Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Tariq Tapa, a Fulbright scholar from the California Institute of Arts, wanted to make a documentary on ‘The Imaginary Princess: A Muslim Girl’s Story’ at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. His visa application was rejected by the UPA government without giving him any reason. He chose not to re-apply.
He was one of the scholars whose application was rejected in the last three years, as was highlighted by the Indian Express in a series of reports. Responding to an e-mailed questionnaire, Tapa shared his experience with Shubhajit Roy and explained his passion for his subject, why he did not re-apply and his thoughts after the ordeal.
• Which category did you get the Fulbright in?
Filmmaking. It is a documentary that observes my 8 year-old cousin’s daily routine as a case study to show how education reform and secular Islam are impacting the woman’s role in Indian society.
• When did you apply for clearance? When was it rejected?
I was told in February 2006 that Institute of International Education (IIE) in New York was recommending my project to United States Educational Foundation in India (USEFI). In April 2006 USEFI congratulated me that my project was accepted and I should plan to be in India in August 2006. In June 2006, at the Washington conference where the fellows (students) and scholars (tenured faculty) met, the USEFI told us that none of us had been cleared yet. A series of apologetic, uninformative emails from USEFI appeared every two weeks, and as August approached, I became suspicious. I began privately raising just enough money to arrive and start shooting for a six-month stay. I arrived in India on October 4, 2006 with my PIO card. I was notified of GOI’s overturning of my accepted project by USEFI on October 26.
• Was any reason given? Were you told to change your topic?
No reason was given. No cause, and no compensation. There is no appeal process. USEFI later hinted to me that the rejection may have had to do with the religious aspect of my project, and recommended writing a new proposal and purging it of any traces of religiosity. This struck me and the rest of the fellows as a total contradiction of USEFI and IIE’s mission statement, and an obfuscation. As a Muslim, and as someone quite familiar with India, I clearly specified the intended sensitivity of my approach to this topic.
My feeling about what really happened is that when the visa delays were collectively taking too long, it drew the attention of the interior ministry, so our projects were then turned over to a separate committee, which then reviewed them and anytime a red flag in the language of the proposals came up, the project was suspected. So, on paper, the notion of a well-educated, 25 year-old Arab male traveling alone with a bag full of electronic equipment and an interest in Islam made them suspect me enough to want to reverse my acceptance.
• You didn’t re-apply. Why?
Given the choice between either churning out a half-baked proposal just for the sake of getting back on the one-year merry-go-round with still no guarantee of success or just walking away, I chose to walk.
I applied for a Fulbright to make my film, not to spend the next year or two applying and re-applying for something that was already given to me and then taken away for no reason. I spent years researching it and months preparing the proposal and building the contacts and context. Starting over from scratch and handing something in during the space of a few weeks was more than absurd, it was offensive; as if I were writing a thank-you note and not a graduate dissertation due in the time I promised my department.
• Did the length of the process and the rejection disrupt your schedule and your planned goals for the year?
Yes and no. I am determined to complete the film I set out to make, and in the time frame I set out for it. I will not bend, no matter what. If I just gave up because of this, I would be a man without dreams, wouldn’t I?
Besides, as long as my equipment and health continue to remain intact, I can continue shooting and editing.
I will finish on time, in April, as planned.
But I will say that as a student, this hits me even more harshly. I sacrificed critical scholarship money, housing, insurance, employment, etc. in order to prepare, as I had been instructed and, as it turns out falsely promised that I would be ready to leave. I also had vaccinations and physical exams at my own expense, put my things in storage, broke leases. I am now also required to begin repayment on student loans because I no longer qualify for an academic deferral. So, “becoming a Fulbrighter” has been one of the most financially and emotionally draining experiences of my life.
I was less disappointed in the delays, which I expected based on my prior visits to India, but more at the poor way that my fellow grantees and I have been treated since becoming Fulbrighters. I was feted and congratulated on belonging to a group that represents the best of American learning, only to be made to wait indefinitely before being rejected without cause or compensation.
I can understand that a proposal can be rejected during the application process. However, it is inconceivable to me that once a project has been approved by the host country, I could still be made to bide my time for months and be rejected after being accepted. It is cruel that we should be accepted and rejected so whimsically. These astonishing delays demand that a reason be given, that someone take responsibility for the havoc this has caused.
