Contrary to many others, I have not been an admirer of Shashi Tharoor’s tweets. Some of them are downright silly (“…cursed my ex-wife in Malayalam!”), and many are inappropriate for somebody who is part of the establishment. But I like his recent tweets on the new visa rule because it articulates the liberal man’s point of view on security, as opposed to the right-wing reactionary response of the establishment, and also because it sets up a good intellectual joust in the Cabinet – Home Minister P Chidambaram vs Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Shashi Tharoor.

Reports say Tharoor was reprimanded by his boss, Foreign Minister S M Krishna, for his tweets. But a Congress Party spokesman brushed aside critics, pointing out that Tharoor’s views displayed a “human touch.” After several controversial tweets, it is clear that Congress is indulgent of Tharoor. I suspect this indulgence on the part of Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh (maybe even Rahul Gandhi) is a deliberate ploy to keep others in government on their toes, and even challenge the way government typically works.

Tharoor’s opposition to the rule – which bars foreigners with long-term Indian visas from entering the country more than once in a period of 60 days – directly challenges Chidambaram and does so with intellectual heft. Tharoor raises many important points in questioning the Home Ministry’s decision, apparently the result of the botch-up involving David Coleman Headley, the Pakistani-American terror suspect who freely visited India on reconnaissance trips for the 26/11 Mumbai attack.

How does this rule make the country any safer?

A terror group can easily have two or more different persons to do the reconnaissance, or even to carry out the attacks. After all, these attacks are not carried out by one or two disgruntled individuals but an army of terrorists. Besides, as Tharoor cleverly pointed out, the 26/11 assailants who descended on Mumbai didn’t have any visas. What the visa rule change will do is deter innocent tourists, the bulk of the traveling folks.

Chidambaram, we must remember, is keen to be seen as doing something to fix the holes in our security apparatus. So much so, it doesn’t matter if he actually does or not. The rule change is a result of such haste, when any solution should have been the result of considered opinion. If we go along with Chidambaram, we may end up doing exactly what US President George W. Bush did after the 9/11 attacks: transform a liberal country into a distrustful fortress in which foreigners and religious minorities are stripped of their basic rights. If there are lessons to be learned from the US experience, it is in tempering any new regulations, the need to think creatively and in coming up with solutions that are truly effective.

To cite just one area of improvement, let’s look at our borders and how they are manned. We are not doing things that the US does so effectively at its borders. I would be curious to know what, if anything, immigration officials asked Headley when he made the repeated visits to India. Or was he just waved in without so much of a question?

We will never need the harsh visa rule if our immigration officials are trained to analyse travel patterns, ask immigrants all the right questions and follow up with necessary action wherever necessary. Our border officials are focused excessively on the paper work, do not possess basic interrogation techniques, and often are over-eager to wave the foreigners past the immigration counters. The US, on the other hand, does this so well that sometimes it scalps an innocent Shah Rukh Khan but so what?

Can we fix gaping holes in our existing system of vigilance and monitoring, instead of coming up with creative laws to harass tourists?