Red carpet for Laura Loomer, deportation for critics: A tale of two Indias

&

Earlier this month, India witnessed a striking contrast in how it treats those who enter its borders. While several academics, writers and critics of the government have, in recent years, been denied entry or deported despite holding valid visas, a controversial and openly Islamophobic figure — American commentator Laura Loomer —was not only allowed into the country but given a prominent platform at a flagship media event.

Her appearance at the India Today Conclave 2026, held on March 13–14, has continued to draw scrutiny, not just for what was said on stage, but for what it reveals about the broader ecosystem: who is welcomed, who is heard, and who is turned away.

From Backlash to Platform: Loomer at India Today Conclave

Despite widespread backlash over her past remarks on Indians and Muslims, Loomer was invited to speak at the conclave and was given considerable space to present her views.

During a session on March 14, she was questioned by senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai, who directly confronted her record. “You should do more than just express regret… you are brazenly racist and Islamophobic,” Sardesai said, adding that her remarks reflected “anti-Indianism” and had no place in today’s world.

Loomer, however, chose to bypass the “anti-Indian” charge and instead zeroed in on the label of Islamophobia. “I believe Islamophobia is a hoax,” she said, framing her views as a “survival instinct” against what she described as a hostile culture.

She went further, claiming that she had come to India to warn people about an “imminent Islamic takeover,” adding, “It is perfectly normal to be fearful of Islam.”

Even as Sardesai attempted to pin her down on specific past statements, Loomer largely managed to steer the conversation toward her preferred terrain—Islam and security—rather than her documented remarks about India and Indians.

The tone of the session remained notably accommodating. At the end, the anchors remarked that Indians are “forgiving” and would embrace her. Loomer responded, “If I had hated Indians, I would not have come to India.”

In a subsequent address, she reiterated her positions, praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Indian public, and claimed she was in India as an envoy of former US President Donald Trump. She also repeatedly attacked Pakistan and framed her visit within a broader geopolitical alignment.

A Record of Hate: Loomer’s Past Statements

Loomer’s presence on such a platform becomes more striking when viewed alongside her own public record.

In December 2024, she posted a series of openly derogatory remarks about India and Indians:

  • “The average IQ in India is 76.” (Link to X post)
  • “India does have running water. It just runs out of people’s asses.” (Link)
  • Referring to Indians as “third world invaders” (Link)

In another post, she shared an image of a polluted riverside ghat and questioned whether India could be considered a “high-skill society.”

Even individuals within her broader political ecosystem have not been spared. In December 2025, she racially targeted FBI Director Kash Patel, invoking stereotypes about Indian labour exploitation abroad.

In more recent months, however, Loomer’s rhetoric has shifted more sharply toward Islamophobic messaging.

Between January and March 2026, her posts include:

  • Calling for the mass deportation of Muslims (Link)
  • Making sweeping generalisations such as “Muslims gonna Muslim” (Link)
  • Expressing hostility towards Muslim airport staff

At the conclave, this shift appeared to be strategically repackaged. Loomer apologised for some of her earlier remarks about Indians and recast herself as a defender of Hindu rights, positioning her rhetoric within a narrative of alleged persecution by Muslims. She also spoke of a growing India–US–Israel alignment, signalling an attempt to align her messaging with sections of Indian political discourse.

Meanwhile, Critics Kept Out: A Pattern of Opaque Exclusions

Set against this backdrop is a series of cases over the past few years where individuals — many of them scholars, researchers, and public intellectuals — have been denied entry into India or deported despite holding valid visas. What links many of these cases is not just the action taken, but the opacity surrounding it.

Take the case of Francesca Orsini, a widely respected scholar of Hindi literature. In October 2024, Orsini was deported from Delhi airport despite holding a valid five-year visa. Speaking from the airport, she said she had not been informed of any reason: “I am being deported, that’s all I know.” Government sources later suggested she may have violated visa conditions during previous visits, but no formal explanation was communicated to her at the time.

Historians like Ramachandra Guha and Mukul Kesavan criticized the move. Guha called Orsini “a great scholar of Indian literature” and attributed the decision to the government’s “insecurity”. Kesavan pointed out the irony of a government that promoted Hindi yet banned a scholar who had contributed significantly to the subject.

A similar lack of transparency marked the deportation of Nitasha Kaul in February 2024. Kaul, a professor of politics and international relations at Westminster University, had been invited by the Karnataka government to speak at a conference on the Constitution. She was stopped at Bengaluru airport and sent back to London. According to her, officials cited “orders from Delhi.” Kaul, a vocal critic of the Modi government, later had her OCI card cancelled. She also stated that immigration authorities taunted her over her political views.

Describing her ordeal in an X post, Kaul wrote she had been denied entry in India “for speaking on democratic & constitutional values.” She also alleged that officials “informally made references to (her) criticism of RSS, a far-right Hindu nationalist paramilitary from years ago.” And that over the years, she has received threats from “HindutvaTrolls”.

In March 2022, anthropologist Filippo Osella, who has spent decades researching Kerala’s society, was denied entry at Thiruvananthapuram airport. Despite holding a valid visa and being scheduled to attend an academic conference, he was deported without explanation. When he sought reasons, he was reportedly told only that the decision was based on “orders from higher officials.”

BBC wrote in its report, “Minutes after the plane landed, the 65-year-old was whisked away to immigration. There, officials took his photograph and fingerprints and told him that he would be deported back to the UK immediately – a highly unusual fate for a respected academic whose research is partly funded by the UK government. What’s even more surprising is that Prof Osella doesn’t know why he was deported.”

That same year, architect and academic Lindsay Bremner was turned back from Chennai airport while travelling for an academic collaboration with IIT Madras. Her visa had been granted based on an official institutional partnership, yet authorities cited vague “immigration issues” and put her on a return flight. Reports noted that she had previously shared social media posts critical of certain development projects in India.

More recently, in November 2025, American evangelist Franklin Graham was denied a visa to attend a religious gathering in Nagaland. While no official reason was made public, observers linked the decision to his organisation’s past activities in India, particularly around allegations of religious conversion.

Individually, each case has its own context. But taken together, they point to a broader pattern: decisions taken without transparent reasoning, often affecting individuals engaged in academic work, public discourse, or political critique.

When placed side by side, these two strands tell a story that is difficult to ignore.

On one hand are scholars, writers and commentators — many engaged in research or critical inquiry — who have found themselves denied entry or deported without clear explanations. On the other is a figure with a documented record of anti-India remarks and Islamophobic rhetoric, who was not only granted entry but provided a prominent platform to speak, recalibrate her image, and reach a wide audience.

This, in turn, raises a larger, uncomfortable question: what determines access to India’s public sphere and whose voices are deemed acceptable within it?

Donate to Alt News!
Independent journalism that speaks truth to power and is free of corporate and political control is possible only when people start contributing towards the same. Please consider donating towards this endeavour to fight fake news and misinformation.

Donate Now