it can begin by first acknowledging that terrorism is a problem.  I could wish that they would then go on to say that it is unacceptable, but alas, I have no hope of any such action on their part.  Specific steps they could take to reduce terrorist attacks are to tighten up border security, to institute verifiable identity cards for all citizens, to expel all illegal infiltrators, and to acknowledge that even Pakistani terrorists cannot successfully execute their missions without the cooperation of Indian citizens, and go after them as well, prosecute captured terrorists under appropriate laws (unlike what is happening with Kasab in the Mumbai attack case), and generally, stop treating terrorist outfits of all stripes (not just those based in Pakistan) as potential vote bank allies, but as deadly threats to the population. But of course, that requires that they actually think of the general population as people they are charged to protect, and not just as some giant source of money for them to bleed off.  So terrorism has become just another fact of life in India, like overflowing garbage or unscheduled traffic jams because some idiot politician chooses to drive on certain roads.

[krissh]

This is a warning, or rather, a security alert, not a decree to make it illegal to go to India. There are very few countries which the U.S. government prohibits its citizens from traveling to.  (The only I can think of offhand is Cuba, and even then it is not exactly illegal, just very difficult.)

At any rate, I don't see anything wrong with this advisory. It is just a recognition of the reality.  What boggled my mind the most in the recently held Indian elections is the universally held view that there were no "universal issues" to define the campaign.

You are correct, but it might as well be illegal for all of the restrictions and penalties for non-compliance, unless an individual has an officially recognized reason to go to that country, then you can be penalized for attempting to enter it. Those penalties can include severe fines and imprisonment. In other words, I can't get a tourist travel visa to among others: Afghanistan, or Iraq, or the Congo. This effectively makes it off-limits for anyone who isn't a non-federal employees, internationally recognized charity orgs, etc.

I fully support the state department travel warnings, especially with countries that don't have extradition agreements, and I understand the rationale behind it. I am simply grumbling, because if I want to put my life at risk and visit a warn-torn country, or a country that is hostile to the US, then I shouldn't have to join an organization of some sort just to do so. There are a large number of countries where you are basically taking your life into your own hands. I just wondering if I'll ever get the opportunity to see the geology and archaeology of various countries before the entire place is nothing but a wasteland.

I am trying to learn as much as I can about India, both contemporary and past cultures, as well as the institutions that define it. So, I appreciate the explanation regarding the Congress party. I have read a bit about the various parties and their stances. Do you believe that one of the other parties have the ability and a coherent plan to combat terrorism? I strongly support a hardline approach to terrorists, and believe that no quarter should be given. Nevertheless, I get nervous when politicians start talking about limiting civil liberties in order to safeguard the voters for their own good.

Border security barely works here in the US, and we aren't surrounded by hostile nations such as Pakistan, China, and Bangladesh. I saw something recently on the Nepalese gov't tinkering around with totalitarianism, so probably can't count them as friends. Granted India has enough people to actually create a border guard force large enough, but how are you going to require mandatory IDs with 800 million people, over half of which are illiterate and homeless? How do you hunt down and find illegals with that massive of a population. The US Immigration service has long been overwhelmed by their own bureaucratic stagnation, even with Visa holders who are legit and follow the laws.


Forgive me, I am playing Devil's Advocate. Your solutions are sensible but I just don't see how anyone, regardless of party affiliation or sabre-rattling, can actually implement those ideas. I can't respond with better solutions, because I am incredibly ignorant about India. I am working to rectify that, and I would love to hear more about your thoughts and insights. I hope my comments or approach has not offended you, and feel free to correct me on any erroneous information. Other than verifying my understanding of the restrictions placed on US citizens and travel, all the other comments and opinions are based on various readings and general assessments. I don't have any specific sources, but I can attempt to track them down.

[latishya]

 if I want to put my life at risk and visit a warn-torn country, or a country that is hostile to the US, then I shouldn't have to join an organization of some sort just to do so.

but it would not just be your life at risk. people who do travel as tourists to those sorts of destinations often get into difficulties which then force the consular staff of their countries to get involved as well as local law enforcement or (para)military personnel and often also take up time and resources of the people in the organizations working there by  consent. Ill-prepared or unintentionally offensive tourists can jeopardize much hards work by ngos in delicate situations. Tourism is NOT a basic human right and people who think it is should consider the consequences that their frivolous wanderlust can have on people trying to get serious work done.

[someone]

I initially thought the advisory was because of the curry bashing issue. That issue is getting such huge play in the Indian media, that retaliatory Oz bashing - which will probably translate to targetting any random Euro-looking visitor - by local thugs in India would not surprise me if it happened.

US advisories about India, I've found, are usually indicative of intelligence they have regarding impending attacks. I'm wondering what's going to happen..

[krissh]

but it would not just be your life at risk. people who do travel as tourists to those sorts of destinations often get into difficulties which then force the consular staff of their countries to get involved as well as local law enforcement or (para)military personnel and often also take up time and resources of the people in the organizations working there by  consent. Ill-prepared or unintentionally offensive tourists can jeopardize much hards work by ngos in delicate situations. Tourism is NOT a basic human right and people who think it is should consider the consequences that their frivolous wanderlust can have on people trying to get serious work done.

Valid point, I often forget that most people haven't traveled in any other capacity than as tourists. It is wanderlust on my part, but also an overwhelming love of other cultures and lands. I would never attempt to qualify tourism as a basic human right, but I do believe that if an individual is willing to sign legal documentation which releases their home country from any responsibility for that individual, that should be an acceptable compromise. The ill-prepared and intentionally ignorant traveler is already taking his/her life into their hands, regardless of where they are. People in official capacities are just as likely to cause offense or jeopardize the political situation between countries. I am not attempting to justify this, but stuff happens, no matter how prepared a person is. You make an excellent case, but those reasons can be used to completely eliminate travel for other than official purposes. We might as well be living in a communist country. Frivolity implies a lack of concern for one's surroundings and refusal to understand the consequences of certain actions. Tourists are notorious for this. They destroy fragile archaeology, ecology, violate sacred places, take advantage of a country's unregulated traffick in sex slavery, drugs, and other (otherwise illegal and unethical practices), and generally wreck havoc on the local culture. Not to mention the billions of dollars spent on the tourist industry that completely undermines that very uniqueness that drew people to it in the first place. Personally, I despise tourists, I hate their loudness, their lack of consideration for the local populace, their implicit belief that all they need is cash to justify any and all actions. The individual wanderer who appreciates the culture and landscape of a country is much less likely to interfere in NGO activities or cause problems. They are the ones who attempt to learn the language and local customs. They are the ones who make an effort to respect the laws and individuals of that country. They are also more likely to get involved in charitable activities; help with basic human services, medical attention, or education. Tourists go to other countries to take a piece of it away and put it in a souvenir drawer, while wanderers want to give something back in appreciation.

[Sundar Rajkumari]

I'll show this thread to my family.
They want to go there this summer.

[2hapyft]

well i just found out that all DOD and their family members are restricted from going to India except on official business. Even then there are strict guidelines.   

[krissh]

I just truly hope things cool down, and the Taliban gets the same treatment they bestowed upon the women of Afghanistan for all those years. I hope that Pakistan and India can remember the similarities between them, and let the differences go to the wayside.

[James]

Mobility rights are human rights.  The whole premise being it's only totalitarian states (like communist ones that the U.S. fought- e.g., the Soviet Union) that attempt to oppress their citizens by restricting their movements.  People who can't come and go are not free, after all, on the very face of it.  Mobility rights cover tourism, I'm sure.  

I understand restrictions on government employees, particularly, because you're a likely target if you go abroad.  In the current world climate, the U.S. government seeking to protect its employees by restricting travel makes sense.  That makes less sense to me, personally, when you're talking about the broader citizenry.

Reading the U.S. advisory, it seems to be fair, and clearly sparked by the Mumbai terror attack:

...
SAFETY AND SECURITY:   There is a high threat from terrorism throughout India and terror attacks are a serious and growing threat to U.S. citizens traveling and resident there. U.S. citizens are urged to always practice good security, including maintaining a heightened situational awareness and a low profile.  Coordinated terror attacks in Mumbai in late November 2008 targeting areas frequented by Westerners have raised the risk of Americans becoming intended or unintended victims of terrorism in India. Because the locations of the attacks have included luxury and other hotels, trains, train stations, markets, cinemas, mosques, and restaurants in large urban areas, it is becoming more difficult to modify one’s behavior to lessen the growing risk. The media attention of and public reaction to the Mumbai attack could prompt other terrorist incidents. Future attacks may also target public places frequented by Westerners, including in large cities and tourist areas such as Goa.
...

I notice the Gov't of Canada updated its advisory regarding travel to India on June 3, 2009, to upgrade the security risk warning ("Exercise high degree of caution"), the day before the article quoted above, so I wonder whether this is a coordinated action taken by various U.S. allies as well.

I'm sad to see India having to suffer through terrorism and I hope the situation improves for the people there soon.

[emel3]

I see that India now has the same level of warning as for travellers to Israel and I would never cancel a trip to Israel because of a warning.  Yes, yes I know the reports and the news paint a different picture but having lived there I know that I would rather let my kids walk home alone at night there than here in Toronto!  The advisory warnings never stopped me from travelling to Israel after I moved to Canada and I have let my kids go on their own. 
My view is that it doesnt matter -- when your time is come -- it will be done no matter what -- so you might as well enjoy yourself doing the things you enjoy and want to do.  So, you might avoid potential terrorism in India just to be run over at home by a car/bus  -- or have a brain aneurism! 

One should ALWAYS exercise caution no matter what the advisory level is -- there are too many unscrupulous people willing to lead the unwary astray.  I went to India in 2005 and was the only person on my tour who had read Canada's tourist advisory for India -- as a result I was the only person who had any feelings of unease -- everyone else was blissfully unaware of any dangers and thus had a much more fun time than me!

I also got caught up in a political rally for the recent elections this last time -- also blissfully unaware that there might be potential dangers for me! I took hundreds of pictures at close up but everyone was friendly and smiling... absolutely no danger at all!! 

My point is that there is often a wide discrepancy between the advisory and the situation on the ground... if you are a regular citizen, you should weigh up your pros and cons and not be frightened into inaction by generalized warnings; if you are employed by a government agency, restrictions may be harsher and you have to again weigh up your options to comply or oppose.

[2hapyft]

I think the same way emel as that when it is my time up it will not matter where I am so I would not let a travel advisory stop me.  So being that is the way I think, I was still going to India next week it was only when I went to work on Sunday that I found out about the DOD restriction. Since that is who I work for now I can't go. What a pain this is, I will miss my friends wedding. It was one of the hardest phones calls to make. Seeing it on dvd will not be the same.