Around The World With Prem Bhatia
Excerpts from his International coverage
1953 –Exacting conditions for entry into U.S.A.
It pains me, as it hurts many Americans, to be forced to this unfortunate comparison, but the existence of a set of absolute restrictions is not denied even by the US Government, which is now bound hand and foot by the McCarran Act. It sweep is so wide and thorough that any contact with communism, past or present, can be sufficient reason for exclusion.
Almost the only worthwhile difference in the rigours of Soviet and American conditions is one of approach. While an unsuitable applicant for a visa to Russia rarely, if ever, hears officially about the decision on his request, an undesirable alien can, with some effort, discover the cause for the ban on his entry into the USA. In both cases suspicion or doubt, even when unsubstantiated by facts, may prove to be a decisive factor.
No Risks
Driven by the fear of political persecution at home, American bureaucracy refuses to take the most innocuous risks, its elastic interpretation of "contact" with Communism includes a visit to Russia – even as an official as in my own case in 1948. In official American eyes, contagion such an this amounts to prima facie evidence of guilt and has to be unsparingly investigated. Because my political dossier included a few months stay in Moscow as Public Relations officer at the Indian Embassy, it took me nearly two months effort to gain entry into the USA. That my visit to America was formally sponsored by the Institute of International Education of New York, whose respectability is beyond question, made no great difference to my application.
An applicant’s trials do not end with the conclusion of confidential inquiry. At the American Consulate in London, where my visa was obtained, a baffling series of formalities still awaited me. After a brief preliminary encounter with the Vice-Counsel, confirmation of details already supplied was made by another official in a second room. For instance, was it true that my name was Prem N. Bhatia and my mother’s Shrimati Puran Devi? Was it also true that I was born on August 11, 1911,and was now 42 years old? Three copies of important fact of identity supported by a photograph were then prepared and handed over to me before I was asked to proceed to a third room.
There a very businesslike person, long used, it seemed to dealing with criminals, took my fingerprints. This process was conducted with a thoroughness and precision which would, reduce even the keepers of our own "No.10" police register of suspects to a sense of amateurish inferiority . First, each finger was separately printed, then each thumb, then the two thumbs together, then the fingers of the other hand together, then both hands together. "you may now wash" said the finger print expert. After fourth officer, who collected the usual fee and stamped an unsigned visa on my passport.
Declarations
My next port of call was again the room of the Vice Consel, who subsequently signed the stamped visa, His responsibilities included the presentation to me of a number of declaration forms, one of which, in triplicate, was intended to ensure that (a) I was not a Communist (b) That I had never Been a communist or in any manner connected with the Communist Party and (c)that I did not intend, when in the USA, to engage in any activity which might even remotely reflect sympathetic interest in that organization. Others including a well known Indian professor, had lately refused to sign such declarations and my own willingness to do so was not free from indignation, but journalists anxious to fulfill professional obligation, can’t afford to be conscientious, objectors. My signature was the last formality after which with a quick "bonvoyage" the Vice Counsel said good bye to me as a special favour. I was told I was to be exempt from a medical examination.
Varied Reactions
Americans at home react varyingly to the McCarran Act. Some express disgust over its existence and emphasize that, though it was sponsored by a Democrat, it was disliked by President Truman. A few think that it should be less rigorously applied. Many however find it necessary as a check upon the entry of Communists and fellow travelers. A friendly diehard whose great hospitality was in strange contrast to his closed political mind, said to me. "We are sorry that innocent people like you suffer with the guilty but you must blame this on the Russians".
Contrasts such as this multiply as one travels in the USA. Self assurance, candour, the highest courtesy and generosity exist together with a disconcertingly limited political outlook. Within five minutes of my first meeting with him in a New York street a man from Florida, who was showing me the way to a newspaper office, had invited me to be his guest in Miami and defended isolationism. A few days later, the editor of a famous magazine flooded me with hospitality and charm and then confessed that he thought the Indian Prime Minister was a Communist. He seemed half converted to a different view 15 minutes later.
Political and bureaucratic annoyances excepted, one cannot help being invigorated in America Abundance of everything (including good humour) openness of heart, stimulating curiosity (living in close juxtaposition with thick layers of prejudice) and an eagerness to impress overwhelm the visitor. All the expected grandeur of skyscrapers and opulence is there, but the people interested me more, as potentially of greater value as export, than automobiles or politics.
An increasing insistence over the past five years of which Macarthyism is the most visible symptom, seems odd in a country like America, whose greatness arises partly from its diversity ; but the development is neither new nor astonishing. At an earlier stage of history , conformity in USA used to be regional. Though parochialism continues to be a marked feature the emphasis has gradually shifted to a national identity, first owing to isolation and lately owing to an overwhelming consciousness of greatness. More recently a third factor has added force to arguments in favour of conformity. This is a terror of Communism.
No single individual in America has contributed to the creation of this mental state more than Senator Joseph McCarthy. While it would be foolish to suggest that American mind has been paralysed by McCarthy, its slow poison has spread fairly wide and deep.
It is a fact some people in USA look over their shoulder when they find themselves speaking dangerously about controversial subjects like communism. Nowhere is this complex more marked than in the Administration, where hundreds of officials big and small have suffered directly. During my stay in Washington a prominent young lieutenant in the Air Force was being threatened with dismissal because (a) his sister had been known to attend a Communist meeting and (b) his father had been found reading objectionable literature . Once again the Post took up the cudgels on behalf of liberalism by reminding the Administration that a man might be responsible for selecting his friends , he could not be held guilty of choosing his parents.
While the fight against political bigotry and smugness goes on in the USA it is unnecessarily a slow process, Mr Adlai Stevenson had to use strong anti- Communist language before criticizing bigotry in his own country. Many Democrats believe with sound reason that Senator McCarthy`s political future lies in the hands of his own party and that Senator Taft , if he had lived a little longer, would have seen the end of present day America`s most controversial personality.
